2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

You should question what you are told. You should ask "if it is a wave
what is the wave propagating IN". The answer you will get is that modern
physics does not attempt to answer those sorts of question. I feel it
should.



YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

You should question what you are told. You should ask "if it is a wave
what is the wave propagating IN". The answer you will get is that modern
physics does not attempt to answer those sorts of question. I feel it
should.



I think that the answer to this question is at hand. In fact, I do.

Probabilistic considerations explain this.


This was only the first of a number of experiments which disproved the
idea that light is a wave. It was eventually discovered that light
consists of particles we call photons and these leave the source and
arrive at their destination unchanged.


Strange that one can prove it a wave, and also a particle.


You might sensibly ask how two observers moving with respect to each
other can both be stationary w.r.t the same aether and I can tell you
that there is no sensible answer.


There is a sensible answer to this.
Probabilistic considerations explain this as well.


This far from sensible assumption
rescues Maxwell's wave in aether theory from the results of the MM
experiment but not from the glaring inconsistency that light is made up
of particles. It has dire consequences. In order to get the right answer
one has to assume that at different speeds a ruler changes its length,
time slows down, and the mass of an object changes. Note that no
physical processes have been identified which could cause a ruler to
change its length etc. These effects are *assumed* to occur in order to
get the answer required having made the absurd assumption embedded in
the second postulate.

What you will be told, and it isn't true, is that Einstein came up with
a theory which doesn't need an aether. Einstein actually argued in
favour of retaining the idea of the aether. An aether which every
observer can be naturally stationary with, is clearly absurd so
physicists got rid of it from their thinking but they did not rethink
how that affected the very basis of relativity. Its removal was not the
result of experiment nor some clever theoretical argument. It was
removed from physics by the totally arbitrary decision taken by
physicists that physics did not need to explain what is going on in
physical terms, that mathematics will suffice. That modern physics does
not attempt to answer those sorts of question.



Agreed. And I dont like it either.



There are now two branches of physics which deal with light and it
depends what question you are asking.

One will tell you that light is an electromagnetic wave because its
properties can be modelled by Maxwell's wave equation. You will be told
that the aether does not exist and nothing has replaced it for light
waves to be physical waves IN. You may be told that it consists of
electromagnetic fields but fields were stresses in the aether and now
there is no aether for them to be stresses in. Because physics no longer
has to explain anything in physical terms it does not have to explain
what a field is made of as long as they can write an equation describing
its properties.

The other branch of physics will tell you that light is made up of
photons but so as not to encroach on the other branch of physics it
claims that photons have no internal structure. Such a structureless
photon cannot explain the wavelike properties of light.

Essentially by retaining a disproved theory Physics has ended up with
two branches which further down the line disagree. Attempts are being
made to unify these two branches by means of highly complicated
mathematics called string theory. According to Stephen Hawking string
theory may succeed in unifying physics if we assume that the universe
has either 10 or 26 dimensions and even then "only if the infinities
cancel" - whatever that means.


I'm not a huge fan of String Theory because it makes no predictions

"NoEinstein" wrote in message
...

Dear Tom: Your trying to ascertain the "understanding" of the basics
by you students is like my trying to walk people like Randy Poe
through my Coriolis invalidation. The "power" that students have over
teachers is that they can keep saying they... "Don't get it."

The problem is not with students who say:
"I don't get it."

The problem is with students who think they know it all,
and are what we called "sharpshooters"
when I taught servicemen at Fort Monmouth.

The "sharpshooters" latch onto some
nominal point, and in their effort to
try to appear cool and intelligent,
they waste the time of the class.

"sharpshooters" be they in class,
in a newsgroup, or in an organization
turn cooperation and order into
conflict and chaos.

It was easy to cure the "sharpshooters"
in the Military schools,
as all we had to do to wise them up
was to pull their liberty passes.

The problem is hard to solve in
other venue, such as newsgroups.
Unfortunately the only options seem to be
to either ignore them
or get down in the gutter with them.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

" =?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=E2=96=B2Relf?=
?= wrote in message
...
Caliballista.ORG ( now defunct )
wasn't â?o operated by a few Jewish bigots â?�.

I don't care about Jews one way or the other; yet
I've won awards each month since January ( and before ).. not you.

World War II was about who controlled what land;
e.g. the Suez Canal and the oil fields.
Jewish bogeymen had nothing to do with it.

The following web site graphically show what
Jews were doing to Germans before Germany
invaded Poland, and gave Churchill his excuse to
declare war on the German people.

http://judicial-inc.biz/Broomberg.htm

The following two speeches by a famous German
give some indication of the concerns of the German people
during the run up to WWII, and as can be seen,
their stand against the Class Wars instigators and terrorists
in Spain and Poland, lead to WWII.

SPEECH OF APRIL 12, 1922
While now in Soviet Russia the millions are ruined and are dying,
Chicherin - and with him a staff of over 200 Soviet Jews - travels by
express train through Europe, visits the cabarets, watches naked dancers
perform for his pleasure, lives in the finest hotels, and does himself
better than the millions whom once you thought you must fight as
'bourgeois.' The 400 Soviet Commissars of Jewish nationality - they do not
suffer; the thousands upon thousands of sub-Commissars -they do not suffer.
No! all the treasures which the 'proletarian' in his madness took from the
'bourgeoise' in order to fight so-called capitalism - they have all gone
into their hands.

SPEECH OF JULY 28, 1922
More and more so to influence the masses that he persuaded those of the
Right that the faults of the Left were the faults of the German workman, and
similarly he made it appear to those of the Left that the faults of the
Right were simply the faults of the so-called 'Bourgeois,' and neither side
noticed that on both sides the faults were the result of a scheme planned by
alien devilish agitators. And only so is it possible to explain how this
dirty joke of world history could come to be that Stock Exchange Jews should
become the leaders of a Workers Movement. It is a gigantic fraud: world
history has seldom seen its like.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"NoEinstein" wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 8:18 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"
?=
wrote in message

...

What makes you believe Art Deco could understand
â?o integer units of action â? ? !

He couldn't understand potty humor if it exeeded one line.
We're like idiot savants with non-overlapping esoteric talents;
so one man's talent can't be seen by the other.

Actually Art Deco understands, and does,
his job very well.

Art works out of the caliballista.org boiler-room,
which is operated by a few Jewish bigots,
and used to intimidate and smear people,
that the bigots target.

Art's job is not to engage in rational, intelligent, moral
discussions to arrive at fundamental truths,

but his job is to smear folks, and obscure threads
on issues that his handlers don't want to have
the public exposed to.

Art does his job in several ways.

1. He ****es out posters,
and gets them off the issue,
and into a ****ing war.

2. He tries to link his victims
with negative images, negative ideas,
and negative people.

3. He appends alt.usenet.kook
to threads he wants to disrupt
in order to instigate a flame war between
the poster, the caliballista, boiler-rook bigots,
and the young boys and sociopaths
who hang out in alt.usenet.kook.

Art does a pretty good job
directing the activities of a few race/religion motivated bigots,
and in exploiting inferiority complexes in a few
sociopaths and young boys,
who tend to boost their egos by demeaning folks.
( Note that Art also exploits the inferiority complexes
of young boys and sociopaths in the serious newsgroups,
and gets some of them to append alt.usenet.kook to posts.

The Republican Party,
and now the Clinton gang
use the same tactics
used by the calaballista.org race motivated bigots,
and the tactic must work,
as they spend millions of dollars
trying to divert the attention of people
from facts and details.

I dare say that if Obama becomes president,
the masses will begin to turn aggressively on the
bigots, media, and politicians who use
smear as a weapon to promote their agenda,
which could not be promote successfully
using logic, intelligence and facts.

Hopefully, when the public gets sick of the
smear tactics, laws will be passed that make
it easy for folks smeared by Institutionalized Bigotry
to collect damages from the individuals and
organization that effected the smears.

The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his
own."

To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
visit the web site below.

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...m/PotterPhotos

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

-- Dear Tom: If Obama becomes President, the USA is probably doomed...

Considering that - NoEinstein -
is making Einstein look good,

and considering that he is opposed to Obama,
the only candidate for president
that is not totally controlled by the Jewish lobby,

one has to wonder if - NoEinstein -
is a shill,

working for the Einstein Cult,
and the War-for-Profit Gang.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"none" ""doug\"@(none)" wrote in message
news:kNWdnYbYrPYrhJDVnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@docknet...
NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 21, 7:47 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message

...





Tom Potter wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
Tom Potter wrote:
"NoEinstein" wrote in message
...
On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light
1. Light is a Wave
I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a
wave.
2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.
Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`
Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.
Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u
So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.
Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave
Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.
After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
whats
the correct description of light.
Bye
Sanny
the botched-up 1887 M-M experiment seemed to rule out
ether... Einstein got around 'that' dilemma by supposing that
light
could be either a wave or photons. But as with nearly everything
Einstein supposed, he was wrong. (Brownian Motion is the lone
exception
-and that was actually a no-brainer.)
I am surprised to see that "NoEinstein"
like most people,
has been conditioned by the mass media,
and the Einstein Cult
to give Einstein credit/debit for the work of other folks.
The credit/debit for wave-particle duality
belongs to de Broglie, not to Einstein.
wave length = unit of action / momentum
Although the Einstein Cult tries to
credit Einstein for de Broglie's theory,
and claim that he promoted de Broglie and the idea,
the fact of the matter is that Einstein did not
comprehend nor appreciate the enormous impact
that de Broglie's work would have on physics,
as Bohr and his associates, most physicists,
and the Nobel Prize committee did.
Note that de Broglie's theory was presented
in his 1924 doctoral thesis,
and he received the Nobel Prize in Physics
for it in 1929, the shortest time in history.
In other words,
Bohr, most of the leading physicists,
and the Nobel Prize Committee,
**immediately** recognized the importance of
de Broglie's theory, while Einstein and a few cultists
persisted in fighting it, and the Quantum Mechanics"
that it inspired, for many years.
( Google EPR experiment)
It is also interesting to see that the Einstein Cult
worked hard "Revising" history and physics,
and conditioning the masses to think
that the wave-particle duality theory of matter
was based on Einstein's corruption of
Planck's quantum of action work of 1901,
for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1918.
Note that although Einstein corrupted Planck's quantum of action,
and has sent physics into a one hundred year cul de sac,
the Einstein Cult has managed to con most people
into thinking that energy, rather than action is quanta.
It does not take a system engineer to comprehend
that measured energy is affect by relative velocity,
whereas quanta of action is NOT.
As can be seen Planck clearly pointed out
in his Nobel Prize lecture that ACTION was quanta.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...18/planck-lect...
"When I look back to the time, already twenty years ago,
when the concept and magnitude of the physical quantum of action
began,
for the first time, to unfold from the mass of experimental facts.."
"The explanation of the second universal constant of the radiation
law
was
not so easy.
Because it represents the product of energy and time
(according to the first calculation it was 6.55 x 10-27 erg sec),
I described it as the elementary quantum of action."
( I might point out that the real unit of quanta is actually
neither energy, nor action, but is the "First Radiation Constant",
Action (The "Second Radiation Constant"),
does not take the Hubble Effect into account.)
To answer Sanny question:
"What is light?"
The universe is a sea of standing waves,
and matter are antinodes in that sea.
A so-called photon is simply
an electron event that involves
one quantum of action.
A cause event is a rotary (Spin) event
that occurs at some anti-node
in the sea of standing waves,
and propagated much like
gear motion is propagated
until it finds a standing wave
that has an impedance of 377 ohms,
at which point it becomes an effect and terminates.
To make my point,
consider that the maximum amount of action (Hence Power/energy)
is transferred when the source (Cause) impedance
equals the load (Effect) impedance.
At the one quantum unit level,
the maximum amount of action
equals the minimum amount of action,
ONE unit of Planck's Constant.
Thus to transfer ONE unit of action
from a cause anti-node
to an effect anti-node,
there must be a 377 ohm path between them.
Otherwise you get a reflection,
and no cause and no effect occurs.
"Light" is the statistical expression
for sets of quanta of action that
can be detected by human eyes.
Crackpotter! How you doin'? BTW, this mess makes no sense at all.
I am pleased to see that Art Deco,
an active member of the race/religion motivated bigots
that operate out of the caballista.org boiler-room,
continues to be a faithful reader of my posts.
Hopefully, in time, they will have a positive affect on him,
and he will not only become educated in physics,
but he will become a rational, MATURE, MORAL human being.
and cease turning the newsgroups into "Rivers of ****".
But to address Art's inability to comprehend my post,
if he will ask an intelligent question,
I will be more than pleased to educate him
about photons and light.
As a starting point Arty,
"action" is fundamental quanta,
and changes are conveyed between
causes and effects in integer units of action.
Now, do you understand that point Arty?
If so, we'll move on to the next point.
Please proceed, Crackpotter. I can use another good laugh.
When I taught at the
military service school, high school, college,
and seminar levels,
I learned that I should not move on to
more sophisticated ideas,
until I verified that my student
understood the point in question.

Thus I repeat,

"As a starting point Arty,
"action" is fundamental quanta,
and changes are conveyed between
causes and effects in integer units of action.

Now, do you understand that point Arty?
If so, we'll move on to the next point."

Before I move on Arty,
let me know if you comprehend the
single point in question,

and verify your understanding by
making a short comment that demonstrates
that you do in fact comprehend it.

I must point out,
that short, smart ass, adolescent, low brow comments
demonstrate stupidity, not comprehension.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...m/PotterPhotos

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: Your trying to ascertain the "understanding" of the basics
by you students is like my trying to walk people like Randy Poe
through my Coriolis invalidation. The "power" that students have over
teachers is that they can keep saying they... "Don't get it." There
is an issue of pride that keeps getting in the way of anyone on the
groups acknowledging that Einstein has now been dethroned.
Though you agree to the wastefulness of Einstein's ideas, you
have yet to say: "NoEinstein, it looks like you've done it!" Racial
and social issues are the causes of many problems. But science would
benefit by having those who agree simply say so. - NoEinstein -

So you agree with Potter and Androcles. Try to see if you can
get Hammond and Ken Seto on board too.

It is interesting to see that "none"
"seems to perceive that
Androcles, NoEinstein,
and possibly, Hammond and Ken Seto
"agree" on some point.

Now I don't know what points "none"
fantasizes that we agree on,

but here are some of the positions I have on
issues that bend clowns like "none"
all out of shape.

1. I suggest that rational, intelligent folks
should look at the value of things,
including theories and models.

Along these lines,
it is helpful to compare some popular
physic models.
After Newton's model,
there were immediate and rapid advances
in mechanics, astronomy, etc.

After Maxwell's model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in chemistry, electricity, etc.

After Watson's and Crick's DNA model
there were immediate and rapid advances
in medicine, genetics, animal husbandry,
the history of the Earth and Mankind, etc.

Here we are, 100 years after General Relativity
and it continues to generate more hype and heat
than light and advances.

General Relativity is a Tower of Babel
that wastes time, money and minds on such
pursuits as time travel, worm holes, gravity waves,
rubber rulers and clocks, etc.

One would think that if the GTR Charlatans
possessed such powerful knowledge,
that they would enter the free market
like the guys from Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Intel,
Texas Instruments, Apple, etc. and make billions of dollars,
rather than sucking up billions of dollars.

2. I have pointed out that Jews
have come into conflict with all
of the neighbors throughout history,

and that they have a long history of
instigating conflicts and wars,
for power and riches.

For example, Jews instigated
and profited from the Class Wars of the 1900's,
and Jews are instigating and profiting from the
Religious Wars of the 2000's.

