|The Speed of Light |
The differences in frequencies and wavelengths of
electromagnetic waves of light produce the color spectrum, or am I wrong? A
prism causes the light to break down to its frequencies and wavelengths by
slightly slowing its path. The speed of a wave is said to be equal to its
frequency multiplied by its wavelength. And, frequency is the number of
vibrations of the wave per second. A slightly faster or slower start speed might
cause some different frequencies of waves. (And, how do you explain the Doppler
Effect and Red Shift? Would it be that faster waves are more blue and slower
waves more red?)
I'm not a scientist and I haven't studied any science in
a long time, but my idea was that light is bent by atmosphere and travels a
little more slowly through air (also from bouncing off molecules) than through
space, and so is not exactly constant. And, that radio waves are lower frequency
electromagnetic waves and very close to the speed of light. It is said that all
electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light. But, I don't agree that the
speed of light is exactly constant, only nearly constant. That is, the speed of
light is more variable than what most people think. This is one point I was
trying to make, and a prism is a fine example.
And, I don't see its
speed as being the ultimate, myself. We might not be able to detect anything
faster. I'm not sure Einstein was right about everything. If the speed of light
is the maximum speed, then the equation E=mc^2 is unreal. If you have zero as
one limit on a scale and the "ultimate" speed of light on the other end of the
scale, then anything times zero is zero and anything over one times the speed of
light can only reach the speed of light. I don't know, maybe I'll
never quite get this. Seems funny to call it just a constant and also a limit at
the same time as squaring it. In an equation in physics each factor represents
something real being affected by other real factors. What is the product of the
speed of light times the speed of light? I don't see why the speed of light is
necessarily the fastest speed possible. If the speed of light is not the limit
of all speed, then the equation is more plausible.
tried to make my point from a few different angles. If the equations based on
E=mc^2 work, it would be some evidence that the speed of light is not a limit.
That there is the Doppler "red shift" Effect indicates to me that the faster waves of light are more
violet and slower waves are red, though the difference is negligible compared to
the total speed. If red shift is caused by the wavelength expanding, then in
order to maintain a constant speed, the frequency would have to decrease also.
What then causes the frequency to decrease?
[I think that the speed of light isn't as much as a limit and constant that
other people think. Suppose as you approach the speed of light that you make a
quantum leap. And as you exceed the speed of light, you make another quantum
As for photons of light, and radio waves, and electricity - they
may be very similar, certainly not quite the same. Maybe we should just say
"electromagnetic energy" or EM - hmm, too broad a term I guess. A ray could be
just one part of a wave of energy in one direction, or a lone stray. A photon
might be considered just a one dimensional point caught in time in a three or
more dimensional wave. Lots of maybes.
I've got a lot of study ahead to
catch up from where I left off many years ago in physics and to remember what
I've forgotten. I see a photon might be expressed as a quantum of energy (acting
like a particle). Planck said a quantum equals the frequency of the
electromagnetic wave times a constant(his). Einstein figured a single quantum of
light ejects a single electron. Bohr said a quantum is when one electron changes
About photons, neutrinos , gravitons, etc:
talking about particles with zero mass, you are talking about nothing but
energy, only with different properties and characteristics. (I think wave theory
is a bit better than particle theory anyway. And, both are useful together. Oh,
and what is the speed of a "gravitational wave"?)
It seems very easy to
turn one form of energy into another. And, perhaps "matter" is only energy at
some point, having acquired mass or gravity by their sub-atomic attractions and
orbits. It must be much more than this (speed, frequency and wavelength of
vibration), but that and force are about all that we can detect with our
"normal" physical senses and apparatus. And then again, maybe we and all we see
are just holograms, and we see what we look for. hehehe
The speed of
light is about 299,790,000 meters per second in free space. (And, according
to NOVA online:) Water slows light down to 225,000,000 m/sec, glass to
200,000,000 m/sec, and a diamond to 125,000,000 m/sec. So, if the speed changes
in a different medium, what if anything happens to the frequency and wavelength?
Shouldn't the equation then really be that the speed of a wave equals the
frequency times the wavelength divided by the density and other characteristics
of the medium? (Then free space would be equal to one, and what about the
effects of gravity?) Also, the speed of sound in air is 331 meters per second at
0 degrees centigrade. The speed of an electron in orbit in a hydrogen atom is
about 2,200,000 meters per second, and is also variable and changeable. The
speed of electricity is much slower than the speed of light. A lightning bolt
shows you that, where you can watch electricity travel from one end to the
other. Electrons are attracted to protons, or rather atoms that are electron
needy. But, electrons must be both attracted and repelled in order to go into
orbit around a nucleus instead of just being absorbed.
have electricity shows that electrons are separate from the proton/neutron
nucleus; yet being oppositely charged, they are attracted to each other. Why
don't electrons bombard the nucleus? Why aren't electrons attracted directly to
the proton in the first place? Why mostly circular orbits, or orbits at
different levels? Having a neutron present seems to have no effect on the
process, since the charge of the nucleus still attracts and normal hydrogen
contains no neutrons. Is there some force in the nucleus that spins the elecrons
into orbit? (How does the force of the proton hold the "fuzzed out" electron
near it in what is sometimes referred to as an "orbital"?)
Why isn't an
electron brought down into a nucleus? Something must keep it away. It seems to
be a very basic question. Could it be "anti-gravity"?
