It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

spherical speed of transition (theory)

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2010 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Spherical speed of transition
When light travels at different speeds in different mediums it shows that light is influenced by the medium it travels in.

Refractive index
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Refraction of light at the interface between two media.
The refractive index or index of refraction of a substance is a measure of the speed of light in that substance. It is expressed as a ratio of the speed of light in vacuum relative to that in the considered medium.[note 1] The velocity at which light travels in vacuum is a physical constant, and the fastest speed at which energy or information can be transferred. However, light travels slower through any given material, or medium, that is not vacuum. (See: light in a medium).[1][2][3][4]
A simple, mathematical description of refractive index is as follows:
n = velocity of light in a vacuum / velocity of light in medium

en.wikipedia.org...

So if einsteins vacum light speed experiments was itself moved at 1,000,000kmph light would travel at is consant while the vacum container traveled at 1,000,000
So from a fixed point if we could still “see” the light would it be traveling faster than the speed of light.
So light in different mediums travels at different speeds and is refracted to change directions at a interface between two mediums (lense).
So at the density change boundry of a lens, light might have to increase or decrease speed and if the lens is curved light can alter its direction of travel.
This is the principal of light optics that allows for such things as eye glasses, binoculars, telescopes and cameras.
Jpg of refraction of a lense shape


There is a helioshock boundry area where the solar wind transitions down from its helio to extra helio boundry speeds. This is not just lens boundry it is a wave modulation boundry.
Inside the helio boundary the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s
When light exits the helioboundry it is no longer “conveyored” or carryed by the solar wind density movement speed or over 1,000,000 kmph. This new medium is less dense than the interior and so provides a different reflective index optically to the travel of light.
Because the light wants to travel at a new speed in this new medium and the density has changed when the light is “dumped” outside the heliosphere boundry, it is no longer getting “carried” by a moving medium. the moveing medium density (solar wind conveyor). From the sun to the helioshock boundry, combine the speeds of the solar medium density and the light that travels through it together an you have the transitional speed of light from the sun leaving the helio sphere.
Ie
1,000,000 km/h solar wind speed (medium density speed)
299,792.458 km/h speed of light
I don’t want to get into maths but the overall speed of travel inside of the medium and the mediums travel speed are calculated to get a constant
When the medium is no longer “travelling” at 1,000,000 km/h the light must “account” for this change in speed and medium and does so by modulating the frequency and wavelength to provide for the “lost” energy to be expressed as speed in the new medium.
The speed of transition re franks work is
1,094,000hz mtrs
This figure is symbolic of the total speed transition when medium density speed is calculated to be “moving” with a light frequency “moving” inside the density which is itself moving.
This inspired me to think of frequencies as having to “adapt” to the new medium and direction of travel in that medium and this causes a shift down in frequency proportional to the energy requirements of travel in the new medium.
When we view wave lengths from other heliosphere shock boundrys we are witnessing a “modulated” wave travelling through space and as the wave form enters our helio sphere it is re modulated to our conditions and speed of transition of our helio sphere.
Outside our heliosphere the “colors” we are used to “seeing” could be down shifted to different wavelengths. Makes for an interesting idea to send a satalite outside of this transitional barrior

XPLodER
edit on 23-11-2010 by XPLodER because: add image




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
here is a recent finding that sub millimeter infra red light is found just outside gravatational lenses

Dr Mattia Negrello, of the Open University and lead researcher of the study, explained, "Our survey of the sky looks for sources of sub-millimetre light. The big breakthrough is that we have discovered that many of the brightest sources are being magnified by lenses, which means that we no longer have to rely on the rather inefficient methods of finding lenses which are used at visible and radio wavelengths."

