What Is Light?

Originally posted by Laokin

Originally posted by Mactire
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."

edit on 22-5-2011 by Mactire because: (no reason given)

If it wasn't being recorded, nor watched... then how do they know the results differed.... that is the question I want answered and never will be, because there is no answer.

It is pretty simple. You can still see results without recording a middle process.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
How can a math entity exist totally divorced from anything physical?

What physical substance can you attribute to the number zero or to the set of real numbers? These are just concepts in the human mind.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Also, my understanding is that Einstein is blamed for getting rid of the aether in error - that he called space "aether" in 1920 in his Leyden address.

Einstein's views evolved over the years. I don't know who is blaming him and who thinks he was in error. Here's an English translation of his Leyden address. I get the impression that he reluctantly gave in to pressure from his peers who were anxious to abandon the notion of a substantive aether, all together. Einstein did not go that far. He merely admitted, "...But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time."

If Einstein were aware of something that can exceed the speed of light, I think he would not have conceded as much as he did.

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
What physical substance can you attribute to the number zero or to the set of real numbers?

Zero of, or how many of, something - some noun. I don't think we conceptualize numbers without a physical substance to go with them.

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
I don't know who is blaming him and who thinks he was in error.

I was saying people who blame him are in error for doing so unjustifiably. Don't you think the prevailing view is that it is because of Einstein that the concept of an aether was discarded?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I was saying people who blame him are in error for doing so unjustifiably. Don't you think the prevailing view is that it is because of Einstein that the concept of an aether was discarded?

You're right. I think Einstein is blamed (or credited) for a lot of stuff he never said, simply because somebody wants add prestige to a belief. For example, there is no evidence that Einstein said anything linking extinction of honey bees to extinction of humans. "People might believe my idea if I say that Einstein said it."

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Zero of, or how many of, something - some noun. I don't think we conceptualize numbers without a physical substance to go with them.

You're obviously not a mathematician. There's a lot of math that has no physical counterpart, though most of math was invented to solve real-world problems. Actually, I'm no mathematician, either, but I don't always associate a number with an object or physical property. There are games whose points have no physical significance; they don't have to correspond to pips on dice or diamonds on a card. "Good do-be points" can be awarded arbitrarily, and they don't have to be redeamable for treats.

Also in Chapter Four, page 202, is Fig. 4.33, Gaede's version of charge and the electron:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/24e167a33f07.jpg[/atsimg]

The rope version of charge and the electron

Under Thread Theory, the ropes from every atom in the Universe converge upon the surface of an atom. Therefore, the entire surface of the electron balloon consists of locations where the electric and magnetic threads fork out. When the electron balloon expands it swallows a strip of rope and when it shrinks it releases a strip of rope (arrows). This composite friction at each point around the surface of the electron is what we detect as charge. An excellent picture of what a genuine atom may look like can be found at: en.wikipedia.org...

I can see Gaede's sea urchin shaped proton is this photo.

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
There are games whose points have no physical significance; they don't have to correspond to pips on dice or diamonds on a card. "Good do-be points" can be awarded arbitrarily, and they don't have to be redeamable for treats.

These would be abstract things such as status symbol or self-esteem - things that are not physical. But they're still nouns. Just non-physical ones.

But in physics we want to deal with how the physical world works and Gaede emphasizes in his book that physics has become abstract mathematics, to its detriment. In the Preface to his book, he says that the book grew out of his experience having arguments with religionists about the existence of God. He had been challenged to prove that God didn't exist. This sent him into an exploration of physics to find this proof. He says that what he found is that mathematical physics had become more like a religion than science because it had become divorced from the real, physical world that you can describe with clear exhibits as opposed to abstract ideas.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
He says that what he found is that mathematical physics had become more like a religion than science because it had become divorced from the real, physical world that you can describe with clear exhibits as opposed to abstract ideas.

Quantities have always existed in nature. Physics is (or used to be) about real quantities. A number is a name of a quantity; names are human inventions. Mathematics is about numbers, not about the quantities they represent. It is easy to perceive the relation between the number 5 and the quantity of fingers on your hand. Not so easy to perveive the ralation between πd and the circumference of a circle. The square root of -1 is still more difficult to imagine. In math, repetetive addition becomes multiplication; repetetive multiplication becomes exponentiation; they probably have a name for repetetive exponentiation. The existence of a function, like addition, suggests an inverse, like subtraction. "Square" suggests "square root"; "exponent" suggests "logarithm". Many of these math functions were invented specifically to solve a physics problem; others were invented to solve a math problem, and no one can even imagine any connection to reality. How can you relate the cardinality of a fractal set to anything physical?

