I see that you have not only transfered the thread, but also changed the title without my permission. I find the former to be your prerogative, but not the latter.
Light is still a mystery for science, and Einstein was the first to acknowledge it.

Science is always a matter of consensus. There is no greater authority than the scientific community to decide at any period whether a view should be taken seriously.

But a forum community is not a science community. Their consensus is irrelevant. Unless you want to protect young minds from pernicious ideas, a forum should be the place where ideas and opinions clash.

The protection of what it means to be "scientific" is according to me the biggest sign of weakness a community can show.

Science does not need to be protected from crackpots. There were the results speak for themselves a scientist can simply refer to them.

Of course, very often, results are colored by the theory that distinguishes them from the plethora of other data. It becomes then a matter and of discussion and of further empirical research.

The intensity with which people think that they have to protect science is unscientific and frightening. It is a danger to progress because it raises generations in awe of what science has already achieved and encourages orthodoxy there where only controversial ideas may contribute to progress.

Ha @Banno, you are really endearing in your naiveté. It is not a matter of understanding, but a matter of being convinced. I hope you will not give up your efforts in explaining to me how you think the diagram, however you interpret it, depicts a rational theory.

it's on a need to know basis. And we don't need to know. :)

okay.

OP, you're not the poster dukkha are you? — JupiterJess

I don't know what that means.

How would a correct diagram look like according to you?

It looks much like image formation: one side is the inverse image of the other.

is that the same bird that went into a bar and was told not pets allowed?

you mean you don't know the answer?

My desire to understand?

I should say instead of "it explains the transition from one form to the other as a photon."
"it explains the transition from one form to the same form as a photon.

no problemo 8-)

I thought it was cool?

8-)

keep your bowels close, and your cheeks closer.

who needs an enemy...

?

" A friendly cock gives you a large ass hole"
Moroccan proverb

I am not a physicist and do not pretend to be. I do research my subject as thoroughly as I can. That doesn't mean of course that I may not be wrong and misunderstanding the whole issue. But let me assure you that I take objections very seriously and never stop thinking about what I might have gotten wrong.
That is all I can do.

Further, I did not finish my Phd in Philosophy that I had begun at the start of the 80's the end of the 70's.

I know there are sound waves — fishfry

Sound waves are just a manner of speaking. Nobody believes that the air waves carry sound from one place to the other. It is just air waves that get into our ears, move the hammer.... and we hear sounds.

It is different for light waves, and I am aware of the fact that my conception is very unorthodox and controversial.

what do light waves travel through? — fishfry

The whole point of this thread, and all the others, is that there are no light waves, just like there are no sound waves.

In the case of sound, air vibrations create sound sensations.

In the case of light, I will stick with the idea of em waves. Light is, I think, a local phenomenon created by the passage of em waves.

Please tell me that it is enough and that you won't bring in Cheney again!

They dug a grave for the ether?

Light and Sound

The idea that not light is traveling, but the em substrate, might be difficult to countenance. Still, this model is what is used to explain sound.

Nobody claims that sound somehow travels through space. Everybody finds it normal to think that the original sound creates vibrations in the air, and that it is these vibrations that finally reach our ears and create sound sensations.

In other words, different listeners hear different copies of the same original sound, even if the sound itself never went anywhere.

That was one of the reasons why the idea of light as a wave was difficult to accept. Where was the medium that transported light?

Huygens thought that it was the ether, but then the ether lost its reputation, and light had to find a new substrate.

That became Faraday's lines of force, and later, Maxwell's field.

But in fact, the idea is the same. Instead of air, a substrate, whatever it is, travels through space, and recreates for us the sensation of light.

Maybe you could ask an expert about it.

I have obviously not convinced you. I regret the change in tone, but so be it.

Let me just point out that what is taken as the speed of light is considered as the speed of e.m waves in general (I am excepting sound here).

It is therefore absolutely not proven that light is an em wave. It is the general belief that it is.

I do not share this belief, but you already knew that. What you refuse to understand is that it is a belief that has never been proven, only assumed.

However accurate the calculations for the "speed of light" will become, it will never prove that it is indeed light that is traveling, and not the em substrate.

I gave the example of Hertz's experiment, where one spark appears at one coil, and a moment later a second spark appears at the second coil.

That is the paradigm of all calculations of the speed of light. An em wave or beam is sent to the moon, and a little more than a second later, a light effect is registered on earth. Just like with the Hertz experiment.

Scientists choose to believe that they are dealing directly with light. Maybe they are right. Maybe not.

Yet you have totally failed to engage with any of the substantive points I made, and only said that you didn't really mean what you wrote. — fishfry

I never went back on what I have said, I only indicated that your interpretation of what I said was not right. The following discussion with @Banno was more productive for both sides. I am not sure I have convinced him, but at least he gave the impression that what I was saying was not total nonsense.

You kept hammering on irrelevant details that had nothing to do with the issue. Why should I feel compelled to go into them?

I can't remember ever insulting you. Still, respecting threads is fundamental to any forum, wouldn't you say?

I am disappointed in you fishfry. Are you spamming this thread also?

reminds me of Quine

I am filing a complaint for violation of the rules. You are abusing your position.

Please stay on topic. You are spamming my thread.

Heinrich Hertz
"Electric waves: Being Researches on the Propagation of Electric Action..." (1893/1963)

In this translation Hertz describes his discovery of e.m waves. I will not go into details, suffice to say that two coils were used, each with a small gap.

When one coil was put under current, a spark appeared in the gap, and then a second spark appeared in the gap of the second coil that was located at a distance, with nothing linking both coils.

The question now is: did the spark jump from one coil to the other?

That is of course not very likely. Even though something must have jumped to the second coil that had the second spark as an effect.

We can now speculate about whether light itself is an e.m wave, or just an effect, or maybe epiphenomenon.

You are trying to explain the behavior of cell phones by a spark jumping through space and replicating itself some distance away.

That is of course no less mysterious than the idea that an e.m wave did just that.

I do not understand. Are you suggesting that cell phones and satellites are light-powered?

I do not deny the existence of e.m waves, I just do not agree that light should be considered as such.

It is obvious, even to me, that e.m waves can and do create light phenomena. But I am convinced that these phenomena are local phenomena.

In other words, I do not believe that light travels indefinitely through space, even if e.m waves do.

I know how crazy my ideas sound. Still, even though there are many reasons to take the dual nature of light as a given, there is not a single proof of its validity.

This experiment could end this uncertainty.

In other words, if all lights appear on at the same time, then I will be the first to trash all my threads.

You haven’t given any reason to think that the result of the experiment would be other than I predicted — Banno

You are expressing your belief in the theory as it is understood now. Nothing wrong with that. But you have no proof either.

The experiment's aim is to provide this proof, either to support your point of view, or mine. And my prediction is that we will see each light turned on, one after the other.

I will reply anyway.

You seem to accept the rationality of the experiment, and therefore the possibility that it could lead to either of the results.

In my other threads I try to show that there are alternative explanations to many light phenomena.

In this thread my whole aim was to show that it is possible to devise an empirical experiment to answer the question: is the theory (of the dual nature) of light valid, or is it just an erroneous belief?

Strange question for a philosophy forum.

Why don't you try speculating (since it is all speculation) on this result? Use your, science-bridled, imagination.