The Herschel-ATLAS images contain thousands of galaxies, most so far away that the light has taken billions of years to reach us. Dr Negrello and his team investigated five surprisingly bright objects in this small patch of sky. Looking at the positions of these bright objects with optical telescopes on the Earth, they found galaxies that would not normally be bright at the far-infrared wavelengths observed by Herschel. This led them to suspect that the galaxies seen in visible light might be gravitational lenses magnifying much more distant galaxies seen by Herschel.



link to info

i have previously predicted this lower wave length, lower amplitude sub millimeter light source was a lense.

xploder



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Interesting. It's likely I've brought up this idea or something closely relating to it elsewhere. Also ties into Fizeau's experiment which is interesting in its own regard.

It had me wondering some things about light, particularly the nature of why c is considered the limit of how fast things can go. And yet the nature of c seems a little funky or paradoxical in some ways.

Light or photons is supposedly massless for all practical purposes. Yet gravity bends it. I think the nature of why gravity bends it has to do with the distortion of time within the gravitational field. Speed is distance per unit time, so if you change what the unit of time is the speed will change in respect to that. A difference in speed for a beam of light passing through a gravitational field should be similar to a difference in speed when light passes through materials of different optical density.

Another interesting thing is that relativity shows that identical ideal clocks operating while traveling at different speeds or in differing gravitational fields show time dilation. That is, although the ability to measure time for clocks is the same, the actual time measured by them is not. Yet if you do an experiment to measure the speed of light under those circumstances, you will get the same value for c. Going back to speed being distance over time, that would also indicate that the measurement of c is also relative. As the passage of the time in each case is not uniform. So if c is a relative measurement, how does it work as a universal constant?
Time dilation in regards to relativity seems indicative that there's no such thing as a universal clock. (Isn't that something that frustrated Einstein and had him rewrite some stuff a few times?)

It looks like the limit is always going to be c+(whatever your speed is) not matter how fast you're going. The "gaining mass" explanation seems funky, because to me it seems that the progression of time is what will shift in order to keep c as c within a relative frame of reference. The thing is, wouldn't one still cover more distance as they encounter "higher values" of c? It also leads me to question the use of light-years as a "yardstick" if the concepts of c and years are as variable as the gravitational fields one would encounter on a route covering such distances.

Seems some other funky ideas spring out knowing that E=mc^2. It would work out that E=m(d/t)^2 or E=m (area/time^2) and fiddling around with that m=E*time^2/area... Of course that's roughing it out loosely, since the ratio between distance and time is fixed by the c constant. However the values for d or t may not be constant, it's the ratio between the two that is c. It's funny that it works out as an area and not a volume, and the only other phenomena that I can think of involving time^2 is acceleration. Which then ties into either inertia or gravity. But that makes some sense into regards to mass.

The problem is, I'm not much for doing math. At one point I did some more advanced stuff, but I've burnt-out on the subject and haven't kept in practice. Still I'm wondering if I'm noticing any loopholes that may be related to c or the phenomena of gravity with such a basic approach. Practical applications of such loopholes are very intriguing if conditions for them exist.

Does anything I mentioned make any sense?
Or is that as crazy an idea as seeing quantum effects possibly as a real world phenomena relating to the modulo operation?



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by pauljs75
 



Interesting. It's likely I've brought up this idea or something closely relating to it elsewhere. Also ties into Fizeau's experiment which is interesting in its own regard.

Thanks for the name of the experiment, i have enjoyed looking it up
Very well done


It had me wondering some things about light, particularly the nature of why c is considered the limit of how fast things can go. And yet the nature of c seems a little funky or paradoxical in some ways.

I don’t know if anyone ever though light could travel different speeds outside of the C constant
But its relative to the fame of reference we use, superluminal motion is an interesting paradox, although “explained” by relativity there are some interesting light time vs light distance, but that is a bit abstract for this thread


Light or photons is supposedly massless for all practical purposes. Yet gravity bends it. I think the nature of why gravity bends it has to do with the distortion of time within the gravitational field.

You are asking the right questions, the only thing i can say is an abstract
Light = energy E=mass in a Medium Density, with a strong gravitational field 

Speed is distance per unit time, so if you change what the unit of time is the speed will change in respect to that. A difference in speed for a beam of light passing through a gravitational field should be similar to a difference in speed when light passes through materials of different optical density.

Speed is interesting because you measure it,
Yes  there is also an interaction between medium density and the passage of time, we know what the time taken for a photon to transverse an atom back into a photon is dependant on the “local” density and gravitational feild, and we know that figuar in a vacume, but do we know that number “outside” our suns electrostatic influence, and if the passage of time was measured in photon to photon travel of light, different gravitational feilds would provide different “transit” times for different mediums and different strength gravitational fields. From an observer point of view any way ALL SPECULATION atm


Another interesting thing is that relativity shows that identical ideal clocks operating while traveling at different speeds or in differing gravitational fields show time dilation. That is, although the ability to measure time for clocks is the same, the actual time measured by them is not. Yet if you do an experiment to measure the speed of light under those circumstances, you will get the same value for c. Going back to speed being distance over time, that would also indicate that the measurement of c is also relative.

Yes  and in IMHO it is density related, Alpha

As the passage of the time in each case is not uniform. So if c is a relative measurement, how does it work as a universal constant?

I “locally” we have never measured the C constant in interstellar space to see if it is a “solar” constant. We may find C vary from medium to medium, i am not saying C constant is not a constant “for us” locally


Time dilation in regards to relativity seems indicative that there's no such thing as a universal clock. (Isn't that something that frustrated Einstein and had him rewrite some stuff a few times?)


Its frustrating to the mind to consider there may be may different reference frames in our universe, but i think it is a reality. Time is subjective to “locality”


It looks like the limit is always going to be c+(whatever your speed is) not matter how fast you're going. The "gaining mass" explanation seems funky, because to me it seems that the progression of time is what will shift in order to keep c as c within a relative frame of reference. The thing is, wouldn't one still cover more distance as they encounter "higher values" of c? It also leads me to question the use of light-years as a "yardstick" if the concepts of c and years are as variable as the gravitational fields one would encounter on a route covering such distances.

Light years as yard sticks make no sence considering we don’t know the density of intergalactic space, example in point Density gravitational lensing (DL)
One object two viewpoints to object
First direct line of sight (no obstructions)
Second line of sight through a foreground gravitational lense
The object under observance flashes a pulse
The lense shows the pulse first followed by the direct line of site “pulse”
So is using light as a fixed C constant everywhere correct?
IMHO just as light can “lense” it can also increase C relative to the medium and grav of that lense



Seems some other funky ideas spring out knowing that E=mc^2. It would work out that E=m(d/t)^2 or E=m (area/time^2) and fiddling around with that m=E*time^2/area... Of course that's roughing it out loosely, since the ratio between distance and time is fixed by the c constant. However the values for d or t may not be constant, it's the ratio between the two that is c. It's funny that it works out as an area and not a volume, and the only other phenomena that I can think of involving time^2 is acceleration. Which then ties into either inertia or gravity. But that makes some sense into regards to mass.

Ah volume now we are talking lol 
We are forever “falling into the sun” at terminal velocity, while the sun throughs solar medium at us
Lol 



The problem is, I'm not much for doing math. At one point I did some more advanced stuff, but I've burnt-out on the subject and haven't kept in practice. Still I'm wondering if I'm noticing any loopholes that may be related to c or the phenomena of gravity with such a basic approach. Practical applications of such loopholes are very intriguing if conditions for them exist.

The best approach is practical ,
Have a look at my thread
The orbital relationship between area and mass
ATS thread here


Does anything I mentioned make any sense? Or is that as crazy an idea as seeing quantum effects possibly as a real world phenomena relating to the modulo operation?

You have some very interesting points i have been formulating a reply
I cant really say much at the moment as i have a few things being looked at
xploder


edit on 29-6-2011 by XPLodER because: spelling



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join