Please do not mistake my tone as being anything other than challenging of premises. I really don't mean to be Nereid-like, although I found that she made me think very deeply about my premises and conclusions. You took my challenge and responded well.
I am very interested in your experience with survey equipment and other EDM technologies. I spoke at length with a veteran surveyor working on my property, who when asked, gave me the usual "speed of light" explanation that "seemed" [as you also said] to make sense, but when I asked how the timing technology work he admitted that it was a refractive difference that was being measured by the sensors, and not the time between send/receive pulses... survey equipment works on very short distances as well as long, so timing actual delay of light signals at the c-rate is not feasible. That said, how do you think the EDM's actually work, and be careful of parroting the "c-rate" explanation without being able to show me the actual measurement technology. I'm guessing that a careful review of computer program algorithms used to interpret signal results might incorporate the constant c is such a way that were it removed there would be no effect on the measurement outcome. I am very interested to know what you can find out about this. I've checked into police radar technology and found that it is not a c-dependent system. "Doppler" radar also appears to be a refraction based system rather than c-dependent, despite the story usually told to the common folk that somehow light pulses are being tracked at 3X10^8m/s. By refraction, I'm pointing at the inference of light speed from the position of a received light signal relative to it's assumed return position. Help me out here, 'Miner, because I really do want to understand this, and GPS system technology as well. Remember to avoid "seeming" explanations and point to the actual apparatus and measurement algorithm.
Yeah, I've gotten grumpy with some posters here that proclaim to be "open minded" and yet admit to being intransigent with respect to their own opinions. One cannot see another's perspective without temporarily adopting their presumptions. Sometimes the presumptions are so preposterous and tightly held that discussion with them is impossible! I try to maintain an open but not empty mind.
That said, I have had very interesting discussions with various people that regard light as motionless. One of them is Rebis, who is a moderator on the General Science Journal Forum, here. I think if you make yourself known there, (you have to sign in for all the features just as you must do here,) you will find him to be willing to start a discussion. If you can figure out how to contact him, and start a discussion, make me a part of it.
A search on "Time Delay Reflectometry" will be worth your while. For example. (You have to believe that light pulses can be detected and turned into electrical pulses for analysis.)
As for me explaining all that I know about GPS and EDM, and light in general, you are asking a bit much. I can come up with references, I do all the time, but so can you! It's something you do on your own. You have to study it as a separate discipline along with developing your own theory, I guess. It's what I do, anyway.
webolife wrote:Because the CPF theory does not recognize wavelength but rather the actual angular relationship of color to the central line of sight [from which wavelength was originally, I believe incorrectly, inferred by Young, et.al.], the use of the lambda constant in c-rate algorithms may be misleading. Thus the ratio of frequency to c-rate becomes a self-fulfilling aspect of refraction computations. Planck's constant is a physical fudge factor used to make a relationship between the three work mathematically. So what I need and want to know more about is the actual technology used to make the necessary detections of light reflection that are delivered as a distance to object.
OK, Here is what I think about the "Planck's constant:" (I have stated this elsewhere on the forum, maybe in this very thread) Wave length is in the space domain, the "three dimension" space we all know and love. It is the distance from the start of one oscillation of said radiant energy to the end of said oscillation. If you think radiant energy doesn't oscillate, I've lost you right here. Frequency is in the time domain, the same "time dimension" we all know and love. Not the one on a separate Imaginary axis perpendicular to the "space axes."
On an oscilloscope, the time domain is charted by the "sweep" of the scope. This "sweep" is a closely regulated frequency that forms the time standard of the 'scope. Varying voltages can be traced over time on the face of the scope. Well, anyway, study up on this too. The 'scope shows the wave length and frequency, concurrently.
Oh yeah, the O'scope easily charts the time delay of light over short distances. (Given one with enough band width) See my links above on TDR. Also, Forrest Bishop's posts.
My point is that a frequency or wavelength is not detectable unless it has amplitude. So, whether right or wrong, I think of the h constant as the amplitude of the wave.
Max Planck wrote:calculated the value of specific areal momentum with the mass-energy of a 1-Hz photon as the unit mass.
Mass being the "inertial" part of matter, the resistance to the unaccelerated state of matter, when acted upon by force.
A one Hz "photon" would be 186,000 miles long, and take one second to be "absorbed" by a "black body,"
So many rabbit trails, so little attention span!