Femto camera experiment says space is the medium for light

[trevorjohnson83]

Got me thinking about farts.. pop gun relief, abrupt blasts, quiet but deadly,..

ett too brett?

 

[trevorjohnson83]

So I was thinking light makes up the electric shell because its temperature/density matches that of the static gravity field of the nucleus. But then I thought how light is varying in temperature so what part of the gravity field is that? A solution might be that frequency gives light its speed not expansion as it cools off and light fills the region of the electric shell because that's where it slows down. Frequency propogates light. lets see if you can answer why before me.

I bet its because the varying temperature always provides the same amount of push between the top and the bottom of the wave.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Also if light gets red shift blue shift from momentum, perhaps on its way into the gravity field of the nucleus it experiences blue shift and then turns around on itself to form red shift, both waves combine and you get a balance of white or colorful elements.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Red and blue shift depend only upon the relative movements of the light energy emitter and receiver. Other than transferring heat energy (infrared light) the Aether couldn't care less about it. The Aether has no density. Gravity is an anti-field, direct manifestation of the Aether. A push / pull upon all mass in general. The push gets stronger only near very dense objects (masses) which attract it from deep within their nuclei.

 

[toobfreak]

No way they can take that many frames.

A buddy of mine works in a lab using some of the fastest cameras made and he linked me to one once. I forget the frame rate but it's REALLY fast. I mean, this thing is WAY beyond those cameras that just slo-mo bullets and stuff like that strictly for science research at a microscopic scale. I forget the price, but several years ago, he told me the camera he was using cost something like a quarter/half million dollars or more.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

A buddy of mine works in a lab using some of the fastest cameras made and he linked me to one once. I forget the frame rate but it's REALLY fast. I mean, this thing is WAY beyond those cameras that just slo-mo bullets and stuff like that strictly for science research at a microscopic scale. I forget the price, but several years ago, he told me the camera he was using cost something like a quarter/half million dollars or more.

Whatup Tube. whats new?

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Actually light would get blue shifted going straight into a gravity field, it would be red shifted heading away but that's for an atom not an earth gravity field, I wonder if that's why the sky is blue?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Actually light would get blue shifted going straight into a gravity field, it would be red shifted heading away but that's for an atom not an earth gravity field,

Doppler shifted from whose perspective? How exactly does an atom's gravity field differ from an earth one?

I wonder if that's why the sky is blue?

Why is the sky blue short answer?

The sky appears blue to the human eye as the short waves of blue light are scattered more than the other colours in the spectrum, making the blue light more visible.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Doppler shifted from whose perspective? How exactly does an atom's gravity field differ from an earth one?

The observer looking at the sky. Earth doesn't reflect light the same way the gravity field of the nucleus would. Light doesn't reach the nucleus, that's what the electric shell is, where light can get no closer to the nucleus and it rebounds outward.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The observer looking at the sky. Earth doesn't reflect light the same way the gravity field of the nucleus would. Light doesn't reach the nucleus, that's what the electric shell is, where light can get no closer to the nucleus and it rebounds outward.

You remain hopelessly confused. Nowhere is either "The observer" or "the sky" moving at near relativistic speed which is obviously a requirement for the occurrence of (relativistic) doppler light energy shifting. Doppler shift has nothing to do with the color of the sky.

Different subject, an ideal mirror surface could "rebound" light (energy). Not so for an "electric shell" or "nucleus."

 

[trevorjohnson83]

You remain hopelessly confused. Nowhere is either "The observer" or "the sky" moving at near relativistic speed which is obviously a requirement for the occurrence of (relativistic) doppler light energy shifting. Doppler shift has nothing to do with the color of the sky.

Different subject, an ideal mirror surface could "rebound" light (energy). Not so for an "electric shell" or "nucleus."

Ok nuts lets go back to the basics since you've fallen off the map where I am, how does speed of something through the aether cause time dilation the same and differently then a gravity field?

Also a setup of one way mirrors, perhaps as a roof might help solar panels efficiency as well as normal mirrors, you would store your equipment inside too making it last longer.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ok nuts lets go back to the basics since you've fallen off the map where I am, how does speed of something through the aether cause time dilation the same and differently then a gravity field?

It's "than" and no one said it did, smartass. You were doing better addressing me as "Dr. Nuts."

So you went and learned a new term, "time dilation", ay? Good for you. Read along and pay attention now:

In physics and relativity, time dilation is the difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks. It is either due to a relative velocity between them (special relativistic "kinetic" time dilation) or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations (general relativistic gravitational time dilation). When unspecified, "time dilation" usually refers to the effect due to velocity.

As I've been trying to tell you all along. Why bother even introducing some "gravity field" notion when you can't even decide where to place your clocks? Nor how quickly one thing may be moving in relation to the other as a percentage of c?

Perhaps you should have mentioned by now that you were planning to better synchronize geosynchronous satellites or something? Do you suddenly wish to kiss Einstein's butt more than mine or what?

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Your belief system is hammered in pretty good. No where in any one's belief system does a normal person agree with you right after finding out about there technnical knowledge. You gotta be Fing kidding me that I will bend to your beliefs. Same respect here as I don't write you nasty playground envy. Frankly no one in modeern times respect's others like it was when icon's were big Nuts so quit asksing for it mmkay?

 

[trevorjohnson83]

I mean one tiny solar panel under a magnifying lens is going to give you the same output as a solar panel the size of the lens. Lens could be cheap glass or plastic with water in them and you dramatically reduce the size of the solar panel needed to get the same light. A lens 8 in in diameter would make a surface area of roughly 57 inches squared, if your solar panel is half inch by half inch, that a reduction of the amount of solar paneling by 228 times to get the same output. I can imagine people lining there roofs with 8 in sq boxes for cheap like hundreds of dollars.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Energy. Power generation from solar PV increased by a record 179 TWh in 2021, marking 22% growth on 2020. Solar PV accounted for 3.6% of global electricity generation, and it remains the third largest renewable electricity technology behind hydropower and wind.
3.6x228 would solve the energy crisis!

 

[Grumblenuts]

I mean one tiny solar panel under a magnifying lens is going to give you the same output as a solar panel the size of the lens.

Always a big fan of solar and wind power here.. That said, a convex magnifying lens only concentrates light energy passing through it orthogonal to its mounting plane, i.e. from directly above. Plus you're apt to fry your little panels in no time once the Sun does happen to be right there.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Always a big fan of solar and wind power here.. That said, a convex magnifying lens only concentrates light energy passing through it orthogonal to its mounting plane, i.e. from directly above. Plus you're apt to fry your little panels in no time once the Sun does happen to be right there.

You could alternate between two tiny solar panels when one gets too hot. Or you could build the panels like a cm sq and make the lens an inch and not reach excessive temperatures

 

[Grumblenuts]

Even without trying to concentrate the sunlight,

Some of the radiation falling on the surface of the PV cell turns into electricity, while the remainder of incident radiation is absorbed inside the PV cell. This, in turn, elevates its surface temperature. Undesirably, the higher panel temperature, the lower conversion performance, and lesser reliability over the long term occur.

Besides overheating your pointlessly tiny panels, your lens will block much of the air needed to passively cool them.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Besides overheating your pointlessly tiny panels, your lens will block much of the air needed to passively cool them.

You might use super tiny clamps to hold an ant in place then when the solar panel needs cooling the ant can blow on it.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

You could use your magnifying glass to make an ant run around a wheel, using several ants increases power. You could feed the ants give them water. You don't have to be cruel.