Hypothetical student in a hypothetical classroom with a hypothetical but very passionate and sincere professor.

Professor says:
"Ok class I want you to prove that light actually travels from source to reflector"
"As part of your workings you must show why 'c' is not the rate at which a reflector changes to emulate the source"

Or to put it in clearer words:
"You must show that 'c' is a measurement of travel for light and not a measurment of change in the reflector which we use to measure that v "
"If you conclude that the answer is unknowable then show why"
Keep in mind Machs principle.....

The first person to do so wins the Nobel Prize.

Any takers? :D

There is so much wrong with this that I do not know where to start. Therefore I am not going to start with any reasonable thinking and just jump to "and not a measurment of change in the reflector which we use to measure that v"

Whew! What an assumption and statement!

"change in the reflector" - A change presumably accepts time. That is, this statement is better worded: "the rate of change of the reflector with time". Since the reflector measures events per time interval, it is essential a frequency measurement. This frequency is measuring the rate at which light hits the reflector. That is, at some time, the light was elsewhere and upon hitting the reflector, it was at the reflector. The frequency it hits the reflector is a measure only of the frequency the light is being sent. But we know the light was elsewhere, so it was some distance away and traveled to the reflector. This inherently concludes that the light moves with a velocity which has been successfully measured as c.

There is so much wrong with this that I do not know where to start. Therefore I am not going to start with any reasonable thinking and just jump to "and not a measurment of change in the reflector which we use to measure that v"

Whew! What an assumption and statement!

"change in the reflector" - A change presumably accepts time. That is, this statement is better worded: "the rate of change of the reflector with time". Since the reflector measures events per time interval, it is essential a frequency measurement. This frequency is measuring the rate at which light hits the reflector. That is, at some time, the light was elsewhere and upon hitting the reflector, it was at the reflector. The frequency it hits the reflector is a measure only of the frequency the light is being sent. But we know the light was elsewhere, so it was some distance away and traveled to the reflector. This inherently concludes that the light moves with a velocity which has been successfully measured as c.

"Unfortunately" says our hypo professor, "you need to delve deeper than that...."

Confirm that the frequency effect is not a mass resonance frequency and is as currently believed to be a photon impact frequency?
That the surface of the reflector is not simply emulating the source of the energy/light. That a photon actually travels from source to reflector?


BTW whilst I am using a sort of comical parody I am actually very interested in what you guys come up with....as I don't know the answer myself....

I have a source of emission of light. My detector buzzes and whines. Something is happening at the emitter to cause the detector to react across the room. Some "effect" is propagating at a rate of 'c' (a bit slower in air). I put an opaque card in between the emitter and detector. The detector stops clicking. I say that "light" is travelling from emitter to detector since there is distance and time involved (v = dist/time) which is the definition of something that travels. If I change the distance, the time chances accordingly, supporting my theory that something is travelling in accord wit v = dist/time.

It is found that this effect comes in discreet packets by clever folks. And sometimes acts like waves. Creepy.

Do I get a prize?

I have a source of emission of light. My detector buzzes and whines. Something is happening at the emitter to cause the detector to react across the room. Some "effect" is propagating at a rate of 'c' (a bit slower in air). I put an opaque card in between the emitter and detector. The detector stops clicking. I say that "light" is travelling from emitter to detector since there is distance and time involved (v = dist/time) which is the definition of something that travels. If I change the distance, the time chances accordingly, supporting my theory that something is travelling in accord wit v = dist/time.

It is found that this effect comes in discreet packets by clever folks. And sometimes acts like waves. Creepy.

Do I get a prize?

Ha ....have you had your theory published in a peer review journal.....ha ..no you haven't..... [someone else did though]

But ......but at least you have an idea of how you think you can show something as traveling.....hmmmmmm....

SL , seriously.....If I place a card in one position at a given distance from the Earth [out in space] I would be able to measure the effect of gravity on that card. If I move that card 1000 kms away I can also measure the effect of gravity and if I had really sensitive equipment I would be able to see the effect of distance on that measurement but I ask you does this automatically show that gravity has travelled or is travelling or has velocity.??

I have a source of emission of light. My detector buzzes and whines. Something is happening at the emitter to cause the detector to react across the room. Some "effect" is propagating at a rate of 'c' (a bit slower in air). I put an opaque card in between the emitter and detector. The detector stops clicking. I say that "light" is travelling from emitter to detector since there is distance and time involved (v = dist/time) which is the definition of something that travels. If I change the distance, the time chances accordingly, supporting my theory that something is travelling in accord wit v = dist/time.

It is found that this effect comes in discreet packets by clever folks. And sometimes acts like waves. Creepy.

Do I get a prize?

Ok Ok I re-read your post and what you have mentioned is actually one of the greatest stumbling block to the notion that light doesn't travel and that is ......"shadow effects".

The gravity scenario I mentioned earlier would show gravity d/t relationships with out the ablitity to block that gravity....yes?
So yes everything still points to the validity of lights travelling.

But the professor is stuborn and persistent.....and probably a little nutty....

"How can a reflector of light create a shadow if light doesn't travel?"

Toughy......hmmmmm except to say that the resonate energy is fully absorbed by the surface of the reflector thus not allowing any energy for the object behind it [ in it's shadow] ...a bit like a soundproof tile absorbs all the accoustic energy and creates a sound shadow...

edit: please excuse....I am thinking on the go....so to speak.

"Consider the notion that for light distance does not exist. That distance is only relevant to lights intensity or strength and not travel ....not unlike gravity"
That as far as light is concerned distance is always zero. Light being a two dimensional artifact.

"Consider the notion that for light distance does not exist. That distance is only relevant to lights intensity or strength and not travel not unlike gravity"
That as far as light is concerned distance is always zero. Light being a two dimensional artifact.
Gravity is a curvature of spacetime - AND NOTHING MORE. To think of light as an effect similar to gravity is nonsense. Light curves spacetime? Fucking shit - we'd have seen evidence of it by now.

and just to expand the issue a little posts the following diagram"
<img src=http://www.ozziesnaps.com/higgs.jpg>

Gravity is a curvature of spacetime - AND NOTHING MORE. To think of light as an effect similar to gravity is nonsense. Light curves spacetime? Fucking shit - we'd have seen evidence of it by now.

What makes you think I am implying that light curves space time....?
I could possibly contend that light is the time in space-time......that light is a spacetime artifact. With out light EM we have no time......or any way of recognising time.....

QQ,

Light has no rest mass, or proper time.

What does the theoretical higgs field have to do with gravity?

QQ,

Light has no rest mass, or proper time.

What does the theoretical higgs field have to do with gravity?

It mostly about dimensionality, and the proposition that it is the zero dimensionality of the Higgs field or bosun or particle that creates the effect of gravity. And as alluded to in another post that because it is zero dimensional it can never be found or proven.

Vacant space is also essentially zero dimensional or at least two dimesnional thus supporting the notion that distance is an illusion of three dimensional objects in a two dimensional volume or space.

Light being a massless object is therefore two dimensional thus distance is non-existent for light. [ except with regard to intensity and /or strength]
It means as a hypothetical support for the notion of 'c' being a mass/time effect and not a distance/time effect and provides for the notion that gravity and light are intrinsically inter-related.

However this is all a part of the threads purpose and that is to show conclusively that light actually travels with velocity and is not a zero distance resonant effect.

Ultimately it is about opening minds to the possibility of such a proposition.

My mind is open.

However this is all a part of the threads purpose and that is to show conclusively that light actually travels with velocity and is not a zero distance resonant effect

Then we need a rigorous mathematical definition of "zero distance resonance". Without that, there is no way to compare the two assertions.

True,
I do get the distinct gut feeling that the formula E=mc^2 when looked at in the light of zero distance and mass/time resonamnce effects will help.....but this is just an impression.

Is it possible to prove either postion, 'c' as a v or 'c' as a mass/time.....?

even as an excersise in the hypothetical?

The thinking:
What fuels this quest:
When you look at the diagram posted, you can see that three dimensional space is maintained only by the EM field. I have been working conceptually on the notion that all mass sourced EM is alternating, sequenced to be the same pole. If all EM is by nature same poled it is repulsive thus giving us our three dimensions. The potential of this is that if the EM is sequenced so that it is attractive and not repulsive we are able to collapse the 3 dimensions down to a spherical two dimensions...
By changing the sequence at which mass moves through time at 'c' +/+ to +/- we have created 2 dimensions from what was three dimensions.
This then leads to understanding of how time dilation is generated and how length contraction is achieved, and onto studies of inertia, manipulation of gravity [anti - gravity] etc....

I have no idea what a "mass/time" is.

I have no idea what a "mass/time" is.

Mass/time is not mass divided by time the slash is just the usual gramatic form. Implies mass and time......or mass/time = mass and time......

As time passes objects of mass move.
As the mass moves through time it changes.
as energy is emulated the mass's surface over time generates it's own light.
In other words:
The reflectors surface becomes an emulation of the source and doesn't actually reflect light but becomes light. So what we see is the surface of a reflector resonating in sympathy with the original source and not reflecting [bouncing] the light of that source. Light as a particle or wave does not exist except by the effect on the reflectors surface. In other words it gives the appearance of a particle and wave but this is an observational appearance only.
The time it takes for the surface to emulate or resonate suffciently to become discerable as change, is proportional to the intensity or strength of that light source which is directly related to the apparent distance from the source.

I believe that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM states much the same thing. You cannot speak of light (or particles) as things. There are just correlations of events. An electron wiggles here, and an electron over there wiggles in response. We call the correlation a "photon".

