Relative

Thank you, I need to add this I believe. light is constant to all observers, current theory says that visible light ,the light at each side of a boundary is transparent and unchanged unless there is a boundary of a medium or mass. I believe the transparency is each individual Photon oscillating its frequency at the speed of light C. My assumption is wave particle duality, a wave been a grouping of Photons compared to an individual particle. Photons, are visible light from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the sun. The Photon backs up all the way to the sun , has in a traffic jam, to my understanding. I believe it to be radiation pressure that makes the oscillation change of frequency. What do you think , no way?

Thank you what I should of mentioned was my definition of 'constant'' which is - Physical constant, a physical quantity generally believed to be universal and unchangingDoes my hypothesis make better sense?

Light Hypothesis. It is said that light is constant to all observers, current theory says that light is constant to all observers. I believe the theory to be wrong, and light may be constant to all observers, but light is not a constant. My Hypothesis is that light changes its state , changing frequencies at an incredible rate, and our eyes adjusted to the change. I have looked at the evidence in several forms, using various primitive techniques, but with understandable outcomes to all my tests. For my evidence, I have used several various light interactions. A Prism - By seemingly angle and refraction, natural light is split into waves A camera - By angle we can stretch the amount of light and also by the angle, refract light using the lens of the camera, to see a spectrum of colours and different effects by angle often referred to has lens flare. Mass - Most mass has absorbing properties, mass absorbs light, the absorbing properties, reflecting properties of mass, giving us what we see has colours of any mass. Glass- Transparency allows light to pass through undetected Results I considered mass as a constant, the absorbing or reflecting properties of mass does not change. I consider light has a constant, I then considered that both mass and light could not be a constant!. My conclusion is that mass is the constant, and we see colours only as an interaction with mass from light, and a build up of energy on any given mass, the energy that builds up as light is been slowly absorbed in some cases.

I think that human logic and observation , should always proceed maths.

You can see this without bluring your vision , light depending, and I would not say bluring but rather obstructed, you can do the dual slit experiment with watery eyes for excellent result I can confirm works well. Today I had some sunlight and was able to get some more pics. This is not lens glare, it is adjuted angle of the indecent ray, what you see, the contact point with my finger is at the back of my finger . I have also seen this with my own eyes and no camera. The more transparent one of the images you can see spectrum colors. I would myself presumed lens flares, if i had not seen it with my own eye, my eye been in the shade and just catching the edge of light through the slit on my finger tip. Then I realised by angle adjust, with a low meg pixel camera, I can infact guide the ray to a point for photo purpose.

That is not lens flares, I have done this experiment with my eye in the day time and natural light. Using similar to a dual slit experiment, but with a single slit. I have seen the volcano shape with my eyes in full color of the spectrum on my finger, I was referred to as having glaucoma, so considered taking the picture with a camera, my camera does not have glaucoma. Light is in constant contact with a surface, I showed this by explaining the Doppler effect on other forum, and explained a "constant state". We see light "constant " invisible, we see a change in the "constant" state , when light is on mass. I say on mass, because it is "constant" in contact. I have been explaining this all day, so forgive the brief explanation. As soon as I have got sun shining through my window, I am confident by repeating my method of experiment, I will bring you a color photo of the spectrum hitting my finger, it is an amazing sight to see. Look carefully at those pics, you can see the halo clearly around my finger, I have put lines on as reference points, at the point of indecent ray contact, that is where I adjusted angle to get my volcano shape, that volcano is the wave, I have seen this with my eye, and notice, eye, not two eyes. Try it, close one eye, put your finger by your eye, as close as possible to the open eye, shine a flashlight on it, a pen torch is ideal, adjust eye with a squint. You will see the volcano if you get the right indecent angle. In daylight that volcano is in color, full technicolor , the surrounding haze, is millions of dots. added - that volcano is not running along my finger, the peak is in fresh air.

Hi guys, If any one comes out with ideas in the next few weeks, relating to light and the reflection off mass, and you can see a light wave in color on your finger tips, that is because it is my theory and with proof. These pics, are with a torch, the volcano shape is actually the waves, I have seen these in an experiment with my eye, I need a sunny day to continue and try to get the picture in full color. A flash light doe's not have the same effect has daylight. I uploaded these pics to other forum after long explanations, and they instantly banned me. I fear this may be to steal my thoughts, as already I have seen current topic on you tube relating to some of my other forum topic ideas. I come to you, because out of all the forums, this forum seems to keep scientifically professionalism. With no profanities and stupid jokes.

Interesting, I do know that this suppose to be so, but we do not know what gravity is. I have watched a video of a bottle of atmosphere taken from altitude that crushed when reaching the surface, our bodies are pouris, is it possible we let that pressure through, where as mass the earth can not? And I thank you, this is by far the most normal forum I have been in, talking to me like a person and not an idiot. Although from other forums,in which I have posted several ideas, there seems to be a lot of ideas popping onto youtube, generally meeting my thoughts I have posted. I am not interested in you tube, they are allowed to have my thought's, I happily share. I would rather know that the MPS, is not going to be miss-shaped, and the pressure will not move the plates as it changes. I thank you

Yes i see you what you mean and understand. Thank you I do understand current theory, although it does not make sense to me as been correct. Grooves cut by lava/magna, in the outer core in the mantle of the planet, grooves/notches been cut out of the existing matter that is not lava/magna. How I think it works, ok, consider the buoyancy of gases, you consider it as buoncy, I consider it as centripetal force , all dense mass drawn to the center, less dense gases forced out of the way by the heavier /denser particles. The magnetic field a lid on the pressure containing the vacuum of pressure/gases. So if i was to contract the magnetic field, more pressure. I see weather and pressure systems, all created by the magnetic force, High pressure been a broader , higher altitude of magnetic field, lower pressure, been a tightening,contracting of the magnetic shield. So I see the tectonic plates as been pressure plates. Held together by the pressure of atmosphere caused by the magnetic field lid.

I thank you for the interesting link, can you explain what you mean by higher- order components? I have read the link, which doe's not make sense to me. The inner core is surely a sphere shape? The outer core must be sphere shaped with grooves cut out by the Lava? And what is considered will happen with the shift?, Will atmospheric pressure not crush us? Will the shift and difference in pressure, 'not move the tectonic plates', I imagine 'that pressure of the MNP<magnetic north pole> to be less than else where, so will the plates not have a fulcrum effect with pressure?'. As the difference in MNP ' moves across the plates?.

I was curious, with the magnetic north and south poles shifting at an estimated 40 miles a year, and in general I could not think of how a magnetic field would change shape. Then considering the Obloid shape of the Earth, drew my picture and twisted the shape. So lateral thinking, has got me thinking, that the shift of the magnetic field of Earth, the swapping of the poles, will leave some parts of Earth, exposed to EMR, with no protection. I can not see how the shape would fit?

I twist my outer Obloid shape 90 degrees, No matter how I think, including using logic and lateral thinking, I can not make my shape fit. I have come to you, the maths department of forum, for your help. NO ONE, seems to understand my lateral thinking.

You say everything on Earth , is illuminated by a wide spectrum of light frequency, do you mean wide as in, the waves are further apart , more spread out, the same as waves on a sine graph, that shows the different frequencies of waves?.. "more distance between the humps". If so, why would it have to be a wave, why not a frequency ,in a straight line?, "meaning lights state, until it impacts on a surface, light's decent ray", is transparent. As you say we can not see the gases in the troposphere, So would it not be that with evolution, our eyes evolved to a equal frequency of the light, making it "a neutral state", before it reflects off the surface? And then on "impact, reflection or refraction", , causing an interupt in the flow of the "constant state", frequencies been absorbed quicker than others, concentrating different surface temperature as on different colors, making a build up of residual energy/photons on the surface, and this is what we see, and not a reflection ray of photons into the eye? Also you mention a canyon, and measuring thermal heat at the different heights, Our troposphere is warmer because the lower levels of gases are more dense so hold more heat? You say infra red is not visable to the human eye, can we not see it,is that because, that is the main frequency we see with, our eyes see in infa red even in the day time, seeing thermal heat of the different colors? And thank you for the amazing post.

