Bignose Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 This is not an explanation of why light waves pass through so called empty space and sound can't. . . You are only harping on my shortcomings. . . Really? The first 30-40 posts of this thread addressed this. If you still have questions, ask specific ones. In looking back over the first 30-40 posts, you just summarily rejected the evidence that has been confirmed many, many times over. You just declared it wrong, and yourself right, and started accusing people of being religious in their defense of the current state of science. Is it any wonder that the dialogue broke down? If you have specific questions, please ask them. But please don't just unilaterally refuse to believe experimental evidence confirmed many times over. With experimental evidence confirmed many times over, you have two options: 1) show that the measurements are seriously flawed in some way or 2) admit that your idea is wrong and modify your idea to incorporate known results So, to answer this question, again, light is made up of photons which so long as they don't run into something, can travel forever. Space doesn't have a whole of stuff for the photons to run into, so it can travel a very, very long distance. Sound is a pressure wave that explicitly needs a medium to propagate -- it propagates by local interactions within the medium. There is no such thing as a perfect medium, so as the media compresses and expands, energy is lost and this is why sound waves dies off (get quieter). 1
knowerastronomy Posted January 15, 2012 Author Posted January 15, 2012 Really? The first 30-40 posts of this thread addressed this. If you still have questions, ask specific ones. In looking back over the first 30-40 posts, you just summarily rejected the evidence that has been confirmed many, many times over. You just declared it wrong, and yourself right, and started accusing people of being religious in their defense of the current state of science. Is it any wonder that the dialogue broke down? If you have specific questions, please ask them. But please don't just unilaterally refuse to believe experimental evidence confirmed many times over. With experimental evidence confirmed many times over, you have two options: 1) show that the measurements are seriously flawed in some way or 2) admit that your idea is wrong and modify your idea to incorporate known results So, to answer this question, again, light is made up of photons which so long as they don't run into something, can travel forever. Space doesn't have a whole of stuff for the photons to run into, so it can travel a very, very long distance. Sound is a pressure wave that explicitly needs a medium to propagate -- it propagates by local interactions within the medium. There is no such thing as a perfect medium, so as the media compresses and expands, energy is lost and this is why sound waves dies off (get quieter). Some scientists reject the idea of particle wave duality. . . Including Einstein. . . I also do not agree with the theory that light, is photon particles energy. . . Sound waves are waves. . . Light waves are waves of a much shorter length but none the less they are waves, nothing exceptional about that. . . I agree that particles could possibly travel through empty space if there is such a thing. . . This is an unproven area of science. . . Just because most scientists believe that most of space is empty space doesn't mean that it cant be challenged. . .
Bignose Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) Some scientists reject the idea of particle wave duality. . . Including Einstein. . . I also do not agree with the theory that light, is photon particles energy. . . Sound waves are waves. . . Light waves are waves of a much shorter length but none the less they are waves, nothing exceptional about that. . . I agree that particles could possibly travel through empty space if there is such a thing. . . This is an unproven area of science. . . Just because most scientists believe that most of space is empty space doesn't mean that it cant be challenged. . . You're right. It can be challenged. What evidence can you present to challenge it? Because there is an awful lot of evidence that suggests space is pretty much empty, and an awful lot of evidence for the wave-particle duality of light (and pretty much any small particle). You can't just reject it because you don't like it... You need to show how the evidence is wrong or show good evidence that contradicts what we know. Edited January 15, 2012 by Bignose
knowerastronomy Posted January 15, 2012 Author Posted January 15, 2012 Ok now, what about radio waves and X rays. . . Do they have a particle counterpart?
Bignose Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 Ok now, what about radio waves and X rays. . . Do they have a particle counterpart? KA, I am really sorry to say this, but this just demonstrates your ignorance of the current knowledge. The answer is yes, photons. They are the same as light, just that the photons have different levels of energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
knowerastronomy Posted January 15, 2012 Author Posted January 15, 2012 KA, I am really sorry to say this, but this just demonstrates your ignorance of the current knowledge. The answer is yes, photons. They are the same as light, just that the photons have different levels of energy. http://en.wikipedia....gnetic_spectrum I am not ignorant about the theory of photons. . . I knew you were going to say this. . . That is a lot of information to be carried by the alleged photon. . . Wouldn't it make more sense if wave energy carried all this information? Also, how many photons would it take to radiate in all directions simultaneously from all energy sources in the universe. . . It is heard to comprehend that photons are a logical solution. . . Wave energy would be more efficient. . . It is easy to radiate wave energy in all directions. . . I think the photon solution is a stretch. . . Along with particle wave duality. . .
dimreepr Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 I am not ignorant about the theory of photons. . . I knew you were going to say this. . . That is a lot of information to be carried by the alleged photon. . . Wouldn't it make more sense if wave energy carried all this information? Also, how many photons would it take to radiate in all directions simultaneously from all energy sources in the universe. . . It is heard to comprehend that photons are a logical solution. . . Wave energy would be more efficient. . . It is easy to radiate wave energy in all directions. . . I think the photon solution is a stretch. . . Along with particle wave duality. . . My head hurts I give up...
ajb Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 He has made claims throughout this thread. They have been refuted by the experimental evidence. The ideas fail. He is wrong. Okay, I stand corrected.
Bignose Posted January 15, 2012 Posted January 15, 2012 (edited) I knew you were going to say this. . . If you knew this, then why ask the question? Look, I'm not into game playing. Let's just be straight with each other and leave it at that. If you want dialogue so bad, let's be fair to one another. I think the photon solution is a stretch. . . Along with particle wave duality. . . Think what you want, but it is confirmed by experiment many, many times over. Both the existence of photons and their dual nature. Why do you think all those experiments are wrong? Edited January 15, 2012 by Bignose
knowerastronomy Posted January 16, 2012 Author Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) If you knew this, then why ask the question? Look, I'm not into game playing. Let's just be straight with each other and leave it at that. If you want dialogue so bad, let's be fair to one another. Think what you want, but it is confirmed by experiment many, many times over. Both the existence of photons and their dual nature. Why do you think all those experiments are wrong? Don't get upset but I asked the question to see if you knew what you were talking about and you did. . . In my opinion the experiments are misinterpreted . . . They haven't taken under consideration the hypothesis all of space time populated with particles. . . They assume empty space. . . Edited January 16, 2012 by knowerastronomy
Bignose Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 In my opinion the experiments are misinterpreted . . . They haven't taken under consideration the hypothesis all of space time populated with particles. . . They assume empty space. . . Then please download some of the papers with the experimental results and discuss what misinterpretations were made. Because you get a paper describing a double-slit experiment, for example. There is a detector on each of the slits, that indicate which slit the particle goes through. How does this detector not take under consideration the hypothesis of all space populated with particles?
knowerastronomy Posted January 16, 2012 Author Posted January 16, 2012 Then please download some of the papers with the experimental results and discuss what misinterpretations were made. Because you get a paper describing a double-slit experiment, for example. There is a detector on each of the slits, that indicate which slit the particle goes through. How does this detector not take under consideration the hypothesis of all space populated with particles? They weren't supposed to know. . . Misinterpretation is in retrospect. . . The only thing I find fault with is the assumption of empty space. . . I am very familiar with this experiment and have explained why this theory is compatible. . . It is the cornerstone of the Logical Universe. . . Yes it is unproven as are all new ideas. . .
Bignose Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Generically calling results 'misinterpreted' is pretty much exactly the same as summarily declaring everything else wrong, and yourself right. Please download some papers and discuss specifics. That is, specifically show how the data they collected was misinterpreted, and how it should have been interpreted. Show explicitly the mistakes the researchers made in your eyes. No generics anymore, please. A good one to start with might be the Michelson-Morley experiment, because it showed that there is no such thing as an aether -- or in other words that space is mostly empty. It was an experiment primarily to see if light waves DID require a medium, like you are suggesting. Yet it pretty conclusively showed that no such thing exists. Edited January 16, 2012 by Bignose
knowerastronomy Posted January 16, 2012 Author Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) Generically calling results 'misinterpreted' is pretty much exactly the same as summarily declaring everything else wrong, and yourself right. Please download some papers and discuss specifics. That is, specifically show how the data they collected was misinterpreted, and how it should have been interpreted. Show explicitly the mistakes the researchers made in your eyes. No generics anymore, please. A good one to start with might be the Michelson-Morley experiment, because it showed that there is no such thing as an aether -- or in other words that space is mostly empty. It was an experiment primarily to see if light waves DID require a medium, like you are suggesting. Yet it pretty conclusively showed that no such thing exists. You are right on the verge of understanding this theory and possibly the second person in the world to know how the Universe really works, but you have an obsession that all has been proven beyond any doubt and the way it all works has been proven with the standard model, no exceptions. . I will gladly debate with you any new ideas or hypotheses but, there is a problem. . .You discount and discredit my knowledge of science solely on the basis that I lack the skills to explain this theory in mathematical terms. . . I think this is a mistake. . . People can explain things in plain English. . . I have no ego problem and don't care who is right or wrong. . . In fact, if this theory was proven false I wouldn't mind because that would mean that a new truth has been found and humanity would finally know the secrets of the Universe. . . What a great day that would be. . . If you could put aside your beliefs and consider just for a moment that all of space time might be composed of small universal particles, you will notice that things start to make sense. . . All these unanswered questions will become clear. . . I believe this happens because the path you are on now is the right one. . . In my opinion the double slit experiment is responsible for physics taking a wrong path, because it was assumed most of space time was a vacuum. . . Wave particle duality was invented along with quantum physics to explain the results. . . It made sense, but was complicated and in my opinion was not logical. . . You would have to have to many photons to account for all the information that had to be radiated. . . In my opinion nature wouldn't have taken that path. . . It would be more likely that wave energy would be carriers of this information. . . I have noticed that the South Koreans have taken a keen interest in this theory. . . They are particularly interested in U1 particles. . . I am considering the Michelson-Morley experiments at the moment. . . Edited January 16, 2012 by knowerastronomy -2
swansont Posted January 16, 2012 Posted January 16, 2012 ! Moderator Note knowerastronomy, you have been given ample opportunity to support your thesis in some scientifically redeeming way, but have not. As such, this is closed. 1
Recommended Posts