[guest39538]

The speed of light in a vacuum 299792458 m/s constantly .  How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ? 

The truth is, it doesn't have its own speed at all , the speed is the transitional property , from high state energy to a lower state energy.  The light is not emitted from a light bulb , it is pulled out of the light bulb by the lesser state energy of the surrounding Rⁿ space . 

The speed of light now explained 

→
p(c)= F(<E)    where p is momentum 

This can be observed in spectral emissions .   

[Kryptid]

How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ?

Newton's first law.

[guest39538]

How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ?

Newton's first law.

An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force .

 Can a photon be classed as an object?

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

The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted due to an atom or molecule making a transition from a high energy state to a lower energy state.

In regards to spectral emission and the transitional period of high energy to a lower energy state , geometrical position .

The speed of this process is ?

The force of this displacement is ?

Wouldn't my equation for this process be correct ?

[Bored chemist]

Can a photon be classed as an object?

Yes.

Wouldn't my equation for this process be correct ?

The "equation" doesn't mean anything, so it's hard to say.

[guest39538]

Can a photon be classed as an object?

Yes.

Wouldn't my equation for this process be correct ?

The "equation" doesn't mean anything, so it's hard to say.

What do you mean the equation doesn't mean anything ?

 It explains the process and equates the speed of light in being a transitional property of light !

 What do you disagree with about it ?

Please show the error in the equation .

It reads the momentum of light 299792458 m/s is equal to the force of a less than energy state .

Quite clearly

= v (c)

F=<E

Thus momentum ;

→
p(c)= F(<E)

Additionally applied to Newtons first law

→
p(m)= F(<E)

The higher state energy of the mass being attracted to the less than energy state space-time energy ahead of it .

[guest39538]

In explaining the mechanics of gravity :


g.jpg (111.4 kB . 1360x768 - viewed 578 times)

   You're welcome science .

[mad aetherist]

The speed of light in a vacuum 299792458 m/s constantly .  How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ? 

The truth is, it doesn't have its own speed at all , the speed is the transitional property , from high state energy to a lower state energy.  The light is not emitted from a light bulb , it is pulled out of the light bulb by the lesser state energy of the surrounding Rⁿ space .  The speed of light now explained 
→
p(c)= F(<E)    where p is momentum 
This can be observed in spectral emissions .   

U made a bad start. The speed of light in vacuum is not constant.  Einstein predicted that.  Shapiro & Co have prooven it. So where is your equation now?

A photon propagates throo the aether at c in vacuum if well away from mass etc, ie never.

Your equation gives no inkling as to how a photon propagates at up to c in the aether as primarily a helical annihilation & excitation process of aether plus a radially emanating process (photaenos) involving additional annihilation (probly) plus excitation (a different kind of excitation to the primary), the photaenos being responsible for the slowing near mass etc (due to a feedback process)(due to interference with other photaenos from other photons).

Is your equation meant to explain these kinds of processes, or is it just the usual kind of equation that tries to ascribe numbers to what happens & what is measured or predicted, based partly on using a constant to cover some ignorance (nothing wrong with that)(but just asking).

But it looks to me like your equation is based on photons being just math, hencely having an algebraic speed based on a math creation & a math existence & a math annihilation, & having math interactions when meeting geometry, slowed down by arithmetic here or there, but nothing that cant be handled by an Einstein friendly trigonometrical transform.

[guest39538]

The speed of light in vacuum is not constant.  Einstein predicted that.  Shapiro & Co have prooven it. So where is your equation now?

Actually , you are incorrect , the speed of light in a vacuum is constant , observers clocks in difference frames of reference are not constant .  I guess you don't understand simultaneity of events .

[mad aetherist]

The speed of light in vacuum is not constant.  Einstein predicted that.  Shapiro & Co have prooven it. So where is your equation now?

Actually , you are incorrect , the speed of light in a vacuum is constant , observers clocks in difference frames of reference are not constant .  I guess you don't understand simultaneity of events .

SR says that the speed of light appears constant, & GR says that the speed of light appears constant. Which means that the speed of light is not constant.

The simultaneity of events is simple.  They are simultaneous, or not.  The perception or measurement of simultaneity is of course a problem.

Crothers has shown that Einsteinian simultaneity is a math trick with no basis in reality. 
Rather than two simultaneous events in one frame being non-simultaneous in every other frame Crothers has shown that Einsteinian simultaneity (& the speed of light c) is dependent on choice of origin. 
In other words the correct wording for Einsteinian simultaneity is that any & all pairs of events can be seen to be simultaneous by a suitable choice of origin & frame (or something like that).

[guest39538]

The speed of light in vacuum is not constant.  Einstein predicted that.  Shapiro & Co have prooven it. So where is your equation now?

Actually , you are incorrect , the speed of light in a vacuum is constant , observers clocks in difference frames of reference are not constant .  I guess you don't understand simultaneity of events .

SR says that the speed of light appears constant, & GR says that the speed of light appears constant. Which means that the speed of light is not constant.

It is constant , 1 light second per light second regardless of who's timing it .  The velocity between is unaltered unless traversing through a medium , the denser the medium the slower it traverses through the medium .

[mad aetherist]

The speed of light in vacuum is not constant.  Einstein predicted that.  Shapiro & Co have prooven it. So where is your equation now?

Actually , you are incorrect , the speed of light in a vacuum is constant , observers clocks in difference frames of reference are not constant .  I guess you don't understand simultaneity of events .

SR says that the speed of light appears constant, & GR says that the speed of light appears constant. Which means that the speed of light is not constant.

It is constant , 1 light second per light second regardless of who's timing it .  The velocity between is unaltered unless traversing through a medium , the denser the medium the slower it traverses through the medium .

My photaeno drag theory says that there is no basic difference tween the slowing of light in a medium to the slowing of light near mass, they are both caused by photaeno drag, the difference being a matter of degree (in a medium will of course usually give stronger slowing).

But timing & measuring will be a problem. Because the nearness of mass affects length & ticking. Einsteinologists & Aetherists are all ignorant of this.

[evan_au]

How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ? 

This statement presumes the laws of motion as understood by the ancient Greek philosophers.

It was a natural assumption, since everything around us experiences friction and air resistance - it is natural to assume that all moving objects naturally slow down and halt - even the roundest ball on a highly polished floor.

The idea of a vacuum was hard for them to grasp - in fact, Aristotle said:

Nature abhors a vacuum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)

But, once people had developed barometers, and discovered that air pressure decreased with altitude, it became pretty clear that most of the universe is a pretty good vacuum, and Aristotle had got it wrong. So for planets and stars in the galaxy, they don't slow down and stop, which is where Newton's first law comes in (as Kryptid said).

Light is even more special, because it is a disturbance which propagates on the basic properties of spacetime, so in a vacuum, it always travels at a fixed speed (as measured by someone in their lab).

In a non-vacuum (eg air or glass), the speed of light is lower, but as soon as light returns to a vacuum, it returns to the original speed, based on the properties of spacetime. And this increase in speed does not require any additional energy, since all the energy was in the original photon.

[guest39538]

How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ? 

This statement presumes the laws of motion as understood by the ancient Greek philosophers.

It was a natural assumption, since everything around us experiences friction and air resistance - it is natural to assume that all moving objects naturally slow down and halt - even the roundest ball on a highly polished floor.

The idea of a vacuum was hard for them to grasp - in fact, Aristotle said:

Nature abhors a vacuum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_vacui_(physics)

But, once people had developed barometers, and discovered that air pressure decreased with altitude, it became pretty clear that most of the universe is a pretty good vacuum, and Aristotle had got it wrong. So for planets and stars in the galaxy, they don't slow down and stop, which is where Newton's first law comes in (as Kryptid said).

Light is even more special, because it is a disturbance which propagates on the basic properties of spacetime, so in a vacuum, it always travels at a fixed speed (as measured by someone in their lab).

In a non-vacuum (eg air or glass), the speed of light is lower, but as soon as light returns to a vacuum, it returns to the original speed, based on the properties of spacetime. And this increase in speed does not require any additional energy, since all the energy was in the original photon.

A photon is the point ''quanta'' of space-time that traverses point to point , through the space-time field carrier .   The increase in speed when the point quanta exits a medium is because of density decrease of the ''space'' , thus allowing the point quanta to traverse point to point with less opposing permeability .  The speed increase being the maximum speed of point quanta's transitional state traversing point to point at c  when 0 permeability . 
A point quanta will continue in motion if

A) The point ahead is a less energy state

B) The space-time field is a neutral polarity

[jeffreyH]

@Thebox You need to consider conservation of energy. Photons are not made to move from one energy level to another through space. They are a consequence of this conservation of energy. It is the relationship of their frequency to this conservation law that is important. You know that I am going to keep on trying to educate you, don't you?

[xersanozgen]

The speed of light in a vacuum 299792458 m/s constantly .  How can something have a speed when it has no propulsion ? 

The truth is, it doesn't have its own speed at all , the speed is the transitional property , from high state energy to a lower state energy.  The light is not emitted from a light bulb , it is pulled out of the light bulb by the lesser state energy of the surrounding Rⁿ space . 

The speed of light now explained 

→
p(c)= F(<E)    where p is momentum 

This can be observed in spectral emissions .

Laser have high energy. What is Laser's velocity according to your mentality?  Does the difference of energy reason larger velocity?

[mad aetherist]

@Thebox You need to consider conservation of energy. Photons are not made to move from one energy level to another through space. They are a consequence of this conservation of energy. It is the relationship of their frequency to this conservation law that is important. You know that I am going to keep on trying to educate you, don't you?

Einsteinologists havent a clue about photons. They dont know what photons are, how they are created, how they propagate, why they propagate at the speed that they propagate at, why they are slowed in air water glass, why they are slowed near mass, why they bend, why they refract, why they diffract, why they reflect, why they are sticky & fond of forming formations & waves.
And they believe that photons arise from conservation of energy.
Hell Einsteinologists still believe that photons are em radiation & em radiation is photons.
We are in an Einsteinian dark age of science.  But the times they are a'changin.

[Bored chemist]

What do you mean the equation doesn't mean anything ?

Someone has stuck a < sign in it.

[Bored chemist]

You know that I am going to keep on trying to educate you, don't you?

It may take (us) some time...

[guest39538]

@Thebox You need to consider conservation of energy. Photons are not made to move from one energy level to another through space. They are a consequence of this conservation of energy. It is the relationship of their frequency to this conservation law that is important. You know that I am going to keep on trying to educate you, don't you?

Hello Jeffrey , you do realise that in accordance with what a frequency is and what a wave length is , a single photon has neither a wave length or frequency ?

A wave length is the plural of photon , photons , the frequency is an amount of photons passing a point in time .

[guest39538]

What do you mean the equation doesn't mean anything ?

Someone has stuck a < sign in it.

That would be a less than sign , signifying the force itself was <E

=<hf

Quite simple Mr Chemist .