You mention colors, certain colors reflect more light / Photons, some colors absorb more light. I am not sure but I think mirrors reflect / deflect all light? A difference. So looking at surface colors, example green grass. Some of the spectrum would be absorbed and some would not, depending on density or structure make up? So each color would have a different surface temperature? Hence a different energy level. Now consider our visual perspective of a printing 4 color process. Millions of dots, over layed to create an image. So imagine our green grass, and the spectrum and frequency of green, imagine this is one of the wavelengths that our grass can not absorb or slowly absorbs. So the individual Photons allow us to see green. As there is a density of traffic, a traffic jam as such. If the surface of different color , do have a different temperature, this shows a different energy level, and this is what I am getting at and trying to explain. Also I thank you for your patience and understanding, and unlike a rather rude other forum, I thank you for the none use of profanities and insults allowing me to explain.

Hot air rises, there can be no fresh intake of air, although you may argue the fact about wind pushing in fresh air to get heated. Often the tarmac refraction of <heat>, it is a none windy day. Scuba divers can also see a refraction of similar nature where the thermocline meets the cold. Light at night changes our aerial perspective view. If I shine a flashlight into your face , your vision narrows and you can only see the glare of the bulb. You can not see past the bulb, behind the flashlight you will see blackness. If light scatters has is said, why do we not see behind the flashlight? Where as if I stand behind the flashlight, my vision broadens, my aerial perspective view will still narrow at distance, but my light spreads out wide, where as with the light shined into my face, I see the light and aerial perspective view narrows. I stand in the middle of a warehouse with no windows or light except a single bulb hanging in the center. I stand under the bulb and I can see all the walls, I turn down the light by remote dimmer. Slowly the walls become black and disappear, So light at the C, that spreads and scatters, should hit my walls, and reflect as is said. But it obviously doe's not as the walls have gone black to my vision. This shows that different energy levels are required for our eyes to see at distance. The sun, a constant source, a constant spread, and our visual/eyes, are behind the light, as standing behind a flashlight, but our eyes would be inside the bulb of the flashlight, daylight is a constant in front of our eyes, giving a constant wide angle of view, as with the flashlight at night. Turn down the light/energy, then our view narrows and lessens. I will tell you a test to show you this. 1. A room, curtains closed, light on, door open, lesser light source shining through the ajar door. 2. Stare directly at a focal point 3. Out of the corner of your eye, notice an object, as far as you can notice without taking attention off your focal point. 4. Get some one to turn off the light in the room you are in, leaving the open door light to shine through. 5. Notice your vision as just narrowed the object in the corner of your eye vanishes into the dark although you still have light from the ajar door. The difference, less energy

Can you explain please why that would be wrong? There is no real evidence that I have researched, that backs up the statement that we see objects because of reflection of light off the object. To me the statement is a supposition, I thought science was about facts, if there is a link that provides evidence could you post it please?

agreed Yes I understand the scattering of the light, and the reflection off mass so that we can see it. If this is truly how it is, how can enough light from the reflection of the scattering off mass, possibly return as far as our eyes to see the mass? Why is not said that we see mass, because of an energy build up based on its absorb properties? My example would be a <black tarmac road>, on a hot day the tarmac builds up heat, a refraction is caused, a heat wave can be seen. It is said that the refraction, is gases been heated that causes this refraction. I say this refraction is heat/energy that forces the gases out of the way creating a void of energy. This can also be seen by scuba divers underwater, a refraction ,as two temperatures meet<thermocline>.

Yes we use detectors other than the human eye, yes in deed. However, if light is percieved to reflect of mass so we can visual see it, we would not see the sun. I ask where is the reflection of light on the sun?

I thought it was our eyes that see the light reflecting and not the telescope....OK you say and I have been told before that light reflects of the object so we can see it. How do we see the sun then, this emits and not reflects light?

Through a glass of water, no you would have mass in the way of your visual, try watery eyes. Make your eyes water and squint with one eye at a neon <standby light on appliance>, do not use red it does not do nothing.Pitch black and a watery eye,try a onion, tiredness, or intoxication, it all works. You think I was joking about the slit experiment with your eye? it works. Yes I understand that, but glare been in the imeadiate vacinity to source, there is a difference. ACG52 said we look at light through telescopes from stars. We look at mass through telescopes and the light helps us see. The telescope does not see light from stars!

