Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Lorentz himself thought he didn't have his theory quite right as he presumed a preferred reference frame, but he apparently came to believe that his assumption was wrong and Einstein was right that there was no preferred frame.

My understanding is that Lorentz believed that his approach was superior to Einstein's up to his dying day, defending his "old fashioned way of thinking" as I recall the quote. Unfortunately, I don't have a reference for that, and my quoting here may be a bit off, but that is my recollection. In what you quote from Lorentz, I interpret it as Lorentz saying that the old fashioned way had the rather unpleasant aspect of using ad hoc proposals to explain the results of one particular experiment - the Michelson Morley test. That was a general complaint at the time. I am quite sure that Lorentz continued to believe in absolute space and time itself however. And that really is the difference between the two approaches.

However I agree that these discrepancies aside, the work of Lorentz and even Poincaré had a lot in common with Einstein's work, and if people called it the Einstein-Lorentz-Poincaré theory of special relativity I wouldn't object to that, though I think Lorentz quote above is correct that Einstein probably would have come up with it on his own. Lorentz comes across as perhaps overly modest and the difference he describes seems rather small to me.

I believe that Lorentz might object to calling it the Einstein-Lorentz-Poincaré theory of special relativity. Poincaré would likely be OK with it, as it was Poincaré who first proposed the relativity principle. But my understanding is, as said above, that Lorentz was an absolutist with regards to space and time.

It would also be good for people to read the Lorentz paper next to their read of the Einstein one. Both were printed in a single book by Dover. You can see many sections that appear quite similar, and they both reference "transverse mass" and "longitudinal mass". Since these mass concepts are now viewed as erroneous, it is a bit odd that both papers made the same mistake and used the same terminology. As I recall, Einstein used beta and gamma where Lorentz used gamma and beta, respectively, but once you get by that triviality there is a huge similarity in much of the works. (It has been many years since I studied them, and I don't have a copy handy right now, so again, this is my recollection.)

Have you got a citation for the Sherwin experiment? (Journal name, publication date). I'm not familiar with that.

CW Sherwin, Phys. Rev. A, 35, 3650 (1987).

A review of the situation can also be found in:

DJ Larson, Physics Essays, vol. 7, number 4, 1994.

I will PM you with a link to a copy of the above. (My ECOFusion thread was terminated when I linked to my site, so I now understand I shouldn't link to it here.)

originally posted by: delbertlarson
My understanding is that Lorentz believed that his approach was superior to Einstein's up to his dying day, defending his "old fashioned way of thinking" as I recall the quote. Unfortunately, I don't have a reference for that, and my quoting here may be a bit off, but that is my recollection.
...
I believe that Lorentz might object to calling it the Einstein-Lorentz-Poincaré theory of special relativity. Poincaré would likely be OK with it, as it was Poincaré who first proposed the relativity principle. But my understanding is, as said above, that Lorentz was an absolutist with regards to space and time.

Lorentz undoubtedly was an absolutist at one time as you say and the quotes I cited confirm that without question, however the key words being "at one time". I can't see how to reconcile his statement "The chief cause of my failure was my clinging to the idea that the variable t only can be considered as the true time and that my local time t' must be regarded as no more than an auxiliary mathematical quantity" where he calls that idea "my failure", with what you say. Maybe there's a context issue but I suppose I would need to read some of his later correspondence to ascertain if his position changed from when he wrote his paper, but I certainly get the impression it did.

In any case something we now know that neither Einstein nor Lorentz knew is that the universe has a reference frame in the cosmic microwave background. If there's evidence that or some other frame should be preferred as Lorentz once suggested I haven't run across it yet, but I'm certainly open-minded enough to consider the possibility or review any such evidence, which is why I asked about the Sherwin experiment.

I will PM you with a link to a copy of the above. (My ECOFusion thread was terminated when I linked to my site, so I now understand I shouldn't link to it here.)

Thanks for the link. Yes the terms and conditions of this site has a clause in section 15e that : "You will not use your membership in the Websites for any type of recruitment to any causes whatsoever." and I suppose solving the world's energy problems with ECOfusion could be considered a cause, even if it's an admirable cause. I don't think sending me the link in a PM should be any problem though, since you're not recruiting me for a cause in this case but linking to some information I requested.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your focus on Lorentz's words "my mistake" does indeed lend support to your point of view. When I read through what you quoted, I viewed it though not as an admission of an underlying error, but rather as something one would say if they at first do not understand a theory, and then come to an understanding of it. You make a mistake in your understanding of it. But even then, after you do understand it, you may not believe it.

What Lorentz Thought

The above link is supportive of what I recall reading elsewhere.

How was Barium Iodate created?

The only way possible it could be is ionic.

What type of particle does that mean its made from?

A phosphate will not recurse to Iodate.

What is the frequency for ion load and transit?

When creating a carbon molecule, where does the Fermion preset come from?

"Where" is an electron? Why do you think we still view negative parity dissipation, as discharge?

If the quantum theory is correct that every possible form, outcome and state of existence, exists within any given point of space, at any given time ... Then how do we exist?

Infinite possibility such as this across the construct would negate the need for form and definition. An invariable amorphic constant. When all states, hold all 'potential', then 'no course', is equivalent any other possible course, meaning that any process of form and potential is pointless. Such a system would sit as a invariant nothing, as this would calculate to the sum of all other possible courses, patterns and propagation.

All of possibility, is redundant to nothing. It is far more likely that such a system would simply cancel itself out. As it presents a completed routine.

a reply to: delbertlarson
In terms of accuracy I value first party sources such as Lorentz own comments much more highly than third party sources such as that, especially when even the first party source isn't entirely clear. Lorentz admits the null result of the Michelson experiment looking for the ether, and says Einstein may take credit for explaining that result as a "manifestation of a general and fundamental principle". But then he goes on to say that even though there's no evidence of ether, he still likes the idea. If this is hard to read in the ATS window you should be able to view a larger image by right clicking the image and choosing "View Image":

archive.org...

originally posted by: EnkiEa
How was Barium Iodate created?

That depends on your source. There are several ways it can be produced.

originally posted by: EnkiEa
If the quantum theory is correct that every possible form, outcome and state of existence, exists within any given point of space, at any given time ... Then how do we exist?

Maybe this will help. You're a lot bigger than an electron so even though quantum theory can process you and an electron with the same formula, the answer comes out a lot different for you, or a bowling ball in this example, than for the electron:

www.colorado.edu...

originally posted by: delbertlarson
I am quite sure that Lorentz continued to believe in absolute space and time itself however. And that really is the difference between the two approaches.

I think Einstein would have agreed in absolute space and time itself as well; the entire point of Einsteins theory is that absolute space and time might, and appears to be, unknowable, only relative space and relative time and relative physics is knowable. With perhaps the hope, that if enough relative physics is calculated, experimented, and theorized, and simulated from all possible reference frames, then that would give glimpses to some more absolute and fundamental understanding of the underlying most essence of substance, and what, how, why, when, where it moves.

Considering the thought that the universe is expanding; or lets at least just say, that galaxies are actually (meaning, in some absolute sense) moving, at all. Imagine if you were outside the universe, and can look down and see, the area of all galaxies, and you can see them actually moving; well first of all absolute space is eternally nothing; the trick and why einstein related gravity to space, is because it appears what may once have been thought my cavemen that dark emptiness around the earth, is empty nothing space, logically (right arb) obviously;

But then Newton said, I know that I can calculate the sun and planets and moons motive relations, but I have not imagined physically why and how so they are able to remain in their motions; Einstein said; that empty black nothing around Earth must not be purely empty nothing;

And so our relation; in the universe, as to what the eternal concept of space (dimension) means; is unavoidably attached to the concept of 'material medium' (that substance which allows gravity to occur; that substance which keeps the moon and planets near the sun); Just as a fishes concept of the physicality of spatial dimension, might be unavoidably linked to the facts of water.



The ideal (preferred) reference frame would be one in which the experimenter was certain they were absolutely motionless; it is the difficult in that assurance, by which it came to be claimed, that physics can only be worked out from relative reference frames.

But, well; it is even that motionlessness which appears to be not the true point. I suppose the point of relativity, is the potential different measurements one might receive from measuring a balls velocity moving toward you, and a balls velocity moving away from you? (also while potentially considering that you yourself are not absolutely motionless; potentially you are rotating, potentially you are revolving, potentially you are orbiting, etc.)

The attempt for a preferred reference frame would be the totality of all reference frames (or at least, generally would suffice)?

To be able to detect an objects (ball velocity) movement while surrounding it with detectors (and then the measurement problem to worry about); the preferred reference frame... or the non relative absolute truth, would be the mean of all those views?

