Hypothesis

[Relative]

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.

[swansont]

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.

 

One's eyes are not very good instruments for quantitative analysis. They are very nonlinear in their response to stimulation, have processing biases, and can be fooled fairly easily.

 

All of electrodynamics ties into light traveling at a constant speed in any frame of reference, and electrodynamics works. All sorts of electromagnetic transmission works under the understanding that a single frequency can be sent, or perhaps modified in some way (e.g. AM and FM). Spectrometers show us that narrow-bsnd light is not multi-frequerncy. Resonant interactions in atoms show us the same thing.

 

The short answer is that their is a tremendous weight of evidence that electrodynamics and relativity are correct, and your proposal contradicts this. You need exceptional evidence to support your claim, rather than some hand-wave about mass absorbing light. Mainstream physics already explains refraction and anything else you've mentioned.

[Relative]

One's eyes are not very good instruments for quantitative analysis. They are very nonlinear in their response to stimulation, have processing biases, and can be fooled fairly easily.

 

All of electrodynamics ties into light traveling at a constant speed in any frame of reference, and electrodynamics works. All sorts of electromagnetic transmission works under the understanding that a single frequency can be sent, or perhaps modified in some way (e.g. AM and FM). Spectrometers show us that narrow-bsnd light is not multi-frequerncy. Resonant interactions in atoms show us the same thing.

 

The short answer is that their is a tremendous weight of evidence that electrodynamics and relativity are correct, and your proposal contradicts this. You need exceptional evidence to support your claim, rather than some hand-wave about mass absorbing light. Mainstream physics already explains refraction and anything else you've mentioned.

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 unchanging

Does my hypothesis make better sense?

[swansont]

 

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 unchanging

Does my hypothesis make better sense?

 

 

No, not really. Physicists have investigate the possibility of physical constants changing in time, though they look at dimensionless values, which don't suffer from some issues that one that has units might offer. The experimental limit on these is quite small.

[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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

Transparency is a condition where there are no resonances in the material in a range of frequencies, so that there is no opportunity to absorb the light.

 

We can observe many photon effect with single photons, or in situations where intensity is not a factor, so the grouping or so-called radiation pressure is not an issue. The models we already have adequately explain what's going on.

[Sensei]

light is constant to all observers

 

Not "light is constant" but "light speed is constant" to the all observers.

But frequency and wavelength is not constant.

 

Haven't you heard about Relativistic Doppler Effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

 

Frequency that for observer with v=0 has f0

to observer with v=0.5c will be

f=f0*sqrt((1+0.5)/(1-0.5))=f0*sqrt(3)=f0*1.732

(if they are approaching each other)

It's blueshift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift

 

Reverse of this process if redshift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

 

[Relative]

Not "light is constant" but "light speed is constant" to the all observers.

But frequency and wavelength is not constant.

 

Haven't you heard about Relativistic Doppler Effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

 

Frequency that for observer with v=0 has f0

to observer with v=0.5c will be

f=f0*sqrt((1+0.5)/(1-0.5))=f0*sqrt(3)=f0*1.732

(if they are approaching each other)

It's blueshift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift

 

Reverse of this process if redshift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Thank you yes I do know the Doppler effect.

 

''But frequency and wavelength is not constant.'' - Yes I know that. I am saying that is why we see visible light as invisible light, we see transparent because in space and in our atmosphere,,

 

The frequency and wavelength constantly changes until it makes contact with a medium or mass that makes the frequency a constant.

 

Mass or medium been the constant, in the sense that the absorbing properties of the mass, the radiation amount absorbed does not change.

 

The prism shows you a constant

 

A cd will diffract a constant

 

 

mass absorbs at a constant and reflects at a constant

[swansont]

I've edited your responses. Please learn how to use the quote tags properly, and not include your response in the quoted section.

I am saying that is why we see visible light as invisible light, we see transparent because in space and in our atmosphere,,

 

We see visible light as invisible light?

[Relative]

I've edited your responses. Please learn how to use the quote tags properly, and not include your response in the quoted section.

 

We see visible light as invisible light?

Yes we see visible light as transparent, invisible, unless we see it making contact with a medium or mass.

 

The transparency is caused by the Photons always wanting to push forward in linear momentum.

 

 

Energy is transferred , Einstein and special relativity can confirm this, with the box and the photon example.

 

 

The force of the following Photons will cause radiation pressure.

 

 

, Light slows down in the medium,when it meets the medium, so where does all the energy go from the following Photons?

I believe you can look at Einsteins box again. The following Photons, wave, are accelerating but no where, all the energy is transferred forward linear momentum, hence radiation pressure. It oscillates like a spring between two masses.

 

added.

Edited March 9, 2014 by hypervalent_iodine

[Endercreeper01]

Do you have any mathematics behind your idea?

If not, it is not a hypothesis, as hypothesese in physics need mathematics behind them.

[swansont]

The "following photons" have exactly as much energy as they did before. Why would it be different? The photons are not interacting with each other.

[Relative]

The "following photons" have exactly as much energy as they did before. Why would it be different? The photons are not interacting with each other.

Yes the following photons have the same energy, as when they started their journey from point A,

 

But what happens at point B, and the journey to point B, when the trailing Photons are behind the leading Photons,

 

The Photons meet a medium or mass, are slowed down to cause ''congestion'', the following Photons will back up in the congestion, but momentum will still be carried forward.

 

 

As Einstein's box shows the force of a linear momentum object, striking a surface, will cause the surface impact force.

 

This force, inertia, then will force the mass of the box the same direction as the moving object.

 

 

All the energy is transferred forward , linear to the point of impact and direction of impact.

 

I know the photon is mass less,

 

But if Einstein can represent a single Photon this way, then we must presume by radiation pressure, mediums, the slowing down process, that we have a build up of energy.

 

 

We can not have pressure , unless what is causing the pressure, is continued, backed up to the source.

 

Photons will be backed up to the Sun, in a continued wave.

 

 

And have I got maths for this, my answer would be no, not at this time, I do not think there is any maths for this.

[swansont]

The photons outside the medium proceed at c. The slowdown occurs at the interface. There is no interaction before then.

[Relative]

The photons outside the medium proceed at c. The slowdown occurs at the interface. There is no interaction before then.

 

 

How would it be Physically possible for anything including Photons to continue at the same velocity, when an obstruction slows down the process been in the way.

 

 

The following Photons would be slowed by congestion.

 

The congestion would distance all the way back to the source because the flow is constant at c, then slows down for the medium.

 

 

There would be a backup as in a traffic Jam of cars touching bumper to bumper, If a photon is deemed to have a certain frequency and that frequency been its energy level, when two photons occupy the same space, which is not really according to the laws, the energy frequency will be that of two photons or several photons..

 

My evidence would be a magnifying glass we can concentrate the Photons, to make more energy over less area.. This shows us that when Photons come in a tighter bunch, there is more energy.

[swansont]

How would it be Physically possible for anything including Photons to continue at the same velocity, when an obstruction slows down the process been in the way.

 

 

The following Photons would be slowed by congestion.

How can a photon be slowed without undergoing an interaction?

 

The congestion would distance all the way back to the source because the flow is constant at c, then slows down for the medium.

"Flow is constant at c" is incompatible with a claim of congestion outside the medium.

 

There would be a backup as in a traffic Jam of cars touching bumper to bumper, If a photon is deemed to have a certain frequency and that frequency been its energy level, when two photons occupy the same space, which is not really according to the laws, the energy frequency will be that of two photons or several photons.

 

My evidence would be a magnifying glass we can concentrate the Photons, to make more energy over less area.. This shows us that when Photons come in a tighter bunch, there is more energy.

Your analogy of a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam implies the photons have stopped somewhere, which is not the case. Even if it were, the pileup would happen at the interface because photons are bosons, so they can and do occupy the same space.

[Relative]

 

How can a photon be slowed without undergoing an interaction?

 

 

"Flow is constant at c" is incompatible with a claim of congestion outside the medium.

 

 

Your analogy of a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam implies the photons have stopped somewhere, which is not the case. Even if it were, the pileup would happen at the interface because photons are bosons, so they can and do occupy the same space.

My anolgy represent bumper to bumper but always moving in a linear momentum, but my starting speed from point A, is C, at point B, the medium or obstruction of mass or field, slows my flow down in consideration to congested traffic.

 

 

If one Photon has X amount of energy, two Photons are twice that energy .

 

 

The force of energy from point A, is at C , and the slowing down by B, causes the energy to be transferred forward momentum as Einstein's box shows us.

 

To disagree with this, a person would have to disagree with the box.

[swansont]

My anolgy represent bumper to bumper but always moving in a linear momentum, but my starting speed from point A, is C, at point B, the medium or obstruction of mass or field, slows my flow down in consideration to congested traffic.

 

 

If one Photon has X amount of energy, two Photons are twice that energy .

 

 

The force of energy from point A, is at C , and the slowing down by B, causes the energy to be transferred forward momentum as Einstein's box shows us.

 

To disagree with this, a person would have to disagree with the box.

 

Einstein's box is not a discussion of photons entering medium. The momentum photons have in a medium is part of the Abraham-Minkowski paradox, and the difficulty of that analysis is that a photon in a medium interacts with the medium and can't be treated as if it was in a vacuum.

