Light is the unified form of the universe
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 25 May 2010 16:12 On May 25, 3:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 8:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 24, 8:44 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Light is the communicating force of the universe. The truth is that it > > > is also a completely unified form of the universe. Everything about it > > > is unified. Even the space it oscillates in is unified with it. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Mæther is the unified form of the universe. > > Stop copying me. I am explaining to you that it is not 'light' itself which is the unified form of the universe. It is the material which aether and matter exist of which is the unified form of the universe. Mæther is the unified form of the universe. Mæther has mass. It exists in two states, aether and matter. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. Aether and matter have mass. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. Mæther decompressing creates energy. Mass is conserved.
From: spudnik on 25 May 2010 17:30 there are plenty of questions, probably most of which've been answered in the literature. like, given the redshifting of light through the medium of space (sik), are those shifts continuous with distance, or just very subtle? the whole idea of a rock o'light, aimed at your eye from a star, doesn't seem absurd if those rocks are aimed everywhere; still, the particle is not needed, if one accepts that a (spherical) wave can be a quantum. certainly, it would get rid of the conundrum of a massless/momentumless & volumeless "point of light" a la Dubya. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html > Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there > is stray light coming in from another source. This is why you can't > see stars during the daytime, even though they are there just as they > are at night. This is also why your eyes have to get adapted to the > dark before you can see anything. thusNso: you have slightly misconstrued. the wave-energy seems to be adequately tuned to the electromagnetic property of the atom, and *that* is the "particle" into which it "collapses," not the quantum-called-photon. the photon is nothing but a coinage for a unit of light-energy, as-and-when "detected" by a device or cone of the eye (the rods & cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-) nothing in Planck's analysis requires a rock o'light, and probably not really in Einstein's; so, there. > > > > > > > Decide a photon propagates as a wave and is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > That is what you are suggesting in all of your quotes above, especially: > > > > > > > "Light collapsing into ... particle". --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other! http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 25 May 2010 17:34 On May 25, 2:30 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > there are plenty of questions, probably most of which've > been answered in the literature. like, given the redshifting > of light through the medium of space (sik), are those shifts > continuous with distance, or just very subtle? > > the whole idea of a rock o'light, aimed at your eye from a star, > doesn't seem absurd if those rocks are aimed everywhere; still, > the particle is not needed, if one accepts that a (spherical) wave > can be a quantum. certainly, it would get rid of the conundrum > of a massless/momentumless & volumeless "point of light" > a la Dubya. > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html > > > Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there > > is stray light coming in from another source. This is why you can't > > see stars during the daytime, even though they are there just as they > > are at night. This is also why your eyes have to get adapted to the > > dark before you can see anything. > > thusNso: > you have slightly misconstrued. the wave-energy seems > to be adequately tuned to the electromagnetic property > of the atom, and *that* is the "particle" > into which it "collapses," not the quantum-called-photon. > > the photon is nothing but a coinage for a unit of light-energy, > as-and-when "detected" by a device or cone of the eye > (the rods & cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-) > > nothing in Planck's analysis requires a rock o'light, and > probably not really in Einstein's; so, there. > > > > > > > > > Decide a photon propagates as a wave and is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > > That is what you are suggesting in all of your quotes above, especially: > > > > > > > > "Light collapsing into ... particle". > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other!http://wlym.com Albert Einstein said in the 1930's that he could not reconcile what he won the nobel prize for. He could not reconcile a light wave with a particle. Light is not a particle. Mitch Raemsch
From: Don Stockbauer on 25 May 2010 21:31 On May 25, 4:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 2:30 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > there are plenty of questions, probably most of which've > > been answered in the literature. like, given the redshifting > > of light through the medium of space (sik), are those shifts > > continuous with distance, or just very subtle? > > > the whole idea of a rock o'light, aimed at your eye from a star, > > doesn't seem absurd if those rocks are aimed everywhere; still, > > the particle is not needed, if one accepts that a (spherical) wave > > can be a quantum. certainly, it would get rid of the conundrum > > of a massless/momentumless & volumeless "point of light" > > a la Dubya. > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html > > > > Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there > > > is stray light coming in from another source. This is why you can't > > > see stars during the daytime, even though they are there just as they > > > are at night. This is also why your eyes have to get adapted to the > > > dark before you can see anything. > > > thusNso: > > you have slightly misconstrued. the wave-energy seems > > to be adequately tuned to the electromagnetic property > > of the atom, and *that* is the "particle" > > into which it "collapses," not the quantum-called-photon. > > > the photon is nothing but a coinage for a unit of light-energy, > > as-and-when "detected" by a device or cone of the eye > > (the rods & cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-) > > > nothing in Planck's analysis requires a rock o'light, and > > probably not really in Einstein's; so, there. > > > > > > > > > > Decide a photon propagates as a wave and is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > > > That is what you are suggesting in all of your quotes above, especially: > > > > > > > > > "Light collapsing into ... particle". > > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other!http://wlym.com > > Albert Einstein said in the 1930's that he could not reconcile what he > won the nobel prize for. He could not reconcile a light wave with a > particle. Light is not a particle. Is too.
From: BURT on 25 May 2010 21:45
On May 25, 6:31 pm, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 4:34 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 25, 2:30 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > there are plenty of questions, probably most of which've > > > been answered in the literature. like, given the redshifting > > > of light through the medium of space (sik), are those shifts > > > continuous with distance, or just very subtle? > > > > the whole idea of a rock o'light, aimed at your eye from a star, > > > doesn't seem absurd if those rocks are aimed everywhere; still, > > > the particle is not needed, if one accepts that a (spherical) wave > > > can be a quantum. certainly, it would get rid of the conundrum > > > of a massless/momentumless & volumeless "point of light" > > > a la Dubya. > > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/see_a_photon.html > > > > > Secondly, the sensitivity of a patch on your retina goes down if there > > > > is stray light coming in from another source. This is why you can't > > > > see stars during the daytime, even though they are there just as they > > > > are at night. This is also why your eyes have to get adapted to the > > > > dark before you can see anything. > > > > thusNso: > > > you have slightly misconstrued. the wave-energy seems > > > to be adequately tuned to the electromagnetic property > > > of the atom, and *that* is the "particle" > > > into which it "collapses," not the quantum-called-photon. > > > > the photon is nothing but a coinage for a unit of light-energy, > > > as-and-when "detected" by a device or cone of the eye > > > (the rods & cones are "log-spiral antennae" .-) > > > > nothing in Planck's analysis requires a rock o'light, and > > > probably not really in Einstein's; so, there. > > > > > > > > > > > Decide a photon propagates as a wave and is detected as a particle. > > > > > > > > > > That is what you are suggesting in all of your quotes above, especially: > > > > > > > > > > "Light collapsing into ... particle". > > > > --Pi, the surfer's canonical value -- accept no other!http://wlym.com > > > Albert Einstein said in the 1930's that he could not reconcile what he > > won the nobel prize for. He could not reconcile a light wave with a > > particle. Light is not a particle. > > Is too.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light is always a dual wave. The proof that light is not a particle lies in the fact that it has to be in either one of those waves but not both. And the truth is that it doesn't work. Mitch Raemsch |