But I recall also what relativity was about, was that if two objects had the same momentum, they can be considered relatively motionless in relation to one another, but then maybe the problem of vacuum comes up; for example two cars driving at the same speed down a highway perfectly next to one another and near; tossing a tennis ball from one to the other might be difficult; so if we are in space, and we have the same momentum as an object, and we want to measure its details, we shed light on it, and the light reflects back and we continue to do this to build a mapping over the course of space and time regarding received details. What does such have to do with 'truth'? If someone was outside the universe, but had very good binoculars, and they could see every single particle, on every scale, and every way they all moved, all in relation to all; would their calculations of your movement and the objects movement, and the light you sent, and the light you received, would their understanding of the situation, and the grasping of the nature of substance, motion, and force, be equal to yours? Would they both be true? Would one be more true? Would yours be relatively true?

But I suppose the whole point may be, to best comprehend the most fundamental facts of substance, quantity and quality, nature/reasons of motion. And that wrapping mind around all that, is the only way towards comprehending if any, the potential absolutes.

By considering, and doing the physics of all possible materials, masses, motions, energies, and reference frames, perhaps that would result in comprehending the totality.


Absolute space is pure nothingness. Absolute time is eternity. That does not help us much.

It is a variety, quantity and quality of substance/material which moves in relation to itself which is what we are apart of, and attempt to understand its fundamental nature and laws.


All time is, is motion; For if there was absolutely no motion, there would be absolutely no time.

The potential reason, time can be said to be relative, is potentially, because motion can be said to be relative. But there are potentially absolute calculations of time, or, more absolute; as there can be bad detections, calculations of the nature of motions.

Human measurements of time, require developing systems of assured repetition (as Einstein, made space time, spatial assured repetition,) the concept of perfect incrementation; the number line for example;

By having something ideal; perfect equal distance between numbers, or points; and then detecting the data of reality, and plotting it into the absolute, perfect, changeless, system;

The system. 1...2...3...4...5...6...7...

Is perfect, timeless, equal, orderly, balenced;

Reality, is full of difference, and motion, and change, and swirl, and millions of things going millions of ways continuously at once; and objects turning into other objects, combining with others, that can change, and if the slightest way different would change this way, the slightest difference in momentum would change that way, the slightest difference in particle would change this way, the slightest difference of rotation would change that way; and what is the unit of slight?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

That depends on your source. There are several ways it can be produced.

Really? Name one. Detail it for me if you can. I bet you can't!

There is none!

The closest form of Barium you could use to try create Iodate from is Barium Phosphate, but it can't be done. There is literally no elemental pass in the empirical period table that will allow Barium to be formed as Iodate,

Unless ... it was done Ionically.

The bonds that pair the Ionade to its parent tie, can't be formed using the chemical processes for that element.

The only way that layer could have been applied, is if it were taken directly from Ion loading,

Entirely energetic propagation, formed without any chemical reduction processes.

Which would mean that the creation of the Ionade particulate represents not only a new form of particle, but that its propagation proves that ion-electrical interaction is seated primary to the formation of carbon matter.

And can't be considered separate.

Science needs to understand this, as it is a vitally important prospective upon the path to understanding that OXYGEN and WATER are nothing more than Ions.

Ions become oxygen. Then Ions become water. That is LITERALLY all they are.

Ions, to (what should be called) Iones, to O2 formation.

The formation of O2 is the Nexus passage, for the formation of light. Chemically equated light! The formation of O2, is counterbalanced in its reaction by the formation of H1 and a Carbon atom.

Ever seen the OM symbol? This is what it is showing. The big "3" is the formation of stable binary O2, curling out each way on itself. The "C" in front is the Carbon formation, and the little arrow on top of them represents the H.

H which is, again, just ion-electrical energy potential. Phase-conjunction vortices, that are coiled in on themselves and pulled apart as the C and O2 diverge.

What we think to be the C formed within this reaction, separate from electrical propagation and light is actually C3!

The third 'part' of the inward coiling collection of C3, forms the neutron flux point in C3, over which radiate and light is cast.

The extra protons, neutrons and electrons are there! They are just in a constant stable 'flux', which is not only why you can't see them, but why carbon appears as a dark, blurry mess when we try view it.

It is only ever truly 'visible' to us, in its coursing of light.

The questions I asked you were all trick questions.

Less seeking answers from you, than trying to point out 'problems' with our understanding of physics. Some things for you to do a little research on, so that you work out the things, which 'accepted' science will work out, in the not too distant future.

Also,

I didn't mean why can't we 'physically' see electrons. I meant, under magnification.

