Time and Motion

[junglelord]

Time and Motion.
2-D Linear concepts.


Its Frequency and Angle.
The 3-D Distributed Non Linear Realtity.

[altonhare]

Just to make one thing clear: Until someone can show me an experiment that cannot be explained with wave theory, I'll stick to that!
"The observation that light is emitted and absorbed discretely" would be interesting, as a wave should be continuous. Where can I find this observation?

- Klypp

This was first observed by Heinrich Hertz in 1887, although the results were not well interpreted at the time since the electron was not "discovered" yet. The notable individuals who did the definitive work demonstrating "non-Maxwellian" behavior of light were Philip Lenard and Robert Millikann. These experiments were then described mathematically by Albert Einstein in one of his four "miraculous year" papers in 1905: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". Again, this behavior is unaccounted for by the wave equations, it requires light to behave discretely. This link may help also:

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/qu ... ctric.html

So, as you see, the wave is simply insufficient to describe, much less explain, all observations. Additionally, you must ask, what is waving? A wave is what something DOES, not a something itself. Maxwell's equations are a quantitative description, not a physical explanation. Any way you slice it, I'm afraid you will have to abandon your "old faithful" wave-only view of light.

The "twined rope theory"??? Well, my first reaction was that this must be a joke. And, come to think of it, that was my second reaction as well...

-Klypp

Do you have an actual reason to discredit it, or is it just too different than what you're used to?

One problem with grandma's fast signal is that it is nowhere near the speed of light. I think you'll easily find that it is more like the speed of sound...

-Klypp

The clothesline is simply a demonstration of the concept. A clothesline is inhomogeneous, it is composed of smaller entities which must all interact/collide to transfer your motion to the end. The rope that the theory postulates is a continuous object, therefore any motion including a torsion will be transferred far faster than through an inhomogeneous object.

[klypp]

altonhare:

So, as you see, the wave is simply insufficient to describe, much less explain, all observations.

The observations you refer to here is the photoelectric effect. You use Einstein's interpretation based on the photon theory to argue that wave theory is wrong.
But you also rejects photon theory??? How can you use one bad theory to disprove another theory??? Sounds rather illogical to me...
You should of course use your own theory. But then, how can a continuous rope explain the "discrete nature" of light?

Anyways, Einstein's explanation is not the only explanation. Here is one interesting wave explanation that concludes:

The discrete nature of the photoelectric effect is clearly due to the properties of the material (i.e. the existence of individual electrons and the quantization of atomic energy levels) rather than that of the light which can consistently be described as an electromagnetic wave field with a given frequency spectrum and coherency.

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm

altonhare:

Do you have an actual reason to discredit it, or is it just too different than what you're used to?

My question was: Where is the experimental proof?

The clothesline is simply a demonstration of the concept. A clothesline is inhomogeneous, it is composed of smaller entities which must all interact/collide to transfer your motion to the end. The rope that the theory postulates is a continuous object, therefore any motion including a torsion will be transferred far faster than through an inhomogeneous object.

No matter what material you use in your rope, no matter how hard you twin it, you are still left with "signal" speeds similar to the speed of sound. Not anywhere near "instantaneous", not even close to light speed...

Of course, if it's only a concept, you can assign any speed you like to the signal.
But then again: Where is the experimental support for this "concept"??

[altonhare]

he observations you refer to here is the photoelectric effect. You use Einstein's interpretation based on the photon theory to argue that wave theory is wrong.
But you also rejects photon theory??? How can you use one bad theory to disprove another theory??? Sounds rather illogical to me...
You should of course use your own theory. But then, how can a continuous rope explain the "discrete nature" of light?

I point out the observation of the photoelectric effect as one phenomenon the wave equations cannot describe. Alternatively I can point out diffraction as a phenomenon the corpuscular hypothesis cannot describe. Indeed neither hypothesis can explain all observations, therefore we conclude that light is neither. The rope is twined, it has a certain number of links per unit length. By its fundamental nature it can only be taken in or let out in integral numbers of links.

The "alternative explanation" you present still runs into insurmountable problems. On the one hand, the wave hypothesis simply has no physical interpretation. It is a description of how light behaves and not what light IS. The only physical interpretation of "light as wave" (the aether) was thoroughly debunked by Michelson. In fact, Michelson probably did the quintessential work demonstrating that light is most definitely neither a particle nor a "wave". Still further, Planck showed that "light in a box" (a black body) had to behave as if only an integral number of wavelengths can "fit" in the box. Wave theory predicts that light flows continuously, Planck's work showed that the observation known as BBR can only be described by a discrete mechanism rather than by a continuous "wave", a phenomenon the wave equations were powerless to describe. On further, Lebedev showed that light exerts pressure on a surface, something the wave equations never predicted. Only after all this observational evidence that was unexplained by classical electromagnetism did the photoelectric effect experiments deliver the final blow. Wave theory unequivocally predicted that light would transfer "energy" gradually, but obviously it does not. You say that the atom levels are "quantized". So, lets imagine the continuous wave approaching the atom. Only a whole wavelength can be absorbed by the "quantized electron". So the first little part of a wavelength passes the electron and goes through (because it is not a whole wavelength of course), the next little bit passes through, and by the time the "peak" passes by the electron the first part of this continuous "entity" is long gone! Does it obediently slow down and wait at the electron's location, giving the whole wavelength time to catch up so that the electron can gulp up a chunk of this continuous "entity" and jump? The fact is, a continuous entity cannot produce the photoelectric effect unless we invoke some strange and "suspiciously convenient" behavior.

Do you have an actual reason to discredit it, or is it just too different than what you're used to? -alton

My question was: Where is the experimental proof?

-Klypp

Experiments do not "prove" anything. A theory must be internally consistent and valid before we attempt to explain observed phenomena. However, the rope theory adequately explains all observed phenomena. It explains why light travels rectilinear, the answer is that the atoms themselves are already connected. The strongest evidence for the rope hypothesis is probably the "Principle of Ray Reversibility", an observation in the field of optics in which it is noted that light always retraces its path. Waves and particles have no way to explain this, they are one-way mechanisms. The only way to explain such behavior is if the atoms are already connected, the path is already present. If light always retraces its path, it must already be stretched across the entire universe. There is no way for a wave or particle emitted by the spinning sun to travel a rectilinear path or to retrace its path unless there is already something connecting both ends. The signal/observation we call light travels along this taut medium. Mathematicians erroneously, illogically, irrationally, and incongruously explain this behavior by saying that the light signal "arrives before it leaves":

The advanced waves travel backward in time, that is, they arrived at the detector before they left their source.

-V. Stenger

"The Unconscious Quantum, Prometheus" (1995)

If the extra dimensional speeds have the right relationship, one can construct a situation in which a signal following this path arrives before it is sent.

-J. Cramer

"Back in time through other dimensions, The Alternate View" (2006)
http://www.analogsf.com/0610/altview.shtml

No matter what material you use in your rope, no matter how hard you twin it, you are still left with "signal" speeds similar to the speed of sound. Not anywhere near "instantaneous", not even close to light speed...

Of course, if it's only a concept, you can assign any speed you like to the signal.
But then again: Where is the experimental support for this "concept"??

-Klypp

This is entirely incorrect. The "speed of sound" (speed of a "longitudinal wave") has everything to do with the fact that a medium such as air or a nylon rope is composed of smaller parts. Before an applied pressure at one end can be felt at the other end, every single smaller part must interact/collide. The velocity at which each individual entity moves limits the velocity of the sound wave. However if we have a CONTINUOUS rope this limitation is gone.

Anymore questions?

[junglelord]

Oh, I see, for you there is no Aether.
That explains everything.


Which is why you do not get it.
Good luck with that program.
So far it has gotten you No Where.
You cannot explain charge attraction,
and your a physicist????

I think your not.
If you are your perfect for a modern day giver of garbage,
as it is what they sell.
A industry of rot.

[altonhare]

Do you have a different aether than the one Michelson so thoroughly debunked?

[klypp]

Most of this boils down to to two questions:
1. What is a wave?
2. What is a rope?

