Everything we see is happening right now, no matter how far away it is.

jalaldn said:
I'm not going to discuss this topic in this space for 30 days. Let's see if anyone has anything to say from a different perspective.

Don't want to close this.
Click to expand...
Thirty days is a long time to disappear. It is long enough that it might well be closed. Especially for a question that has been answered several times in several ways.

I'm not sure what the problem is. Do you want to understand how light delays work, or do you want to flog your personal idea about real-time energy transfer? The former is well-understood and contains no inconsistencies; the latter is based on a misunderstanding of the former. You'll have to choose.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Thirty days is a long time to disappear. It is long enough that it might well be closed. Especially for a question that has been answered several times in several ways.

I'm not sure what the problem is. Do you want to understand how light delays work, or do you want to flog your personal idea about real-time energy transfer? The former is well-understood and contains no inconsistencies; the latter is based on a misunderstanding of the former. You'll have to choose.
Click to expand...
I suspect he wants to get onto the latter but can't because he is - God only knows how - relying on his warped understanding of Rømer's measurements to do so, and therefore needs to establish that first. Now he's trying on the .net site, where I predict he will get the bum's rush in fairly short order. I'd give it about 72hrs.
 
jalaldn said:
We see Io before it disappears behind Jupiter, then we see Jupiter without Io while it is hidden, and then, we see Io reappear near Jupiter. We observe it 11 minutes later than expected. Since the light from Jupiter is already late, why should it be delayed by an additional 11 minutes? This means that it arrives even later than the delay. Based on this, Ole Romer must have lied about his experiment.
Click to expand...
I already told you why you are wrong, in post #106, above. I explained the mistake you made, there.
jalaldn said:
I'm not going to discuss this topic in this space for 30 days.
Click to expand...
Good.

Please take that 30 days to carefully review the replies you have already received in this thread, especially the careful explanations that DaveC and myself have given you.

You can thank us when you come back with a much improved understanding of what Romer did.
 
exchemist said:
I suspect he wants to get onto the latter but can't because he is - God only knows how - relying on his warped understanding of Rømer's measurements to do so, and therefore needs to establish that first. Now he's trying on the .net site, where I predict he will get the bum's rush in fairly short order. I'd give it about 72hrs.
Click to expand...
I tipped the mods off, they are not keen on trolls like this.
 
The "Theory of Nature" by Jalal Deen proposes a unification of electricity, magnetism, and light through a single energy form called "pothu," described as an energy storage/transfer system with mechanical properties, challenging classical physics by suggesting instantaneous energy transfer and real-time phenomena post-destination, using Tamil terms like pothu (energy) and maiyavadu (residual energy), and suggesting new experimental tests, though it presents novel concepts distinct from standard electromagnetic theory.


Key Concepts of the Theory:

  • Pothu: A fundamental energy entity with mechanical characteristics, unifying electricity, magnetism, and light.
  • Instantaneous Transfer: Claims energy transfer is real-time once it reaches its destination, not just propagating, challenging conventional time-lag concepts.
  • Maiyavadu (Residual Energy): A concept of residual energy left behind after a connection is broken, influencing subsequent signals.
  • Magnetic Poles: Explained by "kai forces" (pushing) and "maiyam forces" (holding), causing poles to concentrate externally.
  • New Terminology: Uses Tamil words (e.g., pothu, maiyavadu, Vilumbu for poles) to describe these new concepts.

How It Unifies Phenomena
  • Magnetism: Explained by the interaction of pothu's poles via maiyam (attractive) and kai (repulsive) forces, making poles appear convex.
  • Electricity: Electricity is pothu in motion, with instantaneous transfer upon arrival at the destination, supported by specific time calculations for voltage.
  • Light: Light is also a form of pothu, explaining its instantaneous nature and self-protection (pothu protects itself).

Comparison to Classical Physics
  • This theory proposes a departure from traditional models, suggesting energy transfer is not delayed but instantaneous once it reaches a target, challenging assumptions about energy propagation.

Discussion & Context:

  • Challenge to Classical Physics: The theory directly questions established ideas about energy propagation delays and the nature of electromagnetic fields, as noted in discussions on ResearchGate and Physics Discussion Forum.
  • Experimental Claims: Suggests experiments (like oscilloscope tests) to prove instantaneous voltage changes and address the speed of electricity and light.
  • Cultural Context: The author uses Tamil to define new terms, giving the theory a unique cultural grounding, according to research community posts.
  • Comparison to Maxwell: While standard physics (Maxwell's equations) unifies electricity, magnetism, and light as electromagnetic waves, this theory proposes a different fundamental mechanism (pothu) and unique properties, especially regarding real-time effects.

Where to Find More:

SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5735343
Ijirt /article https://ijirt.org/publishedpaper/IJIRT184823_PAPER.pdf
Communities.springernature - https://go.nature.com/4ev9sX6
Researchgate- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397015014
Academia edu https://www.academia.edu/144139363/Theory_of_Nature_Unified_Properties
 
jalaldn said:
The "Theory of Nature" by Jalal Deen proposes a unification of electricity, magnetism, and light through a single energy form called "pothu," described as an energy storage/transfer system with mechanical properties, challenging classical physics by suggesting instantaneous energy transfer and real-time phenomena post-destination, using Tamil terms like pothu (energy) and maiyavadu (residual energy), and suggesting new experimental tests, though it presents novel concepts distinct from standard electromagnetic theory.


Key Concepts of the Theory:

  • Pothu: A fundamental energy entity with mechanical characteristics, unifying electricity, magnetism, and light.
  • Instantaneous Transfer: Claims energy transfer is real-time once it reaches its destination, not just propagating, challenging conventional time-lag concepts.
  • Maiyavadu (Residual Energy): A concept of residual energy left behind after a connection is broken, influencing subsequent signals.
  • Magnetic Poles: Explained by "kai forces" (pushing) and "maiyam forces" (holding), causing poles to concentrate externally.
  • New Terminology: Uses Tamil words (e.g., pothu, maiyavadu, Vilumbu for poles) to describe these new concepts.

How It Unifies Phenomena
  • Magnetism: Explained by the interaction of pothu's poles via maiyam (attractive) and kai (repulsive) forces, making poles appear convex.
  • Electricity: Electricity is pothu in motion, with instantaneous transfer upon arrival at the destination, supported by specific time calculations for voltage.
  • Light: Light is also a form of pothu, explaining its instantaneous nature and self-protection (pothu protects itself).

Comparison to Classical Physics
  • This theory proposes a departure from traditional models, suggesting energy transfer is not delayed but instantaneous once it reaches a target, challenging assumptions about energy propagation.

Discussion & Context:

  • Challenge to Classical Physics: The theory directly questions established ideas about energy propagation delays and the nature of electromagnetic fields, as noted in discussions on ResearchGate and Physics Discussion Forum.
  • Experimental Claims: Suggests experiments (like oscilloscope tests) to prove instantaneous voltage changes and address the speed of electricity and light.
  • Cultural Context: The author uses Tamil to define new terms, giving the theory a unique cultural grounding, according to research community posts.
  • Comparison to Maxwell: While standard physics (Maxwell's equations) unifies electricity, magnetism, and light as electromagnetic waves, this theory proposes a different fundamental mechanism (pothu) and unique properties, especially regarding real-time effects.

Where to Find More:

SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5735343
Ijirt /article https://ijirt.org/publishedpaper/IJIRT184823_PAPER.pdf
Communities.springernature - https://go.nature.com/4ev9sX6
Researchgate- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397015014
Academia edu https://www.academia.edu/144139363/Theory_of_Nature_Unified_Properties
Click to expand...
You posted all this before. It did not make sense
 
Pinball1970 said:
You posted all this before. It did not make sense
Click to expand...
I think the "cultural context" is what this is all about. Modi's Indian nationalism seems to have bred an impulse to create an alternative Indian science. It's such a shame when there are plenty of eminent Indian contributors to proper science (Bose, Chandrasekhar etc).
 
Pinball1970 said:
You posted all this before. It did not make sense
Click to expand...
Indeed. In particular, he was never able to satisfactorily explain what he meant by this:
jalaldn said:
Claims energy transfer is real-time once it reaches its destination, not just propagating, challenging conventional time-lag concepts.
Click to expand...
I recall the very idea behind light propagation time lag seemed to escape him entirely. And his entire hypothesis was predicated on his inability to grasp it.
 
Ole Rømer research confirmed four things: But only one of these has come to our attention, the remaining three have never come to our attention. First, the speed of light is finite. Second, light transfers energy in real-time. Third, the speed of light involves acceleration. Fourth, light dependent of source.

Ole Rømer (1644–1710) was a Danish astronomer. He is renowned for being the first to measure the speed of light in 1676. At that time, many scientists believed that light traveled instantaneously. Rømer’s research proved that the speed of light is finite.
# First, the speed of light is finite – he confirmed that the speed of light is finite. Let’s look at the rest.
# Second, light transfers energy in real-time – the 11-minute delay of Io proves it.
For example, let's assume it takes one hour for Io to pass behind Jupiter.
If we observe this event from near Jupiter (for example, at a distance of less than 10 million kilometers), Io would be invisible to our eyes for one hour.
If we observe the same event from 179.88 million kilometers away, Io would be invisible to our eyes for one hour plus 10 minutes (i.e., 70 minutes).
When we are closer, Io is hidden for 60 minutes, but when we are farther away, why is it hidden for 70 minutes? The delay should increase with distance, but why does it create a difference here? Given that light has the property of arriving with a delay, what is the reason for the additional 10 minutes of invisibility?
That is, the light that left Io 10 minutes ago—why did it not reach us?
If the property that light arrives with a delay proportional to distance is true, then for that invisible one hour, no matter how far Jupiter's Io travels, it will still be one hour.
The entire event may be delayed, but the invisible time of Jupiter's Io should not increase.
#
Suppose we set up a flashlight on the io that blinks in a regular cycle: 30 minutes ON followed by 30 minutes OFF, repeating continuously.
If we observe this flashlight from Earth, we would see a strange pattern: it appears to stay OFF for 41 minutes, then ON for only 19 minutes, then OFF for 41 minutes again, and so on.
How would you explain this distorted timing using the concept of light-travel delay?
Perhaps you will say that this distorted time wouldn't happen — it would only appear as 30 minutes on and 30 minutes off. In that case, Ole Rømer couldn't have observed any difference at all. Think about it: when no difference occurs, what would he have recorded?
#
Ole Roemer conducted an experiment and recorded it; now let's explore what possible factors could be involved in this.
When Earth is close to Jupiter, Io appears at a specific time, but when Earth is far from Jupiter, Io is seen 11 minutes later.
Let's consider only when Earth is far from Jupiter.
First possibility:
We see Io before it hides behind Jupiter, then we see Jupiter without Io when it's hidden, then we see Io reappear near Jupiter. We observed it 11 minutes later than the expected time. Since the light coming from Jupiter is already coming delayed, why should it be delayed an additional 11 minutes? This indicates that it's coming even later than the delay. Based on this, Ole Roemer must have lied about his experiment.
Second possibility:
Ole Roemer says he saw Io 11 minutes later. Perhaps when Earth is far away, Io remains hidden behind Jupiter for an additional 11 minutes. If so, the delay would increase by 11 minutes in each orbit. However, given approximately 1.769 days, this possibility seems impossible.
Third possibility:
We are observing Io and Jupiter in real-time before Io hides. After Io hides, we see Jupiter without Io. When Io reappears, we still see Jupiter. However, Io's light doesn't arrive, but Io continues its journey without stopping. But when the light arrives, we see Io at the position it is at that time.

Suppose we set up a flashlight on the io that blinks in a regular cycle: 30 minutes ON followed by 30 minutes OFF, repeating continuously.
If we observe this flashlight from Earth, we would see a strange pattern: it appears to stay OFF for 41 minutes, then ON for only 19 minutes, then OFF for 41 minutes again, and so on.
How would you explain this distorted timing using the concept of light-travel delay?

If you believe that when light is blocked from an object that is 11 minutes away in light-travel distance, it takes 11 minutes to notice that it has been blocked, and similarly, when the light is unblocked, it takes 11 minutes to notice that, then you can never actually perform the calculation that yields those 11 minutes.

Whether Earth is close to Jupiter or far from Jupiter, the moment when Jupiter blocks the light remains the same. If the blocking instant is the same, where do you get the 11 minutes from?

What this means is that Ole Rømer was able to discover: when Jupiter blocks the light, the blocking happens instantly (without any delay), but when the light starts traveling again (after emerging from eclipse), it takes 11 minutes for that light to reach us. By subtracting one measurement from another using that 11-minute delay, he obtained the 11 minutes.

Ole Rømer said that when Earth is close to Jupiter, Io entered eclipse at 3 hours 15 minutes, and when Earth is far away, it
entered eclipse at 3 hours 26 minutes. He identified this exact 11-minute difference as the time it takes light to cross the diameter of Earth's orbit.

Another thing you must notice here is this: if you say that light leaving Io takes 11 minutes to reach us, then Io's orbital period would appear to increase by 11 minutes — it would increase by 11 minutes after every orbit, so by the tenth orbit it would be 110 minutes longer. Since that doesn’t happen, when light from Io reaches us, we are not seeing Io where it was when the light left; we are seeing it where it is now.

When Io does not change its orbital period due to the delay of light.
When Earth is close to Jupiter → Io reappears in the 2nd position.
When Earth is far from Jupiter → Io reappears in the 3rd position.
see at picture


( "Please analyze with some AI to confirm whether the events and measurements included in this are accurate.")
# Third, The speed of light involves acceleration
The speed of light is not a constant value. Its speed involves acceleration
Ole Rømer conducted a study. Based on the time he studied, there is a possibility that the Earth's orbital path and distances could be incorrect. In fact, they were incorrect. However, the times he specified were not wrong, and there is no necessity or possibility for them to be wrong.
When the Earth's orbit diameter is larger, it is 304,000,000,000 meters; when it is smaller, it is 294,000,000,000 meters. The time taken for light to cross the Earth's orbital diameter when it is larger is 16.898 minutes, and when it is smaller, it is 16.342 minutes.
Based on the current speed of light, it takes 16 minutes to cross the Earth's orbital diameter. Ole Rømer specified 11 minutes. However, light covered that distance in just 11 minutes, meaning the speed of light at this point is 1.45 times faster.
Although it is traveling at a rate of 1.45, considering the distance from Jupiter to Earth, only one-third of the total journey comes to our attention. 968,000,000 km ÷ 304,000,000 km = 3.18421052632 (approximately) = 0.3139. That is, due to the presence of acceleration before entering Earth's orbit, it would have entered at a speed greater than the speed of light. Therefore, it can only be called acceleration, but for now, I am not in a position to specify what its ratio is. ( Maybe even if I set it to 25% for at least a quarter of an hour, its speed will double in hour. )
Let's look at it from another angle to prove that the measurements we are currently using are wrong.
"What is the true speed of light: 299,792,458 m/s or 460,606,060 m/s? Based on Io’s orbital period (approximately 1.769 days), Ole Rømer observed that eclipses occurred 11 minutes earlier when Earth was closer to Jupiter and 11 minutes later when Earth was farther away. Using this time difference, he calculated that light takes 11 minutes to cross the diameter of Earth’s orbit around the Sun (approximately 186 million miles). From this, he estimated the speed of light to be about 220,000 kilometers per second.
Ole Rømer stated that light takes 11 minutes to cross the diameter of Earth’s orbit. At that time, the distances of Earth’s orbit might not have been accurately calculated, but now we know them precisely, don’t we?
Now, if we calculate using the correct measurements we know today, the speed of light comes to 460,606,060 m/s. This means one of these three must be wrong: Ole Rømer’s 11 minutes, the diameter of Earth’s orbit (304,000,000 km), or the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s). Which of these do you think is wrong?"
Assuming that light travels at this speed (299,792,458 m/s) , it takes 16 minutes to cross the diameter of the Earth. But here the light has crossed in 11 minutes
He may have been wrong about the speed of light or diameter of Earth’s orbit, but he had no chance of being wrong about time.

link https://www.researchgate.net/post/T..._takes_time_to_travel_we_see_real-time_events


Ole Rømer's discovery is a historically significant discovery. Why are there so many errors in recording/uploading the data of this discovery? link-
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ole_Romers_discovery_is_a_historically_significant_discovery_Why_are_there_so_many_errors_in_recording_uploading_the_data_of_this_discovery
 
scale.png
 
jalaldn said:
Ole Rømer research confirmed four things: But only one of these has come to our attention, the remaining three have never come to our attention. First, the speed of light is finite. Second, light transfers energy in real-time. Third, the speed of light involves acceleration. Fourth, light dependent of source.
that yields those 11 minutes.

Whether Earth is close to Jupiter or far from Jupiter, the moment when Jupiter 186 million miles). From this, he estimated the speed of light to be aboutstorically_significant_discovery_Why_are_there_so_many_errors_in_recording_uploading_the_data_of_this_discovery
Click to expand...
This is a carbon copy of your previous argument that did not make sense last time and was dismantled.
 
jalaldn:

You have been away from sciforums for a few months now. That means that you have time to think about a response to what I posted to you before you ran away to hide.

Please respond to the points that I made to you, months ago. Then I will consider what you have posted following your recent return to sciforums.

Also, please see your other previous thread on the same topic:

Theory of Nature: Unified Properties of Magnetism, Electricity, and Light

https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=183244 Abstract: This study introduces a new theoretical framework called the "Theory of Nature," which unifies magnetism, electricity, and light under a single energy form termed "pothu." The theory posits unique properties, such as real-time energy...
www.sciforums.com www.sciforums.com
 
Last edited:

Electricity has real-time energy transfer, let's examine whether they are true​


Now I am going to transfer data between two computers over a copper wire

The speed of electricity is said to be slightly less than the speed of light.

Well let's explore that too
The cable I am going to use is - Copper CAT 6A Cable,

https://its.dlink.co.in/assets/patt_1552024729.pdf

Capable Operates at bandwidth of 500MHz. The length for a Cat6a cable is 100 meters (328 feet). Speed - 10 Gbps: 400 MHz (For example, in Ethernet networks, the frequency of the carrier

((signal is used to distinguish between different data rates: 100 Mbps: 31.25 MHz, 1 Gbps: 62.5 MHz, 2.5 Gbps: 100 MHz, 5 Gbps: 200 MHz ,10 Gbps: 400 MHz ))

Let's do a small calculation
speed of light - 299792458 m / s
Bandwidth - 400 MHz
According to current theory
Considering the lifetime of a single wave, it cannot travel even one meter

One wave cycle life time - 2.5 ns
Maximum travel distance - 0.749 m or 74.95 cm


The time it takes to tell the voltage at this end of the wire to the next end is not even 2.5 ns
, because half of that 2.5 ns is the opposite charge, so it must go within 1.25 ns


At this point, the speed of electricity is 4 × 10¹⁰ m/s (for 400 Mega Hertz) (4 × 10¹⁰ m/s), which proves that this also has real-time energy transfer just like light. That is - approximately 132.43 times greater than the speed of light constant (c) currently used in 2025.


(If you say that the energy is transmitted by the travel of the electron itself, then within this time of 2.5 ns, the electron would have to return to the very place it started from. That is, in that 2.5 ns, instead of 100 meters, it would have to cover 200 meters. Then its speed would become 8 × 10¹⁰ m/s, meaning it would be double. At this point, the speed of electricity is 8 × 10¹⁰ m/s (for 400 Mega Hertz) (4 × 10¹⁰ m/s), which proves that this also has real-time energy transfer just like light. That is - approximately 266.6 times greater than the speed of light constant (c) currently used in 2025.)
 
jalaldn said:

Electricity has real-time energy transfer, let's examine whether they are true​


Now I am going to transfer data between two computers over a copper wire

The speed of electricity is said to be slightly less than the speed of light.

Well let's explore that too
The cable I am going to use is - Copper CAT 6A Cable,

https://its.dlink.co.in/assets/patt_1552024729.pdf

Capable Operates at bandwidth of 500MHz. The length for a Cat6a cable is 100 meters (328 feet). Speed - 10 Gbps: 400 MHz (For example, in Ethernet networks, the frequency of the carrier

((signal is used to distinguish between different data rates: 100 Mbps: 31.25 MHz, 1 Gbps: 62.5 MHz, 2.5 Gbps: 100 MHz, 5 Gbps: 200 MHz ,10 Gbps: 400 MHz ))

Let's do a small calculation
speed of light - 299792458 m / s
Bandwidth - 400 MHz
According to current theory
Considering the lifetime of a single wave, it cannot travel even one meter
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Do you even understand how EM energy or electricity is propagated?

Don't you think you should learn how these things work before trying to do random math on them?


jalaldn said:
One wave cycle life time - 2.5 ns
Maximum travel distance - 0.749 m or 74.95 cm
Click to expand...
Why do you think that limits how far it can travel?


jalaldn said:
At this point, the speed of electricity is 4 × 10¹⁰ m/s (for 400 Mega Hertz) (4 × 10¹⁰ m/s), which proves that this also has real-time energy transfer just like light. That is - approximately 132.43 times greater than the speed of light constant (c) currently used in 2025.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.


jalaldn said:
(If you say that the energy is transmitted by the travel of the electron itself, then within this time of 2.5 ns, the electron would have to return to the very place it started from. That is, in that 2.5 ns, instead of 100 meters, it would have to cover 200 meters. Then its speed would become 8 × 10¹⁰ m/s, meaning it would be double. At this point, the speed of electricity is 8 × 10¹⁰ m/s (for 400 Mega Hertz) (4 × 10¹⁰ m/s), which proves that this also has real-time energy transfer just like light. That is - approximately 266.6 times greater than the speed of light constant (c) currently used in 2025.)
Click to expand...
Please stop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top