Webo-Centric Light

[seasmith]

Quoting webolife:

Eeeeesh... I don't even know what PDF means , and of my nearly 1400 ["succinct"] posts on various threads, probably 1000 of them are generalizing the unified universal force pressure field I claim to be PHYSICALLY [that's for you, MJV] responsible for Gravitation, Electricity [voltage], Light and the Strong Force. "Succinct" is because I simply do not have all that much time during my busy schedule to write stuff, and I am a very slow typist, so I pretty much have to say lots of stuff in few words... this forum has been good practice for me. I love taking on a theory in development as it exercises my ability to understand some of the issues facing my own worldview. I am unsure where to start when it comes to "detailing" and although I teach math and science, it is a deep belief of mine that any theory that requires calculus, or can't make sense to a 12-year-old probably doesn't pass Occam's Razor. But here, "succinctly", and with due credit [and also apologies] to my late mentor Robert Archer Smith [whose 1000's of pages of unpublished manuscripts I am still trying to acquire] are some key details :
1. Geometrically, things can only fit together, ie. be stable when it comes to push and shove, in certain configurations. This gives precedence or basis for the predominance of hexagonality, the Platonic solids, the numbers pi and phi, multiples of 3, tensegrity -- a lot of things our friend Dean Ward [Junglelord, deceased] used to talk about -- in the observations we make of the universe. In short, I would assert that the fundamental fields of the universe are probably constructable from the vessica pisces with a compass and straightedge, if one is so inclined.
2. Because of this exigent geometry, forces that move objects in the universe tend to pack them together in these configurations, whether seen as electrical/atomic, or gravitational. All of us find ourselves in a field or fields which are characterized by this geometry, which I believe is Cartesian, ie. 3d space, although at a very fundamental level, I suspect that the essential constants are one or two dimensional, ie. they are defined by the interactions of two bodies. All forces then may be seen to operate from the same set of rules, and may manifestations of a single force field. Because there is no such thing as a "real" vector or ray, this must actually be a pressure field, but simple vector diagrams [eg. optical or orbital ray diagrams], describe what it is [force], and how it works [both in magnitude and direction].
3. Light exhibits the same geometric structure, and I would say manifests the structure and in fact IS the structure of the Universe. I believe that light IS the tensegrity of the Universe, so any relative motions of two objects result in a light "vector" being tugged/stretched [or pushed/compressed], and if an appropriate detector is available the geometric configuration [think COLOR] of that light is observable. For me, a pinhole device [such as a camera obscura, spectroscope, double or single slit] is all that is necessary in order to actually SEE the "true" nature of light, which is a pressure gradient connecting my retina to the local centroid of the system whose structure I am observing. I listen intently to all discussions of light waving or colliding, to see if there is some reason I should abandon my view that light is an instantaneous connection between the perceiver and the source, and have yet to find that reason over the last 30 years I have been studying this.
4. The universe is fractal, or the geometry is scaleless [same meaning as "scalable" used by Wal T and other folks around here]. All motions are observed to be [notwithstanding Sir Isaac, Galileo had this right!] curved, due to being pushed toward the local centroid, hence my use of the term "centropic" to describe that unified field. So all motions may be described in terms of angular momentum. No matter what motion is observed, it will always be toward the local center, whether a galactic core, or an atomic nucleus. This actually makes Centropy the same as Entropy, and is what we call gravitation, voltage, and the strong force, et.al. Nothing is emitted from a center without more "stuff" falling into it, hence the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The universe is quite stable as a result, and relatively speaking not much in the universe is actually flying apart, contrary to the wishes of adherents to the standard big bang model.
5. At the atomic level, when an electron "falls in" to a lower energy state our line-of-sight "connection" to it is instantly affected, and we see light. Stuff that is "emitted" in my direction from a centroid/"source" against the "attractive" force that holds it together will actually appear relatively dark to me, because the motion vector is relatively reversed with respect to my retina compared to the centropic vectors that are responsible for [that are] light. So a sunspot, which is a sight of tremendous [outward] emission of "stuff" appears dark, while its "halo", where the stuff is rapidly moving back toward the sun appears bright. Stuff that is separating from a local center is cooling down, while stuff that is moving toward the local center is heating up. This could even be a definition for heat, ie vector density around a particular center, and is responsible for the warmth you feel on your face stepping out of your front door in the brisk winter time into the bright sunlight. We call that radiant "energy", but for me it is just centropic unified field pressure.
6. Hydroelectric generation is for me the ideal model to see how electricity fits into the scheme of the unified pressure. Potential "energy" is built up [gravitationally] behind the dam -- when relaed the water falls imparting energy to the turbines, which motivates the conductive[resonant] wires inside a magnetic field, inducing electric potential in the transmission wires. There is no need to speed electrons through the wire [as though they were a flowing liquid], because as soon as the circuit is "closed" electricity [as postively charged "holes"] heads in the opposite direction from my light bulb simultaneously with the electric "current" from the direction of the dam. The effect on my light bulb is virtually instantaneous, as well as the effect on my retina... the only delays that are measured are in overcoming the inertia of [heating up and vibrating] the filament or exciting the gases inside the light bulb, or moving around the photoreceptive chemistry in my retinal cells and optic nerve, etc. Folks here at the EU see the unified field as being fundamentally electric -- I have no problem with that... you have to call it something.

OK, that is the end of "succinct" for now.
webolife

[seasmith]

by phyllotaxis » Mon Nov 14, 2011 10:44 pm

@webolife:

A very detailed summary, and one that gives me much to think about. I thank you for writing it--

phyllotaxis

P

[seasmith]

by Lloyd » Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:23 pm

Announcement
* For everyone who was interested in this discussion of Kopernicky's findings, I just started a new thread about it, called EU Breakthrough? - Gravity is Electro-Magnetic, at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=5263.
* Web, you initially said: The linearity and centropicity of "attraction" [the "holding" force(s)], and tangentiality of "repulsion" [angular momentum] is an elementary geometric consequence of my unified pressure field.... Can you explain why attraction is a linear force toward a center and why repulsion is tangential, and why you call it angular momentum? And did you hear Kopernicky say the same thing with respect to magnets?
* Thanks for posting more details of your theory, but I don't yet understand it well. I'm not an administrator, so I can't move anything, but your idea could be explained on the new thread, if it seems relevant there.

[seasmith]

by sjw40364 » Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:55 pm

Lloyd wrote:
Announcement
* For everyone who was interested in this discussion of Kopernicky's findings, I just started a new thread about it, called EU Breakthrough? - Gravity is Electro-Magnetic, at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=5263.
* Web, you initially said: The linearity and centropicity of "attraction" [the "holding" force(s)], and tangentiality of "repulsion" [angular momentum] is an elementary geometric consequence of my unified pressure field.... Can you explain why attraction is a linear force toward a center and why repulsion is tangential, and why you call it angular momentum? And did you hear Kopernicky say the same thing with respect to magnets?
* Thanks for posting more details of your theory, but I don't yet understand it well. I'm not an administrator, so I can't move anything, but your idea could be explained on the new thread, if it seems relevant there.

I may not have the same idea, that is explain it the same way, but it would seem to me that repulsion would have to be tangential as the tendency of a forward moving object if encountering a repulsive radial field is not to reverse, but take the path of least resistance which would be pushed off to the side. The same thing occurs with magnets unless you constrain them. Since magnetism causes things to circle perpendicular to the electric force I would say if tests were done more times then not it would push in one direction than the other. Attraction by a radial field would always pull towards the center.

[seasmith]

Note to Mods: Please excuse any appearance of usurpation, just a temporary move in fairness to both OP Lloyd and webolife. Please feel free to clean up this mess is so desire. No worries.

>>>>

webolife,


PDF (PrettyDamnFine) summation.

Just a question or two:

“ … the fundamental fields of the universe are probably constructable from the vessica pisces with a compass and straightedge,”

Would that vessica come in a 3D model ?
With motion ?

“Light exhibits the same geometric structure, and I would say manifests the structure and in fact IS the structure of the Universe.”

What is the link between light and ponderable matter ?

What is the relation of light to sound, other than both being ‘pressures’ ?

“Nothing is emitted from a center without more "stuff" falling into it…”

I can see stuff falling into a "center" from the surrounding 360 deg^2 of space; but
having a little trouble visualizing all of the centers, towards which, a 360 deg^2
flux of emissions from a center, would be directed. Or is that just wrong-headed ?

“At the atomic level, when an electron "falls in" to a lower energy state our line-of-sight "connection" to it is instantly affected,…

Is that transition of electron to a lower state instantaneous ?

“Stuff that is separating from a local center is cooling down, while stuff that is moving toward the local center is heating up. “

What is the origin of “local centers” ?

s

[webolife]

Seasmith,
Now there's a PDF bunch of seriously good questions, I think the best questions I've ever been asked about "my" unified field.

No, the vessica pisces is strictly 2-D... or not 2-D, that is the question...