To take the last one first:

The "speed of sound" (speed of a "longitudinal wave") has everything to do with the fact that a medium such as air or a nylon rope is composed of smaller parts. Before an applied pressure at one end can be felt at the other end, every single smaller part must interact/collide. The velocity at which each individual entity moves limits the velocity of the sound wave. However if we have a CONTINUOUS rope this limitation is gone.

So, while "a nylon rope is composed of smaller parts", your rope is "a CONTINUOUS rope".
No molecules? No atoms? What a wonderful new material this is!!!

What is a wave? First we learn that there is no such thing:

On the one hand, the wave hypothesis simply has no physical interpretation. It is a description of how light behaves and not what light IS.

A common definition of physics is the science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two. I stick to this definition. If you have some other definition, please tell. If not, please refrain from quasi-philosophical nonsense like a wave "is a description of how light behaves and not what light IS".
A wave is energy, and it is described from the effects it has on matter. This effect is real. A wave is real.

We know quite a few things about waves, but (as always) there is much more to learn. But while scientists that study all kinds of mechanical waves can do this undisturbed, scientists that study light cannot. Whenever they discover new and interesting effects, there is a bunch of "experts" jumping up and screaming things like: "This is not wave behaviour! This proves my ToE! Light is really some kind of english plum pudding!" Or grandma's clothesline, or whatever...
They all have one thing in common. They claim that waves cannot behave this way.
You are no exception:
The only physical interpretation of "light as wave" (the aether) was thoroughly debunked by Michelson.
It was not. Michelson discovered an ether drift, but considered it to be unsignificant. Some also claims that his experimental setup was wrong. It could not possible detect the ether. Other experiments seems to confirm an ether. Personally, I am not so sure we need an ether. The ether theory is based on the idea that atoms look like billiard balls, remember? We don't believe that any more. Any modern atom model describes an atom that consists mostly of space, nothing! The question is not only how can light propagate through vacuum. It is just as much how can any wave propagate through anything?

Wave theory predicts that light flows continuously, Planck's work showed that the observation known as BBR can only be described by a discrete mechanism rather than by a continuous "wave", a phenomenon the wave equations were powerless to describe.
Ahh, so now it is particle theory again! Planck made quite a few assumptions to "prove" this. Maybe you could come back and discuss his "equations" the day Planck's constant becomes... oh well... a constant! (It seems rather variable these days!)

On further, Lebedev showed that light exerts pressure on a surface, something the wave equations never predicted.. Waves doesn't exert pressure??? You should try visiting a rock concert!!!

Wave theory unequivocally predicted that light would transfer "energy" gradually, but obviously it does not.
Yes, obviously! Which is why your eardrums vibrate and don't just get blown into your brain.

The strongest evidence for the rope hypothesis is probably the "Principle of Ray Reversibility", an observation in the field of optics in which it is noted that light always retraces its path.
Yeah, sure... The Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Physics has this definition: "This states that if a ray of light travels from one point to another through an optical system along a particular path, a ray can also proceed in the reverse direction along the same path." "Can also" is a far cry from "always"!!!

Before you scream that waves cannot do this and waves cannot do that, you should try to find out what a wave can do!

[webolife]

Be careful here... light rays cannot operate in both directions simultaneously along the same line-of-sight.
Partial or total vector cancellation occurs. This is actually the reason why there is a c-rate at all. A time/space interval must always occur between the "sending" and "receiving" of a light signal, this due to the not-so-obvious yet simple fact that all systems are actually moving relative to each other. This >0 angular reflection requirement results in the spectral aberration that is responsible for many of the so-called measurements of c (these are actually inferences or at best calculations based on the assumption of c).

[altonhare]

Be careful here... light rays cannot operate in both directions simultaneously along the same line-of-sight.
Partial or total vector cancellation occurs. This is actually the reason why there is a c-rate at all. A time/space interval must always occur between the "sending" and "receiving" of a light signal, this due to the not-so-obvious yet simple fact that all systems are actually moving relative to each other. This >0 angular reflection requirement results in the spectral aberration that is responsible for many of the so-called measurements of c (these are actually inferences or at best calculations based on the assumption of c).

To be clear define exactly what you mean by "light ray" and exactly what you're referring to physically when you discuss "partial/total vector cancellation". Additionally what exactly you mean by a "time/space interval".