I was seeing if you had any good answer to offer for why we call negative parity dissipation; 'electrons'.

Also, Quantum Physics is just misunderstood Sine-wave physics.

Most of it is rubbish.

Like 'entanglement'. They connect through their seating. Something similar to running a extension cable for power behind you when you go out in the yard. There is nothing mysterious about this.

What is important for proponents of Quantum Physics to understand, is that the halves are still connected by the mechanism which divided them and sustains them.

If you were to split a photon, transmit them a distance apart, then isolate each half within separate, individual systems to sustain them, 'entanglement' wouldn't work!

Disproving the WHOLE thing!

They aren't 'magically connected' through any type of foundation or base construct. They are STILL CONNECTED to each other through the system used to split them! That's all.

a wild crank appears

originally posted by: EnkiEa
The formation of O2 is the Nexus passage, for the formation of light. Chemically equated light! The formation of O2, is counterbalanced in its reaction by the formation of H1 and a Carbon atom.

This sounds like gibberish. You can split H2O into oxygen and hydrogen using electrolysis so I can see where hydrogen would come from in this process but there's no carbon atom.

The questions I asked you were all trick questions.

Less seeking answers from you, than trying to point out 'problems' with our understanding of physics.

Scientists freely admit there are problems with our understanding of physics, in fact wikipedia has a list of unsolved problems that are well known. It's evident from your posts however that the problems with your understanding are far greater and that you don't know the answers to your own "trick questions".

We can certainly discuss alternatives to mainstream scientific consensus here if that discussion is conducted in a scientific manner with discussion of experiments. delbertlarson has made such arguments and they are quite welcome here, as scientists challenging the status quo in a responsible manner is one of the ways science makes advances. If you were to make similar scientifically based objections to mainstream consensus that would also be welcome here, however I'm not seeing that in your posts, what I'm seeing are posts that have no chance of challenging mainstream consensus because they don't demonstrate an understanding of mainstream consensus.

ATS allows you to make posts like "The formation of O2 is the Nexus passage, for the formation of light. Chemically equated light! " in the skunk works forum where such statements need not have any supporting evidence, but in this science forum you're expected to provide scientific support for your claims and I'm sure you don't have any for that, so I must point out that you're posting in the wrong forum.

originally posted by: EnkiEa
a reply to: Arbitrageur

That depends on your source. There are several ways it can be produced.

Really? Name one. Detail it for me if you can. I bet you can't!

Add sodium iodate to a solution of boiling barium chloride, the barium iodate will precipitate out.

Or you can add elemental iodine to an aqueous solution of barium hydroxide.

Next.

Unless ... it was done Ionically.

This...is extremely common. Many, many molecules are bonded...ionically.

The bonds that pair the Ionade to its parent tie, can't be formed using the chemical processes for that element.

The only way that layer could have been applied, is if it were taken directly from Ion loading,

Or...because one neutral atom in the molecule 'wanted' that electron more than the other neutral atom, to complete its shell. And so, one atom became a negative ion by adding the electron, and the other became...a positive ion. Because it didn't really 'want' that electron all that badly. And so a bond was formed that was...ionic.

originally posted by: EnkiEa
Also,

I didn't mean why can't we 'physically' see electrons. I meant, under magnification.

Because you can't see anything with light imaging that's smaller than, say, about 2x the light wavelength? No matter how much you magnify it. Electrons are smaller than the wavelength of the light you're attempting to see with.

a reply to: Bedlam

No!

The Barium isn't peptide, so there is no way for it to form the soluble aqueous transit state required for this to be true.

Aqueous Barium Hydroxide?

You can turn it into a 'form' of aqueous solution, but it is not one that is useful for anything, because it lacks the bonding coalescents.

Bariums form, is one that it can't be made into anything that has "artificial" or altered bonding states, without destroying its original compound. Its function was designed this way specifically, as it is used for alkaline contaminant excrement. All bonding is for the purposes of circulatory dispensation or electromagnetic bonding within its original state.

All this, means that the only way that Iodate could possibly be bonded with Barium, is if it were CREATED Ionically, not chemically bonded or passed.

Because there is NO ... WAY ... To do this!

Unless of course you're not worried about the parenthesis of physics for this realm. Or introducing chemical states which aren't supposed to exist here relative to our limited understanding of physics, or that we don't currently have the technology to create ourselves.

What process of chemical bonding could you use to make the ion bonds 'want' or 'not want' each other to form this? It's all well and good to put a theoretical dissertation together regarding the ways in which this bond 'could' be created, but the reality of how it IS created is a different thing altogether.

The bonds you are talking about are cause and effect transitions a precisely tuned equilibrium which need to 'processed' in order to take place.

Now ... I am TELLING YOU! ... Not proposing ... Not asking ... TELLING YOU ... that there is no 'natural' or even humanly 'processed' way, that Barium Iodate could exist here, relative to our empirical periodic table.

Unless the Iodate was formed COMPLETELY from the ion loading of the Barium itself in stasis!

That can be done. But we aren't meant to know HOW to do it. So how do we have this compound?

Introduce high-frequency, inverse transit in order to reaccoster its ionic potential. Its compelling forces will be made hyper-attractive under the force of the electro-triadic, negative parity return of its own physical structure. Promoting accelerated ion reduction patterns along its own triarc, which seats itself perfectly within its own parent dissipation pattern.

The iodate is literally generated on the Barium, as one of the only elemental bases that this works on.

So who is doing this for us? Without also making us aware of the scientific process for doing so?

Instead providing us with fake theoretical pathways to its creation?

Interesting at the very least ...

And Arbitrageur I gave you proof! The OM symbol for a start. And the frequency patterns.

This information is RE-PROVIDED to this world every 'age'', and every time ... they manage to f#$k it all up!

The 'supporting evidence' has been given countless times.

Yet here we are again. With me having to 're-learn', re-translate and disseminate the patterns, against a kicking-and-screaming casting.

The one thing I can say to you as my new online physics friend, is that the encoded patterns, like 'modern physics' are not going to be accepted in this world.

Basically, if we don't play with the toy by the guidelines provided, it will be taken away from us.

There is intentional disconnection within our understanding at a fundamental level, which was done to keep us from discerning truth.

Einsteins 'relativity' and misunderstanding of what energy actually is. Things like that.

They are handed to us piece by piece over the years as 'elaborations' on a 'plan' for the realignment of this world. To becoming something it is not supposed to be.

Well, it will not be.

Physics, Cosmology, Cosmogony, Spirituality and 'Philosophy', will all be corrected and the self-appointed 'parents' are going to be expelled for what they have attempted to turn this world into ... Or you will find that pretty soon, none of us will have anything like 'this' to play with any more.

It will be taken away by the architects, who don't like their creation being 'hacked' like it was a cheap iPhone.

All the best with your celebration of veil physics.

Keep up the good work.

Enki Ea. The arc conduit/Seed.

originally posted by: EnkiEa
a reply to: Bedlam

No!

The Barium isn't peptide, so there is no way for it to form the soluble aqueous transit state required for this to be true.

Barium is never a peptide, since a peptide is a sequence of amino acids. You've got My Big Book O' Chemical Terms you're randomly pulling from, right?

Aqueous Barium Hydroxide?

You can turn it into a 'form' of aqueous solution, but it is not one that is useful for anything, because it lacks the bonding coalescents.

When you put some in water, you get a solution. It's useful for anything you'd like to use it for, I suppose, and one is for making the barium iodate you swore couldn't be made.

Bariums form, is one that it can't be made into anything that has "artificial" or altered bonding states, without destroying its original compound.

Bonds aren't artificial. They just happen, because of chemistry.

Its function was designed this way specifically, as it is used for alkaline contaminant excrement. All bonding is for the purposes of circulatory dispensation or electromagnetic bonding within its original state.

It really really sounds like you're using a chemistry buzz word generator here.

All this, means that the only way that Iodate could possibly be bonded with Barium, is if it were CREATED Ionically, not chemically bonded or passed.

Because there is NO ... WAY ... To do this!

Wrong-o! Adding iodine to barium hydroxide, the iodine isn't ionic until the barium chances upon it. Sorry.

Unless of course you're not worried about the parenthesis of physics for this realm.

(jarring chord) No one expects the Parenthesis of Physics!

Or introducing chemical states which aren't supposed to exist here relative to our limited understanding of physics, or that we don't currently have the technology to create ourselves.

It doesn't take a lot of technology to make barium iodate. Just a credit card and a bit of glassware.

eBay is your friend. Everything you seek is there.

What process of chemical bonding could you use to make the ion bonds 'want' or 'not want' each other to form this?

The evil evil magic of electrostatic force and the Bohr model.

Now ... I am TELLING YOU! ... Not proposing ... Not asking ... TELLING YOU ... that there is no 'natural' or even humanly 'processed' way, that Barium Iodate could exist here, relative to our empirical periodic table.

