Light is Instantaneous

[GogoJF]

I believe that light is instantaneous and I refer this thought process to a paper that I have written “The Instantaneousness of Light and the Four Models of Light Measure”, which can be Goggled.

Concerning time and space

There is no doubt that even the most average person would know the difference between time and space. Space is a measure of our manipulation, in terms of man being able to affect a phenomenon. Space is represented by the squaring of three lengths- length, width, and height.

Time is often considered the fourth dimension. In terms of the other three dimensions, time has no significance outside the living organism. Time is a purely man-made measure designed to measure the three dimensions in terms of the observer only. Time, in terms of any of the other lengths, is not measurable. Time carries no dimension as length. Time is an instrument of three dimensional lengths, as measured by man only.

[mooeypoo]

Post was moved to its own thread, into the Pseudoscience/Speculations forum.

 

GogoJF, since this is in complete contrast to known evidence, you are in need of providing some basis for your claim.

[GogoJF]

The title should be "light is instantaneous", not "time is instantaneous.

[mooeypoo]

Sorry about that. Fixing now.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So, GogoJF, we have actual physical experiments demonstrating that light is not instantenous. This isn't just theoretical concept, it's been demonstrated multiple times..

 

Other than the very simple experiment you can do at home to demonstrate the speed of light, you would need to explain the phenomena of refraction without resorting to using the speed of light (good luck), the doppler effect, and many many experiments.

 

Also, systems like Radar and GPS seem to completely obliterate your idea of instantaneous light.

 

Unless you can formulate some sort of explanation of why these experiments and demonstrations are suitable to your claim, it seems your claim is proven false.

 

~moo

[GogoJF]

Well, Mooeypoo, maybe we are destined to sit on the opposite sides of the fence, but, in the end, I don't think so. That your way of thinking and my way of thinking will have an intersection. Have you read my paper yet?

[mooeypoo]

Yep, I'm going over it, but as I said, you will need to EXPLAIN these contradictions.

 

I'm open minded, but you need to start supplying explanations and evidence, otherwise your theory is bunk. This isn't a matter of opinion here, it's science. Empirical science. Your "way of thinking" has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything. Reality does.

 

It's as if I come to you and say that gravity is instantenous. That if I drop a 100lb ball from the empire state building, it will instantenously be on the ground, creating a crater. Experiments proved me wrong. As much as I can try to explain my personal logic, it doesn't negate the fact that my hypothesis was SHOWN to be false. If I was to continue claiming it, I'd have to EXPLAIN why 100lb ball dropping from the empire state building is an exception to my rule.

 

You're in need of explaining.

 

Reality shows light has a fixed speed, and is NOT instantaneous.

 

You either explain that, or we you're stuck with talking unrealistic imaginary wishful thinking.

 

~moo

[GogoJF]

How much value will it require for you to believe in me? My very soul. What should I tell you and what should I keep to my breast? What do I need to show to you, to prove, while at the same time, being ignored, taken for granted, and literally, all ideas are taken from you because science can speak a thousand different languages?

[mooeypoo]

So far you're just talking, Gogo.. give me something. An explanation, to begin with.

 

You would need math to support it, and experimentational data to disprove the current theory and show yours to be true.

 

You tell me.. what would YOU require as proof for such a preposterous claim as "gravity is instantaneous" that goes against *ALL* experiments and evidence?

 

I need some actual evidence, rather than your begging for us to believe you. This isn't an emotional appeal here. I need science.

 

~moo

[GogoJF]

Well, I guess the best thing to do is ask a specific question, and I'll try to answer it as to the best of my abilities. As far as believing or proving instant light- there really is no math- at least none that has been invented so far. But there are subtle evidences which exist in ALL experiments. I guess it's a matter of interpretation, and conventional physics hates a alternate point of view. So, essentially, in the short term, I could argue, but, you would not agree until the long term. How would I ever be able to alter you point of view which is so ingrained?

[mooeypoo]

Gogo, I'm not going to continue this fruitless exchange if you are determined on avoiding your responsibility.

 

you are the one making the claim, you are the one who has the burden of proof.

 

I provided you with links to experiments and demonstrations and mathematics that completely obliterate your idea. They prove unequivocally that light is not instantenous.

 

Your theory is dead. It's now your turn to defend it, and your insistence that I am supposed to be the one to encourage you is ridiculous. We didn't come to you, you came to us. Live up to your responsibilities, or face the fact that you can't.

 

If you can, stop beating around the bush already and supply the experimentation and evidence and mathematics. Seriously, now. We're a science forum, not a soundboard to your pet pseudoscience idea.

How would I ever be able to alter you point of view which is so ingrained?

It's not ingrained, it's proven. It's proven mathematically, it's proven experimentally, over and over and over again. It's proven by predictions.

 

It seems you're the one with the closed mind, GogoJF.

 

 

~moo

[ajb]

- there really is no math-

 

You will need to provide some sort of mathematical framework in order to convince anyone you are on to something.

 

The finite speed of light seems a settled issue. I am not aware of any experiment that disputes this.

[insane_alien]

yep, seems settled to me. noteven that many crackpots claiming otherwise.

 

in explaining why light travels instantaneously you'd also have to provide an explanation(and math) of why working on the basis it travels at ~3*10^8 m/s works so well for everything.

