Recovered: New Theory of Light

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:25 am

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

Now just stop and ask yourself if light is a EM function why do EM fields not bend it>
:?

What if the original idea behind a Einstein Rosen Bridge would actually lead us to the first and primary field, and not some flight of fancy like a worm hole?

The purpose of the paper of Einstein and Rosen was not to promote faster-than-light or inter-universe travel, but to attempt to explain fundamental particles like electrons as space-tunnels threaded by electric lines of force. Not exactly the same concept but a step in the same direction it would appear. The Scalar field would be the primary field and all particles and forces descend/evolve from it.
_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:26 am

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "lk"

The Final Theory on Light
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html
- The so-called Final Theory has these interesting things to say about light at the above site. If anyone has read the book and can fill us in on some of the relevant details, that would be pretty nice. Does the Final Theory seem to have any disagreements with the theory of this thread? It definitely seems to have some flaws, but does well at explaining the flaws in conventional science. So I'm hoping his theory might have real insights.
Light slows as it passes through water or glass, causing it to bend, but how can it return to light-speed on its own once it exits? This is impossible in today's science. No object in nature can speed up of its own accord after being slowed. A bullet doesn't spontaneously speed up after it is slowed by passing through a wooden block, so how does a photon of light mysteriously return to its original speed once it exits a glass block? Also, continuously shining a light beam through a glass block will heat it, creating the further mystery that the beam actually loses energy as it passes through the glass, yet still manages to accelerate to its original speed upon exit.

Here is another related mystery: Bounce a light-beam between two parallel mirrors at a slight angle so that the beam bounces along the mirrors in a zig-zag pattern. How many bounces will it take before the light beam loses energy and slows down appreciably? 1000 bounces? 10,000? Of course, we know that the light beam will never slow down no matter how many times it bounces back and forth, despite the well-established fact that light imparts a small momentum punch when it bounces off objects (the principle behind solar sails). So, how does a single beam of light impart countless momentum punches as it zig-zags between the mirrors, yet still manage to emerge afterward at the same unchanging speed of light? According to today's science this is an impossible energy-for-free event.
==> These mysteries are solved in Chapter 5 via the new subatomic principle.

Einstein's Special Relativity Theory is all a mistake. Not only can clear errors be found in all supporting experiments and thought experiments, but even Einstein's own mathematical support for his theory has clear fatal errors. One of the flaws is so striking that two key lines were omitted from Einstein's published Special Relativity derivation found in his own book, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, published in 1961. A closer look at this derivation shows a large leap of logic that cannot be properly followed unless several missing lines are filled in. There is only one mathematically viable way to fill in these missing lines, which is shown below in simplified form:
Line 1: x = a + b -- note: speed-of-light term, c, has dropped out entirely by this point
Line 2: x = a + b * (c2/ c2) -- the undefined symbol, c, is artificially re-introduced Now, let the symbol y stand for the expression (b * c2)
Line 3: x = a + y / c2 -- the symbol, c, is kept from cancelling by hiding it within y in the numerator The two missing lines, now added above as lines 1 & 2, show that the speed-of-light term drops out of the derivation entirely and should never have appeared in the final equations. The above improper mathematical operations are the only way to add it back in, yet do not actually add the speed of light back at all, but only the meaningless letter C from the alphabet. Any letter from A to Z could have been chosen, showing how meaningless and arbitrary it was to choose the letter C, which was used to represent the speed of light earlier in the derivation before it dropped out completely. See if you can spot this yourself around lines 6 and 7 in Einstein’s own derivation.
Further, this is not the only fatal flaw in Einstein's derivation, but one of many. Variables are arbitrarily assigned and reassigned different values, then expressions from earlier in the derivation, which were only valid prior to these arbitrary value changes, are re-used as if they were still valid. In actuality, there is no viable mathematical support for Einstein's Special Relativity Theory at all. Don’t believe it? Again, look for yourself at the link above. Einstein's reputation has grown to such heights and his theories have become so deeply ingrained in our science today that few scientists, if any, are willing to seriously investigate this matter and see the errors that are in plain view.
==> The numerous flaws in Einstein's Derivation are detailed in Chapter 5.

