Light speed is constan "c". I am puzzled
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: is light/radiative energy potential or kinetic or both?
Next: Timerate is a Slow C in gravity by Gamma mathematics
From: BradGuth on 15 Feb 2010 14:59 On Feb 15, 11:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 2:34 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 8:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 11:38 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 8:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:45 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:17 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 11:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Again, I prefer the concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave > > > > > > > > > > which when detected collapses into a quantum of aether and as a wave I > > > > > > > > > > think it is reflected, but there doesn't seem to be any way possible > > > > > > > > > > to be sure one way or the other. > > > > > > > > > > I tend to think of atoms as FIFO photon nodes that either hold, > > > > > > > > > convert or pass along the same photon. > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > With that concept the photon nodes would then need to effect the state > > > > > > > > of the neighboring photons in order for there to be physical waves > > > > > > > > entering and exiting both slits in a double slit experiment.. > > > > > > > > > You're main 'node' is the particle. The passing along of the photon > > > > > > > > displaces the neighboring photons. > > > > > > > > > Your concept of a photon means the aether consists of photon > > > > > > > > 'particles' and a photon particle is a quanta of aether. > > > > > > > > > A moving photon 'particle' has an associated aether wave. In your > > > > > > > > definition of a photon the associated aether wave is a wave in the > > > > > > > > photon particles (i.e. quanta of aether). > > > > > > > > It's all very confusing, isn't it. > > > > > > > > However, there are considerably more photons (from gravity to Planck) > > > > > > > than anything else in this universe. I often forget the number, but > > > > > > > it's rather huge. > > > > > > > > It's something like >4.3e139 photons and counting as our universe is > > > > > > > supposedly radii expanding and aging at something greater than 0.5 c. > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > I prefer Einstein's concept of the aether cannot be considered to > > > > > > consist of separate particles which can be individually tracked > > > > > > through time. To me, this simply means we cannot know if the aether > > > > > > consists of particles or not. Not that it does or it doesn't, just > > > > > > that there is no way to know. > > > > > > > Now, it is very easy to conceptualize the aether as consisting of > > > > > > particles which are quanta of aether and those quanta of aether are > > > > > > photons. It all fits. The reason why a photon would then have a rest > > > > > > mass of zero is because it exists with an infinite number of other > > > > > > photons as the aether and even if you wanted to measure an individual > > > > > > how would you? You can't. So, for all practical purposes a photon does > > > > > > have a rest mass of zero because there is nothing which exists with > > > > > > less mass which can be used to measure the mass of a photon. > > > > > > > That being said, I still defer to Einstein on this one and say we > > > > > > can't know if the aether consists of particles or not. What we can say > > > > > > is the aether acts as a 'one something'. > > > > > > > I also believe when a photon is detected what is being detected is a > > > > > > quanta of aether but that quanta of aether could be created when the > > > > > > photon's associated aether wave collapses. In this definition of a > > > > > > photon the photon propagates as a wave in the aether and only 'exists' > > > > > > as a particle when detected. The wave collapses into a quanta of > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > Now, is it more 'convenient' just to say the quanta of aether always > > > > > > exists? I don't think so because then you have a quanta of aether > > > > > > propagating through the aether as a self-contained particle. > > > > > > > If there is every an abundance of evidence that gravity waves or other > > > > > > waves in the aether propagate at greater than 'c' then this would be > > > > > > evidence a photon consists of a particle of aether traveling through > > > > > > the aether. > > > > > > > As long as the 'speed limit' is 'c' then I think it is better to > > > > > > conceptualize a photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected > > > > > > collapses into a quanta of aether. > > > > > > Correction: 'quantum of aether' not 'quanta of aether'. > > > > > So, how many all-inclusive photons to date are there? > > > > > ~ BG > > > > With my preferred concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave which > > > when detected collapses into a quantum of aether the total number of > > > photons which exist as particles at