The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. That CAN'T be true!
  4. New Theory: why a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

New Theory: why a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?

  • 4 Replies
  • 5671 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Hayseed (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 350
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 11 times
  • Naked Science Forum Crackpot
New Theory: why a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?
« on: 14/10/2019 16:40:26 »
Because intuition is not allowed.   About 100 years ago, science could not explain the "constant" velocity of light that they measured.  ( and they still can't)

So, they surrendered their intellect to mathematics.  And the only way that the equations made any sense, was to make the time term variable.

So, that's what they did, they profess that time is local, and therefore is relative to velocity.

The math proves this.   And gave us 100 years of ignorance.  And the ban on intuition.

In all my experience and all my study, it's the silliest thing I have found.  And the whole world follows this.

These are the real facts of modern science.   No. 1......light moves.  No. 2.....when we measure it, we get the same result.

This is ALL that modern science knows of light.  That's it.

AND NOW, ALL OF MODERN SCIENCE IS BASED ON THIS SILLY DOGMA.

EM does not have the property of frequency, it has the property of duty cycle.  Light does not transverse during propagation, like a media wave.

EM is intermittent duration, not frequency.  That duration is mirrored and doubled, when absorbed.  And that duration, depends, on the absorber's relative velocity.

The duration and velocity of propagation, relative to the emitter, is constant.   This is due to the fact that the dynamic of emission is instant.  And that instant has the property of a static point source in space.  No matter the velocity of emitter.      But, But...the duration of absorption can vary, depending on the absorber's relative velocity to emitter.  Absorption takes time.  Emission takes no time.

And of course, that absorption duration is measured as frequency.  They do not recognize that the change in duration, is due, the relative velocity.  Some actually believe that change in frequency, proves that time changes.

Only the duration of absorption changes, not time.  Time and length are constant and omnipresent thru-out the cosmos.

Emission and absorption are asymmetrical with time.

We we fire a gun, it takes time for the bullet to leave the barrel.  An emission time.  When the bullet hits the target, it is instant.

But if we fire light, the emission is instant, but the target, takes time to be hit.  The impact takes duration.

We will have this silly SR and GR until science learns the difference.


Logged
The proper hardware will eliminate all theory.
 



Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11775
  • Activity:
    84%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: New Theory: why a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?
« Reply #1 on: 15/10/2019 03:13:04 »
Quote from: Hayseed on 14/10/2019 16:40:26
EM does not have the property of frequency, it has the property of duty cycle.  Light does not transverse during propagation, like a media wave.

EM is intermittent duration, not frequency.  That duration is mirrored and doubled, when absorbed.  And that duration, depends, on the absorber's relative velocity.

The duration and velocity of propagation, relative to the emitter, is constant.   This is due to the fact that the dynamic of emission is instant.  And that instant has the property of a static point source in space.  No matter the velocity of emitter.      But, But...the duration of absorption can vary, depending on the absorber's relative velocity to emitter.  Absorption takes time.  Emission takes no time.
Do you have experiment results that back up your assertions?
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline Hayseed (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 350
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 11 times
  • Naked Science Forum Crackpot
Re: New Theory: why a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?
« Reply #2 on: 15/10/2019 04:25:29 »
The experiments have been done.  I have explained why the results are what they are, without the needed concept of local time.

Emission is just a change in direction, not a change in speed or growth.  The field and speed is already there.  That's why it is instant.

A rotation always has a double velocity reference across the diameter.  Something to pocket for future reference.  An automatic double velocity reference of any detected velocity.

At the other end, during the duration of absorption, the free charge will be accelerated, causing a charge potential in that charge environment.  After that duration, that charge will reset in the environment, causing an opposite potential with equal duration.  A mirror(bounce) effect.

Emission is instant and point source, the propagated wave(field) has a 1/2 period duration, and absorption.......takes 1 period.  The absorption duration can be altered with relative displacement during absorption.

Emission is quick because there is no inertia.  Absorption takes duration, because there is.
Logged
The proper hardware will eliminate all theory.
 

Offline hamdani yusuf

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 11775
  • Activity:
    84%
  • Thanked: 285 times
Re: New Theory: why a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?
« Reply #3 on: 15/10/2019 05:12:13 »
Quote from: Hayseed on 15/10/2019 04:25:29
Emission is just a change in direction, not a change in speed or growth.  The field and speed is already there.  That's why it is instant.
When I push a switch to power up room lighting, where was the speed and direction of the light before it lit up?
Logged
Unexpected results come from false assumptions.
 

Offline Hayseed (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 350
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 11 times
  • Naked Science Forum Crackpot
Re: New Theory: why a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?
« Reply #4 on: 15/10/2019 05:57:11 »
Again, IR and above are fluxes.  The very worst examples one could pick, to understand this.

All of the "stuff" that makes matter, is in constant rotation at angular c.

All the fields that bond this stuff are in constant angular c rotation.
Logged
The proper hardware will eliminate all theory.
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.48 seconds with 40 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.