How infrared Light travel in Space

[B-O]

Hi there! The Thunderbolt of the Gods Documentary has made me woundering about a LOTS of other phenomenon (both on Earht and in Space), and especially the mainstream Science explanations of them... One of these things, is about the Earths Energy transformation. It is said that about 30 % of the Sunlight that hits the Earths Atmosphere, reflects back to Space immidiately. I suppose we are talking about electromagnetic Energi here, and that it leaves the Earth the same way it came - through the Plasma... Yes, but what about the 70 % which claims to leave our Planet as infrared light!? Which Medium does THIS Energy transport it self throug out in Space, if there is only Plasma!?

[B-O]

Still waiting for answer...

If you think this is a stupid question, I hope You say... However, I don’t think it is, and in fact, I don’t think that the mainstream Sciens, can explain this, as I DOUBT that infrared Energy, if we with this mean "HEAT", CAN travel in Space. There is simply no Material in Space, which make that "Heat", can exists... (Plasma only offers short radiations Waves...)

I’m pretty convinced that 100 percent of the Energy that leaves our Planet, makes that in the same form and through the same Material, as it came, since EVERYTHING is about electromagnetic Energy... The so called HEAT Energy, is - as You know - just about electromagnetic Energy, as WELL. It just happen to consists of longer radiation Waves. That is why you can not say that "heat Energy" is leaving our Planet. It is the Heat Energy which CORRESPONDS with the electromagnetic Energy, that leaves the Planet. The "heat" is simply something we perceives as some kind of Energy in it selfs. Energy is in fact, ONLY about Electomagnetism...

I’m aware of that this idea contradicts the Theory that states that some of our Atmosphere Gases delays the Solars Energy in it's journey back to Space. However, the thing is that it does NOT! It CAN not! There is even no such thing as Greenhouse Gases. If the ruling so called Sciens would admit this, they would miss an Argument for why Mankind is creating the Global warming...

Responce please!

[B-O]

I have to make a correction: “Plasma only offers short Radiation Waves”, I wrote. It should have said that “Plasma only offers transports of electromagnetic Energy”. It naturally also transport electromagnetic Energy of long Waves as god as short. However, long Waves electromagnetic Energy in Space with only Plasma, could hardly create Heate...

Now, please give me a responce to my thoughts...

[Sovereign]

The medium that electric waves uses is a hot topic around here, check out the aether/chain theory threads.

[B-O]

Thanks, I will! However, since I'm no English spoken Person, and neither is familier with the technical Terms in this discipline of Sciense, I hade HOPE that I could have just one or two short responce to the way I have understood the consequenses of the "Thunderbolt" Theories on this specific Matter, and to the way I have put it.

I sure will be looking for the answer in your suggested Threads, homever, I still hope for one och to here as well...
Just a short responce, an I would be happy!

[altonhare]

Thanks, I will! However, since I'm no English spoken Person, and neither is familier with the technical Terms in this discipline of Sciense, I hade HOPE that I could have just one or two short responce to the way I have understood the consequenses of the "Thunderbolt" Theories on this specific Matter, and to the way I have put it.

I sure will be looking for the answer in your suggested Threads, homever, I still hope for one och to here as well...
Just a short responce, an I would be happy!

There are several theories regarding the propagation of electromagnetic radiation/energy. There is the corpuscle (particle) of Newton, the aether of MIchelson and Tesla, and the rope/chain of Gaede/Hare respectively.

In any event, you can read about corpuscles and aether on this site as well as in many books about scientific history. The rope/chain is a relatively new hypothesis and the best source of information on it is the originator himself, Bill Gaede. The "chain" I mention is just a modification on the theory which he founded and developed. I want to make that clear because placing my name next to his in the above may imply that I deserve relatively equal credit or that I put in as much work as him, when this is not the case. Bill Gaede has a series of videos which make his theory very clear. After watching them I recommend you move on over to the "details of thread theory" thread and ask for further clarification.

Light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

The H Atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Magnetism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

Gravitation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

Good luck and I hope you find your answer!

[webolife]

B-O,
I dismissed your question at first, but your second explanation of it brings up some very valid points.
Here are some of my thoughts:
Light in all its forms is transparent, from x-rays to "visible colors" to radio. But materials differ in their opacity to the various forms, ie. they act as filters. Insolation, the earth's receptivity to light, is very complex as a result. Most light, as you seem to understand, and especially IR, projects through the atmosphere almost as if the atmosphere were not there at all. When it is absorbed by a material (which I understand to be an atomic/molecular reaction due to specific electrical configuration of the material, be it air, water, dyes, or photoreceptor pigments, or whatever type of filter), that absorption is "felt" as heat. When you block a light bulb with some object, say a sheet of paper, one side of the paper reflects most of the "colors", but some of the light "passes" through the translucent paper, and if a detector such as a motion detector or other heat sensor is aimed at the back side of the paper it can "see" the IR "color", ie. feel the heat. The earth's surface acts this way, different materials differentially reacting (electrically) to the stimulus of the light. Your question is based on the kinetic theory of heat, which assumes that all heat is due to the motion of molecules, and ignores the radiant aspect of light and heat. Folks on this forum differ widely on the nature of "radiation". I myself have absolutely no difficulty with light acting/radiating/being projected across empty space virtually instantaneously; while most others here have stock in some sort of (undetectable?) medium, be it aether, rope/chains, or whatever.

[junglelord]

Light should be understood as Primary Angular Momentum.

Light is not EM.

Light or the photon is not Electro Magnetic as we are familiar with it. It is a Tempic vibration or loop which has no electric or magnetic field until it hits an atom able to absorb it into its electron shell adding back the EM components of its wave. Light is not bent by a magnetic field or an electric field because it does not have one in itself to be interactive with, it is only bent in a gravity field where we see stars bending the light from objects passing behind them. It is the smallest pure tempic field vibration we normally encounter. Much like the torsion waves we see Protons emitting in the scalar coils, they can not be measured or detected using EM sensitive equipment, until they hit a system designed to move the energy back into the normal EM fields. Light does not loose energy as it propagates, the value of Planks constant shows us that it is a quantum energy packet that does not experience any loss as it travels. Torsion waves also exhibit this quality.

Light can be polarized, it only fits one direction through a narrow slit smaller then its wavelength. It is a flat loop traveling along its edge. This is the same model for tempic waves or torsion fields. The longitudinal wave is moving through the tempic field not the EM fields, an important distinction.



Light becomes an interference pattern only after it interacts, study the two slit experiment to see how this operates. Light is operating inside the one dimensional force at its most basic level of primary spin. It is an alteration of its velocity back and forth as it moves through space. Wilbert Smith got the answer to, what is light?, "It simply is". It is the first possible vibration operating on the prime force of nature the tempic field. Thus the torsion field is also this type of manifestation, completely void of EM. This is why scalar waves may pass right through solid objects such a Faraday cages, if these waves are not responsive to the wavelengths of the matter.



The tempic field receiver. Two coils placed in quadrature will rebuild the electric component of a torsion wave. Only after the Electric field is reestablished will a magnetic field form, from its movement, and we discover all sit at 90 degrees to one another.



The donut now forms around the electric field in motion. Here we end up with the familiar Electric Magnetic and Motion vectors appearing in Electronics, only we have created them from the prime force outwards and included their correct spin angles to explain light polarization and torsion fields. This model shows us what we have come to call Tempic field, Torsion field, Motion in electric motors, and Light photons are all manifestations of the same basic force, the prime field of nature. Although they all may interact with EM under correct conditions they are not of themselves EM.

It should become apparent due to the nature of matter, that if we could succeed at pushing matter up to its local light speed, it would now be moving along its torsion vector equally as fast as it is moving in its circle pattern, and the circles would never complete as spin. It would become spread out into a stream of energy with nothing that is recognizable to anyone observing it. The solution is to increase its' light speed constant so it can now make more rotations, moving it through density, this requires a tempic field manipulation.


Gravity
Gravity was explained by Wilbert Smith as well, but not comprehensible until one grasps the tempic field. Gravity and the Electric field are composed of the same two vector forces, tempic and electric fields setting at 90 degrees to one another, and thus both offer a distance squared force. Electric force projects along its electric vector which has a gradient or a modulation and carries a constant tempic field along with it that is relatively unchanging at 90 degrees. Gravity has a relatively constant electric field but its tempic field contains a gradient or modulation, and thus it is able to effect light which travels the tempic field. The Electric field gradient is not known to alter the path of light and therein lies the difference.

Collapsing the Torsion field:
When we observe the work of John Hutchison, levitating a cannon ball using 5 EM instruments, we realize that the forces of the tempic field can be altered. What is happening may not be clear to most and seems like magic to be feared, but the explanation is really very straight forwards from the field forces models already commonly in place if one can make the leap to the one dimensional field force, or Torsion to realize its true nature.
http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/FieldForces.htm

[junglelord]

If you pay close attention to the nature of light, it is clear it is not EM.
Yet everyone believes what they are told.
Photons do not respond to EM fields only gravity.
So where is the so called EM nature of light?
They are therefore not EM Radiation.
They are a Tempic Vibration in the Smith work.
They are Primary Angular Mometum in APM.
Both recognize that it is not EM.

That is the first clue to reveal the lie that they have sold to you.
Saying that e- exchange energy with photons is a good way of saying nothing.
What does that mean? What is a joule? That is not correct. It is invalid.
They exchange something that is element to both, but it is not EM.
Just because the atom creates EM and ES fields, does not mean it exchanges EM with photons.

APM is clear that e- and the photon exchange primary angular momentum.
PAM is not charge. Therefore it is not EM.

In the Smith work being a Tempic Vibration, again it is not E or M.
Its is instant and the deception that it takes time is an illusion in the Tempic model.

[keeha]

Yes what webolife says.

IR radiation is unique from visible light in that it can be absorbed by polarisable covalent bonds. What we call 'IR radiation' is just a longer wavelength than what we call 'visible light'. Thus it can travel through space as light does.

Gabriel LaFreniere has updated his section on light: LET THERE BE LIGHT.

1. The light waves do not vibrate transversely.
2. The light is made of composite waves pulsated on a secondary, lower frequency.
3. Photons do not exist.

[Solar]

Is the supposed "bending" of light around a celestial object the only phenomena linking light and gravity? Are, there any experimental examples of this relationship other than that?

Light is supposed to be "massless" so how can it be affected by gravity? This idea, that gravity affects light, stems from Special Relativity doesn't it? It's a part of the supposed gravitationally induced "curvature of space-time" that is is supposed to "bend" light along with the supposed "curvature" of the "space-time fabric". As of right now "Gravitational Wave Dectors" haven't detected this "curvature". This would seem to imply that, as of right now, this "curvature" doesn't exist. So how is it that the idea of light being affected by gravity is still an accepted paradigm when it doesn't appear that the causative agent has made the leap from mathematics to physical detection?

It seems that the idea has been reified so much that it has become an immediate abstract concept from which to leap without checking from whence it originated. It is the result of an abstract mathematical concept considered to be real but one which has not demonstrated itself to be factual.

Newton didn't notice this bending of light because it takes very massive objects to get something as fast as light to curve enough that you can notice. This is the same reason we still learn and use Newton's equation - it works well most of the time. But experiments have shown that in fact Newton was wrong and light IS attracted towards object with mass, as Einstein's theory predicted.

According to Newtonian gravity, light is not affected by gravity, as light is massless. Einstein's law E = mc2, immediately suggests that light is affected by gravity. This is indeed the case and has experimentally be observed via gravitational lensing and other effects. - How does gravity alter the trajectory of light?

The above impresses me as talking out of both sides of the mouth at once contrasting that which experimentally "works most of the time" to mathematical concepts that have been assigned to observation via interpretation.

Although gravitational radiation has not yet been directly detected, it has been indirectly shown to exist.- Wiki

The suggestion has been made that light is 'retransmitted' via the particular mediums with which it might interact as opposed to being "bent" by gravity. It appears to me that this is what Gabriel LaFreniere is saying here:

Transparency.

Inside air, water, or glass, the light waves constantly disturb electrons which emit some new light whose phase is opposite. The original waves simply go through any object but their action is cancelled. The light seems to go through any transparent material, but one must realize that the exiting light is new.

A substance is transparent because it has a perfectly homogeneous structure. For instance, a crystal is made of regularly spaced atoms. All electrons inside it will react to any incident light wave and produce a new wave according to Huygens' Principle.

Because there are two sorts of electrons whose spin (phase) is opposite, one half is slightly pushed by the incident wave while the other half is rather attracted. All of them react like a genuine wave medium. The electronic wave is transmitted all the way towards the other surface, where surface electrons finally emit some new light. So there is no true light inside air, water or glass, albeit the electromagnetic effects are still present. - THE LIGHT

Particularly with "The original waves simply go through any object but their action is cancelled. The light seems to go through any transparent material, but one must realize that the exiting light is new." That appears to be "retransmission", not "indirectly" inferred gravitationally induced "bending".

LaFreniere's website appears to support this idea:

NEWTON WAS RIGHT

The light is not affected by gravity. However, electrons are capable of regenerating some new light, for example inside air, water or optical glass.

There is no General Relativity because gravity rarely involves "relativistic" speed. Gravity is only a regular force. Surely, gravity cannot "bend space". It is geometrically impossible. This hypothesis is totally absurd, actually an insult to our intelligence. What's more, it does not mechanically explain anything.

Frankly, did you really believe that?

It is much better to simply admit Newton's law. - GRAVITY

[altonhare]

Is the supposed "bending" of light around a celestial object the only phenomena linking light and gravity? Are, there any experimental examples of this relationship other than that?

The observation that two bodies emit light along a rectilinear path as they also pull on each other via gravitation is pretty indicative that the two are linked. The fact that gravity seems to act "at a distance* between the two bodies while light appears to propagate through a "vacuum" are pretty indicative as well, imo.

So how is it that the idea of light being affected by gravity is still an accepted paradigm when it doesn't appear that the causative agent has made the leap from mathematics to physical detection?

Indeed, LIGO has been a miserable failure for 7 years. But to admit rel/quant are fundamentally incorrect at this juncture would be beyond shameful and embarrassing for them.

[webolife]

Agreed with all of Alton's comments above, with this proviso:
In my UFT light also acts "at a distance", not "propagating" wavelike.

The action of gravity and light both are the same...centropic pressure (centropic = directed toward the "source" as a sink)
and are both manifestations of the same mechanism. Alton describes this mechanism as rope-chains, I as vector-beams.
A major EU connection is that the mechanism is scaleless, some say "scalable", ie applicable to all scales from atomic to astronomic. This implies... leads to the additional connection to electrical fields and nuclear forces as well. The APM demonstrates that a proper understanding of units and geometry of the universal matrix referred to as the "aether" applies to each and all of these differently-scaled phenomena. The behavior of plasma leads to an understanding of how and why material moves through space, not only due to gravitational but also electrical field effects. Does IR "travel", or is IR simply one color of the phenomenon known as light, which is a pressure felt by an "IR-resonant" photoreceptor?

[Solar]

The observation that two bodies emit light along a rectilinear path as they also pull on each other via gravitation is pretty indicative that the two are linked. The fact that gravity seems to act "at a distance* between the two bodies while light appears to propagate through a "vacuum" are pretty indicative as well, imo.

Curious. As with Fritz Zwicky and the gravitational inference of "dark matter" to account for the orbital speeds of galaxies so to it seems that inference is the gravitational link with the hypothesis that light "bends" via the same cause i.e. interpretation based on prior conclusion/assumption. The prior conclusion being gravity as the expectant source of influence. I would submit that it is expectancy as a result of scenarios based on 'indirect inferences' that constantly begets the many "surprises" that pot-mark many aspects of astronomical theories. I would not be at all surprised if the hypothetical light/gravity relationship wouldn't turn out to have originated from the same psychology.

Agreed with all of Alton's comments above, with this proviso:
In my UFT light also acts "at a distance", not "propagating" wavelike.

The action of gravity and light both are the same...centropic pressure (centropic = directed toward the "source" as a sink)
and are both manifestations of the same mechanism...

Does IR "travel", or is IR simply one color of the phenomenon known as light, which is a pressure felt by an "IR-resonant" photoreceptor?

I find your "centropic" very interesting. I'm certain that I misunderstood your "sink" relationship form a previous thread some time ago. I don't know if its convergence/divergence of "radiation pressure" via "vector-beams" although that does seem to be a good analogy if I understand. It seems that there would be a type of crystolic piezoelectric nature to the "receptors". Perhaps even a chemical equivalent. Before I end up misunderstanding your UFT again could you PM me some general details please?