A new interpretation of energy and matter

I was refering to your change in the understanding that the speed of light is different for different mediums. You wrote earlier in your this thread:

Did you actually write (#16) that c varies according to a relative media? Because I'm sure that you did! "The speed of light varies in different media" (paraphrase) Now just "who is zooming who?" This one statement of yours is completely wrong.

After you were presented with evidence to the contrary you posted:

With regard to the last "boldface" query (longer period of TIME thru ten meters of water vs. vacuum) the answer is YES...YES IT "TAKES LONGER".

Again as I said earlier this is a good thing! Eduations is wonderful.

No, I don't find it unusual. If the speed of light in the vacuum was anything other than c it would be mind boggling!!

I don't know what that means

I supplied you a link that explained this. As the light passes through glass for example the photons are absorbed by the electrons in the in the glass and then reemited. In between the times that the photon is being absorbed and reemitted by the electron the photon is traveling at c. So when the photons are in the glass due to the absorption and reemition be the electrons there is an ovrall slowing of the light through the glass. Again, while the photon is 'free' it is moving at c. So when the photon exits the glass to a vacuum since the photon is not being absorbed and reemitted by anything the speed is c.

If you mean the speed is right back to c as it leaves the glass, I agree.

Answered above

Answered earlier in the post..

You mean before you hit submit there paragraph does not have all the spaces in it? That's weird.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To properly reply press "Reply With Quote" button located at the right hand side of each post. If you want to reply to something specific within quoted text you can cut the quote in parts by enclosing them with 'quote' tags, like I did in this post.

I said I could not read it. I said I tried and it was difficult to follow. It has nothing to do with your writing skill, which is indeed unique. It's all mostly due to formatting. Dozen of line-breaks less will improve readability dramatically. String sentences together one right after another, like books and newspapers are written. Separate paragraphs with line-breaks only if you are making another point, like this.

Here is another paragraph with a line-break (blank line) above to separate it from the previous paragraph. In a paragraph sentences should follow each other with only a space character in between them after a single period punctuation mark, like this. Here is yet another sentence, there is a single space character between this and the previous sentence. And that's how we format text for the best readability.

You are not quoting what other people said to which you are replying. You see this blueish tex-box above, that's a quote of what you said and what I am replying to. It makes it easy to follow conversation, it helps you be specific and make it clear what are you talking about.

If you don't know, ask. When you click "Reply With Quote" button there will be another button titled "Go Advanced", press it and you will get many little buttons at the top of the text-box. Hover mouse pointer over any button for a while and eventually "hint-text" will pop up explaining what the button does. To copy-paste press left mouse button at the beginning of the text you want to copy, do not release the button yet. While holding the button move the mouse pointer to the end of the text you want to copy and then finally release the button.

Selected text will have blue background. Now point mouse anywhere over that selected text and this time click right mouse button. You will see a menu which will contain 'Copy' option among others, choose it and the selected text will be stored in computer memory. Now go to wherever you want to paste that text, click left mouse button to place the text cursor at the position where you want the copied text to appear. Then press right mouse button to get that menu again, choose "Paste" and you are done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Click this to see the Frequently Asked Questions of posting.

To be able to see the bolding and underlining and such you will probably have to click the box to the right of Post Quick Reply that says Go Advanced.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not sure that this is the thread to get too involved in this but wish to check my own understanding...
The differentiation I wanted to point out was the difference between terms like speed and velocity.

In a vacuum and presuming the propagation of light is in a specific direction it can be deemed as having both speed and or velocity. 'c'
However in a medium such as clear glass due to scattering the speed stays the same as 'c' but the velocity slows if one takes the over all traveling through the glass in sum.

The speed of light is scalar and does not have regard to direction where as velocity is a vector premised speed that does take direction as important.
Ignoring absorption and re-emitting factors the over all velocity of light through a medium is slowed due to scattering [ deviation of vector ] therefore the distance light has to travel is greater when traveling through a medium giving the over all impression that it has slowed when in fact it's length of journey has simply increased.


Therefore can it be stated that whilst the speed of light 'c' is invariant regardless of medium the velocity of light IS variant depending on medium?
[drawing the distinction between speed 'c' and velocity 'c']

Does that sound right?
Perhaps too detailed for this thread though...

 

In reply to origin, re: my topic of energy and matter.

I don't seem to be making any headway, origin. If you don't like or are not interested in my contentions or posits, why reply to the thread? What do you want? You either cannot or

will not address any of the issues I wrote about, other than quoting "doctrine" to me.



