Understanding light and how it travels.

[nec208]

<p><font size="2">Where is </font><font size="2" color="#003399">gbehrend</font><font size="2"> ? I was reading his post and reply to his post but no reply back.</font></p><p><font size="2">Okay is his post true or not and can some one expand on it.Also his post has nothing to do with space-ships going faster than the speed of light.More just speed of light.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2">==snip==</font></p><p><font color="#800080">I<font size="2"> think there is something science did overlook.&nbsp; Why does light travel as fast as it does, and how?&nbsp; </font></font></p><p><font size="2" color="#800080">I think the answer is what scientists are calling dark matter, what I have called gravitons.</font></p><p><font size="2" color="#800080">My theory is that light travels between gravitons, like a rubber ball through an oily steel tube you could say.&nbsp; Gravitons are what we have yet to see.&nbsp; This also explains why the sun is hotter in the outer reaches then it is at it's surface.&nbsp; The suns mass has stretched the graviton field, the more the field stretches, the more declerated particles become., and it creates a form of a resistor.&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="2" color="#800080">Graviton fields are always what I would call "negative".&nbsp; In a graviton field the only way to travel with mass is to interact with another massive body.&nbsp; Graviton fields act like a giant ocean of goo, separating dimensional matter from one another.&nbsp; But that's another story.</font></p><p><font size="2" color="#800080">&nbsp;They actually have the theory almost mapped in the latest tests.&nbsp; Impressive.</font></p><p><font size="2" color="#800080">So what I was trying to say is that the smallest things in the universe are ridden by light waves.&nbsp; If you can travel faster then that, you are pure energy.&nbsp; The trick is not to be faster, but to punch holes in the graviton fields with a astronomical burst of pinpointed mass.&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="2" color="#800080">They still wonder why they end up with particles that have more mass then when they started doing the collision tests.&nbsp; I think what they don't realize is they are bringing particles into our dimension, through tiny holes in the graviton field.</font></p><p><font size="2" color="#800080">&nbsp;So, maybe I am nuts.. who knows ;-)</font></p><p><font size="2" color="#000000">==snip==</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.&nbsp;So, maybe I am nuts.. who knows ;-)==snip== <br />Posted by nec208</DIV></p><p>This appears to be the main point.&nbsp; The rest is gibberish.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

<p><font size="1">Just to be clear do you mean gravity force because graviton is not a word. Why do you think light travels through an oily steel tube.Are you getting confused with&nbsp;EM&nbsp;wave and think the wave is&nbsp;like oil ?</font></p><p><strong>&nbsp;his also explains why the sun is hotter in the outer reaches then it is at it's surface.</strong></p><p><font size="1" color="#000000">You mean the sun reflecting on oily steel tube?</font></p><p><strong>Graviton fields are always what I would call "negative".&nbsp; In a graviton field the only way to travel with mass is to interact with another massive body.&nbsp; Graviton fields act like a giant ocean of goo, separating dimensional matter from one another.&nbsp; But that's another story.</strong></p><p><font size="1">Now you back to the wave&nbsp;theory.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This appears to be the main point.&nbsp; The rest is gibberish. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The snipped post is pure comedy.&nbsp; I got a giggle out of reading it.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[nec208]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The snipped post is pure comedy.&nbsp; I got a giggle out of reading it.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />I don't really understand what he is saying .I think he is confused what light is and that light is part of the EM.</p><p>May be this will help from a NASA web site.</p><p>==snip==</p><p><strong><font color="#800080">&nbsp;You actually know more about it than you may think! The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum is just a name that scientists give a bunch of types of radiation when they want to talk about them as a group. Radiation is energy that travels and spreads out as it goes-- visible light that comes from a lamp in your house or radio waves that come from a radio station are two types of electromagnetic radiation. Other examples of EM radiation are microwaves, infrared and ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma-rays. Hotter, more energetic objects and events create higher energy radiation than cool objects. Only extremely hot objects or particles moving at very high velocities can create high-energy radiation l</font></strong><strong><font color="#800080">ike X-rays and gamma-rays</font></strong></p><p><font color="#800080">Here are the different types of radiation in the EM spectrum, in order from lowest energy to highest: </font></p><p><font color="#800080">&nbsp;</font><a name="radiation"></a><strong><font color="#800080">radiation</font></strong><br /><font color="#800080">Energy emitted in the form of waves (light) or particles (photons)</font></p><p>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l1/emspectrum.html</p><p>http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dict_qz.html#radiation</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>==snip==</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't really understand what he is saying .I think he is confused <br />Posted by nec208</DIV></p><p>Look, you seem like a nice sincere person who is just trying to learn and understand some physics.&nbsp; One reason that you do not understand what gbehrend is saying is that NOBODY, including gbehrend, understands what he is saying.&nbsp; You are correct.&nbsp; He is confused, at the very least.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't really understand what he is saying.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by nec208</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>That's because there is nothing there to understand.&nbsp; As Dr.Rocket put it, "gibberish".&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Where is gbehrend ? I was reading his post and reply to his post but no reply back.Okay is his post true or not and can some one expand on it.Also his post has nothing to do with space-ships going faster than the speed of light.More just speed of light.&nbsp;==snip==... <br /> Posted by nec208</DIV></p><p>The problem with such ideas is that there has to be a mechanism present to explain them.&nbsp; People can come up with all sorts of ideas and, more problematically, introduce new definitions for already understood or theorized phenomenon.&nbsp; That's where the sticklers are - It's easy to redefine something but much harder to explain why you must redefine it.</p><p>Is it true?&nbsp; I don't know.. I don't see where any statement has been made that is definitive as it appears every common idea has been redefined.. I don't know what he's talking about.&nbsp; If I said "I think that water is actually made of cows and pigs.&nbsp; You must have two cows and a pig in order to get water because the entire universe is based on the principles of farming." would you say I was wrong?&nbsp; If MY hydrogen is actually "cow" and oxygen is actually "pig" but I declined to explain the nuances and reasoning behind redefining and renaming those elements, would what I said make sense?</p><p>For instance, what "graviton?"&nbsp; Where?&nbsp; Why is a graviton necessary for the conduction of light? Are we talking about the same "graviton" here or just the word "graviton" but with an entirely new definition behind it?&nbsp; Does light conduct between massless particles? Why?&nbsp; Why not? etc, etc, etc...&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>