Light

[jehovajah]

A number of YouTube links seem to have died. However I have tried to reveal the original link so that a search may be made by interested readers for the new link if any.

[jehovajah]

Watch and learn.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/m-2uvQ_MJz8&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/m-2uvQ_MJz8&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[jehovajah]

If you want to understand this video go to magnetic universe.com

http:/www./youtube.com/watch?v=rO4L5Tca574

The complex ,versor math is a version of lineal algebraic math. Norman Wildberger is making clear how that works and is connected to relativity , but not as taught by the Einstein scholars.

[jehovajah]

For those who revere Newton as I do, and yet perceive him as flawed, as I also do, attend to this :-

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/_mgMv7fed1Q&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/_mgMv7fed1Q&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[jehovajah]

And so to the great unravelling!
Newtons philosophy of quantity was developed on the basis of a principle of Galileo. It was Grimaldi who attempted on behalf of the pope to falsify many of Galileos ideas promulgated in the Dialogo. In the course of doing this he became interested in the behaviour of light as it passed a sharp edge. He called it Diffraction, the shaving of the light into light and dark rings or patterns. It was not classical refraction, which occurred on entering and leaving a transparent medium, it was a shaving of a light beam or ray by a sharp edge that bent and split the ray.

Galileo had made lenses so powerful he could see the moons of Jupiter. Was it possible that these were a mirage of diffraction? Grimaldi did not have time to advance these counter arguments to Galileo before dying. The work was published posthumously and read only by a very few. Newton certainly never read it, but Hooke did.

Newton read the principles of Galileo in the Dialogo and various developments of them. He formulated his own based on a wide reading of the best minds of his day. Further he elaborated on what he apprehended as key principles of Mechanics, empirically verifying them by a geometrical measure or metric system.

In the Dialogo Galileo sets out a fractal system of the universe. The universe consisted of a set of possibly 9 spheres! The idea was a fancy of Copetnicus, who provided no real evidence to overthrow the prevailing earth centric views handed down by Eudoud.. These were so called epicyclic universes in which a fractal structure was elaborated in a dependent way .  There was one system dependent on the earth with planets made to wander in eccentric motions by the ordinance of the earth!

Copernicus thought this was ridiculous, and that the sun ordained the motion of the planets, including the earth. Of course the Inquisition would have made it impossible for him to seriously entertain promoting this notion. However Galileo saw the Jovian system isolated and pure. With no other power governing the moons than tht of the " god" Jupiter!

Secondly he saw Venus showing phases nd growing larger and smaller, as does our moon . He deduced that the size change was due to Venus orbiting the sun , not the earth!

These and many other observation he published and in the Dislogo ventured a Galilean explanation which was a fractal structure of moons circling planets and planets circling the sun. In order for this to occur he suggest the principle that the planets impart their motion to their moons in such a way as to keep the fractal stable and eternal. It was these observations Grimaldi sought to overturn in his study of light.

It was Newton who elaborated this principle into the absolute time, Absolute vis quantitative system in which he clealy explains the notion of relativity and the nature of his absolutes.

His absolutes were designed to give autonomy to fractal regions of space and autonomy to a constructed concept of time. In fact it was to liberate time from the construction process which is why he proposed absolute time.

These absolutes belong to a metaphysics of absolutes, which no educated or cultured person would dream of denying! And yet they have no empirical basis. They are either platonically "real or shadows", the reader must decide.
However underneath these Newton constructed a triumvirate of vis which starting at any absolute vis or power like the god Jupiter, would account by quantitative measures for acceleration and motive as the sum of bodies in motion toward a centre. Thus his triumvirate was based on centripetal force, or power, acting acceleratively on and throughout an absolute region of space in such a way as to generate centripetal motion in plumes of matter or bodies in that space.

With this reasonable prologia he then connects weight to the concept of motive vis or power and establishes the balance or the spring balance as the device to quantify this motive vis.

What he had done was provide a bridge between the everyday commercial weights and measures and the Astrological demiurges of the heavens! The Jovian system was and is his model of an absolute vis system.

The distribution of this accelerative vis in space allowed him to derive the inverse square law by men's of a geometrical argument, and a plane geometrical one at that. And the whole system was then verified by serious key measurements and observations.

