For some reason the particle model of light was an anathema to theoreticians by the end of 19th century. So Michelson-Morley experiment should have resolved the following dilemma:

Negative result: Light travels in the form of particles in empty space.

Positive result: Light travels in the form of waves in ether.

Instead, the dilemma took the following form:

Negative result: Frustration and revision

Positive result: Light travels in the form of waves in ether.

Albert the Juggler rediscovered the particle model of light and became a genius but then defined a constant speed of light inconsistent with the particle model and became a genius for the second time. Then the zombie world deified the double (some would say triple, quadruple etc.) genius.

Pentcho Valev

I'm definitely no rocket scientist, so don't laugh immediately. Very interesting points the writer's are making.
Light apparently turns into heat only when it finds something it cannot penetrate. It doesnt warm the space as there is nothing to bounce into. This planet is warmed by the sun's light not by the sun's warmth. We're just in the lights way and therefore get warmed when it continuously tries to penetrate but can't.
Kind of, as in a car crash some of the crash energy is tuned into heat.
Maybe light is just waves that get turned into energy when the waves are destroyed.
Light is also seen as light only when it bounces into something.
If light cannot bounce into something then it's the same as there's not any light, it just travels eternally in space and never gets turned into light or heat.
Light is radiation just the wavelength the human eye can see. What is the form of radiation? Is radiation particles or waves? There's your answer (or question)
The theories that define the speed of light have to answer the question 'does light have any mass.'
As only something with a mass would travel faster when it has no obstacles and slower when there's a material slowing it down.
Does light react with air? I don't know about light making an 'aura' with anything else. Such as Jupiter or other gas giants. The 'aura' must be heat that is caused by light getting slowed down by air and therefore getting turned into visible.

I think Albert had a lot of stage managers.

If light rays or whatever we think the sun is emitting
travel at an infinite speed in cold dark space, slow down dramatically in a planets atmosphere and hit the brakes in water we certainly cannot talk of a constant speed of light.

In fact it is obviously the least constant of all things.

Gives a new meaning to light-years and many other "things" we thought were science.

Gravity clearly has an effect on light. Think about black holes, where the gravity is so strong that it prevents light from escaping. If light had no mass then it probably wouldn't be affected by the black holes gravity. Therefore light has to have some kind of a mass, otherwise it would be completely unaffected.
I would say the speed of light is constant only when there are no other forces effecting it. I wish somebody would make a camera that took 30 million frames a second. U could find out if the C makes sense. If particles weren't seen with that camera in space then light would have to move even quicker.
I just had an idea, maybe the radiation known as light is turned into mass when it tries to escape a black hole but can't. Maybe the missing 90% of matter or 'dark matter' in the universe is light of some form. Maybe that 'dark matter' is the mass of all existing light.

As there is no light until the sun's energy enters an atmosphere, we have not been using very much science when we talk about light years and heat being greater the nearer we come to the sun.

Radiation from the sun is not necessarily hot and we now know very little about the true nature of the sun's delivery system of life giving energy.

The radiatiion may take seconds only to reach the planets and then slowly penetrate the atmosphere of the planets by comparison.

They must know more about this than we are taught. I refer to Nasa and those who have supposedly travelled outside of the atmosphere.

Talking about the constancy of the speed of light...
Light Travels Backward and Faster than Light

Desperate final attempts of hypnotists in Einstein's criminal cult to camouflage the falsehood of Einstein's second postulate:

http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/fys/FYS-MEK1110/v06/MythsSpecRelativAJP193.pdf

"To take as a postulate that the speed of light is constant relative to changes in reference frame is to assume an apparent absurdity. It goes against common sense. No wonder, thinks a student, that we can derive other absurdities, such as time dilation and length contraction, from the premises. Far better to start much closer to where Einstein started and to derive the logical consequence that the speed of any given light pulse has the same value in all inertial frames."

Pentcho Valev

Perhaps the greatest ever discovery of relativity hypnotists is that Einstein's second postulate, the principle of constancy of the speed of light, is obsolete and Einstein's divine theory can be deduced from the first postulate, the principle of relativity:

http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html :

"The purposes of this book are (1) to explore and expound relativity physics and four-dimensional symmetry from the logically simplest viewpoint by making one single postulate instead of two;.....an unexpected affirmative answer to the long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity......This logically simplest viewpoint of relativity allows a natural extension of the physics of particles and fields from inertial frames to noninertial frames in which the speed of light is not constant."

This last view - that in noninertial frames "the speed of light is not constant" - is shared by all hypnotists but they don't discuss it very often. Why? Because some student may consider

www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp. 2-4

and ask the fatal question: The receiver measures the speed of the coming light to be:

A) c ?

B) c+v ?

And since in noninertial frames "the speed of light is not constant", it would be very difficult to convince the student that the receiver measures the speed of the coming photons to be c and not c+v.

Pentcho Valev

Elaboration. In accordance with Pound and Rebka's result about frequency shift, when the top of the tower emits light, the receiver on the ground receives this light with a frequency

(1+phi/c^2)Fo = (c+v)/KLo

where Fo and Lo are the initial frequency and wavelength respectively and c+v is the speed of the light as measured by the receiver (c=300000km/s). The couple

(1) v > 0 ; K = 1

acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon: on seeing it both hypnotists and zombies get petrified and remain so until the danger is over. The couple

(2) v = 0 ; K = 1/(1+phi/c^2)

also acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon: even Einstein's zombies feel that this value of K is too idiotic.

Clearly (1) is the correct answer: it disproves relativity.

Pentcho Valev

SHOCK IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

For some time a housewife has been fiercely fighting Einstein's criminal cult:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2707332488059305178

Einstein's zombies have already destroyed many heretical lives but the housewife is something different. The creature that can deal with the situation is Albert HUBO:

http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/16/caption-contest-albert-hubo-humanoid-bot-thinks-hes-so-smart/

Albert HUBO is the only creature in the world that could hypnotize the housewife and convince her in the end that, although the speed of light is constant, it is variable and vice versa:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."

But Albert HUBO seems to have been withdrawn - no video can be found on the internet anymore. What is going on? Has the zombie world somehow discovered that, in the absence of gravitational field, the speed of light is c+v, where c is the speed of the photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer?

Pentcho Valev

I can't help wondering why we talk about speed of light in space when there is no light traveling in space. Something from the sun hits our atmosphere and turns from cold-dark radiation into warm-illuminated particles. The substances that make this light are traveling toward our planet at incredible speed. Much faster than 3.000 km/sec. It doesn’t escape from our atmosphere but travels toward ground level. Therefore the sun does not give any light to the space around our planets. No light is coming from the sun, but SOMETHING IS, which travels so fast that it ignites from friction when it collides with our atmosphere. I was never told about it at school, but that doesn’t mean anything.

that information is awesome......¡¡¡your book teach me about health thanks a lot....

Hello Ronald and all.
If you really want to understand light then first remember is but one band width of the whole electro-magnetic spectrum.
All energy is transmittted through electronic / magnetic fields.

There are no particles transmitted ie no photons etc. sent through space.

Every instant of time huge amounts of electro/magnetic energy are forced into the north and south MAGNETIC POLES.
Gavity is a residual elctromagnetic effect.

The earth has an maily iron compound core magnet, When the frequency of the electro magnetic flow from the sun is changed or modulated to a visible frequency band we see it as light.
Just beyond visible light is infra red and ultavoilet light energy which we cannot see with human eyes.

Check out the thunderbolts for more ideas and info on how Einstien's theories are duds. Just mathematical equations on paper.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2865
Vic.

Vic,

I tend to agree with the view that electric and magnetic interactions are prevalent in this universe, and that light is transferred by waves of a certain wavelength.

Instead I question the assertion that the earth has an iron core as the source of its magnetic properties and field.

No one has proven that a metallic core exists. Indeed no one has looked into the earth's interior more than a tiny fraction of its diameter. The deepest drill holes are a mere 20 to 30 km deep, they barely scratch the surface.

Seismic data is being interpreted this way and that, but always depending on a theoretical model. No proof.

As for the earth's magnetic field, in my view this could just as well be built up by the rotation of the earth's shell, if we model the earth as a (hollow) spherical capacitor.

Let me repeat that we do not know what the earth looks like with any certainty for more than a mere 20 to 30 km down into the crust.