Adapted for the Internet from:Why God Doesn't Exist |

Particles cannot model ( 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 becomes shorter! |

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? |

Fig. 6 The speed of light |

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 |

Fg. 5 |

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 location). |

A |

B |

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 threads. |

Fig. 7 |

Fig. 8 |

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! |

Fig. 3 |

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. |

- c

The animated rope version of lightClick on the image if you wish to see two atoms sending torque waves (light) to each other while they 'Quantum Jump'... in slow motion |