What Is Light?

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
In the Abstract he says that he merges light with gravity into a single mechanism.


From page 5 of 6:


Perhaps the most important phenomenon that the rope model helps us explain is the Grand Unified Theory (GUT), the Holy Grail of Physics. Researchers have been searching for a mathematical GUT for decades. With particles and waves, that goal is ever more distant. It is not easy, if at all possible, to explain attraction with discrete one-way agents.

The physical interpretations offered to the mathematical solutions certainly strain the imagination. They include scenarios where gravitons and gluons transfer ‘negative momentum’ to the test object or rely on particles that through contorted mechanisms end up pushing the two objects together. 24

With the rope hypothesis, we finally have a chance to imagine a straight forward, physical mechanism that can produce attraction seemingly from a distance. If every atom in the Universe is bound to all others, it doesn’t stretch the imagination to take the vision to the next step and theorize that as one object approaches another, the EM ropes fan out as a function of decreasing distance and cause the acceleration of one to the other (Fig. 17).




When things are permanently connected interactions make sense.




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


this is actually quite cool then... so perhaps the vacuum energy (cosmological constant) is really all these stretched ropes connecting all matter.... even in the big bang model it is thought 'space-time' was created at the big bang when energy/matter separated from itself.. the separation would be the creation of space-time fabric which perhaps is composed of this guys ropes... which is also responsible for dark energy...



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The sad part is, vortices are incredibly cool. But the best way to learn about them is doing actual experiments. Actual observations. Actual quantification. Its great to hypothesize (or philosophize), but you need to follow through with experiments. That. Is. Science.

To show something as invalid, there needs to be quantified proof that is repeatable. That is a real wrench in the works for the pseudo-scientific community, it would seem.

While I strongly feel the scientific community can be insular and even myopic, the reasoning behind it is what is actually observed. And, lets be honest, sometimes the results mirror what the source of the funds for the project wants to see (this happens in both "mainstream" and "alternative" science though, and that is incredibly important to remember). It may be misunderstood, it may need more exploration, and it may even need to be re-defined or re-discovered.. But! To do so takes more than a youtube video, some papers, and a few lectures.

I would actually venture a guess that many in the "alternative science" community have never even done an experiment of any kind, much less attempted to replicate the hypothesized results of what is proposed as a grand unified theory. That lack of participation and experience relegates those involved to simply cheer from the sidelines for a team that isnt even playing on the field. It also minimizes the efforts of those in alternative science who are doing experiments, who are proving themselves right/wrong.

I am equally skeptical of anyone proposing a grand unified theory, I dont care what their background is. The difference is that when it comes from certain sources, there is actual data, actual experiments that I can attempt to repeat.

The alternative science community has amazing and incredible ideas. So does "mainstream" science. However, the alternative science community seems so set on discarding everything mainstream that the baby is thrown out with the bath water. The opposite happens frequently as well. Its a bit sad that instead of cooperatively exploring this universe, most are too busy yapping to actually do any exploring. edit: The biggest difference I see between "alternative" and "mainstream" science is that generally, alternative science is dead-set on proving themselves right while mainstream science focuses on proving their hypotheses wrong. Obviously doesnt always work out like that on either side, but for the most part, that has been my experience.

Oh well..
edit on 3-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

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.




what I was trying to get at.. say an atom 20 feet away from me emits EM radiation towards me ... according to him,, if I wave my hand "very fast" at the EM radiation hitting into my hand, I can effect the other end of the EM rope at the source... because according to him, the EM radiation is not a particle or a wave, it is a rope...



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


He says every atom is connected to every other atom. I don't know how your question fits in to that description.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


If you open a YouTube account you could ask Bill Gaede questions through the Comments on the specific video or through a private message. He's always answered my questions.

There is a lengthy thread of comments for the "What Is Light" video, which was posted in 2008. The last comment was a month ago.
edit on 02/03/13 by Mary Rose because: Wording



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


I would love to see the experiments exploring this aspect. I think there might be some interesting things to be found.

Mary, does this guy have any videos of the experiments he has done showing this connection? I looked a bit but couldnt find anything. I would enjoy seeing him testing his hypotheses. If what he proposes is true, then the anomalies will be pretty blatant with the right testing method. It could also lead to some interesting implementations.

He doesnt seem to show any math or anything, so I am unsure of what exactly he means by his "rope" proposal. If it is semi-literal, then we should be able to excite movement in an isolated atom by manipulating another individual atom in the right way, at any distance. I have my doubts, but am always willing to be proven wrong.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The sad part is, vortices are incredibly cool. But the best way to learn about them is doing actual experiments. Actual observations. Actual quantification. Its great to hypothesize (or philosophize), but you need to follow through with experiments. That. Is. Science.


You are seriously wasting bytes here. There is NO vortex in what's pushed here on ATS by a few idiots as "vortex math". They literally point a pencil at a piece of paper, stab it, and say "here be vortex". So as cool as vortices actually are, most of the discourse on ATS regarding same is trash.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


I do agree.. I wish I could say I dont, but what you say is true.

Thats why I said "its sad," because the experiments involving these things are really pretty cool. However, I have yet to see a thread like this with actual experiments. If they actually make the attempt, they seem to obscure their process to the point that it isnt even possible to replicate it. This is usually done under the guise of everything from "you wouldnt understand" to "I dont want to draw TPTB attention."

Its like in that other thread, where they are messing with plasma and magnetic fields (I believe also posted by Mary Rose here). Pretty interesting setup, and definitely cool stuff. However, thats where the science seems to end. Its like they got excited about how a magnetic field can work to shape ionized gas and just jumped to "THIS IS THE SHAPE OF ALL THINGS!!"

Perhaps as the internet evolves, the requirements for this type of thing will start to become more strict. Maybe, just maybe, we will even start to see the general public implementing the scientific method in experiments of their own. Pipe dream, no doubt, but one can always hope.


Can you imagine the progress that would take place if the general public not only knew how to practice the scientific method, but actually implemented it? It would be a sight to behold, IMO.

edit: I dunno, we should start a crusade! Not to discourage the philosophy aspect of science, but to encourage people to go beyond that into actual science. Test their ideas out, test others ideas out.. I think that there might be a common ground with the scientific method itself, but from what I have seen, some may claim that as "corrupt" as well
edit on 3-2-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I always thought of light is energetic particles interacting with our atmosphere starts it glowing and illuminates the earth. When the glow hits an object it reflects the frequencies it does not absorb. In scientific language I don't know how it's explained. Our perception of light is governed by the frequencies we can see.

If we use a manmade light, it illuminates particles it hits. We can't see the air but can see things in the air. Our eyes and brain filter out certain frequencies so we can't see the other invisable beings out there
edit on 3-2-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


My understanding is that what he has done is come up with this model based on everything he knows about the experiments that have already been done. He is offering what he infers.

When experiments are done, the results have to be interpreted, don't they? I think he's challenging the accepted interpretations and offering his own alternative.

I've never read anything by him about any proposed experiment to try to prove his hypothesis.

I think he simply thinks his thread model makes more sense than wave-particle duality.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
I always thought of light is energetic particles interacting with our atmosphere starts it glowing and illuminates the earth.


Not entirely true. There is all sort of crap the Earth is bombarded with, which comes from the Sun. As to "illumination", it's still mostly the photons coming from the Photosphere of the Sun.


When the glow hits an object it reflects the frequencies it does not absorb.


Erm... For a layperson you just made a very astute and scientific observation. As a matter of fact, there are pretty tough theorems proven in theoretical physics, which in all their sophistication (cool) state approximately same (which is awesome anyway). Consider the Optical Theorem.


In scientific language I don't know how it's explained. Our perception of light is governed by the frequencies we can see.


Pretty much true. Of course, when we use INSTRUMENTS (and I've built a few) we can perceive things way out of normal realm of perception of lay people, including the frequencies of light. The world blossoms in minute detail of what's actually waiting there to be discovered, every flower becomes a Universe on itself, and your hands seem to be reaching 300 ft out because you get it, you know how to make it work and how to admire it.


If we use a manmade light, it illuminates particles it hits.


Dude, any light illuminates particles it hits.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


My understanding is that what he has done is come up with this model based on everything he knows about the experiments that have already been done. He is offering what he infers.

When experiments are done, the results have to be interpreted, don't they? I think he's challenging the accepted interpretations and offering his own alternative.

I've never read anything by him about any proposed experiment to try to prove his hypothesis.

I think he simply thinks his thread model makes more sense than wave-particle duality.


What is normally done at that point, at least in science, is that he would come up with a testing platform to better test his own hypothesis.

You are correct that results are interpreted. Its great that he is offering his own alternative, but there are so many intricacies of testing methods.. that it can be very difficult to interpret the nuances of a setup that he has never even seen or interacted with. Conversely, one can work on a platform for so long that you can start to miss the forest for the trees.

Regardless, it is too bad he is not interested in doing an experiment to prove his hypothesis. That would move him from the realm of pseudo-science into real science. It still wouldnt confirm anything he says, necessarily, but would lend a great deal of legitimacy if he was willing to attempt to prove himself wrong with real science and real experiments.. Ah well, seems to be par for the course.

Mary, would you be willing to do actual science and actual experiments regarding this?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Actually what that guy is saying kind of makes sense. The electrons are spinning around a fixed line and the line keeps light straight unless something interferes with it. He's saying light twines to form a rope like structure, but that is known. A wave is a two dimensional representation of a helix so wave is actually the wrong word since energy usually travels in a spring like pattern. The wobble may be too little for us to measure but nothing actually travels in an exact straight line, everything spirals.

Maybe I'll watch the video.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


How do you fundamentally envision EM radiation? What about all elementary quanta for that matter? Are they all brands of the same "stuff"? if not,, what happened to cause such different fundamental stable quanta to exist? if an electron is fundamental and has no constituents, how can other particles decay and produce electrons? where does those electrons come from?



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Serdgiam
 


If an experiment could be designed to prove the wave, or particle, or wave-packet, why are we still arguing about which one is correct?

I think the experiments should be in designing new energy devices. I certainly don't think anything is being gained by smashing things and naming new particles.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Actually what that guy is saying kind of makes sense. The electrons are spinning around a fixed line and the line keeps light straight unless something interferes with it.


What line? Where? Why do you say they are spinning? Huh?


A wave is a two dimensional representation of a helix


It's not.


Maybe I'll watch the video.


Or maybe read a book. Like some basic text on physics.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose


Here is a screenshot of a Comment and Reply for the video:



I think he's saying we can never prove anything. We can only offer rational explanations for what experiments show and it's up to each individual to accept or reject the explanation.

Also, I know that Gaede has contempt for scientific explanations that do not include a picture of what an invisible object would look like if we could see it - mathematical abstractions do not explain things in his opinion. I think he feels that modern physics has substituted mathematics for physical description.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
this guy is quite awesome... and he does answer questions on his youtube which is cool...a little angrily but understandable...




posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
this guy is quite awesome... and he does answer questions on his youtube which is cool...a little angrily but understandable...


Yes, I incurred his wrath one time with my question.


I wish he didn't call people "beanbrain," but that is his way of dealing with the tyranny of the mainstream. I appreciate original thinking and put up with people's flaws. We all have them.





top topics
 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join