I can't be 100% confident about what you're saying here but I'm pretty sure I didn't claim that light can propagate in "two directions simultaneously". The two-strand entwined rope is torqued by the expansion of an atom's electron shell. This torque propagates down the twined rope to the next atom (since all atoms are interconnected by two-stranded entwined ropes). The next atom's electron shell expands then contracts, sending the torque back to its origin irrespective of the relative motion of the two bodies. This is why c is a constant and why light always "retraces its path".

[klypp]

Be careful here... light rays cannot operate in both directions simultaneously along the same line-of-sight.

All waves can do this, including light.
In most cases only a wave perpendicular to a reflecting surface will return to its source. But there are techniques to make most of the waves return. The phenomenon is called retroreflection, or sometimes phase conjugation, wavefront reversal or even time reversal.
The phenomenon is easily demonstrated every time you are out driving by night. Notice how the traffic signs "stands out" when your car's headlights hit them. This is not due to normal reflection, it's retroreflection.

I'd like to connect this to my last comment on altonhare, as I ended that rather abruptly. (You may partially blame Obama for that. Congratulations to USA! Congratulations to the world!)
Retroreflection is an example where "light retraces its path". This is wave behaviour. It excludes particle theory as returning particles would just smash into the incoming ones. It may not exclude altonhare's rope. But then again, what he describes is a torsional wave along the rope...

The principle of ray reversibility has nothing to do with light retracing its path. This "principle" simply says that if light emitted from A through an optical system ends up at B, then it is possible to emit light from B in such a way that it follows the same path to reach A. It is not because "light always retraces its path". It's because reflection and refraction works this way. A ray diagram is still valid if you reverse it!
Again, this excludes particle theory. Although Quantum Magicians try to prove particle refraction, they keep forgetting one thing: Refraction always includes change of speed! Light will slow down when it enters glass and speed up again when it reenters air. Particles can't do this. They will always slow down, never speed up. This simply excludes the principle of ray reversibility with respect to particles.

As for a rope...
I wouldn't know. Where can I get a good, refracting rope these days???

[Plasmatic]

You may partially blame Obama for that. Congratulations to USA! Congratulations to the world!)

Uhh lets not go there please!

[altonhare]

You cannot explain charge attraction,
and your a physicist????

-JL

Scarecrows everywhere beware JL!

Nobody ever asked me to explain "charge". I can explain it just fine. It belongs in another thread (probably "problems with thread theory is the best place for such a lengthy discussion).

So, while "a nylon rope is composed of smaller parts", your rope is "a CONTINUOUS rope".
No molecules? No atoms? What a wonderful new material this is!!

-Klypp

The straw men would also do well to avoid Klypp. A moment of rational thought on his part plus possibly reading some actual "thread theory" threads would have saved him the embarrassment.

A common definition of physics is the science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two.

-Klypp

Now define matter and energy and you've got yourself a definition.

If you have some other definition, please tell. If not, please refrain from quasi-philosophical nonsense like a wave "is a description of how light behaves and not what light IS".
A wave is energy, and it is described from the effects it has on matter. This effect is real. A wave is real.

-Klypp

Define real so you can define energy so you can define wave and you might even begin to argue with me! So far you still have nada.

Also, I've gone over how I define the "scientific method" on these boards several times (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =15#p12385). The word "science" is a shorthand for "applying the scientific method". So far you still have nothing, however.

After this point the number of straw-men you knock down becomes somewhat overwhelming. I'll try to be brief.

The ether theory is based on the idea that atoms look like billiard balls, remember? We don't believe that any more.

-Klypp

Actually quantum theory proposes exactly billiard balls. Mathematically they may use a wave packet or whatever, but physically everything is a discrete particle according to their theory.

Any modern atom model describes an atom that consists mostly of space, nothing!

-Klypp

Ever since I saw this fallacious reasoning by JL it just keeps popping up. It is indicative of a dire misunderstanding of the most basic and elementary aspects of physics. No object or fraction thereof "is space". If you think it is you will need to define "object" and "space" for me because, as these word are used by everyone I know on the planet, no object or fraction thereof "is space".

