dinsdag 23 oktober 2012

About the strange behaviour of light


On Andrea Rossi's Journal of Nuclear Physics, an alternative forum where alternative theories are posted in an attempt to explain LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions = 'Cold Fusion'), I posted several messages, but two of them deal with (and/or are reflections about) the strange behaviour of light, and therefore they are interesting enough to discuss separately from LENR, and therefore I repeat them here:

The first message treats/hypothises light as if it belongs to a higher (ether) dimension:

About Ether and the Michelson-Morley-experiment :
Daniel De Caluwé

October 11th, 2012 at 10:34 AM

About Ether and the Michelson-Morley-experiment

Dear Wladimir and other readers,

About two years (plus four months) ago, I wrote something about ether and the Michelson-Morley experiment on the Dutch niburu-forum:

http://niburuarchief.info/showthread.php?tid=20448&pid=317784#pid317784

My opinion was and is that the Michelson-Morley experiment only proved that the speed of light was independent of the relative motion of the sender (of the light) in respect to the receiver, so the speed of the relative motion was not transferred to the (speed of the) light itself, and so their experiment proved (far in advance) this property of propagation of the light explained by Einstein in his theory of Special Relativity.

And based on this experiment, the scientific community rejected the existence of the ether, but in fact, the Michelson-Morley experiment only rejected a kind of a ether that transfers the relative movement (of sender towards receiver) to the speed of light. But if we suppose an ether that doesn’t transfer the relative motion of sender and receiver to the speed of light, than such an ether still would be possible, and could not be rejected by the scientific community based on the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Is such an ether, (that doesn’t transfer the relative movement of sender and receiver to the speed of light), possible? I think the answer is yes, especially when we envision a kind of ether that behaves like a higher dimension that supports the propagation of light, but that doesn’t transfer the relative motion of sender and receiver, who belong to the normal/ordinary (and lower) physical dimension.

Is there an interaction between the (lower and) ordinary physical dimension and the higher dimension of such an ether? The answer is yes:

i) For instance when we heat up a piece of metal that starts to glow and sends its light (based on the well known mechanism of excitation of electrons that send fotons when they fall back in their normal orbits).

ii) And also we know by experiment(s) that the speed of light depends of the physical medium where it is passing through. The speed of light is the highest in the vacuüm, but decreases in media with higher density. In the air, the speed of light is already a little bit lower, and in water the speed is lower than in air. (Also the laws of the breaking of the light are based on this). So if we suppose that light is propagated in the higher dimension of the ether, than by experiment we know that the fysical medium that surrounds it has influence on the speed of light in the ether. (So that’s a second kind of interaction between the higher dimension of the supposed ether and the lower physical world).

iii) And also via Einsteins’ General Theory of Relativity, we know that light is bend by the interaction of heavy bodies. So gravity, that is supposed to belong to the (lower) physical dimension ;-) , also has an influence on the propagation of light through our hypothised ether.

But to conclude so far: If we suppose or hypothise such an ether (in a higher dimension than the ordinary physical world), we know from the interaction explained under i), that electrons have to do with the interaction between the two worlds (the ordinary physical world and the higher ether dimension) and because of the measured interactions under ii) and iii), we also know that there’s also an interaction because of the mass mainly composed of particles (neutrons and protons) in the nucleus.

Does this make sense and/or can we do something with this? ;-)

Kind Regards,
Daniel.


But in the second message, I've put my feet back and firmly on the ground, treating light as - unfortunately not so ordinary! ;-) - matter:

The strange thing about light/quanta of light/fotons :
Daniel De Caluwé

October 17th, 2012 at 9:57 AM

The strange thing about light/quanta of light/fotons is that the relative motion of the sender in respect to the receiver is not added to the velocity of light, as proven by Michelson-Morley and all other experiments done to prove that Einsteins’ theory of Special Relativity was right, and this is in contrast with all other mechanical phenomena tested en expierenced in our world. If I throw a ball or a bullet towards the reader, then that ball or bullet comes in with a higher speed when I also run towards the reader, so my (relative) speed is added to the speed of the ball or the bullet, but this is NOT so in the case of ‘bullets of light’ (= fotons = quanta of light), because they always come in at the same velocity, not dependend of the relative motion of the sender towards the receiver (proven by Michelson-Morley and many other experiments), so, if we treat fotons/quanta of light just as a form of very very very light matter, why doesn’t it behave as ordinary matter? Why is my speed not added to the speed of light if I move towards you? Does light/fotons/quanta of light belong to another higher dimension/realm, very close and with a lot of interactions with our ordinary world/matter, but because of this exceptional quality not really following the rules of the ordinary world/matter? And oh yes, in many ways, light/fotons/quanta of light behave like small and very very light bullets, because they move slower in water than in air and slower in air than in vacuüm, and these small and very light bullets (fotons) also are bend by heavy objects (like big stars and black holes), and there even is a doppler effect (frequency shift) like their is with sound in the air (think of the frequency shift of the sound when a train is passing), so from this point of view, light (fotons/quanta of light) seem and appear to behave normal, but there’s one exception: it doesn’t get the relative motion (of the sender in respect to the receiver), and this in contrast with all other things that move in this, our world. My question towards the scientific community is why? Why is the relative motion of the sender towards the receiver, and in the case of light, only transferred as a frequency-shift of the light (doppler effect; red-shift; blue-shift), and not as a change of the speed, like in the case of normal material objects/bullets, that always come in with the relative speed (of sender towards receiver) added to their own velocity?

