Astronomers Need Electric Theory Training

a reply to: Arbitrageur
To make the jump that sand=computer chips is quite childish and drifting this thread.

Light is energy, electricity is energy, light can be transformed into electricity almost directly via PV cells....there is no flaw in that logic.


What kind of background do you have in electronics and astronomy?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Arbitrageur
To make the jump that sand=computer chips is quite childish and drifting this thread.

No it's not, and I'm glad you responded that way so you can see how silly the assertion is that

originally posted by: jrod
Light can be transformed into electricity, so light = electricity.

It's a good analogy:
Sand and computer chips are related, but they're not equal.
Light and electricity are related, but they're not equal.

If you can understand the first, you should be able to understand the second.

I'm not the topic of this thread, but aside from my university degrees the facts are what's important here and if you want to dispute the facts, that photons are massless uncharged particles that can easily cross a vacuum, compared to electricity composed of charged particles which have mass and don't traverse a vacuum as easily as photons do. It's completely incorrect to say they are equal. Words have meanings, and "equal" means something different than "can be transformed".

a reply to: Arbitrageur

It is about as scientific as the analogies the anti-evolution crowd likes to make. Considering your posts have more or less derailed this thread I stand by what I said and will say again that your sand=computer chips is a childish analogy.

All I was trying to do was point out the 7 fundamental ways to generate electricity. Almost all the power on the US grid comes from EM induction, just 1 of the 7 ways.

Now this is important if we want to understand who an electric universe behaves.

Light can essentially be directly transformed into electricity!

a reply to: jrod
What, so this is more on topic?

originally posted by: jrod
Light is energy, electricity is energy, light can be transformed into electricity almost directly via PV cells....there is no flaw in that logic.

Are you saying there are PV cells in astronomical objects?

The topic of the thread is "Astronomers Need Electric Theory Training" so I'm not sure how PV cells relate to astronomy. But regarding the claim that Man-made PV cells on Earth convert transform light to electricity, I never disputed that claim.

I'm not understanding how you're tying this fact into astronomical observations though.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was simply trying to point out the 7 fundamental ways to generate electricity and you made the erroneous assumption that I am clueless about electronic theory because I wrote light=electricity.

One way to look at a photon is as an electron, an -e, light has been shown to carry a charge.

This is not a debate. This thread is about how many astronomers do not have a good understanding of electronics and now that it is apparent that we live in a universe is quite electric.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I was simply trying to point out the 7 fundamental ways to generate electricity and you made the erroneous assumption that I am clueless about electronic theory because I wrote light=electricity.

One way to look at a photon is as an electron, an -e, light has been shown to carry a charge.

Please cite the peer-reviewed source saying "One way to look at a photon is as an electron, an -e, light has been shown to carry a charge".

And yes I think the people posting in this thread claiming astronomers need more training in electricity need a lot more training in electricity than the astronomers do.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Right now a photon is said to have no charge but is a carrier of an electric and magnetic field.

It is actually up for debate whether a photon has a charge or even mass. At one point in our understanding of science and it was said that an electron had no mass, we now know that is not true.

I believe a photon does indeed carry a charge.

Since you wanted a link to a study:
physicsworld.com...

scitation.aip.org...

a reply to: jrod
OK let's look at what you said and then what your source says:

originally posted by: jrod
One way to look at a photon is as an electron, an -e, light has been shown to carry a charge.

Your source directly contradicts this.

It says a photon cannot be looked at as an electron, because if it has any charge at all, it is less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 of the charge as an electron, and they haven't ruled out that it could in fact be zero, and it may in fact be zero.

I would say it would be more accurate to interpret this result as showing that light either does NOT carry a charge, or it is infinitesamally small relative to the charge of an electron and this research in no way supports the statement that "One way to look at a photon is as an electron, an -e, light has been shown to carry a charge."

You may know something about electricity, and therefore "clueless" might be a bit too harsh, but I think your tendency to make statements like this which are completely wrong and unsupported by evidence confirms my assertion that you need a lot more training than the astronomers do.

Ok...still a photon carries energy, enough to excite an electron. Light has EM properties and we have yet to prove a 0 charge.

We still are not looking at the universe the right way. Maybe light needs to be looked at as disturbances in space/time, somewhat like dropping a pebble in a calm lake, or sound waves disturbing a fluid. Maybe a little of both. I am no astrophysicist.

originally posted by: jrod
Maybe light needs to be looked at as disturbances in space/time, somewhat like dropping a pebble in a calm lake, or sound waves disturbing a fluid. Maybe a little of both.