anyone time are all those which > > > are currently being detected. I am not trying to be evasive that is > > > the best possible answer with the information available today of what > > > a photon is. > > > > Consider this. A photon is emitted from the Sun. As it propagates > > > towards the Earth it exists as a directed/pointed wave in the aether. > > > So, in terms of the directed/pointed wave, you would not consider it > > > to exist as a 'particle' at this point in time. Now, the photon > > > physically interacts with your eye. As the photon is detected by your > > > eye the directed/pointed wave collapses and applies pressure to your > > > eye as the photon transitions from a physical wave to a physical > > > particle of aether (i.e. quantum of aether). Now, after applying > > > pressure to your eye and being detected as a quantum of aether the > > > photon no longer has momentum and is 'at rest'. Does the 'particle' > > > still exist as a self-contained entity? As far as I know, that cannot > > > be known. > > > > Now, let's look at the photoelectric effect. When the photon interacts > > > with the metallic surface the photon collapses and is 'detected' as a > > > quantum of aether. This quantum of aether enters and physically > > > occupies three dimensional space within the metal causing an electron > > > to be emitted. Now, does that quantum of aether still exist as a self- > > > contained particle or is that quantum of aether now 'one with' the > > > rest of the aether? Who knows. Who cares. What is important is the > > > quantum of aether associated with the photon occupies three > > > dimensional space within the metal and that is the reason why the > > > electron is emitted, because both the additional quantum of aether and > > > the electron cannot 'fit' in the metal at the same time. > > > Something greater than 99.9999% of photons or quantum string types can > > not be detected with our eyes. > > > Your "quantum of aether" also has a number and/or a mass. So, how > > many "quantum of aether" units or mass does this universe contain thus > > far? > > > ~ BG > > Isn't there some type of 'missing matter' in the universe? Sounds to > me like a misunderstanding of what aether is. If photons always turn into aether, then aether represents mass. PV panels that convert photons into electrons do not have lower mass at end of service life because of their giving off those trillions upon trillions of electrons. ~ BG
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 15:03 On Feb 15, 2:59 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 11:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:34 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 8:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:38 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 8:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:45 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:17 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 11:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, I prefer the concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave > > > > > > > > > > > which when detected collapses into a quantum of aether and as a wave I > > > > > > > > > > > think it is reflected, but there doesn't seem to be any way possible > > > > > > > > > > > to be sure one way or the other. > > > > > > > > > > > I tend to think of atoms as FIFO photon nodes that either hold, > > > > > > > > > > convert or pass along the same photon. > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > > With that concept the photon nodes would then need to effect the state > > > > > > > > > of the neighboring photons in order for there to be physical waves > > > > > > > > > entering and exiting both slits in a double slit experiment. > > > > > > > > > > You're main 'node' is the particle. The passing along of the photon > > > > > > > > > displaces the neighboring photons. > > > > > > > > > > Your concept of a photon means the aether consists of photon > > > > > > > > > 'particles' and a photon particle is a quanta of aether. > > > > > > > > > > A moving photon 'particle' has an associated aether wave. In your > > > > > > > > > definition of a photon the associated aether wave is a wave in the > > > > > > > > > photon particles (i.e. quanta of aether). > > > > > > > > > It's all very confusing, isn't it. > > > > > > > > > However, there are considerably more photons (from gravity to Planck) > > > > > > > > than anything else in this universe. I often forget the number, but > > > > > > > > it's rather huge. > > > > > > > > > It's something like >4.3e139 photons and counting as our universe is > > > > > > > > supposedly radii expanding and aging at something greater than 0.5 c. > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > I prefer Einstein's concept of the aether cannot be considered to > > > > > > > consist of separate particles which can be individually tracked > > > > > > > through time. To me, this simply means we cannot know if the aether > > > > > > > consists of particles or not. Not that it does or it doesn't, just > > > > > > > that there is no way to know. > > > > > > > > Now, it is very easy to conceptualize the aether as consisting of > > > > > > > particles which are quanta of aether and those quanta of aether are > > > > > > > photons. It all fits. The reason why a photon would then have a rest > > > > > > > mass of zero is because it exists with an infinite number of other > > > > > > > photons as the aether and even if you wanted to measure an individual > > > > > > > how would you? You can't. So, for all practical purposes a photon does > > > > > > > have a rest mass of zero because there is nothing which exists with > > > > > > > less mass which can be used to measure the mass of a photon. > > > > > > > > That being said, I still defer to Einstein on this one and say we > > > > > > > can't know if the aether consists of particles or not. What we can say > > > > > > > is the aether acts as a 'one something'. > > > > > > > > I also believe when a photon is detected what is being detected is a > > > > > > > quanta of aether but that quanta of aether could be created when the > > > > > > > photon's associated aether wave collapses. In this definition of a > > > > > > > photon the photon propagates as a wave in the aether and only 'exists' > > > > > > > as a particle when detected. The wave collapses into a quanta of > > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > > Now, is it more 'convenient' just to say the quanta of aether always > > > > > > > exists? I don't think so because then you have a quanta of aether > > > > > > > propagating through the aether as a self-contained particle. > > > > > > > > If there is every an abundance of evidence that gravity waves or other > > > > > > > waves in the aether propagate at greater than 'c' then this would be > > > > > > > evidence a photon consists of a particle of aether traveling through > > > > > > > the aether. > > > > > > > > As long as the 'speed limit' is 'c' then I think it is better to > > > > > > > conceptualize a photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected > > > > > > > collapses into a quanta of aether. > > > > > > > Correction: 'quantum of aether' not 'quanta of aether'. > > > > > > So, how many all-inclusive photons to date are there? > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > With my preferred concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave which > > > > when detected collapses into a quantum of aether the total number of > > > > photons which exist as particles at anyone time are all those which > > > > are currently being detected. I am not trying to be evasive that is > > > > the best possible answer with the information available today of what > > > > a photon is. > > > > > Consider this. A photon is emitted from the Sun. As it propagates > > > > towards the Earth it exists as a directed/pointed wave in the aether. > > > > So, in terms of the directed/pointed wave, you would not consider it > > > > to exist as a 'particle' at this point in time. Now, the photon > > > > physically interacts with your eye. As the photon is detected by your > > > > eye the directed/pointed wave collapses and applies pressure to your > > > > eye as the photon transitions from a physical wave to a physical > > > > particle of aether (i.e. quantum of aether). Now, after applying > > > > pressure to your eye and being detected as a quantum of aether the > > > > photon no longer has momentum and is 'at rest'. Does the 'particle' > > > > still exist as a self-contained entity? As far as I know, that cannot > > > > be known. > > > > > Now, let's look at the photoelectric effect. When the photon interacts > > > > with the metallic surface the photon collapses and is 'detected' as a > > > > quantum of aether. This quantum of aether enters and physically > > > > occupies three dimensional space within the metal causing an electron > > > > to be emitted. Now, does that quantum of aether still exist as a self- > > > > contained particle or is that quantum of aether now 'one with' the > > > > rest of the aether? Who knows. Who cares. What is important is the > > > > quantum of aether associated with the photon occupies three > > > > dimensional space within the metal and that is the reason why the > > > > electron is emitted, because both the additional quantum of aether and > > > > the electron cannot 'fit' in the metal at the same time. > > > > Something greater than 99.9999% of photons or quantum string types can > > > not be detected with our eyes. > > > > Your "quantum of aether" also has a number and/or a mass. So, how > > > many "quantum of aether" units or mass does this universe contain thus > > > far? > > > > ~ BG > > > Isn't there some type of 'missing matter' in the universe? Sounds to > > me like a misunderstanding of what aether is. > > If photons always turn into aether, then aether represents mass. > > PV panels that convert photons into electrons do not have lower mass > at end of service life because of their giving off those trillions > upon trillions of electrons. > > ~ BG The aether does have mass. Matter and aether are different states of the same material. The mass associated with the photons have replaced the electrons.
From: BURT on 15 Feb 2010 15:24 On Feb 15, 11:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 2:34 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 8:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 11:38 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 8:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:45 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:17 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 11:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Again, I prefer the concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave > > > > > > > > > > which when detected collapses into a quantum of aether and as a wave I > > > > > > > > > > think it is reflected, but there doesn't seem to be any way possible > > > > > > > > > > to be sure one way or the other. > > > > > > > > > > I tend to think of atoms as FIFO photon nodes that either hold, > > > > > > > > > convert or pass along the same photon. > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > With that concept the photon nodes would then need to effect the state > > > > > > > > of the neighboring photons in order for there to be physical waves > > > > > > > > entering and exiting both slits in a double slit experiment.. > > > > > > > > > You're main 'node' is the particle. The passing along of the photon > > > > > > > > displaces the neighboring photons. > > > > > > > > > Your concept of a photon means the aether consists of photon > > > > > > > > 'particles' and a photon particle is a quanta of aether. > > > > > > > > > A moving photon 'particle' has an associated aether wave. In your > > > > > > > > definition of a photon the associated aether wave is a wave in the > > > > > > > > photon particles (i.e. quanta of aether). > > > > > > > > It's all very confusing, isn't it. > > > > > > > > However, there are considerably more photons (from gravity to Planck) > > > > > > > than anything else in this universe. I often forget the number, but > > > > > > > it's rather huge. > > > > > > > > It's something like >4.3e139 photons and counting as our universe is > > > > > > > supposedly radii expanding and aging at something greater than 0.5 c. > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > I prefer Einstein's concept of the aether cannot be considered to > > > > > > consist of separate particles which can be individually tracked > > > > > > through time. To me, this simply means we cannot know if the aether > > > > > > consists of particles or not. Not that it does or it doesn't, just > > > > > > that there is no way to know. > > > > > > > Now, it is very easy to conceptualize the aether as consisting of > > > > > > particles which are quanta of aether and those quanta of aether are > > > > > > photons. It all fits. The reason why a photon would then have a rest > > > > > > mass of zero is because it exists with an infinite number of other > > > > > > photons as the aether and even if you wanted to measure an individual > > > > > > how would you? You can't. So, for all practical purposes a photon does > > > > > > have a rest mass of zero because there is nothing which exists with > > > > > > less mass which can be used to measure the mass of a photon. > > > > > > > That being said, I still defer to Einstein on this one and say we > > > > > > can't know if the aether consists of particles or not. What we can say > > > > > > is the aether acts as a 'one something'. > > > > > > > I also believe when a photon is detected what is being detected is a > > > > > > quanta of aether but that quanta of aether could be created when the > > > > > > photon's associated aether wave collapses. In this definition of a > > > > > > photon the photon propagates as a wave in the aether and only 'exists' > > > > > > as a particle when detected. The wave collapses into a quanta of > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > Now, is it more 'convenient' just to say the quanta of aether always > > > > > > exists? I don't think so because then you have a quanta of aether > > > > > > propagating through the aether as a self-contained particle. > > > > > > > If there is every an abundance of evidence that gravity waves or other > > > > > > waves in the aether propagate at greater than 'c' then this would be > > > > > > evidence a photon consists of a particle of aether traveling through > > > > > > the aether. > > > > > > > As long as the 'speed limit' is 'c' then I think it is better to > > > > > > conceptualize a photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected > > > > > > collapses into a quanta of aether. > > > > > > Correction: 'quantum of aether' not 'quanta of aether'. > > > > > So, how many all-inclusive photons to date are there? > > > > > ~ BG > > > > With my preferred concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave which > > > when detected collapses into a quantum of aether the total number of > > > photons which exist as particles at anyone time are all those which > > > are currently being detected. I am not trying to be evasive that is > > > the best possible answer with the information available today of what > > > a photon is. > > > > Consider this. A photon is emitted from the Sun. As it propagates > > > towards the Earth it exists as a directed/pointed wave in the aether. > > > So, in terms of the directed/pointed wave, you would not consider it > > > to exist as a 'particle' at this point in time. Now, the photon > > > physically interacts with your eye. As the photon is detected by your > > > eye the directed/pointed wave collapses and applies pressure to your > > > eye as the photon transitions from a physical wave to a physical > > > particle of aether (i.e. quantum of aether). Now, after applying > > > pressure to your eye and being detected as a quantum of aether the > > > photon no longer has momentum and is 'at rest'. Does the 'particle' > > > still exist as a self-contained entity? As far as I know, that cannot > > > be known. > > > > Now, let's look at the photoelectric effect. When the photon interacts > > > with the metallic surface the photon collapses and is 'detected' as a > > > quantum of aether. This quantum of aether enters and physically > > > occupies three dimensional space within the metal causing an electron > > > to be emitted. Now, does that quantum of aether still exist as a self- > > > contained particle or is that quantum of aether now 'one with' the > > > rest of the aether? Who knows. Who cares. What is important is the > > > quantum of aether associated with the photon occupies three > > > dimensional space within the metal and that is the reason why the > > > electron is emitted, because both the additional quantum of aether and > > > the electron cannot 'fit' in the metal at the same time. > > > Something greater than 99.9999% of photons or quantum string types can > > not be detected with our eyes. > > > Your "quantum of aether" also has a number and/or a mass. So, how > > many "quantum of aether" units or mass does this universe contain thus > > far? > > > ~ BG > > Isn't there some type of 'missing matter' in the universe? Sounds to > me like a misunderstanding of what aether is.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is fastest light where there is no gravity. Mitch Raemsch
From: BradGuth on 15 Feb 2010 16:34 On Feb 15, 12:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 2:59 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 2:34 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 8:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:38 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 8:15 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 10:45 am, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 12:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 12, 10:17 pm, BradGuth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 9, 11:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, I prefer the concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave > > > > > > > > > > > > which when detected collapses into a quantum of aether and as a wave I > > > > > > > > > > > > think it is reflected, but there doesn't seem to be any way possible > > > > > > > > > > > > to be sure one way or the other. > > > > > > > > > > > > I tend to think of atoms as FIFO photon nodes that either hold, > > > > > > > > > > > convert or pass along the same photon. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > > > With that concept the photon nodes would then need to effect the state > > > > > > > > > > of the neighboring photons in order for there to be physical waves > > > > > > > > > > entering and exiting both slits in a double slit experiment. > > > > > > > > > > > You're main 'node' is the particle. The passing along of the photon > > > > > > > > > > displaces the neighboring photons. > > > > > > > > > > > Your concept of a photon means the aether consists of photon > > > > > > > > > > 'particles' and a photon particle is a quanta of aether.. > > > > > > > > > > > A moving photon 'particle' has an associated aether wave. In your > > > > > > > > > > definition of a photon the associated aether wave is a wave in the > > > > > > > > > > photon particles (i.e. quanta of aether). > > > > > > > > > > It's all very confusing, isn't it. > > > > > > > > > > However, there are considerably more photons (from gravity to Planck) > > > > > > > > > than anything else in this universe. I often forget the number, but > > > > > > > > > it's rather huge. > > > > > > > > > > It's something like >4.3e139 photons and counting as our universe is > > > > > > > > > supposedly radii expanding and aging at something greater than 0.5 c. > > > > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > > > > I prefer Einstein's concept of the aether cannot be considered to > > > > > > > > consist of separate particles which can be individually tracked > > > > > > > > through time. To me, this simply means we cannot know if the aether > > > > > > > > consists of particles or not. Not that it does or it doesn't, just > > > > > > > > that there is no way to know. > > > > > > > > > Now, it is very easy to conceptualize the aether as consisting of > > > > > > > > particles which are quanta of aether and those quanta of aether are > > > > > > > > photons. It all fits. The reason why a photon would then have a rest > > > > > > > > mass of zero is because it exists with an infinite number of other > > > > > > > > photons as the aether and even if you wanted to measure an individual > > > > > > > > how would you? You can't. So, for all practical purposes a photon does > > > > > > > > have a rest mass of zero because there is nothing which exists with > > > > > > > > less mass which can be used to measure the mass of a photon.. > > > > > > > > > That being said, I still defer to Einstein on this one and say we > > > > > > > > can't know if the aether consists of particles or not. What we can say > > > > > > > > is the aether acts as a 'one something'. > > > > > > > > > I also believe when a photon is detected what is being detected is a > > > > > > > > quanta of aether but that quanta of aether could be created when the > > > > > > > > photon's associated aether wave collapses. In this definition of a > > > > > > > > photon the photon propagates as a wave in the aether and only 'exists' > > > > > > > > as a particle when detected. The wave collapses into a quanta of > > > > > > > > aether. > > > > > > > > > Now, is it more 'convenient' just to say the quanta of aether always > > > > > > > > exists? I don't think so because then you have a quanta of aether > > > > > > > > propagating through the aether as a self-contained particle.. > > > > > > > > > If there is every an abundance of evidence that gravity waves or other > > > > > > > > waves in the aether propagate at greater than 'c' then this would be > > > > > > > > evidence a photon consists of a particle of aether traveling through > > > > > > > > the aether. > > > > > > > > > As long as the 'speed limit' is 'c' then I think it is better to > > > > > > > > conceptualize a photon as a directed/pointed wave which when detected > > > > > > > > collapses into a quanta of aether. > > > > > > > > Correction: 'quantum of aether' not 'quanta of aether'. > > > > > > > So, how many all-inclusive photons to date are there? > > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > > With my preferred concept of a photon as a directed/pointed wave which > > > > > when detected collapses into a quantum of aether the total number of > > > > > photons which exist as particles at anyone time are all those which > > > > > are currently being detected. I am not trying to be evasive that is > > > > > the best possible answer with the information available today of what > > > > > a photon is. > > > > > > Consider this. A photon is emitted from the Sun. As it propagates > > > > > towards the Earth it exists as a directed/pointed wave in the aether. > > > > > So, in terms of the directed/pointed wave, you would not consider it > > > > > to exist as a 'particle' at this point in time. Now, the photon > > > > > physically interacts with your eye. As the photon is detected by your > > > > > eye the directed/pointed wave collapses and applies pressure to your > > > > > eye as the photon transitions from a physical wave to a physical > > > > > particle of aether (i.e. quantum of aether). Now, after applying > > > > > pressure to your eye and being detected as a quantum of aether the > > > > > photon no longer has momentum and is 'at rest'. Does the 'particle' > > > > > still exist as a self-contained entity? As far as I know, that cannot > > > > > be known. > > > > > > Now, let's look at the photoelectric effect. When the photon interacts > > > > > with the metallic surface the photon collapses and is 'detected' as a > > > > > quantum of aether. This quantum of aether enters and physically > > > > > occupies three dimensional space within the metal causing an electron > > > > > to be emitted. Now, does that quantum of aether still exist as a self- > > > > > contained particle or is that quantum of aether now 'one with' the > > > > > rest of the aether? Who knows. Who cares. What is important is the > > > > > quantum of aether associated with the photon occupies three > > > > > dimensional space within the metal and that is the reason why the > > > > > electron is emitted, because both the additional quantum of aether and > > > > > the electron cannot 'fit' in the metal at the same time. > > > > > Something greater than 99.9999% of photons or quantum string types can > > > > not be detected with our eyes. > > > > > Your "quantum of aether" also has a number and/or a mass. So, how > > > > many "quantum of aether" units or mass does this universe contain thus > > > > far? > > > > > ~ BG > > > > Isn't there some type of 'missing matter' in the universe? Sounds to > > > me like a misunderstanding of what aether is. > > > If photons always turn into aether, then aether represents mass. > > > PV panels that convert photons into electrons do not have lower mass > > at end of service life because of their giving off those trillions > > upon trillions of electrons. > > > ~ BG > > The aether does have mass. Matter and aether are different states of > the same material. > > The mass associated with the photons have replaced the electrons. That's exactly what I'm thinking has to be taking place, and therefore the mass of those photons can be directly accounted for by simply counting each and every electron produced by a given PV panel. If a PV panel were 20% efficient and had an average of 340 watts/m2 coming into its band-gap cells = 68 watts or watt hour of electrons/ m2, times 24 = 1.632 kw.h/day, times 365 = 595.68 kw.h/year. 1 watt second or Joule = 6.24151e18 electrons per second 68 w.h = 2.448e5 w.s or Joules Of course photons offer all different kinds of energy from near zero at the near zero frequency of gravity, <6.626e34 J.s or 4.135667e-15 eV or 6.626e-27 erg.s at the Planck frequency or wavelength, and somehow every m3 of this universe safely contains it all at the same time. If all photons were the exact same monochromatic wavelength, as such it would make for calculating the average photon mass a whole lot easier. ~ BG
From: BURT on 15 Feb 2010 16:59
On Feb 14, 12:43 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 11:53 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Double-A wrote: > > >> Straight lines are defined as the shortest path between two points. These > > >> exist in cuved space as well. > > > > Question is, how do you define "shortest path"? > > > How many dimensions do I get to employ? Some quantum experiments suggest > > the shortest path is zero. > > Good point. > > Double-A The shortest path is an infinite size composed of the infinitely small which is the nearest to zero and finite. Mitch Raemsch |