Blog 20150819
Captain Bligh
writes: “Are you saying that light shifts its energy when encountering
a new medium?”
This
question was stimulated by my discussion of why the speed of light decreases by
25% when it enters water. That’s right, although light travels at 300 million
m/s in vacuum, it travels at only 225 million m/s in water. Now, from the
neomechanical standpoint we are reminded that light is motion. Light is not a
thing, so strictly speaking, the word “it” does not apply to “it” (see how
difficult it is to avoid using the nominative case for what is really a
predicate?). Another lesson: Even if light was a microcosm (which
it is not, despite Einstein’s claim), “it” would not be able to change “its”
own motion independent of all else. All changes in motion—accelerations—are the
result of collisions between microcosms. If light were a microcosm, it might
decelerate by 25% when it entered water, but there would be nothing to cause it
to accelerate 33% when it left the water. Nothing of the sort ever occurs, of
course, because light is motion. It is not a thing.
Now,
remember that the velocity of wave motion is determined by the medium in which
it occurs. Thus, the velocity of sound in air is 343 m/s, while the velocity of
sound in iron is 5,120 m/s. Because sound, like light, is a motion and not a thing, the
energy concept does not apply to it. Sound, like light, does not have mass, so
the kinetic energy equation would be written as:
KE = 1/2 mv2 = 1/2 (0)*v2 = 0
Note,
however, that the E=mc2 equation
remains valid for explaining the transfer of submicrocosmic (internal) motion
to supermicrocosms (aether particles) in the macrocosm. Nonetheless, the KE equation above explains why there
is no gain or loss of energy when light or sound enters a new medium. It also
is one of the reasons Einstein had to consider his light corpuscle, the photon,
to be massless. Of course it had to be massless, since it really did not exist.
It had no xyz dimensions because light is motion, not matter—the petard
bedeviling relativity at every turn.
All
this leads to the “tired light theory” favored by Edwin Hubble. The
indeterministic opposite of that theory might be called the “untiring light
theory.” Regressive physicists, who invariably favor such
idealisms, see no reason for light to be affected by their imagined “perfectly
empty space” through which it supposedly travels as a particle for 13.8 billion
years from galaxy to eyeball. But, as I have proclaimed before: “In neomechanics, no microcosm or motion of
microcosms could travel from point A to B without losses.” In the real world
we cannot transmit electricity from New York to San Francisco without losses.
Light is the same. Theoretically, all wave motion should behave the same way
even though the losses may be insignificant at short distances. It is claimed
that sound waves are redshifted when the distance is great enough (Pallidin,
2004). That is because of neomechanical interactions between the particles in
the medium required for wave motion. All microcosms follow the Eighth
Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite,
both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Thus, aether-1,
which we speculate is the medium for light transmission, is made up of aether-2
particles. This means that some of the motion of aether-1 particles
must be absorbed internally and taken up by the submicrocosms we call aether-2
(Puetz and Borchardt, 2011) via Type C neomechanical interactions (Borchardt.
2007). Regressive physicists, being steadfast aether deniers and believers in finity, remain estranged from any such
ideas. That was not the case with Hubble, who discovered the cosmic redshifts
and had this to say: "If they are valid, it seems likely that
red-shifts may not be due to an expanding universe, and much of the current
speculation on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."
(Hubble, 1947).
References
Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The
Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411
p. [ http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/The%20Scientific%20Worldview.html
]
Hubble, Edwin, 1947,
The 200-inch telescope and some problems it may solve: Publications of the
astronomical society of the Pacific, v. 59, no. 349, p. 165.
Pallidin, 2004, Why does sound
wave frequency not decrease over distance?, Physics Forums - The Fusion of
Science and Community [ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/why-does-sound-wave-frequency-not-decrease-over-distance.15125/ ].
Puetz, Stephen J., and
Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the
hierarchically infinite universe: Denver, Outskirts Press, 626 p.