Light doesn't travel. It is a rate of induction of the medium.
Unless someone wants to explain where it gets the energy to speed up once it exits a denser medium.
Discussion
It doesn't require energy to "speed up" at materials boundaries since it's ("a photon") is massless*. Rather the medium it travels through is a hinderance to the speed of interaction between the electrical component of the photon and the magnetic component of the photon. In EM theory these are aka Permittance and Susceptance.
*) E_kin = 1/2 * m * v**2 , but if m is zero then E_kin is also zero.
Why is the speed of light always the speed of light from the perspective of the observer?
Because you cannot ride on a lightwave like it was a cannon ball or a space ship. You're destined to remain and observe in the frames of reference of massive objects.
But you can change your speed relative to the light emitting object. Regardless, the speed of light remains the speed of light to you.
Yes, again because light particles are in their own frame of reference that massive objects cannot join.
The massive object and the light are both in the same frame of reference - space. Yes, I've heard that light isn't in space, but that's nonsense - you can stop light, emit it from physical objects, reflect it, alter it. If it wasn't in space, and thus not in the same frame of reference, then it wouldn't be possible to interact with it.
Virtual photons are claimed to be disturbances in a field which cannot be seen or detected. They have never been measured nor is there any direct evidence for their existence. They are mathematical concepts that attempt to describe an observation. So these are effectively unfalsifiable claims, and mathematical formulas do not explain anything.
Think about it logically. If something is accelerating, it necessitates an energy input. This is true for everything, but apparently not the case for light, and the claim for the changes of speed are due to particles that cannot be seen or detected, and which apparently have no mass. The only way to affirm this theory is through mathematical formulas. A lot like climate modelling; theoretical works of fiction that have no basis in reality.
Both Tesla and Steinmetz said that light is neither a particle or a wave, but a field perturbation, a coaxial circuit or a transverse vibration. Light can be nothing other than a sound wave in the Aether. This is of course in direct contradiction to modern physics, which denies the existence of the Aether, even though the aetheric drift has been measured through interferometric experiments, and the Aether forms the basis of their discoveries.
It's as asinine as the physical manipulation of concepts like space and time.
A transformation would also work, instead of an input of additional energy. If the wavelength, frequency, or amplitude of a wave change, then other characteristics must change too. So, if a medium affects the frequency, then it also affects the speed.
Why can't the unobserved electromagnetic field be the same thing as Aether?
And since we're getting so close to Spooky Action territory... there was an experiment where several lights were turned on and off by a random number generator in a room. When the room was empty, the distribution of lights on and off was indeed random. But when a person stood in a corner of the room, the randomness became less random as the light nearest the person activated more frequently. I don't know how to explain this other than to posit that there is some unknown field interacting with both the random number generator and the human being.
i have a model that suggests that in addition to the well known orbital electrons, atoms also have long-orbit electrons that are spin pairs and they are the mechanism that creates a "surface tension" where as these clouds interact with each other, they push the matter they orbit closer together to reduce the tension in the cloud
magnetic fields are a similar phenomenon, except they form distinct threads that are in pairs one forward one backwards (opposite spin, opposite orbit direction)
the principle is that those neutral pairs i first mention that create the surface optimization force that we call gravity, additionally form other types of structures than the clouds and bidirectional magnetic flux lines, and they can convey signals instantaneously because - well, as you know, electrons (and photons, in general) don't actually have mass - because they are transmitters of mass, and electric current, for example, flows by the coincidence of magnetic fields - there is a simple experiment that proves this, you make a power circuit with a battery on one side, and the light on the other, but the wires are like 5 miles each out and back, and when you time the delay between the power being connected to the light responding to the power, it is far sooner than if the electrons had to do that loop to carry the energy - meaning that it is the magnetic field that does the energy transfer and in fact something is going on that transmits the energy through the air but it's not induction
so, anyway, if you followed the gist of that, the implication is that there is some mechanism by which energy transits without a conductor, related to these electron threads/clouds and its not wave propagation like radio waves, i'm sure you get the implications of that
i have a theory that it is possible to create a coil based on odd-numbered nodes, lowest one being 5, that consists of 5 coils carrying current in one direction, and the other 5 in the other, bridged by resonant capacitors, and the coils catch all frequencies of magnetic flux changes and cause it to become a spinning magnetic field around the ferromagnetic core - an energy scavenger, and my theory is that due to the tuning used in the circuit and the ability of teh coils to catch even a small induction and start it spinning resonantly around the circuit, it accumulates this captured energy and acts like a magnetic battery - you probably also know about the phenomenon of hysteresis in magnets, it is a resistance to the reversal of the magnetic field, the solenoid has "inertia" in charging its field and discharging it, so it follows that if you can find some way to keep it moving around, ie, rotating on its polar axis, you can hold that energy until you tap it off at two points in the coil where the voltage is opposite, and put that captured energy to work
my idea is to use high permeability materials, special magnetic alloys like neodymium and rare earth but not aligned, but structured in a non-aligned manner so it can carry a higher flux density than an ordinary iron, nickel or cobalt core could
anyhow, the point of me mentioning that is that if the presence of material around these RNGs increases their frequency of triggering (reseeding) this probably is partly because even just of the increased density of matter, it would be interesting to see if the RNGs are also affected by high density materials like moving a giant chunk of steel next to them
Yeah the nearby distribution of matter could be affecting it. That's probably a more elegant solution than spooky action stuff.
I think the hard part of your idea is the adding and releasing of useful energy from the gyro. I think macro scale gyros have done this, but it sounded like you were proposing using an atom as the gyro - you'd have to confine it and then be able to interact with it, which I guess you could do with a magnetic field, but magnetic fields tend to interact with more than you want them to, so it would be tricky. And I think you'd have to assume some ambient level of magnetic interference, since everything with mass is vibrating - so you'd have to store enough energy and convert it efficiently enough to overcome that ambient interference while still being worth it.
For sure, the negativity of an electron cloud has some effect on the nucleus it surrounds. But is it a meaningful effect? Idk. What I know for sure does happen is the relative negativity of two electron clouds changes the density and position of nuclei in a molecule. This is called molecular geometry, and it plays a dominant role in molecular biology - those "s" and "p" configurations which I only vaguely recall. Khan academy teaches it really well, highly recommend. The lesson on aminos to peptides has it. Anyways.. Yeah, the orbital electron model everyone learns in highschool is wrong, and I flat out told my chemistry students back in China that the model I was teaching them was wrong. Their reactions were funny. It's useful, though. Whether electrons actually orbit is unknown, but what we can say is that they are found in "probability clouds" that you can draw like a few balloons sticking out of the nucleus - the balloons show the likelihood of finding the electron in that space, where the center of the balloon is the highest probability. When you draw your molecules, you have to think about how that cloud of negativity will repel other clouds of negativity, which pushes the clouds off to the sides when atoms are together in a molecule. This is fun shit, I might get out my biology book after this... Umm.. I think I was trying to see if your model fits into the bigger model that they usually don't teach us in school. Idk, did it?
The light turning on faster than the speed of light would allow could be because electricity doesn't actually travel the length of the wire. Its more like an abacus - electrons repel electrons, so if you put an electron on one end of the wire, it basically bumps the next electron, which bumps the next, etc. So, it could be (not saying it def is) that the information of doing one bump between electrons happens and is completed in a shorter time than it would take a photon to travel that distance. Just a guess, though.
yeah, your conception around the probability does fit what i'm saying because it's a probability density of finding an electron pair that has an orbit with an atom at inverse square decrease of probability with distance, but that also means as you add more mass, the probability of finding ONE from a billion atoms is a billion times higher, so the distance that you can go from matter increases with the square of the mass
but yes, the magnetic field and the current are inseparable in electrical conduction, you can't actually say one causes the other, or at least, they go both ways, you push electron in, you pop out magnetic flux, and vice versa, it has to do with the metal material, all metals push out a magnetic field when you push electrons into them, and that also supports my model that the magnetic field is a structured pattern of electron flux
the simple mass is mediated by neutral pairs, the magnetic field is chains of pairs of electrons flowing in opposite directions along the same path creating a linear pattern that we can detect as a magnetic field, and those electrons then crash into your conductor to induce current flow, which is the reverse transformation
i'd love to be able to develop the model more, but it's just a slightly different interpretation of empirical data
I think you should pursue it. All of our models or understandings are just interpretations of the data, and all are necessarily wrong in some way.
yeah, i hope to in the future
i have an idea for an EMF scavenger coil/circuit/magnetic battery and i also have another idea for a possible high efficiency impulse engine based on the EmDrive but using a dual chamber diamagnetic coated resonator around the final spiral coil of a tesla coil instead of using a microwave magnetron and an ugly conical resonator
i hope i get to have the resources to put these things together and start doing experiments... i think probably the coil is the safer one to start with, as i see it the tricky part of it will be tuning the capacitors so they create the rotating summative magnetic flux that acts as a battery by staying in constant self-reinforcing rotation motion
> Why can't the unobserved electromagnetic field be the same thing as Aether?
I think that fields are indeed the aether, they are manifested when the aether is disturbed/excited resulting in a different state of the aether (which is pure potential, energy at rest, inertia or counter-space... all the same thing, all the default state of energy).
Applying the same logic to sound, it too doesn't travel nor is anything being emitted, even though we call it a "speed of sound" which changes depending on the medium, and temperature and air density also affect this rate. When you talk softly vs screaming, are you emitting anything at a higher rate, or are you changing the amplitude of the frequency of waves resulting in what we perceive as more volume (larger disturbance of the air), and does that change in amplitude require a higher energy input? (it does).
Within the paradigm of modern physics, a change in frequency for photons (as opposed to amplitude when it comes to sound) requires more energy. So where is the energy coming from?
Light is acting the same way as sound; there is no emission and it doesn't have a speed, it is the rate of induction of the medium (aether) against itself, and this rate of induction varies since the 'speed of light' is inversely proportional to the density of the physical medium.
Light is a principle of the aether, and the resulting effect is illumination, similar to how dielectricity is a principle and magnetism is an attribute. You cannot have one without the other, since the dielectric field is what powers magnetism, and these are all fundamental to the coaxial circuit of light.
"Spooky action" is only a problem for the framework of modern physics, since nothing is supposed to be travelling faster than light, unless of course... light isn't actual travelling.
back to the future