Action at a Distance = Fiction

[webolife]

Hadn't seen that, or don't remember if I had.
Oahspe's "light needles" definitely have many of the same properties as centropic pressure vectors.
Their orientation with respect to the center, as well as other geometric aspects, their instantaneous effect across space, the understanding of heat as vector [needle] density approaching a center... who is this Oahspe?

[Sparky]

who is this Oahspe?

A 19th century hoax..

[Lloyd]

Yeah, Oahspe seems to make a lot of false claims. I used to think it was probably mostly correct information until about 1995, by which time I wasn't finding much verification for any of it. So since that time I got the impression that it's mostly false, but I don't care about how much of it is false. If any of it actually makes some sense, then I'm willing to investigate those parts. I guess you could say that Oahspe is something like the Book of Mormon, but a lot more interesting and much more humanitarian. It's a spiritualist book, but it has a lot of stuff that seems scientific, as well as historical and mythological. I eventually decided that its history and mythology seem to be false, but I was less sure about its astronomy and physics (not that I'm totally sure about the former). I began to regard catastrophists, like Cardona, as much more likely to be correct.

But I did read the theory of an Indian physicist, Joseph George, who has a slightly similar explanation of light. I discussed him a little here: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A ... eph+george. Here he has a video and text about his model of radio waves: http://physics-edu.org/radio_wave.htm. And here is a video of his model of light: http://physics-edu.org/mechanism_of_light.htm. The main models of each are shown toward the end of each video.

[webolife]

Hey Lloyd, my work computer doesn't handle videos well right now for some reason.
But I checked into a couple of your links. I don't believe light is an emission, so those typical explanations are predictable.
I do believe light is the result of electrons dropping to a lower energy state, and that this "entropy" is identified as centropy, a vector directed toward the center of the source, the atom nucleus. To my view [pun absolutely intended] this centropic vector is the light... not that the falling electron emits the quantum photon energy packet bullet of conventional theory which later arrives at my retina. The central [longitudinal] line of sight is accompanied by a pressure gradient, whose geometry is responsible for array of colors [theorized to be due to different wavelengths]. On the other hand, "frequency" is an aspect of light pressure that is directly due to the oscillation of the electrons in their particular configuration... this is why different elements have different spectral patterns. The configuration/geometry of the electronic "cloud" [although I see it as more "crystalline"] blocks/absorbs some frequencies/angles of reflection of the pressure gradient, but allows others to be reflected/projected/communicated to our eye. Of course, relating frequency to its inverse function, wavelength, is a mathematical convention... but I do not believe that therefore light physically is a wave, nor a particle. The same goes for radio... although radio is transmitted according to an oscillation frequency, which frequency is then reconverted by the receiver system to an electronic signal, this does not mean radio is physically a wave [the non-necessity of a medium of transferance evidences this], just that the regularly varying [oscillating] signal can be depicted/plotted as waves. Furthermore, the energy drop [entropy] is predominant, which is why continuous energy input is required to relay/project radio or any other kind of light signals.

[seasmith]

Re thread title, i don't know if aaad isorisn't a fiction because: 1. distance may be a faculty of intellect (in the vein of time), and 2. truth is even more elusive than a credible fiction'
however re previous post:

On the other hand, "frequency" is an aspect of light pressure that is directly due to the oscillation of the electrons in their particular configuration... this is why different elements have different spectral patterns. The configuration/geometry of the electronic "cloud" [although I see it as more "crystalline"] blocks/absorbs some frequencies/angles of reflection of the pressure gradient, but allows others to be reflected/projected/communicated to our eye. Of course, relating frequency to its inverse function, wavelength, is a mathematical convention... but I do not believe that therefore light physically is a wave, nor a particle.- webo

I resonate with the "pressure" (or its inverse- tensegrity), oscillation, and neither-particle-nor-wave arguments; but a "spectral pattern" is just frequency x energy,
and therefor can be and is modeled as a pulsation (longitudinal) and/or diffusion (transverse) 'wave' progression. [ That is why QM invariably resorts to "wave functions" to calculate "particle" actions and interactions. ]

~My question to tu is:
If there is Not some physical analog of wave motion, standing or otherwise, present in EM/light propagations between source and observant,
by what physical process is a 'beam' focussed ? Or phase modulated ?

[not a trick question, just a locally opaque receptor]

[webolife]

The answer is: camera obscura, a quintessential example being the human eye, w/ electrochemical brain cpu.
Or any other mode by which the direction of the light vector array is limited to an angular distribution about the central line of sight, such as the edge of an intervening object, the focal point of a lensing system, incl a mass of spherical raindrops or reflective ice crystals, a slit or double slit, a prism which diffracts the vectors angularly wrt to central line of sight in accordance to their individual energies [btw "energy" is still to this day a mathematical convention, without clear physical definition], I prefer force, or better: pressure as it describes action upon a surface, which is how light is perceived. It is this delimitation or organization/sorting of the array of vectors that results in the imaging of the object ['s light field], and our perception of various "colors" incl radio and x-ray, all of which are in fact all invisible/transparent without the aid of a resonant detector. It is simply described using optical ray diagrams, because imho light is in fact rays... vectors. There is no inherent "visible light" vs. "invisible light" except that our photoreceptors are limited in their sensitivity to certain pressure frequencies. Apart from this sorting of vectors [some of which is done at the atomic/molecular scale by various pigmenting agents], only a mixture of vectors would be seen, rendering the entire universe outside our eye foggy white. I refer elsewhere and often to this vector array about the central line of sight as the pressure gradient of light. Since it is "rays" that connect the peripheral "end" point [retina or detector] to the system [field] centroid, no c-rate is required... source and detector are connected in this view.
If in fact light is stuff being shot out like bullets or propagated outward as a spherical wavefront from a light "source", my theory is null and void. Fiction. Game over.

[webolife]

Lest anyone thought I was finally conceding the game, I don't believe light is being emitted in any way shape or form from the light source, but rather is a force directed toward the centroid of the lighting system, just as gravitation is a force [ie pressure] directed toward the system centroid. Both are manifestations of the same universal centropic field [along with electrical potential] and are geometrically equivalent, ie follow the same basic rules of relationship between points [ie objects] of the field; fractal, scalable, unified, and imho unmediated. Where does this universal pressure come from? From whatever is holding the universe together ; on the premise that the universe is finite this source of pressure must be greater than the universe in either extent or power, allpervasive, whether material or immaterial, invisible yet utterly measurable in its effects on matter in the universe, resonant with detectors of its various manifestations.

[Goldminer]

Lest anyone thought I was finally conceding the game, I don't believe light is being emitted in any way shape or form from the light source, but rather is a force directed toward the centroid of the lighting system, just as gravitation is a force [ie pressure] directed toward the system centroid. Both are manifestations of the same universal centropic field [along with electrical potential] and are geometrically equivalent, ie follow the same basic rules of relationship between points [ie objects] of the field; fractal, scalable, unified, and imho unmediated. Where does this universal pressure come from? From whatever is holding the universe together ; on the premise that the universe is finite this source of pressure must be greater than the universe in either extent or power, allpervasive, whether material or immaterial, invisible yet utterly measurable in its effects on matter in the universe, resonant with detectors of its various manifestations.

If you have not read Halton Arp's books, I suggest you make that project a priority. His impression of the size and age of the Universe is that it is infinite in both size and age. I put my money on his bet.

Observers, no matter how fast or from what direction, can have zero effect on any emission from anywhere. The observers condition or state of motion only affects the observation. Yes, the observation creates a shadow in the radiation sphere, which will affect other later observations, but that still does not affect the emission.

[webolife]

You would be absolutely correct if there was such a thing as a light emission!
But what is being emitted?

"Smallest" quantum bullets of light can be and are "split" at beamsplitters, producing separate quanta which are able to be instantaneously "entangled." What sense is left of photon quanta?

Light wavefronts at a beamsplitter do not interfere in a Youngian way... ie interacting waves interfering or reinforcing to produce a moire pattern. There is no such pattern, the color vectors are easily seen to be straight lines through the slit and each an exact image of the lamp [light field] producing the light effect. Removing the beamsplitter, unlike what Young thought, does not remove the redundant spectral pattern, which is observable both with a single slit, and with the beamsplitter alone, or at a single edge, or through a pinhole. The imaging pattern shadowed by even the slightest wire support, as in the case of a monfilament lamp, where wave theory would have it utterly washed out by the supposedly encompassing wavefronts. Wave theory does not stand up to even very simple tests.

So what do you imagine is being emitted from the light source?

I see light as a product of the field geometry detected by and measureable as the vectoral pressure on a resonant receptor surface resulting from the centropic motion of electrons toward the system centroid under universal pressure.

[Goldminer]

You would be absolutely correct if there was such a thing as a light emission!
But what is being emitted?

Well, there is such a thing as nocturnal emission . . .

"Smallest" quantum bullets of light can be and are "split" at beamsplitters, producing separate quanta which are able to be instantaneously "entangled." What sense is left of photon quanta?

Beats me, I think photons are an artifact in the first place.

Light wavefronts at a beamsplitter do not interfere in a Youngian way... ie interacting waves interfering or reinforcing to produce a moire pattern. There is no such pattern, the color vectors are easily seen to be straight lines through the slit and each an exact image of the lamp [light field] producing the light effect. Removing the beamsplitter, unlike what Young thought, does not remove the redundant spectral pattern, which is observable both with a single slit, and with the beamsplitter alone, or at a single edge, or through a pinhole. The imaging pattern shadowed by even the slightest wire support, as in the case of a monfilament lamp, where wave theory would have it utterly washed out by the supposedly encompassing wavefronts. Wave theory does not stand up to even very simple tests.

Patterns are caused by interacting waves, where do you get the idea that waves wash it out. Perhaps you have been playing on the beach, or dwelling in meditation there?

So what do you imagine is being emitted from the light source?

Light waves.

I see light as a product of the field geometry detected by and measureable as the vectoral pressure on a resonant receptor surface resulting from the centropic motion of electrons toward the system centroid under universal pressure.

I know that is what you think. Do you have a rubber stamp with the opinion engraved?

[Michael V]

webolife,

I see light as a product of the field geometry detected by and measurable as the vectorial pressure on a resonant receptor surface resulting from the centropic motion of electrons toward the system centroid under universal pressure.

You are effectively suggesting that objects are "connected" to other objects, even over cast cosmic distances, by rods or Newton's cradles, with your centropic field acting as the rod mechanism. An object moves and displaces the field in a particular (vectorial) direction and intercepting objects see/feel the push of the displaced field.

I have a question for you: Do you really think that it is a reasonable proposition that energy/action may be transmitted/conveyed between spatially separated locations?

Michael

[Michael V]

Goldminer,

So what do you imagine is being emitted from the light source?

Light waves.

I have some questions for you too. Your initial reaction might be to reject these questions as frivilous, but I urge you to consider them very carefully.

Do you really think that it is a reasonable proposition that energy/action may be transmitted/conveyed between spatially separated locations?

What is a wave?

By what process/mechanism do "waves" "interfere"?


Michael

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

So what do you imagine is being emitted from the light source?

Light waves.

I have some questions for you too. Your initial reaction might be to reject these questions as frivilous, but I urge you to consider them very carefully.

Do you really think that it is a reasonable proposition that energy/action may be transmitted/conveyed between spatially separated locations?

Yes. Particles can merely vibrate in place, and still transmit energy. There is no need for particles to actually move from place to place. IMHO the aether has demonstrated its ability to "vibrate" in many dimensions without displaying any ability to act as wind. The "electromagnetism" of radiation is only found when it is detected. In between the release of radiation and its reception is nothing but vibration of the aether, IMHO. So, yes the proposition is reasonable and logical.

What is a wave?

By what process/mechanism do "waves" "interfere"?


Michael

Why don't you investigate Ray Tomes's site. He is an expert on the subject.

[sjw40364]

Polarization of the anther, transmission of force with but a slight shift in axis, no need for a particle to move anywhere to transmit the force of its vibration. The aether is a dielectric that only responds to the force generated when a conductor moves in a magnetic field.

You are of course assuming that the force generated from moving charges in a magnetic field "electric current" is the same force that comprises mass, I.e. energy. A charge has mass whether it moves or not, current only exist when particles themselves move. There is no correlation between the two, yet are considered the same.

[Michael V]

sjw,

...current only exist when particles themselves move.

The concept that a "current" is in any way whatsoever anything at all to do with travelling charges, is utter nonsense. There is absolutely no proof or indication of any sort that proves or in any way implies that an "electric current" is caused by or in any way due to the travel of "charged" particles.

That particles are always and constantly in motion is not the same thing as, and should not be confused with, travel. Neither a beam or stream of electrons nor protons nor ions in any way constitutes the basis of "current", "voltage" or "electricity".

Off-thread, but important to understand and accept.


Michael