# Simon's theory of light

1. Feb 2, 2004

### simon

Light does have a mass, it has to. Even at that mass the speed which it is claimed to have, one photon would put a hole right through the earth, let alone the trillions that hit us every second. To accelerate at the supposed speed, would require phenominal energy, more like the amount of enrgy of the sun rather than what you would find in a 1.5 volt battery.
The theory of light is a ludicrous dinosaur created by primitive people (not much different than today) and has more flaws in it than the windows operating system. It basically bi passes common sense ideas as you have suggested as "too hard, lets get to that later" and filled in all the easy things first with half baked theories.
The speed of light is not constant, it only appears to stay the same speed because of how it actually transfers energy. Travelling faster than light speed is relative childs play.
the mandlebrot equation is an example of something continuing to get smaller into infinity.

Last edited: Feb 2, 2004
2. Feb 2, 2004

### Stingray

???

Ok, then... There's nothing inconsistent about light. The point is that our common sense notions of how things work cannot be extrapolated very far. Mathematically precise notions of how everything works do exist though.

Light has a very definite speed in a vacuum that can be measured in many different ways. Its simply a fact of life that there is a maximum speed in the universe. The geometrical structure of spacetime is a consequence of this. If you take the existence of spacetime in its known form as fundamental, then you automatically have a maximum speed built into a self-consistent framework irregardless of the existing dynamical laws (e.g. analogs of Newton's laws). Spacetime is often claimed to be counterintuitive, but its really a very beautiful idea once you get used to it.

I think that your problem is in accepting that things other than matter "exist." Light is perfectly well-defined without resorting to the photon picture. I think it is actually better not to think of photons until you understand the classical picture. There are no particles in classical physics (just fields), and photons are quantum mechanical particles. Particles in quantum mechancis don't behave much like anything in everyday experience, so the name is perhaps a little unfortunate.

3. Feb 2, 2004

### FUNKER

i am only responding to Warrens comment earlier, "Nothing has ever been observed going faster than light, and no one expects that we ever will."
Sure this is common belief but stop hating on other people's views.
Just remember something is only impossible to someone does it.
peace

4. Feb 2, 2004

### simon

http://physicsweb.org/article/news/4/7/8/1

Like i said, just primitive science. Anyone can quote from a text book as if it is some kind of infallible bible.This is not the only incidence of going over the speed limit.

Last edited: Feb 2, 2004
5. Feb 2, 2004

### Stingray

As your article states up front, information is still not transferred faster than c. The notion of speed is not very well defined for waves. There are several ways to do it. This experiment got one of these defintions to exceed c. Neat, but not amazing. Its not a very good definition of speed if you can't actually use that speed to do anything.

If you go to Wang's webpage, you'll see that the effect was even predicted beforehand using standard physics. These results are interesting, but they get far too much press coverage.

6. Feb 2, 2004

### simon

sounds like double dutch to me. When science is barely out of the primeval slum, it is already trying to say it knows everything. It basically makes up theories to comply with what it sees, yet never stops to think is what i am seeing really what i think it is.
Take a tube full of marbles, place a device at one end to measure the impact and how long it takes from the time you push a marble at one end, until the impact is felt at the other end. Have a gap between all the marbles, that is virtually non existent, then measure how much of a delay between when you push the first marble to when the impact is felt at the other end of the tube. If you didnt know that the tube was full of marbles then it would look like the marble had traveled at 300,000 kps.
this is where science fowled up big time, because rather than look at what had happend and said to themselves, "if light did travel that fast, then surely it would cause enormous impact, lets inspect the experiment to see if it could be wrong" instead didnt bother, and took it for granted that the experiment was all the thought it was, and as a result made up laws to comply with what they had observed. Didnt stop to think that maybe in between the source and the destination, there is matter (dark matter) and so rather than light propogating from a to b that there is something in between, that allows an instant connection. Therefore if you were to be travelling with a light towards, the destination, then it would cause what is between to collapse making it appear as if light always travelled at the same speed.
Like I said, just primitive science, yet to fill in all the gaps.

Last edited by a moderator: Feb 2, 2004
7. Feb 2, 2004

### Integral

Staff Emeritus
Are you sure? I assume that you have done this experiment and verified the results? No...? Then you are guessing, that is not a valid argument for anything. You are making 2 nonphysical assumptions,

and unstated and but inherent in your argument is infinite rigidity of the marbles. Given the non physical assumptions one can only assume that any conclusion will also be nonphysical. So your example is meaningless in this universe.

The remainder of you post is pretty much gibberish, it shows no true knowledge of the history of the constancy of speed of light or as it was called in the last half of the 19th century "Maxwell's Conundrum". I would think before you arrive at such strongly held believes you would do a bit of research to back them up.

8. Feb 2, 2004

### simon

If you want to stay in the stone age then thats up to you. Like most primitive minds you fear anything new. Calling something giberih just goes to show your lack of insight and comprehension abilites, and general lack of argument. The primitive mind hates its little world being disturbed, it never wanted the world to be round, or man to fly and still it hasnt changed.
If you cant comprhend somethinng as simple as a set of marbles, exactly the same concept as the paperweights which silver balls on strings, then you have got a real problem. It is merely to point out an alternative that could create the same result as an experiment that concludes great speed, not as a conclusion itself, it is to show that although an experiment may seem apparent, that there could be an alternate experiment. Sorry if I havent used a tonne of jargon by I grew out of that prententious nonsense in the 80's.

Last edited: Feb 2, 2004
9. Feb 2, 2004

### simon

and where exactly did all the people that came up with all the original ideas centuries ago "do their research". Never heard of thinking, never heard of a brain, obviously a school kid, if so dont waste any more time please with silly things you obviously made up without thinking.

10. Feb 2, 2004

### chroot

Staff Emeritus
You have no idea what you're actually talking about. Look up the difference between "group" and "phase" velocities, and come back when you're done.

- Warren

11. Feb 2, 2004

### simon

Why is it that you want to try to prove that I am wrong? I thought science was all about exploring new ideas, not trying to destroy them. Anyone can find an oposing opinion, thats easy; its not a ufo its a weather balloon, its a flying squirrel. Do you have some sentimental atachment to the theory of light, belong to some club for save the light theory.
I find it so strange, that science that goes on and on about it exploring new frontiers, that whenever something new comes along,the first instinct is to try to destroy it, quite bizzare!
Why not try something different, break the mould, and try to use what you have learned to prove that my idea is correct, you never know you may become world famous.
Just imagine it is like a jigsaw puzzle, I say it is a zebra, but you say it is an tiger. You wont know until you actualy put my puzzle together what it really looks like. but holding up your puzzle that is already finished and saying, here see the stripes, wont prove mine isnt a zegra, only that yours is a tiger.

Last edited: Feb 2, 2004
12. Feb 3, 2004

### simon

If i were to arrive in a space ship and then presented the real nature of light, and show the primitive caveman concept for the mindlessly idiotic piece of garbage that it is with no graounding in reality, and holes all over the place, that is about as logically constructed as a simpsons cartoon, I would have scientists coming out of the woodwork all aggreing with me, and going on about how they instantly get it.
This is why I post at places like this, so that when the reality arrives, that I will have written proof to show scientists as the bumbling idiots they really are that couldnt see the truth when it was staring them in the face, and as easy so easy to understand that a chimpanzee could have understood. Talk about gullible, its like shooting fish in a barrel, no one would believe me if I didnt have proof, so thanks for the material cave dwellers, ten out of ten, most hysterical.

13. Feb 3, 2004

### 8LPF16

Simon,

Perhaps you should lower the stairs from your spaceship and enlighten us with your theory on light. The title of your post says "Simon's Theory of Light", but only questions have come forth. Questioning things is fine, but you must be willing to listen in order to make advancements in understanding.

I find myself in the middle of you, and the other posters of this thread. I see some holes in our current understanding of light, but I accept that most of what is taught is correct. If "they" are bumbling idiots, then we all are. There are constants in the Universe, and the speed of light is one of them. I would like to get opposing views on these questions:

1. What is the energy, frequency, or wavlength of a photon. (a photon that is currently in the "white light" phase of possibilities)

2. Would the mass of a "white light" photon be less than that of a "red light" photon? (or is it correct to assume that mass increases in photons as the wavelength increases from 386nm to 772nm)

LPF

14. Feb 3, 2004

### Staff: Mentor

How many times do I have to debunk this flawed view of science? I really need to put it in my sig.

Once more though: there is a huge difference between saying something is "impossible" from a scientific standpoint and from a technological standpoint. Technology is ever changing of course. What is technically impossible today may well be possible tomorrow. But the laws of the universe do not change, only the level of our understanding of them - and on this matter, our understanding of those laws is pretty good.

In order for it to be possible to travel flt in a Newtonian sense, virtually all of what we think we know about physics would need to be horribly, horribly wrong.

For simon, only one thing: attitude. It'll need to change. Not just so you can stay on this board, but so you can learn a little.

15. Feb 3, 2004

### AWolf

Not necessarily, maybe just understood to a greater degree than is currently the case.

Spacetime is just that, an idea.

To be able to master something, you must first understand it. The last time I looked, nobody had an explanation as to why the speed of light is constant.

It is because it is - not really an answer.

Once we understand why there is a 'natural' maximum speed in the universe, we will understand the rules governing it, and possibly create our own 'unnatural' maximum speed - without invalidating our current understanding of physics, just providing a better explanation of what we think we already know.

16. Feb 4, 2004

### FZ+

It is, because the postulate of light as an universal constant currently is the anchor that holds together the whole of our theories on the macroscopic universe, and all signs suggest that such things are a fundamental law. Rather like asking why 1+1=2. Predictions based on this postulate have been proven time and again, and there has been no reason thus far to doubt this postulate. Additionally, no plausible and consistent alternative have been suggested.

Certainly, that may change, but not all things in physics are reducible.

17. Feb 4, 2004

### AWolf

I don't dispute the fact that currently it is the anchor that holds all theories together.

My argument is that if it is a universal law, then what is the law ?

All I want to know is why

Why does light travel at a constant velocity ?
Why is the velocity of light the same velocity as gravity and electromagnetism ?

Why do particles that would appear to have no photonic components be so dependant on the speed of light ?

Why is 186,000 miles per second so fundemental to theoretical physics ?

WHY ?

18. Feb 4, 2004

### FZ+

Because Einstein regarded c as an universal measuring stick. One more extreme interpretation is that c is the only speed, and that all other speeds are simply c in different directions in spacetime.

19. Feb 4, 2004

### AWolf

I completely agree with Einstein, his interpretation of C as being the Universal constant is, in my view, absolutely spot on.

I also agree with this statement.
Two out of Two.

I don't dispute the value or its universal consistancy.

From the deepest, coldest parts of our universe to the keys I'm pressing on my keyboard, there is a fundemental reason why the speed of light is what it is.
Whatever exists in those regions of space also exists under my finger tips.

My question is not to dispute the validity of C, but to seek an understanding as to why it is consistant.