Varna: Light is Part of Us and We are Part of Light
Creation contains everything and everything in turn contains the fundamentals of creation.
Light has a property that illuminates. It also has properties that provide darkness, color, and endless shades of color that we as humans visualize uniquely. Light also contains all invisible colors and shades that cannot be discretized unanimously.
Please draw special attention to the word, “unanimously”. [1] Some species see colors and shades that are invisible to us and vice versa. With man-made detectors, we can only capture some of light’s properties in both visible and invisible parts of the continuous spectrum that spans over vast domains.
The capturing technique itself yields some properties of light that are not the same as those that just exists during capturing.
No – I am NOT talking about quantum mechanics here and quantum mechanics is sadly created by certain modern physicists who did not understand why capturing light via our noted observation or via a man-made detector yields properties of light that are not the same properties that invariably exist without capturing! [2]
Light spectrum in nature is more than color specified by wavelengths or frequencies defined temporally.
Wavelengths or frequencies specifying light color are but a convenient and limited description or definition of ‘light colors’. Furthermore, any graphs representing a spectrum on a piece of paper or via some bounded medium is already a misrepresentation of any natural color spectrum.
We must be mindful of why this is so and why such a representation is nevertheless useful for certain cases that we may wish to analyze and then use for practical purposes. [3] Understanding light in its entirety is not simple for anyone, most scientists of today in particular.
But humans and perhaps all living species feel light emotionally that is not just limited to ocular vision. Many of us, including other animals and plants, embrace light with delight and differentiate light from that which we do not deem good for us.
Most of us intuitively know this and endorse this automatically. It is for this reason, modern scientists, until now, did not dare to deviate from the Holy Grail of lighting analysis, i.e., the light source must NOT be substantially different from the point light radiation source.
Why? Because Newton and Coulomb are given credit for the Inverse Square Law that only happens to be valid for the point (radiation or matter) source or object and this axiomatic science became the Holy Grail for all electromagnetic radiation physics and other physics disciplines.
Did Newton really know what a point (radiation or matter) source or object was physically, i.e., what it represented physically, or what physical attributes could actually be approximated with a point radiation source or a point mass, or in a system of two such physical objects?
No – because Newton neither proved his inverse square law for gravity via analytical mathematics or calculus; nor did he prove his gravitational law experientially. It is NOT possible to discover the inverse square law if one neither knows how to prove it analytically nor experientially.
Still, this important natural law was associated with Newton in the world of Western axiomatic (faith-based; one that cannot be questioned!) science and mathematics. How could our mainstream academia camouflage this truth so broadly around the world for so long?
The concept of the point mass and point radiation source was established in Europe much, much later after Newton died. Although Newton and Leibniz are falsely credited with discovering calculus, neither of them knew what a ‘point object’ entity was and yet, magically, Newton also became the founder of the inverse square law for gravity!
How many accredited physicists or mathematicians of today realize that in order to discover or recognize the inverse square law for light intensity falloff or gravitation between two point-mass objects, one must know how to perform calculus in non-Cartesian coordinates?
So Newton, credited for Newton’s Law of Gravity, should have known it was only true for a point mass. But did he say that? Further, did he realize that the analytical proof of the law he had been accredited with can ONLY be obtained using calculus in non-Cartesian coordinates?
Where issuch advanced calculus and analytic geometrical proof for Newton’s Law of Gravity by Newton?
No one can present us with such a proof documented by Newton now and this sad contradiction or violation of causality, whether or not too many intellectuals and regulars alike recognize today, invalidates the foundation of Western-dominated science and mathematics.
Please see my article on this here: principia-scientific.com [4]
For example, can anyone prove 1 + 1 = 2 via axiomatic mathematics? Similarly, can anyone prove Lambert’s Cosine Law without using other axiomatic laws or conjectures? [5]
Axiomatic physics and mathematics became the way of doing science and this practice starts with certain laws or mathematical equations that are claimed to have been established by certain saint like figures in these fields; such as Maxwell’s Equations, Schrodinger’s Wave Equation, Newton’s Laws, and alike.
How convenient! But who realizes that the lack of understanding the definitions used in such laws and lack of using any direct evidence for such scientific descriptions then can lead to severe inability to differentiate one distinct case from another?
This is in fact the situation now with a ‘point radiation source’ in that its actual definition or description is violated in all the mainstream academic and industrial work around LED lighting and wireless communication.
There is no denying it or hiding it as the precious peer-reviewed world of physics and electrical engineering along with their top-most editors in renowned journals already repeatedly claimed or supported that a flat radiation source is the same as a point radiation source or that a flat radiation source can be approximated with a point radiation source.
It exists all in writing by them in their repeated rejection letters to me – some of which came with dire insults towards me. It is a good thing that perhaps they thought they could dish the insults out to me because I was not part of a well-recognized institution and perhaps I seemed like a very unlikely person to know mathematics and physics at this level.
It does not matter why they reacted this way; the important thing is that the cat is out of the bag and it can perhaps now be a beneficial thing for the larger world concerned.
The advent of LED lighting and wireless communication devices that overtook our lives now finally has revealed that the Western mathematics and physics have been built on a house of cards.
In fact it still reveals so everyday all around the world, glaringly in broad daylight and in the dark shadows! [6] For centuries after Newton and Gauss, scientists knew that a candle or an incandescent lamp, although not strictly point sources, could still be approximated using point-source-based mathematical formulas.
So when did modern scientists start to work with radiation sources that were not even close to point sources at all while using all mathematical physics or physics theories that were only valid for point radiation sources?
When did they not realize that the physical structures they were using for radiation sources simply could NOT even be approximated with the mathematical formulas that only work for point sources?
It actually started with the maser and laser invention at Bell Labs – my alma mater! While such devices were successfully created first in the lab, the pioneers did not understand what made them really work.
Just what allowed them to achieve stimulated emission and then sustain it, which then leads to substantial lasing and coherence after some threshold? [7] I’ll giving lectures around these to selected audience. I’ll also offer on demand courses for selected topics mentioned here.
SEVEN ON-DEMAND LECTURES BY DR. NISA KHAN
[1] Why is the point radiation source the Holy Grail of lighting sciences?
[2] Was Quantum Mechanics a sad creation of modern physicists who did not understand just why and how we measure any physical substance?
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Light decreases linearly from the source while its strength decreases as a square. It is like a radius of a circle is linear while the area is a function of the square. This is why Kepler’s law, which gravity is based on, states that the energy (v^2) decreases with distance from the object: d v^2 = Constant.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Light is a wave and the mediums it travels in (energy and matter fields) decrease with distance from the source. The energy of the wave spreads as the mediums decrease, causing the strength or magnitude of the wave to decrease as a function of area. For those who believe Planck’s law, E= frequency times Planck’s constant, do you believe that the frequency of light is decreasing and wavelength of the light is increasing as a square of the distance from the source?
Reply