[dleviwing]

When we look into the night sky, we have been lead to believe that what we are seeing or what is entering our eyes, is something that left that star many years earlier. This would mean that light would have to be an object propagated from the star and traveling through space until it enters our visual senses or one of many scientific instruments. This may indeed be a plausible concept if it were not for Relativity indicating that space itself has physical properties. If space has physical properties, then space is a physical entity medium and thus light is the vibrations of that substance and not a particle of light or photon. For some unknown reason, scientist of the early twentieth century who proposed this concept, were ignored or unable to provide a functional concept for the medium; thus, complexity, confusion, and chaos has plagued science for over a century.

Electromagnetic radiation is considered to be transverse waves that travel without the need of a medium. In reality there is a medium of unstructured matter that varies its spatial density and produces waves much like the longitudinal compression waves of air molecules that produce sound waves of different air densities. This would mean that the electromagnetic waves are not truly transverse. Only the electrical properties produced by the changing spatial densities are transverse in their nature.

[Mr. Nobody]

It is my understanding that spacetime, as a physical entity, is only a concept to vizualize the effects of relativity.

Photons are units of energy, propagated as tranverse waves until they enter our eyes where they get absorbed by the retina and interpreted as light. A lot of people assume photons to be chunks of light that fly around and are visible from all angles and have a definate shape when in reality they do not exist until they get absorbed somewhere.

To date no constituents of space itself has been discovered

[Mr. Nobody]

I think matter/energy and space provides two opposites. The 0 and 1 of information, the on and off switch of presence. One cannot exist without the other, but I do not view then as the same entity.
Matter appears in the form of a matter wave, a mallable possibilty until it forms stable bonds that is subjected to competition and evolution until it graduates into complex systems

[dleviwing]

Mr Nobody;
Though spacetime is a visualization of Relativistic interactions; it is only a mathematical description of the relationship of moving objects as an observer would perceive them either visually or by measurement. Relativity does not define the absolute position of objects at the instance of observation, it only defines how an observer would see or measure the position of the object or its interactions. As a consequence of Relativity, the character and interactions of space itself is also described by General Relativity. Special Relativity only defines the spacetime-continuum geometry without the consideration of the effects of mass.

I have come to the conclusion that our perceptual paradigm concepts of energy and the nature of EM radiation is in dire need of re-evaluation. In most cases of absorption and propagation (emitting), nothing is absorbed and nothing is propagated. There are cases that matter itself loses structure and is merged with the spatial density of its environment.

Unfortunately all the ideas of great men of science were not great ideas. These men acknowledged this themselves. Our own human nature is what prevents us from understanding the true nature of the universe.

There is only one physical entity in the universe. This substance accounts for all physical entities and measured phenomena in our sciences.

[Mr. Nobody]

Relativity indicating that space itself has physical properties. If space has physical properties, then space is a physical entity medium and thus light is the vibrations of that substance and not a particle of light or photon.

Though spacetime is a visualization of Relativistic interactions; it is only a mathematical description of the relationship of moving objects as an observer would perceive them either visually or by measurement. Relativity does not define the absolute position of objects at the instance of observation, it only defines how an observer would see or measure the position of the object or its interactions. As a consequence of Relativity, the character and interactions of space itself is also described by General Relativity. Special Relativity only defines the spacetime-continuum geometry without the consideration of the effects of mass.

Relativity uses spacetime as the mathematical model to illustrate relative interaction issues, that is exactly my point. So, how does it indicate that space has physical properties? You yourself just reduced it to a mathematical model?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Mr. Nobody Relativity uses spacetime as the mathematical model to illustrate relative interaction issues, that is exactly my point. So, how does it indicate that space has physical properties? You yourself just reduced it to a mathematical model? [/font][/color]

Mr Nobody;
Your point is absolutely correct so don't let anyone convince you otherwise. These mathematics also describes the behavior of the ethereal matter of space and thus defines how this substance will react to structured matter (atomic) and its inertial property of mass.