General Relativity fails so completely to explain the motion of stars in galaxies that concepts as wild as mysterious ‘Dark Matter’ filling the universe must be invented to try to retain the theory. So, what exactly is going on with all the claims about Einstein’s Relativity Theories by our scientists?
==> This apparent paradox and "proof" of Special Relativity is clearly debunked in Chapter 5.
according to "General Relativity", all motion is in reference to a fixed, absolute 'space-time' grid permeating the universe. So General Relativity's basic definition completely undoes its very reason for existence
==> The true nature of electricity & magnetism is explained in Ch. 5, showing good reason why particle accelerators have a built-in light-speed limit, debunking this apparent evidence for Special Relativity Theory.
there are still further lab experiments and thought experiments that are commonly touted as proof, each of which can be readily shown to either have clear logical flaws or simple commonsense explanations other than "time dilation", "relativistic mass increase", or "space-time contraction".
==> Try your own hand at this or turn to Chapter 5 for the answers.

Black Holes are said to form when a star expends its nuclear energy and physically collapses. But starlight only shines from intact, functioning stars, of course. There is no more reason to expect light to shine from Black Holes than from a burnt-out, smashed light bulb.

Today’s belief in the Big Bang / Expanding Universe theories has even led today’s astronomers to claim that some type of mysterious antigravity force is pushing the galaxies apart -- faster and faster the more distant they are. Such a force has never been observed in any experiment or explained by any scientific theory, and it even violates our most cherished laws of physics. Where does this mysterious force come from and how is its ever-accelerating effect powered?
The only reason this concept ever arose is because light from distant galaxies is Red-Shifted -- i.e. it arrives with its colors shifted toward the low end of the visible spectrum where red light resides. It was assumed that this was the same as the Doppler Effect for sound, which describes the shift to lower frequencies in sound waves from objects that are speeding away. However, sound waves are completely different from light. Sound is not pure "sound energy" but compression waves within an atmosphere of air molecules, while light is considered to be a very strange form of pure energy, full of "quantum- mechanical" mysteries and paradoxes. Not only is there no clear scientific reason to link the Doppler Effect of sound with the Red Shift of light, but it is well known that light is easily red shifted by simply passing it through gases or plastics. The Compton Effect is a very well known cause for shifts in light frequency, and has nothing to do with motion of the light source. And as any astronomer knows, distant starlight passes through billions of light-years of various gases, plasmas, and fields before arriving at our telescopes. Is it any surprise that the further away a galaxy is, the more Red-Shifted its light?
==> The Big Bang Theory myth is debunked further in Chapter 6.

==> Quantum Mechanics is debunked, and the subatomic realm properly explained in Ch. 5

Today's science states light is mysteriously both a wave and a particle, depending on the detection method. This bizarre belief even leads to the conclusion that detecting starlight as either a wave or a particle then instantly reaches back billions of years in space and time to determine the corresponding form in which the light was originally transmitted. Such impossible time travel beliefs show just how lost today's science is due to its blind belief in quantum-mechanical theory as the true physical description of nature.
In fact, it is very easy to debunk even our simplest beliefs about light today. For example, it is currently believed light-waves somehow "cancel" in "destructive interference" when they meet out of phase so that the peaks of one wave coincide with the valleys of another. Yet, a simple experiment crossing 2 light- beams from common laser pointers shows that it is impossible for light to vanish into thin air simply because 2 beams are mis- aligned (out of phase). In fact, it is a violation of the Law Of Conservation Of Energy to even expect this to occur. Light is not a mysterious quantum-mechanical wave-particle entity, but something much simpler to understand.
==> The true nature of light is finally exposed in Ch. 5 since the new subatomic principle from from Ch. 4 also relates to energy of all types.