This quantitative approach relied on a vast network of reliable observaions( their reliability is still in use tigon today!) and the collaborative efforts of traders roaming the planet or the empires. His own measurement of comets and those gleaned from other sources were crucial tests of his systematic unit tatie structure, which was locally absolute but universally Fractal

It is sobering to think that in 1905 when Einstein put all Newtons ideas together in the theory of relativity the universe was thought to be as big as the Milky Way! Newtons system is ideal or local or absolute closed systems, but we now think the universe is infinite! We have no comprehension of how to model such open systems beyond the local Newyonian scheme, in a Galilean fractal Universe.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/wOe8VTWIRaI&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/wOe8VTWIRaI&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[jehovajah]

"Light scatters" is a useful but unfounded metaphor.  It belongs with other descriptive metaphors which are more or less useful. Light reflects is a metaphor of surface behaviours not light. Light refracts is a metaphor of internal medium behaviours not light.mbut light diffracts is a metaphor of material behaviours under shear, nd thus relates light directly to the class of shearable media.

It turns out that this too is a more complex phenomenon than wood shavings for example, and the only suitable metaphor is that of water waves in a harbour entrance or around a harbour wall.

Such concepts were familiar to most natural philosophers of Descartes Era, but not universally agreed as applicable or substantive. The problem is and was that these metaphors are qualitative. One is thus able to accept or reject them on aesthetic grounds entirely!

So is there no reality that we cn describe in a way that is universally accepted and aesthetically and logically undeniable?

Newton, by relying on the eternal verities of the forefathers , the ancient Greek influenced philosophers felt that like Plato and perhaps more in tune ith Aristotle, Mathmtics of the platonic philosophers was the key. He was therefore of the mind to establish all his reasoning and philosophy on these grounds. In so doing he concedes to the Archimedian principles of Mechanics and the Pythagorean principles of Astrology, and the feedback and feed forward loop that exists between these two areas of measurement and dynamics.

His philosophy of quantity owes much to his peers, and much to Hooke, but is uniquely his own opinion and creation inspired by these commonalities or sharing of ideas/ forms.

So light by the fathers was symbolised by a ray, a geometrical line segment, by which they could described directly observed behaviours of light reflected off mirrors or concentrated through burning glasses or the eye..

To these "geometrical" or rather mechanical scratches or drawn lines in the ground he added the ballistic motions of corpuscles in motion under powered propulsion. This complicated notion of light rays as streams of corpuscles, I believe was a Newtonian erroneous understanding of the concept of Diffraction which having heard of , but not read Grimaldis treatise on the subject, inspired him into a ballistic fancy drawing together his growing interest in the Atomic concepts of Alchrmists, the observed microscopic details of corpuscular forms in works like the Micrographia of Hooke, Loeuwenhooke etc.

It is clear , even at this stage that empirical observable and thus measurable phenomena were to him paramount in any systematic and general treatment. This was in contrast to his peers who took advantage of the freedom to Hypothesise, that is to conjecture or just guess!

What evidence was there of a wave metaphor for light? Hooke in fact was developing a careful argument to support this idea empirically based on the diffraction concept of Grimaldi. Huygens was hypothesising a kind of chain reaction propagation based on circles expanding not on light rays. However Newton published his ideas on a ballistic model, with the impressive prism demonstration! Without a doubt his presentation was apprehensible by the naked eye. Thus the small fringe effects of diffractio were easily ignored! His ballistic model was appealing to the eye and the mechanical frame of mind of his peers.  Hookes more careful consideration relied on microscopy.

Lenses and Microscopes were a specialist field, and expensive. Only a very few elite people had access to them in Europe! Thus the number of people able to contest Newton old be very small, and would require them to have a faith in lense that was unjustified! In fact Newton was so dissatisfied with the quality of lenses that he replaced themby mirrors in his optical telescope. This not only made astronomers very happy and converts to his optics but also highlighted the unreliability of lenses. Huygens thus, as a lens maker had to overcome many inherent prejudices to lenses before his ideas would be accepted.

Huygens propagation of light through a lens relied on the lens maintaining and concentrating the incident light. Thus his system required each part of the lens to become a light source. In addition he recognised the sphericity of light in all media over the concept of spreading rays. This was a much more novel concept and drew on his observation of Moire patterns involved with diffraction gratings.

While diffraction gratings came into their on much later under the Mathematicl Analysis of Fresnel, the grinding of a lens has always required the pattern of a diffraction grating to shape the lens surface. The light splitting effect of these gratings was for the most part ignored. These were just construction curves or lines. It is to Huygens credit that he incorporates them in his propagation conjecture, without , however, clearly identifying them . They ar the basis for his insistence on a wavefront being a source of multiple sources of spherical wavefronts.

As a diffraction grating model it is clearly Leo a highly Fractl model. Evn today researchers do not appreciate Huygens fractal insight into light propagation in a lens.

To say that light travels through a medium is an ancient and Newtonian conception, not really reconcile able ith a wave propagation. Light actually is in and of a medium and travels as a " wave" disturbance of that medium. In holding this position I must also extend the concpt of the bulk properties of a medium beyond the me hanically compression measures of a medium, which underpin the deformation concept of wave propagation.. Sound for example clearly vibrates a medium, but the compressive behaviours for certain frequencies are hardly measurable by bulk medium compression.

In addition, the largest amplitude of a sound propagation would be characterised by the compression value measured, but the speed of propagation or relaxation of the medium cannot be measured in this bulk way.

Thus I am drawn to investigate how the speed of sound is established in terms of the bulk properties of a medium, and consequently now the permeability and emissivity coefficients are established in the case of electro magnetic wave propagation. It would seem to be that these constants are established from the speed of sound and light, not the other way round.

[jehovajah]

Heaviside maxwell equations modified by magnetic monopole  or skymion created in 2009.

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

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ng-uZ_wD7Uc&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/Ng-uZ_wD7Uc&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

[jehovajah]

The magnetic structure of light.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/LP4Mu4eKq7w&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/LP4Mu4eKq7w&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/LP4Mu4eKq7w&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/LP4Mu4eKq7w&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

While we say light is an electromagnetic radiation we have very little empirical cognisance of that, and our classical theoretical concepts are inadequate.

Here we see the empirical structure of radiation, and how the magnetic systems are structured in association with that radiation. We see how gravity is not understood at all, as. Newton clearly stated! The plasmas twist and curve tracing out the magnetic structures and then return back along these traced out structures. Some of the plasma simply stops glowing, while sone crosses from one force loop to another. There is no simpe universal gravitational force empirically. There is a complex structural system of forces including otational forces; and in fact the rotational forces are the fundmental building blocks for a unified system based on curvature.

[jehovajah]

The luminiferous Aether was a profound philosophical and linguistic error. How it arose I will not go into, but it did not arise amongs philosophers. It arose among engineers, and technicians hurrying toward fame and fortune in the late 19th century. Crookes radiometer may have had some small part to play, as did spectroscopy and the glowing of burning elements.

For a while Newtons corpuscles were real. They were material. However, suppressed Grimalfi, Huygens and Hookes empirical based theory of an undulation in the aether was gaining credence. Once it burst onto the scene there was much confusion and rgument about the validity of the supporting empirical data. The phenomenon was reduced to its crudest terms: wave or particle? , or rather wave or corpuscle.

The difference between a wave or a corpuscle is minor. Both are flexible formations of matter. Nobody asked the question what are corpuscles or particles made of?  They do now at the LHC after deciding that the thing they are studying is a wavicle! A quantum of energy, a packet of waves, all terms which confuse but allow exploitation of that confusion.

In the day a similar oxymoron was coined, the luminous aether!

What is light? The clear and obvious answer is a sensational experience mediated by the eye as an organ of sight! The question that Newton sought to investigate was how the eye was stimulated. It seems sensible that pressure from articles would be a good model. However the particles would need to be soft, hence the use of the biological TEM corpuscle. Newton convinced himself of the nature of sight sensation by poking his eye socket out!

How could a wave in the plenum produce the same results? What was the plenum, as Descartes termed it? It later gave way to the term Aether, because plenum was too wide a notion, it was thought. Surely this wave did not wave everything? Surely some things were solid and resisted, reflected or refracted this wave? At the time no one but Hooke and eventually Huygens knew about Grimali's if fraction propagation discovery. Today some still do not get diffraction, the splitting of a light beam along its path of travel .

Newton should have got it from his tidy of Harbour waves, but he refused to change his published opinion, which was well received and gave him a fellowship!

The question bothered Huygens too. Where did all the extra light come from? By this I mean as a light ray is split there should be gaps, which eventually there are but before the gaps become visible there is a spreading out of the beam. Where dies the extra light come from to spread the beam? And then why does it eventually separate? Huygens wave front theory was an attempt to answer that question and all wave behaviour as it spreads. It is still not understood today, at least Feynmann stumbled over its meaning.

Every point is a light source that emits not a ray but a circle( in the plane) of light! This was classically unheard of. Rays not circles were the obvious geometrical symbol. However what Huygens observed were the Moire patterns of overlapping circles. These Moire patterns give the "rays" of light by intersection or superposition as they now like to call it.

But what about the backward progression of the light circle? Huygens was not able to answer that, nor was Feynmann. In fact the backwards progression of most phenomena are ignored! The backwards progression is complex but not obscure. A light source has a greater intensity than any other light source responding to the interaction of its circular wave fronts. Consequently the backwards progression is much weaker and often swamped  (but not eliminated by destructive interference) by the forward progression. In addition reflection of the backward progression may occur, but if not it combines with the progression on the other side of the light source's circular emission. This of course is a fractal behaviour repeated almost self similarly at every point source so stimulated.

For Huygen the Moire pattern and the extra if dimmer sources accounted for the observed behaviours. But it took Laplace, Euler, and Fourier to set up a mathematical model that Fresnel could apply to the diffracted light experiments and thus eventually to all light.

What was being waved was the plenum or the aether. Young undertook detailed studies of the eye and the retina to conclude that certain sensors existed sensitive to this wave " excitation" or intensity variation. There was no evidence that soft blunt trauma was necessary!

So after Arago set in motion a definitive attempt to measure light speed, why I'd some want to ind if a luminiferous Aether existed? Frankly because they were not convinced light was a wave, and they felt that pace was empty! Considering that even up to 100 years ago astronomers thought the Milky way was the entire Universe, you can gain an insight into the level of understanding the brightest human minds had then!

A luminiferous Aether is sn oxymoron. Light is an experience not of a luminous aether vibrating amongst many other supposed , guessed and theorised aethers, Ethers and mediums conscious or otherwise. Light is the experience of the eye responding to an undulation in the progression of light itself. Just as a wave is a form on a body of water a light wave is a form on a body of light. Our eyes can decipher these variations in light itself to stimulate the wonders of what we see.

But what were these luminiferous aethers Crookes and others were demonstrating? These were and are the plasmas which far more than being the very essence of light are the primordial primitives of materiality! It is the variations in the undulations of these plasmas that give us our colour spectrum and beyond in either direction. Thus some plasmas with a very slow undulation pass through us as heat while others with a very very high frequency of undulation dismember the very structure of the proteins in our cells!

From the outset waves of the plenum necessarily must pass through some seemingly solid objects without any visible means of passage, because a wave of the plenum waves everything! However certain waves are particular to certain substances and elements, and this is what the whole subject of spectroscopy relies on. The ones in the visible range are aminiscule subset of such waves. It is because of these plasmas with these frequency fistributions that we have an experience of a material world through sight!

We take for granted our other sensors which are tuned to different frequencies and so give us a different experience of plasmas  vibrating in and around us.take air for example. Invisible and yet translucent to light modulations. Water vapour, absorbs an re emits at a microwave frequency light modulations. Thus we feel warm when water vapour is in the air and it is irradiated by light long enough to warm up.

The light from the sun is a plama emission. Not all the plasmas are good for us. The plasma dynamic of a magnetic plasma structure diffracts these plasmas around the planet and filters out much that is harmful.or reflects and scatters it to a more tolerable intensity.

These plasmas are dynamic and flow to as well as away. As they flow away colder plasmas flow in and cooling occurs .

The flow of Plasmas in space above the atmosphere is so extreme we could not survive without some plasma modifying suit or situation.

[jehovajah]

Light is the sensory or sensor reaction to a narrow range of frequency deformations in a dynamically stable equilibrium of rotating plasmas. Perception of light is a conscious experience of the reaction of the eye or retinal sensors mediated by the neural computational mesh within the human organism, or animate organism.

While these may seem adequate expository statements , they are not the " truth" in my opinion. They serve as part of a much broader dialectical process that I am engaged in with other interested parties who may provide a contradictory exposition. By this means we may " scientifically" progress to a better resolution as an expository model. For example I have not expressly described any nonphyical or rather immaterial interaction.

[jehovajah]

A Hegelian dialectical stage!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/BFvJOZ51tmc&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/BFvJOZ51tmc&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/BFvJOZ51tmc&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/BFvJOZ51tmc&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1</a>

What is the resolution?  
The Hegelian dialectical process enables us to journey toward one.
Is Einsteins speed limit universal? Surely by his own assumptions it is a local constant. In addition his 2 postulates imply that faster than local light speed is necessary in absolute systems within a common third system and is resolveable by the Doppler shift, providing that light has a limit in the third system. Thus Doppler shift is evidence of light sources travelling fast enough to impact the speed of their light, but the bulk properties of the intervening space only permits the resultant to propagate at light speed.

No observer of light can determine this, but the reason can establish this by the above model of absolutes. But that same reason thus knows that light speed is not a universal limit, but a local bulk property limit used to explain observed Doppler shift which implies faster than light speed within the boundary of the absolute system if measured by the system outside the absolute system . Our measurements have to be factored down to maintain the bulk property of space. This is precisely the Lorentz transformations, and the mathematical factor that accords with the Doppler shift.

Therefore the limitation is ours. We can observe with our visual sensors only frequencies consistent with the speed of light, but we can conceive of unlimited speeds. So called quantum entanglement and Bells inequalities demonstrate that there are things we can conceive beyond our ability to measure, but whose effects nevertheless are observable.

All is lost therefore for any model that claims absolute deterministic certainty . We are free to go on exploring empirically and conceiving improbable things, if we wish. Both myth and fact are products of the human mind/ Geist.

[jehovajah]

Open your eyes and see . Waves are not what you think !

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

The spatial modulation of light is a gross scale modulation of the subtle trochoidal modulations that occur by frequency in all signal transmissions in and through space. The magneto Thermo sono electro complex deforms space trochoidally with extraordinary effects that we detect in a range of sensors.

[jehovajah]

Subuantum kinetics. LaViolette explains the Townson Brown research project and its effect on Blackwotks op.

http://youtu.be/ifEgGMFK-VU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEgGMFK-VU

[jehovajah]

And finally the fractal study of light culminates in the following, which is adduced despite all erroneous metaphor or attempt at mind control

http://youtu.be/4gHhAA-9o_8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gHhAA-9o_8

[jehovajah]

Note how light spectra a wrapped around a centre to come up with a model of a hydrogen atom.

The problem is :,the spectral lines are frequency bands not wavelength bands.  Diffraction , when I was taught it was explained using the sine "wave". The sine curve has no wavelength, it only has a frequency.. So what was done, is done is a fictitious wavelength is created to model a frequency. We are then told that an interference occurs in space at a given angle of interaction. This is obtained by allowing the wave length to " slide" past each other, this is assuming light travels in a ray like manner . So we substitute a sinewave for a straight line and we " see" superposition.

Well this is nonsense. The disturbance we call a wave emits at least spherically. The interaction does not depend on the wavelength but the frequency. The spatial position of constructive and destructive nodes depends on frequency . If we use Sclieren optics we se the pressure front pass as a shock wave but we do not see the frequency patterns that follow behind. We see " turbulence".

Wavelength has become ingrained, because we look at the sea and supposedly see waves? Look more closely. What we see are rolling cylinders with a rhomboidal cone like shape. We see turbulence. The spreading out of ripples are toroidal cylinders rolling . The frequency of their rolling it what we observe, along with the amplitude of their disturbance, how much power they are rolling away.

Diffraction thus demonstrates how these frequencies peel off into filaments when translucent and transparent material snag the rolling frequency bound disturbances.

Our energy level model is helpful, but it tells us little about any quantum structure so called if it is believed to be spread around an infinitesimal sphere.
http://youtu.be/KnwIpcyJJiM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnwIpcyJJiM