What Is Light?

Bill Gaede has proposed a hypothesis to model the behavior of light that it is a rope that permanently binds any two atoms in the Universe.


Here is the beginning of Chapter Four of his e-book Why God Doesn't Exist ("God" here being Mathematical Physics) published by ViNi, 4th Edition copyright 2009:

CHAPTER FOUR
LIGHT: The Grand Unified Theory

Summary

In this chapter, I compare Fresnel’s transverse wave, the Newton–Einstein corpuscle, and the Schrödinger-Born wave-packet against a new proposal. I show that a two-strand, DNA-like
architecture better simulates the static and dynamic aspects of light that we observe in the lab. This twined entity converges upon and serves as the building block of atoms. Where the ridiculous and debunked planetary/orbital model still accepted by the establishment fails to justify a single observation or experiment, the shell-like architecture I present here explains the most fundamental structural and behavioral properties of the atom with flying colors. As a bonus, this system merges electromagnetism and gravity into a single unified, symmetric mechanism long sought by theorists.

Main Points:

1. Mathematical physicists use particles, waves, and wave-packets (photon) to model light despite that everyone knows them to be incorrect. The wave and the wave-packet are invalid scientific hypotheses. The particle is a valid model, but experiment and observation have debunked it countless times.

2. Classical and quantum waves and particles cannot explain a single significant static or dynamic property of light. Only a rope-like configuration can simultaneously generate push and pull and simulate most if not all observations.

3. Mathematical physicists routinely use the planetary model of the atom despite that everyone knows it to be incorrect. The wave, wave-packet, and probability-cloud models of the electron don’t qualify as scientific exhibits.

4. The electron is a balloon-like entity that envelopes the hydrogen atom and is made from threads converging on it from every atom in the universe. This model accounts for the observed properties of the atom.

5. The proton and the neutron are not discrete particles. They are convergence points respectively of threads and ropes that interconnect these entities with every atom in the universe. The role of the neutron is not to keep protons apart as alleged by the mechanics. The neutron is simply a necessary byproduct of ropes crisscrossing the Universe.

Here is part of the description of a YouTube video on the subject:

Since the Scientific Revolution started 400 years ago, the mathematicians have considered only two physical configurations to model the behavior of light: waves and particles. Here we present a new hypothesis. Light consists neither of particles nor of transverse waves. Light is a rope that permanently binds any two atoms in the Universe.

I suggest remembering that there is a pause button while watching this video :



Also, if you are considering attacking Bill Gaede's character rather than his theory, that first you watch this video: "Bill Gaede and the FBI."

Let's discuss his interpretation of what we observe in the lab.

The wave and the wave-packet are invalid scientific hypotheses.
---
The wave, wave-packet, and probability-cloud models of the electron don’t qualify as scientific exhibits.

I wouldn't agree.

Not heavy...j/k

Who know's but it is the energy for everything human I suppose.

I wonder if one day I'll be able to understand any of what was just posted.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Thank you. I hope you will watch the first video when you have time and comment further.

reply to post by Elsek


I feel your pain.

Hopefully, this can be done in baby steps.

Originally posted by jerryznv
j/k

I don't know what this means.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by jerryznv
j/k

I don't know what this means.

I am lost and this is over my head but I do think it is interesting.

Maybe one day too, I will be smart enough to understand everything that was posted, today is not that day though.

I was just kidding around saying "not heavy" (indicated by j/k)...sorry for the poke...I will better learn to keep my mouth shut about things I dont understand.

Light is something that can be seen but not felt, light has no heat properties what so ever unless you add them with some kind of filament.

Light is lighter than air (excuse the pun) and is the fastest element known to man. Without light humans wouldn't be able to exsist on this earth. Without light food would not grow, trees would not grow (no oxygen)

Even darkness is a form of light, its just black light.

reply to post by jerryznv


Thanks for your reply! I could have done a search for "j/k" but that didn't occur to me.

Originally posted by wlasikiewicz
Light is something that can be seen but not felt, light has no heat properties what so ever unless you add them with some kind of filament.

Light is lighter than air (excuse the pun) and is the fastest element known to man. Without light humans wouldn't be able to exsist on this earth. Without light food would not grow, trees would not grow (no oxygen)

Even darkness is a form of light, its just black light.

"Au contrare'": "darkness" is the absence of light energy...

Have you ever seen the theory about Perceptive Energy? (I'm not sure if that's the actual name of the Theory, but it fits the description )
Anywho; years ago it was proposed that light and sound both behaved in their respective ways because of the human perspection of how these things were "supposed" to act. That the world was literally different per species on the planet, and beings from other dimensions would have a completely different view on life and how they perceived light and sound. One of the experiments was; they aimed sound waves at a wall and then placed a sheet of glass between the wall and the sound source with holes in it. In a nutshell: While filming and viewing the experiment, the soundwaves did as expected and went through all the holes, bounced around, and some of them made it back through to the sound source. When the experiment wasn't being filmed or watched, the sound patterns and their returns behaved in a completely different way.
They made a kid-friendly documentary that touched on this years ago you might find interesting;

'What the Bleep do We know?' and its sequel:
'What the Bleep do We know? Further Down the Rabbit Hole.'

They are really weird docs, and seem like something you'd of watched in Middle School or just before getting in the Rail Cars at Jurassic Park, but at the same time, everything is broken down into layman's terms for the average guy/gal. They've got that woman in them.... I forget her name... the deaf woman that everybody hates. Anywho; an interesting watch.

"If a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? No. Because if there's no one there to see it....there is no tree."

Originally posted by wlasikiewicz
Light is something that can be seen but not felt, light has no heat properties what so ever unless you add them with some kind of filament.

Light is lighter than air (excuse the pun) and is the fastest element known to man. Without light humans wouldn't be able to exsist on this earth. Without light food would not grow, trees would not grow (no oxygen)

Even darkness is a form of light, its just black light.

1) Light can not be seem. It's interaction with matter however can. 2) Light can be felt. Photons have mass, hence they can be felt. 3) Light has energy, and imparts it when it interacts with matter. (see 1)

I suggest you pick up a basic physics textbook and read it. Your understanding of the physical world is woefully lacking.

Light can have two meanings in physics, correct? From The Free Dictionary:

a. Electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength in the range from about 4,000 (violet) to about 7,700 (red) angstroms and may be perceived by the normal unaided human eye.
b. Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength.

I guess Mr. Gaede's theory is talking about the second definition?

i love how there are male and female tones and frequencies in the spectrum and that the visible light even with all the colors we "see" they are only a small fraction of the truly incredible amount of data and information coming together from all stars in creation, there are colors yet to be "seen" it just our current equipment/body is in low vibration so we are just tapping the potential of our tru selves. homo-erect-us, homo-sapien, homo-luminous. its like discovering a fossil, although its just been "found" its been there the whole time and never was lost. a perceived separation.

Contemplating on the nature of light continually proves to be a frustrating concept to ponder. It does seem as though there is something missing, something to be understood about it. I will have to watch the video again and do some more digging to learn more about this theory, but it sounds like the theory has a long way to go.

One interesting thing I have thought about before is that light is the same exact phenomenon as radio waves, microwaves, xrays, UV, IR(heat). We have radio telescopes, microwave dish collectors, thermal imaging cameras (IR)... So what if the rods and cones in our retinas are really just fields of tiny antennas. Of course the length of the antenna would have to be tuned to the frequency we are receiving. Light waves are very small, but so are our rods and cones(450-550nm). Another point to ponder is that visible light only makes up for a very narrow band of the full EM spectrum, and our precisely tuned retina antennas pick up only the frequency they were built for, more or less. Supposedly we have three types of cones, One low band around the red color, one middle band around the yellow/green color, and one high band near the purple/violet color. The more info I bring up, the more they sound like little radio receivers.

I dont think the OP theory really interferes with this idea much either. Whatever causes the transmission of photons is the same mechanism that transmits other forms of the energy. Long metallic wires allow the reception of radio stations regardless of the mechanism of transmission. I feel im starting to ramble on, Ill leave the idea here for now.

II

reply to post by Mary Rose


a. This is the specific definition of visible light. Light the human eye can see.
b. This is the general definition of light, or electromagnetic transmission. It is under this definition that radio waves, visible light, and xrays are all the same exact thing. They are just different in their quanta of energy and wavelength, (amplitude and frequency-1)

Mr. Gaedes theory is discrediting the modern conception of light. You wont find any relevant information concerning Mr Gaedes theory in any dictionaries. These dictionaries are going to be defining light as per the current modern understanding of it. Mr Gaedes theory is a new attempt at describing light differently.

Physics isnt a strength of mine, but i am interested in light, the light body in particular. If we contain light, then are we capable of becoming light?
Maybe you have heard of Nigel Kerner? He theorized years ago that light is frozen thought and matter is frozen light.
So if matter is created by thought, have we screwed ourselves by thought alone?
Yeshua seemed fully aware of the 2cnd law of thermodynamics, rust, thieves in the night etc. if he was trying to educate people on how to escape this entropic universe, well...incredible.
I'm not religious, but is this what the kingdom of heaven is? Everyone is a body of light? No more decay?

reply to post by Mary Rose


I always had the idea that light was energy, and there are different types of energy which keeps transforming from one state to another.

Light is merely one of those energies isn't it? How can we see something which is nothing but a property of something else? Light interacts with particles, because light is the property of particles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I have forgotten my physics, its been 4 years since my last year of college.

Good place to start, I'm reading, so should others
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by wlasikiewicz
Light is something that can be seen but not felt, light has no heat properties what so ever unless you add them with some kind of filament.

Light is lighter than air (excuse the pun) and is the fastest element known to man. Without light humans wouldn't be able to exsist on this earth. Without light food would not grow, trees would not grow (no oxygen)

Even darkness is a form of light, its just black light.

Light can not be seen nor felt. The effects of light on matter can be seen and felt. Light has no heat properties whatsoever. IR light produces heat upon its energy being absorbed by a body. Lightbulb filaments work by passing an electric current through a wire that has resistance. This resistance causes a high amount of heat in the filament. The filament then glows 'white hot'. I am sure you have heard this expression before; this stems from the fact that all bodies with any amount of heat emit electromagnetic energy. I believe its the frequency of the EM transmission that is directly related to the temperature of the body.

(Dont quote me on this, I am not sure how correct it is, but bodies close to absolute zero emit EM in the radiowave frequency. As we warm up to temperatures humans are more comfortable with, the bodies begin to emit infrared light. In blacksmithing, the metal turns red and yellow and white because of its temperature. It is beginning to emit visible light. Very hot bodies begin to emit UV light as well. Some of the hottest objects in the galaxy emit xrays and gamma rays)

Light can not be lighter than air, we are comparing apples and oranges. Light is not an element. The one sentence I can leave alone is that without light humans wouldn't exist, and food and trees wont grow. (unless there is some special case out there in the galaxy where life thrives without visible light?)

Darkness is a lack of light, just the same as cold is a lack of heat, or sadness is a lack of happiness, or to be tired is to have a lack of energy. All of these are the same thing, just taken to the extremes.