Electro-mechanical theory Of Electromagnetic Energy
Electro-mechanical electromagnetic radiation theory explained
It is accepted as fact that protons, electrons and neutrons exist, and these particles are the components that make up the vast majority of the mass of the matter around us. Though electrons have a very small mass, the energy stored in thier motion is significant, because thier velocities around the nucleus are substantial. Each orbital shell of an atom possesses what is called an "energy level", this energy level being effected by the electrons distance from the nucleus . So electrons in a "low energy shell" possess less energy than one in a "high energy shell". In conventional electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic radiation is emmited in the form of a massless particle known as a photon when an electron "drops" from a higher energy to a lower energy, This photon is represented in conventional theory as not only a massless particle, but one that possesses and can transmit energy in the form of a wave. There are several conflicts with conventional physics in this theory. Up until this point kenetic energy had been described as mass in motion. represented by the simple formula:
Velocity equals the square root of 2 times kenetic energy over mass.
Excuse me if I dont write these formulas as its impossible to do so in this forum. The photon defys this well proven formula by possesing energy, and apparently no mass.
According to this" hypothysis", the photon does not exist. The fact that this photon does not exist. is evident it has never been isolated or fully defined in a logical fashion. The definition of a photon itself is dependant on another dubious theory, and this new theory doesnt rely on any such theory for its conclusions..
What Is Electromagnetic radiation?
In conventional theory, electromagnetic radiation is defined as massless particles emitted from atoms when electrons move from a higher to a lower energy level.
::This energy is radiated moving in waveforms of various frequencies, the shorter wavelengths possesing the higher energy levels.::
Make a mental note for future reference that the highlighted part is NOT theory, but proven ,undisputed fact . The precedeing paragraph, however, is unproven, though anecdotal evidence does tend to support the belief.
What is electromagnetic energy (cont.)
The wave form frequency and energy level relationship are important to this new theory , and later you will see why. With electromagnetic energy, the higher the frequency, the more energy a given amplitude of electromagnetic radiation can transmit through space(and matter).
In conventional ways, we can observe that other physical manifestations of waveforms do not obey the same energy/frequency relationship as electromagnetic waves, with energy transmitted by a specific wave dependant mainly on amplitude .
Electromagnetic energy is thought of as oscillating , coupled electric and magnetic fields that travel freely through space at the speed of light.Notice the word electric and the word magnetic, the accepted (coupled)components of electromagnetic waves. Visable light itself is of course a low energy electromagnetic wave that our eyes have receptors to sense.
Other forms of waves cannot pass through open space, only the electromagnetic wave is capable of this phenomenon.
Quantifying the Energy Of Electron Orbits
Though is seems a giant leap of faith at this point to consider the electron as a partical moving in a waveform, just to explain a stable orbit, observations do bear out this likelyhood,as shall later be explained.
Integer( wavelength )=2pi(radius of orbit)
Energy levels Explained
When a particle is going around in a circle, the speed of the particle is related to the force applied outward, and therefor the force holding it in place. It is neccesary that a force exists because the direction of motion is constantly changing.
This force is the energy contained withen electromagnetic energy.
Note that this does not conflict with Bohrs model of the atom.
The wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is related to the velocity of the associated particle,in this case an electron.
This force is the "electrical force of attraction" between the electron and proton, in turn depends on the radius of the orbit. In this way it could be desceibed as an electro-mechanical model.
The "orbitals" are energy levels and they occur in steps.
Let us assign the variable Y to given orbital (integer)
energy of "Y" orbital= -13.6/(Y)(Y) electron volts
1 electron Volt = 1.6 x 10-19 Joules
This represents the amount of energy gained when an electron is accelerated by 1 electron volt.
This includes the electical and kinetic energy of the electron. Higher energy states have larger values of Y.
What particle is oscillating in an electromagnetic emmision?
We have established thus far that an electron in a specific electron energy level possesses a certain energy and wavelength dependant on what energy level it occupies. The further from the nucleus the electron orbits, the less the energy it contains and the longer the wavelength of its motion. Please note at this time that this same relationship is noted in electromagnetic emmisions, and is not theoretical in any way.
According to the quantum theory, the energy is released as a photon .The photon is used to explain the fact that when an emmision occurs, no mass is lost by the atom that emitted it.
How Electromagnetic Energy is "created" and what it is.
We have already theorized and basically proven that electrons revolve or orbit around the nucleous of an atom, vibrating in varying frequencies according to their wavelengths, and thus thier energy is dependant on thier distance from the nucleus.
-Now make a mental image of the following experiment:-
Take a device which vibrates a certain frequency and tie it to the end of a string, turn it on, and spin it in a circle over your head. Let this vibrator represnt an electron of a certain frequency/energy level,and the string represent the bond that holds the electron in its orbit around the nucleus, that is the magnetic bond between the negative charge of the electron and the overall positive charge of the nucleus. Note that this is a flawed model for several reasons, but it will suffice to prove the point in question.
It is easy to understand why this bond must be at least as strong as the centripital force acting upon the vibrator and causing it to be thrown outward in a straight from the center of rotation, so in the case of the electron some force exist to keep it in it´s orbit,and this force is magnetic in nature in the case of the atom we are trying to model. Now imagine, for whatever reason, this bond is broken, in the case of our experiment the string holding the vibrator breaks and the centipital force throws the vibrator outward. Is the vibrator still vibrating? At what frequency? In what trajectory does it travel?
The already proven centripital acceleration of electrons is the mechanism by which the electron is energetically expelled from the atom in a straight line .This is the mechanical component of the theory. When the bond is broken the magnetic component which held the electron in place is released along with the electron.This is why electromagnetic waves have electrical and magnetic interaction as their observable manifestation.
Why Electromagnetic energy has no "charge".
One of the apparent disqualifiers to this theory is "If electromagnetic energy is composed of electrons, why does it have no charge?"
The fact is, it does. This is evidenced in the photo-electric effect, which up to this point has been inadequately explained without using photons in the hypothesis or conclusion. The fact is, observations prove light induces a negative charge in certain atomic stuctures.
As for the "photon", Lets call it what it is, an electron oscilating passively in a oscilating magnetic field ,an oscilation that represents precisely its predicted frequency and energy level determinable by the electron energy level it originates from .
[ This is my personal theory, feel free to point out flaws or errors as that was my intent in posting this material here.
Just keep in mind you cannot use another theory to successfully disprove this much simpler and easily understood one. Remember , when two theories explain the same phenomenon, odds are the simpler of the two is closer to correct. This new theory comes very close to absolute simplicity, and it makes more sense than a massless particle that can transfer energy. Please keep an open mind, as I did when I learned and discounted quantum physics as a probable false theory.]
I am not accustomed to using this forum, so I am just a little confused as to why there are no replies. Beleive me when i tell you that it won't be easily disprovem, since it is most likely science fact that simply hasn't yet been proven.
Please forgive me for shamelessly bumping this back up to the top, it seems unusual out of twenty people reading it, not one replied.
To me it means one of two things, either you don't understand it or you just discount it out of hand because it conflicts with other theories you except as factual.
Things are not what they seem. Consider the POSSIBILITY you have been intentionally misled.
Please forgive me for shamelessly bumping this back up to the top, it seems unusual out of twenty people reading it, not one replied.
To me it means one of two things, either you don't understand it or you just discount it out of hand because it conflicts with other theories you except as factual.
Things are not what they seem. Consider the POSSIBILITY you have been intentionally misled.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 18 2006, 03:03 AM)
The fact that this photon does not exist is evident it has never been isolated or fully defined in a logical fashion.
The photon can be considered as the wave pocket. Try to consider this view, for example - it enables you to give the photon some physical meaning.
The photon can be considered as the wave pocket. Try to consider this view, for example - it enables you to give the photon some physical meaning.
Zephir, thanks for your intrest and your reply. Please excuse me for being so forward, but try to understand I am quite knowledgable in the theories you are attempting to explain, but this thread is about my NEW theory.
In order to understand or even accept the possibility even of my new theory being correct, you will have you consider the possibility my theory is right and no photons exist. I have psoted this theory tomany boards, even sent it to the physics departments of several leading Universities in the field of physics like Texas A &M and MIT, and not one has ever found a flaw with it other than it conflicts with quantum theoryy.
I am asking you respectfully to read my theory and tell me what's wrong with it OTHER than it conflicts with the ideas of some Nobel Laureate with a jewish surname .
In order to understand or even accept the possibility even of my new theory being correct, you will have you consider the possibility my theory is right and no photons exist. I have psoted this theory tomany boards, even sent it to the physics departments of several leading Universities in the field of physics like Texas A &M and MIT, and not one has ever found a flaw with it other than it conflicts with quantum theoryy.
I am asking you respectfully to read my theory and tell me what's wrong with it OTHER than it conflicts with the ideas of some Nobel Laureate with a jewish surname .
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 18 2006, 05:05 AM)
...tell me what's wrong with it OTHER than it conflicts with the ideas of some Nobel Laureate with a jewish surname...
The EMG field quantization was confirmed experimentally before years (in 1996): Quantum Rabi oscillation: A direct test of field quantization in a cavity.
Sorry, but the theory doesn't matter - the experiment goes first. Example of th 4-photon oscillations (it's evident the photons were been isolated, right here). The gamma photons spreading can be observed directly using a spark chamber, for example... Single photon detector, and a lot of other applications,,
From phenomenological point of view I've problem to consider the electron to be just photon wave, because it contains the weak leptonic charge, which doesn't interacts with the light at all. It's a quite different kind of interaction.
The EMG field quantization was confirmed experimentally before years (in 1996): Quantum Rabi oscillation: A direct test of field quantization in a cavity.
Sorry, but the theory doesn't matter - the experiment goes first. Example of th 4-photon oscillations (it's evident the photons were been isolated, right here). The gamma photons spreading can be observed directly using a spark chamber, for example... Single photon detector, and a lot of other applications,,
From phenomenological point of view I've problem to consider the electron to be just photon wave, because it contains the weak leptonic charge, which doesn't interacts with the light at all. It's a quite different kind of interaction.
Single Photon Interference - the amazing sensitivity of ICCD cameras enables to carry out the two slit experiment with single photons as the simple classroom experiment.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 18 2006, 01:16 AM)
I am not accustomed to using this forum, so I am just a little confused as to why there are no replies. Beleive me when i tell you that it won't be easily disprovem, since it is most likely science fact that simply hasn't yet been proven.
Please forgive me for shamelessly bumping this back up to the top, it seems unusual out of twenty people reading it, not one replied.
To me it means one of two things, either you don't understand it or you just discount it out of hand because it conflicts with other theories you except as factual.
Things are not what they seem. Consider the POSSIBILITY you have been intentionally misled.
RWH,
Welcome to the "kitchen"....try to show a little patience...It's a little competitive. Please understand, a few of of us have our own 100% "dead cert" models of what really "might be".........Ah!, that reminds me.... time to plug my Spacial
Vacuoles T.O.E
Spacial Vacuoles
Please forgive me for shamelessly bumping this back up to the top, it seems unusual out of twenty people reading it, not one replied.
To me it means one of two things, either you don't understand it or you just discount it out of hand because it conflicts with other theories you except as factual.
Things are not what they seem. Consider the POSSIBILITY you have been intentionally misled.
RWH,
Welcome to the "kitchen"....try to show a little patience...It's a little competitive. Please understand, a few of of us have our own 100% "dead cert" models of what really "might be".........Ah!, that reminds me.... time to plug my Spacial
Vacuoles T.O.E
Spacial Vacuoles
[a few of of us have our own 100% "dead cert" models of what really "might be"....]
Nothing zephyr posted above actually disqualifies my new theory, in fact it reinforces it.
I am beginning to think some of you ,like Zephyr for instance, might have already accepted theory as fact.
I asked you to consider this new theory based on it's own merits and strengths/weaknesses.
Comparing it to your pet theory and finding conflicts with it won't do if you want to disqualify my theory as a possibility.
You must disprove it WITHOUT theoretical material as an arguement or you are wasting both your time and mine! That's not how "science" is supposed to work. We've been building theory upon theory for 100 years, and we are greivously derailed by Maxwells' rewritten works.
Nothing zephyr posted above actually disqualifies my new theory, in fact it reinforces it.
I am beginning to think some of you ,like Zephyr for instance, might have already accepted theory as fact.
I asked you to consider this new theory based on it's own merits and strengths/weaknesses.
Comparing it to your pet theory and finding conflicts with it won't do if you want to disqualify my theory as a possibility.
You must disprove it WITHOUT theoretical material as an arguement or you are wasting both your time and mine! That's not how "science" is supposed to work. We've been building theory upon theory for 100 years, and we are greivously derailed by Maxwells' rewritten works.
Zephyr, I've reveiewed carefully your above posted material. I have a few questions.
You said the theory doesnt matter, only the experiment [I am assuming you are refering to the process we use to prove our theories].
Do you realize when you use a radio reciever, cell phone or photovoltaic solar panel , these are all essentially "experiments" that tend to support my theory? In fact that is where my theory originates, in the dimension of REALITY.
Are you aware of the experiments proving "photons" in the form of visable light can be transmitted by a conductor and used to grow plants in total darkness? This also supports my theory, and it was done using the "scientific method".
How does a "photon" create a voltage potential in a solar cell?
How do photons cause piezeo crystals to produce a voltage potential in radio circuitry? Why is it that every single device devised by man that emits short wavelength emr uses electricity to produce it? Electrons in/photons out, or is it more likely electrons in, electrons out?
I am an engineer, not a physicist. I deal with what I know because I have to. If I use theories in my designs and they fail, someone or perhaps many people couls die as a result. This is the main reson I resent your acceptance and vehement defense of prexistng theories as disqualifiers for mine. Seems we play by different rules.
You said the theory doesnt matter, only the experiment [I am assuming you are refering to the process we use to prove our theories].
Do you realize when you use a radio reciever, cell phone or photovoltaic solar panel , these are all essentially "experiments" that tend to support my theory? In fact that is where my theory originates, in the dimension of REALITY.
Are you aware of the experiments proving "photons" in the form of visable light can be transmitted by a conductor and used to grow plants in total darkness? This also supports my theory, and it was done using the "scientific method".
How does a "photon" create a voltage potential in a solar cell?
How do photons cause piezeo crystals to produce a voltage potential in radio circuitry? Why is it that every single device devised by man that emits short wavelength emr uses electricity to produce it? Electrons in/photons out, or is it more likely electrons in, electrons out?
I am an engineer, not a physicist. I deal with what I know because I have to. If I use theories in my designs and they fail, someone or perhaps many people couls die as a result. This is the main reson I resent your acceptance and vehement defense of prexistng theories as disqualifiers for mine. Seems we play by different rules.
photons in, photons out.
"Guest", I don't blame you for not attaching your identity to your words above. I use my real name because I am not concerned with being wrong and being proven so. Being wrong is a part of trying to learn. Show me where I'm wrong, and this time attach your name to your post. As far as I am concerned anonymous posts are simply things the writer wants to say, but doesn't want connected to him pesonally because he doubts himself and the ability of his ideas to withstand serious scrutiny.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 18 2006, 05:46 PM)
...Nothing zephyr posted above actually disqualifies my new theory, in fact it reinforces it..
I don't care about your theory, but you've told, the photons are not exist and the light is formed by electrons....
I showed you a number of single-photon experiments and I pointed out, the electron contains a measurable charge, which doesn't interact with light at all.
You can call it how do you like - but I have no needs to disprove such ideas, as it's a just a pure waste of my time and you will just hate me, after than...
What I would obtain by this - it's not a good job for me, obviously? You asked, at the very beginning, why there are no replies...
Well, you have an answer - most of people here are more clever, than me - and they don't start a debate about nonsenses at all.
I will not repeat such mistake with you, sorry.
I don't care about your theory, but you've told, the photons are not exist and the light is formed by electrons....
I showed you a number of single-photon experiments and I pointed out, the electron contains a measurable charge, which doesn't interact with light at all.
You can call it how do you like - but I have no needs to disprove such ideas, as it's a just a pure waste of my time and you will just hate me, after than...
What I would obtain by this - it's not a good job for me, obviously? You asked, at the very beginning, why there are no replies...
Well, you have an answer - most of people here are more clever, than me - and they don't start a debate about nonsenses at all.
I will not repeat such mistake with you, sorry.
Hi Robert W. Hawkins
The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum covers ULF to gamma radiation. The possible EM frequencies associated with just the electron energy levels can not be used to explain the entire EM spectrum.
Molecules are held together with valence electrons which also, for the most part, are responsible for the EM spectrum associated with electron energy levels. If the electron leaves the atom then the molecule will fall apart.
Metals have free electrons in their bulk/solid form. The electrons do not radiate away. Metals will only emit electrons from their surface if the incident EM is of a sufficient energy level (blue end of the visible spectrum and up). The coulomb attraction is fairly strong.
Solar cells are made up of semiconductors. A n-type semiconductor has a few free electrons that are held loosely (the coulomb attraction is weak). Incident lower energy EM can then be used to cause the electron to be emitted. This electron has enough energy to cross an insulating gap to a conductor. Voila you have a voltage potential.
I think your theory needs some more thought.
The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum covers ULF to gamma radiation. The possible EM frequencies associated with just the electron energy levels can not be used to explain the entire EM spectrum.
Molecules are held together with valence electrons which also, for the most part, are responsible for the EM spectrum associated with electron energy levels. If the electron leaves the atom then the molecule will fall apart.
Metals have free electrons in their bulk/solid form. The electrons do not radiate away. Metals will only emit electrons from their surface if the incident EM is of a sufficient energy level (blue end of the visible spectrum and up). The coulomb attraction is fairly strong.
Solar cells are made up of semiconductors. A n-type semiconductor has a few free electrons that are held loosely (the coulomb attraction is weak). Incident lower energy EM can then be used to cause the electron to be emitted. This electron has enough energy to cross an insulating gap to a conductor. Voila you have a voltage potential.
I think your theory needs some more thought.
"I showed you a number of single-photon experiments and I pointed out, the electron contains a measurable charge, which doesn't interact with light at all."
When an electron breaks it's bond with the nucleus the force which held it in place MUST be emmitted with the partical. What is confusing your limited intellect is the fact that you were taught otherwis
"You can call it how do you like - but I have no needs to disprove such ideas, as it's a just a pure waste of my time and you will just hate me, after than... "
I will say this an leave it at that. You won't try for the same reason no one else has, because the theory is solid without significant conflict with conventional known physics.
Though you have a virtually unlimited number of ways to disprove my theory by experimentation, you never will. For one thing you don't adequately understand the theories you shill, much less mine. For another my theory is thus far the best explaination for emr. Inventing a fairy dust particle and defining it by the observations won't wash in my world, I deal with absolute truths, as I said before.
"What I would obtain by this - it's not a good job for me, obviously? You asked, at the very beginning, why there are no replies... "
I think it's because when you read the OP you could not find a REAL problem with it, other than it flys in the face of your quasi-religious indoctrination into physical science, which has become a faith based doctrine instead of dealing with absolute facts. You build your house on a foundation of crap and it will teeters and fall. Where is your solid foundation?
"Well, you have an answer - most of people here are more clever, than me -"
I certainly hope so, all you've done is parrot the works of others with whom I disagree and post arguements to my theory based on other theories.
" and they don't start a debate about nonsenses at all. "
I would think you would be eager to prove me wrong, since I gave you an intellectual challenge to do so. What you're doing is admitting you're out of your league.
"I will not repeat such mistake with you, sorry."
If you are going to continue to reply as you have I see no sense in your doing so either.
When an electron breaks it's bond with the nucleus the force which held it in place MUST be emmitted with the partical. What is confusing your limited intellect is the fact that you were taught otherwis
"You can call it how do you like - but I have no needs to disprove such ideas, as it's a just a pure waste of my time and you will just hate me, after than... "
I will say this an leave it at that. You won't try for the same reason no one else has, because the theory is solid without significant conflict with conventional known physics.
Though you have a virtually unlimited number of ways to disprove my theory by experimentation, you never will. For one thing you don't adequately understand the theories you shill, much less mine. For another my theory is thus far the best explaination for emr. Inventing a fairy dust particle and defining it by the observations won't wash in my world, I deal with absolute truths, as I said before.
"What I would obtain by this - it's not a good job for me, obviously? You asked, at the very beginning, why there are no replies... "
I think it's because when you read the OP you could not find a REAL problem with it, other than it flys in the face of your quasi-religious indoctrination into physical science, which has become a faith based doctrine instead of dealing with absolute facts. You build your house on a foundation of crap and it will teeters and fall. Where is your solid foundation?
"Well, you have an answer - most of people here are more clever, than me -"
I certainly hope so, all you've done is parrot the works of others with whom I disagree and post arguements to my theory based on other theories.
" and they don't start a debate about nonsenses at all. "
I would think you would be eager to prove me wrong, since I gave you an intellectual challenge to do so. What you're doing is admitting you're out of your league.
"I will not repeat such mistake with you, sorry."
If you are going to continue to reply as you have I see no sense in your doing so either.
"The electromagnetic (EM) spectrum covers ULF to gamma radiation. "
All of which obey the same rules, have the same basic qualities and travel at the same velocities.
"The possible EM frequencies associated with just the electron energy levels can not be used to explain the entire EM spectrum."
Yes, they can. In fact this is what confirms my theory in an unlimited number of experimental possibilities. If you ahd read the theory in the firat place you might have seen exactly how I explained the long wavelength emmisions.
"Molecules are held together with valence electrons which also, for the most part, are responsible for the EM spectrum associated with electron energy levels. If the electron leaves the atom then the molecule will fall apart."
The ONLY way emr can be emmitted, a shown by experience an experiment, is if the electron is somehow replaced as it emitted. this is the basis of my theory,and the fact that allows various electronic devices to emit emr by use of electrons as a power source.
. What happens when sunlight shines on dark object? The light absorbs the emr and re radiates it in a longer wavelength , in the form of emr. Emr in, emr out. Electron in electron out.
"Metals have free electrons in their bulk/solid form. The electrons do not radiate away. "
Because they are not bonded to the nucleus and in an energy shell , such electrons are NOT emmited as emr. They lack all the definitive qualities of emr as I define it. For instance, they are not ocsilating passively in an oscilating magnetic field.
"Metals will only emit electrons from their surface if the incident EM is of a sufficient energy level (blue end of the visible spectrum and up). The coulomb attraction is fairly strong."
Yes, this is correct. This experiment helps solidify my theories' viability. My theory states that emr can be emmitted when a high energy electron is captured by a particular atom, forcing a lower energy electron out of the unbalanced atom in the form of longer wavelength emr. ALL observations bear this out.
An atom of oxygen, for instance, cannot keep an "extra" electron for long in its' electron "cloud", if it were to gain one it would emit another in the form of emr.
"Solar cells are made up of semiconductors. A n-type semiconductor has a few free electrons that are held loosely (the coulomb attraction is weak). Incident lower energy EM can then be used to cause the electron to be emitted. "
Yes, this is the THEORY. now read mine again and ask yourself, doesnt it make more sense considering the photovoltaic effect? The simplest explaination is not always the best, but in this case it is.
"This electron has enough energy to cross an insulating gap to a conductor. Voila you have a voltage potential."
Yes, it has energy enough to cross gaps of various distances, but that doesnt make it emr. Emr IS emitted , however, when electrons jump gaps, further reinforcing my theory.
"I think your theory needs some more thought."
Yes, on your part, now get to it. I presented it, now it's up to you to shred it or give up.
All of which obey the same rules, have the same basic qualities and travel at the same velocities.
"The possible EM frequencies associated with just the electron energy levels can not be used to explain the entire EM spectrum."
Yes, they can. In fact this is what confirms my theory in an unlimited number of experimental possibilities. If you ahd read the theory in the firat place you might have seen exactly how I explained the long wavelength emmisions.
"Molecules are held together with valence electrons which also, for the most part, are responsible for the EM spectrum associated with electron energy levels. If the electron leaves the atom then the molecule will fall apart."
The ONLY way emr can be emmitted, a shown by experience an experiment, is if the electron is somehow replaced as it emitted. this is the basis of my theory,and the fact that allows various electronic devices to emit emr by use of electrons as a power source.
. What happens when sunlight shines on dark object? The light absorbs the emr and re radiates it in a longer wavelength , in the form of emr. Emr in, emr out. Electron in electron out.
"Metals have free electrons in their bulk/solid form. The electrons do not radiate away. "
Because they are not bonded to the nucleus and in an energy shell , such electrons are NOT emmited as emr. They lack all the definitive qualities of emr as I define it. For instance, they are not ocsilating passively in an oscilating magnetic field.
"Metals will only emit electrons from their surface if the incident EM is of a sufficient energy level (blue end of the visible spectrum and up). The coulomb attraction is fairly strong."
Yes, this is correct. This experiment helps solidify my theories' viability. My theory states that emr can be emmitted when a high energy electron is captured by a particular atom, forcing a lower energy electron out of the unbalanced atom in the form of longer wavelength emr. ALL observations bear this out.
An atom of oxygen, for instance, cannot keep an "extra" electron for long in its' electron "cloud", if it were to gain one it would emit another in the form of emr.
"Solar cells are made up of semiconductors. A n-type semiconductor has a few free electrons that are held loosely (the coulomb attraction is weak). Incident lower energy EM can then be used to cause the electron to be emitted. "
Yes, this is the THEORY. now read mine again and ask yourself, doesnt it make more sense considering the photovoltaic effect? The simplest explaination is not always the best, but in this case it is.
"This electron has enough energy to cross an insulating gap to a conductor. Voila you have a voltage potential."
Yes, it has energy enough to cross gaps of various distances, but that doesnt make it emr. Emr IS emitted , however, when electrons jump gaps, further reinforcing my theory.
"I think your theory needs some more thought."
Yes, on your part, now get to it. I presented it, now it's up to you to shred it or give up.
I put this here thinking I could have someone at the post graduate level disqualify my theory.
After studying physics and working with electronics as a job and as a hobby for nearly all my life, I have found no evidence to the contrary that would shed doubt on my theory.
In device after device, engineers use electrons in the form of electricity which are modified to oscilation by electromagnetic fields or crystals to produce ELECTRO MAGNETIC RADIATION.
I am sorry for being short with you and insulting you, as that was uncalled for on my part. Please accept my appology.
On the other hand, in order for meaningful exchange between us to take place, you must use the sceintific method, not personal feelings or faith based science to disprove ANYTHING, including my theory.
You have to get it out of your mind that I cannot be right because I disagree with theoretical physics concieved post Maxwell. You have to get it out of your mind that because i disagree on a basic level with Einsteins' theories and basic "law"(it's not a scientific law) that matter cannot exist at the speed of light (IT DOES AND IT"S EASILY PROVEN!) that I MUST be wrong, this because Einstein is your "god of science". I don't blame you, I felt the same way ==at age eight.
You must attempt disqualification based on the fact alone that if I am right and I most likely am, no significant advancements in the world of physics will take place beyond the present. I believe a stumblingblock was put before us all to contain our intellect withen an inescapable box, one whos' boundries are composed of idiotic ideas that stifle significant advancement. Given a billion dollar grant I could achieve light speed with a vehicle of significant size....but never mind, you aren't intrested and you don't have the cash anyway, do oyu? (OK, that was uncalled for too!)
After studying physics and working with electronics as a job and as a hobby for nearly all my life, I have found no evidence to the contrary that would shed doubt on my theory.
In device after device, engineers use electrons in the form of electricity which are modified to oscilation by electromagnetic fields or crystals to produce ELECTRO MAGNETIC RADIATION.
