Philosophy Explorer wrote:All a substance can do is slow down light - that is, hinder its movement. As an analogy, when a rocket ship takes off, the atmosphere hinders its movement which tends to slow it down through friction. The same atmosphere acts the same way on light - light can travel more easily without it which experiments have confirmed.
Any questions or comments?
PhilX
It's a good topic Phil. Still, light is regarded as obeying the principles of electromagnetism. These equations include some factors epsilon naught and mu naught which are regarded as properties of free space and so current theory does impose some qualities on the space. That wavelength and velocity of light exist are well established. Spectral analysis has led into atomic theory, and even to the electron spin. The velocity of light is regarded as constant in vacuum and is actually the ratio of epsilon naught to mu naught, which are the electric and magnetic permeabilities of free space.
Going beyond planar waves which can be treated fairly intuitively from Maxwell's equations there are polarized modes which further demonstrate how geometric light is or can be when brought into a controlled environment.
I am engaged by some mathematics which generalizes the sign of the real number (the two-signed numbers) and yields arithmetic correspondence with spacetime including unidirectional time:
http://bandtech.com/PolySigned If I take this basis seriously it exposes that free space itself is structured rather than isotropic. This happens to fit with Maxwell's equations as well, but because some of the complexity has gone into space itself there is hope that the equations will be simplified. It is as if the right hand rule can be built into the basis due to the rotational qualities of the space itself.
This is heavily philosophical, for the mathematical separation of a space from the objects in the space is an old and apparently clean construction. Einstein already gave space additional qualities with the gravitational analysis, and included electromagnetic analysis. The electromagnetic tensor is a structure with redundancy. When that redudnancy is removed the structure matches the polysign progression which is supportive of spacetime P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 ... where the '|' is a natural breakpoint of the product operator. Instantiating components into that progression leads to a structrue like
Code: Select all a11, a21, a22, a31, a32, a33, ...
I doubt if that text will look any good in you browser but I tried to use the code feature for it.
The modern belief is that space is isotropic, and this fits with the usage of the relative reference frame. Still, the fundamental particles within this theory are now regarded as carrying spin, which is essentially developing a reference frame per particle. This is counter to Maxwell's equations, which assume an isotropic charge devoid of magnetic qualities. While Maxwell's equations have been proven wrong physics carries on and many still treat them as pristine.
Space is clearly structured by the objects in it, and the ability to remove objects from real space is nonexistent, so here we have a disconnect from our mathematical theories and reality. Discussion of the nuances here are clouded, and the mathematical construction of a space not built form the Euclidean/Newtonian basis seems impossible, but we should attempt it none the less. According to big bang theory space is finitely sized, so in a way it is their burden to remove the real valued R^3 in use both in relativity theory and Maxwell's equations. This has not occurred. Look left then look right and tell me: is the space that you are in the same in all directions? Without those references you will have little means to operate in space as an observer or as an actor. Yet the modern physicist will carry on with the isotropic assumption. But can the philosopher? You see again a false divorce, and it goes even worse than that. Astrophysicists are humbled by their insistence of isotropic space to the point of averaging their observations to prove it true. Now there is a direct conflict which leads me to doubt the intelligence of humans.
I know that my own intelligence is greatly flawed and I am prone to errors. We must carry on trying; but don't just bow to the past works, for we are engaged in a progression. The stupidity of the human race is all about us. The scientist cannot actually write himself a free ticket out of the mimicry problem. Indeed the straight A's in power are the finest mimics, so beware. Beyond this the accumulation of information has swamped us. It cannot all be true. It is the burden of each individual to judge, for to bow to the judgement of the past greats will only lead to a religious attitude in science. There is an inescapable tension that weighs heavily, but there is also a glimmer of hope: the problems remain open to superior future solutions. The subjects we discuss are alive. They are not dead and pickled, though that is the way they are taught. The current position is not final; it is merely a stage of a progression. I believe there is adequate proof that we are stumbling in that progression at the moment. Perhaps it is a time to crawl and to dig into the ground. One false assumption in the basis could carry resounding consequences.
I will try to elaborate a bit.
.
- By Good_Egg
- By Fried Egg