Considering that these are the major issues
that I post on, that might stir the ire of a bigot,
I will be looking forward to seeing "none"
demonstrate what positions on these issues that
I have in common with the posters he mentioned.

Perhaps "none" was trying to make the point
that the posters he mentioned
are not members of the Einstein Cult,

but obviously he is deluded on this point,
because Hammond, like Jeff Relf,
is a member of the Cult.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

I asked why you were wasting your time on me,
nowhere did I say you spent â–²allâ–² your time on me.

From just your 33 most recent posts to Sci.Physics,
I'd say these are the people you've been reading, in order:
“ 1 Tom_Potter .785 schoenfeld_one .703 BradGuth

.607 NoEinstein .558 Jan_Panteltje .556 Jeffâ–²Relf
.444 Sam_Wormley .424 Sue .402 Pmb
.384 Y_Porat .345 Timo_Nieminen .325 Koobee_Wublee

.321 Surfer .312 Ivan_P .282 john
.273 MitchNobel .273 Thomas_Heger .273 Edward_Green �.

"NoEinstein" wrote in message
...
On Apr 21, 7:55 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:
--http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...
On Apr 19, 4:51 am, "Paul Mays" wrote:





"Paul Mays" wrote in message

.. .

"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message


...

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a
wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic
Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to
know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because
Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps
as
somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still
doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each
and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of
gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting
with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available
gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
. - Brad Guth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the
quantum
string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we
got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth

Well my interpretation Explains why there no need for gravitons to
denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
will always be independent of source or target, and seemingly a
constant..

Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a
Intrinsically
Biased
observer.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"- Hide
quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: You're right on all but one point: "The velocity of
emitted (or reflected) light ALWAYS increases or decreases depending
on the velocity and direction of the source or reflecting surface." —
NoEinstein —

No .. A car is going 50mph at a brick wall... if the wall is moving at the
car
at 50 mpg yes the impact comes sooner and with more force but the car
is still doing 50mph..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Paul: Closing velocity is confusing you.

No its not.. Never said a thang bout closing v


Think of a baseball
pitcher on the bow of a boat. If the boat is going 10 mph, and he
throws a 90 mph fast ball (relative to the boat) in the direction the
boat is headed, the baseball will be increased in speed to 100 mph.
But if the same pitcher throws the ball 90 mph from the stern, the
ball will only be traveling 80 mph relative to the shore. Light does
EXACTLY the same thing! — NoEinstein —

Light does not work the same way.. Been validated many,many times.
not even a questional point... Physics is ruled by the Relitive. Nothing
has
any velocity without relitive measure to some other moving thing. When
I spoke of the car the 50mph was Relitive to Ground State. I could say
the car was the referance and the wall and ground was moving under it at
50mph.. But if the wall was moving at 50mph relitive to ground and the car
at 50mph relitive to ground at each other closing is 100.

Light on the other hand is independent of source or target. As its referance
is the UGC (Universal Gravitational Constant) not matter


--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

On Apr 18, 7:19*pm, Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Light is the possiblity of sight.
You have to realise that physics is nothing more than a model.
The wave model works for some experiements and the particle model
works for other experiements. The real trouble is that there are no
waves or particles as such - these are just convenient ways to
express the qualityies of light. Light evinces particular and wavey
properties. There is nothing wrong with light it's just that the model
does not fit very well.
Let's take the most simple mathematical model: the number 1. There is
no occurrence of the number one in the universe, it is a convenience
by which we distinguish 1 or more objects that approximate one
another. thus we have 1 or 2 oranges. 1 orange is a poor model for
another orange as no two oranges are the same. but the number system
works according to the context: such that a grocer selling one for 50c
does not give a flying **** that orange number 2 exists in a
difference temporl/spacial position and the number of its orange
molecules are not the same as the other - for practical purposes it is
the same as the other orange and is also 50c.
Same with light experiements - just different grocers.

NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 21, 12:03Â*pm, John Kennaugh
wrote:
Sanny wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

It has wavelike properties



I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

In physics you cannot *prove* a theory. A theory stands until it is
disproved. The wavelike properties that were demonstrated to you are the
sort of thing which led to the wave theory of light.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

You should question what you are told. You should ask "if it is a wave
what is the wave propagating IN". The answer you will get is that modern
physics does not attempt to answer those sorts of question. I feel it
should.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

You should ask what, physically is meant by a 'field'. The answer you
will get is that modern physics does not attempt to answer those sorts
of question.



Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Oersted, Ampere and Faraday between them showed that magnetic and
electric phenomena were not separate phenomena but both are caused by
charge.



Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

Yes. Historically light was believed to be an electromagnetic wave
propagated in the all pervading propagation medium they called the
aether (Maxwells wave in aether theory). A field was a stress in that
aether caused by a charge. The interaction between stress patterns
explained how one charge could attract or repel another charge. The
stress could propagate through the aether at the speed of light = light
waves. Two consequences of this are firstly that the speed of light is
constant with respect to the aether so cannot be affected by the motion
of the source. Secondly as the speed of light is constant w.r.t the
aether anyone moving w.r.t the aether will measure a different speed to
someone stationary w.r.t the aether. Basically if light is a wave in the
aether and the earth is belting around the sun at tens of thousands of
miles per hour the earth must be moving w.r.t the aether and this
movement should show itself as a difference in the speed of light. A
famous experiment called the Michelson Morely experiment was done to
demonstrate this and failed to do so. No movement was detected.

This was only the first of a number of experiments which disproved the
idea that light is a wave. It was eventually discovered that light
consists of particles we call photons and these leave the source and
arrive at their destination unchanged.



So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Rather a lot of particles moving at light speed



Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

Absolutely agree. The problem was that followers of Maxwell refused to
accept his theory was wrong despite the overwhelming evidence. What
Einstein did was to totally ignore the fact that he had got a Nobel
prize for showing that light is made of particles and went back to
Maxwell's wave theory. What his relativity theory is based upon
(although physicists vehemently deny it) is that Maxwell's theory is
correct and that therefore what the Michelson Morely experiment showed
was that *every* observer is stationary w.r.t the aether which is why
the experiment failed to show any movement w.r.t the aether. This is
what his second postulate describes.

You might sensibly ask how two observers moving with respect to each
other can both be stationary w.r.t the same aether and I can tell you
that there is no sensible answer. This far from sensible assumption
rescues Maxwell's wave in aether theory from the results of the MM
experiment but not from the glaring inconsistency that light is made up
of particles. It has dire consequences. In order to get the right answer
one has to assume that at different speeds a ruler changes its length,
time slows down, and the mass of an object changes. Note that no
physical processes have been identified which could cause a ruler to
change its length etc. These effects are *assumed* to occur in order to
get the answer required having made the absurd assumption embedded in
the second postulate.

What you will be told, and it isn't true, is that Einstein came up with
a theory which doesn't need an aether. Einstein actually argued in
favour of retaining the idea of the aether. An aether which every
observer can be naturally stationary with, is clearly absurd so
physicists got rid of it from their thinking but they did not rethink
how that affected the very basis of relativity. Its removal was not the
result of experiment nor some clever theoretical argument. It was
removed from physics by the totally arbitrary decision taken by
physicists that physics did not need to explain what is going on in
physical terms, that mathematics will suffice. That modern physics does
not attempt to answer those sorts of question.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
the correct description of light.

There are now two branches of physics which deal with light and it
depends what question you are asking.

One will tell you that light is an electromagnetic wave because its
properties can be modelled by Maxwell's wave equation. You will be told
that the aether does not exist and nothing has replaced it for light
waves to be physical waves IN. You may be told that it consists of
electromagnetic fields but fields were stresses in the aether and now
there is no aether for them to be stresses in. Because physics no longer
has to explain anything in physical terms it does not have to explain
what a field is made of as long as they can write an equation describing
its properties.

The other branch of physics will tell you that light is made up of
photons but so as not to encroach on the other branch of physics it
claims that photons have no internal structure. Such a structureless
photon cannot explain the wavelike properties of light.

