I was wanting with this thread to ask for help in the final resting of a concept about light that has been buzzing around in my head for ages.

Now most people will say :"Why do I not just accept conventional thought on the subject, accept that light has velocity over distance and leave it at that?"
Well to be truthful I can't answer it except to say that my questions in the past have been inadequately answered or the answers have been inadequately understood.

I pose a rather radical approach to this issue and normally this causes great problems for others to even be open enough to look at it seriously.

Also being somewhat of an amateur in this field I have in the past confused people totally with the wrong terminology and incorrect premises.

So I ask is there someone out there who is open minded enough to follow through an abstraction, a hypothetical until it is fully resolved. If any one would I would be greatly indebted to them and maybe I can let the issue rest.

If the idea that light doesn't actually travel and 'c' is actually a reflector change rate causes you to think of ridicule and contempt then obviously you are not much help in this thread but if you are prepared to argue logically with out strong pre-conceptions then I would appreciate your help.

The thinking:

As with gravity [spacetime] light exists only in the "present" or "NOW' It exists only in the center of time, between future and past events. This appears to be as described by Einstien in his light cones diagrams demonstrating Einstien /Minkowski space.
The contention:
That light is a gravitational effect that allows it's effects to be shown at any distance from the source and is shown by the reflector reflecting the resonance of the source. The speed of this change showing itself as distance from source over change rate of the reflector.
In essense light does not travel and is only seen in reflection because the reflector has to raise it's vibrational frequency to the same as the intensity [distance] requires.

The most important thing that has to be considered is that change is the focus not distance. The rate that light changes at the reflector is determined by distance [intensity] and the atomic change rate of the reflector which I will contend is always 'c'

I look forward to some openminded discussion so an old man can give an idea a thorough airing and reach a conclusive understanding.

Quantum Quack: Your mixing your understanding with that of Enstein and Minkowski leaves me at the starting gate. Instinctively (and only instinctively) the structure is much more complex than the topic deserves. For sure the quantum mechanical description of photon motion is not adequately treated, meaning there is much more to discover here than has been handed to us by our ancestors.

geist, you are probably right.

As some other readers may recall when I see the light cones diagram I see space time in 3 dimensions and not two.......but this is an aside to the topic. I do believe however that light and gravity are both over complicated by notions of particles and waves. That both are much simpler than what we believe to be the case.
However thinking on these subjects has become very entrenched and to be honest this is quite expected when looking at world wide scientific endevour. It is after all entrenched for very good reasons even if found in the end to be misguided.

Any way this is way off topic......if I am to get an answer to my dilemma it has to be treated purely in the hypothetical and with an open mind so that the logic works it's way through and a solution to the hyperthetical can be finally achieved. I have no expectations of some ground breaking finding, or anything that will change conventional thought..as no matter what the outcome city hall is just way too stuborn anyway.
But to settle my own mind and resolve this obsession I have with the nature of light would be welcome regardless.

QQ,

Can you expound a bit on what process you imply by "reflectors"?

MacM, A reflector is anything that has to change to reflect or emulate another objects change.

A reflector is in a continuuous relationship with the source and this relationship is always subject to change. Typically the relationship is not on/off but always "on". In other words the reflector is always reflecting but only changing to show visible light when reflecting visible light.

The reflector's rate of change is 'c'.

A reflector travels on the spot [within it's own apparent dimensions] 299792 km persecond.

The human eye is a reflector.

Possibly a good way of describing a reflector is to think of two bells in a vacuum.
If I ring only one bell the other bell will start to ring in sympathy until eventually it is reflecting the other bells vibrational rate.

Actually come to think of it. This would test the idea quite well. Take two bells place them in a vacuum say 12 inches apart. Ring one bell and see if the other rings even though no sound can be heard.

Two bells no separating medium [vacuum]. Will the other bell start to vibrate in sympathy?

Increase the bells vibration to the point were by it's vibration rate becomes visible as light and repeat the experiment with another bell, will it vibrate in sympathy and also show the light in reflection?

and if it fails repeat the experiment whilst the bells are part of a magnetic field in a vacuum. hmmmmm......

of course the big difference about our scenarios is that the bell has vibration beyond it's own structure.....where as I am suggestng that light is the product of an atomic vibration within the artifacts structure.

I drew this simple diagram just to show how light and gravity effects are different......nothing over stunning in this of course.

<img src=http://www.paygency.com/lightgravityeffects.jpg>

Both circles represent light and gravitational sources.

The gravitational effect is shown as inverse and the light effect is shown also as inverse but the light intensity diminishes towards the reflectors where as the gravitational effect is uniformly inverse.

If one places a reflector at any distance from the source the reflection will always be invariant by simple virtue of the diminishing nature of intensity over distance.

So if we assume for a moment that light is just another form of gravity but inverse to what is normally referred to as gravity. Also that it has an alternating property, thus imparting an energistic effect on our reflectors.

so in summary:
Light could be considered to be an inverse alternating gravity. The reflectors change rate always demonstrates the value 'c' but this is relative to intensity due to distance rather than velocity of light.

Come to thnk of it , gravity could also be described by the second diagram if one was inclined that way.

MacM, A reflector is anything that has to change to reflect or emulate another objects change.

A reflector is in a continuuous relationship with the source and this relationship is always subject to change. Typically the relationship is not on/off but always "on". In other words the reflector is always reflecting but only changing to show visible light when reflecting visible light.

The reflector's rate of change is 'c'.

A reflector travels on the spot [within it's own apparent dimensions] 299792 km persecond.

The human eye is a reflector.

Still not following your definiton. An eye to me would be an absorber not a reflector.

ok ...lets look at my definition of the word reflect:

essentially to emulate, mimic, duplicate, resonate equally or in part. Be effected by in proportion to cause....and so on...

The human sensory systems reflect or mimic what is being sensed and allows us an ability to perceive our universe, therefore the human mind is a reflection of that universe [and sometimes not a really good one at that....ha]