That rings a bell for me.

I posted this list on another thread - notes I had taken by listening to Tesla researcher William Lyne, author of Occult Ether Physics:

originally posted by: Mary Rose

1. The energy of light is being carried by the ether.
   
2. Light itself isn't travelling anywhere; there are no particles moving through space.
   
3. Light is basically a standing wave form in the ether.
   
4. This energy collides with solid bodies to produce reactions such as heat and reflection of other wavelengths.
   
5. Radio science today still is actually producing "sound waves in the ether" but the technology does not produce the pure sounds it could if it were based on Tesla's gaseous ether theory instead of Hertz's solid ether theory.
   
6. Ether is just a carrier.
   

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: jrod

We still are not looking at the universe the right way.

Why not? What is wrong with the way we are looking at the Universe? What doesn't fit?

Maybe light needs to be looked at as disturbances in space/time, somewhat like dropping a pebble in a calm lake, or sound waves disturbing a fluid.

Except that there is no indication that light behaves in that manner. But maybe you can devise an experiment which would indicate otherwise.

I am no astrophysicist.

That's ok. The behavior of light is not really a matter of astrophysics. So far it seems to be a matter of quantum mechanics.

a reply to: Phage

But light does have wave like characteristics, this has been tested with results. The pebble in a lake analogy is not way off the mark.

In Tesla's time it was called ether, now we calling it the 'fabric' of space time.

The classical view of the universe is wrong, we cannot unlock the secrets of the universe if we are looking at it the wrong way. I believe it is a good exercise to try to look at the universe in the quantum sense.

The behavior of light is crucial in astrophysics, light(the entire EM spectrum, not just visible) from distance worlds is the only information we currently have to work with.

a reply to: jrod

But light does have wave like characteristics

no no no... light is a wave, it has point like characteristics assigned to it because of the photoelectric effect

a reply to: Phage

Why not? What is wrong with the way we are looking at the Universe? What doesn't fit?

Gravity is not the main and only force that shapes the Universe.
for this gravity theory one need dark matter and dark energy for the calculation to fit the observation.

a reply to: KrzYma

Is light a wave, particle, both, neither?

We do know a photon is a 'package' of energy, and the energy can be easily transformed into electricity.

a reply to: jrod

Light is definitely a wave!

here how you calculate it on double slit and single slit


and this one on single slit


a PHOTON on the other hand is just a mathematical representation of the energy it is carrying
NOT a reel thing

originally posted by: Mary Rose
- Light is basically a standing wave form in the ether.
- This energy collides with solid bodies to produce reactions such as heat and reflection of other wavelengths.

thats interesting.
if we interpret matter als vorticies within the ether, i could imagine a wave being streched and pushed into all sorts of wavelenghts by the pressure change...

a reply to: Dolour
a reply to: Mary Rose

So does this William Lyne quote Mary cited really make sense to either of you?

The energy of light is being carried by the ether.
Light itself isn't travelling anywhere; there are no particles moving through space.

1. What is the difference between

"the energy of light" and
"light itself"

Since all observations point to light being energy, it seems impossible to make a distinction about something called "light itself" which is different from the energy of light.

2. If light isn't going anywhere, how can we measure the speed of it?

If this makes sense somehow, please explain how.
If this doesn't make sense (and it doesn't to me), why would you make any other comment about this than that Lyne appears to have some kind of cognitive disorder?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

In the open water, an ocean wave causes a disturbance at the surface but does not 'disturb' the particles of water when it transverses. This analogy might work to get an understanding of how light could 'transverse' through space/time.

In Tesla's time, 'ether' was a commonly accepted notion of what the universe consists of.....

a reply to: jrod
Except Lyne says "Light itself isn't travelling anywhere", and in the wave analogy, would you agree that the waves are traveling somewhere?

When you have an earthquake in the ocean, the tsunami arrives at nearby shores sooner than distant shores, so it's definitely going somewhere, and you can measure the speed.

If you believed in luminiferous aether, that might be analogous the surface of the ocean which is the medium though which the waves travel, so if he said "The aether isn't going anywhere", then I could see the analogy, but "Light itself isn't traveling anywhere" doesn't make sense because in aether theory, the light does travel through the aether, somewhat analogous to how waves travel through the ocean.