E pur si muove.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: delbertlarson
In terms of accuracy I value first party sources such as Lorentz own comments much more highly than third party sources such as that, especially when even the first party source isn't entirely clear. Lorentz admits the null result of the Michelson experiment looking for the ether, and says Einstein may take credit for explaining that result as a "manifestation of a general and fundamental principle". But then he goes on to say that even though there's no evidence of ether, he still likes the idea.

Yes, Lorentz's own comments should be valued more than a secondary source. Although when his own comments aren't clear, my view is that the third party comments get more weight, not less. The fact that Lorentz had nice things to say about relativity does not necessarily mean that he agreed with it. I also write things supportive of relativity periodically. I believe that relativity was a bold new way of looking at physics. It was extremely radical. It agreed with all experiments at the time of its writing. It is correct logically and mathematically. It was the work of a genius. It has a simplicity that other approaches lack when looking at it from a certain point of view. However, I believe the Lorentzian approach is a better fit to quantum collapse experiments. Hence, while I just wrote many positive things about relativity, and could write even more, in the end I do not support it.

The three paragraphs you quoted seem to me to fall into a similar category to what I just wrote. The first paragraph is a positive admission that Einstein's approach gave us a new way to look at things. However, the second paragraph gives support to Lorentz's original view. And the third paragraph, while starting with laudatory statements about relativity, ends with a statement saying that Lorentz has not availed himself of relativity, even after he had studied it.

Of course, we can't go ask either Einstein or Lorentz what they think, as they have passed. And they passed before the Bell's Theorem tests were done. With those tests we now have a new test to add to the experimental record, and I believe those tests fall squarely in favor of the absolute theories.

Also, while Einstein's work does appear simpler when viewed mathematically from the point of view of any single relative observer, we should note that philosophically it adds a great deal of complexity, in that it replaces a single space and time by a triply infinite set - we now have a space and time for every three dimensional velocity. So I've never been sold on the simplicity argument either.

My main point is that there is a 100 year old theory that is still quite viable, always did have the same transformation equations as relativity (the LORENTZ transformations) and very few people are even aware of it now. I think we lose a lot by only treating certain theories as "truth" and not considering all competing hypotheses. It gets us closer to religion and further from science when we take that path.

No.

Unfortunately, today's science is so far off of a logically based foundation, that it's going to be hard as hell to recover. The only way we're going to get complete answers is if we take a step back and see where we went wrong.

You CANNOT tell me that any theory which allows for time travel, makes sense. I don't care if the damn theory says it does or not. Why scientists have to pull the most "shiny" explanation for things out of their pockets is beyond me...

Let's make a list of BS that science has come up with.
• Things traveling magically through space
• Time travel
• Time speeding up and slowing down
• Other dimensions that allow access to new physics
• Things existing in more than one place at the same time.
• More than one thing existing in the same place at the same time
• other universes that can be accessed by unsolved problems in phsics...
• Distances being reduced because the universe magically warps itself to do so

If this doesn't scream some form of religion to you, then I don't know what to say. Might as well have Zues throw thunderbolts down from the heavens again...

There are more down to earth explanations than these. The Michaelson-morley experiment never concluded that the aether didn't exist. It simply proved the idea of the aether wind to be incorrect. It's weird how our current theory relies on a form of "aether" for it to operate, it's almost like we're wasting time. Isn't it coincidental that an electromagnetic wave has two components, both at a 90° angle to one another. It's almost like one is pushing through something... And that something is always with the EM wave. Or, is it a bit interesting that time broken down is actually just motion? Wow, it's as if we can describe time by increasing and decreasing motion, because truthfully we associate time with change, which is really just things in motion. One last thing, the principle of equivalence. Gravity and inertial forces can't be distinguished from one another, it's almost as if they're really the same thing. But that's only possible if we assume a field of force all around us. But we can't do that because we didn't actually disprove that theory 100 years ago... logic my friends.

But hey, I'm no physicist (yet). What do I know? I'm just choosing to open my eyes rather than accept what I'm told.

Great times are among us, I can't wait to see them unfold.

ques:
a dull yellow painting vs a bright yellow painting. which one reflects a higher freq light?

a reply to: Nochzwei

What do you mean by the terms dull and bright?
Please define the wavelength of the color "yellow."

In any case, the painting in which the "yellow" is more toward the blue end of the visible spectrum (greenier rather than orangier) would be reflecting light of a higher frequency.