# The nature of light

#### scott_sieger

I am in the process of writing a book and below is an extract that
may be considered as contraversial. I would love it if some one could find fault with my approach as I wouldn't want to publish faulty logic.

The nature of light

As discussed earlier in this book, everything is in a constantly evolving relationship with everything else. So let’s take as an example a light globe and a nearby wall.

The globe is unlit and the wall is also unlit. The globe is already in a relationship with the wall and so is the wall with the globe. The globe and the wall are both vibrating lightly and therefore emitting and we shall in this instance call this emission light.

The globe even whilst unlit is emitting light but it is too dim to see or should I say it lacks enough intensity to be seen.

The closer you move the globe to the wall the greater the relationship the further away the weaker the relationship. Both are attracted to each other by their specific gravities.

Ok, so we turn on the light. The globe quickly increases it’s light emission to the point that over a certain time it’s emissions become visible. At he same time the wall shows an increase also in reflecting intensity and so the ongoing relationship with the wall continues.

However the growth of intensity of the light on the wall is slightly slower than that of the globe so there appears to be a slight delay giving the false impression that the light has travelled to the wall.

The question that is obvious about this relationship is; Why is there an apparent time delay in the growth of intensity of light at the reflector (the Wall)? The answer is quite simple. The walls emissions have to change and to change takes time. The surface has to change so that it emits accordingly the light that it is stimulated to emit.

The light from the globe has an impact on the wall not just in the sense of visibility but also temperature and therefore the walls vibratory rate. If the wall was vibrating the same as the globe therefore emitting the same then it would not reflect the globes light as it would be as bright as the globe.

The surface of the wall has to achieve a vibratory rate and temperature appropriate to reflect light emissions of the globe. The vibratory rate of the surface determines the colour or in old terms the lights frequency that it emits.

The vibratory rate of the wall’s surface is determined by it’s crystalline structure. The more aligned the more reflective and the more it can vibrate in sympathy with the gravitation al affect it is experiencing. A mirror for instance has a very aligned crystalline structure allowing for the greater reflective-ness or a greater sympathy response. The surface is much smoother the crystalline structure aligned and so smooth that a good mirror reflects all vibrations.

So when you see reflected light what are you actually seeing?

You are seeing the emissions of the surface which is vibrating in sympathy the gravitational vibrations emanating from the source.

Let’s get technical.

So, what is light?

Light is an emission.

Light could be considered as inverse gravity caused by a distortion in the space surrounding it source due to it’s vibrational rate.

When the source moves (vibrates) then so to does space in a form like hydraulics. This hydraulic effect is called inverse gravity. If one thinks of the space between the wall and the globe as being solid then any vibratory change within the globe is immediately experienced at the wall. So in this case the space between is vibrating at the same rate as the globe so that if you place something before the wall it to is lit up but more quickly than the wall because the intensity of the inverse gravity (light or vibration) is greater.

The important point is that the light does not travel to the wall but is already there just too dim to see. The speed that we measure is not
the speed TO the wall but the speed AT the wall.

Now that we have discovered our error in observation let’s have a look at the formula that is causing all the strife E=MC^2

C = light speed but as we have proven C should really be I, I for intensity, so the formula should read E=M I ^2

Now the formula makes full sense. The ^2 is describing the simultaneous and reflective nature of gravity and can be applied everywhere in the universe with out the worry of variations in the speed of light. Now, we only have variations in the intensity. And this is by far more appropriate than suggesting time exists when it doesn’t..........

Related General Physics Workshop News on Phys.org

"The nature of light"

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving