Why does space appear black?

[Antone]

I disagree with your holographic processing supposition.
It is simply not true that the retinae receive the image information in holographic form.

I think you need to carefully reread what I wrote, as that is the exact opposite of what I wrote. I specifically wrote that the eye receives the image (i.e. non-holographic aspect) and the brain converts that image into holographic data which it uses to make us "see" the image in 3-D.

The brain is indeed amazing in all respects of the word, but cannot be capable of the holographic processing you are suggesting.

Why not?
The mind functions by sending various electrical impulses coursing through the brain. These "waves" have every reason to colide with one another--causing the interference patterns that are necessary for holographic-like phenomena to occur. So it seems to me that it should be predictable that the brain should be holographic, even without the overwhelming body of evidence that exists that it is.

Here is another example: many things point to the fact that knowledge (and other mental activities) frequently do not appear to be localized to specific parts of the brain. For example, if the part of the brain that performed those functions is damaged, other parts of the brain can take over and perform the same activity. Also, it is not uncommon for a particular ability to be impaired but not destroyed.

I mentioned how a hologram produced with half of the holofilm still produces the whole image--only fuzzier. Well, its as if the brain is still capable of performing the cognitive function, only the ability isn't as sharp as it once was. Both of these characteristics suggest that the brain is holographic-like in nature.

Other characteristics of the mind that suggest a holographic-like nature:

Vastness of Memory: a holofilm is capable of capturing a great many images on a single peice of film. This is done in two ways. 1. just as a peice of film can be double exposed to capture multiple images, so too a holofilm can capture many images. But if you change the angle of the lasers very slightly, you can capture independent images that have their own integrity and aren't double exposed. Thus, by changing the "starting point" of the waves that the brain produces, it can capture numerous independent mental memories--in much the same fashion.

Ability to recall and forget: When a peice of holofilm is held in a laser beam and tilted back and forth, the various images that have been recorded can be recalled. Remembering is like shining the light at the right angle, forgetting is like not being able to find the right angle.

Associative Memory: It is oftent the case that various memories are tied together in a person's mind. So, for instance, when you drink a particular flavored tea, it may make you think of a friend who you shared it with. This goes back to my first point, for it is analogous to the holofilm being double exposed.

Our ability to recognize complex objects, like a face: There are a number of holographic techniques that are being used to recognize objects. Recognition holography is one. Using this technique, when a similar but different object is bathed in the laser light and passed through the holofilm, a bright point of light will appear where the object is different from the original. Similarly, interference holograph views an object through the holofilm. This is a bit like holding two drafts of the same letter together in front of a bright light. It is very easy doing this to observe where the letters are the same and where they are different. A similar mental technique could explain the mind's ability to recognize what is the same and what is different about something that has changed slightly.

There are other things as well, but this is enough to give you the idea.

You betrayed your true reliance on light rays by using the term "light path".

How so?
A wave also travels a path, does it not? It is a wider path, but it is still a path.

[webolife]

OK, I must apologize for my apparent misunderstanding of your original premise, because I concur with almost everything you answered here... I considered trying to explain what I thought you originally meant, but why waste the time and space...
You still have not justified your image-production mechanism... simply saying interference produces images doesn't make it so. How is a set of millions of different randomly oriented wavefronts of varying radii encountering our eye able to be processed to form an image of anything? I read your original statement to connote that "somehow the brain does it..." hence my objection. I hope the forum moderators understand the importance of this question to this thread, as well as to any t.o.e., including EU.

[klypp]

Interference of waves through a double slit can be shown to be not happening, but nonetheless gives no proper theory for image formation.

Thomas Young performed his double slit experiment back in 1802. Many of us consider his interpretation of this experiment to be one of the great brilliancies in science! But now, 200 years later, you come around saying there's something wrong there!?
Maybe I should inform you that a lot has happened in our world while you've been away retesting the double-slit. A vast amount of new technology has been developed based on this wave theory of light. The news that you finally solved the puzzle was actually brought to me by radio communication and fibre optics. If I wanted to, I could store your theoretical findings on a CD or DVD using laser technology. It's all about light waves, and there's much, much, much more...
And now you try to tell me that all this technology cannot work because there is no waves????
Return to your study! Only this time bring a modern interferometer! They come in a great number of different types, but I'm sure you'll find them easier to use and much more accurate than the old double slit/oil lamp equipment!

About "image formation":

How is a set of millions of different randomly oriented wavefronts of varying radii encountering our eye able to be processed to form an image of anything?

While we don't know every detail of how the eye functions, we've learned a lot from a technology called photography. There is probably some million sites on the net explaining how it works, so I won't go into too many details now. Just a few things. The lens will scatter off most of your "randomly oriented wavefronts", either by reflecting them or sending them in directions that won't affect the light sensors. I mention this because it's often forgotten when we describe lens functions. Still there will be light coming through that just blurs the image. The brain presents a sharp image by continually updating it. A photographer has to pick the right lens and the right distance to the object to at least get this part of the image sharp. It is also worth mentioning that both your eyes and any digital camera will react to only three wavelengths of light: red, green and blue.
So this is basically how we are able to find a way through the vast ocean of light surrounding us. Most of it is simply ignored!

[Antone]

You still have not justified your image-production mechanism... simply saying interference produces images doesn't make it so. How is a set of millions of different randomly oriented wavefronts of varying radii encountering our eye able to be processed to form an image of anything?

Actually, I would say that interference DOES NOT produce images. Light that is coming to a camera, for instance, has colided with numberous other waves of light. These "colisions" have set up various interference patterns in the wave. Although a wave can be understood as a single thing, it is spread out in space--but it is a single thing in the sense that every [spatial part] of it contains the whole.

The camera produces the image by using the lens to focus the light to a singularity (or a single point). At this point the same data that was spread throughout the whole has now been condensed to a single spatial point. The effect of this process is that it necessarily removes the interference pattern. Thus, the wave that passes out the other side of the lens is a pure and unadulterated wave. Since it is the interference of other waves that gives the wave its holistic quality, this newly born wave is non-holistic in nature. So each part of the wave contains a different part of the image.

If we were to shine another light across this light, it would again create an interference pattern and the wave would be incapable of creating an "image" on the film.

This, of course, still does not fully justify my image-production mechanism... but that's true of everything in nature, I think. If you look closely enough, there will always be a point where it becomes impossible to answer the "why" of a question, and it will become necessary to accept that that is simply the way it is--because that is what we observe. As we learn to observe more carefully, we can derive viable answers for finer and finer questions. But this only allows us to think up finer questions, so the final why will always be out of our reach.

I would so so far as to suggest that all of nature has a dual aspect that is similar to what I've been discussing. For an indepth discussion of that, check out my posts on the following thread:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... ?f=9&t=596

To summarize briefly, the holographic and non-holographic aspects of light are a bit like the [abstract] and [enumerated] aspects of a set. For instance, consider the set of planets in our solar system. Back when I was in school, the abstract set looked like this:
{x:x is a planet around the sun}
while the enumeration set looked something like this:
{Mercury, Mars, Earth, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, Pluto}
Notice that the abstraction set contains but a single element, while the enumeration set contains nine elements.

By the way, I realize that this isn't how traditional set theory understands these sets--but this way of understanding things is based on my own theory of sets.

We can think of these two sets as being different ways of looking at the same thing, but the sets themselves are definitely not the same thing at all--for the enumeration set can change without causing the single element in the abstraction set to change. This is evidence by the fact that in today's schools, [Pluto] is no longer considered a planet. Thus, the elements in the enumeration set have changed, while the single element in the abstraction set has not. Since one can change while the other doesn't and they still represent the same thing, there is a sense in whichg both sets cannot possibly refer to the same set. And yet there is a distinct sense in which they do refer to the same thing.

It's much the same with the holistic and non-holistic aspects of light. In a sense, they are just different aspects of the same thing--and yet there is another sense in which they are definitely not the same at all.

[Antone]

How is a set of millions of different randomly oriented wavefronts of varying radii encountering our eye able to be processed to form an image of anything?[/color]

Rereading this, it occurs to me that you may not be aware of how waves act when they encounter other waves. A wave has the ability to pass through a wave an come out on the other side unchanged. In other words, the data that the wave contains is not destroyed by interference with the other wave.

Now, each wave of light is associated with a vector. When two waves intersect, they both take on some of the information of the other wave. This is the interference pattern. I suspect that the reason a wave can come out on the other side unchanged is because the interference pattern causes the data that the wave contains to become holistic. But the information that is associated with the vector still has priority, so to speak. The information that it contains is the image associated with the vector, but its passage through over wave fronts causes these "harmonic vibrations" so to speak--which bring out the holistic attribute.

Thus, it is not "millions of different randomly oriented wavefronts of varying radii" that cary the data that is the image. It is the single wave that has the vector that is perfectly aligned with the lens that carrys the data that creates the image. Each wave (that is associated with a different vector) has its own image that it carries. The holographic aspect is set up when these two wavefronts cross paths. The images can't be maintained in the respective waves, because they interfer with one another. But because the interference causes the data that each wave contains to become holistic (the whole in every part) that data can be reconstituded at any point where the light is brough to a singularity--or single point. The data that is retreived depends entirely on the orientation of the lens--just as different images can be retrieved from a holofilm by shining the laser at different angles. Its a different application of the exact same principle, I think.

[webolife]

Antone said:
"Since it is the interference of other waves that gives the wave its holistic quality, this newly born wave is non-holistic in nature. So each part of the wave contains a different part of the image."
How is this possible? How can one part of a wavefront contain a part of an image while another part contains some other part of the image? How is the imagery imprinted thus on the wavefront, then sorted out from all the other millions of wavefronts and their image parts supposedly interfering with each other. How does focusing change all this randomly interacting data into coherent imagery? If you try to draw my a ray diagram to explain it, I'll surely understand.

Antone: "If we were to shine another light across this light, it would again create an interference pattern and the wave would be incapable of creating an "image" on the film."
Yet this happens all the time in photographic processing, and in simple eyesight!
Antone: "This, of course, still does not fully justify my image-production mechanism... but that's true of everything in nature, I think. If you look closely enough, there will always be a point where it becomes impossible to answer the "why" of a question, and it will become necessary to accept that that is simply the way it is--because that is what we observe. As we learn to observe more carefully, we can derive viable answers for finer and finer questions. But this only allows us to think up finer questions, so the final why will always be out of our reach."
But my point is that optical ray diagrams very simply and comprehensibly explain imaging.

Klypp said:
"Maybe I should inform you that a lot has happened in our world while you've been away retesting the double-slit. A vast amount of new technology has been developed based on this wave theory of light. The news that you finally solved the puzzle was actually brought to me by radio communication and fibre optics. If I wanted to, I could store your theoretical findings on a CD or DVD using laser technology. It's all about light waves, and there's much, much, much more..."
Of course not...stuff works regardless of whether we understand it correctly or completely misunderstand it! If every EU-er suddenly departed the land of the living, the universe would not stop existing just because only bigbangers were left to explain it!

Klypp: "And now you try to tell me that all this technology cannot work because there is no waves????"
How many of those technological advances actually require light to even move across space? And can you prove it? I'll gladly take up this debate with you if you think you can!
Klypp: "Return to your study! Only this time bring a modern interferometer! They come in a great number of different types, but I'm sure you'll find them easier to use and much more accurate than the old double slit/oil lamp equipment!"
I have been studying this since 1980, demonstrating and "retesting" Young's hypothesis with my science students for years! I'm quite familiar with modern interferometry, and with relativity-based heisenbergian uncertainties regarding wave-particle duality and the electronic probability functions of quantum mechanics. Interferometers are only called that because of the basic so-called "diffraction" slit setup, and because of the basic assumption that Young was correct about his accoustic model for light waves, but I can easily show him to have been incorrect in his theory. The basic double-slit apparatus is just fine, as well as any pinhole device... no high tech equipment is necessary.

About "image formation":
webolife: "How is a set of millions of different randomly oriented wavefronts of varying radii encountering our eye able to be processed to form an image of anything?
Klypp: "While we don't know every detail of how the eye functions, we've learned a lot from a technology called photography. There is probably some million sites on the net explaining how it works, so I won't go into too many details now. Just a few things. The lens will scatter off most of your "randomly oriented wavefronts", either by reflecting them or sending them in directions that won't affect the light sensors. I mention this because it's often forgotten when we describe lens functions. Still there will be light coming through that just blurs the image.
I have done a good deal of photography and film developing... have you? Certainly any surface will respond to a light stimulus by reflecting some, absorbing some, and transmitting some of that stimulus. So you have light coming through the lens "that just blurs the image"... what image??? The lens' focusing ability based on its very specific shape and resulting refractive property produces the image!

Klypp: "The brain presents a sharp image by continually updating it. A photographer has to pick the right lens and the right distance to the object to at least get this part of the image sharp. It is also worth mentioning that both your eyes and any digital camera will react to only three wavelengths of light: red, green and blue.
So this is basically how we are able to find a way through the vast ocean of light surrounding us. Most of it is simply ignored!"
By whom? Simple optical ray diagrams explain this all with no need for waves, including, by the way, the nature of primary colors

[webolife]

Antone said: "A wave has the ability to pass through a wave an come out on the other side unchanged. In other words, the data that the wave contains is not destroyed by interference with the other wave.
Now, each wave of light is associated with a vector. When two waves intersect, they both take on some of the information of the other wave. This is the interference pattern. I suspect that the reason a wave can come out on the other side unchanged is because the interference pattern causes the data that the wave contains to become holistic."
Your two paragraphs contradict each other and themselves:
"unchanged...take on information..."
"unchanged... become holistic" (whatever "holistic" is supposed to mean here...)
Antone: "Now, each wave of light is associated with a vector"
But, my friend, a vector is just a nother name for a RAY!
Which affirms my original proposition: Light is rays! All light action can be explained simply with rays! Light behavior is indeed vectoral in nature, not wavish nor particulate.

[Antone]

Antone said: "A wave has the ability to pass through a wave an come out on the other side unchanged. In other words, the data that the wave contains is not destroyed by interference with the other wave.
Now, each wave of light is associated with a vector. When two waves intersect, they both take on some of the information of the other wave. This is the interference pattern. I suspect that the reason a wave can come out on the other side unchanged is because the interference pattern causes the data that the wave contains to become holistic."
Your two paragraphs contradict each other and themselves:
"unchanged...take on information..."
"unchanged... become holistic" (whatever "holistic" is supposed to mean here...)
Antone: "Now, each wave of light is associated with a vector"
But, my friend, a vector is just a nother name for a RAY!
Which affirms my original proposition: Light is rays! All light action can be explained simply with rays! Light behavior is indeed vectoral in nature, not wavish nor particulate.

It appears so but isn't a contradiction. The wave is changed for a time, then when it reaches a certain point something occurs to return it to its original form. I can't remember the exact application where I heard about this phenomena, but it shouldn't be too hard to find. I'm kind of working off the top of my head with that statement, as with the rest of my recent comments.

As for the ray thing: I think I understand your dilemma.
I think it may make sense to think of Light as a 3-dimensional wave.
Light does have "rays". As you said, that's the vectoral aspect. Two things, first, each ray is itself a wave. I suspect the characteristics of this vectoral wave (i.e. wavelength) is what carries the information of such things as color. But there is also a wave front that is (more or less) perpendicular to these vectoral waves. When the light is non-holographic, this wave front is secondary. But when another wave front colides with it, the vector rays are disturbed, and that data is transferred to the wave front.

[webolife]

Respectfully, Antone, the talking off the top of your head part makes sense...the rest does not. I conclude my part of this dialog with this summary of "my" UFT with regard to imaging of light, since this is directly related to the blackness of space as well:
1. Optical ray diagrams explain imaging clearly, because they describe what light is, as well as how it functions, ie a pressure or force, vectors and rays.
2. Light is not emitted from a source rather is directed radially toward it.
3. In this way light functions similarly to gravitation and a center of mass, or an electrostatic field about a "ground".
4. Neither waves nor particles expalin the actual observed behavior of light, hence every theory attempting to explain light be these means is left in uncertainty, or with wave=particle duality doublespeak, or simply does not address light action.
5. No incontrovertable proof has been set forth that light itself moves across space, let alone at the c-rate.
6. The point sources of light we refer to as stars against the blackness of sky is in fact not possible under Olber's Paradox in any explanation involving wavefronts of light. Rays directed from observer to source explain it fully and certainly.
7. The interaction of our retina with the unified [pressure] field respect to the source is how we see.
8. All images are a direct result of "lines of sight", not waves or particles.
9. "Lines of sight" are physically associated with vectors, aka rays.
10. Vectors directed away from the observer toward the source result in the sensation of brightness, relative to the surrounding field which is dark[er] or black.
11. "Expansion" of a light source results in cooling, "dark"ness, due to the lessening of the vectoral component with respect to the observer.
12. "Contraction" results in warming, and brightness, due to the vectoral "squeezing" of the field, and vectors directed away from the peripherl observer, toward the light source, the centroid of the system.

IMHO

[robinson]

Space does not appear black. It is full of stars. Bright twinkly point of light. So it appears black with lots of little lights.

[klypp]

webolife:

How many of those technological advances actually require light to even move across space? And can you prove it?

and

No incontrovertable proof has been set forth that light itself moves across space, let alone at the c-rate.

I'm just dying to hear your explanation of how a radar works in a universe where the transmitter pulls unmoving strings out of itself via a distant object!

[Antone]

1. Optical ray diagrams explain imaging clearly, because they describe what light is, as well as how it functions, ie a pressure or force, vectors and rays.
2. Light is not emitted from a source rather is directed radially toward it.
3. In this way light functions similarly to gravitation and a center of mass, or an electrostatic field about a "ground".
4. Neither waves nor particles expalin the actual observed behavior of light, hence every theory attempting to explain light be these means is left in uncertainty, or with wave=particle duality doublespeak, or simply does not address light action.
5. No incontrovertable proof has been set forth that light itself moves across space, let alone at the c-rate.
6. The point sources of light we refer to as stars against the blackness of sky is in fact not possible under Olber's Paradox in any explanation involving wavefronts of light. Rays directed from observer to source explain it fully and certainly.
7. The interaction of our retina with the unified [pressure] field respect to the source is how we see.
8. All images are a direct result of "lines of sight", not waves or particles.
9. "Lines of sight" are physically associated with vectors, aka rays.
10. Vectors directed away from the observer toward the source result in the sensation of brightness, relative to the surrounding field which is dark[er] or black.
11. "Expansion" of a light source results in cooling, "dark"ness, due to the lessening of the vectoral component with respect to the observer.
12. "Contraction" results in warming, and brightness, due to the vectoral "squeezing" of the field, and vectors directed away from the peripherl observer, toward the light source, the centroid of the system.

Okay... I see what you're getting at and I agree with much of what you are saying here. And I admit that I was trying to explain things from a more traditional (and thus simplified) perspective, and misunderstood the thrust of your question.

You understand, however, that there are two kinds of waves. A standing wave and a propogating wave. A standing wave is like the wave on a guitar string--it occupies the whole length of the string. While a propogating wave is like the ripple in a pond when you throw in a rock. Just because light is a standing wave (instead of a propogating wave) doesn't change what I said.

When you place your finger on a guitar string, it modifies the the wave instantly. Not only that but it divides the wave into two different waves. The [wave on the part of the string above your finger] and the [wave on the part below it]. In much the same way, the lens is like a finger on the guitar string. It devides the standing wave into two different waves, each with its own characteristics. The fact that the waves aren't propogating doesn't change this fact. Also, the guitar string is useful as an analogy in another way, for we can think of it as the "ray aspect" of the light. While we can think of the [strumming finger] as a [ray of light that collides with the standing wave that is the string]. Just as the finger's motion sets the whole guitar string to vibrating in a particular way, so too does the cross "interference" of another wave, set the standing wave of the light to vibrating in a new way. Except that in the case of the light, the transformation is that the wave is spread to a wave perpendicular wave front that is holographic-like in nature.

Keep in mind that we aren't dealing with issolated "rays" of light. Non-coherent light is more like the interwoven threads in a peice of cloth. And the threads in both direction are vibrating and creating interference with each other. Thus, the whole peice of cloth is holographic in nature. Only the rays of light aren't just oriented in two directions, they are scattered in a great many directions in all three dimensions. Generally speaking, information cannot be retrieved from all the many strands, just from those that are at a particular orientation to the observer. This is analogous to the way a holofilm can contain a great many images, but only the particular image that is associated with that particular angle of the laser is produced when you shine the laser on the film.

Now, when the light passes through a lens (or any other singularity), only the strands that are oriented in a certain direction are allowed to "pass" through. In essence, all the sideways strands have been removed from the cloth, so there is nothing left to interfer with the waves of those strands and they can carry the information in a non-holistic way--since only the standing vibration along the length of the string is allowed to continue on.

So I agree with you that the speed of light may very well be instantaneous, and yet I still maintain that (even if this is the case) my notions about the [way an image is carried on light] would be more-or-less accurate.

[klypp]

Webolife:

How many of those technological advances actually require light to even move across space? And can you prove it? I'll gladly take up this debate with you if you think you can!

I've already mentioned radar, and I'm still waiting for you to "take up this debate". Let's add GPS positioning and modern radio communication. They're all technologies based on the facts that light is sent from the source to the receiver and has to spend time to get there. I call it facts because these days it is well tested in a widespread everyday use.
But you manage to come up with a theory that light is a string which the source uses to pull the receiver. And the effect is instantaneous. Wow! The string isn't even elastic!
And all because you've seen a ray diagram???
Why does visible light look like rays? Why doesn't it bend around corners like sound waves do?
The simple answer is: It does! But it is not easy to see this with your eyes - due to the small wavelengths of visible light. Theory says longer wavelengths bend more than small wavelengths. And visible light has really small wavelenghts. That's why we use interferometers to see this effect!
Which reminds me, you keep saying it's easy to prove Young wrong. I'm still waiting for that proof here...

And while we're waiting, why not look at the latest paparazzi shot of the beauty!:

http://technology.newscientist.com/arti ... ad_dn14172

[webolife]

OK, Klypp... I said that was my last post on this thread, but you've taken up my challenge, so I'll gladly reply. The image you posted is a compilation of the signals of an 80 attosecond laser pulse. The pulse must be fired with a finite period or frequency, that frequency limited in this case by the resonance of neon atoms. It is truly a remarkable image, but not because it shows light waving, but rather due to its short duration. If I oscillate a string back and forth, that can be plotted as a wave, but it does not make the string have wave nature, just the oscillating apparatus. The same goes for receiving devices, which are "tuned" to the frequency of the signal pulsation, hence resonant with the signal. Radar, radio, light... all follow this same rule. A resonant receiver is stimulated by the corresponding signal pulse. The frequency of the pulse can plotted, and therefore referred to, as a "wave function" without the physical phenomenon being a wave per se. This is why there are different dyes, due to the resonant chemical characteristics of the dye molecules/atoms... also why different organisms "see" different colors of light. Now I know you wish to explain this using a wave model for your understanding. That works for you and many mainstream physicists for explaining some behaviors of light. When it comes to verifying light speed, do you really think that cop has a device capable of returning the minimal light speed differential caused at such close distance between him and you in the speed trap? Or that the land surveyor's transit can gauge the precise distance a few hundred yards away bouncing light off a mirror, by calculating the infinitesmal delay of light waves or particles? Or that "Doppler" rain images on the weather report are created by calculating the small changes in light wavelength, therefore light speed delay bouncing off of raindrops? The only incontrovertible delay in any of these devices is the relay action, ie the reaction time of the sensing device.
Based on the preponderance of your comments, you probably don't like Ralph Sansbury, but if you study the ephemerides of the Pioneer spacecraft data as he did, and his explanation of the Romer and Bradley "calculations" of light speed, you will see that the assumptions/presumptions behind these works are weighty enough to place in dispute any finding of actual light speed across distance. Refractive index is frequently used to determine light speed of a medium, based on the assumption of wavefronts interacting with the interface of the media, however what is measured is the change in direction of the rays, period. This angle differential is also the only actual measureable in a "diffraction" or "interference" pattern as well, yet Young theorized that these were due to an acoustical effect of light waves interacting with the slit device, an effect which can be shown not to be happening. Nevertheless, Young's theory has stuck, and now has attained the legendary attribute of "factuality" for mainstreamers, and apparently you. Neither diffraction nor interference have the capability of producing images, yet the various but precise means by which images are commonly produced should obliterate any imaging under the theorized interacting wavefront scenarios of spherical wave emission from a light source.

[Harry Costas]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzzz

Now that we know why the sky is black. Can someone switch the light on.

There is not enough light for me to see.