Light doesn't need a medium to travel

[Philosophy Explorer]

All a substance can do is slow down light - that is, hinder its movement. As an analogy, when a rocket ship takes off, the atmosphere hinders its movement which tends to slow it down through friction. The same atmosphere acts the same way on light - light can travel more easily without it which experiments have confirmed.

Any questions or comments?

PhilX

[DarwinX]

All a substance can do is slow down light - that is, hinder its movement. As an analogy, when a rocket ship takes off, the atmosphere hinders its movement which tends to slow it down through friction. The same atmosphere acts the same way on light - light can travel more easily without it which experiments have confirmed.

Any questions or comments?

PhilX

Light needs the medium of Aether. Otherwise it wouldn't behave like a wave if there was no medium.

[Philosophy Explorer]

All a substance can do is slow down light - that is, hinder its movement. As an analogy, when a rocket ship takes off, the atmosphere hinders its movement which tends to slow it down through friction. The same atmosphere acts the same way on light - light can travel more easily without it which experiments have confirmed.

Any questions or comments?

PhilX

Light needs the medium of Aether. Otherwise it wouldn't behave like a wave if there was no medium.

Which proves nothing. For light, it doesn't need a medium to travel across space such as sound would.

Can you cite sources of graduate scientists from accredited institutions who support your views? (as a reminder, YouTube isn't an acceptable source).

PhilX

[Atreyu]

Why would anything need a medium to travel?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Why would anything need a medium to travel?

Sound does because it's based on vibrations. I've witnessed proof from experiments that as air is sucked out of a container, the sound disappears. But to stay on topic, light doesn't need any medium to travel.

PhilX

[Atreyu]

Sound does because it's based on vibrations. I've witnessed proof from experiments that as air is sucked out of a container, the sound disappears. But to stay on topic, light doesn't need any medium to travel.

Light is also based on "vibrations", "vibrations of light". The basic principle of different energies radiating at various frequencies, which appear as waves when measured, applies in both cases. The phenomenon of light and the phenomenon of sound are not as different as you may think. They are both the peculiar subjective way we perceive various frequencies of energy radiating from various sources and so they are subject to the same general laws, and, in fact, the only reason that we distinguish the one from the other in the first place is because our psychic apparatus just happens to perceive them differently. Some higher frequencies of energy or vibrations we perceive as light, and with the eye, while other lower frequencies of energy or vibrations we perceive as sound, and with the ear. Nature has provided man with two different organs of sense which can transmit two different ranges of radiations of energy into our awareness. Frequencies or vibrations which are too high, like x-rays and gamma rays, or too low, like radio waves, we do not perceive at all, unless we have the aid of various man-made devices like the x-ray machine and the car radio, which can receive the imperceptible frequency and convert and then transmit it into one we can perceive with our organs of sense.

So if sound vibrations need a medium to travel, why would we not think that the "vibrations of light" also need some kind of medium to travel, even though we may not be able to see it, nor perhaps even be able to cognize what it might be?

Therefore, I disagree with your assertion, and posit that in fact light does need some kind of medium to travel, since it has the same general property of being a form of radiation of energy as does sound, and therefore should be under the same general laws.

And this means that if we removed some unknown "matter" from space (dark matter?), then light could not travel, and the sensation of sight would never have evolved.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Light doesn't vibrate and I'm unaware of any experiment that demonstrates otherwise.

Can you cite a source that explicitly says light vibrates?

PhilX

[DarwinX]

Which proves nothing. For light, it doesn't need a medium to travel across space such as sound would.

Can you cite sources of graduate scientists from accredited institutions who support your views? (as a reminder, YouTube isn't an acceptable source).

PhilX

Dayton Miller - http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

[Atreyu]

Light doesn't vibrate and I'm unaware of any experiment that demonstrates otherwise. Can you cite a source that explicitly says light vibrates?

You didn't get what I said. We don't think of light frequencies as "vibrations" because they are perceived with eyes, but the principle is the same as with sound frequencies, they are both mapped as waves. We normally just associate the word "vibration" with our auditory and tactile senses. Light waves are travelling so much faster than sound waves that we perceive and cognize them completely differently. In fact, light waves travel so fast (186,000 km/s) that we normally don't perceive them at all, and it is only a very narrow frequency which we can perceive as different colors and with the visual sense. Sound waves travel much slower (767 mph) and so we perceive a certain range of frequencies as different tones and pitches and with the auditory sense.

So the word "vibration" is merely more associated with how we perceive the various frequencies of sound waves which we can, but the phenomena is the same as with light -- energy is being radiated from a source which can always be mapped as pulses of energy or undulatory motions (sine/cosine waves) -- we just happen to perceive those frequencies of light waves which we can as different colors.

So we know all about sound waves needing a medium because by their very nature (slower speed) they are moving through a denser matter or medium, i.e. matter as we know it. But we don't know about the "medium" of light because by its very nature (much faster speed) it is moving through much a much less dense "matter" or "medium", a "medium" so less dense that I have to use quotation marks because ordinarily we don't perceive or cognize this "medium" as "matter" at all.

But it must exist because the general principles of energy radiation and how it travels from point to point must be the same regardless of the particular speed or corresponding density of the medium. A more dense medium merely means that the radiation in question is moving at a much slower speed (sound), while a less dense medium merely means that the radiation in question is moving at a much faster speed (light).

So the problem is that you are defining "vibration" too narrowly, solely in terms of sound, but that is not what "vibration" means in the more broad and general meaning of the term. Its more general and scientific meaning is pulsations of emissions of radiation/energy -- energy is not emitted and radiated by a source in a continuous and constant manner, rather is it emitted in pulses which is why they can be represented in wave format. Energy always "vibrates" from its source, whether it is perceived as sound or light or whatever, meaning that it is being emitted and radiated in intervals rather than in a continuum.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Atreyu said:

"But we don't know about the "medium" of light because..."

If we don't know about the medium of light, then we can't say anything about a medium for it.

PhilX

[Atreyu]

Atreyu said:

"But we don't know about the "medium" of light because..."

If we don't know about the medium of light, then we can't say anything about a medium for it.

Why not? This is a philosophy forum and you brought it up!

I would posit that the medium might be found in what science calls "dark matter". Science would probably define it as some kind or kinds of subatomic particles currently unknown but permeating the entire Universe, much like any other subatomic particle, but definitely existing all throughout interstellar space. Naturally they would be very high-energy particles, which would explain why we couldn't detect them.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Which proves nothing. For light, it doesn't need a medium to travel across space such as sound would.

Can you cite sources of graduate scientists from accredited institutions who support your views? (as a reminder, YouTube isn't an acceptable source).

PhilX

Dayton Miller - http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Possibly another Pons and Fleischmann. The science community have not been able to repeat his reported results. Furthermore a statistics analysis was done indicating there was prejudice in his work.

This is why Dayton isn't accepted by mainstream scientists so there is no proof of an ether medium.

PhilX

[Misty]

Light does not need a medium to travel, sound does.

www.answers.com/Q/Why_does_light_not_need_a_medium

After the paragraph about light, one can scroll down a little for blurb on sound medium.

[DarwinX]

Possibly another Pons and Fleischmann. The science community have not been able to repeat his reported results. Furthermore a statistics analysis was done indicating there was prejudice in his work.

This is why Dayton isn't accepted by mainstream scientists so there is no proof of an ether medium.

PhilX

If experiments have been done after Dayton Miller in recent times, please quote who did these experiments, when and what were the results.

I take it that you fully accept the alternate theories of Einstein. The experiments that prove Einstein's theories are also fraught with inaccuracies and deceptions. 1. The gravity B probe had many problems - wobbling gyroscopes and instability problems. They used computer magic to hide their mistakes. 2. The appearance of light bending around the sun can be explained by simple diffraction. Thus, Einstein's theories are still unproven.

The concept of infinity which extends inward and well as outward explains why they can't detect the aether. The inward universe is too small to measure and exists in a different time frame reality. Thus, light travels through a different time frame reality and reappears at the point of impact. This is just a common-sense conclusion using basic principles of logic, inevitability and consequence.

The existence of an aether is proven by the fact that light can reach the Earth and also by the invisible forces such as gravity, electricity and magnetism. Not to mention the expanding Earth principle which was proven by Stephen Hurrell and others.

[Philosophy Explorer]

DarwinX asks:

"If experiments have been done after Dayton Miller in recent times, please quote who did these experiments, when and what were the results. "

I'm surprised you asked this question. The link you set up leads to an article with the answer.

I already know you won't accept any evidence contrary to what you claim. Try to come up with real evidence, not a Pons and Fleischmann scenario. So light not needing a medium to travel still stands.

PhilX