Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 Okay, I should have been more careful. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant as measured in any inertial frame fo reference. You will need to explain this carefully. I am best at cognitive thinking so will try to explain that way to try to get you see it, - imagine you are on the suns surface, you leave to travel to earth, has soon as you depart, another person departs almost instantly behind you, eventually you get to earth, but behind you is a que,so from you to the sun is a connection.
ajb Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 - imagine you are on the suns surface, you leave to travel to earth, has soon as you depart, another person departs almost instantly behind you, eventually you get to earth, but behind you is a que,so from you to the sun is a connection. So there is someone right behind me? Do you mean to iterate this in the sence that right behind the person behind me is another person that departs for Earth and so on?
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 There can be no inverse square law to light. all the space is filled always. So there is someone right behind me? Do you mean to iterate this in the sence that right behind the person behind me is another person that departs for Earth and so on? yes in all directions directional to light source shape always. like the black and white static dots on a tv, white been the energy , black been the nothing space....
ajb Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 There can be no inverse square law to light. We have an inverse square law for all forms of electromagnetic radiation. It follows from various arguments that are all mathematical. Remember this is to do with the intensity of the light.
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 We have an inverse square law for all forms of electromagnetic radiation. It follows from various arguments that are all mathematical. Remember this is to do with the intensity of the light. I understand the inverse square law, and it can not apply, light and radiation, been of the same, do not scatter and spread at distance, it only weakens. It is still a solid state and still in contact with the source, it red shifts at distance so bad, we only see black.
ajb Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 I understand the inverse square law, and it can not apply, light and radiation, been of the same, do not scatter and spread at distance, it only weakens. It is still a solid state and still in contact with the source, it red shifts at distance so bad, we only see black. It applies to light and other forms of radiation that is emitted from an point source and provided we have conservation of energy. The basic argument is simple. You can also make more mathematical statements using some differential geometry. I don't follow your argument as to why we don't have the inverse square law.
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 Cognitive It applies to light and other forms of radiation that is emitted from an point source and provided we have conservation of energy. The basic argument is simple. You can also make more mathematical statements using some differential geometry.I don't follow your argument as to why we don't have the inverse square law. ok, take a foam sphere, and have a load of knitting needles, place all the knitting needles into the sphere, side by side until there is no room left, you only extend the sphere. light travels straight, think about it, it is just an extension, no gaps , still connected to source.
ajb Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 The inverse square law would now count something like the density of needles at a given distance. Back to light.... Classically the inverse square law says something about the energy flux density. That is the energy carried by the electromagnetic wave per unit area that it passes through per unit time. Quantum mechanically the inverse square law says something about the photon flux density. That is the number of photons that pass through a unit area per unit time. If you have only a few photons then you have to interpret this as a probability density. That is the probability that a photon passes through a unit area per unit time.
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 Black body radiation the sun, extending to faint red shift, the black walls of space, we are in the green zone.radiation levels show you this, maybe not green, but can you see what I am saying? The inverse square law would now count something like the density of needles at a given distance.Back to light....Classically the inverse square law says something about the energy flux density. That is the energy carried by the electromagnetic wave per unit area that it passes through per unit time.Quantum mechanically the inverse square law says something about the photon flux density. That is the number of photons that pass through a unit area per unit time.If you have only a few photons then you have to interpret this as a probability density. That is the probability that a photon passes through a unit area per unit time. not photons energy
ajb Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 not photons energy Then thinking as ligth as a classical electromagnetic wave maybe the best way to think. Still, the inverse square law hold fine.
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 The distant stars at night , giving us infa red vision. Then thinking as ligth as a classical electromagnetic wave maybe the best way to think. Still, the inverse square law hold fine. If I had to try and explain it science wise I would say, that each Photon starts its journey in the wave at the same energy level, as they gain distance from the source their energy weakens, BUT, with been in constant contact with the source through connectivity of a Photon conduit, the energy never completely dies, and can easily be recharged by physical momentum, or ionization etc.
ajb Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 ... as they gain distance from the source their energy weakens, The energy of each photon decreases? Are you thinking of red shift here due to the motion of the source relatve to the target? Okay doppler shift applies to photons. ...BUT, with been in constant contact with the source through connectivity of a Photon conduit, the energy never completely dies, and can easily be recharged by physical momentum, or ionization etc. This sounds really quackish.
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) The energy of each photon decreases? Are you thinking of red shift here due to the motion of the source relatve to the target? Okay doppler shift applies to photons. This sounds really quackish. Ok, I am glad you mentioned the doppler, red caused by the energy level been weakened by opposite direction momentum, and vice versus, energy increasing in direction towards the source, EMR pressure increase and decrease, caused by direction. feedback on the conduit.. Edited July 27, 2014 by Relative
ajb Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Okay, I think I have wasted enough time on here. I have work to do!
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 Okay, I think I have wasted enough time on here. I have work to do! you know science has it wrong...... ''...BUT, with been in constant contact with the source through connectivity of a Photon conduit, the energy never completely dies, and can easily be recharged by physical momentum, or ionization etc.'' .BUT, with been in constant contact with the source through connectivity of a Photon conduit,- <IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU GO IN OUR VISUAL UNIVERSE, WE HAVE LIGHT , EMR, FROM WHAT EVER THE POSITION OF THE OBSERVER THEY SEE MATTER THROUGH A TRANSPARENT STATE, THE OBSERVER IS ALSO IN THE SOUP OF EMR, BEEN LITERALLY CONNECTED TO THE STARS BY EMR. EMR IS A CONDUIT, .... THAT IS WHY YOUR SAT NAVS WORK ETC, YOU SEND A DIFFERENT VISCOSITY OF ENERGY THROUGH THE CONDUIT OF EMR.
John Cuthber Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Thank you John, I know how the spectrum works, I know about wavelengths, red is weak etc etc, "red is weak" No it is not. But thanks for making it plain that you do not understand, you just think you do.
Strange Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 Okay, I think I have wasted enough time on here. I have work to do! Good move. This thread is like watching a multi-vehicle pileup in slow motion. Again. All of relative's threads go the same way. 1
John Cuthber Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 you know science has it wrong...... ''...BUT, with been in constant contact with the source through connectivity of a Photon conduit, the energy never completely dies, and can easily be recharged by physical momentum, or ionization etc.'' .BUT, with been in constant contact with the source through connectivity of a Photon conduit,- <IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU GO IN OUR VISUAL UNIVERSE, WE HAVE LIGHT , EMR, FROM WHAT EVER THE POSITION OF THE OBSERVER THEY SEE MATTER THROUGH A TRANSPARENT STATE, THE OBSERVER IS ALSO IN THE SOUP OF EMR, BEEN LITERALLY CONNECTED TO THE STARS BY EMR. EMR IS A CONDUIT, .... THAT IS WHY YOUR SAT NAVS WORK ETC, YOU SEND A DIFFERENT VISCOSITY OF ENERGY THROUGH THE CONDUIT OF EMR. Sat navs don't send anything
Bignose Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 you know science has it wrong...... Come on, man. If you're going to claim this, at least present some actual evidence of it happening. Show us your model of different 'viscosities' making better predictions than we have now. Otherwise, just admit that you're completely misusing the word and making stuff up. And lastly, exasperating someone to the point where they no longer wish to carry on a discourse with you is not a victory nor evidence that 'science is wrong'. All it means is that your communication style and presentation is terribly inefficient. If you REALLY supported your idea, why aren't you taking the feedback people are giving you here and making your idea better? And making your communications better? This isn't just a place for you to shout whatever you want. Go start your own blog or webpage for that.
Relative Posted July 27, 2014 Author Posted July 27, 2014 (edited) Good move. This thread is like watching a multi-vehicle pileup in slow motion. Again. All of relative's threads go the same way. Strange you should mention a multi car pile up in slow motion, a bit like a photons journey from a red dwarf. The evidence , you already have it, it is your science that lead me to my conclusion and ideas. Seriously , where is the open minds. A Universe of 0, negative and dark, it is always dark, light is a creation by physical process, a paradox been that dark must of had energy to create stars before the stars that give energy were made. "red is weak" No it is not. But thanks for making it plain that you do not understand, you just think you do. Red is the longer of the waves, to make it red it takes less energy than to make indigo, red is stretched, it is weaker. Strange you should mention a multi car pile up in slow motion, a bit like a photons journey from a red dwarf. The evidence , you already have it, it is your science that lead me to my conclusion and ideas. Seriously , where is the open minds. A Universe of 0, negative and dark, it is always dark, light is a creation by physical process, a paradox been that dark must of had energy to create stars before the stars that give energy were made. Red is the longer of the waves, to make it red it takes less energy than to make indigo, red is stretched, it is weaker. elasticity..... Come on, man. If you're going to claim this, at least present some actual evidence of it happening. Show us your model of different 'viscosities' making better predictions than we have now. Otherwise, just admit that you're completely misusing the word and making stuff up. And lastly, exasperating someone to the point where they no longer wish to carry on a discourse with you is not a victory nor evidence that 'science is wrong'. All it means is that your communication style and presentation is terribly inefficient. If you REALLY supported your idea, why aren't you taking the feedback people are giving you here and making your idea better? And making your communications better? This isn't just a place for you to shout whatever you want. Go start your own blog or webpage for that. It is not easy to convey an idea you know, especially when science talks science and i talk street. Evidence, the Doppler effect, although back then they did not have a full understanding unlike now. The shift is caused by velocity direction shift of EMR pressure, the faster an object moves away, from the EMR source, the more the red shifts , the EMR becomes a straighter wave. i.e red shift, it is so obvious this is what happens. You see a viscosity change of the energy, of emr, by direction and velocity, Edited July 27, 2014 by Relative
Phi for All Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 ! Moderator Note Thread closed for lack of supportive evidence, a requirement especially in Speculations.
Recommended Posts