I am sorry for being short with you and insulting you, as that was uncalled for on my part. Please accept my appology.
On the other hand, in order for meaningful exchange between us to take place, you must use the sceintific method, not personal feelings or faith based science to disprove ANYTHING, including my theory.
You have to get it out of your mind that I cannot be right because I disagree with theoretical physics concieved post Maxwell. You have to get it out of your mind that because i disagree on a basic level with Einsteins' theories and basic "law"(it's not a scientific law) that matter cannot exist at the speed of light (IT DOES AND IT"S EASILY PROVEN!) that I MUST be wrong, this because Einstein is your "god of science". I don't blame you, I felt the same way ==at age eight.
You must attempt disqualification based on the fact alone that if I am right and I most likely am, no significant advancements in the world of physics will take place beyond the present. I believe a stumblingblock was put before us all to contain our intellect withen an inescapable box, one whos' boundries are composed of idiotic ideas that stifle significant advancement. Given a billion dollar grant I could achieve light speed with a vehicle of significant size....but never mind, you aren't intrested and you don't have the cash anyway, do oyu? (OK, that was uncalled for too!)
Hi Robert W. Hawkins
How does your theory explain EM transparency of a material given that beta radioactive decay (emission of an electron at different velocities) has a range of only a few meters in air?
How does your theory explain that EM will travel through a static magnetic and/or electric field without a change in direction but an electron will change direction?
How does your theory explain gamma radiation which is not related to electrons at all?
How does your theory explain light polarization?
Just a few of the how does questions your theory must explain in order to come up to the level of current theories.
How does your theory explain EM transparency of a material given that beta radioactive decay (emission of an electron at different velocities) has a range of only a few meters in air?
How does your theory explain that EM will travel through a static magnetic and/or electric field without a change in direction but an electron will change direction?
How does your theory explain gamma radiation which is not related to electrons at all?
How does your theory explain light polarization?
Just a few of the how does questions your theory must explain in order to come up to the level of current theories.
About a year ago, scientists monitoring the solar wind clocked protons moving in excess of .5 light speed. The Sun had a simultaneous emmision fron the other side of the sun, with protons in excess of .5 light speed. These particles were moving away from each other at a relative velocity in excess of light speed from one frame of reference(our own). No one is talikng much about it but it trashcanned the idea that matter cannot exceed relative velocities in excess of light speed.
"How does your theory explain EM transparency of a material given that beta radioactive decay (emission of an electron at different velocities) has a range of only a few meters in air?"
Beta electrons have lost their and thier vibrational frequency and energy by collisions with other particles(?),
"How does your theory explain that EM will travel through a static magnetic and/or electric field without a change in direction but an electron will change direction?"
Because it is oscilating from one polarity to another, it has no overall charge in the form of emr.
"How does your theory explain gamma radiation which is not related to electrons at all?"
Why woudl you think THAT?
"How does your theory explain light polarization?"
How does yours?
The polarization of EMITED light can be accomplished in the laboratory ONLY by simulation with ELECTRICITY. I think polarized sun glass lenses probably have an atomic arrangement which somehow allows only emr on the same vibrational plane to enter the users' eye. It is true I haven't put much thought into polatization at this point. I think if you make a coherent emission where the waveforms do not intersect each other significantly, you have achieved coherent,, or polarized light. This is how a lazer works.
"Just a few of the how does questions your theory must explain in order to come up to the level of current theories."
I'll do the best I can, but communication skills are not at the top of my qualities.
Beta electrons have lost their and thier vibrational frequency and energy by collisions with other particles(?),
"How does your theory explain that EM will travel through a static magnetic and/or electric field without a change in direction but an electron will change direction?"
Because it is oscilating from one polarity to another, it has no overall charge in the form of emr.
"How does your theory explain gamma radiation which is not related to electrons at all?"
Why woudl you think THAT?
"How does your theory explain light polarization?"
How does yours?
The polarization of EMITED light can be accomplished in the laboratory ONLY by simulation with ELECTRICITY. I think polarized sun glass lenses probably have an atomic arrangement which somehow allows only emr on the same vibrational plane to enter the users' eye. It is true I haven't put much thought into polatization at this point. I think if you make a coherent emission where the waveforms do not intersect each other significantly, you have achieved coherent,, or polarized light. This is how a lazer works.
"Just a few of the how does questions your theory must explain in order to come up to the level of current theories."
I'll do the best I can, but communication skills are not at the top of my qualities.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 18 2006, 10:13 PM)
...but it trashcanned the idea that matter cannot exceed relative velocities in excess of light speed....
The particle moving through environment formed just by the energy waves (..of vibration matter recursively by the Aether Wave Theory...) is deforming such environment like ribbon band waggling in the wind by such way, the light is spreading from such object by the same speed, as from the object staying at rest (by clicking to the animation on the right you can downlad the AVI video at better resolution).
All the massive particles are moving by the same way with the only exception, they're formed by the standing wave at place, giving it the rest mass (inertia). The light speed is therefore just the maximal speed limit for such particles, observable from such particle perspective (see the DHTML applet or AVI video for understanding it). It means, you can observe the particle motion by the subluminal speed, no matter how you can imagine the speed adition. The one of proton pair flying from the Sun will see the other proton is moving just by the (0.5+0.5)/(1+(0.5*0.5/c*c)) = 0.8 * c by the Special Relativity Velocity Composition Formula. It's funny, I'm explaining the relativity theory again and again, being etherist, in fact.
The particle moving through environment formed just by the energy waves (..of vibration matter recursively by the Aether Wave Theory...) is deforming such environment like ribbon band waggling in the wind by such way, the light is spreading from such object by the same speed, as from the object staying at rest (by clicking to the animation on the right you can downlad the AVI video at better resolution).
All the massive particles are moving by the same way with the only exception, they're formed by the standing wave at place, giving it the rest mass (inertia). The light speed is therefore just the maximal speed limit for such particles, observable from such particle perspective (see the DHTML applet or AVI video for understanding it). It means, you can observe the particle motion by the subluminal speed, no matter how you can imagine the speed adition. The one of proton pair flying from the Sun will see the other proton is moving just by the (0.5+0.5)/(1+(0.5*0.5/c*c)) = 0.8 * c by the Special Relativity Velocity Composition Formula. It's funny, I'm explaining the relativity theory again and again, being etherist, in fact.
Zephyr, I don't know how to place animated graphics here and i'm not really that computer oriented, but I will tell you this, I have no problem understanding the concepts you are relating with your diagrams.
Tell me how to place an animated gif here and I'll make one of my own.
You still didn't address the questions so I guess you don't know the answers.
This being said, even so i will attempt to answer yours.
Personally I think you are simply parroting. Let's hear some original thought. Anyone can relate the ideas of others. It takes imagination and intelligence to come up with one of your own.
Tell me how to place an animated gif here and I'll make one of my own.
You still didn't address the questions so I guess you don't know the answers.
This being said, even so i will attempt to answer yours.