In reality, there is a separation between two objects; we quantify that separation by inventing the concepts of length and distance. But length and distance in Euclidean space are not the same as length and distance in Minkowski space-time. At cosmological distances and times, you may choose between a comoving coordinate system, whose coordinate axes expand with physical space, and a rigid coordinate system, whose coordinate axes do not expand. These are different mathematical analogies for reality; each defines distance, velocity and even straight lines differently. Calculations of distance and velocity in one mathematical space are not valid in another mathematical space. Which is correct? Which is the "true" description of reality? I say that both are approximately analogous to reality, but neither analogy is perfect. A mathematical solution of a mathematial problem may be mathematically perfect; but we tread on thin ice when we assume it is perfectly analogous to any real physical problem.

Here is the beginning of Chapter Three of Why God Doesn't Exist:

CHAPTER THREE
FORCE: A Quantum of Bunk!

Summary

The mathematical physicists proclaim Quantum Mechanics (QM) to be a complete, elegant, and beautiful theory. QM is a quantitative description of what the mathematicians perceive to be the invisible subatomic world. However, the mechanics offer only irrational and supernatural physical interpretations to their equations. In QM, a fundamental particle is always made of yet more fundamental particles. A particle is also said to ‘carry a force,’ which it unloads when it greets another. And although space must always contour a particle, QM postulates that space itself is made of particles. The outrageous, and at times amusing, claims of the sect known as Quantum Mechanics go on and on. QM is divorced from science because, like the other religions of Mathematical Physics, it refuses to follow the scientific method.

How did the mathematicians arrive at such ludicrous conclusions? How is it that the
mathematicians ended up with appalling ‘principles’ such as Indeterminacy and Complementarity? Here I trace the experimental milestones that resulted in our present conceptions of light, the electron, and the atom. We find that the history of science has been one mistake after another. The mathematicians asked the wrong questions and, predictably, they ended up with the wrong answers.

Main Points

1. The contemporary belief that matter and space are made of particles is the result of a 400-year-old intergenerational debate between wave and particle theorists. Until the last 20 or 30 years, no one even attempted to brainstorm new architectural models for light.

2. Some experiments run throughout history indicate that light cannot possibly be a wave and others show that light cannot possibly be a particle. The scientific method compels us to reject both. Instead, the mechanics have chosen to integrate the two into an unfathomable blend known as a wave-packet.

3. There is and can be no evidence for the existence of particles, Quantum or otherwise. Not a single human being has ever ‘observed’ (i.e., seen) a subatomic particle. If we had, we wouldn’t still be speculating about what an atom looks like physically.

4. The ‘principles’ of Mathematical Physics (Uncertainty, Complementarity, Exclusion, etc.) are irrationalities inferred by mathematicians who refuse to follow the scientific method. The mathematicians call them principles without visualizing what they are talking about.

5. The corpuscle meets none of the basic properties of light, to wit: straightness, speed, EPR, diffraction, orthogonality, and sinusoidality. The particle model cannot explain why light is so fast, why its velocity is independent of the source, why it travels ‘straight’, or why it retraces its path.

6. The corpuscle meets none of the fundamental physical or behavioral properties of the electron, to wit: quantum jump, dual wave/particle nature, shell and orbital configurations, structural stability, charge, and nucleus impenetrability.

7. Mathematical physicists use the word force as a physical object whenever it suits their arguments.

8. Quantum Mechanics (QM) postulates that there are four forces: gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong. In Physics, however, there are only two: push and pull. QM fails because it cannot rationally justify the force of pull with particles.

reply to post by Phractal Phil


Which came first? The wave or the particle? The age old debate has always been about particle models v. wave models.

In my own model, neither came first. Waves are made of particles, which are made of waves, which are made of particles... ad infinitum. We may arbitrarily define the bounds of "our universes" between two limits of scale (the Hubble limit and the Planck length), but there is no smallest or largest scale to the greater fractal universe. Everything is part of something bigger, and everything is made of things smaller. Every particle is made of waves, and every wave is made of particles. Am I the only human to whom that makes sense? Has anyone before me every proposed such a concept?

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
. . . there is no smallest or largest scale to the greater fractal universe. Everything is part of something bigger, and everything is made of things smaller.

This makes a lot of sense to me. This describes infinity to me, and infinity, in terms of the universe, makes the most sense to me. It makes more sense to me that at least the energy that animates the universe has always been here, and always will be here, than to think that there was a beginning.

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
Every particle is made of waves, and every wave is made of particles.

But this gives me a headache!

Can someone sum this up for me? Does this new theory explain how electrons are both particles and waves, based on whether they're being observed or not? Was this released before that discovery? Did that discovery tear all sorts of holes into Gaede's hypothesis?

