Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 301 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
Hey Jim Wood, I have known people with your name before but it is a common name. Your interest in light is curious. You seem to enjoy numerology and there are lots of curious conjunctions of numbers. But most of that is probably just coincidence.

Light is one of the first things we could experiment with easily that does not seem to obey Newton?s laws, but has a set of law all it's own. Light belongs to a class called leptons, and most of what we know of matter doesn't seem to apply to these leptons.
For example we cannot seem to find any acceleration with light. It moves though air into a glass prism, and instantly is going slower. It leaves the prism and is instantly going faster. Matter has mass and inertia and can't do that. So far as any experiment that we could think of, light always comes away with no mass and no inertia. It seems to be a loose packet of energy.

If I may expand the definition to a loose packet of energy, we can change the name to a photon, and include energy levels that are above and below the energy levels of visible light. These photons seem to be constantly on the move (that is why the freezing of photons was so interesting, it may not be the photon, but the information that was frozen, discussion still ongoing).

Photons of any energy level all move at the same speed depending on the media they are moving though, but unlike sound waves, they don?t need a media to move in. Photons have a direction vector and a frequency. We use the frequency when we see different colors of light or use FM (frequency modulation) radio, or use an AM tuner. The frequency of the photon determines its energy level. As far as the curious speed of light being 186,xxx miles per second, that is just because of the way we chose the distance of a mile. Had we been more advanced, we could have measured things in terms of a parsec or 3.26 light year, or an Astronomic Unit (AU), the average distance between the earth and the sun.

The exact size of a photon is also a difficult thing to measure due to it?s nature. Think that your microwave can block the microwave photons from getting out of your oven by using a metal grid with holes in it. The photons must in some sense be larger than the holes. Increase the hole size and they can get out. The curious thing is if you leave the door cracked they will get out. They can get out though a very thin crack that is longer than their size. So they seem to be something like a waveform with height but no thickness. Think also of polarized light. Photons with their height oriented with the lenses pass though, but those turned 90 degrees are blocked. Same thing happens in your microwave, not all the energy gets though the crack, only that orientated in the right direction.

As the energy gets higher, the photons can get though smaller holes, but they get adsorbed easier. The ELF (extra low frequency) radio we use to talk to submarines has such a low frequency that it can reach submarines under water. While cosmic rays that have extremely high energy levels are quickly stopped high in the atmosphere though the collision that stops them produces all sorts of other photons (radiation).

This is just an introduction to light, there is much more to it than I could touch on. Try the http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/index.html to learn more about matter and energy. It is exciting to learn how things work. Or try http://www.physorg.com/ to learn about some of the newest research going on in the science world. We have several university professors on this website who can also add their considerable knowledge to the subject.


Sparky
.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Jim, I apologize, I will get to your post a bit later.

Sparky:"...my memory of the Michelson and Morley experiment was from my freshman physics course 34 years ago..."

Well, you remembered the right concept at least.

Sparky: "As to people not understanding GR and SR, read the early posts and the questions they asked."

I am very well aware what the people of this forum know, I have been posting here of some five years. The was not even your claims, but mainly your attitude, the bedside manners you mentioned in another post. You came "heavy" on the topic, and trying to impress. Very likely, according to your first post, because you knew a bit more than the others, and because chances for someone to know more than you did were slim.Which, if you really want to be honest, was not fair to the others. Hence me comming even "heavier" on you.

Sparky:"As for your understanding of GR and SR that was not questioned though you took offense when none was meant."

I didn't take offense. It was just a way of telling you that you actually stumbled upon that 0.1% chance that someone knew a bit more than you did, in the context above, and your statement was rather incorrect.

Sparky: "But this thread was not meant to be a doctorial theses, it was meant to explain what is known and what is not known about the speed of light."

Well, here we agree. But unfortunately, from the very beginning, the question asked required exactly GR, and some QFT to even discuss it in a useful manner. Back of the envelpe arguments simply do not work in this case (like yours about the upper bound on the size of the photons). I am sorry that I have to say this, but they simply don't work. If you have time, you can check it by yourself.


Sparky:"To make it interesting, one can add in the things that seem strange (matter can travel faster than light, but only if you rig the race), and questions knowledgeable people still have about light."

Maybe, but a lot of the things that seem strange are in fact not. And there are a lot of misconceptions, hence the need to be exact.
As for FTL, I still don't know of any (valid) experiment that shows that. And this is not scientific bigotry. Simply there hasn't been satisfactory observational data yet to this effect.

Sparky:"Think of the recent experiment where they froze light for a few seconds. This is what makes science interesting and leads to more scientists."

Yes, I agree with you that this was a very interesting experiment, and long overdue for that matter.

Sparky: "Who would want to become a scientist if they knew they would have to face a tigeress like you every day?"

Me a tigress? Why, but I am a lamb, really. laugh

Joking aside, you might be surprised of how often one has to face tigers, panthers, and other species in the scientific community. It is a matter of fact. When you publish, when you review, when you give a lecture, when you discuss experimental results. The form in which they object might be different, butthe end result is the same. And whoever wants to pursue science, must become aware of this, and learn to deal with it.

Sparky: "...I am just interested in science."

Me too. So discuss something more interesting.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Thank you for your observations.

Your "For example we cannot seem to find any acceleration with light. It moves though air into a glass prism, and instantly is going slower. It leaves the prism and is instantly going faster. Matter has mass and inertia and can't do that. So far as any experiment that we could think of, light always comes away with no mass and no inertia. It seems to be a loose packet of energy."

The above tends to support my views.
I contend that the expansion of light is the means by which it travels. When light passes thhrough objects like glass it appesrs to slow and while passing through your prism it will slow because the light loses the normal ability to expand. Upon exiting it quickly speeds up because it can expand and by doing so regain speed.

My view that the light at Earth position limits the speed of light compared to far away is part of the same principle. Glass has a certain density as does oil and as does the light in the area of the Earth. I suppose you could ask the question of whether light can be refracted by other light and I suggest it can. Over looking the contribution our eyes may make there is a little expierment I offer. You are in a bathroom in the daytime with one small window. Without the electric light on you still do not get a good clear cut view of the pipe and valve under the tank even though the room is well lit. It is now night time and you turn on the electric light and note you can see into the corner of the room quite clearly and better that you did with the sunlight. You question this result and in the morning with sunlight in the room you turn on the electric light but find it does not improve the view.

Crazy stuff and maybe my lights are different so you will not notice such a result.

I do not consider my efforts to be numerology but you are welcome to do so if you wish. One of my ideas work out a mathematical basis, that I contend, will give the astronomer observing the size and motion of planets, to calculate his final conclusions to see if they fit the formula using the objects mean orbital velocity, the estimated days and the objects size. If they fit the calculations, using all three ingredients the days produced will conform to the estimate.

I think you have had enough of my speculations.
I appreciate your interest very much. I am well aware of how weird and strange my comments are to educated people of science.

My book is Surfing the Solar System.
ISBN1-4208-4452-0 (sc)

Jim Wood

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Jim:
Any chance you could send me a copy to review?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Jim: ??Also I do not contend that any past theory is false or faulty. That is beyond the scope of my knowledge. If we all thought the same there would be little progress.?

Well, Jim, I am sure you got intellectual satisfaction from your work over the years on this issue. But are you not curious to see if your work matches reality? Sure, it answers some questions, but are you not curious if it also matches observed phenomena, phenomena upon there is little experimental doubt?

Jim: ?My contention is that light does have a density and can be expanded or compress in the same manner that a gas is compress, except we use mirrors and 'magnifing glasses' to do it instead of pumps.?

OK, this sounds reasonable. In fact, photons can be imagined as a gas, and as such there is a density of the gas (number of photons per unit volume). However, since this is not a very good description if you have photons of different frequencies (it would require you to work with partial pressures of rather odd types), one uses something called spectral energy density, defined as number of photons per unit volume and per unit frequency.
In this description, you don?t need mirrors, or magnifying glasses to compress or expand the gas, you can treat it thermodinamically, like any ideal gas, just with a special equation of state.

Jim:?Light leaving the sun is as dense as it will ever be and from that point onward is always less dense. This "density" will decline as the light moves througout the Solar System. This light, as I see it, can be compared to a gas being released from a container. It will continue to expand until it dissipates, much the same as light diminishes with distance.?

OK, let?s assume things are the way you say

Jim: ?We must always keep in mind that the expansion is spherical. The speed of light is in part a product of the density of the light and the rate of the expansion of light.?

Well, spherical symmetry aside, you need to define what you mean in the second sentence. Density is measured (in your case) in kg/m^3, while the expansion rate (which I don?t yet understand what you mean by that) should be in something/second. Now, if you want this product to be a speed, the something must have units of m^4/kg. Which doesn?t seem to make much sense.

So, what do you understand by density of light, and what do you understand by expansion rate of light? Please define them, units and all.

Jim: ?This, if correct, is a natural control of the potential speed at which the light will travel because the rate of expansion is means by which light speeds up.?

So what you are saying is that v=CdR, where v is the speed of light, C is a dimensional constant, d is the density, and R is the expansion rate. And you say that R controls v. OK, let?s assume that. But how did you come up with this equation?

Jim: ?This would mean that light in the vicinity of Earth is clocked at 186,281 miles per second while the expanded light at Jupiter will be less dense and capable of traveling faster.?

Well, keeping the analogy with the escaping gas, as distance increases, density decreases and rate of expansion also decreases, so light should slow down at Jupiter compared to Earth. How did you come up with the opposite?

Jim: ?The first hurdle here is to explain why we measure light returning to us from Jupiter at the same speed we measure light passing us here at Earth. I contend that the reflected light leaving Jupiter is traveling faster as it leaves but while it travels back to Earth it is slowed and slowly compressed along the way so as to meet us here at Earth traveling at our environment?s speed. This would apply to light originating from any source, including distant stars. This gives us a nice comfort zone and the conclusion that the light speed is fixed always.?

Well, your hurdle is just one issue. But your explanation has generated two other questions, that did not exist before. The first is what is the speed of light when light is emitted by a source. The second and an even more important one is this: according to your model, what is the maximum speed the light can ever attain?

But if your scenario with light travelling to Jupiter and back is true, this should be observable through the telemetry measurements I was talking about earlier. In these measurements, it does not matter what the speed of light is at the point of origin/return of the pulse. Suppose that value is known. These measurements can determine if the light has traveled along its path at constant speed or if the speed along the path has varied. Any variation of the speed along the path results in a time lag or a time advance, and such a thing has simply not been observed.

Jim: ?Example: Earth at 7926.6 miles diameter divided into the sun's circumference of 2,714,342.4 equals 342.45 and the square root of that is 18.5, the miles per second of the Earth?s orbital speed around the sun. You can do that same test with kilometers and get the same ratio result but we know 18.5 kilometers is meaningless in this workup.?

Jim, the calculation doesn?t make sense dimensionally, it only makes sense as maybe a mnemotechnic rule. Dividing miles by miles you get a dimensionless number, whose square root is also a dimensionless number, that coincidentally reproduces some number associated with Earth?s orbital velocity. This is all, there is no hidden meaning. I can only hope that you did not fell into the trap of ?pyramidology? (you know, finding the golden ratio/section in the Khufu pyramid at Gizeh, Charles Piazzi Smith, etc.)

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Sparky: "...that does not seem to obey Newton?s laws, but has a set of law all it's own."

Sparky, it seems we are back to the scientific truth game. What you just wrote is patently untrue. Light obeys Newtons laws,semiclassically, in SR and in GR. As you noted below, with zero acceleration.

Sparky:"So far as any experiment that we could think of, light always comes away with no mass and no inertia."

Patently untrue. The mass of a photon of frequency f is m=hf/c^2. And as such, it has inertia. Bending of light rays around a planet was one of the experiments that confirmed Einstein's GR. What a photon does not have is REST MASS, i.e. mass at zero speed.

"Think that your microwave can block the microwave photons from getting out of your oven by using a metal grid with holes in it."

Wrong. The microwave is a resonant cavity with absorbtion. The walls of the microwave and the air inside absorb the microwaves in the absence off anything inside.

Sparky:"The photons must in some sense be larger than the holes. Increase the hole size and they can get out. The curious thing is if you leave the door cracked they will get out. They can get out though a very thin crack that is longer than their size."

It has no bearing on the size of the photons, this is a quite childish argument, not to mention incorrect. The phenomenology is comp[letely different.

Sparky: "As the energy gets higher, the photons can get though smaller holes, but they get adsorbed easier."

Wrong again. The more energetic the photons, the lower the absorbtion. At high energies for example, metals become transparent for photons,i.e. there is no absorption.Why do you think they use X-rays and gamma rays in airport security scanners for the luggage instead of visible light?

Come on, Sparky, what is wrong with you? Just look how many patently false statements you made in only one post!

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
You may be interested to read the following:
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon mentions an observation of superluminal particles. I have no firm opinion on the subject, but tend towards skepticism.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
To Amaranth Rose. I would be pleased to send you a copy. I by luck happen to have an extra copy with me here in the desert. Please email me a mailing address at n666_up@yahoo.com.

Pasti:

You say "So, what do you understand by density of light, and what do you understand by expansion rate of light? Please define them, units and all."

It is just possible that science does not fully understand the properties of the photon. Unless we assume that the photon is capalbe of reproducing itself we must accept that the same photons that exit the suns surface are also providing the reflected light from Sedna which is estimated to be possibly 20 billion miles away from Earth. At that point in space light has traveled 215 times the Earths orbital radius and if we are talking about the same photons that left the sun they are, to my thinking more than 215 times less dense. They were expanding 3D to get there a fill up the volumne. As I recall, possibly incorrectly, density is determined by dividing volumn by weight. Light being weightless and massless(!) can not work so I equate the starting point to the measuring point in space. To me this means that light has a density relative to its point in space from the sun. You wish me to respond with formulas that fit your perceptions and I am not always able to do that but that is not the only way.

The heat produced by sun light is a reasonable demonstration of density. If there is no density level in sunlight why does distance from the sun produce less heat? You may have your own answer to this but to me the answer is self evident. There are other examples. If yuou were sitting on the suns surface (impossible) do you think you would see any reflected light at all?

If you wish to assume there are more photons per volumn close to the sun than at Sedna then that would equate to density as well.

You asked my opinion as to the maximum speed of light. That is a relative question to me because I think the source controls the speed of light it produces. Here at Earth I have suggested that light leaves the sun and quickly accelerates to the speed we measure here at Earth. it continues to speed up as it travels through the solar system. This would eventually top out at 186,624 miles a second many billions of miles out. Now this is a slow diminishing speed over long distances. This I contend would be a speed of about 186,623.59 miles per second at a distance 50,000,000,000 miles from the sun.
That is as far out as my contention.

You asked some other questions but I did not print you message and while in the reply mode I can not go back to read them unfortunately.

I recall your comment that the numerical item I listed was meaningless or some such. Possibly, but I think my hobby produced more than a happy past time for me. So much has been done by an endless number of astronomers and academics in the area of my laymans efforts it would be truly amazing to come up with anything new. While we are on the subject of light density I may as well confess that I think the slowing of light from distant sources is also the cause for the alleged red shift touted as proof pf the expanding universe, that the sun is really an oblate object as the earth and the gas giants are, that differential rotation of the sun is an illusion- and other weird stuff all part of the basic unique qualitis of light speed.

I do not follow any Egyptian golden measure and I do think there is such a thing as Pyramid power. I think one of the failings of science is to quickly dismiss a view because it does not fit the accepted "proven' mind set. I happen to think the Great Pyramid is a remarkable object. I find no magic in it. To detour a moment I want to recite something I saw. A television name was being interviewed and was asked if he beleived in UFO's. He was surprized and embarrased as if to say yes would reduce his image. The proper question should have been "do you beleive that people see things they can not identify? Aloud yes would be heard. Ask me the right question that fits my level of expertise and I reply.

I will go back and print your last message so I can try to respond to it fully.

Jim Wood

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Pasti:

As you would expect I am not good at this but your offered equation v=CdR needs would require an ingredient that accounts for the suns part in all of this. I failed to inclulde in my earlier contentions an important item. It is long standing common knowledge that the orbital velocities of the planets deminish as you travel away from the sun. The suns gravity diminishes as you go out into areas that I contend the suns light travels faster as it expands. Keeping in mimd the argument that lights density is reduced as you get farther and farther from the sun the effect, I contend, is to provide less resistance to the travel of light permitting accelleration.

This also explains your apparent paradox of why light speeds up instead of slowing as it travels. One could look upon this as the density of the suns gravity being diminished as you travel out of the solar system. There are some suggestions here by the mean orbit of Jupiter in AU when divided bt the mean orbit of Earth in AU equaling 5.2. the sruare root of 5.2 is 2.28. If we divide the mean orbital velocity of the Earth at 18.5 by the mean orbital velocity of jupiter at 8.11 we get 2.28, the same. This reflects the less gravitation effect the sun has at each position, and I think this difference is part of the explanation for the increased speed of light at Jupiter, or about 186,558.23 miles per second. Not being skilled in mathematics I will leave it to you to convert this suggestion into an equation.

Also I come up with the opposite of the gas anology for the increase speed of light because the gas is running out of energy and slowing down. The sun light from our sun has a built in speed limit but that limit is very high and would actually travel at the maximum speed of about 186,624 but for the suns gravity causing it to start slower and not reach maximum until it is farther from the effects of that gravity.
The other part of your question as to what the starting speed of light is will be uncertain but my estimate is that a one radius of the suns distance it will be traveling at about 112,941.32 miles per second.

Testing is an important part of science and much has been spent in the development of testing tools. If I start to develope a test searhing for details that I assume to be meaning full and disreggard results that I think will not be relevant I will not learn much that is new. I will either confirm what I believe to be true or find that it is not true. There is a Web site that discuses the problem with the Hubble telescop lense. I do not know if the calculations are accurate or not but the contention is that the mirror was in fact accurate and produced perfect pictures of the planet Saturn but not perfect pictures of the more distant objects. They contend that the reason was the different focal length and the difference in the speed of light entering the scope. I do not want to start a different discussion. This may be junk but the corrections required to fix the scope may hold a clue to the difference in the speed of light comming to us from distant objects, maybe not.
Jim Wood

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 32
Sparky: "...that does not seem to obey Newton?s laws, but has a set of law all it's own."

Sparky, it seems we are back to the scientific truth game. What you just wrote is patently untrue. Light obeys Newtons laws,semiclassically, in SR and in GR. As you noted below, with zero acceleration.

Good Grief Patti, have you never stepped outside of your lab? Light was one of the problem that lead Einstein to GR and then SR. The way it did not behave like matter is what bothered him.

Sparky:"So far as any experiment that we could think of, light always comes away with no mass and no inertia."

Patently untrue. The mass of a photon of frequency f is m=hf/c^2. And as such, it has inertia. Bending of light rays around a planet was one of the experiments that confirmed Einstein's GR. What a photon does not have is REST MASS, i.e. mass at zero speed.

Splitting hairs again are you? I was referring to mass in the Newtonian sense i.e. rest mass is implied. I am unaware of this simulated mass of a photon. Does it influence gravity; can it be counted as the dark mass we are looking for? If not then it is not mass but a simulated mass to solve inertia problems. When a laser hits a mirror and the light reverses direction, can we detect Newton?s for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? I think you might be referring to calculations on the bending of light in a gravity well as well. I have never been clear on SR on that. Does the gravity bend the light, or does the gravity bend time, which then bends the light? Chicken or egg thing I guess, but one solution does not require inertia for light.

"Think that your microwave can block the microwave photons from getting out of your oven by using a metal grid with holes in it."

Wrong. The microwave is a resonant cavity with absorbtion (absorption). The walls of the microwave and the air inside absorb the microwaves in the absence off anything inside.

The microwave is like a faraday cage with the energy being kept inside. From the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

?The door of a microwave oven has a screen built into the glass of the window. From the perspective of microwaves (with wavelengths of millimeters) this screen finishes a faraday cage formed by the oven's metal housing. Visible light, with wavelengths around half a micrometer, passes easily between the wires.?

-----------------------------------

Sparky:"The photons must in some sense be larger than the holes. Increase the hole size and they can get out. The curious thing is if you leave the door cracked they will get out. They can get out though a very thin crack that is longer than their size."

It has no bearing on the size of the photons, this is a quite childish argument, not to mention incorrect. The phenomenology is comp[letely different.

On the contrary Patti, I have used faraday cages and my instrument uses the principle to shield itself from magnetic radiation. Large doors into such cages take care to make sure there is a metal-to-metal contact between the doors and their frames so that they don?t leak. This is usually a mesh of copper wire to electrically seal the space between door and door jam. (BTW, 2% silicon steel makes a good material for Faraday cages, though it is brittle. I?m a metallurgist remember?)


Sparky: "As the energy gets higher, the photons can get though smaller holes, but they get adsorbed easier."

See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage again. Visible light being smaller does get though the holes.

Wrong again. The more energetic the photons, the lower the absorbtion (adsorption). At high energies for example, metals become transparent for photons,i.e. there is no absorption. Why do you think they use X-rays and gamma rays in airport security scanners for the luggage instead of visible light?

No Patti, I used a 200kv electrical x-ray to check castings for porosity. Indeed you crank it up to push more x-rays though up to a maximum of about 4.5 inches. It is not only a matter of power but of quantity. But if you want to send messages to subs under water, you use Elf, if you use a 800 mhz phone it has trouble getting though walls and won?t carry much further than a block with a clear path. The adsorption of energy depends on what it is going though as the electrons have preferential energy levels they like to adsorb. But the energy level has to equal or exceed the energy level for the jump to the next state. And photons close to the jump energy are very effective at being adsorbed. We fight that principle in readsorption in optical spectrometers all the time.

And oh, they use x-rays in airports because metal blocks x-rays very easily, thereby showing up as dark spots on a crt. Again it is the material that prefers to adsorb certain levels of energy as the electron levels can easily jump at x-ray energy levels. Of course it is a lot more complex than that. But each material can be opaque to frequencies it can easily adsorb.

Yes there are exceptions because it is a complex process. Neutrinos have a very small capture cross-section and get though almost everything, including this planet. It is often hard to make a blanket statement that covers every exception. But in general, higher frequencies are more frequently and easier blocked than lower ones.

Come on Patti, you see falsehoods where there are none. You search for things that are wrong, when they are right. I am an Engineer; I deal with the real world. The engineer?s motto is that theory is only good when there is a useful application. Science is my relaxation so I give scientists a break and appreciate their work.

Take care everyone, hang loose, I'm traveling this week: Quebec and Indiana...


Sparky
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Back to my previous post.
"I do not follow any Egyptian golden measure and I do ___ think there is such a thing as Pyramid power."

There should be a big NOT there.
Jim Wood

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
It seems that Elvis, Amaranth Rose and Pasti have left the building.

Amaranth, I checked my email and note there is no address for you so I can not send you the book. I can understand why you would not want your address bandied about so I have another suggestion for you and any one else that qualifies to get a free copy of the book for review. The publisher AuthorHouse.com, as part of my contract with them will send a free copy of the book for review to any qualified person. You and Pasti appear to be eductors so I am very confident they will be pleased to hear from you.
I would tell them myself except I do not know who you are.
Jim Wood
AurthorHouse.com
Surfing the Solar system, ISBN: 1-4208-4452-0

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
"It seems that Elvis, Amaranth Rose and Pasti have left the building."

Pasti has left it only temporarily. Sorry for this, and don't take it as rudeness. It is just that while the discussion progresses,the posts become longer and also the replies. And the academic year has started too. I will get to your posts as soon as I can, hopefully by tomorrow.

And I would be intersted in reading your book too. I will try to request a copy from your publisher. However, as much as I am trying to keep an open mind to your theory, I cannot promise you a good review. I will call them as I see them. So it is only fair to leave at your latitude if you want me to review your book. If yes, please let me know and I will contact you on your private email on your website. If no, there is no problem, we can still discuss your theory.

As for your last but one post:"I do not follow any Egyptian golden measure and I do _NOT_ think there is such a thing as Pyramid power."
I am glad you are not into pyramidology. This will make things a lot easier.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
No rush, I was trying to be "funny".

I have a CPA neighbor here in the desert that I gave a copy of my book. His comment was that "there are too many numbers and I think I found an error"; that must be a first! I think he can be forced to part with it. I have lots of copies in Seal Beach and enough around here I can borrow back for replacement later that if I have a place to mail it/them I can do it with no problem.

I would never expect any thing other than straight forward opinions. I am flattered to have you check it out. If you feel it is beneath critical review then trash it. You will find my approach foriegn to the customary but hopefully logical.

My normal web site is jjw004@pcmagic.net

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Sparky:?Good Grief Patti, have you never stepped outside of your lab? Light was one of the problem that lead Einstein to GR and then SR. The way it did not behave like matter is what bothered him.?

True, but the context in which Einstein considered light is completely different than what you state. And it does not mean that light did not obey Newton?s law. It?s really easy to see that it obeys it:
Newton?s law is m(d^2 x/dt^2) =a , With m=hf/c^2 (which btw is irrelevant here), c=constant (speed of light) it is straightforward to show that that the photons obey Newton?s law for a=0. So much for that.

Sparky: ?Splitting hairs again are you? I was referring to mass in the Newtonian sense i.e. rest mass is implied.?

Nope,I am not splitting hairs. And nope again, the rest mass is not implied in the Newtonian theory. Aside from the fact that the concept of rest mass is a specifically special relativistic concept, what is implied in the Newtonian theory is that the mass appearing in Newton?s law is a measure of the body?s inertia, not the mass of a body at rest.

Sparky:?I am unaware of this simulated mass of a photon.?

It is not a simulated mass, it is the real mass. Think of Einstein?s famous equation E=mc^2. The energy of a photon is E=hf, with f its frequency. Using these two equations you get exactly the expression I gave you. Don?t take it as rudeness, but this is now common knowledge in highschool, freshman year, etc. I can provide refs if you like.

Sparky:?Does it influence gravity; can it be counted as the dark mass we are looking for??

Yes, it influences gravity, and is influenced by gravity. As I said before, it was the gravitational deflection of light by a star that gave one confirmation of GR.

Sparky:?If not then it is not mass but a simulated mass to solve inertia problems. When a laser hits a mirror and the light reverses direction, can we detect Newton?s for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction??

Yes, we can detect this law. Pressure of light was discovered about two hundred years ago, and there is a nice toy you can buy for some 20 $ that uses a mirror windmill to illustrate the idea (mind you because of pure vacuum in the chamber it does the opposite thing, due to thermal effects). More recently, it is the idea of propelling a spacecraft with sails, under the influence of light pressure, I am sure you read about this.

Sparky: ?I have never been clear on SR on that. Does the gravity bend the light, or does the gravity bend time, which then bends the light? Chicken or egg thing I guess, but one solution does not require inertia for light.?

Well, gravity bends the light in SR. And in SR, time is not ?bent?. But in GR, the spacetime is bent (not time, not space but spacetime in the general case), and light goes ?straight?, though straight does not mean the same thing as a straight line. ?Straight? means the minimal distance between two spacetime points (or fancier, light moves on a geodesic) It is probably this latter context you referred to when you said that one does not require inertia for light, although this is not quite true.

Sparky:?The microwave is like a faraday cage with the energy being kept inside. From the website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage?

Sparky?.Wikipedia? Then let?s take Wikipedia. First search for microwave oven, then click the link for waveguide (this is the resonant cavity). Read about this issue, and then look at the Faraday cage explanation for the microwave oven. Let me know if you had a hearty laugh. I did.

Sparky:?The door of a microwave oven has a screen built into the glass of the window. From the perspective of microwaves (with wavelengths of millimeters) this screen finishes a faraday cage formed by the oven's metal housing. Visible light, with wavelengths around half a micrometer, passes easily between the wires.?

Remember resonant cavity for microwaves/waveguide? The phenomenon you talk about is related to the frequency of the waves/photons, and unless you have discovered a relationship between frequency/wavelength/ energy of the photons and their size, it has no bearing on the latter. Remember, when it comes to quantum mechanics, back of the envelope reasoning ?ain?t working no more?.

Sparky:?On the contrary Patti, I have used faraday cages and my instrument uses the principle to shield itself from magnetic radiation. Large doors into such cages take care to make sure there is a metal-to-metal contact between the doors and their frames so that they don?t leak. This is usually a mesh of copper wire to electrically seal the space between door and door jam. (BTW, 2% silicon steel makes a good material for Faraday cages, though it is brittle. I?m a metallurgist remember?)

I know what a Faraday cage is. But at a microwave, the Faraday cage is just a fortunate ?byproduct? of the waveguide design. The fundamental part of the microwave we are talking about is the waveguide, and its role is to generate certain models of the microwaves (i.e. certain configurations of standing microwaves in the oven). And the phenomenon involved is reflection.
As far as your instrument goes, if you have the money to spare, I would recommend mumetal if you want shielding for magnetic fields. It?s skin depth is the smallest for magnetic fields.

Sparky:?See the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage again. Visible light being smaller does get though the holes.?

Look again. It only tells you that visible light goes through the mesh. The size of the photon (smaller??) is your conjecture, and no matter how natural an association it might seem, it is incorrect.

Sparky:?No Patti, I used a 200kv electrical x-ray ?that principle in re-adsorption in optical spectrometers all the time. ?

And your point is??

Sparky:?And oh, they use x-rays in airports because metal blocks x-rays very easily thereby showing up as dark spots on a crt.?

It also blocks visible light. You are missing something very important.

Sparky:?Again it is the material that prefers to adsorb certain levels of energy as the electron levels can easily jump at x-ray energy levels. Of course it is a lot more complex than that. But each material can be opaque to frequencies it cannot easily adsorb.?

OK, we seem to be getting there. The reason why x-rays go through (luggage) and visible light doesn?t is this: visible light interacts strongly with materials, so strong, that in fact it might be reflected back. In other words, it has a very large scattering cross-section. In the case of x-rays, they are so energetic that not only can they go through many materials through which visible light cannot go, but it is also very poorly absorbed (compared to visible light). This means it has a small scattering and absorption cross-section. I will not debate this anymore, there are international tables giving you the cross-sections of photons through different materials as a function of their wavelength, and from IR up to x-rays (in frequency) the cross-section decreases. If you want I will look them up and give you a link.


Sparky:?Yes there are exceptions because it is a complex process. Neutrinos have a very small capture cross-section and get though almost everything, including this planet. It is often hard to make a blanket statement that covers every exception. But in general, higher frequencies are more frequently and easier blocked than lower ones.?

Let me point you first a contradiction emerging from your reasoning. According your reasoning, microwave photons are larger than visible photons (your mesh argument before). Now let?s return to your ELF, which is one argument in favor of the fact that low frequencies are easier blocked than high frequencies. Following your theory, then the size of ELF photons is much larger than the size of microwave photons while water is a ?mesh? much finer than the microwave mesh. Hence, an ELF photon should not be able to penetrate water according to your argument, while light should. See the inconsistency? So something is wrong with your explanation.
Furthermore, when you refer to higher and lower frequencies, do you refer to waves or photons? Because despite the popular version of de Broglie?s duality principle, matter behaves as a wave or as a particle not when you want it (you cannot actually use interchangeably wave with photons as you please), but when ?it? wants it. And I haven?t seen yet any absorption of a, say, ELF photon by a corresponding quantum system.

Sparky:?Come on Patti, you see falsehoods where there are none. You search for things that are wrong, when they are right.?

No, Sparky, I don?t. I just can see easier the wrong ones, when it comes to my expertise.

Sparky:?I am an Engineer; I deal with the real world.?

And I am dealing with Alice in Wonderland?

Sparky:?The engineer?s motto is that theory is only good when there is a useful application.?

I will actually forget you said that. For your sake. Nevertheless, your point is?

Sparky:?Science is my relaxation so I give scientists a break and appreciate their work.?

Sparky, I am glad that you enjoy science as a relaxation activity. But your point is? I am sorry, but I fail to see the relaxation and fulfillment you can have if you discuss science based on incorrect notions (note that I did not say incomplete, just incorrect). It would be just make believe.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Jim: ? I failed to inclulde in my earlier contentions an important item. It is long standing common knowledge that the orbital velocities of the planets deminish as you travel away from the sun. The suns gravity diminishes as you go out into areas that I contend the suns light travels faster as it expands. Keeping in mimd the argument that lights density is reduced as you get farther and farther from the sun the effect, I contend, is to provide less resistance to the travel of light permitting accelleration.?

I have one problem with this picture. Light can only be slowed down by gravity in this case, and the mass of the Sun is the largest mass in the solar system (I mean the total mass of the rest of the solar system is smaller by a factor of ~ one million compared to the mass of the Sun). So in your theory, there will always be a force acting on the photon gas (from the Sun) slowing down the photons. To this force you want to add an additional drag force due to the rest of the photons, as I understand it. Now, since this force of drag is still gravitational, and since the mass of the photons is basically insignificant compared to the mass of the Sun, you can simply ignore the drag froce due to the photons. The net result will be that photons will necessarily be slowed down, not accelerated. Unless I missed something from the picture you described.

Jim:? There are some suggestions here by the mean orbit of Jupiter in AU when divided bt the mean orbit of Earth in AU equaling 5.2. the square root of 5.2 is 2.28. If we divide the mean orbital velocity of the Earth at 18.5 by the mean orbital velocity of Jupiter at 8.11 we get 2.28, the same. This reflects the less gravitation effect the sun has at each position, and I think this difference is part of the explanation for the increased speed of light at Jupiter, or about 186,558.23 miles per second. Not being skilled in mathematics I will leave it to you to convert this suggestion into an equation.?

These calculations you do seem very much like the Kepler laws (ratio of the squared orbital periods is equal to the ratio of the major semiaxes of the orbits for two planets orbiting the sun. As for the gravitational force between the Sun (MS-mass of the Sun) and a mass m at a distance d from the Sun, it is given by Newton?s law: F=G*MS*m/d^2, but this does not explain the acceleration in your theory.
As form me translating this into equations, I am afraid I need more detail. The other equation was rather simple to infer, but in order to include gravity the way you want, I need more detailed info.

Jim:?Also I come up with the opposite of the gas anology for the increase speed of light because the gas is running out of energy and slowing down. ?

Yes, it appears that you did. I just wanted to say that there was a model of the photonic gas that has already been developed.

Jim:?The sun light from our sun has a built in speed limit but that limit is very high and would actually travel at the maximum speed of about 186,624 but for the suns gravity causing it to start slower and not reach maximum until it is farther from the effects of that gravity.?

OK, I think that I understand what you mean by that. It is though contrary to observations, in our solar system at least.

Jim:?The other part of your question as to what the starting speed of light is will be uncertain but my estimate is that a one radius of the suns distance it will be traveling at about 112,941.32 miles per second.?

I would guess that you assume that the speed of light is 185,624 on Earth, and then assuming some acceleration, you ?backtrack? to it?s value of 112,941.. when it leaves the Sun/is emitted.

Jim:?Testing is an important part of science and much has been spent in the development of testing tools. If I start to develope a test searhing for details that I assume to be meaning full and disreggard results that I think will not be relevant I will not learn much that is new. I will either confirm what I believe to be true or find that it is not true.?

Yep, pretty much. But isn?t this the whole purpose of what you did? To find an alternative/different explanation, still consistent with observations?

Jim:?There is a Web site that discuses the problem with the Hubble telescop lense. I do not know if the calculations are accurate or not but the contention is that the mirror was in fact accurate and produced perfect pictures of the planet Saturn but not perfect pictures of the more distant objects. They contend that the reason was the different focal length and the difference in the speed of light entering the scope. I do not want to start a different discussion. This may be junk but the corrections required to fix the scope may hold a clue to the difference in the speed of light coming to us from distant objects, maybe not. ?

I can see how it was a problem with the focusing, this is pretty elementary optics. But I cannot see what the speed of light had to do with this. Are you sure of that? Give me more info.

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Quote:
Originally posted by jjw004:
It seems that Elvis, Amaranth Rose and Pasti have left the building.

Amaranth, I checked my email and note there is no address for you so I can not send you the book. I can understand why you would not want your address bandied about so I have another suggestion for you and any one else that qualifies to get a free copy of the book for review. The publisher AuthorHouse.com, as part of my contract with them will send a free copy of the book for review to any qualified person. You and Pasti appear to be eductors so I am very confident they will be pleased to hear from you.
I would tell them myself except I do not know who you are.
Jim Wood
AurthorHouse.com
Surfing the Solar system, ISBN: 1-4208-4452-0
I am not an educator, though I have taught in colleges (Physics, Chemistry, Biology). I am currently reviewing books, Science Fiction and Science Fact, under the rubric of the "Moebius Bookshelf" (savor that concept for a moment if you like) and would be happy to add your book to my list of books to review. Check your private messages. I am using a pseudonym and keeping a low profile on account of a former spouse who vowed vengeance on me and I take that seriously. All will become clear when you check your mail.

Cheers,

"Amaranth Rose"

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Rose wrote:
"I am not an educator, though I have taught in colleges (Physics, Chemistry, Biology)."

Funny ... I thought that was the definition of the word.


DA Morgan
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi Amaranth:

I would be pleased to send you a copy. The book is as yet undiscovered so there is no money in the pot but I know that is not a criteria.
I checked emails at:
jjw004@pcmagic.net and n666_up@yahoo.com
a number of times and do not find your email.
Try again? Jim Wood

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Hi to Pasti:

Thank for your most recent post. It must seem to you that I have difficulty verbalizing my ideas. I can articulte my thoughts well enough when speaking but my mind runs at a higher frequency than my typeing and things get dropped.

I think every thing in nature has a compressabilty limit. Water is usually described as non-compressable. How much compression can a photon endure? Part of what I am saying relates to the density as well as the compressability of the photons leaving the suns surface. How about we give a photon of light at the sun a value of zero representing the most compact rendidion we can measure (for our sun). This photon(s) are spaced around the suns surface bursting to go out into space. At one mile out from the suns surface we give it an expanded value of 1 due to the fact that photons one mile out had to full up a greated volumn of space with the amount of "substance" that was originally at the suns surface. We continue this way for every mile from the sun as our photons travel out into space. This density, I contend, at the suns surface puts a limit on the ability of the photons to expand and by doing so puts a limit on the speed the sunlight will travel.

As I said my estimate of the probable maximum speed of our sunlight is 186,624 miles per second. If the density of light at the suns surface was not a limiting factor on the speed of light then, I contend, the light would blast off from the sun at that speed.

Think of shooting a bullet through 100 sheets of tissue paper. The effect will be to slow the bullet down. We will shoot another bullet of the same size from the same gun with the same powder charge and when we measure the speed of the bullet after it leaves the tissue and compare it to the unimpeded bullet speed we can see a difference in the projectiles speed. I contend that the density of the photons leaving the area of the sun provide a similar impediment to the speed of light because for sunlight to reach its maximum speed it must be free to expand and the opportunity for sun light to expand is very restricted by being packed into smaller volumns, which I like to think of as density levels.

The solar system rotates like a phonograph record but produces effects which are the opposite of such because instead of objects near the edge revolving faster they go slower. The lack of momentum is clearly due to the lessening effects of the suns gravity, which i contend, is the cause for the revolutions of the planets and other ojects continuiously. I learned that Newton did not conclude the cause for the planets revolutions but only why they were kept where are and that moving objects in a vacume when left alone will continue to go in a straight line. (I though when I started my own review he had worked that out too)

You mention that my comparisson of the orbits of earth and the orbital velocities was worked out By J. Kepler and that is totally correct. I do it my way which is much simpler- no matter.

While still dealing with sunlight we note that things like glass will not only bend light but can cause it to either slow or stay at one speed as Sparky pointed out with the prizm showing light would speed up upon leaving the prizm. I do not see a mystery there and there is no mystery when you consider that the light leaving the constraints of the prizm can expand and that is required for it to pick up speed again.

One last effort to explain myself, I need all the time I can get, as to why, if I claim the sun light speeds up on its way to the outer planets, say Uranus, why then do we not measure that light as faster here at Earth than the usual 186,281 miles per second. One thought is that the reason is that Earth travels in an orbit at 18.5 miles per second and Uranus at 4.22 and this speed difference directly equates to the measure of the suns gravitational effect on the planets in their respective positions. I know it is unscienticic to think of gravity itself as having density, Einstien I think likes to talk in terms of warped space but since I am no Einstien I will settle for density. For light to reach its maximum potential there must be NO imperiment and the presence of compressd photons produces a limit on the ability of light to expand.

Lastly on this. The light leaving Uranus on its way back to earth is traveling faster. This speed is a form of energy that is slightly different from the light here at earth becaus ithas been expanded to full up the difference of a sphere the volumn of Uranus orbit and the light at earth fulls a spherical volumn the size of earths orbit. As the light leaves Uranus for Saturn is is slightly compressed and MUST travel slower. As it gets to Jupiter it is compressed more and moves slower, on and on until it reaches us and we measure the returning light like always here at earth at 186,281 miles a second.

You made a typo. You quote my speed of light at earth at 185,624 and I know it is a typo. I do have a method that I used to determine the speed of light at each planet, or for that matter any place in the solar system as you go out. That is in the book and would be a little lengthy to try and explain it all here. I do have math of my own creation to support my contention.

Pasti, you provide me the conclusion that light can only be slowed down by gravity and I am not sure how to respond. You might just as well say that Einstien and about all knowledgeable academics agree the speed of light is fixed in which case I may as well go back to bed.

Every object we know of has an escape velocity if we wish to get a rocket or some such off of it. Another way is think about the surface gravity of objects wherein earth is 32.16 feet per second, per second and the sun is 900 or so feet per second. This does not directly answer you proposition and that is one of the reasons I like to use density. We should agree it is going to be a lot harder to escape from the suns surface than from earths. If "black holes" can retain all light from escaping(?) we know that some people think that lights travel can be restricted by gravity but we do not have a clear understanding of the photon's ability to perpetuate itself. I am aware of Newton's inverse square rule which describes the lessening of the light with distance from the source but I can not equate that to my views.

I am convinced that I am right about the speed of light and the side effects. Un fortunately I may not be up to the proof of same.

As Kepler and Newton my comment is that I am not about to try and re-invent the wheel. I use a completely differnt approach than Kepler that is not intended to further his conclusions but rather to seek different results which still relate to his discoveries, not contradictions. As for Newton, my ideal, I think there a things yet to be discovered that he could not contemplate because they were not yet discovered. One item is the satellites of Uranus which I contend could open a new area of gravity due to the manner we calculate the force. I do not want to rewrite the book here. If I thought this was nonsense I would be ashamed to post any thoughts on the subject here.

One last thought. We know that light can travel far enough not to be visible at all. We also can reason that the light we can not see due to the distance from the source doe not mean the light is not there but only that it is so faint (or lacking in density) that we do not see. So we aim our scope at it to compress (densify it) so we sn now see it again. Does that help?

Thank you again for your interest and questions.
Jim Wood

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5