0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Light is just waves of density in space. All waves are expanding density through a medium. Light's medium is space, so all light is is a wave of density in space with a certain frequency. Protons and neutrons are made of super dense space. There density squeezes the surrounding space of the universe they are in. The region of squeezing creates its gravity field. When two gravity fields touch the same squeezing of space on space occurs and it pulls two objects together based on their mass.In a magnet, all the electrons in the atoms circle in the same direction, this creates a fan like churning that sends outward waves of density along space in the pattern of the magnetic field.An electron is a slice of energy that fits an atom's electron shell. It's density as a wave adds to the overall weight of the atom. The electron may collect energy gradually until it is 'full' and needs no more energy. Positively charged protons may vibrate producing waves in the nucleus's gravity field which capture electron's while a neutron with the same weight repels electrons.
What do you mean by "density"?Your use certainly isn't the normal meaning of the word.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/10/2018 19:59:17What do you mean by "density"?Your use certainly isn't the normal meaning of the word.I mean taking a large volume of something, in this case space, and compressing it into a smaller area. For example, when light hits a dense area of space caused by a gravity field, it refracts and moves at an angle to it's previous path. I suppose density means the total number of atoms per cubic measurement, but I mean space that has been compressed.
A large volume of space is an oxymoron.
What do you think space actually is?
Quote from: The Spoon on 25/10/2018 10:57:26A large volume of space is an oxymoron.More like a tautology than an oxymoron, I'd say.Michio Kaku did mention in his book Hyperspace that there was some scientist who came up with a theory rather similar to this, except the proposition was that light was a vibration propagating through a fifth dimension of space. Apparently, it was pretty good, at least mathematically-speaking, at unifying gravity with electromagnetism. It turned out to be insufficient when the nuclear forces were taken into account, unfortunately.
I think you need to start by finding out the scientific definitions of the words you are using, because none of that makes much sense.
Light is just waves of density in space.
The michelson morely experiment is old, out dated, and questionable if it would work as they said in the first place.
But guess what? The new, $600M interferometer detected absolutely no deviation from c in any direction. They called this $600M boondoggle "LIGO".
Quote from: evan_au on 29/10/2018 09:15:03But guess what? The new, $600M interferometer detected absolutely no deviation from c in any direction. They called this $600M boondoggle "LIGO".The whole experiment is flawed in the first place. The light bounces back on the same path they sent it out on, which would cancel any momentum gained or lost from the moving aether on that specific path. That's not what they said though.
Congratulations!You just worked out why the MM experiment is a 2nd order effect experiment.Now all you need to do is see why that 2nd order experiment actually works.
some scientist who came up with a theory rather similar to this, except the proposition was that light was a vibration propagating
It's logically absurd to say that light travel's through space as a wave, but needs no medium.
You're not leaving me with much to argue with you here. How does it work as a 'second order experiment' as you say? My arguement as I stated in post #12 is that the light split along two paths in the experiment bounces back along the same path, cancelling any momentum gained or lost from the moving aether, and consequently won't give the results they predicted, that the two light waves would return at different times. It's logically absurd to say that light travel's through space as a wave, but needs no medium. Wave particle duality is ridiculous. Someone should have second guessed that experiment a long time ago.
You seem to think that, if you make the same trip in a river (rather than a canal) it will take the same time because the flow of the water will hinder you in one direction but help in the other.But that fails to take account of the fact that, because you walk against the current more slowly than you walk with it, you spend more time walking against it than you spend walking with it..And because of that, the effects don't cancel.
Is there any concrete proof that the results should be accurate with what they assumed?
If you arrange for the path to be through a flowing gas then you do get fringe shift.Your idea that they cancel is factually wrong.
This makes no sense