The wavelike interference pattern in the famous Double-Slit experiments is always equated to water waves interfering. But water waves are not "waves of pure water energy" in the same manner that we think of waves of light energy; they are a wavelike group behavior of countless particles (water molecules). Interference patterns between water waves are the result of interaction between groups of particles, not "waves of pure water energy".
So, why is this analogy used as proof that a similar interference pattern between light-beams is an interaction between "waves of pure light energy"? Simply because our instructors merely accept and repeat what they’ve been told, mentally locking themselves and us into the flawed science legacy that we have inherited. In actuality though, the Double Slit experiment is clear evidence for an interaction between groups of countless particles of light, just as the water-wave analogy would imply.
But what is meant by "particles of light"? This is not a reference to today's even more mysterious quantum-mechanical photons, but something much simpler that arises from the same sub-atomic principle that runs throughout The Final Theory. Also, this new perspective solves the mystery of why an interference pattern appears even when individual light photons are shot one by one through the slits. The answer is really quite simple and straightforward, removing all the mysterious and bizarre "quantum-mechanical" myths we are taught today.
Further, with the new understanding that this experiment shows group particle interaction and not individual energy wave interference, it is now easy to see why experiments with beams of electrons also show a similar interference pattern. Far from proof that even matter (electrons) has a bizarre wave-particle dual nature (as Quantum Mechanics states today), this merely shows straightforward particle interaction, just as we would expect from electrons. But what does this all mean?
==> This is all clearly explained in Ch. 5. Not only is the true nature of light finally explained, but a definitive end is finally brought to the bizarre theory of Quantum Mechanics.

Einstein's famous E = mc2 equation has been largely misunderstood and misrepresented. It is often shown in complex mathematical derivations and is said to literally describe matter mysteriously converting into energy in an atom-bomb explosion -- a process that is completely unexplained even today. But, in actuality, this equation is extremely easy to derive in only a few lines of simple math, and does not truly describe a process as mysterious as a transformation of "matter into energy".
For starters, consider that the classic kinetic energy equation, K.E. = ½mv2, is almost identical to Einstein's equation. In fact, it only differs by the factor-of-two term. That is, if we write the kinetic energy of an object traveling at light speed, the classic kinetic energy equation would be E = ½mc2. This is precisely Einstein's equation, only divided by two. So, why are these two equations so similar, and what does this really tell us about the nature of light, energy, and the atomic bomb? Here's a further hint in a simple four-line derivation that can easily be arrived at for Einstein's equation, based on well-known equations for the momentum of light:
p = E/c -- momentum of light, p, equals its energy content divided by its speed
p = mc -- momentum of light, stated in terms of its classical momentum, mass x speed
E/c = mc -- equating the two momentum terms in the two lines above
E = mc2 -- rearranging the above line gives Einstein’s famous equation
==> For the full truth about this equation and what it really says about light, energy, and the atomic bomb see Chapter 6.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:27 am

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:14 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "StefanR"

There is a vortex particle visible in air and water. By it's very nature it is a stable flow configuration it's size is determined by the frequency of rotation, but as it gets smaller it also has a better penetrability of it's medium thus can travel faster. It's able to keep it's speed,untill it encounters a certain level of resistance , that's when it is slowed down and becomes bigger, until it comes to rest and breaks up into a normal wave flow. But again a faster the flow of the transverse flow the easier it is to roll up again in a vortex structure. This is the famous slit experiment.
And as the rolling up occurs the information/frequency/harmonies in the transverse wave is contained in the vortex particle and is released again with unrolling ,whereby in the photon (which consists of two opposing in wave direction moving vortex particles, or a matter/antimatter configuration in materialist language Wink , the vortices anihilate each other and visible light/transverse waves are detected by our senses.
But let us be entertained by two examples in nature:
:shock:
Dolphin play bubble rings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q

and with the next one CANCEL the sound ;) :

Volcano blowing smoke rings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B88DyWru ... re=related


Now in the electric and the magnetic field these particles also are possible to exist. Now it is also possible that two of these particles/vortices/'ringbubbles' with opposite flow directions are able move through each other:
Picture it in a einstain-bose condensate ,ok it's a model but it shows the motion. ;)

Soliton Wave in a Bose-Einstein Condensate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxbutNmaL-s

:? ;)
_________________
"And surely struggle against him we must in every possible way who would annihilate knowledge and reason and mind, and yet ventures to speak confidently about anything."
Plato, Phaedo

Last edited by StefanR on Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:24 am; edited 1 time in total
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:29 am

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:20 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

[quote="StefanR"]
<snip>
But let us be entertained by two examples in nature:
:shock:
Dolphin play bubble rings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q

and with the next one CANCEL the sound ;) :

Volcano blowing smoke rings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B88DyWru ... re=related

<snip>


Wow! Amazing clips. That dolphin one ... well, not to get too "sappy" ... but that's enough to melt your heart. 8-)

Oh, and thanks for the audio warning on the volcano one. I don't think the volcano was the only thing smokin'. :lol:
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:31 am

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:34 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

Here is a system that was developed by Wilbert Smith and emits donut shaped waves of a tensor beam which are Tesla waves which are longitudinal dielectric energy.

a system which uses a radio transmitter as an energy source but has a special antenna converter, which radiates doughnut shaped waves, which are not time functions. … Following are the construction instructions. One ferrite core, material with the highest permeability and dielectric constant, about 8 inches to a foot long, and about 1 inch in diameter. About 20 feet of plastic insulated #14 electric house wire. Starting at the center of the wire and at one end of the core, wind on the wire as closely as possible, with the first turn under and then over, so that the winding will be exactly symmetrical. It will start at one end of the core and finish at the other end and will resemble a solenoid with a bifilar winding. It is important that the winding be exactly symmetrical.

The size of the coil is not critical, nor is the winding beyond the fact that it must be symmetrical. Of course the combination determines the critical frequencies at which conversion takes place. Even if you use rods as small as 1/8 inch and wind with #36 wire it should work at reasonable medium high frequencies.

When measured on a radio frequency bridge, it shows very peculiar properties. There are certain frequencies at which it is impossible to balance the RF bridge, and that is a direct contradiction to what any electrical engineer will tell you should happen with a coil wound on a ferrite core.

This coil converts ordinary radio frequency energy into a tensor beam. It depends on the particular sample of ferrite and the selection of operating frequency and power. There is definitely an optimum frequency and a minimum power to generate the beam. Your best indication is when you feed a fair amount of power into the unit without it getting the least bit warm. If it does get warm, you are doing something wrong. Incidentally, I am talking in terms of at least 100 watts RF input.

Apparently the hole down the center of the core is necessary for its proper functioning, as is an adequate power input. It will take a kilowatt comfortably, without heating at all, and we know that it will work on 100 watts, but it won’t work for us on 30 watts. It just gets hot on the lower power! I don’t know what the lower cutoff power is.

The main point is to find the frequencies at which it will "convert" ordinary radio energy into tensor energy. At these frequencies it is possible to send a kilowatt or more into the coil without it showing any tendency to get warm. Under these conditions a small but real tensor beam is being generated, and with which an expert operator can accomplish a great deal. I can't tell you how to find the critical frequencies because each coil and ferrite core have different values, but trial and error will disclose them eventually. There are several for each unit.

With regard to the antenna, this gadget isn't actually an antenna but we call it such for lack of a better name. It generates a special type of wave, which is not a hertzian wave. It more closely resembles the waves which follow nerves.

When connected to a transmitter, treat it as any normal antenna for loading and tuning. There will be a few points of magnetic domain resonance which will be lossy but anywhere else the device will generate the required waves. It will not matter whether or not the antenna converter is shielded as the doughnut waves go through anything


The principle of this antenna is quite simple. It emanates doughnut shaped waves. In construction, the antenna is merely a rod or tube of Ferrite, or Ferroxcube, which has a high permeability, high dielectric constant and reasonably low loss at radio frequencies. On it is wound a winding of such type that turn by turn it is completely symmetrical, and progresses from one end to the other. The pitch of the winding, i.e; distance from turn to turn, is equal to π times the diameter of the turns divided by the square root of the product of the permeability and dielectric constant, both as applicable to the frequency to be used. We used one inch Ferrite tubes with a half inch hole, about 8 inches long and plastic insulated wire. The theory of operation is that the RF current flowing in each turn generates loops of magnetic flux within the Ferrite, and this in turn generates loops of electric flux and the whole is threaded on loops of tempic field. As the radio currents progress along the Ferrite rod the little doughnuts are pushed off the end and sent on their way. Reception takes place whenever the doughnuts encounter any material through which they can progress with the same net phase conditions as if they passed outside of it. In other words it is three field resonance condition. The units used by the space people are very tiny and are connected directly to suitable nerve endings. Incidentally, the electric impulses which nerves pass along are quite similar to these doughnut waves.

