The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: All my ideas in one basket.  (Read 3301 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
All my ideas in one basket.
« on: 11/10/2015 12:30:09 »
To save spamming to many threads, I will put all my ideas into one thread, and as per advice I will try to thoughtful and put more structure to my ideas. Anyone wishing to talk seriously I will be considerate to, and think before I reply. 

I will start with the nature of light, I see a slight discrepancy in the present information explanation where it explains white light is a mixture of frequencies, I do not believe this to be the case, I do not believe it is a mixture or ''white'' light .

''White is an achromatic color, literally a "color without color", composed of a mixture of all frequencies of the light of the visible spectrum. It is one of the most common colors in nature, the color of sunlight, snow, milk, chalk, limestone and other common minerals. In many cultures white represents or signifies purity, innocence, and light, and is the symbolic opposite of black, or darkness. According to surveys in Europe and the United States, white is the color most often associated with perfection, the good, honesty, cleanliness, the beginning, the new, neutrality, and exactitude.[1]''


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White


My first point to apply to Physics, is ''white'' light more dense than the natural daylight propagating through space?

The natural daylight propagating through space is ''clear'' light is it not?

''composed of a mixture of all frequencies ''



Are all the frequencies not made by bringing together various conceptual elements made from a single frequency incident ray?  Do all the frequencies not merge as one frequency whilst being in its ''space state''?


Is white light not misleading and causes confusion when considering natural daylight?


Would it not be better to say , clear light or natural daylight propagating through space is the  unification of several frequencies and is observed as a clarity equal to sight?

Because clear light is not like snow, is not like milk and is certainly not observable as ''white''

Observation evidence 1 - I can clearly see snow , milk , and all things ''white'' by looking through the clarity of light in space.

Observation evidence 2-Observation evidence 1 is constant to all visual able observers from any initial reference frame when ''light'' is present.

Would anyone argue this observation evidence is not an axiom and in anyway invalid and falsifiable?

added-https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2015/10/11/let-us-make-this-quite-clear/



« Last Edit: 11/10/2015 17:18:33 by Thebox »


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4713
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #1 on: 11/10/2015 19:13:02 »


I will start with the nature of light, I see a slight discrepancy in the present information explanation where it explains white light is a mixture of frequencies, I do not believe this to be the case, I do not believe it is a mixture or ''white'' light .
Belief is irrelevant. Get a couple of prisms, or ask any stage lighting engineer.

Quote
My first point to apply to Physics, is ''white'' light more dense than the natural daylight propagating through space?
No

Quote
The natural daylight propagating through space is ''clear'' light is it not?
No

Quote
Are all the frequencies not made by bringing together various conceptual elements made from a single frequency incident ray?  Do all the frequencies not merge as one frequency whilst being in its ''space state''?
Nothing "conceptual" about it. No.


Quote
Is white light not misleading and causes confusion when considering natural daylight?
No


Quote
Would it not be better to say , clear light or natural daylight propagating through space is the  unification of several frequencies and is observed as a clarity equal to sight?
No

Quote
Because clear light is not like snow, is not like milk and is certainly not observable as ''white''
The term "clear light", so far, is without meaning.

Quote
Observation evidence 1 - I can clearly see snow , milk , and all things ''white'' by looking through the clarity of light in space.

Observation evidence 2-Observation evidence 1 is constant to all visual able observers from any initial reference frame when ''light'' is present.

Would anyone argue this observation evidence is not an axiom and in anyway invalid and falsifiable?
Yes. Your concept of color depends on a number of things and even if your observations were meaningful (they aren't) the actual reflected color of snow depends on the time of day.



« Last Edit: 11/10/2015 19:14:56 by alancalverd »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #2 on: 11/10/2015 21:16:26 »


I will start with the nature of light, I see a slight discrepancy in the present information explanation where it explains white light is a mixture of frequencies, I do not believe this to be the case, I do not believe it is a mixture or ''white'' light .
Belief is irrelevant. Get a couple of prisms, or ask any stage lighting engineer.

Quote
My first point to apply to Physics, is ''white'' light more dense than the natural daylight propagating through space?
No

Quote
The natural daylight propagating through space is ''clear'' light is it not?
No

Quote
Are all the frequencies not made by bringing together various conceptual elements made from a single frequency incident ray?  Do all the frequencies not merge as one frequency whilst being in its ''space state''?
Nothing "conceptual" about it. No.


Quote
Is white light not misleading and causes confusion when considering natural daylight?
No


Quote
Would it not be better to say , clear light or natural daylight propagating through space is the  unification of several frequencies and is observed as a clarity equal to sight?
No

Quote
Because clear light is not like snow, is not like milk and is certainly not observable as ''white''
The term "clear light", so far, is without meaning.

Quote
Observation evidence 1 - I can clearly see snow , milk , and all things ''white'' by looking through the clarity of light in space.

Observation evidence 2-Observation evidence 1 is constant to all visual able observers from any initial reference frame when ''light'' is present.

Would anyone argue this observation evidence is not an axiom and in anyway invalid and falsifiable?
Yes. Your concept of color depends on a number of things and even if your observations were meaningful (they aren't) the actual reflected color of snow depends on the time of day.

Then I suggest Alan you only know the present information about light, but do not understand the nature of light which I am trying to explain. I can explain Prisms , blue sky, clouds, the doppler, matter , all with my idea which is different to present information but works .


''Is white light not misleading and causes confusion when considering natural daylight?''
''No''


are you suggesting that light in the air is the same colour as snow?


Observation evidence 1 - I can clearly see snow , milk , and all things ''white'' by looking through the clarity of light in space.

Observation evidence 2-Observation evidence 1 is constant to all visual able observers from any initial reference frame when ''light'' is present.


axioms alan so very meaningful.


''The natural daylight propagating through space is ''clear'' light is it not?''
''No''


an obvious lie alan when the answer is yes. The descriptive colour of white light suggest we see white like snow of light in space, when light in space is observationally clear and we see snow through the clear.


Colour is the process of an invert force, no invert force, no colour, that is why light in space is clear, space as no medium to invert force and create a compression wave of the linearity.
  Most of what I say is supported by science.


''The Doppler effect (or Doppler shift) is the change in frequency of a wave (or other periodic event) for an observer moving relative to its source. It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who proposed it in 1842 in Prague. It is commonly heard when a vehicle sounding a siren or horn approaches, passes, and recedes from an observer. Compared to the emitted frequency, the received frequency is higher during the approach, identical at the instant of passing by, and lower during the recession.''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect



Are you suggesting a velocity change of an object at the near speed of light does not change in its observed frequency and has a radius decrease or increase to the light source?


Are you suggesting that an object travelling a vector towards the light , does not compress the light creating a ''blue shift'' by the inverted force of the object? compared to the opposite of red shift where the object travels a vector away from the light and decompresses the wave length by lesser inverted force of the object?


The angle of a prism, ''is moving into the light, and away from the light'' at the same time.

The same as a curvature of a raindrop or our atmosphere.

Auroras are temporal distortion of light by angle and the propagation of light being obstructed by an electrical medium. Compression and decompression giving spectral content different to the constant of clear.

The blue sky is a constant temporal distortion by an electrical medium compressing the propagation to a blue spectral level by the gravity constant of earth always being attracted to the sun.

Red sky, is light ''skipping'' the magnetic field and less compressing by angle of incident ray of the sun reducing the invert pressure by angular of the incident ray being indirect.


Water is more of a negative polarity, clouds the epoch off recombination of vaporised water, start of negative, the light propagation is compressed to that of near a black body, the negative holds the light.

frequency is a temporal rate of light by inverted force .





« Last Edit: 11/10/2015 21:43:23 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4713
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #3 on: 11/10/2015 23:36:23 »
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. A basket case indeed.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #4 on: 12/10/2015 02:41:34 »
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. A basket case indeed.

It is my idea so how can you say I do not know what I am talking about?

A basket case? really, when I have provided axiom evidence of observation. 

Are you really suggesting that the light before your eyes between your eyes and an object has visual  colour?


Models




The sky, clouds, the ground, all spectral constants by temporal means in a constant clarity of c.





« Last Edit: 12/10/2015 03:11:56 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4713
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #5 on: 12/10/2015 11:00:41 »
An interesting collection of scientific terms, and utterly without meaning.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #6 on: 12/10/2015 12:34:26 »
An interesting collection of scientific terms, and utterly without meaning.

There is lots of meaning but nether mind enough is enough, I give up .  Can't try any harder to explain something, no one really speaks to me any more, yourself is just being polite because you are a mod, nobody gets me or understands me, conclusion to just quit now and take up a new interest.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #7 on: 12/10/2015 13:30:12 »
Are you really suggesting that the light before your eyes between your eyes and an object has visual  colour?
What do you mean by visual colour?
Do you mean that percieved by eye/brain?
The light between your eyes and an object has a frequency which we perceive as colour, hence we say the light has that colour.
This frequency is consistently associated with colour, in fact it will affect the colour of an object. For example, early morning light has a frequency we would describe as blue, when it shines on white snow the snow takes on a blue cast, in the evening the light is much redder and the snow can look reddish. This effect is noticable in photographs and I carry a set of filters to adjust for it.
If you go to choose carpets or fabric, you will find that the frequency of the light affects your perception of the colour, hence why shops use daylight bulbs.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #8 on: 12/10/2015 13:37:38 »
Are you really suggesting that the light before your eyes between your eyes and an object has visual  colour?
What do you mean by visual colour?
Do you mean that percieved by eye/brain?
The light between your eyes and an object has a frequency which we perceive as colour, hence we say the light has that colour.
This frequency is consistently associated with colour, in fact it will affect the colour of an object. For example, early morning light has a frequency we would describe as blue, when it shines on white snow the snow takes on a blue cast, in the evening the light is much redder and the snow can look reddish. This effect is noticable in photographs and I carry a set of filters to adjust for it.
If you go to choose carpets or fabric, you will find that the frequency of the light affects your perception of the colour, hence why shops use daylight bulbs.

Thank you Colin for responding, perceived by the brain if you like, what colour do we perceive light to be propagating through an ''empty''  space?

Observation evidence 1 - I can clearly see snow , milk , and all things ''white'' by looking through the clarity of light in space.

Observation evidence 2-Observation evidence 1 is constant to all visual able observers from any initial reference frame when ''light'' is present.

Both axioms yes?


Blue ice , force on, compression, red ice , force off, decompression.


V(c)→→→→→→→→←←←←←←←←←←←←

V(m1)←←←←←←←→→→→→→→→→→

We spin into the light and after midday, we spin away from the light,





« Last Edit: 12/10/2015 14:04:43 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #9 on: 12/10/2015 18:43:40 »
what colour do we perceive light to be propagating through an ''empty''  space?
The way I look at it is that light is directional. I know we think of it as omnidirectional, like from the sun or a light bulb, but the rays travel in one direction such that we only see them when they interact with a sensor - eyes, photocell, thermometer, fluorescent patch. This means we can't see light travelling across our field of vision - you might say it is transparent, but I reserve that term for the medium it is travelling through. I believe the light still exists even though I can't see it, and that it retains the property of colour defined by its frequency.
This situation has parallels. Think of a train, it has various properties - weight, a number of wheels, some carriages, colour. If I stand at the side of the track with my back to the train my interaction with the train will be very different from if I stand on the track. But in both cases the train still exists and has the same weight, number of wheels, carriages and colour (well, maybe the colour of the front has changed slightly). Basically, it is the same train.

I don't agree with your views that:
"Auroras are temporal distortion of light by angle and the propagation of light being obstructed by an electrical medium. Compression and decompression giving spectral content different to the constant of clear.

The blue sky is a constant temporal distortion by an electrical medium compressing the propagation to a blue spectral level by the gravity constant of earth always being attracted to the sun.

Red sky, is light ''skipping'' the magnetic field and less compressing by angle of incident ray of the sun reducing the invert pressure by angular of the incident ray being indirect."

because your physics doesn't work for me. I would ask how your theory explains the green flash at sunset, but I don't think I would agree with that either.
But Hey Ho, it's your theory, thanks for sharing.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #10 on: 12/10/2015 19:05:02 »
what colour do we perceive light to be propagating through an ''empty''  space?
The way I look at it is that light is directional. I know we think of it as omnidirectional, like from the sun or a light bulb, but the rays travel in one direction such that we only see them when they interact with a sensor - eyes, photocell, thermometer, fluorescent patch. This means we can't see light travelling across our field of vision - you might say it is transparent, but I reserve that term for the medium it is travelling through. I believe the light still exists even though I can't see it, and that it retains the property of colour defined by its frequency.
This situation has parallels. Think of a train, it has various properties - weight, a number of wheels, some carriages, colour. If I stand at the side of the track with my back to the train my interaction with the train will be very different from if I stand on the track. But in both cases the train still exists and has the same weight, number of wheels, carriages and colour (well, maybe the colour of the front has changed slightly). Basically, it is the same train.

I don't agree with your views that:
"Auroras are temporal distortion of light by angle and the propagation of light being obstructed by an electrical medium. Compression and decompression giving spectral content different to the constant of clear.

The blue sky is a constant temporal distortion by an electrical medium compressing the propagation to a blue spectral level by the gravity constant of earth always being attracted to the sun.

Red sky, is light ''skipping'' the magnetic field and less compressing by angle of incident ray of the sun reducing the invert pressure by angular of the incident ray being indirect."

because your physics doesn't work for me. I would ask how your theory explains the green flash at sunset, but I don't think I would agree with that either.
But Hey Ho, it's your theory, thanks for sharing.

Thank you for your reply Colin, I am not asking anyone to just agree outright.  I will obviously have to convince someone of science importance who would back the ideas and could probably explain better.   I have not heard of green flashes at sunset, but i do know if you stare at  a lcd  agricultural lamp, then turn it off, you see everything as green.


Consider a cloud Colin . consider that the density of the cloud defines the propagation speed of light through the cloud, a cloud slows the light down to a near black spectral frequency, unlike the white clouds, which are less dense and the light passes through faster than in a denser cloud. (see light engine in doodles in chat)



Once the light has left the under of the cloud, although the intensity is weakened , the medium of air does not compress the light so it turns clear again.



 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #11 on: 12/10/2015 22:44:36 »
.....but i do know if you stare at  a lcd  agricultural lamp, then turn it off, you see everything as green.
I don't know that lamp, but my guess would be that it is red/red-blue.

I will obviously have to convince someone of science importance who would back the ideas and could probably explain better.
The problem you will have is ripple effect. Your ideas are at a very basic level in physics and if they are right would require a lot of things to not happen the way they do.
Imagine if your theory was that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones in a vacuum. Or that Newton's law of conservation of momentum is wrong. The world would work in a very different way.
You have an uphill struggle to convince anyone who knows a little science, let alone someone of importance.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #12 on: 13/10/2015 00:01:14 »

You have an uphill struggle to convince anyone who knows a little science, let alone someone of importance.


My ideas sound basic because history has done all the previous leg work for me.  I can not see how you can say the above, when axioms do not need to convince anyone and are premise for argument.

''An axiom is a proposition regarded as self-evidently true without proof''.

Observation evidence - light propagating through a space that has no medium or a medium with a  low to zero refractive index, will be perceived by all visual observers to be constantly clear whilst unaltered in its constant velocity.

Do you agree with this axiom?


When you have agreed to this axiom, I will go onto the next axiom.


This is impossible if the clear light is a mixture of frequencies.










« Last Edit: 13/10/2015 04:51:57 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #13 on: 13/10/2015 12:16:32 »
Observation evidence - light propagating through a space that has no medium or a medium with a  low to zero refractive index, will be perceived by all visual observers to be constantly clear whilst unaltered in its constant velocity.

Do you agree with this axiom?
No
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #14 on: 13/10/2015 12:47:07 »

No

Then you are visually impaired and see some sort of haze?

The evidence says light slows down in a medium, that is different to c, spectral colour is a change in the speed of light.


Argue the prism?




A prism has no mechanism to command the light to line up outside of the prism. Science is clearly wrong.

Science states ''white'' light, which is really clear light, is a mixture of frequencies, this is impossible, it is one frequency and the spectral frequencies are made from the single frequency,   spectral content being a modulation of c.
Sight being an equilibrium and dependent on c to see. If c was to slow down in the air, the air would become coloured.
The only mechanism of a prism to modulate light is a force/radius of angle of the prism difference of light, off setting the center of pressure.


New model




My physics is good, my maths is crap dont make this mistake.

The day someone actually takes me seriously, will be the day I will start to technical draw the models.







« Last Edit: 13/10/2015 13:30:31 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #15 on: 13/10/2015 14:43:13 »
Then you are visually impaired and see some sort of haze?
No, I see clearly. I just happen to disagree with your axiom.

However, very happy not to comment.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #16 on: 13/10/2015 14:53:13 »

No, I see clearly. I just happen to disagree with your axiom.

However, very happy not to comment.

If you see clearly you agree with my axiom ,

Observation evidence - light propagating through a space that has no medium or a medium with a  low to zero refractive index, will be perceived by all visual observers to be constantly clear whilst unaltered in its constant velocity.

Do you agree with this axiom?

The speed of light is constant
Light slows down in a medium
science facts

You have just agreed you see clearly, the light in the air is clear in regards to sight agreeing with my axiom yes?

On what premise could you possibly disagree?
« Last Edit: 13/10/2015 14:58:31 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #17 on: 13/10/2015 15:49:09 »
If you see clearly you agree with my axiom ,
Nope

On what premise could you possibly disagree?
Now you are asking.

....or a medium with a  low to zero refractive index....
A low refractive index means some refractive index therefore not velocity of c (although what that has to do with being clear I don't know)


....will be perceived by all visual observers to be constantly clear...
As I said in my previous post, we only see light when it falls onto our eyes or detector. Thus those 'visual observers' who are in the path of the ray will see the light. Therefore not all observers will perceive what you call clear.

Your axiom also doesn't cover diffraction patterns. Also there are ways of detecting light by means of weak interactions, similar concept to standing alongside a railway line rather than on it.
So, you axiom needs qualifying to exclude those.
You also ought to include a definition of clear because it could cause confusion.

Personally I would go for a much simpler axiom. Eg light is only detected when the detector is in the path of the light.
This covers light from all directions and of all colours.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #18 on: 14/10/2015 03:04:26 »


A low refractive index means some refractive index therefore not velocity of c (although what that has to do with being clear I don't know)



But no compression of c, we see spectral content when light becomes compressed, i.e a wave, air does not compress light, it travels through air at a linearity, the frequency of light in space is zero, equal to sight , I will just give up, you avoid the prism, when I am correct, you sidetrack direct answers by replying with what I consider gibberish,
things like

''Your axiom also doesn't cover diffraction patterns''

My axiom states clear light is constant to all observers, by a constant speed.  Nothing mentioned about diffraction although that works more or less the same by angle and center of pressure.

And you know what clear means, or I can call it transparent to sight again if you like.

Everyone I ask in real life agrees it is clear.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #19 on: 14/10/2015 17:00:29 »
As I say, I am happy not to comment.
But perhaps I will leave you with some final thoughts.
Everyone I ask in real life agrees it is clear.
It is unusual for you to take notice of what "everyone" says. In this case they are mistaken, and I think your view of clear or transparent is misleading you.

You have often said that sound and light only exist within our minds, the impact on our ears or retina interpreted by our brains.
Think of a torch shining across a room onto a wall. We can think of the wall as similar to the retina, an almost flat panel, 2D at any rate.
Now stand where the wall is and look at the torch, you see light. You see the light shining on your retina. You think there is transparent between you and the torch? Well walk forward a foot, still light, again another foot and so on. Always light you can see, it fills the space between you and the torch.
Think of a stick of rock, Blackpool written all the way through. Look at the end and imagine that is the image on you retina. You can break off an inch (moving forward) and again and again, always solid one end to the other, like the light.
You think you see transparent between you and the torch, but you can't. The retina is 2D, no depth, what you think is clear space between you and the torch is an illusion created by your brain. Light fills the space as we have shown. If you believe that sound and light are only perceptions in the mind, then you will see this is true.

Back to white light. This too is an illusion.
Look at a white area on the screen in front of you. I can assure you it is made of tiny dots of 3 different coloured lights (3 frequencies). The retina/brain can't separate out those 3 frequencies so it tells you a lie, it say 'white', and you believe.
Switch those 3 off, the brain says black, you believe.

It really doesn't matter what you believe because, fortunately, enough people understand what really happens and can use that understanding to make computer screens, TVs, cameras, etc.
It's up to you what you believe, so I'll leave you to your beliefs.


 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #20 on: 14/10/2015 17:06:15 »
I will try to explain one last time, this is my last forum available, Antoine discovered nothing is ever lost, but that does not account for me and my thoughts.


A Photon starts its journey when it leaves the sun, a photon is pushed along by other photons, a bumper to bumper flow, space itself does not obstruct the intrinsic flow of photons, the photons travels through space behaving like a particle, there is no opposing force of space on the photon to obstruct the photons journey. The Photons are free to travel at a linearity through space at a constant speed.
Now when the photons encounter an opposing force such as a medium of energy or a medium of like water, the medium slows down the photons travel, the pushing photons become congested in the medium intensifying the ''layer'' of light in a length of space. This temporal slowing down is different to the light in space, this allows us to see the difference though the clear of space, we are submerged in light, light is already in our eyes from the moment we open them, ,  the coupling of the clear light of sight to objects, is a communications protocol to the brain, a neutral and equal to sight, a frequency of zero relative to sight, a frequency that when is not zero is observed as colour.
A positive carrier signal from matter that is neutralised by space transmitted onto the light , an invert reflection onto itself,
So yes although matter as to be directly observed to see the process by receiving the modulated carrier signal, spectral frequency is clearly the slowing down of light different to the constant.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #21 on: 14/10/2015 17:09:51 »

Always light you can see, it fills the space between you and the torch.


You say it and dont even realise it, walk forward one foot,  you still see light in that space, but you perceive that space as clear.


Look at the white on your computer screen, I assure you the white is rgb,I assure you white is slower than c,  I assure you that from your screen the light leaving your screen is clear as day, and not the white you are looking at.


I assure you the colour is neutralised in the space between your eyes and the screen, I assure you your brain is sensing the difference by the fibre optic link to the screen of the neutral light which is clear in the space.

I assure you that from your eyes to the screen there is an invert modulation , I assure you this modulation travels past you at c, I assure you the burgundy you see on this forum is slower than clear. 

I can assure you that every single photon leaving your screen , travels at c, I can assure you none of the photons in your screen travel at c,
  I can assure you if you fill the space between your eyes and the screen with smoke, you will see colour in the smoke because it slows the light down.


Violet has more layers than red, 3 layers make white, lots of layers make black,


black is est=.25mm thick, red is thin, clear is no layers

No layers because there is no congestion

Black is overcrowding, white is ease of congestion, light is simple.

The blue sky is congestion, clouds are congestion, out of the zone the congestion is eased,

Angular displacement of light is ease of congestion, hence red sky and red ice, and red shift at the poles, prisms

doppler blueshift is congesting the light. Redshift de-congestion, space a super highway with no congestion


I can assure you if you look in a mirror, the light transmitting off you decompresses in the medium of air, then congests in the mirror.




I read somewhere about measuring light waves , a length, can anyone tell me how long red is?  and how long purple is?  so i can calculate the temporal displacement of the layers.

clear is 299 792 458 m / s

red is ??????????? m/s


colour has a speed how weird.

added - an invert-ion rate of exchange sounds like the technical name for it.




« Last Edit: 14/10/2015 18:55:55 by Thebox »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #22 on: 15/10/2015 13:41:34 »
Ok moving on as there is no doubt in my mind science will never understand the nature of light so I will leave science n the land of delusion with light.


Gravity, is science too blind to see that gravity force is neutral while it travels through the neutral light in the message from mass to mass?


 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #23 on: 17/10/2015 00:02:28 »
Light does this.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3158
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #24 on: 17/10/2015 10:57:51 »
I am about 99% sure I am now going to quit science, my time is my time after all.   It is a real shame nobody got me or understood me, my physics is of my mind, things can only work the way my mind says the physics is possible.   Anything less, then its not 100% logical axiom proof.

I will leave one final check list for the off chance somebody is listening and are blatantly keeping out of the light of the public.


1. Space is infinite, there is one universe and we only can visually observe a small part of it , 
reasons- vanishing points of observation of matter and light magnitude over distance.


2.  Time, only exists in matter and is not of space, there is no space-time, a time dilating atom is dependant to itself and has no effect on space.

3.  Emr, this remains neutral unless interacting and put under invert force.   A net charge of zero, a frequency of zero an equilibrium to sight, until it becomes responsive to change, neutralised energy until activated.
A wave only by compression and obstruction of flow. White light is clear light, white is observed through the clear, spectral colours are the compression of light, a congestion by temporal velocity change.  White is white because of the timing of reflection exchange being faster than black.  To simplify, radiation is completely harmless when not activated by a reactor. Observer effect adds the ingredients to the soup.



4. Gravity, this is so cool, it uses the neutral of space to transmit a neutral signal of mass to mass through the constant of the neutral, a bit like a mass radar, and once detected the process of gravity happens.   We are submerged in a fibre optic soup of one flavour, all the other flavours are observed in the soup not of the soup. Bodies emit a light carrier signal of itself inverted through the incident signal that are both neutralised in space with no reactant.



Ok, good luck to anyone who is listening, I am sure you my well explain it better than me, and make your mark on wiki. :)


EVERY ACTIVATION HAS AN EQUAL AND AN OPPOSITE REACTIVATION BUT ONLY IF THERE IS AN ACTION.




 




« Last Edit: 17/10/2015 11:17:02 by Thebox »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: All my ideas in one basket.
« Reply #24 on: 17/10/2015 10:57:51 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length