[Klaynos]

My main experimental set-up in my lab requires time to take time. I split a very short pulse of light (100fs) into two, and stretch one of them out to past a few picoseconds. The short pulse hits a pair of mirrors that can move backwards and forwards therefore changing the time the light takes to travel. My detector requires both the pulses to overlap each other in time and in space I can therefore make measurements by varying the time it takes light to travel along a set path. If your comment on light being instantaneous was correct this would not be possible. Reality disagrees with you, you are therefore wrong.

[ydoaPs]

Well, I guess the best thing to do is ask a specific question, and I'll try to answer it as to the best of my abilities.

Why does RADAR work? Why can we tell the distance of the moon by pointing lasers at the retro-reflector?

 

 

 

But there are subtle evidences which exist in ALL experiments.

Such as?

 

I guess it's a matter of interpretation, and conventional physics hates a alternate point of view.

No, it's a matter of evidence. If light speed were infinite, relativity would be wrong and means GPS wouldn't work.

 

If light speed were infinite, Maxwell's equations would be wrong-our very understanding of electronics invalid. The computer you used to type your post wouldn't work.

 

 

How would I ever be able to alter you point of view which is so ingrained?

Provide ANY evidence. Rebut ANY of the objections raised above.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I believe that light is instantaneous and I refer this thought process to a paper that I have written “The Instantaneousness of Light and the Four Models of Light Measure”, which can be Goggled.

 

Indeed, it CAN be googled. And the result is this forum!(with 0 results from Google Scholar)

[swansont]

I guess it's a matter of interpretation, and conventional physics hates a alternate point of view.

 

What science really hates are claims made without substantiation. If evidence is ambiguous, you do a different experiment to solve the problem. That removes the alternative point of view.

 

Outrageous claims like yours are most easily explained by you being unaware of the massive amount of evidence already in existence.

 

What we need to see from you is evidence. If you do not supply any, the thread will be closed

Edited September 20, 2009 by swansont

[Edtharan]

How much value will it require for you to believe in me? My very soul. What should I tell you and what should I keep to my breast? What do I need to show to you, to prove, while at the same time, being ignored, taken for granted, and literally, all ideas are taken from you because science can speak a thousand different languages?

GogoJF, there is lots of experimental evidence that Light takes a finite amount of time to travel from place to place.

 

A specific example is that when they shine a laser beam (which is made from light) at retro reflectors on the moon, it takes a little over 2 seconds for the light to be received back here on Earth (the moon is about 400,000km away and light is currently accepted to be around 300,000km/second).

 

If light was instantaneous, then we would receive the signal back from the Moon at the same time as we sent it. As we don't receive it at the same time we send it, then this evidence indicates that Light is non instantaneous.

 

If you have an alternate explanation for the delay between sending and receiving that allows light to be instantaneous, then this is what we need. Once we have this, we can then start to examine it and discuss the implications and validity of it. Until you do this, we can not know enough about your hypothesis to begin to discuss it.

[GogoJF]

The problem can be solved if we learn to distinguish between two way and one way light.

Examples of one way light:

1. the act of seeing

2. Lenard's second crucial experiment

3. Arago's first crucial experiment

4. the Michelson-Morley experiment

These are simply experiments performed in one direction only

 

Examples of two way light:

1. Fizeau's toothed wheel experiment

2. All radar experiments

3. the GPS system

4. the functioning of atomic clocks

These are simply experiments performed in two or more directions.

 

One way experiments do not require a mirror for transport. All the time taken for two way experiments to perform the experiment within the device is equal to the velocity c.

[insane_alien]

michelson morely used two mirrors, so by your definition it was two way.

 

also, the speed of light was first determined by just looking at the moons of jupiter.

 

also, what is the difference between one and two way light? what makes one go at c and the other instantaneously?

 

if the light travels instantaneously in both cases then how does a mirror know how long to delay the light so it always matched up with c?

 

you haven;t answered any of our other questions either.

[GogoJF]

This is a strange experiment. The two mirrors act as a set of eyes measuring light in terms of a single direction.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I wrote a paper titled "A Case in Instantaneous Cosmology and the Disqualification of Jupiter's Moons". It basically describes how Roemer's method is an incorrect model used to measure the speed of light. Originally Roemer only measured two-thirds of the speed of light, and this should have been indication enough of a flaw in logic.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I wrote a paper titled "A Case in Instantaneous Cosmology and the Disqualification of Jupiter's Moons". It basically describes how Roemer's method is an incorrect model used to measure the speed of light. Originally Roemer only measured two-thirds of the speed of light, and this should have been indication enough of a flaw in logic.

[insane_alien]

his measurement was imprecise because he lacked accuracy in his measurements. accurate clocks and distance measurements were not widely available at the time.

 

ther were no flaws in his logic as if you repeat the experiment today with accurate measurements then you get an answer of c.

[GogoJF]

This cannot be the fact. Can you give the well known documentation? These numbers have been fudged to fit the expectations. I can assure you of this.

[ydoaPs]

These numbers have been fudged to fit the expectations. I can assure you of this.

 

How so?

 

 

How do you explain the speed of light just falling out of Maxwell equations?

[GogoJF]

Maxwell's measurements are correct because he was measuring the speed inside the box where two way operations occur.

[D H]

What measurements? The question is about Maxwell's equations.

[GogoJF]

Hopefully Maxwell's equations do reflect a certain reality about nature and the way man performs experiments. Otherwise, wouldn't they be meaningless?