I have played a bit and found some extraordinary properties, one of which confirms the mathematics that the waves which this converter generates are not like Hertzian waves and do not depend on propagation for their continued existence. Consequently, I would have the idea that they would travel at whatever speed the sender could decree. I know that they will stay in one place for a long time.

The coil doesn't work as well on a receiver as an antenna, but any ferrite core with a coil on it can convert the doughnut waves into RF.

http://www.treurniet.ca/Smith/SmithCoil.htm


_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:50 am

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:46 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "StefanR"

Yes , I see. It very much alike.

21.9 Transition to the far-field
In sufficient distance to the transmitting antenna as far-field the transverse
electromagnetic wave results (fig. 21.9 B). It is distinguished by not occurring a phase
shift between E- and H-field anymore. Every change of the electric alternating field is
followed immediately and at the same time by a change of the magnetic alternating field
and vice versa.
In the proximity however the phase shift amounts to 90°. Somewhere and somehow
between the causing antenna current and the far-field a conversion from a longitudinal
into a transverse wave occurs. How should one imagine the transition?
In the books the coming off of a wave from a dipole is represented according to fig.
21.9 A. The fields come off the antenna, the explanation reads. If we consider the
s t r u c t u r e o f the fields coming off then we see field vortices, which run around a point,
which we can call the vortex centre. Such field structures naturally are capable of forming
standing waves and to carry an impulse. The scalar wave field in general and the nearfield
in special we only will understand with suitable vortex physics and with a field
theory extended for corresponding vortices we also will be able to calculate it. Postulates
cannot replace field physics!
Be that as it may, the vortex, after having left the antenna, for bigger getting distance at
some time seems to unroll to propagate further as an electromagnetic wave. There takes
place a transition from longitudinal to transverse, or spoken figuratively, from vortex to
wave. How complete this conversion takes place, how big the respective wave parts are
afterwards, on the one hand depends on the structure and the dimensions of the antenna.
Information is given by the measurable degree of effectiveness of the antenna.
The vortex structures on the other hand are the stabler, the smaller and faster they are. If
they are as fast as the light or even faster, then they become stable elementary particles,
for instance neutrinos. Slower vortex structures however are predominantly instable. They
preferably unwind to waves. Vortex and wave prove to be two possible and under certain
conditions even stable field configurations.
Let's emphasize: A Hertzian dipole doesn't emit Hertzian waves! An antenna as near-field
without exception emits vortices, which only at the transition to the far-field unwind to
electromagnetic waves. A Hertzian wave just as little can be received with a dipole
antenna! At the receiver the conditions are reversed. Here the wave is rolling up to a
vortex, which usually is called and conceived as a ,.standing wave". Only this field vortex
causes an antenna current in the rod, which the receiver afterwards amplifies and utilizes.
The mostly unknown or not understood near-field properties prove to be the key to the
understanding of the wave equation and of the method of functioning of transmitting and
receiving antenna. The question is asked, how one should imagine the rolling up of waves
to vortices and vice versa the unrolling? How could an useful vortex mode) look like?


http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=10_ ... sublevel=0
8-)
_________________
"And surely struggle against him we must in every possible way who would annihilate knowledge and reason and mind, and yet ventures to speak confidently about anything."
Plato, Phaedo
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:51 am

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:54 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "StefanR"

By the way if one wants some info about neutrinos look at this :shock: :

A nice .ppt about all of it:
Neutrino astronomy and telescopes
http://www.icecube.wisc.edu/~tmontaruli/c1.ppt
_________________
"And surely struggle against him we must in every possible way who would annihilate knowledge and reason and mind, and yet ventures to speak confidently about anything."
Plato, Phaedo
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:53 am

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "StefanR"

This .pdf is about some CMB measurements and the scalar modes in it :shock: , I placed in the dark energy thread:

<link to old forum no longer valid>
_________________
"And surely struggle against him we must in every possible way who would annihilate knowledge and reason and mind, and yet ventures to speak confidently about anything."
Plato, Phaedo
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:55 am

Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

@rc-us wrote:
StefanR wrote:<snip>
But let us be entertained by two examples in nature:
Shocked
Dolphin play bubble rings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q

and with the next one CANCEL the sound ;) :

Volcano blowing smoke rings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B88DyWru ... re=related

<snip>



Wow! Amazing clips. That dolphin one ... well, not to get too "sappy" ... but that's enough to melt your heart. Cool

Oh, and thanks for the audio warning on the volcano one. I don't think the volcano was the only thing smokin'. :lol:



http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=3ksTUUaSehk&NR=1

Ok, enough warm-and-fuzzy ... back over to you dry technocrats. :lol:
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:00 am

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "lite-brite"

Thanks for the lead-in @rc-us.