Essentially by retaining a disproved theory Physics has ended up with
two branches which further down the line disagree. Attempts are being
made to unify these two branches by means of highly complicated
mathematics called string theory. According to Stephen Hawking string
theory may succeed in unifying physics if we assume that the universe
has either 10 or 26 dimensions and even then "only if the infinities
cancel" - whatever that means.

Basically Physics is one hell of a lot more absurd than you thought and
I hope that in your lifetime sanity will be restored.

To me it seems that light is made up of photons which must have an
internal structure such that on mass they give rise to the very
convincing wavelike properties you are familiar with. While Maxwell's
equations cannot be considered as an accurate description of a physical
phenomena the fact that they give very accurate predictions cannot be
dismissed. Essentially they are based on a series of relationships
worked out by Faraday all of which relate to charge. It seems to me
therefore that there has to be a link between charge and light and
therefore between charge and photons. Waldron has suggested that photons
rotate and consist of equal numbers of +ve and -ve charged particles. It
is this rotation which gives rise to the phenomena of frequency and the
other wavelike properties.



Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

--
John Kennaugh

Dear John: Apparently you missed seeing my reply, earlier, regarding
the nature of light. I copy it below.

Dear David: Long time no hear! White light is closely spaced trains
of photons of all of the visible wavelengths. Light on the “blue� end
of the visible spectrum is more energetic, because the photons are
arriving on a closer spacing,

No. one photon of blue light has more energy than one photon of red
light. Spacing depends on intensity not on colour.

and thus at a quicker time interval.
That is like an 30 cal. machine gun being more energetic than a 30
cal. repeating rifle.

Wrong. What you describe is intensity not colour. A better analogy is
that heavier bullets have more energy than lighter ones travelling at
the same speed.

It turns out that glass prisms, and lenses, too, pass photons
with less angular deviation when the photons are arriving at quicker
intervals. So, blue light deviates less than red light in passing
through prisms or lenses. The reason for this is that light inside
the glass follows the moving ether envelope that’s around each atom.

Photons don't require ether.

And those envelopes get nudged faster or slower depending on which
side of the atom the photon “hit�.
Blue light tends to establish a more consistent course through
the glass, because the ether inside has less time to return to its
normal spin between “hits�. Red light photons arrive more slowly, so
the ether envelopes are more prepared to do their own nudging on the
photons. And those photons deviate the most.
An amazing thing happens at the glass-to-air junctu The ether
fields around the atoms on the face of the glass partially bond with
the photons to ‘slingshot’ those at angles inversely proportional to
the arrival frequency. So the light OUT of a 60 degree prism is
broken into “colored� bands, or spectra, and isn’t the same as the
white light that entered. Conceivably, another prism of the proper
shape and placement could recombine the spectra to produce slightly
red shifted “white� light.
For 45 degree prisms, the angle of approach of the photons to the
glass-to-air juncture of the hypotenuse is shallow enough that the
rotating ether fields can slingshot all of the light 90 degrees. Each
of the photons arch around the atoms on the face of the glass, then re
enter the glass to exit perpendicular to the prism face.
My recent focus (no pun intended) on the nature of light results
from my extensive thought necessary to understand, and to invalidate
the 1887 Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment as a light
velocity detector. And, of course, such disproves Einstein, and
reinstates ether as the energy “stuff� from which the Universe is
constructed.
I’ve disproved that light is in the form of waves. Photons will
travel perfectly well in those portions of the Universe—between the
galaxies—where the ether density is slight. Because of the gaps in
the ether, gravity isn’t a force to be reckoned with across the
Universe, and so will never cause a Big Crunch. And since I have also
proved that there are no… “super massive� black holes, there never
could have been a gravity force that would “crunch� all of the matter
in the Universe to the size of a sub-atomic particle. And so there
was no Big Bang.
Please read my recent posts:

You might go on to prove that black is white and get yourself killed on
the next zebra crossing. ref HHGttG.

--
John Kennaugh