Jump to content

Rambling (Is he right about light?)


professorvaughn

Recommended Posts

This is not mine, but I would like to post it here because a certain individual claims its the "truth" despite having no real basis in reality.

"Light itself is merely a concept; light does not exist. Light is not an autonomous thing. It is a complex field modality, it is a coaxial circuit comprised of longitudinal refractions and transverse, whether that be linearly or circular polarization, electrical and magnetic components. What we actually have is a repeating toroidal pulse perturbation with which electricity, by the way being phi * psi = q of the planck of electrification (electricity is a hybrid of magnetism and dielectricity), we have a repeating toriodal pattern which manifests at X-known frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum all the way from gamma to the other end of infrared and even further. But from the premise of science, relativity and the idiocy of Einstein, we certainly apply the fact that as Tesla himself face-palmed back in his day that space has no properties. The huge ignorance and insanity of Einstein, the greatest stupidity that he ever was guilty of, was the reification of space as something that does something upon other things. But space is no different from a shadow. Shadows don't affect things, of course we can say that we can stand in a shadow and we get cold but that doesn't reify shadow as a subject; as a principle. A shadow is a privation of light. The same is true with space, space is a posterior attribute of the loss of inertia as manifest as magnetism. The only thing that gives anything volume in the universe is magnetism. And there are fundamentally only three field modalities. Transverse, longitudinal, and Toroidal but for principles we can simply deem that as circular. Space exists inside a volume, a volume does not exist inside a space.
We only of illumination but we only know of illumination when it manifests. Without resistence, permeability or permitivity there is no manifestation of light. This answers why you will see an infinite darkness when you turn away from the sun. Because there is nothing that could allow it's manifestation.
So fundamentally we must say from the premise of simplex Platonic logic that there's no such thing as light. If there's only two things in the universe, the sun and yourself, and you turn your back to the sun (assuming that you're not being fried to death) the universe would be infinitely be nothing but darkness. Oh but how could that be, you have a gigantic light source directly at your back. Well everything in the universe if fundamentally only one of four things, which is to say fundamentally only one thing, capicatance/resistance permeability/permititivty. Magnetic permeability/dielectric permitivity. Light is a field modality, transverse electrical magnetic. If we take the cross section of any magnetic field we would have the torus and the hyperboloid. What we actually see and what science in it's great ignorance has misunderstood is when these electromagnetic transverse perturbances, whether they're circular or linear polarizations, appear we actually have refractions of the field. When they diminish we actually have compressions. Compressions, refractions, compressions, refractions. Same thing with waves, like I said waves are not a thing; waves are what something does. There's no such thing as a wave. There is no such thing as an electromagnetic wave. Oh, but sure there is. Well it's X-frequency of electromagnetism. Frequency of what? A field is not a thing. A field is an ether perturbation modality.
Phi * Psi = q of planck of electrification, Phi being magnetism and Psi being dielectricity. Magnetism is the release of that inertia as manifest in volume. The volume of that electromagnetism is light. EMR, Electromagnetic radiation. What is light? In electromagnetism magnetism is the transverse carrier of electricity. What we think of light is merely a concept. We only of illumination but we only know of illumination when it manifests. Without resistence, permeability or permitivity there is no manifestation of light. This answers why you will see an infinite darkness when you turn away from the sun. Because there is nothing that could allow it's manifestation. Specifically illumination, light is merely a concept. Light does not exist, we have illumination. We think of the posterior release - release of what? Nothing is released, the person in the middle of the pond waving his arms is not releasing anything. His arms aren't growing longer, is it? He's disturbing the water by flapping his arms. Setting up a field perturbation, in this case the field i.e. the Ether and the inertia, would be the water. Those waves are refractions and compressions of the Ether. Nothing admits light, do you think a lightbulb is admitting light? It's a field perturbation. Do you think the piston in your car are actually propelling you down the road? Well, they're reciprocating up and down but they're not actually traveling in a longitudinal faction in the direction that the car is moving. That's kind of a gross analogy, obviously.
How is it the case that people don't understand and we don't think that way we think of something larger to logically contain something more. "The larger it is the more power it must contain, larger bulldozers are more powerful, right?" Well, the inverse is the case of electricity. Counterspace is a term used to describe the infinite divisibility of a finite volume. Think of it like increasing the surface area of an object in a fixed volume. Mathematically, adding smaller and smaller structures onto the surface of the object like a fractal can be done to infinitely increase the surface area of the object. So in a way, the object is expanding into counterspace, while not expanding by volume at all."
Could you disprove this at the fundamental level so he'll understand?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you disprove this at the fundamental level so he'll understand?

Not being an expert in these matters, this would have to be my response. I've tried to capture the flavour of his approach.

 

"As the vortices of experiential thought cascade through existential perceptions and intersect dichotomous modalities, we must be ever mindful of superficial mimicry imposing a pedagogic priority on transcendent detail. Coruscating epitomies not withstanding, the dialect must hold true if we are to grok the fundamentals of disembling exactitude. More specifically a field torque cannot be enhanced by lexicographic disemination; a corpuscular interpretation is not codified by entymological expansiveness; nor is vacuum permitivity negated by extraneous obfuscation."

 

Apologies to all, if any of that made sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where to start? It's such a mass of word salad that doesn't really mean anything. It makes no predictions. There isn't anything to test.

 

 

 

"The huge ignorance and insanity of Einstein, the greatest stupidity that he ever was guilty of, was the reification of space as something that does something upon other things."

 

That's not even close to what relativity says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you disprove this at the fundamental level so he'll understand?

 

I hate to profile, but this seems like the kind of drivel people who scoffed at science in high school come up with later in life to justify their mistake. They probably had the intelligence to study correctly, and learn science methodology, and develop some good critical reasoning skills. Instead, they chose to remain ignorant, but learned how to stitch together this mishmash of popsci buzzwords, in a way that makes sense only to them, which isn't science at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Light itself is merely a concept; light does not exist. Light is not an autonomous thing.(....) "

Could you disprove this at the fundamental level so he'll understand?

 

Light is layman name for photon.

Electric charge neutral particle.

 

There is used little gamma letter in equations of reactions with other particles (looks like small Y):

[math]\gamma[/math]

 

Photon has energy

[math]E=h f[/math]

[math]h[/math] is Planck constant 6.62607004*10^-34 J*s = 4.135667*10^-15 eV*s

f is frequency in Hz = 1/s

In old times there was used letter v

[math]E=h v[/math]

some still use it.

 

Other equation for energy of photon:

[math]E=\hbar \omega[/math]

because

[math]\hbar=\frac{h}{2 \pi}[/math]

and

[math]\omega=2 \pi f[/math]

[math]\hbar[/math] is reduced Planck constant.

 

In one line it can be written

y e hv wh

yhwh

Easy to remember ;)

 

Photon with enough energy, with frequency f>2 fc

fc =1.23559*10^20 Hz (Compton frequency)

can change to pair of electron-positron (matter-antimatter particles).

It's called pair-production

[math]\gamma + 1.022 MeV \rightarrow e^- + e^+[/math]

 

Electron-positron pair can annihilate, giving photons back again:

[math] e^- + e^+ \rightarrow \gamma + \gamma + 1.022 MeV[/math]

Each of these photons will have energy [math]E=h f_c = 0.511 MeV[/math]

 

Other interactions of photons with matter-antimatter has been presented in f.e. this video

Edited by Sensei
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is not mine, but I would like to post it here because a certain individual claims its the "truth" despite having no real basis in reality.

Could you disprove this at the fundamental level so he'll understand?

 

Many individuals come to science forums with an agenda or afflictions and will do whatever it takes to try and rubbish science in what ever way that makes sense at least to themselves and their tiny excuse for a brain.

Chief among those afflictions are delusions of grandeur and chief among the agendas are often religious in nature.\As others have noted, to try and invalidate such gobbledygook and collections of sciency sounding words is hard.

What I would start with is that light itself is just part of the electromagnetic spectrum that humanity has put to good use over the last century and a half.

300px-Electromagnetic-Spectrum.svg.png

The above diagram from

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

 

The visible part of that spectrum, that we see as light, needs of course to be reflected into our eyes for us to see as light, in relation to his claim of standing in space with your back to the Sun.

In reality though, I would bet my house that this joker will not be convinced one way or the other, from his own baseless and stupid "interpretation"as to what only he claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with a lot of things he has to say. He got it all wrong.

Light is part of the Wave-particle duality concept. And not to my surprise he dismiss the whole 'Wave theory' altogether. It seems like he refuse to accept the invisible motion of space. And with his refusal of it, he will never accept that light is pretty much a photon that is part of the whole electromagnetic field and its interaction with itself and the 4 principles of nature.

 

Just tell him that existences before the big bang was not build on solid foundation but on WAVES. Waves ebbing and flowing through infinite of untold time. Until the day that the waves compress within each other and combust and blew up. That's how the big bang started. The beginning of the human light started 14 billion years ago.

The question is how did the waves started? The waves of existences was always here and will never disappear. Human beings like death and resurrections. But waves have no concept of that.

Copyright by me ! I solved the riddle of life.

You guys are welcome

 

P.S. If you guys haven't notice yet this guy is religious ! This is the same Christian minded ideas that faith minded individuals have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

I have to disagree with a lot of things he has to say. He got it all wrong.

No argument there.

 

3 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Light is part of the Wave-particle duality concept. And not to my surprise he dismiss the whole 'Wave theory' altogether. It seems like he refuse to accept the invisible motion of space. And with his refusal of it, he will never accept that light is pretty much a photon that is part of the whole electromagnetic field and its interaction with itself and the 4 principles of nature.

 The elementary particle of EMR, is the photon which includes light.

3 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Just tell him that existences before the big bang was not build on solid foundation but on WAVES. Waves ebbing and flowing through infinite of untold time. Until the day that the waves compress within each other and combust and blew up. That's how the big bang started. The beginning of the human light started 14 billion years ago.

