[Bored chemist]

could this person you mention discuss special relativity ?

Yes, with roughly the same level of understanding that you have.

Really ?   Then you can explain clearly to the readers how light manages to leave a flashlights bulb !

Yes
But some of our readers won't understand it.
Having failed to understand, they will claim that the explanation is wrong, rather than facing the fact that they simply don't have the brains or the background to understand it.

[Starlight (OP)]

could this person you mention discuss special relativity ?

Yes, with roughly the same level of understanding that you have.

Really ?   Then you can explain clearly to the readers how light manages to leave a flashlights bulb !

Yes
But some of our readers won't understand it.
Having failed to understand, they will claim that the explanation is wrong, rather than facing the fact that they simply don't have the brains or the background to understand it.

Go on then , explain how light is emitted from a flashlight !

Explain how the light travels from the bulb

[Bored chemist]

There seems to be a random squiggle at the end of your post.

[Bored chemist]

Then you'd need to explain by what propulsion mechanism a photon was able to travel ?

My explanation would be no better or more succinct than that given by Maxwell in 1862. But that wasn't the question.

[Starlight (OP)]

There seems to be a random squiggle at the end of your post.

Hardly random when it is the forum provided math symbols.

Do you not understand vectors ?

is a directional tag a to b .

[Starlight (OP)]

Is the speed of light a product of a linear function ?

Is the speed of light a product of a linear function !

That is the question which you are failing to discuss .

=f(x)

[Bored chemist]

Do you not understand vectors ?

I understand vectors well enough.
In particular, I understand them well enough that they don't reliably represent the paths of photons.

So, I'm left wondering if your use of the symbol was just a way to indicate that you are both pretentious and ignorant.

But that's beside the point.

Is the speed of light a product of a linear function !

No.
It's a constant.
I already told you this (and others said essentially the same thing)

Is the speed of light a product of a linear function ?
No
It's the reciprocal of the square root of the product of two electromagnetic properties of a vacuum.

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

Having been told repeatedly that the answer to your question is "no", you keep asking it.

Why do you do that?
Are you hoping that reality will change?

[Starlight (OP)]

Having been told repeatedly that the answer to your question is "no", you keep asking it.

Why do you do that?
Are you hoping that reality will change?

You have provided gibberish to direct questions , something to pass off as an answer that is totally meaningless to the question .

You  have to provide the mechanics of lights motion .  Light does not travel for no reason .

I'll ask again ! Explain how light travels from a to b when turning on a flashlight ?

Propulsion or attraction !   Only one answer is applicable .

t's the reciprocal of the square root of the product of two electromagnetic properties of a vacuum.

Meaningless gibberish .

Laws of attraction

[Bored chemist]

Meaningless gibberish .

When you write off the mathematically derived result (from Maxwell's equations) as "meaningless gibberish", what you are actually doing is announcing your own lack of understanding.

You have provided gibberish to direct questions

Which parts of this don't you understand?

My explanation would be no better or more succinct than that given by Maxwell in 1862.

[Starlight (OP)]

Meaningless gibberish .

When you write off the mathematically derived result (from Maxwell's equations) as "meaningless gibberish", what you are actually doing is announcing your own lack of understanding.

You have provided gibberish to direct questions

Which parts of this don't you understand?

My explanation would be no better or more succinct than that given by Maxwell in 1862.

Quoting an earlier post :

I stand corrected, sort of. Obviously h/λ is the magnitude of photon momentum but it contains no directional information.

Maxwell's equations do not explain what my question asks in relationship to force and direction .

=c

=f(x)

f(x) = ?

What don't you understand about my question ?

Perhaps you'd like the question in 4 dimensional terms ?

/ t =c

/ t =f(x)

I take it from your replies you have no real interest in the discussion of real physics , the aim of discovering new things ?

[Bored chemist]

What don't you understand about my question ?

I don't understand why you keep asking it, even after it has been answered.

I take it from your replies you have no real interest in the discussion of real physics , the aim of discovering new things ?

The evidence shows that I should say the same about you.


If, as you claim, e/x = c  and e/x = f(x) then obviously
f(x) =c

However, given the conventional use of e and x, you are simply wrong- the dimensional analysis doesn't work.

[Starlight (OP)]

What don't you understand about my question ?

I don't understand why you keep asking it, even after it has been answered.

I take it from your replies you have no real interest in the discussion of real physics , the aim of discovering new things ?

The evidence shows that I should say the same about you.


If, as you claim, e/x = c  and e/x = f(x) then obviously
f(x) =c

However, given the conventional use of e and x, you are simply wrong- the dimensional analysis doesn't work.

Obviously function (x) is a force .

F=f(x)

How can you say the dimensional analysis doesn't work when clearly it describes the physical nature of lights speed  ?


Drawing.png (16.37 kB . 460x224 - viewed 3283 times)

The linear momentum of hf is equal to function (x)

A quite simple linear expression and dimensional analysis that anybody should understand !

[Bored chemist]

How can you say the dimensional analysis doesn't work

Because I know what "dimensional analysis" means.
I'm pretty sure you don't.
You say
 e/x = c 
C is a velocity and has units of m/s
E, by convention is  an energy and has units of kg m/s^2
and x by convention is a distance and has units of metres
So e/x has units of (kilogram.metre /sec/sec) divided by( metres)
ie it has units of kg/s/s
Which are not the same as units of velocity, so whatever e/x it may be, it can not possibly be c.


Go and learn some science, then you might avoid making embarrassingly silly claims.

[Starlight (OP)]

C is a velocity and has units of m/s
E, by convention is  an energy and has units of kg m/s^2
and x by convention is a distance and has units of metres

What don't you understand about my question ?

I don't understand why you keep asking it, even after it has been answered.

I take it from your replies you have no real interest in the discussion of real physics , the aim of discovering new things ?

The evidence shows that I should say the same about you.


If, as you claim, e/x = c  and e/x = f(x) then obviously
f(x) =c

However, given the conventional use of e and x, you are simply wrong- the dimensional analysis doesn't work.

Obviously function (x) is a force .

F=f(x)

How can you say the dimensional analysis doesn't work when clearly it describes the physical nature of lights speed  ?

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

The linear momentum of hf is equal to function (x)

A quite simple linear expression and dimensional analysis that anybody should understand !

I am talking physics and causality !  You are adding equations that have absolutely nothing to do with the question and physics involved .

I suggest you go learn some physics and  how stuff works before you embarrass yourself with your silly claims .

It isn't quite April yet for you to be presenting April fool jokes that are totally unrelated to the question .

If you drove a 4*4 there is work involved , do yo understand what the word work means in physics ?

w = = f(x)

The above needs no units to express the physical functions . 

I understand it must be really embarrassing for science after all these years to find out light doesn't have a speed of its own and the thinking in general on lights speed and photons is really sloppy thinking .

Obviously SR is incorrect because of these findings , this including E=mc^2

[Bored chemist]

You are adding equations that have absolutely nothing to do with the question and physics involved .

It is unfortunate that you do not understand how the stuff I posted was relevant.

I understand it must be really embarrassing for science after all these years to find out light doesn't have a speed of its own

The speed of light has been measured many times.
It exists.

[Bored chemist]

=c

=f(x)

The equations I posted- and which you say are irrelevant, are your equations...

[Starlight (OP)]

=c

=f(x)

The equations I posted- and which you say are irrelevant, are your equations...

Lights speed c is a result of function (x) . Function (x) is a force .

Have you ever noticed a street light and wondered how the light is emitted ?


Now you know !  it is  a result of f(x) , an attractive force .

Perhaps you have difficulty in understanding real physics  ?

[evan_au]

Applying Newtons laws of motion...When the light exits glass or a  medium it speeds up again ,  a force must make it speed up again

According to Newton's laws of motion, F=ma, where:
- F is the applied force
- m is the mass of the object
- a is the acceleration of the object
- usually F & a vary with time (in the case of rockets, m also varies with time)

However, we know that the rest-mass of a photon is 0.
- Which means, according to F=ma, the force must also be zero
- Effects like refraction occur within 1 wavelength of the change in medium
- For visible light, this means that the change in speed occurs in < 10^-14 seconds, so this supposed new force acts for an infinitesimal time.

Similarly, under Newton's laws, applying a force to a physical object for a finite time uses energy.
- This New Theory has not explained where the energy comes from, where it goes to, or why photons keep precisely the same energy, even after passing through many changes of medium.

So we have this mythical "linear force" acting on light; the magnitude of this force is always zero, acts for an infinitesimal period of time, and results in 0 change of energy.

The logical conclusion is that this proposed force is indistinguishable from a world where this "linear force" does not exist.

[Starlight (OP)]

- This New Theory has not explained where the energy comes from, where it goes to, or why photons keep precisely the same energy, even after passing through many changes of medium.

Light energy comes from kinetics and work being done on a quantum level .

So we have this mythical "linear force" acting on light; the magnitude of this force is always zero, acts for an infinitesimal period of time, and results in 0 change of energy.

Not a mythical linear force , one that has to exist . The magnitude of the force is dependent to volume and mass .
The force acts for an infinite period of time not an  infinitesimal period of time .

Additionally the force acts on all spatial bodies including planets , stars etc .

Newtons law of motion explains a body will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force . 

A body will also remain in motion if attracted by a linear force that has no boundaries  that prevent motion .

This new theory also  fits in with planetary orbits  and explains  the motion of planets  ''circular'' loops .

The logical conclusion is that this proposed force is indistinguishable from a world where this "linear force" does not exist.

3655e28b-f4c2-4e06-b7f0-67bdec7efc8f.png (40.01 kB . 560x435 - viewed 3259 times)

Orbits seem to agree with my conclusion of an undiscovered force which has enough magnitude to keep a large mass such as the earth in motion through space . It is not indistinguishable as demonstrated in my diagram .

[Origin]

Obviously function (x) is a force .

The linear momentum of hf is equal to function (x)

Really, in the same post you write that 'function (x)' is both force AND momentum.

That is one helluva function...