May I present exhibt A. The police beacon.

26-fslash-1491-2T.jpg
26-fslash-1491-2T.jpg (30.26 KiB) Viewed 400 times


Red shift anyone?

All dryness aside, I would like to follow up on my previous post on plasma crystals or plasma prisms reflecting/bending light. We see light bent in solids, we see it in liquids, we see it in gasses and why shouldn't we see it in a plasma?


Like others, I am not convinced that gravity is bending anything.

My example: Pulsars

In my example of the police beacon above, anyone who took one of these apart as a kid was surprised to find out that the light didn't rotate. It was the mirror. In this case the cone. The light was stationary. What proof do we have that the surface is rotating and not the shell around it?

So I have two ideas here.

1) The plasma vortex is rotating at high speeds, reflecting the light from object below. Honestly, if an object larger than our sun was rotating at speeds in the 000's per second I think we would see other obvious local effects that I personally haven't been able to identify. (Please enlighten me if you know what they are)

2) Plasma currents, like prismatic ribbons, are rotating like a basket around the object in the center, resulting in something I would like to compare to the Fechner color effect (but without the human perception element). It looks like a strobe because.... it is a strobe!


Plasma ribbons?
http://dogfeathers.com/java/fechner.html

See also Benhams disk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Benham%27s_Disc.svg


and for anyone who loved the fuzzbuster....

fuzzbuster.jpg
(click to view larger image)

Sure, we have better tools than in the 70's but if we can't differentiate between the sprinkler head in the background from the car 20 yards ahead of us, what makes us think we can measure a star from a couple astronomical "fuzzbusters" situated at different corners of the globe ? :)

Classic Florida:

http://www.floridadrivers.com/speed_tra ... _radar.php

Some of radar's shortcomings are readily apparent. Beam Width is one. Think of a radar beam as a cone - narrow at the radar antenna and widening as it heads for the horizon. Even the narrowest of radar beams - 11 degrees - is 38 feet wide when 200 feet down the road and 57 feet wide at 300 feet away. Some radar units transmit a beam as wide as 24 degrees. By the time a radar beam is several hundred feet from a patrol car, the microwaves are blanketing an area as wide as an expressway.

Now picture that expressway full of cars and trucks, and remember that traffic radar can't tell its operator which vehicle it is monitoring, or whether the target is approaching or traveling away from the police car. You quickly understand how great the potential is for misidentification.

Let's throw in another twist or two. Even though police radar is based on the Doppler Principle, most units do not interpret the Doppler shift itself. Rather, they process the frequency of the signal and use its analog to represent target speeds. Known as phase-lock loop, or PPL, this processing can lock onto the wrong target, double or triple low speed readings, or produce "ghost" readings.


Anyone here familiar with the type of doppler calculations used to measure red-shift?

Hoping for a technocratic answer :)
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:01 am

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: New Theory of Light: Descriptive Terminology Reply with
OP "ShortHC"

junglelord wrote:Linear Polarization (parallel rotation in line with this page):

Circular Polarization (rotation perpendicular to the page):


There are some good points being made here; however, I am having trouble with what should be simple descriptions.

For instance, that of the "Linear Polarization (parallel rotation in line with this page)". When referring to a page, it is normal to think of it as a two dimensional plane with an x and y axis. Does 'in line with this page' mean looking at the page edgewise, so the page is now represented by a one dimensional line, or do they mean parallel to the plane of the page?

In regards to their description of "Circular Polarization (rotation perpendicular to the page)". Well, this is quite the feat, since as pointed out above, a page is normally regarded as a flat two dimensional plane. Perhaps someone can explain to me, how something can rotate perpendicular to a two dimensional plane when the only thing perpendicular to it is either a one dimensional z axis, or another two dimensional plane in the z plane. You can have perpendicular rotation around a line as a concentric circle or spiral, but you can not rotate perpendicularly to a two dimensional plane, as rotation implies movement through 360 degrees, and unless the movement is 0 or 180 degrees to the plane it is not perpendicular. You can have rotation parallel to a plane, but not perpendicular to it.