There is gravity
and there is said to be "anti-gravity". These masses are very small, what are
the effects of gravity at that level? And, orbit suggests gravity, or at least
electromagnetic attraction. These atoms are obviously creating gravity. And, if
they produce gravity, they might also produce anti-gravity at the same time.
I've heard that it is the electromagnetic force field itself that is
reponsible for the electron orbiting the nucleus. Can anyone explain how? And,
what creates the field? The attraction may create the field, or the field the
attraction, but again, how? Maybe a course in quantum mechanics would help me
answer these very basic questions. What causes the electron orbit levels, and
what keeps electrons and protons apart? Or, for that matter, what keeps the
protons in the nucleus together? If it is gluons, how do they accomplish this?
What is gravity? And, what keeps electrons and protons apart? If we knew
the answers to these two questions, it might go a long way in helping us achieve
real space travel.
I Asked a Scientist at NASA what keeps protons and
electrons apart. Here is their response:
"Atoms are somewhat like the Solar System --- the electrons orbit around the
nucleus, rather than falling onto the nucleus. In general, when two objects
attract each other, they tend to orbit each other, rather than clashing into
each other. This is because of the angular momentum --- the conservation of
angular momentum appears to be one of nature's fundamental principles. In
classical mechanics, unless there is an extraordinary fine tuning of the
trajectory, an electron approaching a nucleus would simply whip around it and
fly apart, rather than colliding with it. For the real answer, though, wait till
you learn quantum mechanics!
Best Wishes, Maggie Masetti & Koji Mukai for
Ask A High-Energy Astronomer"
Thanks. Sorry, I didn't mean to ambush you.
I didn't really expect a satisfactory answer or even one I could understand.
But, magnets don't tend to orbit each other, and this question is about
electromagnetic fields and their charges. I guess I need to Ask A Quantum
Physicist for the "real" answer.
I guess we can only speculate what happened to the last two Mars probes -
the Mars Global Orbiter and the Mars Polar Lander. These are not the only
mysterious disappearances of probes to Mars. And, we've only had this much
trouble on missions to Mars. I heard the Russians lost one about ten years ago.
It was said it was taking pictures as it went by one of the moons and captured a
photo of a ufo just before it was "lost."
Here's a link to NASA for the list
of past missions:
It might be time to consider backing off from visiting Mars, under
the circumstances. Or, perhaps it would be a good idea to hail the world of Mars
with the Global Surveyor. Why not open all channels if we are really seeking to
find extra-terrestrial life. Wouldn't it be appropriate to knock on the door
before we open it? - to act like it might be possible for this to be another's
If there are aliens on Mars, they may know more about our
probes, satellites and communications than we do. They may be studying the Polar
Lander now. Have you seen the pictures taken January 1st of another area? This
image has something that resembles the tracks left by moles kicking up the dirt
for tunnels in our yard: .. click
And here's something similar..click
Martians may be wondering what micro-spores of bacteria and
virus we are sending them with our probes, and taking precautions. (Maybe not,
at least one has landed, right?) If they exist, I would think they would be
curious as to what we're up to.
I see few things in the Cydonia region
that seem to be artificial. One of them is the plateau that the face is on.
Maybe someone is using it to create art. Could have created a face and erased
it. Just speculation.
I don't know what the elevations are there. Perhaps
some of these craters and such are battle scars of an alien war. And, if there
are aliens on Mars, they may be controlling the pictures we receive now! LOL
site photo..Strange dunes on Mars...NASA/JPL/MSSS..more
my post at space.com, April 2002)
Some similarities between Genesis and the Big Bang and
Genesis chapter 1 is the story of what the events were that
took place and in what order for the creation of the universe as we find it
Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the
This is a declaration. The rest of the chapter tells how it
happened or came about, the explanation.
Big Bang assumes everything started from within a giant black hole. right?
"The earth was without form, and void: and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
This says the earth itself did not yet exist at the beginning. It was without
form and void.
Within a black hole, in the center, is thought by some to be
a huge collection of sub-atomic particles so dense that it would form an oozing
fluid of great mass.
I would say that "waters" in this first instance refers
to a conglomeration of atomic particles from which matter is made. Being in
constant flux and with no rigid organization of atomic structure would make it
I interpret the scripture to say that the Spirit of God moved upon
something physical before "heaven" or earth were in existence.
"And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And
God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the
The first thing to escape in a Big Bang of a black hole would be light, since
it travels so fast.
End of 1st period
"And God said, Let there be a firmament, in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
God called the firmament Heaven."
Next out is atomic matter spewing into space, or heaven (with "space"
expanding as the material within it also expands outwards).
end of 2nd period
"Let the waters under heaven be gathered together in one
place, and let dry land appear."
Matter in space starts to coalesce, forming bodies and new planets etc. in
space. This is when the earth forms with its seas and landforms.
The earth brings forth plant life.
end of 3rd period
The sun and stars have formed (in their orbits), and the moon.
end of 4th period
Animal life comes into being, starting with the sea, fish in
the sea, birds in the air.
end of 5th period
Other and higher forms of animal life come forth.
God creates mankind.
end of 6th period
Of course a literal seven days makes no sense. It is symbolic of seven
epochs. Time when measured by God is a little different than when measured by
man, but no less significant even though God is far beyond our concept of time.
To Him it is nothing really, being eternal and the creator of time, He is above
and beyond it. The Bible also says that one day to God is like a thousand years
and vice versa. Of course man couldn't measure time until he was created on the
sixth "day", and there would be no measurement of a day without the earth
turning on its axis while in orbit around the sun. It's us humans who are
trapped by time.