I believe that the Copenhagen interpretation of QM states much the same thing. You cannot speak of light (or particles) as things. There are just correlations of events. An electron wiggles here, and an electron over there wiggles in response. We call the correlation a "photon".
hmmmmm........So at least we can agree that light could be found to be a mass and time event rather than a photonic particle velocity event?
[I do stress the words "could be found"]

Well, I take exception to the word mass in your "mass and time event" phrase. Whatever goes between the emitter and detector, it has no mass.

Well, I take exception to the word mass in your "mass and time event" phrase. Whatever goes between the emitter and detector, it has no mass.
Confused..... as I have made no reference to the EM being mass.
I am refering to the mass of the reflector

Oh. Then I am confused as well.

Oh. Then I am confused as well.
I finally realised where I am drawing my inspiration from with this quest.
Machs principle.

The question is how to prove that light is a velocity effect or an inherant resonant effect.

There are probably other possible explanations for lights invariance.

Because light and the object reflecting or emulating that energy are intrinically linked it makes it very difficult to declare one way or the other.
Machs principle suggests to me that in the realms of inertia, time is absolute and not relative. If inertia is an absolute time phenonomom then space between masses are zero dimensional , because time and distance are also intrinsically linked.

Now in hindsight I can see why I have been so persistent in my arguements about simultaneity. [SRT]

If inertia is a relative concept that I would think makes mass a relative concept thus the entire universe must conform to relatiove time and relative distances.
Any way this off topic in that what I would like to see is how to prove the case eiether way for lights nature, 3 dimensional or zero dimensional.

To say that it is a perspective.....in lights perspective reality is zero dimesnional and in our perspective it is 3 dimensional is just a fudge as far as I am concerned.

If inertia is an absoute concept then lights absoluteness of 'c' is also a part of the inertia picture.

To prove in physical experiment is what this thread is about not just philosophy and mathematics but hard evidence to support either claim.

1] Light is a d/t effect
2] Light is a mass resonance over zero distance effect.

If someone can think of any observation of light that proves it is not a zero distance resonance effect please post......

...in lights perspective reality is zero dimesnional and in our perspective it is 3 dimensional...
This post is wonderful. It boggles the mind.

And things get even more bizarre should we consider that our perspective is 4 dimensional...

Actually I prefer to consider it "3.1 dimensional," because time is not as flexible as the other dimensions. Along axes x, y, z we may move freely, but along axis t we are immobile.

This post is wonderful. It boggles the mind.

And things get even more bizarre should we consider that our perspective is 4 dimensional...

Actually I prefer to consider it "3.1 dimensional," because time is not as flexible as the other dimensions. Along axes x, y, z we may move freely, but along axis t we are immobile.

well I guess if I wanted to confront the most significant issue in science I certainly am out there hey?

There are theories of moving dimensions, that time is intrinsically linked to the rate of universal change being at 'c'.

Simply , think of a ball that bounces or vibrates at a velocity of 'c' [sort of like jogging on the spot.] That the whole universe is effectively changing at this rate and inertia is the resistance to changing that rate of 'c'.
As something gains velocity it has to deal with inertia of change which is 'c' thus energy is needed to effect change and dilation and length contractions are a by product of this resistance to change [inertia.]
When light [energy] is imparted to an object of mass it resist this energy [inertia] and so change takes time to emulate this energy, thus 'c' for mass to change and become an effected or another source of energy.

So light can possibly be an effect of inertia as the surface of the object resists the energy transfer at the rate of 'c'.

All methods of measuring 'c' are by using something to emulate the energy of light so it seems impossible to determine whether light has velocity or is just the surface of the measuring devices inertia or resistance to change that affords us that measurement of 'c'.

And that is the challenge I am putting forward, to show the either as valid.

The possiblilities of determining this question differently to current thought have tremendous value. All current use of lights 'c' figure remains valid however if we understand this figure differently there is great future potential. IMO

for example if we use a length of copper wire and state that the speed of electricity is determined by the conductors inertia ['c'] we can see that the space between the particals of copper is zero and the only reason we have resitance [time delay due to length] in the copper wire is simply the resistance to change or inertia of those copper particles.and not the distance between those particles...tends to make sense hey?

Here is my entry for the summer vacation contest in Stockholm. Sweden.
How do I see it in the forum, but not the rest of the world? Also, when I try to upload the file I keep getting error messages that the file type is incorrect. I have tried .gif, jpeg and .bmp all to no avail.

Geistkiesel

Please take a Geocities account. We still can't see any pictures you post.

QQ,
here is my entry to the contest. Sweden is so nice in the summer months.
My ticket to Stockholm, where is it? if you don't mind. (http://www.msnusers.com/Savadance4me/Documents/stkholm.gif)

Geistkiesel :cool:

Yes, Sweden has such nice insane asylums I hear. Should suit you well.

QQ can you read my post above where a isay:
"My ticket to Stockholm, where is it? if you don't mind."
Geistkiesel

Edit: Excuse the mix up, my brother in law has been using my pc and failed to logout.

Geist, is the info related to the thread topic about light and inertia?

Geisty, bad link.