This post started out to discuss a different point but I'll let that wait for a while.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:02 am

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:02 pm Post subject: Dolphins and Vortex Research Reply with quote
OP "ShortHC"

StefanR wrote:
Dolphin play bubble rings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q



This is remarkable. Induced ripples from the side, and reforming rings from broken off pieces... Lord Kelvin would be clapping his hands in ecstasy. Now if we could just get dolphins to run research experiments...
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:03 am

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "webolife"

You guys are all way smarter than me... :lol: :(
OK, so allow me some slack here as I express some personal "ignorance".
The redshift is not a doppler effect. And fuzz radar does not operate on a doppler concept either, only assumed. Nor do land surveyors use equipment with the capability of measuring luminal speeds. Nor are those weather guys interpreting luminal wavelength variations from raindrops. Yet all claim they are using a doppler principle... why? I think the acoustic analogy is just so powerful it makes easy believers. No light beam cam be reflected on the same path it is "sent", because light is a [unidirectional] vector. Therefore the received reflection must be from the pressure gradient surrounding the original vector, and the degree to which the gradient reflection differs from that "central line" determines the color of the returned signal. I use color here to connote what others refer to as frequency or wavelength, but I disavow myself of those particle-wave duality terms. The "harmonics" of the pressure gradient of light are derivable from the geometry of the field, which can produce supernumerary spectra, as well as the possibility of false speed readings on the police radar. By finely tuning the equipment, the extraneous spectral signals can be controlled/eliminated. No waves are needed.
_________________
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse with opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:08 am

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:55 am Post subject: Re: Dolphins and Vortex Research Reply with quote
OP "StefanR"

ShortHC wrote:
StefanR wrote:
Dolphin play bubble rings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q


This is remarkable. Induced ripples from the side, and reforming rings from broken off pieces... Lord Kelvin would be clapping his hands in ecstasy. Now if we could just get dolphins to run research experiments...


I remembered it from a Scientific American form some years ago.
Ring Bubbles of Dolphins; August 1996; Scientific American Magazine; by Marten, Shariff, Psarakos, White; 6 Page(s)

Below the towering cliffs of Makapuu Beach on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, is a unique laboratory dedicated to the study of dolphins. Project Delphis, run by the nonprofit conservation organization Earthtrust, in cooperation with Sea Life Park Hawaii, conducts research ranging from investigating dolphin self-awareness to exploring the animals¿ intelligence using an underwater computer touch screen. The scientists in the lab do not use food as a reward, so all the behavior observed is of the dolphins¿ own volition.

One of the most fascinating activities we have seen in our research involves no high-tech human toys at all. Instead the dolphins fashion their own entertainment by swirling the water with their fins and blowing bubbles into the resulting vortices to produce rings and helices of air. Furthermore, the physics behind the air rings turns out to be quite interesting. Few people doubt that dolphins are highly intelligent animals, but these observations demonstrate just how imaginative they can be.

http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?f ... 54E90AB55D


The fact that this kind of play is produced with apparent foresight is rather astonishing. To manipulate the rings, a dolphin
must plan her timing perfectly, and position herself in just the right spot. This kind of planning requires a fairly large
amount of complex cognition in order to execute the series of behaviors required to manipulate the rings properly. In a comprehensive study on bubble ring production, Brenda McCowan and colleagues found that dolphins not only engage in these kinds of behaviors, but exhibited behavior suggesting they were keenly aware of the physical properties and behavior of the rings they produce. For example, dolphins will blow a second bubble ring and attempt to join it together with the first, but this will only work if the first bubble ring is well formed &ndash; that is, if it is smooth and round. If it is of poor quality, the two rings generally don&rsquo;t join up well. The researchers found that dolphins will only produce a second bubble ring if they judge the quality of their first bubble ring to be good enough, otherwise they won&rsquo;t bother. In this sense, they appear to actively monitor the quality of their rings, and to adjust their behavior according &ndash; a very complex kind of play indeed. There is even some evidence that dolphins will teach each other the skills required to play with bubble rings.http://www.dolphincommunicationproject. ... =1&id=1085