 

And none of that addresses your claim that photons outside the medium are somehow affected. Even if photons could come to a stop, they would do so at the boundary. They would not stack up outside. Photons do not take up space like a car does.

[Relative]

 

Einstein's box is not a discussion of photons entering medium. The momentum photons have in a medium is part of the Abraham-Minkowski paradox, and the difficulty of that analysis is that a photon in a medium interacts with the medium and can't be treated as if it was in a vacuum.

 

And none of that addresses your claim that photons outside the medium are somehow affected. Even if photons could come to a stop, they would do so at the boundary. They would not stack up outside. Photons do not take up space like a car does.

I do know they do not stack up like cars as such,

 

 

Out of the rubbish I have ever spouted on the Net, my views on emr is my most confident topic, studying it the most.

 

 

 

There is no maths to my Hypothesis, it is a relative look at emr, and the transparent state, and what the light/emr does in its transparent state.

 

This Hypothesis if I can find the correct wording, I am confident is 100% true.

 

 

I will get all my book marks up, and re write it, in hopefully understandable terms, I do know that very few understand my actual dialect by bad wording and bad sentences.

 

 

I will start by putting my definitions to words, then maybe one way or the other , I can/we can, make a final conclusion.

 

 

 

Force - To push on something, to change the direction, against the will of something,impact

 

 

Mass - anything that is solid , the size and density of something, a group of molecules/energy

 

 

Pressure - The pressure on a surface area made by force/impact, the pressure contained within a system.

 

Oscillate- to continue change frequency / change of current state

 

 

Visible light - the out come of interaction with mass or medium of EMR.

 

 

Transparent light - The EMR we do not see, when light is not seen in a single wave as a colour/ the transparency between your eyes and any mass.

 

 

Invisible EMR - radio signals etc.

 

 

Constant - As in the speed of light , unchanging, continued.

[swansont]

Light does not behave they way you describe, ergo your idea is wrong. Your confidence is misplaced.

[Relative]

Light does not behave they way you describe, ergo your idea is wrong. Your confidence is misplaced.

 

My confidence is not misplaced, I am confident I will some how, at some time, show proof of some description.

 

 

And I am still not thinking that anyone clearly understands what I am saying, a simple rewording would be

 

 

 

 

The Sun does not emit overlapping waves of different frequencies that do not change.

 

A Prism would not have the exact same result every time in colour order, that would have to be precise to pick out the over lapping in one segment/section of light every time.

 

A Prism does not show this.

 

 

You only see the different wavelengths of light from the sun by switching mode of your observation viewer.

 

 

You are just changing the energy view yourselves.

 

 

Consider the Prism and how the interaction angle effects the length.

[John Cuthber]

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to be making any sense.However. perhaps you will find this informative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_lines

the wavelengths of light emitted by the sun have been well documented for centuries.

[swansont]

Explaining how things don't behave is not a very economical way of doing things, since there's effectively uncountable ways that the sun doesn't behave. It makes it hard to make predictions and falsify. I also get lost keeping track of all of the negation. (or is it that I don't get lost not keeping track of the lack of negation that does not appear?)

[Relative]

I am trying to picture these layered wavelengths, but I still can still not get a Prism to work in the picture.

 

''Explaining how things don't behave is not a very economical way of doing things''

 

 

Yes agreed, but when an action or interaction does not behave the way it should , there is an obvious misuse of Physics.

 

 

I also agree it could be me, with lack of knowledge and understanding.

 

I move a Prism, X,Y,Z vectors, the spectrum output alters in the sense that red becomes wider or thinner to view, in the colour view, the output. What I call the visible spectrum, a rainbow, diffraction etc.

 

In moving X,Y,Z vectors, one thing does not change, and that is colour order/wavelength, to angle of the prism's sides.

 

 

How is this possible if EMR is layered, surely as we moved the prism, we would see the colour order changing, as we caught the incident rays /been different wavelengths, different layers??

[swansont]

I also agree it could be me, with lack of knowledge and understanding.

 

Good instinct. It's one you should lead with. There are a lot of physics books out there where you can gain understanding.

 

I move a Prism, X,Y,Z vectors, the spectrum output alters in the sense that red becomes wider or thinner to view, in the colour view, the output. What I call the visible spectrum, a rainbow, diffraction etc.

 

In moving X,Y,Z vectors, one thing does not change, and that is colour order/wavelength, to angle of the prism's sides.

 

 

How is this possible if EMR is layered, surely as we moved the prism, we would see the colour order changing, as we caught the incident rays /been different wavelengths, different layers??

I don't know what you mean by layered, seeing as you've not brought this up before.