Can the Em radiation be proven to exist by means other than it's effect on an object of mass?
In the past I have posted this question and received unsatisfactory results. By this I mean that as yet no one has proven conclusively that light theory is actually valid with regards to light be it photon or wave actually traveling.
By traveling I mean in the usual sense that being from source to destination at the commonly held speed of approximately 300,000 kms per second.
Let me explain my concern if I may...
Light as per commonly held belief is often described as one would describe a particle or bullet or wave in that it travels from source to destination and is reflected to go on to complete another journey.
The problem is this:
Can light be observed with out a reflector be it the eye or a mirror or any other object of mass to be in transit from source to destination?
I presume the answer to this is no as no evidence to support a "free of reflector" photon exists and by it's very nature cannot be seen to exist without a reflector [simple circular rational yes?].
So this leaves us with a conundrum that light can only be experienced in reflection and not any other way. Which unfortunately leaves us with the dilemma of whether we are experiencing light as commonly held or we are experiencing something else.
So this leads on to the question:
How do we rule out the possibility that light maybe a "reflector" [ mass] event and not a light event as commonly described. That light as manifested is an effect of inertia.
How can we differentiate between light and reflector isolating the reflector from the observation? Impossible I would surmise.
So this raises the incredible question of what are we actually measuring when we measure the speed of light? Are we measuring the speed at which a reflector's surface changes [inertia by default] or are we measuring the speed of a photon?
The same question is very relevant to the issue of gravity.
"If an object is not in a gravity field does the gravity field exist?"
"Can the force of gravity be measured with out something actually being in a gravity field"
"Can the force of gravity be measured near by that object with out using an object of mass to do so?"
Can we differentiate between gravity and the mass it attracts? Are they separate things? or are they one and the same?
So as you can see may be in my naivety I have raised a can of worms [ again] and maybe someone can set me straight by providing unambiguous proof that light indeed travels free of a reflector and that the effect of light is not simply the reflector or the effect of the reflector itself?
If I haven't made my position clear please let me know and maybe the question can be put more succinctly.
Looking forward to evidence... I want to believe I really do.....
note: [ on the presumption that no evidence will be forthcoming]
Just because we do not know what the mechanism is for the manifestation of light on a reflector does not mean we should ignore the possibility of error in our observations
Care to discuss?
It would make a great question for high school students to try and answer I reckon: "Write an essay that proves conclusively that light is independent of a reflector and show unambiguously that light indeed travels?"
In the past I have posted this question and received unsatisfactory results. By this I mean that as yet no one has proven conclusively that light theory is actually valid with regards to light be it photon or wave actually traveling.
By traveling I mean in the usual sense that being from source to destination at the commonly held speed of approximately 300,000 kms per second.
Let me explain my concern if I may...
Light as per commonly held belief is often described as one would describe a particle or bullet or wave in that it travels from source to destination and is reflected to go on to complete another journey.
The problem is this:
Can light be observed with out a reflector be it the eye or a mirror or any other object of mass to be in transit from source to destination?
I presume the answer to this is no as no evidence to support a "free of reflector" photon exists and by it's very nature cannot be seen to exist without a reflector [simple circular rational yes?].
So this leaves us with a conundrum that light can only be experienced in reflection and not any other way. Which unfortunately leaves us with the dilemma of whether we are experiencing light as commonly held or we are experiencing something else.
So this leads on to the question:
How do we rule out the possibility that light maybe a "reflector" [ mass] event and not a light event as commonly described. That light as manifested is an effect of inertia.
How can we differentiate between light and reflector isolating the reflector from the observation? Impossible I would surmise.
So this raises the incredible question of what are we actually measuring when we measure the speed of light? Are we measuring the speed at which a reflector's surface changes [inertia by default] or are we measuring the speed of a photon?
The same question is very relevant to the issue of gravity.
"If an object is not in a gravity field does the gravity field exist?"
"Can the force of gravity be measured with out something actually being in a gravity field"
"Can the force of gravity be measured near by that object with out using an object of mass to do so?"
Can we differentiate between gravity and the mass it attracts? Are they separate things? or are they one and the same?
So as you can see may be in my naivety I have raised a can of worms [ again] and maybe someone can set me straight by providing unambiguous proof that light indeed travels free of a reflector and that the effect of light is not simply the reflector or the effect of the reflector itself?
If I haven't made my position clear please let me know and maybe the question can be put more succinctly.
Looking forward to evidence... I want to believe I really do.....
note: [ on the presumption that no evidence will be forthcoming]
Just because we do not know what the mechanism is for the manifestation of light on a reflector does not mean we should ignore the possibility of error in our observations
Care to discuss?
It would make a great question for high school students to try and answer I reckon: "Write an essay that proves conclusively that light is independent of a reflector and show unambiguously that light indeed travels?"
Last edited: