comparing light to sound:in space where there is no air(the very substance of sound)there is no sound.so sound is in fact variations of densities in the medium which it is moving through.when this principle is applied to light,that is to say if light were sound then the light would be in fact made up of the medium which it is moving through or compressing and expanding.think of the universe as "filled" with this "air" or use the idea of water if it is easier for you.what i am saying is in fact that the universe is the medium through which the light is moving,compressing and expanding.and the speed of light is defined by the density of this medium.the implication that light has a constant speed as a law is ridiculous.the light is subject to density just as sound is subject to density when it moves through water or air.the mistake is to assume that there is no medium(or that space is empty).think of the medium as a "space" with it's own frequency reacting with consonance or dissonance with whatever happens within it.if you add sound to sound in water or air it doesn't make the sound move any faster.if light is moving through a medium it explains why light can be seen as a particle and a wave...light is the particle and the medium is the wave.and if you haven't thought of it yet:this implies that light does not exist in and of itself...it depends on this medium just as sound depends on air.zero rest mass is a concept that wrongly describes something that does not exist...that is to say that sound or light that isn't moving in fact does not exist,that which has not affected anything cannot be(a cause).light is evidence of the constant density of the universe:just as sound is evidence of the constant density of air or water.
Nice post. I think that whatever this medium is or aetheric fluid. It's inertial properties are represented by the magnetic field.
Quote from: sparks on October 01, 2008, 12:37:33 PM
Nice post. I think that whatever this medium is or aetheric fluid. It's inertial properties are represented by the magnetic field.
yea well,science has not done a very good job of defining a potential,matter itself is a potential,everything has a potential,even space...but what I'm saying is this "medium" is a relative density...just as matter and space are relative densities...if matter could (or hypothetically if it did)move through space at the speed of light it would no doubt emit(or become)light itself because of the corresponding energies being exchanged with the environment...it is already known that energies are waves(compressions and expansions)...if you can say that there is such a thing as sound although it is subject to where and in what it is contained(or what it is surrounded with) then you can say also that light is the "evidence,result or manifestation" of what it is surrounded by,what it is "within"...and if sound = air then it stands to reason that light = space or space = light...that is what i mean...in concept i am proposing invisible light...if we could not "see" how would we detect it?dark matter implies shadows or something...invisible light implies light that has "zero rest mass" or a potential for becoming light.
I like Walter Russells explanation, simply put ------- All that we have ever know is not something, it is a condition of something. Light is not something, it is a condition of something as is darkness.
A better explanation for the irregularities of the universe than Dark Matter is, maybe the gravitational force exerted by a mass is not constant.
Very good.... I like people like you, people that thinks and rethinks the theories.
Some days ago I thought a similar theory (not as well as you) but that is true... If the sound can't travel throught the vacuum is because there isn't a medium to travel throught. When the propagation medium (the air) is present, sound can travel. So.... Why the energy can travel throught the space? The answer is easy... BECAUSE THERE IS A PROPATION MEDIUM, so the vacuum is not a pure vacuum. I don't remember where I read the next:
The Definition of Vacuum
1. Extracting all gases..... Result: There was thermal radiation
2. Extracting gases and reducing temperature..... Result: There was energy
3. Extractin.... + energy...... Result: There was Random Energy Patterns
So... pure vacuum doesn't exist. The vacuum contains energy and other things. We can perceibe it, but it doesn't means that there is nothing, because there is energy in all the universe. But we can't see it.
Quote from: brian334 on October 01, 2008, 02:29:13 PM
A better explanation for the irregularities of the universe than Dark Matter is, maybe the gravitational force exerted by a mass is not constant.
please specify "irregularities"...that sounded intelligent however vague
2 plus 2 not adding up to 4 is a irregularity.
Quote from: brian334 on October 01, 2008, 02:48:24 PM
2 plus 2 not adding up to 4 is a irregularity.
ok, well then to try and fuse what you seemed to say with what i said:the light(or energy) that is exiting a system(galaxy) is causing a proportionately negative effect at 90 degrees which holds the system(galaxy) together...
We observe our solar system and make rules that work good in our solar system. We than try to apply the same rules to the entire universe, when our rules donââ,¬â,,¢t work out there in the universe we make things up, like black holes and dark matter and dark energy.
Maybe the same amount of mass does not always have the same amount of gravitational force.
To compare light to sound and say that sound needs something to exist in therefore light needs something to exists in is laim. If sound and light are the same why canââ,¬â,,¢t sound travel thru space?
Here's my thought... everything all space, vacuum ... everything is made out of the same stuff call it what you want... . the stuff, energy, ether, is spiraling from the outside inward , where at the top of the spiral there is pure infinite energy which is is very very fine , and when it spirals down through what is call dimensions it condense more and more until it reaches where we are.. the 3rd dimension, this energy has a geometry built into it , what is called sacred geometry... where it uses the pi number which is the formula for everything. and the beauty of it is that this geometry can make infinite shapes and forms and never repeat it self but all the shapes and forms(matter) all are the same in the basis. the energy , ether, moves only in spirals that the the only way of movement there is, theres no such thing as linear movement
and spirals move from the outside to the the center and compresses the energy, the energy compresses to infinity , every particle can be divided into smaller particles , in the beginning there was only one, but if theres only one nothing happens no movement no life, so the one divided himself to 2 now there a diffrential so the energy can start to move (life) , the one who divided himeself to 2 made the number pi and the geometry that goes with it so you get all shapes and forms never the same but all the same, the 2 are everythng there is + - , male female , left right, black white. and so on and so on. .. wew my hands heart.. lol thats my truth... hopes it understandable...
There is nothing in space. Except God
your right, god is space, vacuum , ether, god is everything there is.....
Quote from: brian334 on October 01, 2008, 04:00:12 PM
To compare light to sound and say that sound needs something to exist in therefore light needs something to exists in is laim. If sound(fluctuations in air pressure) and light(fluctuations of ambient universal pressure) are the same(thing) why canââ,¬â,,¢t sound(fluctuations in air pressure) travel thru space(no air)?
We can talk about God...just don't forget to find out why Moses raised up the serpent in the wilderness.
I think the notion of pure vacuum is silly, every part of our universe is composed of different densities ranging between but not including zero and infinity.
Also IÃ,´ll bet that if you build a large diameter speaker and large diameter microphone then you would find that sound waves do propogate through "space". Maybe even fairly efficiently at very low frequencies. If anyone doubts this then lets look at that classic high school experiment where a glass jar with a bell in it is slowly pumped out with vacuum pump. The bells volume slowly diminishes as the vacuum is increased it reaches a point where the human ear can no longer perceive it. Why anyone would assume a step function to zero at any point in this diminishing curve is beyond me?
I think atoms are bound vortices of pure energy and maybe atoms propogate light something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaHLwla2WiI
The ordinal post was dark matter.
Good theory christo4_99 :)
tell me if you think this is correct...and if it is what Einstein meant...the energy of a lone atom at rest is a standing wave which is like saying only bonding energy(nucleus relative to electron) or no energy beyond the electron shell...and since the electron is moving near the speed of light if the atom is accelerated(to c) the bonding energy of the electron is reduced because the environment is now moving just as fast as the particle...which also presupposes that the orbit radius has increased since the nuclei has gained relative speed and the electron has lost relative speed...the orbit of the electron would become randomly elliptical anytime it moved in a plane either with it's relative direction(inertia) or against it's relative direction(decay of inertia) so the particle would vibrate randomly and become (larger=more massive) then finally invert itself because it's surrounding have become inverted in a sense.
When sound travels thru air it slows down and eventually stops.
When light travels thru space does it slow down? NO. The reason light does not slow down when it travels thru space is because there is nothing in space to make it slow down.
As I understand Einstein's theory velocity of a particle represents increasing the inertia of a particle so that the resultant inertial gain increases the velocity of a particle in a vectored path.
As the particle approaches the speed of light more and more energy is needed to overcome the inertia already present in the particle. The particle due to it's inertia is getting harder to change it's velocity. A body in motion tends to stay in motion at the relative velocity it's at.
@Brian 334
How do we know if light isn't many orders denser than space and easily displaces this matter. What we see as light is just the displacement ripples of dark matter.
Light does not have a constant speed this has been well documented because in differnt conditions light travels faster, slower or not at all...
Sound does travel through space as does light thus traveling and travesing its way through this hodge podge of oppucancy of occupants which are unknown.
Dark matter is dark matter or whatever you call it.
Is it the amneotic fluid of the universe ? This is what most speculate... And there is fairly interesting theory supporting this energy can not be created nor destroyed so there is a sespool of energy available in space the problem is still a problem and has not been cracked and that is we are unable to crack exactly just how to harness such a force because of its complex nature or possibly its vastness.
I am not sure I love to hear what people have to say about this.
Anyhow I loved to see some folks thinking maybe your right just maybe but ... without sound proofs I dont think anyone will be able to settle for theory.
"It's the aether, stupid"
Not willing to annoy anyone here, but the fabric of the "void" was very well aknowledged and researched before Einstein "killed" it.
Le my clarify that I don't buy the concept of "Dark Matter" because it arises completely from a misleading cosmological model that says that the only force important in the shaping of the universe is gravity.
The electrical Universe theory eliminates the need for a "dark matter" to exists.
Nonetheless, there are other "observed anomalies" that might arise from a misundestarding of energy dynamics on the universe, and there's where the aether might play a fundamental role that we should stop neglecting.
(note for help you understand my position: "Big Bang? my arse")
one of the problems with thinking about light having a constant velocity is thinking of why it would have the same velocity in any particular direction...like waves moving up a river against the current,in which case they would slow down and disappate...the "river" would have to be flowing out of itself like point inflation but everywhere at once...if the universe expanding is causing light to slow down...like (omnipotent/omnidirectional point inflation of the universe)reducing the speed of dark matter by a collision with electrons(creating photons)then the speed of the dark matter would have to be greater than the speed of light and the electron.speed of dark matter>inflation(resistance)+ collision w/m(90 degree vector deflection)=c(speed of light)
Quote from: ChileanOne on October 03, 2008, 05:48:36 PM
...I don't buy the concept of "Dark Matter" because it arises completely from a misleading cosmological model that says that the only force important in the shaping of the universe is gravity....
I agree.
Is it not strange that all of the known elements have 'electrons'?
There is not one known element that has no 'electrons.'
I am these days inclined to view all of the known elements as standing waves within an energy aether.
Thinking this way, what do we now make of the 'electron shells' surrounding each elemental nucleus?
What function does this electron shell play; does it help keep this standing wave standing and the nucleus intact?
What would happen to the nucleus if we could strip away the entire electron shell; would the nucleus become unstable?
Are these what we call positive ions--are any positive ions completely devoid of an electron shell?
Would an electron-shell free nucleus then change it's fundamental standing wave frequency and become a standing wave of a smaller atom and create for itself a new electron shell to interface the aether and seek a new stability?
Conversely, if we could pile an excess of electron shells upon a nucleus would it's fundamental standing wave frequency shift to the next larger stable standing wave?
If we could completely remove electron shells from or infinitely stack electron shells onto atoms then could we become alchemists?
(Sorry for my digression.)
btw...i am not actually disputing the speed of light per se but instead the density of the universe...saying that the reaction of dark matter which is moving faster than light with electrons is creating light wherein the massless becomes massive...and also saying that the universe is expanding from all points simultaneously like a standing wave that only reacts to diffuse disturbances like high energy collisions...
implosion and standing waves are the most fascinating phenomena in the universe as far as I'm concerned,and they don't rely on "magic" to function...standing waves are two sides of the same coin...implosion is simply moving something faster than the environment can react and the environment abiding to itself...if you have a spherical implosion it creates it's own spherical standing wave...kinda cool to think of....I'll even go so far as to say that the Bedini and Bearden inventions are devices that cause electrical implosions(causing negative pressure(defecate) then switching off the "classical" pathway for the circuit to restore itself)
on:light from a moving source has the same velocity as light from a stationary source.the reason for this is simple but not what Einstein thought.if you accelerate matter against resistance to it's terminal velocity(that is the velocity at which resistance = impetus + inertia) it is then moving as fast as it can adding more accelerated mass to it will not increase it's speed because at this point the energy and the mass are equal...in other words the two masses are subject to the same laws...before terminal velocity it is possible to add the two vectors together to form one total speed up to the point of unification of mass but not beyond it...adding light to light or light to speed does not increase speed because light has reached it's terminal velocity...it is like using the greatest force possible to accelerate matter and then expecting the same force added coherently to result in even more speed...and to elaborate for this thread in general:if there is not any resistance on the light(if space is empty) then light would succumb to vectored forces of inertia and impetus...as far as the comparison is concerned: light is like matter that has reached it's terminal velocity and adding more matter at terminal velocity has no affect...adding more light at it's innate terminal velocity has no affect...in other words force is limited but potential is unlimited...if you remove the restraints (resistance,attraction,diffusion) then the light would continue to accelerate
nature found a way to trap a reaction of implosion and a standing wave that doesn't lose any energy
if the speed of light is variable that implies that our calculation of the positions of other galaxies is inaccurate...furthermore if the density of space itself is variable then assuming that there was a big bang,space is most dense at the edge of the expansion and least dense at the center...we should be looking for variations in the speed of light in space to find the center and the edge thereby defining our "position" in the universe.
so it becomes a question of whether or not space has a constant density...what i am saying here is that if e=mc2 and c is variable according to the density of the space itself then the wave of light at the edge of the universe is creating matter and time as it moves outward...as the outward "sphere" becomes more dense the inner "sphere" becomes thinner and when the light is used up and the residual inertia of the expansion dissipates the "tension" of space itself will equalize and then gravity will become the dominant force in the universe...more to come
It would be nice if light speed could be exceeded and not constant it would make alot of thins possable. It seems that physics has dismissesed much of Einstein's Ideas and more towards Quantum thought.
I have always wondered how Astronimers have said that with the Hubble we can now see back in time to almost the beginning of the Universe some 15 Billion years. It seems to me that is saying we are on the leading edge of the expanding Universe? Or the middle looking 15 billion years in our past in all directions? I just can't seem to get my mind around infinity
think of throwing a rock ino the middle of a large lake that is still like glass...the waves expand outward and at the edge of the wave in the front matter is being created,but the wave isn't infininite,it can eventually lose all it's energy and the lake will again become like glass,but now there is a tension on the surface of the lake and it is being drawn inward from the center...
Just remembering who i used to be ;D, before I looked into Bessler. Seems i was right about light after all : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHHaDWEWtQE
Quote from: vonwolf on October 06, 2008, 09:54:24 PM
I have always wondered how Astronimers have said that with the Hubble we can now see back in time to almost the beginning of the Universe some 15 Billion years. It seems to me that is saying we are on the leading edge of the expanding Universe? Or the middle looking 15 billion years in our past in all directions? I just can't seem to get my mind around infinity
Assuming that the Hubble telescope can actually "see" a distance of 15 billion light years away, then the theory is that "what we are seeing", occured 15 billion years ago. This assumption is based on a constant speed of light, that took 15 billion years to arrive at our current location.
Wether or not 15 billion years is even remotely close to the "begining of time", is still theoretical at this point. Furthermore, the direction we are looking in would make a HUGE difference in this point. If we are looking towards the center of the universe, then that would make sense.
But if we are looking towards the outer edges of the universe, and observing something that occured 15 billion years ago, and that is 15 billion light years away from our current location,.... then the universe would have to be much much older...
Since we do not know "where we are" in relationship to the center or edges of the universe,. then we cannot use such a deduction to determine when the universe began, or if it ever had a begining at all.
However, if the speed of light is not constant throughout all parts of the universe, then we cannot soley use distance to determine some time in the past that the observed event occured.
It is also important to note that the "expansion" of the universe, as we know it, is not an absolute fact. It is a theory, based on a number of observations of the movement of galaxies that are moving further away from one another. Given the vast number of galaxies in the visible universe, one could also deduce that the universe is "contracting", based on a number of observations of the movement of galaxies that are moving closer to one another.
It is quite possible that the "boundaries" of the universe are neither expanding nor contracting, but are at a constant distance from the center, and the galaxies are simply moving within the constant universe.
For every galactic observation that supports the Big Bang Theory, there is another pair galaxies that contradict it.... Which is the reason it is still considered a theory. (albeit a commonly accepted one)
I for one don't believe in the big bang theory. As science would also need to account for where all that matter and dark matter came from in the first place, for it to be just able get big banged into existance. Everything comes from a preexisting source, and if energy cannot be created or destroyed, it sort of blows that theory all apart.
Maybe there is no beginning or end to the univers, and there never will be... and TIME does not exist, as we think it does. Or even those distances relative to light years, as light does even really travel, at all, it appears to, but what is called the "speed of light" is actually the rate at which it polarizes. There is no movement in waves, nor bending of light, as we are still being taught in school. There is also no light or heat coming from Our Sun to our planet, as light is being manufactured or created here in our atmosphere, as well as on all other light producing planets, and nebula, but no in empty space which is very cold and dark.
Quote from: NickZ on August 03, 2011, 12:15:54 AM
I for one don't believe in the big bang theory. As science would also need to account for where all that matter and dark matter came from in the first place, for it to be just able get big banged into existance. Everything comes from a preexisting source, and if energy cannot be created or destroyed, it sort of blows that theory all apart.
Maybe there is no beginning or end to the univers, and there never will be... and TIME does not exist, as we think it does. Or even those distances relative to light years, as light does even really travel, at all, it appears to, but what is called the "speed of light" is actually the rate at which it polarizes. There is no movement in waves, nor bending of light, as we are still being taught in school. There is also no light or heat coming from Our Sun to our planet, as light is being manufactured or created here in our atmosphere, as well as on all other light producing planets, and nebula, but no in empty space which is very cold and dark.
recycle, recycle, recycle. it is what the universe does.
To convert one form of energy to another more usable form, yes. But, we are still being taught error as fact. Similar to seeing the world as being flat, when we know that it is not.
Light, heat, or waves do not travel, at all, but all have different polarization rates. The Univers revolves, while we recycle.
Quote from: NickZ on August 03, 2011, 12:45:08 PM
The Univers revolves
If the Universe revolves then how does one explain why the Milky way is on a 'head on collision' course with the galaxy of Andromeda. .---><---.
There are many things that are not being explained by science, or proven to be true. Light and Heat coming from the Sun to Earth is one of those examples. Just as at one time we all thought the world was flat.
I'm not trying to convince anyone, only just to mention that what we hear, or is being taught still, is not always the truth. And possibly for a reason, and not always the correct reason. Like NASA not returning to the moon or anywhere else outside Earths Vortex, in over 40 years. They don't tell where it is they have been going to, as the NASA is only a front.
If two logs are going down a river, and they end up piled on top of each other. Would the cause be explained by the logs own movement? Or are they both being subject to an external force, that of the river?
No physical inanimate object has power on it's own accord to do anything, and are all subject to influences that are external to themselves, including galaxies. Science has mentioned that it thinks that the Universe is expanding. So, if it is all expanding how would that happen, galaxies colliding? As that means that everything is moving apart from everything else, not coming together to crash and burn. Yet Hubble sees that this can and does happen, but due to external causes to those galaxies, which it can't see.
Quote from: NickZ on August 03, 2011, 04:33:06 PM
There are many things that are not being explained by science, or proven to be true. Light and Heat coming from the Sun to Earth is one of those examples. Just as at one time we all thought the world was flat.
I'm not trying to convince anyone, only just to mention that what we hear, or is being taught still, is not always the truth. And possibly for a reason, and not always the correct reason. Like NASA not returning to the moon or anywhere else outside Earths Vortex, in over 40 years. They don't tell where it is they have been going to, as the NASA is only a front.
If two logs are going down a river, and they end up piled on top of each other. Would the cause be explained by the logs own movement? Or are they both being subject to an external force, that of the river?
No physical inanimate object has power on it's own accord to do anything, and are all subject to influences that are external to themselves, including galaxies. Science has mentioned that it thinks that the Universe is expanding. So, if it is all expanding how would that happen, galaxies colliding? As that means that everything is moving apart from everything else, not coming together to crash and burn. Yet Hubble sees that this can and does happen, but due to external causes to those galaxies, which it can't see.
the universe is not a spiral. it is homogenized and random.
all celestial bodies point to this.
do you think all those wickedly smart scientist would lie to you or tell you a conspiracy of the sort.
impossible.
No one said the Universe is a spiral but it is obvious the each solar system as well as galaxies are all a Vortex, with in a vortex, that is within another vortex.
Quote from: NickZ on August 03, 2011, 10:49:21 PM
No one said the Universe is a spiral but it is obvious the each solar system as well as galaxies are all a Vortex, with in a vortex, that is within another vortex.
a galaxy is puny compared to the Universe, the Universe is homogenized and random. it is also infinite.
Do you have a point that your are trying to make. As it seams the only thing you do is to argue.
Quote from: NickZ on August 03, 2011, 11:22:24 PM
Do you have a point that your are trying to make. As it seams the only thing you do is to argue.
Science is all about arguing, what's your point, I argue on the side of the winning hand of science, nothing else. fact is all there shall be in the end.
My point is that you are so absolutely right, that you can just keep right on arguing, but not with me.
@ OTC
the best way to envision the ongoings of galaxies within the universe
is to fill a tub with water
and scatter several tiny styrofoam spheres into the surface
you only see interactions on a 1-dimensional plane, but it gives a good visual.
forces between different galactic bodies, their own inner forces,
rate/direction of spiral, velocity/trajectory, momentum, electric field
all these things play a part in determining the direction of each galaxy and how it interacts with its neighbors, and in some cases, with galaxies far far away.
Quote from: christo4_99 on October 01, 2008, 12:15:14 PM
comparing light to sound:in space where there is no air(the very substance of sound)there is no sound.so sound is in fact variations of densities in the medium which it is moving through.when this principle is applied to light,that is to say if light were sound then the light would be in fact made up of the medium which it is moving through or compressing and expanding.think of the universe as "filled" with this "air" or use the idea of water if it is easier for you.what i am saying is in fact that the universe is the medium through which the light is moving,compressing and expanding.and the speed of light is defined by the density of this medium.the implication that light has a constant speed as a law is ridiculous.the light is subject to density just as sound is subject to density when it moves through water or air.the mistake is to assume that there is no medium(or that space is empty).think of the medium as a "space" with it's own frequency reacting with consonance or dissonance with whatever happens within it.if you add sound to sound in water or air it doesn't make the sound move any faster.if light is moving through a medium it explains why light can be seen as a particle and a wave...light is the particle and the medium is the wave.and if you haven't thought of it yet:this implies that light does not exist in and of itself...it depends on this medium just as sound depends on air.zero rest mass is a concept that wrongly describes something that does not exist...that is to say that sound or light that isn't moving in fact does not exist,that which has not affected anything cannot be(a cause).light is evidence of the constant density of the universe:just as sound is evidence of the constant density of air or water.
Possibility of Sound Propagation in Vacuums with the Speed of Light (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=58&ved=0CEIQFjAHODI&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F9908010&rct=j&q=%22second%20sound%22%20in%20a%20vacuum&ei=OM9JTrbGHqiCsALB9_m7CA&usg=AFQjCNGA-Tzfv_3xzh6gG9q0OMklWlbekw&cad=rja) (Electron-neutrinos fit the properties of vacuum-sound waves).
QUOTE=Page 7"Thus, these sound waves should interact negligibly with matter of normal density, e.g. air, due to the high
ratio of the phase-velocity of sound propagation in a vacuum and in air of approximately 10^6 and because of their very short wavelength which is smaller than double the lattice-spacings of normal materials."
QUOTE=Page 8"Furthermore, neutrinos are emitted only from matter of nuclear or even higher density
in which the speed of sound approaches the speed of light. They also have very short wavelengths due to their generation in high energetic, nuclear processes (
neutrinos are, in a sense, the γ-quanta of sound) which causes them to be transmitted through materials of normal density."
Gravock