Re: light is instantaneous to the observer
Y.Porat
> On "general science journal" forum:
>
> On Dec, 27, 2009, 11:24 pm.
> Aaron says: 97-98% of a mirror is reflective. That means 2-3% of the
> silver is absorbing photons and not reflecting them. This shows that
> even reflective polished silver absorbs some photons.
>
> This has to do with the shape and texture of the silver atoms. This
> problem also occurs with glass. Some of the photons are absorbed. They
> are absorbed with a change in the information on counter. This change
> is very different then the counter at the emission of the photon. So
> all time is local to the receiving electron.
>
> So this also shows that light is not instantaneous. In that photons
> reflect. This means they hit and were not absorbed and continued their
> counter spin.
>
> Gogo says: This is precisely what my instantaneous theory says- that
> all of light is restricted, locally (maximal visual acuity), to the 2
> to 3%, the percentage of light which does not continue to move
> onwards, and is instead, absorbed and adsorbed, meaning produces a
> thin layer of light on the reflecting surface. This means that this 2
> to 3% does not move, especially with respect to the 97 to 98% which
> continues to move forward.
> The 97 to 98% which continues onward is invisible and travels at great
> speeds at or near c, and is considered an EMR wave, not a light wave.
--------------------
nothing in our universe is done
literally instantaneous !!
todo something and instantaneous
do noy go hand in hand
by definition
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is a universal instant because time is everywhere and always
was.
Mitch Raemsch
erschro...@gmail.com
In the quantum world, you can even do something before the cause of it!
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Einstein was right about quantum mechanics.
Mitch Raemsch
GogoJF
True, but to say that the stimulus of the Sun's image is received by
the human eye, 8 minutes after it was originally sent, is equally
ridiculous. To say that c is the delay of our optical imagery in the
universe is not founded.
GogoJF
It's a lot closer to instant, than c, universally.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I wait on my radio signals.
Mitch Raemsch
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
The force fields that surround mass move with masses motion through
space without any drag or force doppler effect. This is done by
aether.
Mitch Raemsch
GogoJF
Mitch, this response is from "general science journal forum":
Electronic Distance Meter and Radar
April 7 2010, 1:53 PM
Re: Aberration of starlight and clocks
April 7 2010, 1:27 AM
First grader said:
John, can you explain how the Electronic Distance Meter (EDM) and
Radar work in your instant light theory?
Gogo says:
Technically, this instant light theory is not absolutely instant, but
close to instant. It is based on the reaction time of the observer-
the time it takes to accurately react to an instant stimulus.
I think I've used this model before. Imagine a light bulb "going off"
and an observer pushes a button, from zero. Imagine the observer
performing 1000's of these trials and derives an average reaction time
to be .05 sec. Now, the light bulb is close enough to the observer, so
that the effects of the speed of light are nearly zero time.
Now, we take this .05 second reaction time and apply it do objects at
different distances. Stars are at great distances and are observed by
the observer .05 seconds after they are observed. But, in reality, we
do not actually observe the very surface and image of the distant
star. We are mostly observing the composite of the star itself and all
that it illuminates. The sun is actually the only star, where we can
measure with nearly instantaneous results, of its' true image.
Now, we bring this reaction time of the observer, closer. In the
1950's, the Navy performed many radar experiments, while at the same
time, performed visual methods to measure events. It was always found
that the radar method always fell short. It was thought that this
problem was inherent within the instrument, or other environmental
factors. My interpretation is, is that the visual method and the radar
method are two separate methods, and each possesses a unique measuring
apparatus. In other words, sight methods do not function the same way
as radar. The Navy wanted these measures to be the same.
So, as the distance of the reaction time of the observer shortens, and
comes closer to the observers location, it also begins to come close
to the value of c. For instance, the speed of light takes
approximately one second to reach Earth from the moon. According to
the instant light theory, the reaction time of the observer is .05
seconds, or twenty times faster in observing the image of the moon
than the speed of light to propagate a wave from its surface.
First grader, to answer your question, the biggest difference between
the instant light theory and how radar functions is that the instant
light theory is a one way operation, and radar is a two way operation.
In fact, the instant light theory cannot operate or exist unless there
is this one way functioning from point A to point B only. Radar cannot
operate or exist unless there is a two way functioning from point A to
point B, and back to point A.
Finally, when we take the instant theory and the reaction time of the
observer (which is macroscopic) into the quantum realm, we realize
that this crude measure becomes useless and obsolete. But, by
improving the reaction time of our photocells and clocks, we may be
able, in the future, to once again, bring the visible and signal
measures (radar) into play with each other once again.
Y.Porat
-----------
in QM word
you can even go back in time
but that is the little difference between
fucken mathematicians
and real physicists !!
ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------------------
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is a now instant ticking everywhere in the universe since the
beginning of time and forever.
Mitch Raemsch
GogoJF
Porat, you said that nothing in the universe is done literally
instantaneous. To "do something" and "instantaneous" to not go hand
and hand by definition.
This, I admit, is very difficult to argue against. But, I am bound to
this idea because this is what I believe. Since, you so assuredly
believe in what you say is true, and, at the same time you believe
that I am at the short end of the logical stick- even so, please allow
me to argue my case, as if I was in a court of law, before you pass
sentencing.
This problem smacks at the very principle of cause and effect. It
seems that cause and effect is on your side Porat, and that it is my
onus to show you how my theory works, without violating this most
fundamental theory.
At once, it is obvious that the act of "seeing" instantly must not be
separated from the source itself. Concerning light the source and
sink are one. They are inseparable.
The first argument should be "how can this be true at such great
distances, such as stars viewed from Earth?" My answer would be that
it is not any different than observing your coffee cup sitting right
in front of you. Maximum visual acuity only demands that objects be
large enough, with respect to their distance from the observer, in
order to be observed. As long as this ratio is satisfied, then sink
will observe light from the source. In other words, regardless of
distance, as long as the source's object size is large enough to fall
within the ratio of MVA, it will be visibly seen- there will be
light.
You can argue that this simply cannot be the case, and for the most
part, people will be in complete agreement with you. This is why we
must do experiments. The "light sandwich experiment", which I
proposed, I believe will show that light is instantaneous. This is, I
believe, the first, one way, unidirectional measure of the speed of
light, that might have the possibility of being measured. But, to
date, it has not, so, I guess you win Porat, because I do not have any
leverage to argue against what you believe.
bert
>
> - Show quoted text -
Light goes at c period. TreBert
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
When the center of gravity moves the whole gravity field spread out
into distance flows with it. There is no doppler force.
Mitch Raemsch