Personally, I don't get the 'ropes' thing. It takes light time (not very much, but still time) to get places. Just because it goes faster than we could ever perceive, doesn't mean that it's a constant that's connected from both ends instantaneously..?

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
reply to post by Phractal Phil

 

Which came first? The wave or the particle? The age old debate has always been about particle models v. wave models.

In my own model, neither came first. Waves are made of particles, which are made of waves, which are made of particles... ad infinitum. We may arbitrarily define the bounds of "our universes" between two limits of scale (the Hubble limit and the Planck length), but there is no smallest or largest scale to the greater fractal universe. Everything is part of something bigger, and everything is made of things smaller. Every particle is made of waves, and every wave is made of particles. Am I the only human to whom that makes sense? Has anyone before me every proposed such a concept?

^.........2+2=5
....%right?
en.wiktionary.org...

diatonic scale
[edit]English

[edit]Noun
diatonic scale (plural diatonic scales)

A seven note musical scale of five tones and two semitones.

George Bernard Shaw, 07/26/1856 - 11/02/1950

Erse dramatist, author and Nobel Prize Laureate

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
But this gives me a headache!

Understandably so! The trouble with my model is that none of it really makes sense until you understand the whole thing. You have to follow the logic as one concept leads to the next until you find yourself back where you started; then, it suddenly all makes sense. I've already given you too much to digest all at once, and we haven't even talked, yet, about time reversal between successive universes. That's an even bigger pill to swallow.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


Gaede's book is quite recent; the concept of wave-particle duality has been around for a century. I plead ignorance; as far as I know, Mary is the only one, here, who has read the book. The Wikipedia article on Gaede doesn't mention the book. Apparently, his background is in IT and counter-espionage; he has been described as an amateur physicist. Let's not hold that against him; spooks tend to be super-intelligent humans. I'm not about to throw stones his way on account of a lack of letters after his name, as I have my own glass house to protect.

I don't get the 'ropes thing', either. I assume they are massless and timeless connections. If they have any substance, it is certainly not matter as we know it. If they exist, they should serve as a surrogate for the concept of God.

Light is the Creators/Designers/Goodness/God/Soul/US. The sun is the source of their power and through their Grace and Power all life exists and nothing would without Their constant input.

The projectors of the hologram is the Stars, and our home lies Beyond.

The Light is not the twisted version the esoterics maintain, or their distortions.

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
The trouble with my model is that none of it really makes sense until you understand the whole thing.

I like your website. I’ve got it bookmarked and will tackle it next.

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
I've already given you too much to digest all at once, and we haven't even talked, yet, about time reversal between successive universes.

I skipped Gaede’s chapter on time.

Originally posted by Phractal Phil
I don't get the 'ropes thing', either. I assume they are massless and timeless connections. If they have any substance, it is certainly not matter as we know it. If they exist, they should serve as a surrogate for the concept of God.

I have in my notes that his proposed ropes are criss-crossing the universe and they constitute what we refer to as Zero Point Energy, Vacuum Energy, or Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

CHAPTER THREE
FORCE: A Quantum of Bunk!

8. Quantum Mechanics (QM) postulates that there are four forces: gravity, electromagnetic, weak, and strong. In Physics, however, there are only two: push and pull. QM fails because it cannot rationally justify the force of pull with particles.

From page 190:

Take a rope, tie it to a tree, and hold the other end at 10 meters. Torque it continuously from that position until you turn blue. What you are doing by twisting the rope is compressing its links (i.e., pushing the signal of light outwards). If you did the experiment correctly, either the tree has moved closer to you or you have moved closer to the tree. Hence, by pushing you have pulled. Light is to push what gravity is to pull. Light goes outwards. Gravity pulls inwards (Fig. 4.13). The only physical configuration that can explain simultaneous push and pull is a rope-like entity. . . .

Fig. 4.13 The GUT: push and pull in one mechanism!

Twist a taut rope and you will generate the two forces of the Universe: push and pull. The signal travels outwards (push) along the rope from one end to the other and in both directions. If you weren’t too careful, you would conclude that the signal arrives before it leaves. The objects attached to its endpoints instantly move inwards. Therefore, in principle, the rope is a mechanism capable of synthesizing light and gravity.

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.

Not all light can be seen, visible light is only a small spectrum of light. There’s a huge spectrum of light including UV, Infrared, Visible, gamma rays, radio waves etc. Light has no mass; so yes that would make it lighter than air...

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Gamma Rays produce heat so it does have 'heat properties"

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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?

Thats only visible light (colours). There is a much wider spectrum of light that start at gamma rays. I posted a link above me read it

Originally posted by IntegratedInstigator

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.

Wrong wrong wrong and more wrong