There is a distinction between light and ponderable [great word] matter... I would say light is [a manifestation of] the vectoral link between all particles of ponderable matter, as with gravitation, an observation of the universal centropic force. As a pressure it has the ability to move matter, through the disturbance of the surface and surrounding materials [eg. in a radiometer, or chemically in the rods and cones of the retina, or other photosensitive chemical reactants [silver iodide, et.al], a light meter or a thermocouple, etc.]. But unlike ponderable matter which always moves along curved paths, light action is diagrammable as straightline rays radiating toward the system centroid.

I'm not a fan, rather a detractor, of the idea that light is a wavy acoustic phenomenon, made popular by Young's double-slit [so-called interference] demos. Rather than interfering in concentric moire fashion, as Young supposed, light is easily seen to be transmitted in optically straight paths right through the slit device[s], connecting the eye [or screen] to positions in the light "field" with respect to the central line of sight, that are describable as a pressure gradient surrounding the line of sight. A slit is simply an elongated pinhole, spreading the attributes of the light field from side to side for convenient viewing. However sound/acoustics/cymatics operate[s] in/according to the same fundamental geometry of centropic pressure moderated by kinetic energy. Sound is an energy emission from a source... light is a pressure in the direction of the source [therefore "centropic"], and instantaneous in its action since the source [as a sink] and receiver are actually connected in the same pressure field [even to a distant star].

As in any gravitational view, any centroid works just fine... whichever has the greatest conglomeration of stuff has "polity" in the determination of the "local" field vectors, but it all works out. Eg. in the hydroelectric model, gravitation in the reservoir builds up the potential energy of the water [ie. it is "seeking its own level"]. Potential is built up in the power station throught the release of the water past the turbines, described as voltage from source TO GROUND [ie. centropic]. It doesn't really matter to the voltage where the ground is, which is why you have all your house wiring connected to that post outside your house driven 10-ft into the ground. When the circuit is closed, that's the direction the electricity "heads" [positive "holes" notwithstanding]. It's all centropic. Ultimately, the fundamental vectors in hydroelectricity are pointed toward the sun, the ultimate local centroid, but closer to home these vectors are pointed from ["behind"] my retina toward the lamp, as the electrons in the filament/gases jump "down" [centropic again] to lower energy levels. Because the pressure field is universal, it doesn't matter what center happens to be closest -- if you're looking toward it, you see [sense] light [vectors pointing in that direction].
Is the electron jump instantaneous? I don't know the specifics [who does?], but I'd generalize that this relay causes a delay, therefore no. But I do propose that the pressure field shift that occurs as a result is simultaneously felt by my retina as a connected member of the field.

Universal centropic pressure tends to condense matter... everywhere or anywhere, but since it must conglomerate SOMEWHERE, that locus becomes a centroid. Various centroids interact in such a way as to achieve a stable configuration [eg. the solar system] practically in the blink of an eye, observable as the geometry of the universe, mentioned in the previous post. Or you can grab your flashlight out of the glove box, or light a match, or... for more local "local centers".

[phyllotaxis]

I have several thoughts on this, but don't have the time at this moment to convey them. I'm very glad to have a thread dedicated to your view webolife-
I will wonder briefly aloud: what, in your estimation, eliminates wave action from this pressure-sink process?
I see these actions as mutually exclusive, though perhaps I have not considered the scope of the ideas long enough to say this with conviction.

Kind regards-

[mharratsc]

Hey Webo,


Very deep model you have going here, nice work! Wondering though (and maybe I just missed the obvious in scanning over all this, but) where does cymatics work into this field system you propose? What affect(s) does vibration have upon the macroscopic?

[webolife]

For the answer to that, [Phyllotaxis] you have to make yourself a simple double slit [try about .5 mm width; a hair works fine as a beamsplitter] and look at a light. The best way to make this very clear is to use a monofilament lamp, which comes in 40W style at the grocery store. Young's interference model is one of the foundations of all light wave theories to this day, yet if you actually conduct his experiements yourself, you will find that he was simply incorrect. Hold the double slit [aligned with the monofilament] close up to your eye and observe the light from a variety of distances. Notice a number of significant and obvious facts [it would be ideal to do this before reading further] some of which follow:
1. The spectrum [of the light field] is redundant -- blue transitions through the colors to red which immediately transitions through violet to blue, repeating, defying any explanation based on the "wavelengths" found in the electromagnetic spectrum model.
2. As you move the slit back and forth and from side to side, the spectrum stays in place unchanged, defying any explanation based on thinking that the slit edges are causing light waves to diffract.
3. The dark lines near the center of the so-called "interference" pattern of a double-slit spectrum are shadows of the beamsplitter "cast" by both "sides" of the light field of the monofilament, easily observed by removing the hair/beamsplitter then replacing it again [easier said than done depending on what kind of tape you used]. For Young this meant the difference between Interference and diffraction, but if you actually observe the spectra you will see they are virtually unchanged except for the beamsplitter shadows. You can explore this fact further by allowing the light to pass through a slit of varying widths before your double slit, and you will find that you can make the beamsplitter shadows separate from each other without affecting the array of the remaining spectra.
4. Interrupting/blocking a part of the light field on the side of the slit[s] toward the light immediately effects the corressponding part of the spectrum [opposite side, because of the straight line-of sight from eye to source] that you see on the "eye" side of the slits. This should not happen if the light is waving through the slit, and being "diffracted" into the spectral pattern by the slit edges.
5. Young's "interference" wave diagrams depend on the beamsplitter being in the same plane as the slit, but this is quite radically not the case in reality; the beamsplitter can be moved forth and back from the slit, or even be replaced by a thin card held at a 90-deg angle to the slit plane, without affecting the appearance of the spectral pattern at all, an impossibility if the interference model were true.
6. The monofilament is held in place by three miniscule wire loops. If light were waving, the waves should diffract around these loops making them virtually impossible to see from some distance. But looking through your slit device, you can quite clearly see the shadows of these tiny loops from quite a distance, not washed out by light "waving" from the lamp, and also unaffected by the slit! Explain how light waves can do that, and while you're at it, give me a non-hogwash explanation for Ober's Paradox, then I'll consider the possibility that light might wave through space.
7. Now take a look around at the other objects in the room through your slit device, and notice that they are all quite nicely imaged [the slit device is really just a pinhole], not distorted by the slit edges. If you look at a reflectiing surface, it will exhibit the spectral pattern of the lamp's light field, as it should, but other darker objects will appear undistorted, as they should in a camera obscura, but not as they should if light waves are being diffracted/distorted by the slit edges. If you doubt this, try looking at the spectrum of a fluorescent lamp by the same means... the spectral pattern is discretized into the colors seen in a normal fluorescent pattern, indicating that the colors were not created by distortion around a slit edge, but actually "belong" to the light field of the "source". Waves are lousy models for creating the sharp images we see around us every day via the phenomenon we call light.
8. Here's another problem with Young: think about the relative size of the alleged wavelengths of colored light passing through the slit... they are on the order of 1/100 of the slit width, meaning that virtually all of the light passing through the slit should be unaffected by the edges, so Young's diagrams shouldn't actually work anyway. Speaking of colors, Young's diagrams only work for the case of monochromatic light, and can't be made to account for the full color spectral array we see in reality.
9. This is the basis for my rejection of light waving. I'm interested in light wave theories, eg. Mie theory, because they are often highly infused with optical geometry -- my conclusion is that the vector geometry is what is at work, and not needing to figure out wavy stuff. One of the things that is most obvious about light is that it happens in straight lines, which are modified at edges of objects by being ordered as a pressure gradient, as through a pinhole or around any edge or beamsplitter... by the way, the so-called diffraction pattern can be created by any edge or even by a hair/beamsplitter alone... I have fun looking at those little Christmas light bulbs through a hair beamsplitter held close to my eye.
10. Oh, if you wanted to ask me about light "particles" we'll start with "quantum entanglement" experiments and go from there!

Thanks for asking

Oh, sorry Mharr... you posted while I was writing. I'm not a cymatics expert, but I love watching the little experiments and seeing how shapes/waveforms arise from [confined -- locally centropic] vibration, but the powering force[s] behind that is usually gravitation* offset by lots of kinetic energy producing standing "waves" of multiple particles... since I've already dealt with particle motion as a model [or NOT] for light action, I guess I have no more comment about that right now. (*In case anyone hasn't read many of my other posts elsewhere, I am perfectly content with electrogravitic concepts... correspondence with Ralph Sansbury is what led me to the EU in the first place.)

[seasmith]

still pondering...

Webolife,

There is a distinction between light and ponderable [great word] matter... I would say light is [a manifestation of] the vectoral link between all particles of ponderable matter, as with gravitation, an observation of the universal centropic force. As a pressure it has the ability to move matter, through the disturbance of the surface and surrounding materials [eg. in a radiometer, or chemically in the rods and cones of the retina, or other photosensitive chemical reactants [silver iodide, et.al], a light meter or a thermocouple, etc.]. But unlike ponderable matter which always moves along curved paths, light action is diagrammable as straightline rays radiating toward the system centroid.

Well that's 4 out of 5

Do you see any sort of progression in the "system" ?
ie: radiant light force slowing/curving to matter, or vice versa, or an EM/ES transition twixt pressure> light>gravity>matter (or some other order of devolution),
or maybe those manifest phases as being discreet-but with common source like branches of a tree ?
Or some other pressure/light/gravity/matter conjugation ?

[Or should i just try to climb out of the weeds and restate the question?]

btw i like the hydroelectric parallel@
morelater,
s

[phyllotaxis]

I'm still thinking on this- I just want to get my mind right before I reply in a full post.

Both related to this thread, and as an aside, Webolife, I would also like your opinion on the LaFreniere thread.

I know that you reject waves as the transmission of light based upon what you explained above, but I would value your insight on precisely *what* the flaws are in that philosophy, seeing as how (as an example only- I know there are many varieties of wave theory) there appear to be many coherent results within such work.
Another one would be the "Unquantum experiments", which purport to experimentally show that Gamma rays do in fact show measurable, repeatable coincident reception in the classic 45-degree semi-reflective mirror test. This *appears* to not only slay the particle photon debate forever (at long last, I think), but also implies that a split occurs- from one source, two simultaneous reads. This is explained there as proof of a wave.

These two theorists, and the unquantum experiment in the lab, in addition to the others about, seem to perhaps indicate *wave-like* behaviors... so what I'm trying to grasp is how your sink/pull explanation would apply and explain those particular experimental results. I'm still thinking on it.

This is such an interesting discussion-- I am very much enjoying the conversations here. I hope you forgive my humble ignorance

[Sparky]

Quoting webolife:

Eeeeesh... I don't even know what PDF means , and of my nearly 1400 ["succinct"] posts on various threads, probably 1000 of them are generalizing the unified universal force pressure field I claim to be PHYSICALLY [that's for you, MJV] responsible for Gravitation, Electricity [voltage], Light and the Strong Force. "Succinct" is because I simply do not have all that much time during my busy schedule to write stuff, and I am a very slow typist, so I pretty much have to say lots of stuff in few words... this forum has been good practice for me. I love taking on a theory in development as it exercises my ability to understand some of the issues facing my own worldview. I am unsure where to start when it comes to "detailing" and although I teach math and science, it is a deep belief of mine that any theory that requires calculus, or can't make sense to a 12-year-old probably doesn't pass Occam's Razor. But here, "succinctly", and with due credit [and also apologies] to my late mentor Robert Archer Smith [whose 1000's of pages of unpublished manuscripts I am still trying to acquire] are some key details :
1. Geometrically, things can only fit together, ie. be stable when it comes to push and shove, in certain configurations. This gives precedence or basis for the predominance of hexagonality, the Platonic solids, the numbers pi and phi, multiples of 3, tensegrity -- a lot of things our friend Dean Ward [Junglelord, deceased] used to talk about -- in the observations we make of the universe. In short, I would assert that the fundamental fields of the universe are probably constructable from the vessica pisces with a compass and straightedge, if one is so inclined.
2. Because of this exigent geometry, forces that move objects in the universe tend to pack them together in these configurations, whether seen as electrical/atomic, or gravitational. All of us find ourselves in a field or fields which are characterized by this geometry, which I believe is Cartesian, ie. 3d space, although at a very fundamental level, I suspect that the essential constants are one or two dimensional, ie. they are defined by the interactions of two bodies. All forces then may be seen to operate from the same set of rules, and may manifestations of a single force field. Because there is no such thing as a "real" vector or ray, this must actually be a pressure field, but simple vector diagrams [eg. optical or orbital ray diagrams], describe what it is [force], and how it works [both in magnitude and direction].
3. Light exhibits the same geometric structure, and I would say manifests the structure and in fact IS the structure of the Universe. I believe that light IS the tensegrity of the Universe, so any relative motions of two objects result in a light "vector" being tugged/stretched [or pushed/compressed], and if an appropriate detector is available the geometric configuration [think COLOR] of that light is observable. For me, a pinhole device [such as a camera obscura, spectroscope, double or single slit] is all that is necessary in order to actually SEE the "true" nature of light, which is a pressure gradient connecting my retina to the local centroid of the system whose structure I am observing. I listen intently to all discussions of light waving or colliding, to see if there is some reason I should abandon my view that light is an instantaneous connection between the perceiver and the source, and have yet to find that reason over the last 30 years I have been studying this.
4. The universe is fractal, or the geometry is scaleless [same meaning as "scalable" used by Wal T and other folks around here]. All motions are observed to be [notwithstanding Sir Isaac, Galileo had this right!] curved, due to being pushed toward the local centroid, hence my use of the term "centropic" to describe that unified field. So all motions may be described in terms of angular momentum. No matter what motion is observed, it will always be toward the local center, whether a galactic core, or an atomic nucleus. This actually makes Centropy the same as Entropy, and is what we call gravitation, voltage, and the strong force, et.al. Nothing is emitted from a center without more "stuff" falling into it, hence the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The universe is quite stable as a result, and relatively speaking not much in the universe is actually flying apart, contrary to the wishes of adherents to the standard big bang model.
5. At the atomic level, when an electron "falls in" to a lower energy state our line-of-sight "connection" to it is instantly affected, and we see light. Stuff that is "emitted" in my direction from a centroid/"source" against the "attractive" force that holds it together will actually appear relatively dark to me, because the motion vector is relatively reversed with respect to my retina compared to the centropic vectors that are responsible for [that are] light. So a sunspot, which is a sight of tremendous [outward] emission of "stuff" appears dark, while its "halo", where the stuff is rapidly moving back toward the sun appears bright. Stuff that is separating from a local center is cooling down, while stuff that is moving toward the local center is heating up. This could even be a definition for heat, ie vector density around a particular center, and is responsible for the warmth you feel on your face stepping out of your front door in the brisk winter time into the bright sunlight. We call that radiant "energy", but for me it is just centropic unified field pressure.
6. Hydroelectric generation is for me the ideal model to see how electricity fits into the scheme of the unified pressure. Potential "energy" is built up [gravitationally] behind the dam -- when relaed the water falls imparting energy to the turbines, which motivates the conductive[resonant] wires inside a magnetic field, inducing electric potential in the transmission wires. There is no need to speed electrons through the wire [as though they were a flowing liquid], because as soon as the circuit is "closed" electricity [as postively charged "holes"] heads in the opposite direction from my light bulb simultaneously with the electric "current" from the direction of the dam. The effect on my light bulb is virtually instantaneous, as well as the effect on my retina... the only delays that are measured are in overcoming the inertia of [heating up and vibrating] the filament or exciting the gases inside the light bulb, or moving around the photoreceptive chemistry in my retinal cells and optic nerve, etc. Folks here at the EU see the unified field as being fundamentally electric -- I have no problem with that... you have to call it something.

OK, that is the end of "succinct" for now.
webolife

1. The spectrum [of the light field] is redundant -- blue transitions through the colors to red which immediately transitions through violet to blue, repeating, defying any explanation based on the "wavelengths" found in the electromagnetic spectrum model.
2. As you move the slit back and forth and from side to side, the spectrum stays in place unchanged, defying any explanation based on thinking that the slit edges are causing light waves to diffract.
3. The dark lines near the center of the so-called "interference" pattern of a double-slit spectrum are shadows of the beamsplitter "cast" by both "sides" of the light field of the monofilament, easily observed by removing the hair/beamsplitter then replacing it again [easier said than done depending on what kind of tape you used]. For Young this meant the difference between Interference and diffraction, but if you actually observe the spectra you will see they are virtually unchanged except for the beamsplitter shadows. You can explore this fact further by allowing the light to pass through a slit of varying widths before your double slit, and you will find that you can make the beamsplitter shadows separate from each other without affecting the array of the remaining spectra.
4. Interrupting/blocking a part of the light field on the side of the slit[s] toward the light immediately effects the corressponding part of the spectrum [opposite side, because of the straight line-of sight from eye to source] that you see on the "eye" side of the slits. This should not happen if the light is waving through the slit, and being "diffracted" into the spectral pattern by the slit edges.
5. Young's "interference" wave diagrams depend on the beamsplitter being in the same plane as the slit, but this is quite radically not the case in reality; the beamsplitter can be moved forth and back from the slit, or even be replaced by a thin card held at a 90-deg angle to the slit plane, without affecting the appearance of the spectral pattern at all, an impossibility if the interference model were true.
6. The monofilament is held in place by three miniscule wire loops. If light were waving, the waves should diffract around these loops making them virtually impossible to see from some distance. But looking through your slit device, you can quite clearly see the shadows of these tiny loops from quite a distance, not washed out by light "waving" from the lamp, and also unaffected by the slit! Explain how light waves can do that, and while you're at it, give me a non-hogwash explanation for Ober's Paradox, then I'll consider the possibility that light might wave through space.
7. Now take a look around at the other objects in the room through your slit device, and notice that they are all quite nicely imaged [the slit device is really just a pinhole], not distorted by the slit edges. If you look at a reflectiing surface, it will exhibit the spectral pattern of the lamp's light field, as it should, but other darker objects will appear undistorted, as they should in a camera obscura, but not as they should if light waves are being diffracted/distorted by the slit edges. If you doubt this, try looking at the spectrum of a fluorescent lamp by the same means... the spectral pattern is discretized into the colors seen in a normal fluorescent pattern, indicating that the colors were not created by distortion around a slit edge, but actually "belong" to the light field of the "source". Waves are lousy models for creating the sharp images we see around us every day via the phenomenon we call light.
8. Here's another problem with Young: think about the relative size of the alleged wavelengths of colored light passing through the slit... they are on the order of 1/100 of the slit width, meaning that virtually all of the light passing through the slit should be unaffected by the edges, so Young's diagrams shouldn't actually work anyway. Speaking of colors, Young's diagrams only work for the case of monochromatic light, and can't be made to account for the full color spectral array we see in reality.
9. This is the basis for my rejection of light waving. I'm interested in light wave theories, eg. Mie theory, because they are often highly infused with optical geometry -- my conclusion is that the vector geometry is what is at work, and not needing to figure out wavy stuff. One of the things that is most obvious about light is that it happens in straight lines, which are modified at edges of objects by being ordered as a pressure gradient, as through a pinhole or around any edge or beamsplitter... by the way, the so-called diffraction pattern can be created by any edge or even by a hair/beamsplitter alone... I have fun looking at those little Christmas light bulbs through a hair beamsplitter held close to my eye.
10. Oh, if you wanted to ask me about light "particles" we'll start with "quantum entanglement" experiments and go from there!

There is a distinction between light and ponderable [great word] matter... I would say light is [a manifestation of] the vectoral link between all particles of ponderable matter, as with gravitation, an observation of the universal centropic force. As a pressure it has the ability to move matter, through the disturbance of the surface and surrounding materials [eg. in a radiometer, or chemically in the rods and cones of the retina, or other photosensitive chemical reactants [silver iodide, et.al], a light meter or a thermocouple, etc.]. But unlike ponderable matter which always moves along curved paths, light action is diagrammable as straightline rays radiating toward the system centroid.

I'm not a fan, rather a detractor, of the idea that light is a wavy acoustic phenomenon, made popular by Young's double-slit [so-called interference] demos. Rather than interfering in concentric moire fashion, as Young supposed, light is easily seen to be transmitted in optically straight paths right through the slit device[s], connecting the eye [or screen] to positions in the light "field" with respect to the central line of sight, that are describable as a pressure gradient surrounding the line of sight. A slit is simply an elongated pinhole, spreading the attributes of the light field from side to side for convenient viewing. However sound/acoustics/cymatics operate[s] in/according to the same fundamental geometry of centropic pressure moderated by kinetic energy. Sound is an energy emission from a source... light is a pressure in the direction of the source [therefore "centropic"], and instantaneous in its action since the source [as a sink] and receiver are actually connected in the same pressure field [even to a distant star].

As in any gravitational view, any centroid works just fine... whichever has the greatest conglomeration of stuff has "polity" in the determination of the "local" field vectors, but it all works out. Eg. in the hydroelectric model, gravitation in the reservoir builds up the potential energy of the water [ie. it is "seeking its own level"]. Potential is built up in the power station throught the release of the water past the turbines, described as voltage from source TO GROUND [ie. centropic]. It doesn't really matter to the voltage where the ground is, which is why you have all your house wiring connected to that post outside your house driven 10-ft into the ground. When the circuit is closed, that's the direction the electricity "heads" [positive "holes" notwithstanding]. It's all centropic. Ultimately, the fundamental vectors in hydroelectricity are pointed toward the sun, the ultimate local centroid, but closer to home these vectors are pointed from ["behind"] my retina toward the lamp, as the electrons in the filament/gases jump "down" [centropic again] to lower energy levels. Because the pressure field is universal, it doesn't matter what center happens to be closest -- if you're looking toward it, you see [sense] light [vectors pointing in that direction].
Is the electron jump instantaneous? I don't know the specifics [who does?], but I'd generalize that this relay causes a delay, therefore no. But I do propose that the pressure field shift that occurs as a result is simultaneously felt by my retina as a connected member of the field.

Universal centropic pressure tends to condense matter... everywhere or anywhere, but since it must conglomerate SOMEWHERE, that locus becomes a centroid. Various centroids interact in such a way as to achieve a stable configuration [eg. the solar system] practically in the blink of an eye, observable as the geometry of the universe, mentioned in the previous post. Or you can grab your flashlight out of the glove box, or light a match, or... for more local "local centers".

.


................. ...whoa!...


nice and WHOA!... ..overloaded me brain...

THANKS .........need to reboot meself...

[webolife]

Seasmith and Phyllotaxis,
I've alluded to this on other threads, that "mass" [as a conglomeration of "stuff"] is also a manifestation thereby of centropic pressure, ie if there is nothing holding it together, by all our understandings of charge and repulsion [angular momentum], everything really should be flying apart... scientists like to identify the fact that it doesn't do that as "nuclear energy", or the Strong Force", or simply "gravitation"... When I say "conglomeration of stuff" I am thinking of the "conglomeration" term as a "verb" ie. as an action upon matter, and that action is what I think of as "mass"... the mass-energy relation may be simply understood [by me anyway ] as a centropic vector connected to a tangential vector, but perhaps over-simplified as two vectors acting in opposite directions from the same object, one directed toward the system centroid [mass], the other away from the centroid [energy]. From the standpoint of the wave-particle dilemma, any experiment that precludes particles must by default suggest waviness. But in my view I avoid that dilemma altogether by seeing light as a force/pressure between or [more like against] particles, acting across a field... some have problems with this because of thinking of the field as a vacuum, or filled with hollow but extremely dense "quantums" [I can't figure out which...], or an aether... I have most comfort with the descriptions of the aether as a geometrically describable immaterial medium versus one in which "mass-ish-ness" is ascribed to the aether... while "immaterial medium" seems like an oxymoron to some, attributing any kind of "mass" attribute to aether "particles", then turning around and claiming that it is the aether that imparts the qualities of "mass" to matter, is entirely circular and unsatisfactory to me.

I bookmarked the LaFreniere website from the first time I heard of it a couple years back on this forum. I love the simulations, I get how Gabriel is trying to quantize wave action, especially standing waves, and I like that he is modelling "particles" using an "energy" based element. But after all is said and done, you still have to explain how stuff acts across a virtually vaccuous field, without really interfering much with that field, and yet requiring the field to transmit it in a coherent manner without leaving any traces of the field effects... it leaves me scratching my head, then turning back to my own model. What keeps me disallowing "waviness" is what I described about the Young "interference" demonstrations in the previous post.

[phyllotaxis]

Many thoughts still developing here- I have not heard of Mie theory, and look forward to researching it over the weekend. Is there a place you would recommend above others to learn about it?

Also, I am trying to grasp how reflectivity would operate under your frameworks- again using the Unquantum experiment as an example. Specifically, how might a light source behave at the point of reflection on a mirror? If the
action you describe is correct, how would that function take place at the reflection point itself? Going down to the level of the silver molecules themselves, I'm trying to piece together how the effect maintains itself *indirectly*.
That is one point that I'm chewing on- among others. I find this exchange useful and fun- keep it up!

[webolife]

Mie Theory has to do with the optics of so-called "redundant" spectra typically seen in atmospheric rainbow or halo phenomena. Google Atmospheric Optics as a keyword to start, and then link to Mie [and other] theoretical explanations for these. They all have to do somewhat with water droplet size [surface curvature], reflection and refraction of sunlight.

I'm thinking of three ways to understand reflectivity --
1. The concrete view of "bouncing" particles off a surface, or otherwise elastic or inelastic collisions of particles.
2. The abstract geometrical concept that invokes symmetry, yet also forms a basis for understanding about the optical physics of refraction/reflection at the interface of two differently dense media... angle of incidence = angle of reflection, etc.
3. The complex system by which one "body" resonates with another "body" without actually touching that body, in the electricity world this is "induction", but I'm also thinking of the way my retina/brain receives/interprets imaging information from a distant star, but a further quintessential example of which might be my current "reflection" about your question...

I consider myself a rather concrete person, but I have difficulty with the simplistic/ideal "elastic" view of #1, mostly because the word "inelastic" infers something beside simple "touch" happens at the "moment" of the collision [double entendre intended]... there is a physical event by which energy is "lost" to entropy which muddies the water about what happens when two objects "collide"... I don't see them "touching"... rather encountering a field vector opposition which forces them in opposite directions, when their individually centropic fields "meet", the field vectors are in opposite directions, but one field will be stronger than the other and the "bouncing" body will lose momentum. Centropy = Entropy.

On #2, because everything exists inside a centropic field, the interaction of two bodies/two fields, as a consequence of the [isometric triangular] geometry of juxtaposed objects, will undergo a shift in direction imposed by the unequal vector density of the two fields, hence "refraction", or depending upon the "angle of incidence", reflect [non-ideally] off that field. Specifically, and this may invoke some of #3, the light pressure pushes/pulls [depending on which way you are looking at it] at the peripheral electronic "shell" of the reflecting surface, energizing the electrons there, which bounce back/down and impart that vector change to your retina, such that the reflection is slightly or more imperfect, and/or imparts to you the specific electrical configuration of the "dye" nature of the surface particles, which resonates with your eye/brain as the object's color. That's a wordy explanation, which I'll likely have to explain further, but work through it and ask me additional clarifying questions.

I'll simplify my wordiness on #3 by saying, "Reflection [and it's coin-flip Absorption] is Resonance" and leave you for now to ponder the complexities