Hello all, the double split experiment, Am I correct that the test showed a lighter and a darker area of splitting of light?. What color light was used for the double slit experiment? Did you know that the double slit experiment can be done with your eyes and no other apparatus? Floaters, after several eye observation's and focal tests, in search of the photon's habit's , trying to discover new things, I came across to what you refer to as floaters of the eye. I have looked at eye worms, and this is not the same thing as I have seen. Do you have an explanation of what a floater actually is? I do know that myodesopsia are deposits of various sizes, and suppose to be down to eye degeneration and age. Also they are quite transparent. OK , to cut along story short, I have been using my eyes and refracting light using watery eyes and various light sources, including the sun, a torch, neon , and a microscope filled with water. Yes the original nutty professor. Science says deposits, deposits of what exactly? The reason I ask, is on every occasion now I have seen floaters, transparent in nature, but very defining in shape. Floaters may not seem a very interesting topic you may say, try floaters that I have seen through reflection and refraction that I can only describe as one thing.... Please do not think this is crazy, I have seen this several times now, and a shape that I can only describe as 3 quarks and an electron, or better known as H. I can even draw a pretty perfect picture of what I have seen....although the floaters seem to be a bit fast to the eye. Is this possible, do atoms bounce off our eye, is this what floaters are...?

Telescopes do not see light, they only see mass, and the glare of stars. That doe's not prove in any way that light from a star reaches the earth. My torch example shows this .... Meaningless, I would re consider, who did the double split experiment using their eyes only...oh yes, that was me I believe. So why would you think or consider by thought's to be meaningless.....

Great question Delta, do we know that we recieve light waves from stars?. Example- I shine a torch on you, you walk backwards on a straight path, I can see you, you can see my torch lense glaring. As the distance advances between us, you disapear into the dark, I can no longer see you, but you can still see the torch lense glowing. The point been, the reflectiveness of the light , reflecting of you, diminishes, so how do we know that the light from a star doe's not deminish or spread to such effect?. Transparency of light from the sun, would allow us to see clearly through it any other light source, but doe's this mean the waves make it to the earth from a star? To the second part of your question, why do we not disturb the "rested state", maybe we do, but our eyes can not decode the information fast enough to the brain. Like a strobe effect, but faster. Our eyes adjust and magnify any light leaking into a dark room, we can see in near pitch black. We can see areas, that the straight beam of light from a gap in the curtains e.t.c, doe's not reach. The slit experiment showed that light , was dark and light, maybe the dark as we see it, is the dark, and maybe our bodies in pitch black, have not got Em radiation to activate the "the rest state". Consider shadows, shadows are starved of light, they are darker patches, shadows. Light travels straight, yet manages to spread around corners.... I consider that shadows are not starved of light, but have an obstruction that blocks the activation to a degree of the "rest state particles".

Again not great wording and I have confused my own topic by putting two topics into one. I apologize. M originally meant mass, M+1 meant mass plus mass, as in the known universe without any other mass apart from our planet, time, etc would not exist, not in the sense that we do not decay, just in the sense that we could not put a numeric value on it. As with also distance, direction, size, Galilean thought's. Then I thought about Photons, photons been a particle. So photons have mass, so came to the conclusion C=M+1, but thinking now maybe it should be C=P+P, photon plus photon. However reconsidering, c=m+1 makes more sense, if I could project an image of myself, I could be or seem to be in two places at once, I hope that sounds the right explanation. I am unsure, my formula sounded right at the time I thought of it. The thought of the pressure and Photons having no speed still sounds right, but my formula may be a bit mixed up now. Light doe's not slow down relative to us and our closeness to the sun compared with the rest of the universe. How many billions of years as light had to travel? We could not travel far enough into space to make assumptions that light does not slow down, and that is if it as speed, as my thought's could actually be how it is, and we would never know the difference.

I am uncertain on the answer, maybe light spreading at distance could define a slow down and a lessening in the pressure. I suppose that would make sense in a way.