Light

[jehovajah]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/z2W5jaxKlgU&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/z2W5jaxKlgU&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/z2W5jaxKlgU&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/z2W5jaxKlgU&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>
While this explanation is apologetic for the electric universe, it is still preferable to the standard view.
However, light does not require" electric "  current causality. The electro Thermo magneto complex is the natural energetic behaviour of matter , emitting light etc as space compacts trochoidally.

Go to Thunderbolts Project channel on youTube if you cannot access this video by P M Robitaille

http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2014/04/05/dr-pierre-marie-robitaille-on-the-validity-of-kirchhoff-s-law-eu2014/
http://www.thermalphysics.org/thermalphysics.html
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/3Hstum3U2zw&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/3Hstum3U2zw&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[jehovajah]

Rotation is a sufficient motion to count for all perceived phenomena at all scales.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/waXWOv0YqFE&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/waXWOv0YqFE&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[jehovajah]

As we understand more about the rotational nature of the electro Thermo magneto complex the more we produce light as spark energy twisting space into its plasma dynamic state  . At a certain rotational frequency  what was already happening invisibly suddenly also becomes visible light. Beyond a certain frequency it again cloaks itself in invisibility as our visual sensors can no longer respond to the incident rotational stress.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/Mli66pnZbNA&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/Mli66pnZbNA&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[jehovajah]

There are some detailed problems that arise out of our current model of the electro Thermo magneto complex. The problems derive from the notion of an electron.

While it is not evident on the small scale that space is a collection of rotating fractally distributed regions, our concepts have to be based on this fluid dynamic experience . However, rather than moving entirely to the fluid dynamic paradigm, theoreticians have formed a consensus of ad hoc ideas which allows someone's expertise to be tapped in specified situations. The result is the standard model which is the consensus view. There are better and more consistent models but they attract little support from the scientific communities in physics etc. human nature over subject boundaries and associated finding streams as well as reputations blocks the necessary paradigm shift and remodelling.

Here is an advanced discussion of an emerging consensus which points out the flaws and potential areas of research to confim a better model. Unfortunately it relies on the electron despite the ubiquitous mention of a new space fluid called plasma!

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/Cn_lFYUTE88&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/Cn_lFYUTE88&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

I hope that the relevance to light is not missed by this technical discussion. The electron has its origin in the study of light emissions!

[jehovajah]

Ignore the brief particle theory at the beginning, concentrate on the rotating magnetic field" energy " or Newtonian fluid motive.

A conductor guides this spherical vortex fluid motion into long cylindrical vortex fluid motions which everywhere impinges on the conductor, rather than travelling through the conductor. The frequency or frequencies of this rotation provide the variation in magnetic field intensity usually called electric potential or voltage.
 Rotation occurs in a gyre which means that it can be flipped into an anti parallel configuration. This is stable in reflection, but unstable in parallel transmission. Thus anti parallel gyres may travel along the same conducting guide where parallel ones will result in destructive tensions.

We feel we can control this magnetic Thermo electric behaviour but in fact we are at it's mercy. Like the great rivers for example, we make use of their fluid motive power at our peril!
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/8TRL03nkeYM&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/v/8TRL03nkeYM&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[jehovajah]

Alternative history.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/pe6DN1OoxjE&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/pe6DN1OoxjE&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

What has it got to do with light?
The early records start with the stars and planets as sources of plasma, but our modern myth and fact making severely impairs our ability to understand.

At this time, the Thunderbolt project is the only movement linking the evidence together and deepening the understanding of the electro Thermo magneto complex..

[jehovajah]

Ray tracing a fractal.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/u3EPsUTMXwQ&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/u3EPsUTMXwQ&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[jehovajah]

Electrothemomagneto complex or plasma
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/YVEDGg43ZR8&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/YVEDGg43ZR8&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[jehovajah]

Dlectrothermomagneto energy and geometry.

While we cannot see much of space dynamically rotating unless it exudes strain torsions at the frequency of visible light, nevertheless we have experience of how metallic twisted copper wires guide this rotational behaviour. The energy or Newtonisn fluid motive of space is still mysterious, and capable of being transformed into many things, but for now at least I use the concept of a hydrogen plasma as the definition of space. However I do not use a particle but rather a fluid dynamical description. The basic regional structure would therefore be a spherical vortex in dynamic transformational mode and fractal in geometry.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jSR67NFs11E

[jehovajah]

Now I have a handle on Grassmann I can recommend this exposition of the Euler / Cotes identity.
Plane polarised light and much more relies on the behaviour encoded in this identity for cogent expression.
This is perhaps the most famous trochoid formula we know, but it is only the beginning.
http://mathsforeurope.digibel.be/Euler.html
http://www.songho.ca/math/euler/euler.html

[jehovajah]

This hand held van de Graff generator illustrates a fundamental misconception in terminology. There is no electro-static energy!

Electrodynamics is better , but electro Thermo magneto dynamics ie the best so far!
You can clearly see nothing remains " static"!. And of course, why old it if light is constantly moving?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xTeckXuARwE

The next video shows that because an energy is constantly moving does not mean stationary phenomena cannot be generated. Unfortunately we call these phenomena standing "waves" but they are clearly not waving if they are standing! A more fundamental notion is that of spherical rotations! These are standing or stationary spherically rotating regions. Because they are rotations we can apprehend the relevance of Frequency or revolutions per second! The concept of wave length is better described as spherical regional dimension. This always occurs in "anti parallel" pairs. This phenomenon of anti parallel spherical rotation is often misdescribed as matter anti matter coupling or even entanglement.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lSdjj29fJqY

Rotation is a group of  complex phenomena we are currently misunderstanding big time!

Finally this last video shows how our notions have misinterpreted volcanic activity.mthe electro Thermo magneto complex phenomena generate spherical rotational spaces at. All scales and frequencies.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=9F7KnNkBNPU

[jehovajah]

http://youtu.be/3Hstum3U2zw
This may not play on the iPad!
But Kirchoffs law of thermal emission is not valid, and thus Planck's law is not universal. Emission is dependent on the material, which essentially means light is absorbed and transformed and emitted differently by each material.

The perfect reflector does not exist. The refle tion of light energy is very complex, and Snells laws represent a simplified process, even with Arago and Fresnels formulations.h

[jehovajah]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=px3oVGXr4mo
Light as a viscous medium may be unusual to think about, but here we see the viscosity of light( ie it's bending) used to create shadows.

Refraction and diffraction are some of the hardest concepts to grasp me hanically without a concept of elasticity  derived from the concept of reflection.  Using the concept of elasticity in the light medium one can then generalise it to viscosity to get a better apprehension of refraction nd diffraction.

Grimaldi  conceived of light splitting longitudinally, along the path of its projection. Newton conceived of light splitting transversely into corpuscular chunks with a ballistic behaviour. Thus the refraction due to a prism was different o the diffraction due to a sharp edge!  Newton could not explain diffraction but did rename it as diversion, vibe in the mono chromatic beam dispersed from a prim. Grimaldi simply conceived of the sharp edge shaving light off from a propagating beam. In formulating this notion he used the analogy of shaving wood off a beam or spray off a stream of water.. BOth rely on viscosity in the mediums. Because Newton conceived of light as already split into corpuscles he had no real conceptual basis for viscous behaviours in light.

Newtons work on water waves shows his ingenuity in drawing analogies from sound, but this is again firmly based on a mixed medium in which compression caused the dispersion of water vapour as droplets on the side of the compression vessel. Thus his corpuscular presuppositions explained the transmission of sound and light as a mixed medium phenomenon, but in light he supposed no other material construct for the interstitial space. In sound he supposed air to be fulfilling that role.

Thus his fluid dynamical investigations do not start with viscosity but with resistivity. He thus considers the behaviour in terms of lubricity, which is a direct frictional opposite to resistivity. Viscosity on the other hand is an inverse property to resistivity.  Several properties of friction are thus mechanically incorrect, in particular the slope coefficient of friction!

Frictional forces are still misunderstood mechanically, even now when viscous forces are better understood and included in the analysis.

The viscosity of light is a substantive property of the media through which light passes as a strain propagation. Light , as a phenomenon is not independent of a medium of transmission or propagation. Thus in very sparse medi "light" is invisible because the strain cannot rotate the medium at the frequency of visible light. However in a dense medium the strain is not only able to rotate the medium at the relevant frequency, but in fact at many co dependent frequencies relating to the viscous interactions in the medium or media.

[jehovajah]

Researching De Broglie and Rayleigh waves brought me to this speech by De Broglie,

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1929/broglie-lecture.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCICoR6czcc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ3EaEay3YM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a54W4w6_10Y

Rotational waves or Rayleigh waves are the norm.

The use of sine or circular functions strictly speaking is not about waves but periodicity. The difference is that periodicity is not a description of a " wave" . However undulatory is a description of a perceived motion which has some recurring variation. The concept of a wave is thus not as precise as some would preach.
De Broglie simply draws an analogy between a statistical aggregation of periodic behaviours which has a peak as a result of periodic overlap and thus interference. This peak he defines or suggested should be associated with the electron.

What followed from that is a clever melding of bodily behaviours and perceived peak behaviours.. He never asserts that they are the same thing hich some now o, rather he sets out how one may mentally cross between the 2.  For him the electron was real and the peak wave phenomenon was real. He felt they should be associated if physics was going to be reconciled.

Was it an advance? Certainly it promoted acceptance of a mathematical wave mechanics, and Schroedingers characterisation of a dynamical system with periodicity, but it was more his interpretation that was admired. Suddenly he could make sense of particles and "waves" in terms that satisfied both camps. And there were 2 camps.

It seems we have got used to agreeing to differ and working collaboratively together. Nobody really wants to rebuild physics and the sciences from the roots, instead they just want to get their share of the financial cake and maintain their disciplines.
http://www.numericana.com/fame/solvay.htm
http://scholarsarchive.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/21636/NyeMaryJo.History.AristocraticCulturePursuit.pdf?sequence=1

http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Rayleigh.html

[jehovajah]

While still researching it is clear from DeBigkies speech that the sickness in physics and in science arises out of a belief in something called expected or rational truth! This notion is derived from religious and cultural expectations. However, accute empirical observation often generates a conundrum or a contradiction, but this contradictory status is only in the mind or consciousness of the observer/ expositor. Thus the contradiction is formal, rhetorical and due to mis proportionate thinking. Simply put our Analogues do not form a proportional statement!

Using analogous thinking allows the thinker to move beyond such stumbling blocks. The appropriate analogy allows the appropriate comparisons to be made. Here DeBroglie simply compares waves and corpuscles in an analogy. That is the ratio of corpuscles to corpuscles are analogus to the ratio of waves to waves. This s Eydoxian Logos Analogos method, but applied to notions as s systems of magnitudes rather than just bare magnitudes like lines or planes.

The fundamental Spaciometry that allows or supports this analogous thinking was joy characterised until Mandelbrot gave it the name Fractal Grometry. That is not to say that it was not intuitively used by great pragmatists of the past.

Pragmatism is the doorway to idealism and ideal form. This is so because empirical data is so varied and multiple that a pragmatic decision has to be made to avoid Zeno's and Parmenides paradox. Making that decision makes an " ideal" . That is a firm, a Metron, a Monas, a prototype. Because the decision is set or fixed the form or idea is fixed. This form can now be perfected in what is called Skesi or schematic thought, that is thought based on drawn representations,, or even sculpted model. Once the properties of these schema are apprehended it is then pragmatically possible to reapply this ideal to the empirical situation.

The application of an ideal to an empirical situation requires constant adjustment, particularly by division. It is this division that encodes a notion of scale within its notion of factorisation into multiple form. This notion of scale and factorisation is the logos Analogis interpretation of similarity, and fractal geometry encompasses a more pragmatic notion: almost self similarity. This notion and it's connection to factorisation by division is the fundamental Euclidean Akgorithm which is iteration!

The products of iterative Algorithms are the topic of my next post.