But I agree, ‘bullets of light’ (= fotons = quanta of light) can move through space (and the vacuüm) without the existence of an aether or a carrier, we just can treat them as very very light material objects or bullets, moving through the vacuüm of space that is really empty, but why then, is the relative motion (of sender towards receiver) not added in their case, like is the case with all other material objects/bullets? Why these ‘bullets of light’ (= fotons = quanta of light) have this exception and behave different?

At the moment, I prefer my second message, treating light (fotons/quanta of light) as a very very very light form of matter, but there still remains one 'little' (small/big) problem, isn't it? ;-)

And you may (first) study ordinary Mechanics (Kinematics and Dynamics), and thereafter Special and General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, but at the end and after many years, you will see that you dit not get a good answer to this relatively simple question... He or she who can resolve this 'little' problem certainly deserves a nobel prize... ;-)

maandag 15 oktober 2012

Enkele bedenkingen over de politiek in Vlaanderen

Naar aanleiding van de voorbije lokale verkiezingen (van 14 oktober 2012), heb en had ik onderstaande bedenkingen:

1. Bart De Wever (N-VA) heeft de recente lokale verkiezingen misbruikt (gekaapt) om een nationaal thema (zijn streven naar een confederaal België) door te drukken. Maar bij gemeenteraadsverkiezingen zou het in Antwerpen over Antwerpen zelf moeten gaan, en NIET over de nationale politiek. Zijn verkiezingsoverwinning weerspiegelt dus niet de verhoudingen van de talenten op lokaal en regionaal vlak, maar zijn vervormd en verwrongen door het nationaal thema, dat pas bij de volgende nationale verkiezingen (in 2014) zou mogen uitgespeeld worden. Deze werkwijze van Bart De Wever is dus NIET democratisch, en Elio Di Rupo heeft dus volkomen gelijk als hij reageert dat de recente gemeenteraadsverkiezingen NIETS veranderen aan de verhoudingen op nationaal vlak, en dat het regeerakkoord verder uitgevoerd moet worden tot er nieuwe nationale verkiezingen zijn (pas in 2014). En op dat moment heeft Bart De Wever en het N-VA wél het recht om op te komen voor een confederaal België (waardoor de lange-termijn-rente van de Belgische staatsschuld in navolging van Griekenland, Spanje en Italië wel sterk zal stijgen (en misschien is dat zelfs nu al het geval?), maar daar liggen ze bij het N-VA klaarblijkelijk niet van wakker, ook niet over Brussel en de verdeling van België als het zover is).

2. Het Vlaams Belang doet, met zijn 'Eigen Volk Eerst'-politiek, ook aan verkiezingsbedrog, in die zin dat ze de illusie wekken dat ze opkomen voor de zwakkeren van het eigen volk, maar als puntje bij paaltje komt, kiezen ze - net zoals het N-VA van Bart De Wever! - op sociaal-economisch vlak wel voor een uiterst rechts beleid! Ze verliezen nu meer terrein, maar hebben, met hun vroegere grote scores, de politiek in Vlaanderen steeds meer naar rechts doen verschuiven, ook op sociaal-economisch vlak! Gewone werknemers die voor een dergelijke partij stemmen, hebben dus steevast voor een partij gekozen die niet hún belangen, maar deze van de kleine Vlaamse ondernemers dient.

3. Het vroegere succes van Steve Stevaert in Limburg, en het huidige succes van Daniël Termont in Gent, waarbij kartels gevormd werden door SP.A en Groen, doet mij afvragen of SP.A en Groen ook niet beter hadden samengewerkt in Antwerpen om het N-VA van De Wever te counteren? Hadden de andere linkse partijen niet alle hens aan dek moeten roepen, om de opgang van De Wever te stuiten?

Enz, enz, ... Ik heb vele bedenkingen bij de huidige politiek in Vlaanderen... ;-)