Whatever shape an atom has, it has the volume occupied by that shape. The fact that it may be a solid ball surrounded by a hollowed ball does not mean the space between them IS part of the atom. It is space. There are two objects (solid ball and hollowed ball) each with a volume (Va and Vb). The volume of the atom is Vc=Va+Vb. Done. If you put the ball+balloon combo in a cubic box and measure the extent of the box, calculating a volume of Vd, this refers to the extent of the box. If you want to know what the extent of the space between the box and the atom and between the s-ball and h-ball, you would take Ve=Vb-Vc. Done. There is a volume of space and a volume of objects. If you want to know the volume of the object "box" you will need to measure the width (w) of a side plus the length (L) of a side and calculate 6*w*L^2. Your result is predicated on the assumption that the box is a continuous object (there are no smaller constituents separated from each other). If your assumption is wrong then you are measuring the volume of the constituents AND the volume of the space separating them.

Ahh, so now it is particle theory again! Planck made quite a few assumptions to "prove" this. Maybe you could come back and discuss his "equations" the day Planck's constant becomes... oh well... a constant! (It seems rather variable these days!)

-Klypp

I never said Planck "proved" anything. I said the observation was inconsistent with the wave hypothesis of light described by Maxwell's equations. A continuous entity, by DEFINITION, cannot be discrete. This is a direct self-contradiction. Tell me Klypp, does 1=1? Is light continuous or not? It cannot be both, that is also a DIRECT self-contradiction. 1 is 1 is 1 and not 2 or 3 or 4...

Waves doesn't exert pressure??? You should try visiting a rock concert!!!

-Klypp

Weren't we debating light not sound? I said this was something "the wave equations never predicted" which is 100% correct. Maxwell's equations (obviously what I'm talking about) never predicted this observation. The wave equations for sound and other observations work fine.

Wave theory unequivocally predicted that light would transfer "energy" gradually, but obviously it does not. -altonhare
Yes, obviously! Which is why your eardrums vibrate and don't just get blown into your brain. -klypp

An argument based on sound waves to refute an argument about the wave hypothesis of light. I'm afraid there will be no straw-men left Klypp.

Yeah, sure... The Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Physics has this definition: "This states that if a ray of light travels from one point to another through an optical system along a particular path, a ray can also proceed in the reverse direction along the same path." "Can also" is a far cry from "always"!!!

-Klypp

An appeal to authority. Always a fallacious argument. You never took debate did you?

The question is, did they say "can also" because light is not understood and they are avoiding using absolutes like "always"? I know that, if I were writing an encyclopedia entry on an ill-understood topic I would avoid making blanket statements.

Before you scream that waves cannot do this and waves cannot do that, you should try to find out what a wave can do!

[/quote] -Klypp

Apparently there was one last straw-man. My argument is precisely that a wave cannot "do" anything because a wave is what something ELSE does. What's waving?

[altonhare]

Retroreflection is an example where "light retraces its path". This is wave behaviour. It excludes particle theory as returning particles would just smash into the incoming ones. It may not exclude altonhare's rope. But then again, what he describes is a torsional wave along the rope...

-Klypp

It is a phenomenon that is described by wave equations. It is elegantly explained by a rope that connects all the atoms involved. Indeed light is not a particle. When the torsion arrives at the atoms in our eye it expands/compresses the electron shell. This expansion/contraction retransmits the signal to other atoms and on into our brain where it is interpreted. Light is neither a particle nor a "wave". Light is an observation. What is actually happening is the expansion/compression of electron "yarn balls" that torque the adjoining two-strand ropes which are then connected to every other atom.

As for a rope...
I wouldn't know. Where can I get a good, refracting rope these days???

-Klypp

Refraction is well-explained by TT but it's been a while since I read it and thought about it. I don't remember the specifics and will have to get back to you.

[webolife]

webolife wrote:
Be careful here... light rays cannot operate in both directions simultaneously along the same line-of-sight.
All waves can do this, including light. In most cases only a wave perpendicular to a reflecting surface will return to its source. But there are techniques to make most of the waves return. The phenomenon is called retroreflection, or sometimes phase conjugation, wavefront reversal or even time reversal. The phenomenon is easily demonstrated every time you are out driving by night. Notice how the traffic signs "stands out" when your car's headlights hit them. This is not due to normal reflection, it's retroreflection.

By your own presumption of light speed (delay between sending and receiving), you are saying the same thing as me. Or perhaps you are imagining some kind of standing wave phenomenon for light? The traffic sign at night exemplifies light NOT RETURNING ON THE SAME PATH... the path is between your eye and the sign and between the sign and the headlight. If you are referring to a fresnel type reflection, this is simply a way of "returning " a signal to its source by another path. Either way you are affirming what I suggested, that light does not operate simultaneously in opposite directions on the same path.

Be careful here... light rays cannot operate in both directions simultaneously along the same line-of-sight. Partial or total vector cancellation occurs. This is actually the reason why there is a c-rate at all. A time/space interval must always occur between the "sending" and "receiving" of a light signal, this due to the not-so-obvious yet simple fact that all systems are actually moving relative to each other. This >0 angular reflection requirement results in the spectral aberration that is responsible for many of the so-called measurements of c (these are actually inferences or at best calculations based on the assumption of c).

altonhare wrote
To be clear define exactly what you mean by "light ray" and exactly what you're referring to physically when you discuss "partial/total vector cancellation". Additionally what exactly you mean by a "time/space interval".
I can't be 100% confident about what you're saying here but I'm pretty sure I didn't claim that light can propagate in "two directions simultaneously". The two-strand entwined rope is torqued by the expansion of an atom's electron shell. This torque propagates down the twined rope to the next atom (since all atoms are interconnected by two-stranded entwined ropes). The next atom's electron shell expands then contracts, sending the torque back to its origin irrespective of the relative motion of the two bodies. This is why c is a constant and why light always "retraces its path".

I mean that "rays" characterize the true nature of light... as vectors of force/pressure operating at a peripheral point in the field simultaneously with the fluctuation of the electronic energy level at the source. The direction of a light ray/vector is centropic, ie toward the source, as a sink. Most of your descriptions of your "ropes" are interchangeable with my description of my light vectors. However I describe light action as instantaneous with respect to the distance between the peripheral "receptor" and the light source/sink; as I see it, light is what we "see" when the field geometry collapses, condenses, drops to a lower energy level, or otherwise "tugs" at you with respect to your line-of-sight. Counterintuitively to the usually "emission" scenarios for light, the light ray/vector operation is toward the source/sink, as the entire field fluctuates simultaneously (like a voltage drop) with the electron-ic drop in energy level at the source. My unified field needs no c-rate other than something akin to what is proposed by Ralph Sansbury, describing the amount of time required for the fundamental drop to occur (at the atomic level). Vector cancellation is just that, if you attempt to operate light rays in both directions along the same path, you get no light action. Simplest and best example: look at your self in the mirror... your own pupil looks back at you from the blackest hole in the universe... total vector cancellation.

The interval experienced between sending and receiving of a signal, while it does not actually correlate to the c-rate in most cases, is a necessary result of the fact that your signal cannot "return" to you instantly on the same path. It is "returning" instantly on another path however! There must be a non-zero angle of reflection. This necessitates that the sending/receiving station(s) be separated by distance or by time, and as many would suggest, both are inseparably linked in physics. Assumptions about light speed affect drastically the setups created for this kind of signal retrieval, especially across vast distances of space, as to, eg., the Pioneer or Cassini satellites, Mars rovers, etc. Ephemerides play a huge part in this determination of setup, and many assumptions are brought into play when determining how and when to retrieve signals from these distant objects. Einstein's "problem of simultaneity" also plays a huge role in these interpretations.

[kevin]

What a boost to read this forum, what a dare to respond.

I consider from that which I personally detect, that nothing is moving bar the space between the spheres, and as each sphere has circulations about it, going in alternative directions as they radiate outwards and inwards to each sphere, that we the observer looking out via these pathways and recieving back the signals also via these pathways are given the illusion of movement of the spheres, and ever so compelling as that illusion is, I find no movement of the fixed geometry, but infinite interferance variability of the space between the fixed spheres.
If I follow these pathways, and look back, I would swear I was follwing a serpent trail, a spiral serpent that smiles at you, when you see it, but then it vanishes again.
kevin