The unambiguous proof of light actually traveling - does it exist?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Quantum Quack, May 10, 2007.

  1. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    ok ...maybe this will help...

    If we take on this duality of d= ? and d=0

    If we consider for a moment that the photon is only a wave and simultaneously consider that the vibration is also a wave.
    The only difference is in the delivery of that wave. [ an abstraction to help with understanding]
    with d=? [photon wave ] the wave must take time to travel from source to reflector. Regarding d=0 [resonance wave] time is not present but the effect is the same.
    [note even calling it a resonance wave implies time and this can be misleading as no time is involved]
    So the refraction of the resonance wave would be exactly as it is for the photon wave. The effect would be exactly as already recorded.

    The only difference is that the reflecting point resonance is occuring upon that reflective point and not traveling to that point

    For example say we have light passing through an aquarium full of clean water.
    No matter were you put and object of mass in that water [ even a grain of sand] the resonance will occur at that position [ of the sand] and give the same effect as if we have photon waves travelling. The delay in the reflector [sand]changing to harmonise is shown as 'c'. rather than 'c' being d/t between source and reflective point.
    The only thing that is taken out of the equation is the distance therefore time, between source and reflective point.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    <img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/ozziemate/images%20general/sundry%20Diagrams/diagram%20moon%20shadow1a.gif>
    Just a simple shadow diagram with circles described to indicate reflective resonance points as a distance from the source.

    The resonance being absorbed by the obstructive object thus casting a shadow.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    and if you can prove that EM is not a wave then you may be able to immediately invalidate the notion.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2007
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    to QQ:

    Another "ball buster" for you to try to explain is how the "Fresnel zone plate" focuses light onto one spot, without the used of something like photons existing. Fortunately for me, Wiki is much better this time. They know all about them and give the equations in terms of the photon wave lengths etc.

    You really have hundreds of well know things, so very hard to consistently explain with one theory of "vibrations" or "resonances" in matter and no "photons" that I WILL GIVE 10,000 to one odds against it being possible to quantative get this Fresnel zone plate, the grading equation equivalent, and a pin hole camera image as accurately as the photon model / facts do, all using the same monochromatic source wavelength as determined by the two slit diffraction pattern geometry.

    You are trying to replace about 2500 years of mankind's intellectual progress on the understanding of light, starting from scratch!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2007
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Can't do that, but Maxwell and Hertz did exactly the opposite. - They proved the EM was waves, existed, exhibited "standing wave" patterns of amplitude variation in EMPTY SPACE (no matter to resonate or vibrate)

    Also extremely difficult for you is how to explain that measurements of the permeability & dielectric constant of empty space (no mass at all to "vibrate" or "resonate") yield with Maxwell's description of EM waves (all wavelengths radio thru X-rays including light wave lengths) can be used to compute C, the speed of EM waves in a vacuum, and something called the Poytim (spelled wrong) vector, which is the rate that energy is flowing thru the empty space in agreement with the experimental measurements of the electric field strengths*.
    --------------------------
    *Not sure that the E field of a photon can be measured yet but with advances in nanotechnology perhaps it already can be, certainly can for radio waves, even up thru microwaves. They and light are just the same thing, but although there is definitely something traveling, there is no quantization in inherent in Maxwell’s equations.
     
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    ha ha.....do you think I am hard up against it....ha....

    ha what an absurd notion to even consider.....hmmmmm

    Yes..... I have a very good idea of just how difficult if not impossible my interest is from the worlds POV.
     
  9. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I can not follow this, but just to expose some nonsense of it. lets take your grain of sand sinking in the aquarium water and let it be illunianted by a very brief well timed flash of light. I assume that it "vibrates" or "resonates" to some way make the scatter light coming to my high speed camera (time of event captured on the fast moving film - i.e. a streak camera) trick me into thinking the ratio of distance from camera to sand grain (d) divided by the "appearant" time of flight (t) is really due to the vibration in the sand "resonating" so that d/t = C.

    WELL THE TRICK IS ON YOU. I had two cameras, the second one on a telescope many kilometers away and there was not even any light on the sand to cause it to to correctly "vibrate" so that D/T = C also.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 27, 2007
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    In all cases though the figures used to compute these results are pemised on distance and time for EM to exist.

    If those very same equations were calculated using zero distance and resonance notion the result would be the same except we would now have a better idea of exactly what matter or object of mass is.

    Keeping in mind that when talking about these sorts of things circular proofs and evidences are prevalent and very misleading at times. I have found as with philosophy that when you get close to the fundamental explainations of reality as Albert E. and others have attempted to do you get caught up in evidences and proofs that self justify and can generate great confusions.
    Unfortunately I am virtually illiterate in physics and math and would love to go to uni and get a good education [ out or sheer interest only]. However this is not possible.

    So with the question of ambiguity regarding light and reflector I see such a circular self justifying rational. Which tells me three things:
    1] That the ration-al [ especially SRT and like] are very close to the fundamental understandings.
    2] That there is possible other explanations for the effects observed.
    3] That possibly we as a collective are gravely mistaken in our interpretation of what observe.

    So to me the obvious solution is to come up with the correct form of self justifying circular reasoning of which the success is not so much in changing povs but in what the future would bring because of that change in pov.

    And just to tease a little the ultimate possibility is from most povs would be dimensional collapse for objects of mass and thus hyperspace travel.


    hmmmmm.......absurd yes? [ tongue in cheek ]
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    sorry to be so frustrating Billy T.

    But I think we are tackling this the wrong way.....I think step one is to consider the following diagram and what the ramifications of such a POV would bring. Simple and uncomplicated but because of conditioning hard to grasp

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The obvious dillemma is: How can there be no distance between objects when there appears to the eye to be so?
     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    We make a good destructive team!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Stealing from Maxwell, I took away all matter and yet in empty space told you (think you trust me as you lack the math to directly see) that measurement on the vacuum of EMPTY SPACE let you know the value of C.
    You stealing from your lack of confusion with all those things they would have beat into in college physics etc, have now done away with distance and time. I suggest we quit, as there is nothing left!:bawl:

    Seriously, I can not spend more time with you, but it has been fun and perhaps some lurkers have also learned, I have, at least to not start describing some complex thought experiment {like my RC spectrograph when something simple like a shadow (or elephant jumping in the birds in truck thread) may do just as well.}

    I will offer some advice: stick to pure philosophy or get a better foundation in the physic if you want to question it before doing so. Don't, however, lose the "are you sure" questoning attitude you have, if you do the later.

    With some concern as to why physicists think what they do, you will understand better.* I have see many students in my day who only learned how to solve problems, without really thinking about what they were doing, you are just the opposite, can;t solve the problems for the quantative answer, but certainly are thinking about what it may mean. I do not know which is worse.

    *you, might like to read some more along the lines of the history of science or there the good old book, called "Foundations of Physics" if I recall correctly. It is strong on the philosophy. It is at least 50 years old, not hard to read.
    See you arround.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,328
    Thanks for your patience Billy T, I have learned much.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page