"Does light move", asked Quantum Quack

Billy T,
refer to posts:
#142,#143 for specific details and you can use the following list for context:
112
114
114
122
139
136
145
150
214
221
227
229
210
247
249
251
252

255
and so on... if so you so wish to...
 
QQ are you basically saying that photons do not from traverse one point to another we just think that they do?
and that transmission of light is related to our perception of the "vibrations" of the light source you mentioned?
 
anuraganimax said:
QQ are you basically saying that photons do not from traverse one point to another we just think that they do?
and that transmission of light is related to our perception of the "vibrations" of the light source you mentioned?
Click to expand...
our perception of vibrations across "zero distance" space. to be more precise.

distance is zero for light or em but has the typical value only for objects of mass...is the premise. [ distance does impact on intensity of resonance = to the inverse square rule ] thus giving the illusion of time delay other wise declared as 'c'.
So our measurements of light speed could be incorrectly interpreted to grant vacant space a value for light, when none exits. [ no aether remember!]
 
Last edited:
To QQ:
Your view of light is indeed interesting. Can you explain then how does energy get transferred from the light source to a receiving object far away? For eg how does a solar cell works according to your explanation of light?
 
anuraganimax said:
To QQ:
Your view of light is indeed interesting. Can you explain then how does energy get transferred from the light source to a receiving object far away? For eg how does a solar cell works according to your explanation of light?
Click to expand...
Think of the solar cell and the light source as being "entangled" across zero space [ distance ] where the intensity of the resonance of the solar cell is effected by it's distance from the source and what materials the cell is constructed from only.
In fact think of the entire univesres mass being "entangled" across zero space...and have a bit of play with that concept for a while...
think of inertia and how a universal constant can be acheived universally....How does inertia manifest due to this "entanglement"?
...for the same reason Gravity is a universal constant IMO.
Then consider the ramifications of believing the illusion that light travels [ a to b ] across vacant space and takes time to do it and what that means to universal constancy, coherency and integrity...
 
Last edited:
To QQ:
Interesting indeed. Another question. Do you believe that the speed of light in vacuum is the ultimate speed there is? That nothing in the future will be able to beat it?
 
anuraganimax said:
To QQ:
Interesting indeed. Another question. Do you believe that the speed of light in vacuum is the ultimate speed there is? That nothing in the future will be able to beat it?
Click to expand...
If you don't mind me sayng and with all due respect, that is a silly question given that I am positing that light speed is instantaneous or zero or infinitely fast or what ever..
Can't go faster than zero d/t can you?

so nothing can travel faster that instantaneous....
However if trying to, by adding relative velocity to an object of mass, time dilation is the outcome, thus maintaining the constancy of zero d/t and the constant of gravity simultaneously.
 
the irony is .."to go faster you have to slow down"

slowing a massive object atomically reduces it's inertia yet maintains it's mass if I am not mistaken.
A levitating super conductor still weighs the same yet levitates. sort of thing..
 
Quantum Quack said:
If you don't mind me sayng and with all due respect, that is a silly question given that I am positing that light speed is instantaneous or zero or infinitely fast or what ever..
Can't go faster than zero d/t can you?

so nothing can travel faster that instantaneous....
However if trying to, by adding relative velocity to an object of mass, time dilation is the outcome, thus maintaining the constancy of zero d/t and the constant of gravity simultaenously.
Click to expand...

No I don't. I asked because until now I have always heard that it takes about 8 minutes for sunlight to reach the earth. This was sort of a reflex.
But now I got what you were implying distance is zero for light but not for the resonance thingy you mentioned earlier.
 
if we can agree on the basic concept that the "fastest anything can go regardless of what it is and regardless of theory and using simple logic is when distance=zero and tme=zero.

Therefore if d=0 and t=0 then we are talking about the instantaneous.
a bit of an axiomatic statement yes...?
 
anuraganimax said:
No I don't. I asked because until now I have always heard that it takes about 8 minutes for sunlight to reach the earth. This was sort of a reflex.
But now I got what you were implying distance is zero for light but not for the resonance thingy you mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...

yes the notion of light traveling is indeed so entrenched in our belief system...true...of course this is only a relatively recent outcome as the early Greeks had other ideas...of course
 
anuraganimax said:
No I don't. I asked because until now I have always heard that it takes about 8 minutes for sunlight to reach the earth. This was sort of a reflex.
But now I got what you were implying distance is zero for light but not for the resonance thingy you mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...
the hypothesis suggests that it is the objects of mass that are resonating and not the light energy....just to clarify
 
To QQ:
Finally let me ask you this- do you believe in quantum mechanics? Or do you think that this theory has made a lot of assumptions(point particles,spin) and mistakes?
 
anuraganimax said:
To QQ:
Finally let me ask you this- do you believe in quantum mechanics? Or do you think that this theory has made a lot of assumptions(point particles,spin) and mistakes?
Click to expand...
to be perfectly honest I am not familiar enough with QM or QED to have any useful opinion except to say that if they were to rework their notions of light traveling at 'c' from a to b across a vacuum they would make tremendous gains in insight into universal structure and mechanics.
The impost of working with something yet to be proven that being light traveling in time and distance, and yet granting significant credibility to it is something QM and QED could do with out.
IMO
 
Its pretty pathetic how intolerant some people can be on this forum when anything contradicts their opinions. They just keep asking for evidence instead of once listening to their intuition for answers.

Many thanks for your insights. After reading your posts I have come to see things in a different "light" than before.
 
anuraganimax said:
Its pretty pathetic how intolerant some people can be on this forum when anything contradicts their opinions. They just keep asking for evidence instead of once listening to their intuition for answers.

Many thanks for your insights. After reading your posts I have come to see things in a different "light" than before.
Click to expand...
thanks for your open ness....and if their staunch requirements for evidence were directed towards their own beliefs especially regarding light and 'c' they might learn something of significance...evidence of course is always esential but let us not forget that which science is taking for granted as well...yes evidence is called for...but none found.
They are providing a model only for the light effect, that includes a mysterious and enigmatic photon wave/particle/ fuzzything....which has never been seen nor sighted nor proven to exist except by the effect demonstrated only BY objects of mass. What say they to the notion that the light effects observed [ all of them ] may very well be caused by....uhmmm objects of mass resonating of each other and nothing to do with traveling photons...especially since they the photon has never been proven to travel and can't be proven to travel.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
slowing a massive object atomically reduces it's inertia yet maintains it's mass if I am not mistaken.
A levitating super conductor still weighs the same yet levitates. sort of thing..
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. The gravitational mass and inertial mass of the levitating superconductor are precisely the same as when it's not superconducting.

Clearly you spent your time away from the forums learning nothing. Good job.
 
To QQ:
QQ how does your model of light account for the phenomenon of refraction? Classical model says that refraction occurs because the speed of light differs in different mediums. Right? But according to your model light is instantaneous and distance does not exist for it?

Also does the relation E=mc^2 become invalid by your model of light?
 
anuraganimax said:
Also does the relation E=mc^2 become invalid by your model of light?
Click to expand...

If $$E=mc^2$$ is valid for light and invalid for massive particles in this model it proves it is wrong. I've explained this before - $$E=mc^2$$ only applies to particles at rest. photons are massless particles so we can never define a frame where they are at rest so $$E=mc^2$$ never applies to photons. The equation that does apply to photons is $$E=pc$$.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top