I have no idea want you want me to answer? You want me to "cut and paste" material from texts? As answers? There aren't any answers I can give that will satisfy you.

You are ignoring my contention that THERE ARE NO PHOTONS as packets of energy and by direct implication, NO ELECTRONS either, at least with regard to emission.

The "panel of glass" emission into a vacuum? I don't think light could be re-stimulated by the mechanisms of the energy input, as the light energy was degraded and diffused by the media

of the glass. I don't accept that an atom's electrons were so excited by the input of light energy that a further emission was achieved in this manner.

I think the light being emitted from the glass into the vacuum was energy from the primary source, the flashlight.

All subsequent emissions are degraded in intensity as light passes from one media to the next, yet c remains c. At some point the decay of light energy will result in a null value.



(Thanks for reading!)

 

In reply to Quantum Quack, re: The value of c.

No, it is not too detailed for me. I understand quiet well. In other words, in your explanation, the duration of light energy transit diffusion factor is being misinterpreted as if it were a decrease

of c (the time of media transit is resulting in a "false/positive" with regard to speed) Does this sound right to you?



(Thanks for reading!)

 

In reply to origin, re: tips on how to properly use entry fields!

Thank you for #82 and #83. I am going to try and learn this. It should not be that difficult, I hope. (I am an old dog, and new tricks are not as easy as they used to be for me)


Once again, thank you.

 

That is a rather remarkable thing to state, since there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. If there are no photons and no emitted electrons how do you explain the photoelectric effect, photovoltaic cells, beta radiation detectors, blackbody radiation, cathode ray tubes, etc., etc...?

 

Deleted issue already answered and better by others.

 

Yes but what you have stated needs to be clarified as you have used terminology that, due to it's nonstandard usage, leads to interpretations by others that may be unintended. (especially in a hostile environment)
The confusion you refer to as false/ negative is I believe concerning the difference between speed and velocity and how light data can be interpreted incorrectly.

I also believe introducing absorption and re-emission factors (generally) as adding an unnecessary complexity to the issue.
Suffice to say that 'c' is invariant and considered as invariant at all times, [Important- note! According to currently held scientific theory] but it pays to remember that 'c' refers to an invariant speed and not an invariant [overall via scattering through a medium] velocity.

 

In reply to Q.Q., re: your #90 reply.

You read what I wrote. I read what you wrote. I say po-TAY-toe...someone else says po-TAH-toe. Everyone is free to interpret anything I write in any manner they choose, or not read it at all.

I was attempting to illustrate a point of contention with regard to the glass panel/ vacuum/ flashlight observations. It didn't work if it doesn't mean what I intended it show.


As for my use of terminology, I use what I consider to be readily understandable English. Unless someone is PAYING me to write something for them, then I consider it "good enough".

As far as I can determine c is ALWAYS c, barring the circumstances of matter interference.

I understand the differences with regard to the meanings of lightspeed and velocity, as it is applied to relativistic physics.

(lightspeed, c, is a constant...velocity is an applied variable, subject to change at any time)


(Thanks for reading!)

 

Are you going to respond to this. These are difficult questions but they are not unreasonable questions or trolling questions. These are points that need to be addressed if you ideas are to be taken seriously.

 

In reply to AIP's on this Topic thread.

Since I have been asked to explain the mechanisms by which energy is actualized by a source, here is my answer.


The frictional-density factors of matter serve to enable the potential of dimensional-energy as an actuality. This frictional-density factor, or (Fdf) is serving as the causation for the manifestation

of dimensional-energy, both in-situ and at a distance from the source.


In this concept, (Fdf) can occur at molecular and atom levels. The amplitude of (Fdf) at a source serves to create a "new thing", and it is this "new factor" that causes the metric of potential

of dimensional-energy to manifest. (for want of a better adjectives, I call this a "signal-push", or (Fsp). This (Fsp) has nowhere to "fit" in the metric of dimensional-energy potential.

(note that no atoms, or sub-particulates of atoms, are annihilated or converted by the actions of (Fdf)


In this concept, there is no limit with regard to distance as the metric of dimensional-energy potential exists every where-when of the Universe.

The only limit to the manifestation of radiant energy is the amount of matter involved, i.e. matter equals energy.



(Thanks for reading!)

 

Just word salad. Completely meaningless.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It looks like you are not going to answer my questions, too bad

You have used a new term, frictional-density factor, without defining the term. I think most people here know what friction is. Friction is just a force that resists the movement of an object, on a molecular level it can be simply put as collisions between the molecules of the moving object and the medium through with the object is moving the units are kg_m/s^2 or N. Density is the mass per unit volume and the units are kg/m^3. It does not make sense to combine these 2 properties so I assume the your term friction-density is something else. So please define it.

