Light in the existence

[Gibsense]

Cat

You quoted "This led to the development of special relativity and the abandonment of the aether hypothesis."

Presumably, you therefore agreed with this statement. Yes, it is generally accepted as a true statement. However, you may agree with me that the experiment proved something about light rather than the absence of an aether. My point is that space itself is not nothing, and this is also accepted as a true statement and proven.
Whether or not to suggest a theoretical Aether equates to space is a debate hardly worth having. We can debate it though, could be fun.

 

[Gibsense]

I suggest that light influences the behavior of particles and objects in the universe and I’m interested in exploring how this perspective can provide insights into existing phenomena.

How?

 

[Catastrophe]

I believe that, by now, regular participants will know of my fundamental trust in General Semantics, very often represented by "The Map is not the Territory", meaning that we should not confuse 'manufactured grunts' with any identity of 'underlying reality' (my words). Perhaps a little exaggerated?

What you quoted ('from me') was, in fact, from an AI summary.

It seems that the AI may have been confused by my deliberate question:

light as a stationary aether

the problem word, perhaps, being "as"?

Thus, I do not own the quote.

Cat

Just to make sure that "we should not confuse 'manufactured grunts' with any identity of 'underlying reality" is not misunderstood, I mean that our 'language' is a taught correspondence between what originated as early protohuman grunts and intended shared meaning.

 

[Gibsense]

What you quoted ('from me') was, in fact, from an AI summary.

I said, "You quoted". A statement from another source (not you) - you should read it again, Cat.

we should not confuse 'manufactured grunts' with any identity of 'underlying reality'

I do not understand this comment. Are you suggesting my post was a 'manufactured grunt'? And worse, lol, that it bears no resemblance to reality . Well, you may be correct. I just try to look at things from above and from below and any other angle that may illuminate. And at 81+, I am well aware of a deteriorating mental ability, but even so, I can still score the odd goal.

 

[Catastrophe]

"from me" was in quotes, which means 'not me, directly'.

"we should not confuse 'manufactured grunts' with any identity of 'underlying reality"
I was trying to ensure that no personal identification was made.

To make sure, I added:

I mean that our 'language' is a taught correspondence between what originated as early protohuman grunts and intended shared meaning.

I apologse for being unsuccessful. I really believed that I understood English.
At least English English.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

AI overview:

Early protohuman grunts are believed to have evolved into the foundation of human language.
These sounds, initially used for communication about survival needs, gradually developed into more complex systems of communication, including the rudimentary elements of words and syntax.

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Is it me? Like, I still haven't a clue what the message was in grunts and reality posts, Cat !! But let's move on.

 

[Catastrophe]

Gibsense, nothing whatsoever was directed at you. I don't do that.

Early protohuman grunts are believed to have evolved into the foundation of human language.
These sounds, initially used for communication about survival needs, gradually developed into more complex systems of communication, including the rudimentary elements of words and syntax.

That clearly (quoted) passage refers to evolution of language.

How on Earth do you see that pointing at anybody, let alone you?

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

That clearly (quoted) passage refers to evolution of language.

How on Earth do you see that pointing at anybody, let alone you?

I had difficulty understanding how the language issue related to the thread but I guess you were using it as a guidance (?) hint. No worries I can often miss the point for some reason

 

[Catastrophe]

I had difficulty understanding how the language issue related to the thread but I guess you were using it as a guidance (?) hint. No worries I can often miss the point for some reason

From post #1:

Defining Light:
Instead of viewing light as a particle or wave that travels through space, consider it as a stationary medium that exists as the foundational layer of reality. I suggest that light is always present and interacts with matter rather than moving through space.

I was pointing out that "the words are not the reality". (vide General Semantics).
"Defining" light as stationary does not make it so.
Light travels at "c" which is 299 792 458 m / s (in vacuo).

That is the relevance to the thread.
It in no way referred to you in any (derogatory) way whatsoever.

Cat

 

[Nick-C]

From post #1:



I was pointing out that "the words are not the reality". (vide General Semantics).
"Defining" light as stationary does not make it so.
Light travels at "c" which is 299 792 458 m / s (in vacuo).

That is the relevance to the thread.
It in no way referred to you in any (derogatory)

From post #1:



I was pointing out that "the words are not the reality". (vide General Semantics).
"Defining" light as stationary does not make it so.
Light travels at "c" which is 299 792 458 m / s (in vacuo).

That is the relevance to the thread.
It in no way referred to you in any (derogatory) way whatsoever.




I acknowledge that light travels at approximately (299,792,458\) meters per second in a vacuum, and this speed is a fundamental constant in physics. My hypothesis does not contradict this established fact; rather, it seeks to explore the implications of viewing light as a fixed reference point within which all matter interacts.

 

[Classical Motion]

“My hypothesis does not contradict this established fact; rather, it seeks to explore the implications of viewing light as a fixed reference point within which all matter interacts.”

It depends on what quality about light you reference. Many see c as a velocity and it is, but it is also a balance. E = M. The electric force equals the magnetic force. EM is perfectly divided.

And we already do. Interaction is a rate. Zero rate, zero interaction. The fastest rate we have found is c.

The reference points for interaction is zero, the absence of rate(therefore absence of interaction, no motion)-------- and c, the fastest rate of interaction. The fastest motion.

So, interaction rates 0 to c. Motion 0 to c. A scale of interaction.

And for matter, with zero kinetic motion, still has a c internal rotational motion.

Even when matter has no interaction with other fields or other matter, the matter has c internal motion. Self internal interaction. The M holds the E together. In an EM wobble balance.

c, not light, has always been the reference.

Believing that light is a sinewave is the problem with physics. And the cause of theory failure.

The sinewave is the wrong reference. An intermittent sawtooth will correct this. And will correct redshift and spacetime star velocities.

And then we can start making hay again.

 

[Catastrophe]

Light consists of billions of photons travelling at c in all directions.

So which photon are you selecting to be "stationary"?

Cat

 

[Nick-C]

Light consists of billions of photons travelling at c in all directions.

So which photon are you selecting to be "stationary"?



I agree that light is composed of countless photons traveling at the speed of light in all directions. This is a fundamental aspect of how we understand light in physics.

- When I refer to light as a "stationary platform," I am proposing a conceptual framework rather than implying that individual photons are stationary. Instead, I suggest that the medium

 

[Nick-C]

-of light itself serves as a fixed foundation in the universe, providing a context within which all particles exist and move.

 

[Catastrophe]

---

Catastrophe said:
- When I refer to light as a "stationary platform," I am proposing a conceptual framework rather than implying that individual photons are stationary. Instead, I suggest that the medium

Where am I supposed to have posted that?

I put it in search, and could not find it anywhere.

Not even quoting anyone . . . . . .

Cat