[Michael Sally (OP)]

I think it is very clear that I am not going to get an intellectual discussion on this forum on my question . Quite clearly you think I am somebody else and I sense the hostility .

I came here with this being an English forum and hoped a Cambridge forum would appreciate science returning to home .

I guess you might as well throw this thread into the bin and I'll get my sandals on and go for a walk to another country .

I thought people would have more brains than this on this forum , people seem to be asleep in error of thinking .

It is so sad that I am going have to give another country many questions and answers .  I bet China would be interested in my scientific knowledge such as hyper-sonic physics . 

added :  If you couldn't understand , energy is attracted to negative energy and the speed of light is 0 . The maximum potential speed of  attraction of the gravitational constant of negative energy is c .





 

[Kryptid]

I thought people would have more brains than this on this forum , people seem to be asleep in error of thinking .

Why did you think our responses would be any different from the last time you were here?

[Michael Sally (OP)]

I thought people would have more brains than this on this forum , people seem to be asleep in error of thinking .

Why did you think our responses would be any different from the last time you were here?

When was I last here ?

Might of been somebody else with similar notions , was the person efficient at explaining ?

This digital age I suppose people can be anybody and your concerns are noted .

Do you disagree with my question ?

[jeffreyH]

Actually the person was very inefficient at explaining. Almost as if they had a very low IQ. They were trying to be smart but failed miserably. Stumbled around like a sleepy child, grasping at knowledge and missing entirely.

[charles1948]

Stumbled around like a sleepy child, grasping at knowledge and missing entirely.

Isn't that a vivid encapsulation (although you didn't intend it as such!)  of how real scientists operate.

Always stumbling, grasping for knowledge and truth, often missing it, but always going forward.

Not just sitting stock-still on the currently fashionable theory, and opposing anyone who questions it?

[alancalverd]

Do you disagree with my question ?

You can't disagree with a question. But the answer is no. 

[Michael Sally (OP)]

Actually the person was very inefficient at explaining. Almost as if they had a very low IQ. They were trying to be smart but failed miserably. Stumbled around like a sleepy child, grasping at knowledge and missing entirely.

I think we all know that there are a few cranks on the internet these days , I can't imagine what they gain out of it , they must have intelligence artificial .
 
I think they must think that they deserve some sort of equality even though they don't have the credentials .

Perhaps some of them have a caffeine overdose  and after that , who knows what else , most of them are not even coherent , rather strange people and can't be bothered .

 

[Kryptid]

Since this has obviously strayed away from mainstream science, I have moved this thread to New Theories.

When was I last here ?

If I recall correctly, your last sock puppet was either Starlight or Tass.

Might of been somebody else with similar notions , was the person efficient at explaining ?

No, it was definitely you. Your scientific knowledge has not improved noticeably since then. So why do you keep coming back? Do you really expect us to react any better to your ideas just because time has passed? Even if you don't end up getting banned, I know you're going to end up getting just as much grief from Bored Chemist as you did before because your ideas don't make any more sense now than they did in the past.

Do you disagree with my question ?

I'll mirror what alancalverd said in response to this.

[Michael Sally (OP)]

Since this has obviously strayed away from mainstream science, I have moved this thread to New Theories.

When was I last here ?

If I recall correctly, your last sock puppet was either Starlight or Tass.

Might of been somebody else with similar notions , was the person efficient at explaining ?

No, it was definitely you. Your scientific knowledge has not improved noticeably since then. So why do you keep coming back? Do you really expect us to react any better to your ideas just because time has passed? Even if you don't end up getting banned, I know you're going to end up getting just as much grief from Bored Chemist as you did before because your ideas don't make any more sense now than they did in the past.

Do you disagree with my question ?

I'll mirror what alancalverd said in response to this.

I have no idea who you are talking about which I thought I'd explained with my question marks when somebody mentioned this other person. 

I can see I am been doubled up against and made to feel unwelcome .

What I have explained about light is true , for some strange reason you are all denying the truth . I guess I will see my question and answer in the future coming from a more celebrity scientist ?

[Kryptid]

I have no idea who you are talking about

Right...

What I have explained about light is true

No, it isn't. There is no attractive force moving light.

[Michael Sally (OP)]

I have no idea who you are talking about

Right...

What I have explained about light is true

No, it isn't. There is no attractive force moving light.

I disagree , photons do not have an ''engine'' and photons speed up when exiting glass .  The acceleration demonstrating an attractive force .

Why are you denying physical process facts ?

[Kryptid]

Why are you denying physical process facts ?

It's not a physics fact. None of the explanations for how light changes speed in different mediums requires your fanciful attractive force:

The short of it is that light slows down in matter because it induces interference with itself and then speeds back up when it exits because that interference is no longer there.

[charles1948]

No, it isn't. There is no attractive force moving light.

Is that really true?  Don't large masses, such as galaxies, exert an "attractive" effect on beams of light going past them.  Thus causing the light-beams to "bend"  away from their original dead-straight trajectories, into a curved path. 

So producing the "gravitational-lensing" effect?

[Kryptid]

Is that really true?  Don't large masses, such as galaxies, exert an "attractive" effect on beams of light going past them.  Thus causing the light-beams to "bend"  away from their original dead-straight trajectories, into a curved path. 

So producing the "gravitational-lensing" effect?

That's not what I meant. I meant there is no attractive force causing light to move in the first place. Light in a perfect vacuum with no gravity around would move without trouble.

[Michael Sally (OP)]

The short of it is that light slows down in matter because it induces interference with itself and then speeds back up when it exits because that interference is no longer there.

Now you have contradicted yourself by admitting it speeds back up when exiting glass . For any thing to speed up  , that thing needs acceleration and an applied force .  The restriction of the speed of light passing through  a medium is an opposing force that slows down the light . The light does not magically speed back up once exited the medium .

You want me or anyone else to believe in magic ?

[Kryptid]

Now you have contradicted yourself by admitting it speeds back up when exiting glass .

It depends on how you are defining "speed". The speed of the individual photons doesn't change. In that sense, light doesn't slow down when it enters a material. It's the average speed of the bulk wave interfering with itself that is slower than the speed of light. That interference goes away once the light leaves the material, so there is no more interference and the light goes back to behaving like it did before. Again, no attractive force and no acceleration needed.

You want me or anyone else to believe in magic ?

No, just science.

[Michael Sally (OP)]

That interference goes away once the light leaves the material, so there is no more interference and the light goes back to behaving like it did before. Again, no attractive force and no acceleration needed.

Complete garbage ! 

Light passing through a medium is affected by the permeability of the medium and it is a fact that acceleration is required for something to speed up . 

Why are you denying simple school boy physics such as what is required to accelerate ?

[Kryptid]

Light passing through a medium is affected by the permeability of the medium and it is a fact that acceleration is required for something to speed up . 

Why are you denying simple school boy physics such as what is required to accelerate ?

Okay, if this really is "simple school boy physics", then you should easily be able to find a reputable source that confirms there is an attractive force that accelerates light when it exists a medium. I'll be waiting.

[Bored chemist]

I guess I will see my question and answer in the future coming from a more celebrity scientist ?

Guess again.

[charles1948]

Is that really true?  Don't large masses, such as galaxies, exert an "attractive" effect on beams of light going past them.  Thus causing the light-beams to "bend"  away from their original dead-straight trajectories, into a curved path.

So producing the "gravitational-lensing" effect?

That's not what I meant. I meant there is no attractive force causing light to move in the first place. Light in a perfect vacuum with no gravity around would move without trouble.

Yes, if the Universe was a perfect vacuum with no troublesome gravity around, light would always go in straight lines.

Unfortunately, the Universe doesn't meet your requirements.  It's a bit more complicated.