[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

What 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.

[The Spoon]

What 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?

[Bored chemist]

What 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.

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.

[Kryptid]

A 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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

What do you think space actually is?

Space is what it is, I'm not arguing pro aether or against. The only thing in space instead of there being nothing everywhere, are density's within it as described in the OP. The universe has a consistent density of space all through out it and is like a drawing board for matter and energy. I believe the universe is just another particle of matter to an outside universe which has an overall density in ratio to a particle of matter's density to our universe. Time would be same in infinite universe's this way because the density of are host universe would allow light to move much faster for the distance it has to travel.

[Lance Canham]

A 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 once thought about it as a vibration moving through space a few years ago I should Revit this idea one day, an ultra fine  vibration compared to a gravity wave. If a gravity wave was the wave in a wake left by a ship then light would be the ultra fine chop of the ocean which was already there and the wave from that wake can pass by causing basically little effect.  Keep in mind this ripple would be more organised and not just random like ocean chop.  In a way it is a density wave traveling through space time so in a way density may apply.   

It came to me one day watching a travel commercial and a cruise ship pass by leaving a wake on a choppy sea right when I was wondering what light might be - I never gave it much more thought.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

Seems like all waves are a spread of density through a medium. Like when you throw a rock into a pond, the waves in the water occur after the rock creates a crater of expansion.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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.

Well I would ask you what term you would use to describe density, but you would probably just go on about relativity and how space isn't a medium. Well I'm pro medium and am set out to prove it. https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71445.msg523210#msg523210
The michelson morely experiment is old, out dated, and questionable if it would work as they said in the first place.

[alancalverd]

Let's  start with a box of air. Light propagates through it. Pump out the air. Light still propagates. Fill the box with carbon dioxide or water, ditto. So the "medium" is present in solids, liquids and vacua but has no mechanical or chemical properties (or we would be able to pump or displace it). Now add black ink to the water. Where has the "medium" gone? Try red ink - some light gets through but most doesn't. It must be there, but it doesn't work properly in the presence of almost everything!

Now take a birefringent crystal. The medium must be present because it transmits light, but suddenly this stuff with no physical or chemical properties has become anisotropic!

Religion may prefer the synthetic explanation of natural phenomena, adding gods or angels to fill the gaps in our understanding, but most scientists prefer Occam's approach. If you can produce an equation that predicts the behavior of light without using a magic medium, use it.

[evan_au]

Light is just waves of density in space.

Density is a scalar value - it has a value (amplitude) at every place in space. A density wave is able to propagate through a medium, like longitudinal waves through a solid.

However, when you have polarised light, it behaves differently, depending on the polarisation. So light has an amplitude, but also a direction of polarisation.

A density wave does not have enough degrees of freedom to correctly represent light.

The michelson morely experiment is old, out dated, and questionable if it would work as they said in the first place.

I've got some good news for you!

The US National Science Foundation spent about $600 Million upgrading the Michelson Morely experiment, bringing it up to date with the latest, most stable lasers and latest high-tech mirrors, and even paid for an enormous vacuum tube so it wouldn't be disturbed by changes in air pressure, etc.

It now has the extraordinary ability to detect motion relative to the aether of better than 1 part in 10²⁰, which is certainly enough to detect the rotation of the Earth, the Earth's movement around the Sun, and the Sun's movement around the galaxy.

But guess what? The new, $600M interferometer detected absolutely no deviation from c in any direction.  They called this $600M boondoggle "LIGO".

And in the absence of a disturbed aether, LIGO does detect the subtle influence of gravitational waves (as also predicted by Einstein).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

But 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.

[Bored chemist]

But 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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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.

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.

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

some scientist who came up with a theory rather similar to this, except the proposition was that light was a vibration propagating

Well, vibrating causes motion to and fro, sending out waves, example a tuning fork. I guess its true or I've heard it before that electrons vibrate when light bounces off them causing color in substances.

[Kryptid]

It's logically absurd to say that light travel's through space as a wave, but needs no medium.

One could argue that the electromagnetic field itself is that medium. Electromagnetic waves (such as light) are excitations that propagate through that field. Since all of space contains an electromagnetic field (due to both the inverse square law and vacuum fluctuations), there is always something present to propagate light through.

[Bored chemist]

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're not leaving me with much to argue with you here. "
Feel free to look it up.

"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."
Your argument is wrong for two reasons
First.
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.

People who do this sort of thing realise why the two journeys (out and back) do not cancel.

That's why nobody "should have second guessed that experiment a long time ago."..
Imagine you are walking in a canal full of water with no flow.
Obviously, you walk more slowly than in air.
If you walk say 20 metres, then turn + walk 20 metres back it will take some time

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.



You see it's not a matter of "Someone should have second guessed that experiment a long time ago".
It's a matter of you should have realised that you are not so clever as almost 200 years worth of scientists.

Why did you think you were that clever?

[trevorjohnson32 (OP)]

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.

This makes no sense. You would gain back the time you lost walking against the current by walking with it because it would accelerate you in the direction of its flow.
It seems to me that the more I read about the experiment, that they just assumed that it would work the way they imagined in their minds. Is there any concrete proof that the results should be accurate with what they assumed?

[Bored chemist]

Is there any concrete proof that the results should be accurate with what they assumed?

Yes, there is.
That is why I already told you about it.

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.

And you are simply wrong in thinking that the time lost walking one way is exactly compensated walking the other way.

Say the current makes a 1 mile per hour difference and you walk at 5 miles an hour in still water. (OK that's not realistic, but the numbers make the maths easy)
And, lets say your walk is a mile each way.
In the canal you travel a mile in 1/5 hours which is 12 minutes.
So the return journey takes 24 minutes.

In the river you make the same mile each way return journey.
You set off against the current so you are slowed down by a mile per hour. You travel at 4 miles per hour.
The mile takes 1/4 hours or 15 min.

And then there's the second leg.
With the water behind you , you can manage 6 miles per hour so the journey takes 1/6 hours i.e. 10 minutes.

The round trip takes 10 +15 =25 min

I say that 24 is not the same as 25 and you claim

This makes no sense

Well, all the people who looked at this experiment think that 24 is not 25.

Why do you think they are all wrong and  24=25?