You have not defined dimensional-energy either. Energy is joules and as such involves the dimensions of time and the 3 spatial dimensions, but I suspect that the term dimensional-energy is something other than 'regular energy, So please define this too.

After we have some definitions we can hopefully proceed.

 

In reply to ?, re: my #93 reply.

Yes, this is a very short word-salad reply to a complex issue. "The General Theory of Relativity" is also "word-salad". As yet, Relativity is unproven as an inherent feature of the Universe.

Whoever you are, why do you HIDE if you are certain my reply is "word salad". If what I write is wrong as a concept, then explain why.

Friction is not a false concept. It is empirically evident.

Bosons/mesons/gluons/quarks/etc./etc. for instance are suppositional particle states. There is NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that any of the mentioned assumed particles exist!

Elaborate equations do nothing more than enumerate suppositional states, they do NOT serve as "proof" of anything.

"Matter equals energy" is "word-salad?" In what manner?



(Thanks for reading!)

 

delete.

 

In reply to origin, re: My #93 reply.

(Fdf) refers to the dictate of action and reaction at a molecular and atomic level, in that when a given set of parameters is disturbed (such as a coalition of atoms as a mass) then molecular

or atom functions react to the stimulus, such as forced contact at a molecular level, or actual intrusion at an atom level. (if the dynamic of force is present)

You tell me that as a terminologies, density and friction are separate. This is self-evident. I combined the two terms because they act as one factor with regard to matter and mass.

The increase of density of matter into a mass results in friction. If the amount of mass is sufficient, then (Fdf) will result in hyper-thermic excitation of both molecular structures and atoms.

A Star is created.


What do I mean by "dimensional-energy?" It refers to any of what is commonly known as radiant energy, or energy which is emitted from a source.

To define it further, this means electrical energy, electromagnetic energy, light energy, radioactive energy, as well as gravity...all of them exist as a metric of potential.


As an aside issue, the term "joules" is used as a measurement. It does NOT define "what energy IS". I am aware of the definitions of the noun "Density" as well.


Parsing the semantics of scientific-terminology holds little interest with me, as I am NOT a scientist or have any desire to be one. (my field of expertise, if any, is emergency medicine)

(I think you might be more interested in debating dark-matter and dark-energy theories with others on this site. They have much more knowledge, and much better IMAGINATIONS than

I have, and are well-versed in science terminology and various doctrines of physics theory)

Also, I have no control over weather conditions. Daily storms block my dish internet service, so I cannot answer just because you want me to.




(Thanks for reading!)

 

I don't understand the first line so I will break it down if that is ok.

What do you mean by "the dictate of action and reaction"?

How is the clumping of matter a set of distured parameters?

What 'functions' react to a stimulus?

My concern has nothing to do with the termonolgies it has to do with the physical properties that the 2 terms represent. How do you physically combine density and friction - what do you mean by 'combine'?

Huh? It kind of sounds like you are refering to the collapse of a molecular cloud from gravity to where the pressure inside the core of the collapsed cloud increases the temperature. When the temperature gets high enough fusion will begin to occur signaling the birth of a star. The increase of temperature due to an increase in pressure is well understood and is the basis of a diesel engine. Are you simply trying to name the proportional relationship between P and T (\( PV = nRT \)) as Fdf?

So you are defining electromagnetic energy as dimensional-energy? Why? What is wrong with EM radiation?

What do you mean it exist as a 'metric of potential'?

I did not say joules define energy I said that it is one of the units of energy.

I am not particularly interested in semantics either. However it is vital to properly define terms that we are using or there is no possible way we can communicate. If you make up terms you MUST define them!

I don't think I have mentioned dark matter or dark energy at all, except for maybe my initial post in this thread.

 

GR word salad?
That sounds like pseudoquackery to me.
SR/GR are amongst the best supported, and evidenced based theories in all of cosmology.
So what you say is just completely against presnet day knowledge and science.
No wonder you are having a hard time.

That is more codswallop. We have plenty of evidence for their existence, that you seem to be ignoring.
It appears you have an agenda.

Mathematics is the language of physics, and you seem ignorant of it, as well as of physics itself.

Matter exists generally in four forms, solid, liquid, gas and Plasma.
Energy is what matter has and they are related by the equation E=Mc2, from relativity and mathematics, both of which you have just disowned.
Sad.