Why must light move?

originally posted by: Sheesh
a reply to: FlyingFox

Lots of things always move. Like the mouth of my wife. It, like light, has no rest mass and because of that has to move at maximum speed.

Lol, nice one

a reply to: Bedlam

curious how did you get luminiferous aether from the wave forms and function from what Glend posted?

no harmonic resonance? What do you think the filiment in a lightbulb does... it vibrates a resonance too high for the material causing it to shake off electrons in a vaccum sealed container producing light.

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness
a reply to: Bedlam

curious how did you get luminiferous aether from the wave forms and function from what Glend posted?

If you state that light is waves moving through aether, you end up having to deal with very basic continuum theory. And that is that bulk waves are longitudinal. And EM is not. Light is EM. Thus, there is no aether. Other experimental data concur. You really don't need an aether, and EM isn't longitudinal. If it were, it wouldn't be polarizable.

no harmonic resonance?

The very term is nonsense. "Harmonic" means that you have a wave that is an even integer multiple of another. "Resonance" is a more complex topic depending on what sort of resonance you mean - it could be mechanical or electrical.

What do you think the filiment in a lightbulb does... it vibrates a resonance too high for the material causing it to shake off electrons in a vaccum sealed container producing light.

Electron emission does not cause emission of light. And your entire statement is incorrect, top to bottom. The filament in a light bulb becomes hot, and emits photons. This has nothing to do with harmonics, nor resonance, nor vibration, nor electron emission, nor vacuum. Hot objects emit EM. The hotter, the higher the frequency. If hot enough, you get emission in the visible light spectrum. But anything above absolute zero emits EM at SOME frequency range. See also: Stefan-Boltzmann equation, Wien's law.

If a thing does not move it does not exist.
Principles of creation. a reply to: FlyingFox

Everything has to be created. Light on the other hand, is a result something that was created.

It does not spontaneously appear, it needs a source. a mass to produce it.

you cannot paint on nothing, you need a canvas. That's the thing they're playing with, the canvas... not the paint brush.

I dunno, light scares me. it's slower than the speed of dark, which means things can sneak up on you before you see them.

originally posted by: Argentbenign
If a thing does not move it does not exist.
Principles of creation. a reply to: FlyingFox

That's why I'm so lonely. I don't exist.

Snap crackle and pop, I knew there was a valid reason for it !!!!

Light travels at the same speed in all directions,, the problem with light it's reached its (maximum velocity) meaning you cannot travel faster than it allows..(unless you use the mass/universe around it?) dark matter could have unlimited speed and possibly uses the (entire mass of galaxies or the whole universe) as it's propulsion,, maybe dark matter comes in/out of (black hole's or other universe's) formed by dieing stars and has a mass larger than the universe? meaning everything around it is almost static and as new planets form it expands to fit in,, it's possible (no expert) that we only see light cause it has (no or almost no mass) not enough to for dark matter to interfere with it but give it a single velocity traveling through it,, enough to keep it constant but not enough to cause a change?

I'm probably wrong on the dark matter side but it's only a theory,, seems possible to me.

a reply to: Bedlam

To further amplify Bedlam's point, go back to the historical development.

At one point, it was not recognized that light was electromagnetic. There were electromagnetic effects mostly discovered by Faraday, and then there was optics. It was supposed that optical effects must be based on some kind of wave motion on something, which was called the luminerferous ether but was otherwise unknown.

James Clerk Maxwell had the genius insight to add terms to the previously known electromagnetic laws and he found that now propagating waves were possible even without charges and charge motion. And the numbers seemed to indicate that the propagation speed might be the same as that of light itself.

So Maxwell discovered what the luminerferous ether was: it was the combined electric and magnetic field. That is the substrate of nature upon which there are waves which make up the phenomenon of light.

It was further discovered experimentally that it does not have transformation properties like a Newtonian physical fluid or solid medium. It had different kinds of waves than solids, and was not governed by the theory of elasticity (which is about waves in mechanical solids).

It was already relativistically correct and then Einstein had even more genius insight to recognize that Maxwell was 100% right and Newton needed fixing---a radical position for the time.

a reply to: savemebarry

The speed of Dark?
Eh, I probably don't actually want to know.

a reply to: Bedlam

A bit of uneducated conjecture on my part ....

Light waves are not travelling through the aether, but are the aether, like everything else we observe, including matter. So if matter is a deformation of the aether which took energy to deform (E=MC2). Gravity itself is an illusion because the geodesic path within the aether is also deformed. So if you don't consider energy and aether as two separate independent entities then continuum theory shouldn't dismiss the aether but explain some of its properties.

You can measure/affect the E and H fields of light. Its nature isn't super unknown.

a reply to: glend

Why indulge in uneducated conjecture when the facts are widely available and clearly understood?

a reply to: Bedlam

But why?

Why? Why does it do that?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bedlam

But why?

Why? Why does it do that?

Because that's how fast electric and magnetic fields push into the medium it's propagating in, so that's the speed it runs at?

Permeability and permittivity: they ARE the speed limit.

a reply to: Bedlam
But why?

I know I have to drive 55. Why?

Why, oh why, is lightspeed?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bedlam
But why?

I know I have to drive 55. Why?

Why, oh why, is lightspeed?

Because Mu0 and Epsilon0.

a reply to: Bedlam

Alrighty then.

Now, was that so difficult?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Bedlam

Alrighty then.

Now, was that so difficult?

Your next question - why are they anything at all?

a reply to: Bedlam

Firesign. Them fellers had it all in hand. How can you be in two places at once?

a reply to: Astyanax

If I didn't indulge in uneducated conjecture I'd have to do something else like mow the lawn. I hate mowing the lawn.