Curving light waves

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


I'm gonna boo you for just being...meh. Boooooooooo
Why even bother? If you were here I would give
you a shake(for some sense) and that big head would fall
easy prey to my headlock




posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   
"I'll ride the wave, where it takes me"

- Pearl Jam



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


I'm gonna boo you for just being...meh. Boooooooooo
Why even bother? If you were here I would give
you a shake(for some sense) and that big head would fall
easy prey to my headlock


This is the internet. And all you got to bring for an insult is; you'll give me a shake and a headlock.

edit on 28-9-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Your post sounded pretty intelligent until you provided Walter Russell as a source. Look, the guy is so bloody stupid . . .



Originally posted by primalfractal
As to Walter Russeli I thought the Mark McCutcheon comment interesting . . .


Good! McCutcheon’s book The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy (Second Edition) is available on Kindle.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Thank you Mary Rose, I've ordered it along with the vortex book you recommended and The Secret of the Golden Flower: A Chinese Book of LIfe! Now I owe you



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Thank you Mary Rose, I've ordered it . . .


Cool! So have I. You can help me understand it later.



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Your post sounded pretty intelligent until you provided Walter Russell as a source. Look, the guy is so bloody stupid . . .


Originally posted by primalfractal
As to Walter Russeli I thought the Mark McCutcheon comment interesting . . .

Good! McCutcheon’s book The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy (Second Edition) is available on Kindle.
My comments about not understanding orbital mechanics apply to Mark McCutcheon as well as to Walter Russell. McCutcheon can't explain why the moon orbits the Earth. Wouldn't you say that's a pretty big hole in his idea?

www.amazon.com...

49 of 54 people found the following review helpful ...
He says you don't need gravity and that this solves everything. Yet he doesn't explain why the moon would ever want to revolve around the earth. Only that you don't need gravity. This would be fine if everything just sat there in space and didn't revolve, but to revolve you'd need something to make it want to stay.



Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by primalfractal
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Thank you Mary Rose, I've ordered it . . .
Cool! So have I. You can help me understand it later.
Help me understand it too. I'd love to understand how the moon orbits the Earth with no gravity.

A physicist who lived in a high-rise apartment building invited anybody who doubted the existence of gravity to discuss the subject with him about 20 stories up outside the balcony of his apartment. As far as I know, he had no takers, including Mark McCutcheon. But if he did have any takers, they probably would have made a mess when they hit the sidewalk!
edit on 28-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
He has an interesting point with the quote I put in but I have to read it before comment. His "theory of everthing" must be at least partly wrong or he would be as famous as Einstien. His stuff would make more sense to modern science.

This is an obvious flaw in most so called pseudo-science. It has to be explainable and understandable to mainstream scientists to be accepted into the belief system.

That being said is all "pseudo- science" wrong. No, we cant throw the baby out with the bathwater. You know I bet someone claimed the Earth was square before we discovered it was round.

I'll keep an open mind.
edit on 29-9-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
That being said is all "pseudo- science" wrong. No, we cant throw the baby out with the bathwater. You know I bet someone claimed the Earth was square before we discovered it was round.
I think there have always been critical thinkers and non-critical thinkers, at all times in history, and I expect this to continue into the future.

I've tried to imagine what it would be like to grow up in ancient times before science confirmed the shape of the Earth. I'd like to think that when I look up in the sky and see the shape of the moon, that would give me at least something to think about regarding the shape of the Earth, and I don't think it's unreasonable to think some ancient people had that thought. Heck, thousands of years ago, some guy stuck 2 sticks in the ground and even measured the size of the spherical earth...it's not that hard. But I'm sure many of his contemporaries had other ideas about the shape of the Earth, but I wouldn't call them critical thinkers, because they weren't using evidence, like the shadows cast by 2 sticks stuck in the ground.

And really, the only way to tell science from pseudoscience is from evidence. Does the claimant have 2 sticks stuck in the ground casting shadows (or equivalent support of the claim), or doesn't he?

Can McCutcheon discuss the non-existence of gravity 20 stories above the sidewalk, or can't he? In some cases, the questions are not that hard to answer.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   


It would make an interesting scientific experiment to see where this influence of moving the barrel ends with the photon. In the example you gave where the wave packet is half inside and half outside the laser, I expect that moving the laser can still change the angle. And because of the quantum uncertainty of the photon's position, this might happen even if the wave packet is 60% outside the laser. I would expect an experiment to show that the effect of moving the laser diminishes in accordance with the quantum wave function probability plot in my previous post, as calculated for the photon in this experiment. Maybe this has been tested but if so I'm not familiar with the experiment, and if not, maybe you could be the first to do the experiment? It would be interesting.





i think i found the answer to the proposed experiment suggested by arbitrageur. by using a smaller probe (shorter time interval) for measurement, you will introduce virtual particle interactions.

i think this could be legitimately described as "curving" the vector potential. but the REAL particles will only be manifest at their known energy quanta.


We have a legitamate curving light wave theory and a potential experiment.

I am working on being able to do the experiment, if anyone from this thread (especially Arbitregeur, tgidkp, Astanyx, thelonewolf, truthinfact) or elsewhere want to help please contact me by PM.

You do realize my next thread will be "New theory of Physics discovered on ATS" lol.
edit on 29-9-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

He says you don't need gravity and that this solves everything. Yet he doesn't explain why the moon would ever want to revolve around the earth. Only that you don't need gravity.


I haven't started reading the book yet, but looking at the Table of Contents, I see this section listed:


McCutcheon, Mark (2011-07-13). The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy (Second Edition) (Kindle Location 4287 of 11572). Universal-Publishers. Kindle Edition.

New Revelations about the Moon and Gravity  

No discussion of orbits would be complete without addressing the most familiar example of an orbit, known to man for millennia – that of our own Moon. The Moon has accompanied and fascinated us throughout the ages, spawning many myths and theories about its nature, behavior, and effect on us. Its far weaker gravity – one-sixth that of the Earth – has been experienced by humans who have actually walked on its surface. It always shows us the same face as it rotates on its axis at precisely the proper speed to match with its monthly orbit about the Earth. And it is presumably the cause of our ocean tides, causing the oceans to rise then fall again as it passes by overhead.

These are all aspects of our lunar companion that mankind has long wondered about, and which we now believe we have answered. But have we really? The discussions in this and preceding chapters have shown that, on closer examination, Newton’s proposed gravitational force has many flaws, and is unlikely to exist at all. Yet, all of the lunar qualities just mentioned have explanations based on this force today. If the reality is that we live in a universe ruled by expanding matter instead, how might this realization change our understanding of these lunar observations and experiences? . . .



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   


And really, the only way to tell science from pseudoscience is from evidence. Does the claimant have 2 sticks stuck in the ground casting shadows (or equivalent support of the claim), or doesn't he?


Good advice. I agree. Easy to see with stick, can be more confusing
with other things. The principle holds true though.
edit on 29-9-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   


Its far weaker gravity – one-sixth that of the Earth – has been experienced by humans who have actually walked on its surface.


Thanks. I ordered the hard copy and have to wait.

This shows he believes in the effects of gravity, just not the cause.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
I am working on being able to do the experiment, if anyone from this thread (especially Arbitregeur, tgidkp, Astanyx, thelonewolf, truthinfact) or elsewhere want to help please contact me by PM.
I gave some thought to how to set it up but it would require precise timing equipment and then I'd have to worry about whether there was a loose connector like on the FTL neutrino OPERA experiment. There are a lot more ways to get it wrong then there are to get it right. Somebody with the right equipment could do it but I don't have that equipment.

And to reinforce what I said earlier, just because I'm not aware of the experiment, doesn't mean that someone else hasn't already done the experiment. I haven't researched that beyond a very quick search, so if you're serious about this, that's the place to start...see if someone else has done it already. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but if the results were consistent with expectations it may not have garnered much attention.


Originally posted by Mary Rose
I haven't started reading the book yet, but looking at the Table of Contents, I see this section listed:
Be sure to update us when you get to the explanation of how the moon orbits Earth with no gravity.
edit on 29-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   


In fact, it is very easy to debunk even our simplest beliefs about
light today. For example, it is currently believed light-waves
somehow "cancel" in "destructive interference" when they meet
out of phase so that the peaks of one wave coincide with the
valleys of another. Yet, a simple experiment crossing 2 light-
beams from common laser pointers shows that it is impossible
for light to vanish into thin air simply because 2 beams are mis-
aligned (out of phase). In fact, it is a violation of the Law Of
Conservation Of Energy to even expect this to occur. Light is
not a mysterious quantum-mechanical wave-particle (duality) entity, but
something very different and much simpler to understand". (Mark McCutcheon)


How about this?
edit on 29-9-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I'll check properly. I might be able to get access to what you mentioned



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
This shows he believes in the effects of gravity, just not the cause.


The cause is something about which Newton freely admitted he had no clue, correct?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Isaac Newton


It is known from his notebooks that Newton was grappling in the late 1660s with the idea that terrestrial gravity extends, in an inverse-square proportion, to the Moon; however it took him two decades to develop the full-fledged theory. The question was not whether gravity existed, but whether it extended so far from Earth that it could also be the force holding the Moon to its orbit. Newton showed that if the force decreased as the inverse square of the distance, one could indeed calculate the Moon's orbital period, and get good agreement. He guessed the same force was responsible for other orbital motions, and hence named it "universal gravitation".
Newton had the idea that gravity might cause the moon's orbit. It took him 20 years to develop his theory enough so he could prove it, so he did claim that gravity was the cause of the moon's orbit.

He never claimed to know what causes gravity.

We could observe that huge mountain ranges existed, long before we knew what caused them. Just because the cause of something is unknown, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We probably have as much or more observational evidence of gravity as we do of mountain ranges. But the guy you quoted in the other thread thinks the mountain ranges don't exist either. After climbing up a mountain, I'm pretty sure it exists.



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal



In fact, it is very easy to debunk even our simplest beliefs about
light today. For example, it is currently believed light-waves
somehow "cancel" in "destructive interference" when they meet
out of phase so that the peaks of one wave coincide with the
valleys of another. Yet, a simple experiment crossing 2 light-
beams from common laser pointers shows that it is impossible
for light to vanish into thin air simply because 2 beams are mis-
aligned (out of phase). In fact, it is a violation of the Law Of
Conservation Of Energy to even expect this to occur. Light is
not a mysterious quantum-mechanical wave-particle (duality) entity, but
something very different and much simpler to understand". (Mark McCutcheon)


How about this?
Have you tried to figure out why this is so? I'd be interested to know what you came up with so far before giving you the answer. But I'll give you some hints:

Interference fringes between two separate lasers

In a modern, generalized version of Young’s two‐slit experiment, it is shown that two separate pulsed lasers can generate visually observable, transient interference fringes of high contrast under the simple and obvious condition that the temporal and spectral structures of the interfering pulses overlap.
Apparently what is simple and obvious to the authors of that paper is not simple and obvious to McCutcheon, does that help?



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
If my theory proves right and the vector potential in the experiment curves as tgidkp and I believe,
then it could be big. A new law of physics - "curving light waves".
edit on 29-9-2012 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join