What Is Light?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Sorry Mary Rose; somehow lost this tread with all the excitement in volcano's and earthquakes!

In this reference I am talking of the 'visible light' as the one that does not exist. I am so looooooong overdue for the follow up on they theory videos; have to do it sometime soon. It is only a matter of not enought ime to isolate myself and make the video.

reply to post by Mary Rose


So this convicted spy who really is far from being credible says light is bla bla and not this this and that, and based on no work being presented from his end we should take his word for it?

The man is a hybrid of a cross between a nerd version of Charlie Mason and John Forbes Nash, Jr..

That man is perpetually manic.

reply to post by Mary Rose


To address how light behaves it behaves like a train that moves along a track pushing ahead as more cars are added behind it, not being pulled ahead by a locomotive. All energy moves in this fashion. Also light is not AC current. it does not oscillate. When it hits something, like when a shadow is cast, whatever is blocking its progression absorbs light as heat, light being converted into heat like anything else on the electromagnetic spectrum. Even radar which is converted into heat. How did that microwave popcorn taste the last time you had any? I'm eating some right now reading this thread.

External quote presented in the OP:

The role of the neutron is not to keep protons apart as alleged by the mechanics.

This in itself is so patently false it really does cross in the realm of idiotic.

And of course, there is plenty of matter in the Universe that doesn't even exist in the atomic form, and yet interacts with light, so please, what a bunch of quackery that "theory" is.

I dont think Einstein ever wanted the Special Theory to be a closed book as he states it should never be closed. The book should always be open... any of them. Science is to always be advancing and once stuck there has got to be imaginations come forward with new ideas that shed light on the problems in Physics and Quantum Mechanics.

What EXACTLY is light? Questions arise that need to be solved.

I see on Gaede's YouTube channel page now that he has a link to a 6 page .pdf file published in International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics, Vol. 1, No. 2, September 2011, "An Alternative to Waves and Wave-Packets."

I like the .pdf files that everyone can access.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"An Alternative to Waves and Wave-Packets"

In the Abstract he says that he merges light with gravity into a single mechanism.

reply to post by Mary Rose


certainly interesting... so this means if you emitted light from a source.. say 20 feet... walking in between the source and the end of the light emitted, you would be able to effect the light coming out of the source? also. when I turn the light off and on real quick... where does all the rope go?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
certainly interesting... so this means if you emitted light from a source.. say 20 feet... walking in between the source and the end of the light emitted, you would be able to effect the light coming out of the source?

I don't quite get what you're saying.

I'm picturing his model as saying that every single atom in the entire universe is permanently connected by the torsion created by expanding and compressing electromagnetic ropes. So, I don't think of his model as saying light is emitted. It seems that he's saying light fluctuates everywhere.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
also. when I turn the light off and on real quick... where does all the rope go?

I think he's saying the torsion of the permanent ropes control the frequency changes. You're talking about visible light when you say turn off the light?

His model is for the entire EM spectrum.

When you cast light on something, that object has a shadow, but why docent light have a shadow?

reply to post by wlasikiewicz


Shadow from what?

Originally posted by wlasikiewicz
When you cast light on something, that object has a shadow, but why docent light have a shadow?

The light does have a shadow. It's just pretty damn hard to observe. As predicted by QED and demonstrated by SLAC Experiment 144, light can be scattered by light, which is in the same category as shadow (the object casting a shadow is an absorber/scatterer).

Im starring and flagging this because its stepping out of the box, and getting deeper into asking real questions based on known Electric Universe or more realistic theories.

However, my belief is that the stars are like mirrors and stargates. But in the mirror fashion we're kind a shadow from higher realm, a testing ground shadow realm. A kind of interactive holographic simulation school. And that Light streams in from the true Spiritual Source. We all shine. Light is Love shine and Soul shine. Well to me anyway thats what it is. We're all infinite parts of infinity and souls in No Time, their soul orbs are superstars, in a sense, metaphorically if not for real.

Originally posted by Unity_99
However, my belief is that the stars are like mirrors and stargates.

My belief is that Bill Clinton is an emissary of the Intergalactic Supreme Being "Zmorrg". Moreover, your liver is actually a symbiotic organism, capable of receiving coded subspace-wave messages from Zmorrg, who made his lair in the center of a neutron star. Once the message is received, you re-transmit it to Bill. Hillary is in the know. She wasn't the Secretary of State for nothing. Her recent fainting was an example of side effects a message from Zmorrg can have on humans. So this is my belief, it is correct and your belief is wrong.

reply to post by buddhasystem


His name is Zmorrrg. Bit more of a growl to it.

Sheesh, you would think someone "in the know" would be able to spell the supreme overlords name... Get with the program!



BTW, thanks for posting that SLAC experiment. I hadnt seen it before.



I LOVE the alternative science stuff. It is all so incredibly creative, and so many neat ideas come from it. It is disappointing that most who participate in it have such a disdain for what science has discovered up to this point as well as seemingly discarding the scientific method altogether.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

His name is Zmorrrg. Bit more of a growl to it.

Sheesh, you would think someone "in the know" would be able to spell the supreme overlords name... Get with the program!

I was trying to be subtle, but it doesn't always work with Earthlings... Behold, I AM Zmorrg.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
It is disappointing that most who participate in it have such a disdain for what science has discovered up to this point as well as seemingly discarding the scientific method altogether

I think the cause of the disdain is the immense frustration experienced by those who are kept out of the mainstream debate due to what has become scientific dogma - one could make the argument that it is the mainstream that has lost sight of the scientific method.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Serdgiam
It is disappointing that most who participate in it have such a disdain for what science has discovered up to this point as well as seemingly discarding the scientific method altogether

I think the cause of the disdain is the immense frustration experienced by those who are kept out of the mainstream debate due to what has become scientific dogma - one could make the argument that it is the mainstream that has lost sight of the scientific method.

No, one cannot make this argument, unless one is willing to depart from common sense and facts -- which however is typical for people who keep pushing pseudo-science crap on ATS.

reply to post by buddhasystem


See, you're demonstrating the dogma put out by the mainstream with that word "pseudo-science," meaning doesn't agree with what my textbook indoctrinated me with.

That expression "pseudo-science" is a buzz word used in a knee-jerk reaction by apologists for mainstream science. And it is used in a smug way by those who think they're backed up by the authority of the mainstream.

Some of us think for ourselves.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

See, you're demonstrating the dogma put out by the mainstream with that word "pseudo-science," meaning doesn't agree with what my textbook indoctrinated me with.

Again and again, you stick with "indoctrination", while I point out that there are OBSERVABLE phenomena for people to see and check out. If a theory checks out fine, we think it's probably a useful tool. If it doesn't, it's relegated to history books. That's the scientific method in a nutshell. There is nothing dogmatic about it, quite the opposite.

Now, contrast this with what's being pushed by lazy-ass (like in too lazy to learn) pseudo-science aficionados, e.g. Rodin and his preposterous "vortex math". Not only the vortex is patently absent in the 3+3 kind of arithmetic he likes to do in his spare time (and yet he likes to keep the name because it sounds cool), he doesn't hesitate to proclaim on record that he has created a black hole in the lab. In the absence of anything close to a faint hint of a proof, I regard these pronouncements as DOGMA which is happily accepted by the dogmatic lazy-ass (like in too lazy to learn) dimwits.