|Adapted for the Internet from:
Why God Doesn't Exist
(c = ƒ λ)
Fig. 1 Quantum's ridiculous version of frequency
|I don't understand it, Al!
I can't get the size of the
link to be constant! When I
twist these ropes, the
number of links increases,
but then each link
|The morons of Mathematical Physics do
frequency the way of Ptolemy. They hold
frequency constant and believe that light travels
at different speeds through different media (a
phenomenon known as refractive index). The
ridiculous 'refractive index' version of frequency
is not a reality of nature, but merely a convention.
QM’s Ptolemaic explanation owes its livelihood
to the amusing fact that the mathematicians
have defined frequency in terms of time and
wavelength in terms of length. In QM, the speed
of light is variable, but the mathematicians use it
in all of their equations as a constant (i.e., little c)!
|It's probably some particle
going from one end to the
other. You have a pair of
bad ropes, Newt! You
should buy new ones.
|For example, the mathematicians at the University of Riverside's Physics FAQ have light traveling
at different speeds through different media, constant for SR, and variable for GR. Then for
unexplained reasons they tell you that "the photon can never be at rest"
Why not you stupid morons? If you can slow a photon down and explain that it sometimes crashes
against an electron, what physical reason prevents the photon from grinding down to a standstill?
|The idiots of Mathematics don’t
measure the speed of light. They
calculate angles. Light travels at
300,000 km/sec in a vacuum. The
mechanics tell you that it slows
down to around 220,000 km/sec
when it penetrates into glass. No
problem! What is it that accelerates
light back to 300,000 km/sec when
the photon leaves the glass and
returns to the vacuum? Newton’s
3rd Law requires a force
contributed by an extrinsic agent.
Einstein’s relativity requires space
curvature to deflect the path of
light. What's it gonna be?
Fig. 2 Only a rope configuration explains why (ƒ = c / λ).
|Rope ‘frequency’: links per unit length
|Take a rope and torque it a few times. You will
verify that you now have shorter links and more
links per unit length. In Physics, frequency is the
number of links per meter. Hence, if we increase
the length of each link, we can fit fewer links for
a given length of rope. We're done! The rope
requires that the velocity of light be a constant
because frequency is a function of unit length.
Fig. 4 The footprints that the mathematicians make in space
|A particle can perhaps generate a series
of footprints in the sand, but not in space.
When the mathematician draws a sine
wave, he draws all the points on the
same page. When he is finished, you can
see all the points simultaneously like you
would see the footprints you left while
walking on the beach. You cannot
visualize a 'wave' in space as if staring at
a photograph if the wave consists of a
single particle moving forward. Each
location of the particle has now vanished.
It is now in the past. Motion requires
memory of an object's previous location.
Motion is not a photograph, but a movie
of a moving object. A wave made by a
single particle is not a standalone trace
|The particle mathematicians have no explanations. In fact, Newton's corpuscle theory 'predicted' that
light would travel faster through denser media. So much for the particle model of light! It dies here!
The wave mathematicians claim that a wave encounters more resistance entering and less leaving
the glass. They invoke the analogy of a marching band which finds the marchers on one side waiting
for the marchers on the other. The theorists illustrate this analogy with a straight wavefront.
Actually, the analogy is misleading. Under this scenario, one side of the wavefront simply enters the
medium before the other and begins to travel slower. The other side has no chance of ever catching
up. The entire wavefront is curved as portions enter the glass at different times. The side that entered
first also emerges first at the glass-air interface. Now the front should curve in the opposite direction
if this analogy has any merit. Therefore, according to the mathematicians, a denser medium should
transform wavefronts from concave to convex. In fact, light should never have a straight wavefront
in any medium except the vacuum. The mathematicians' analogy and official explanation is absolute
bullshit! It has no merits whatsoever because it violates logic and observation!
Again, the root of the problem with this ‘acceleration’ version of light is that the mathematicians rely
on a misconceived definition of frequency. They hold frequency constant and decrease both
wavelength and the speed of light through a denser medium. The reason for this ridiculous
conclusion has its origin in that the mathematicians have defined frequency in terms of time and
wavelength in terms of 'length' (i.e., space). The speed of light rules out both particles and waves.
These models cannot simulate observation.
|The mathematicians define frequency
in terms of time. The frequency and
wave of Mathematics are inherently
dynamic. If light consists of a
standing wave, this means that this
medium oscillates up and down in in
place. How can the mathematicians
reconcile their definition of frequency
with this proposal if frequency is the
distance between two locations,
meaning that the particle moved
forward. (e.g., the difference between
450 and 460 nm wavelength would
require the particle to change
|If, instead, the mathematicians are saying that light consists of two anti-parallel traveling waves,
each particle comprising the waves must travel up and down AS WELL AS forward. Does the
electric field travel in the opposite direction to the magnetic field? Do the particles that constitute
each field collide? How do we define frequency if the particle of the electric field is going in
opposite direction to the one constituting the magnetic field? Do these EM fields extend
uninterruptedly from the Andromeda Galaxy to us? Is the magnetic field generated on Earth
whereas the Electric field is generated at Andromeda? The questions are endless and have no
resolution under the hypothesis that a wave is made of particles. We simply cannot reconcile
frequency as defined in Mathematics with a wave made of particles.
|Every atom in the Sun is connected via an EM
rope to every atom on Earth, Including every
atom in your body. This is not a one to one
correspondence. It is an all to all correspondence.
Light consists of torque signals propagating
along these ropes. The Sun swings the Earth
around like scores of Lilliputians would swirl
Gulliver around at the end of gazillions of
|An atom 'relays' a torque signal to another
through the rope that interconnects them.
Thus, an atom in the Sun sends the signal
to an atom in the atmosphere which relays
the signal to an atom comprising the ocean
which relays it to an atom in the center of
the Earth. (The atom in the Sun is also
connected directly to these same atoms.)
Link lengths (wavelength) increase and
the number of links per unit length
(frequency) decreases in denser media. In
Physics, 'frequency' is always inversely
proportional to 'wavelength' and the
velocity of the torque signal is constant.
|The mechanics should have figured this out decades ago. Instead, they kept modeling and
simulating their equations with particles. Not being particularly keen on architecture, the
mathematicians focused on the signal going back and forth and neglected the intermediary.
They never progressed beyond the particle since they crowned Newt king!
|If, as QM insinuates, a wave of light is
made of moving particles, an increase
in the amplitude would entail either
(A) more particles for higher peaks or
(B) that each particle have a longer
itinerary: the higher the amplitude, the
longer the path a given particle that
comprises the wave must travel. The
sigmoidal or S-shaped path traveled
by each particle implies that they
propagate faster than light. (The little
c is contingent on rectilinear motion.)
|The questions you must ask yourself are: What is it that deflects a particle from its rectilinear
path? If the particles oscillate up and down in situ, what is it that moves forward in this
scheme? Is a ‘photon’ (wave-packet) a standing or a traveling wave?
Under the rope hypothesis (C), amplitude is simply a taller link. This phenomenon is
independent of frequency. Red may have the same amplitude as blue despite that both have
different link-lengths. A rope explains why amplitude is detected as intensity.
The animated rope version of light
Click on the image if you wish to see two atoms sending torque
waves (light) to each other while they 'Quantum Jump'...
in slow motion