The narrator is dutch, but its alot of english there as well.
This is a 2002 episode of Noorderlicht, a scientific documentary series of the Dutch television association VPRO. In this episode, first broadcasted in 1996, an American research project tries to answer the question whether dolphins are self-aware by subjecting the animals to all kinds of mirror tests. (less)
http://www.videosift.com/video/Are-dolp ... bble-rings



Watch the dolphin in the last vid make ring bubbles and corkscrew-vortices with the dorsal fin!
This was Stefan Attenborough. Thank you for watching ;)

It's a pity Kelvin wasn't a little bit more 'persuasive' (can't find the right word) in the Tesla/Hertz-fiasco. :?
_________________
"And surely struggle against him we must in every possible way who would annihilate knowledge and reason and mind, and yet ventures to speak confidently about anything."
Plato, Phaedo
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: New Theory of Light

Unread postby bboyer » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:10 am

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:32 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "junglelord"

He was, it was just surpressed and got quietly buried away.
Lord Kelvin rocks.
8-)

All of history is written by the powerful, who's surpression of information is attributed to those who write it.
;)

here is a video of a electron riding a wave of light taken with laser pulses of attoseconds in length, the first time ever.
http://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/video/emovie.mov

from this link

Now it is possible to see a movie of an electron. The movie shows how an electron rides on a light wave after just having been pulled away from an atom. This is the first time an electron has ever been filmed, and the results are presented in the latest issue of Physical Review Letters.
Previously it has been impossible to photograph electrons since their extremely high velocities have produced blurry pictures. In order to capture these rapid events, extremely short flashes of light are necessary, but such flashes were not previously available. With the use of a newly developed technology for generating short pulses from intense laser light, so-called attosecond pulses, scientists at the Lund University Faculty of Engineering in Sweden have managed to capture the electron motion for the first time.

“It takes about 150 attoseconds for an electron to circle the nucleus of an atom. An attosecond is 10-18 seconds long, or, expressed in another way: an attosecond is related to a second as a second is related to the age of the universe,” says Johan Mauritsson, an assistant professor in atomic physics at the Faculty of Engineering, Lund University. He is one of seven researchers behind the study, which was directed by him and Professor Anne L’Huillier.

With the aid of another laser these scientists have moreover succeeded in guiding the motion of the electron so that they can capture a collision between an electron and an atom on film.

“We have long been promising the research community that we will be able to use attosecond pulses to film electron motion. Now that we have succeeded, we can study how electrons behave when they collide with various objects, for example. The images can function as corroboration of our theories,” explains Johan Mauritsson.

These scientists also hope to find out more about what happens with the rest of the atom when an inner electron leaves it, for instance how and when the other electrons fill in the gap that is created.

“What we are doing is pure basic research. If there happen to be future applications, they will have to be seen as a bonus,” adds Johan Mauritsson.

The length of the film corresponds to a single oscillation of the light, but the speed has then been ratcheted down considerably so that we can watch it. The filmed sequence shows the energy distribution of the electron and is therefore not a film in the usual sense.

Previously scientists have studied the movements of electrons using indirect methods, such as by metering their spectrum. With these methods it has only been possible to measure the result of an electron’s movement, whereas now we have the opportunity to monitor the entire event.

It has been possible to create attosecond pulses for a couple of years now, but not until now has anyone managed to use them to film electron movements, since the attosecond pulses themselves are too weak to take clear pictures.

“By taking several pictures of exactly the same moment in the process, it’s possible to create stronger, but still sharp, images. A precondition is for the process to be repeated in an identical manner, which is the case regarding the movement of an electron in a ray of light. We started with a so-called stroboscope. A stroboscope enables us to ‘freeze’ a periodic movement, like capturing a hummingbird flapping its wings. You then take several pictures when the wings are in the same position, such as at the top, and the picture will turn out clear, despite the rapid motion,” clarifies Johan Mauritsson.

More information: http://www.atto.fysik.lth.se/

Source: Swedish Research Council

http://www.physorg.com/news122897584.html


_________________
Peace, Live Long and Prosper.

Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."

Last edited by junglelord on Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests