Belief is irrelevant. Get a couple of prisms, or ask any stage lighting engineer.
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 .
My first point to apply to Physics, is ''white'' light more dense than the natural daylight propagating through space?No
The natural daylight propagating through space is ''clear'' light is it not?No
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.
Is white light not misleading and causes confusion when considering natural daylight?No
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
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.
Observation evidence 1 - I can clearly see snow , milk , and all things ''white'' by looking through the clarity of light in space.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.
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?
Belief is irrelevant. Get a couple of prisms, or ask any stage lighting engineer.
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 .QuoteMy first point to apply to Physics, is ''white'' light more dense than the natural daylight propagating through space?NoQuoteThe natural daylight propagating through space is ''clear'' light is it not?NoQuoteAre 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.QuoteIs white light not misleading and causes confusion when considering natural daylight?NoQuoteWould 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?NoQuoteBecause 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.QuoteObservation evidence 1 - I can clearly see snow , milk , and all things ''white'' by looking through the clarity of light in space.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.
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?
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. A basket case indeed.
An interesting collection of scientific terms, and utterly without meaning.
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?
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.
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.
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.
.....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.
You have an uphill struggle to convince anyone who knows a little science, let alone someone of importance.
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.No
Do you agree with this axiom?
No
Then you are visually impaired and see some sort of haze?No, I see clearly. I just happen to disagree with your axiom.
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 ,Nope
On what premise could you possibly disagree?Now you are asking.
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)
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.
Always light you can see, it fills the space between you and the torch.
I bet you'd love timecube theory.
The flaw with your theory is that you assume light has a color, when it doesn't.
[A=B]≠C when C is c slowing in a medium or by obstruction causing radiation pressure. Because if B=C everything would be invisible.
[A=B]≠C when C is c slowing in a medium or by obstruction causing radiation pressure. Because if B=C everything would be invisible.
A+B=C. Always. The medium being passed through or the obstruction is irrelevant in this context. If B=C, then A has 0 amplitude and a wavelength of 0. In that sense, yes, A is invisible, because we can't see wavelengths shorter than 400nm. It's like if you reverse the amplitudes of an audio wave and play it at the same time as the original audio wave. The two cancel each other out, and you end up with no sound.
quintessenceI think you have just said it is a bit long winded in my explanation of trying to add details, and my details are a bit unclear?
english: "No offense, but it's obvious you're explaining your ideas using big words for concepts that are unclear to yourself."
Reactants have nothing to do with capacitance, inductance, emittance, entropy, or mass. They are substances consumed in a chemical reaction.
Light is, in the strictest sense, a stream of photons (a type of boson) moving within the visible wavelength of 400nm to 700nm.
Light has nothing to do with communications protocols.
The difference between parallel and serial communications channel has nothing to do with the number of electrical conductors. Serial communication channels simply operate on multiplexed data.
Lastly, light does not keep anything in time. In fact, light itself is out of time if it's not measured in a vacuum. We measure things in terms of light because light is the fastest thing we know, and thus with we can assert the shortest distance and shortest time with it as a Planck length and Planck time.
Light is not a communications method. It can be used as a method of communication; but that's not just a property of light, you can do that with anything.
For example, just the other day I was pondering mechanical computers and designed this simple mechanism for data storage using a spring, a ratchet, and a gear with a needle attached to it that pointed to 1 or 0. When the gear rotated counterclockwise, the ratchet would lock it in place and a write operation would occur that points the needle to 1. When the ratchet was released, the spring would reset the gear back to it's default position, and an erase operation would occur that points the needle to 0.
Let's decide on a 2-bit encoding for communication. Here's a specification:
00 - subtract 1
01 - add 1
10 - multiply by 2
11 - execute and reset to 0
Now, let's make the device say "HELLO" (in ASCII encoding):
01101010101010010101010101010111
01101010101010010101010111011010
10101001010101010110110110101010
10010101010101101101101010101001
01010101011001010111
I repeat, light is not a communications medium, it can be used as a communications medium.
No, it's not. It's analogous to the statement, "guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns.". Take away the guns and they'll use knives. Take away the knives and they'll use sticks. Take away the sticks and they'll use fists. In any case, not the guns, nor the knives, nor the sticks, nor the fists have the intrinsic property of killing people.
Now see, if you had explained it like that to begin with instead of writing a novel filled with irrelevant and questionably incorrect statements, we wouldn't have been going around in circles.
From what I can tell, what you're trying to explain has absolutely nothing to do with light or communication. I'm guessing that you're saying:
- Light is a form of electromagnetic radiation.
- Gravity interacts with electromagnetic radiation
- Objects interact with electromagnetic radiation
Therefore:
- Electromagnetic radiation (a subset of which, being light) acts as a medium through which gravity and objects interact with each other.
I'd say this is actually pretty logical.
And, now you're back to speaking complete grandiose nonsense... Anyhow, I understand your basic point now and accept that there is some logic to it.