The question is how did the waves started? The waves of existences was always here and will never disappear. Human beings like death and resurrections. But waves have no concept of that.

Copyright by me ! I solved the riddle of life.

We have absolutely no knowledge of anything before 10-43 seconds after the BB event.

We are able to reasonably speculate, sure, but what you speculate does not appear reasonable to me at least...gobbldydook, yes maybe.

Fluctuations in the quantum foam from which the BB emerged is far more scientific reasoning.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beecee said:

No argument there.

 

 The elementary particle of EMR, is the photon which includes light.

We have absolutely no knowledge of anything before 10-43 seconds after the BB event.

We are able to reasonably speculate, sure, but what you speculate does not appear reasonable to me at least...gobbldydook, yes maybe.

Fluctuations in the quantum foam from which the BB emerged is far more scientific reasoning.  

Of course it is gobbldydook.....

BUT ITS MINE gobbldydook. That's my speculated gobbldydook.

And I will take it to the grave until someone disproves it

 

Edited by Baron d'Holbach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Of course it is gobbldydook.....

BUT ITS MINE gobbldydook. That's my speculated gobbldydook.

And I will take it to the grave until someone disproves it

 

Well at least you get a point for recognising it as gobbldydook, because really it just plainly lacks any common sense and gobblydook is all it is.... 

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

Gibberish, jibberish, jibber-jabber, and gobbledygook refer to speech or other use of language that is nonsense, or what the listener believes to be nonsense.

 

But hey, if that's what you want to take to the grave, be my guest! Don't let me rain on your parade. :D:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, beecee said:

Well at least you get a point for recognising it as gobbldydook, because really it just plainly lacks any common sense and gobblydook is all it is.... 

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

Gibberish, jibberish, jibber-jabber, and gobbledygook refer to speech or other use of language that is nonsense, or what the listener believes to be nonsense.

 

But hey, if that's what you want to take to the grave, be my guest! Don't let me rain on your parade. :D:rolleyes:

I came up with it in the early 2000s when I was about 14 years old. 

 

It was a combination of Gravitational wave theory, String theory and the wave equation with a spice of my thinking on it. Haven't seen a better explanination then the one I simply laid forth.

All i ever get from everyone is no one knows, stop the nonsense, stop the gibberish and it's gobbledygook.

 

Owell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

All i ever get from everyone is no one knows, stop the nonsense, stop the gibberish and it's gobbledygook.Owell

Perhaps you need to listen to everyone, because really what you have said, is jumbled nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Perhaps you need to listen to everyone, because really what you have said, is jumbled nonsense.

Dude of course I listen and you know the answer they give? "Well sir we all don't know'.... Yadayadaya... boring.

Well than I reply 'get out of my god damn way'. And I will lay forth the answers.

Its okay that you close your mind on it. I have about a good solid 5 theories on it.  And my Wave theory is one of them. And of course I simplified my wave theory here. it is much more complicated and more depth to it.

 

I will lay forth the System of Nature

Edited by Baron d'Holbach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Dude of course I listen and you know the answer they give? "Well sir we all don't know'.... Yadayadaya... boring.

Well than I reply 'get out of my god damn way'. And I will lay forth the answers.

Its okay that you close your mind on it. I have about a good solid 5 theories on it.  And my Wave theory is one of them. And of course I simplified my wave theory here. it is much more complicated and more depth to it.

My mind is open but not so open that my brains have or will fall out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does your theories include the applicable mathematics?   After all dozens of models seek applicable wavefunctions. CMB mode polarizations being an example.

On the Quantum side the Wheeler-Dewitt equations fundamentally deal with the polarization aspects in cosmology .

 In all honesty I lost count of the number of vaulted claims of someone solving such and such in physics, yet cannot provide a properly done model ie the correct mathematics.

Is that the case with your 5 personal theories you mentioned?

As far as prior to 10^-43 seconds how under mathematics did you handle the infinity issues?

 If you cannot answer that question under mathematics you cannot claim to have solved anything within your first post concerning a multiverse origins.

(solutions do exist pertaining to the singularity issue but I would like to see your metrics)

Edited by Mordred
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, So I started reading through it, looking for something that actually says anything, and I found this

"But from the premise of science, relativity and the idiocy of Einstein, we certainly apply the fact that as Tesla himself face-palmed back in his day that space has no properties. ".
Losing the silly bits gives us 

"But from the premise of science + relativity, we certainly apply the fact that space has no properties. ".

Yet space is known to have properties like a permeability and a permitivity.
So, the first "meaningful" thing in the OP is factually wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2017 at 8:34 PM, Baron d'Holbach said:

Of course it is gobbldydook.....

BUT ITS MINE gobbldydook. That's my speculated gobbldydook.

!

Moderator Note

Your gobbledegook should not be discussed in anyone else's thread. If you wish to discuss and defend it, start a new thread in speculations

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.