Personally I think you are simply parroting. Let's hear some original thought. Anyone can relate the ideas of others. It takes imagination and intelligence to come up with one of your own.
"The one of proton pair flying from the Sun will see the other proton is moving just by the (0.5+0.5)/(1+(0.5*0.5/c*c)) = 0.8 * c by the Special Relativity Velocity Composition Formula."
Isn't THAT convenient! The only problem is the fact that relative velocities in excess of light speed in this case WERE in fact observed from one point of reference, DISPROVING a major component of Einsteins' special relativity.
Don't be misled by Maxwell, he was compromised and his works rewritten. Einstein derived his theories from Maxwells' work, which was INTENTIONALLY compromised. Einsteins' theroies were actually authored by his wife, and he composed formulas to go with them that made them "work" good enough to get by. Einstein was a mathematical savant of sorts but certainly not a dynamic genius capable of figuring out the universe and placing it in a book of words.
None of you will ever live to see the universe and Gods creation explained, because it simply not your place to know such things, nor is it mine.
That being said, i think we should discard what we know to be untrue now, the false Einsteinian "law" that matter cannot exceed light speed velocity.
Isn't THAT convenient! The only problem is the fact that relative velocities in excess of light speed in this case WERE in fact observed from one point of reference, DISPROVING a major component of Einsteins' special relativity.
Don't be misled by Maxwell, he was compromised and his works rewritten. Einstein derived his theories from Maxwells' work, which was INTENTIONALLY compromised. Einsteins' theroies were actually authored by his wife, and he composed formulas to go with them that made them "work" good enough to get by. Einstein was a mathematical savant of sorts but certainly not a dynamic genius capable of figuring out the universe and placing it in a book of words.
None of you will ever live to see the universe and Gods creation explained, because it simply not your place to know such things, nor is it mine.
That being said, i think we should discard what we know to be untrue now, the false Einsteinian "law" that matter cannot exceed light speed velocity.
This question comes from a biochemist.
In one of your replies you said:
"Are you aware of the experiments proving "photons" in the form of visable light can be transmitted by a conductor and used to grow plants in total darkness? "
could you elaborate on this statement with references?
Imouthes
In one of your replies you said:
"Are you aware of the experiments proving "photons" in the form of visable light can be transmitted by a conductor and used to grow plants in total darkness? "
could you elaborate on this statement with references?
Imouthes
I will try to find the material and present the source here, bear with me as i do not remember where I read of it. Biology and especially botany are not my strong points anyway. I suppose it was improper to present unsourced material, but it was not a major point anyway.
As I recall the experiment was done using a simple metal collector grid oriented in sunlight , connected to another grid inside by a conductor , the second grid was in total darkness and in close proximity to the plant. The control plants simply turned yellow and withered, but the plants near the grid stayed green, indicating invisible emr in the proper frequency range was reaching indeed these plants. I am at a loss to explain why or how this emr can be invisable, only that it was proven repeatedly by experimentation that plants can be kept alive this way, thought thier growth was slow or non existant.
As I recall the experiment was done using a simple metal collector grid oriented in sunlight , connected to another grid inside by a conductor , the second grid was in total darkness and in close proximity to the plant. The control plants simply turned yellow and withered, but the plants near the grid stayed green, indicating invisible emr in the proper frequency range was reaching indeed these plants. I am at a loss to explain why or how this emr can be invisable, only that it was proven repeatedly by experimentation that plants can be kept alive this way, thought thier growth was slow or non existant.
could this be the experiment you are referring to?
A quick search on NCBI didnt come up with anything using "eloptic energy" nor the authors name "T. G. Hieronymous"
If this experiment and the results are accurate then we have alot to rethink in terms of the nature of our existence.
Has anyone found any peer reviewed literature on this subject?
Imouthes
A quick search on NCBI didnt come up with anything using "eloptic energy" nor the authors name "T. G. Hieronymous"
If this experiment and the results are accurate then we have alot to rethink in terms of the nature of our existence.
Has anyone found any peer reviewed literature on this subject?
Imouthes
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 19 2006, 03:34 AM)
Don't be misled by Maxwell, he was compromised and his works rewritten. Einstein derived his theories from Maxwell's' work, which was INTENTIONALLY compromised..
Please consider, the very same velocity transformations were derived by the Lorentz (etherist) and elaborated to the etheral version of special relativity by Poincare (etherist). The validity of this transformations has nothing to do with the scientific concept.
Please consider, the very same velocity transformations were derived by the Lorentz (etherist) and elaborated to the etheral version of special relativity by Poincare (etherist). The validity of this transformations has nothing to do with the scientific concept.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 19 2006, 03:34 AM)
Einsteins' theories were actually authored by his wife, and he composed formulas to go with them that made them "work" good enough to get by. Einstein was a mathematical savant of sorts but certainly not a dynamic genius capable of figuring out the universe and placing it in a book of words.
I don't believe this too much. The special relativity math is quite simple even for Einstein (it's just a trigonometry) and the general relativity was written at the time, the Einstein was divorced. The Dr. Einstein role was controversial in some aspects, indeed (for example the cosmological constant or gravitational waves hypothesis), but not at this point.
Don't be misled by Maxwell, he was compromised and his works rewritten. Einstein derived his theories from Maxwells' work, which was INTENTIONALLY compromised.
Compromised by Heaviside's rewrite which eliminated quaternion's?
Einsteins' theroies were actually authored by his wife, and he composed formulas to
go with them that made them "work" good enough to get by. Einstein was a mathematical savant of sorts but certainly not a dynamic genius capable of figuring out the universe and placing it in a book of words.
Einstein's 1905 papers authored by his wife? Matter was investigated, no clear results.
Einstein wasn't exactly a mathematical savant, he lamented not studying math more as an undergraduate when laboring with Reiman's Differential Geometry.
Hilbert came up with GR equations more eloquently than Einstein. From Wickipedia:
"Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures in June-July 1915 on general relativity and his developing theory of gravity (Sauer 1999, Folsing 1998). The exchange of ideas led to the final form of the field equations of General Relativity, namely the Einstein field equations and the Einstein-Hilbert action. Because Hilbert published his results in an article initially based on a November 20, 1915 lecture (given 5 days before Einstein announced the correct field equations), there has been speculation that Hilbert, rather than Einstein, deserves credit for the discovery of the field equations. However, in the final form of that article, published on March 31, 1916, Hilbert gave credit to Einstein for introducting the field equations 2."
--- Freimuth
I am assuming where you said "emenated", you mean't "originated" . The electron emitted originated withen the atomic structure of it's source material, as it was replaced by another electron from the power source. Some will claim the same number of electrons flow into a battery, for instance, as flow out of it when it is used to produce emr. If as many electrons flowed into the batteries' + terminal as were flowing out of it's negative terminal, it couldn't possible loose mass, which all batteries do when exhausted. The fact that the battery becomes contaminated with positive ions is another hint.
Losing mass via electrons??...what type of blithering idiot are you?
Mass of electron 9 x 10^-28g
Ad-hoc battery life, say 5 Ampere hours.
Coulomb = Ampere / sec
Number of electrons / coulomb = 6.24 x 10^18
So 5 x 3600 secs = 18000sec
18000 x 6.24 x 10^18 electrons = 1.12 x 10^23 electrons.
Mass of electron: 9.11 x 10-^28g
So to apply your rationale...this battery will lose an amazing 1.02 x 10-^4g worth of electrons
Of course the weight loss has nothing to do with obvious gas leakage etc
Expect a lash from every braindead statement you make.
Thanks for the fun...let's get back to the physics!
I don't believe this too much. The special relativity math is quite simple even for Einstein (it's just a trigonometry) and the general relativity was written at the time, the Einstein was divorced. The Dr. Einstein role was controversial in some aspects, indeed (for example the cosmological constant or gravitational waves hypothesis), but not at this point.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 19 2006, 03:34 AM)
Einstein was a mathematical savant of sorts but certainly not a dynamic genius capable of figuring out the universe and placing it in a book of words.
For example, Einstein never refuted the Aether concept definitely, it's solely a job of his proponents. His insights and nature understanding was a quite deep. His understanding of quantum mechanic and gravity role was surprisingly far-seeing.
For example, Einstein never refuted the Aether concept definitely, it's solely a job of his proponents. His insights and nature understanding was a quite deep. His understanding of quantum mechanic and gravity role was surprisingly far-seeing.
I am truely impressed with your internet skills, Badthinker, and thank you greatly for your contribution. I seached the library of congress and couldn't find anything, I thought I might have imagined it! (I'm kidding ,I hope)
Although has this experiment been repeated over an over again with the same results (once by myself) , the actual inventor of the concept is unknown to me, nor do any patents exist for it.
This is probably because this is a very poor ,ineffecient way to grow plants. Plants do not seem to thrive, merely survive.
Again, thanks for your contribution.
Although has this experiment been repeated over an over again with the same results (once by myself) , the actual inventor of the concept is unknown to me, nor do any patents exist for it.
This is probably because this is a very poor ,ineffecient way to grow plants. Plants do not seem to thrive, merely survive.
Again, thanks for your contribution.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 19 2006, 12:34 AM)
Don't be misled by Maxwell, he was compromised and his works rewritten. Einstein derived his theories from Maxwells' work, which was INTENTIONALLY compromised.
Compromised by Heaviside's rewrite which eliminated quaternion's?
QUOTE
Einsteins' theroies were actually authored by his wife, and he composed formulas to
go with them that made them "work" good enough to get by. Einstein was a mathematical savant of sorts but certainly not a dynamic genius capable of figuring out the universe and placing it in a book of words.
Einstein's 1905 papers authored by his wife? Matter was investigated, no clear results.
Einstein wasn't exactly a mathematical savant, he lamented not studying math more as an undergraduate when laboring with Reiman's Differential Geometry.
Hilbert came up with GR equations more eloquently than Einstein. From Wickipedia:
"Hilbert invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures in June-July 1915 on general relativity and his developing theory of gravity (Sauer 1999, Folsing 1998). The exchange of ideas led to the final form of the field equations of General Relativity, namely the Einstein field equations and the Einstein-Hilbert action. Because Hilbert published his results in an article initially based on a November 20, 1915 lecture (given 5 days before Einstein announced the correct field equations), there has been speculation that Hilbert, rather than Einstein, deserves credit for the discovery of the field equations. However, in the final form of that article, published on March 31, 1916, Hilbert gave credit to Einstein for introducting the field equations 2."
--- Freimuth
Two points I want to make.
1)I placed this theory here in the hopes I could discuss it's pros and cons with educated individuals knowlegable in the field of physics. I have yet to get other than a weak, offhand attempt at disqualification. It is a reoccuring theme that when I post my theory to a forum or send it to a University for review, I end up discussing Einstein. I recognize the fact that my theory disqualifies his as a possibility, and that is half of my goal, to remove a stumblingblock which has stifled true advancement.
2)There are a few of yuou here who should be able to understand the simple equations involved with my theory, and the mathematical relationship between the energy level (electron energy "shell") of it's origin and the frequency of emr. NOT ONE OF YOU HAS ATTEMPTED TO DISPROVE WHAT I POSTULATED, you've mainly mentioned how it conflicts with existing thoeries. As we all SHOULD know, it is not proper scientific method to use a conflicting THEORY to disprove another.
1)I placed this theory here in the hopes I could discuss it's pros and cons with educated individuals knowlegable in the field of physics. I have yet to get other than a weak, offhand attempt at disqualification. It is a reoccuring theme that when I post my theory to a forum or send it to a University for review, I end up discussing Einstein. I recognize the fact that my theory disqualifies his as a possibility, and that is half of my goal, to remove a stumblingblock which has stifled true advancement.
2)There are a few of yuou here who should be able to understand the simple equations involved with my theory, and the mathematical relationship between the energy level (electron energy "shell") of it's origin and the frequency of emr. NOT ONE OF YOU HAS ATTEMPTED TO DISPROVE WHAT I POSTULATED, you've mainly mentioned how it conflicts with existing thoeries. As we all SHOULD know, it is not proper scientific method to use a conflicting THEORY to disprove another.
Post DELETED
Post DELETED
Pardon me for wasting space.
Pardon me for wasting space.
I am disapointed though not overly suprized by the lack of response to this thread. It makes me wonder if the stumblingblocks of our predecesors can ever be overcome. Look at it this way, less than five hundred years ago it was considered heresy to believe the world was a sphere, though all the evidence pointed to this fact.
Now I am considered a heretic because I'm saying the earth is a sphere. It IS that simple.
I am not to even be allowed to debate my ideas in a scientific fashion with educated people because they fly in the face of the quasireligious science of the day, complete with it's false gods. Sometimes education can be like a defective piece of software installed on an otherwise exceptional computer.
Now I am considered a heretic because I'm saying the earth is a sphere. It IS that simple.
I am not to even be allowed to debate my ideas in a scientific fashion with educated people because they fly in the face of the quasireligious science of the day, complete with it's false gods. Sometimes education can be like a defective piece of software installed on an otherwise exceptional computer.
Hello Robert.. Am posting this in the hope that you will check back on this thread..
First... a far simpler explanation of electromagnetic radiation is that there is no electro faction involved.. that what we call electromagnetic radiation is simply vibrations of the aether and the aforementioned radiation is simply magnetic in nature. The electro factors come into play as the magnetic field interacts with matter..especially when encountering conductive materials.
As for the electron being a point particle orbiting a nucleus... perhaps you should take a look at a paper titled "THE THREE ELEMENTS" which can be found on the following site [URL=www.nuphysics4u.com] I have found that most people interested in physics are in love with complexity and will summarily dismiss anything that hints of simplicity. Cheers!
First... a far simpler explanation of electromagnetic radiation is that there is no electro faction involved.. that what we call electromagnetic radiation is simply vibrations of the aether and the aforementioned radiation is simply magnetic in nature. The electro factors come into play as the magnetic field interacts with matter..especially when encountering conductive materials.
As for the electron being a point particle orbiting a nucleus... perhaps you should take a look at a paper titled "THE THREE ELEMENTS" which can be found on the following site [URL=www.nuphysics4u.com] I have found that most people interested in physics are in love with complexity and will summarily dismiss anything that hints of simplicity. Cheers!
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 20 2006, 06:51 AM)
..I am considered a heretic because I'm saying the earth is a sphere. It IS that simple...
Hi, Robert,
if the light is formed by the electrons by your theory - how you can explain the fact, the electron stream can be easily deflected even using a weak electrical or magnetic field (see the AVI or QT animation), whereas the ray of laser light is nearly no influenced by very strong electric or magnetic field?
Hi, Robert,
if the light is formed by the electrons by your theory - how you can explain the fact, the electron stream can be easily deflected even using a weak electrical or magnetic field (see the AVI or QT animation), whereas the ray of laser light is nearly no influenced by very strong electric or magnetic field?
RWH,
Stop whinging like a 3 year old......Actually the mis-conceptions are yours.
What is the speed of light?....Well it's infinite, but only in its own frame! I suggest before you discount Einstein, please try to understand the basics. If only to avoid the "lashings" you deserve.
Of course interstellar transportation will arise, can't see any problems there.
The obvious answer to that "plant" thing is that the electrons /magnetic field interact/ induce sufficient energy into the chlorophyl to bypass the photo-molecular process. There's no fantasy photons at work here!
Stop whinging like a 3 year old......Actually the mis-conceptions are yours.
What is the speed of light?....Well it's infinite, but only in its own frame! I suggest before you discount Einstein, please try to understand the basics. If only to avoid the "lashings" you deserve.
Of course interstellar transportation will arise, can't see any problems there.
The obvious answer to that "plant" thing is that the electrons /magnetic field interact/ induce sufficient energy into the chlorophyl to bypass the photo-molecular process. There's no fantasy photons at work here!
"... a far simpler explanation of electromagnetic radiation is that there is no electro faction involved.. that what we call electromagnetic radiation is simply vibrations of the aether and the aforementioned radiation is simply magnetic in nature. The electro factors come into play as the magnetic field interacts with matter..especially when encountering conductive materials. "
Far simpler yes, but it makes absolutely no sense to me or you (does it?).
"As for the electron being a point particle orbiting a nucleus... perhaps you should take a look at a paper titled "THE THREE ELEMENTS" which can be found on the following site [URL=www.nuphysics4u.com] I have found that most people interested in physics are in love with complexity and will summarily dismiss anything that hints of simplicity. Cheers! "
I agree. The simplest explaination for anything is not always the best, as you so elloquently illustrated above, but unwarranted complexity is usually the mark of someone trying to baffle you with bullshit because they are incapable of dazzling you will true brilliance. Beware , these "scientists" abound. They make thier theories so complex no one , not even themselves understand them clearly. It is easy for me to understand relativity, to me it is a simple concept , easily comprehended. The only problem is evryone else thinks the same tihng, yet not one of us agree totally on what Einsteins' theories actually said!
"Hi, Robert,
if the light is formed by the electrons by your theory - how you can explain the fact, the electron stream can be easily deflected even using a weak electrical or magnetic field (see the AVI or QT animation), whereas the ray of laser light is nearly no influenced by very strong electric or magnetic field?"
I believe I've already answered that question once. It is said intelligence is related to ones ability to absorb what he has already seen and recall it accurately, If you did read my previous post, you're not exibiting intelligent traits.
Anyway, when an electron is "thrown off" of an atom, it no longer exibits the same characteristics as it does when it is in the electron cloud. That being said, light IS bent by gravity as evidenced by the discovery of black holes. The fact that you believe emr cannot be "steered" by a magnetic field is a product of your education. You have been taught there is a difference between an electron stream of a patricular energy level and frequency and emr THERE SIMPLY IS NOT. The misconceptions you hold are a result of misinterpretaion of experimental results due to a poor foundation in facts with your basic emr model.
. "Thanks! "
You're quite welcome.
"RWH,
Stop whinging like a 3 year old"
I didn't realize I was. At least a 3 year old has the instinct to question what he is told, that is more than I can say for yourself. It seems to me this is a personal crusade on your part. well, have at it.
"......Actually the mis-conceptions are soley yours."
No sir, I know the theories you shill better than yourself. If you're going to sell something, you ought to know something about it, don't you think?
"What is the speed of light?....Well it's infinite, but only in its own frame! "
Pardon my french , but that's a load of crap.
"I suggest before you discount Einstein, please try to understand the basics. "
Like you do? The fact is , NO ONE REALLY understands Einsteins' work, and niether do you. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND CONTRADICTORY MATERIAL, and if you claim you do 'you're admitting your not actually intelligent enough to understand "special relativity". Direct irrefutable evidence of this is that his theories are still being debated, and NO TWO PEOPLE relate them quite the same way because they are contradictory and can be interpreted in a practically infinite number of ways and still be "correct".
"If only to avoid the "lashings" you deserve."
It'll take a better man than you to lash me, intellectually or physically. If you try you will be sorely disappointed in yourself.
"Of course interstellar transportation will arise, can't see any problems there."
Proving you are a blowhard and a fool, way out of your league. The problems that exist with interstellar travel are complex and manifold, but it is by no means impossible.
"The obvious answer to that "plant" thing is that the electrons /magnetic field interact/ induce sufficient energy into the chlorophyl to bypass the photo-molecular process. There's no fantasy photons at work here! "
I think you are confused, and you obviously don't understand my OP. I don't think there is ANY SUCH THING AS A PHOTON, that in fact photons were made up to explain a phenomenon without truely understanding it.
Far simpler yes, but it makes absolutely no sense to me or you (does it?).
"As for the electron being a point particle orbiting a nucleus... perhaps you should take a look at a paper titled "THE THREE ELEMENTS" which can be found on the following site [URL=www.nuphysics4u.com] I have found that most people interested in physics are in love with complexity and will summarily dismiss anything that hints of simplicity. Cheers! "
I agree. The simplest explaination for anything is not always the best, as you so elloquently illustrated above, but unwarranted complexity is usually the mark of someone trying to baffle you with bullshit because they are incapable of dazzling you will true brilliance. Beware , these "scientists" abound. They make thier theories so complex no one , not even themselves understand them clearly. It is easy for me to understand relativity, to me it is a simple concept , easily comprehended. The only problem is evryone else thinks the same tihng, yet not one of us agree totally on what Einsteins' theories actually said!
"Hi, Robert,
if the light is formed by the electrons by your theory - how you can explain the fact, the electron stream can be easily deflected even using a weak electrical or magnetic field (see the AVI or QT animation), whereas the ray of laser light is nearly no influenced by very strong electric or magnetic field?"
I believe I've already answered that question once. It is said intelligence is related to ones ability to absorb what he has already seen and recall it accurately, If you did read my previous post, you're not exibiting intelligent traits.
Anyway, when an electron is "thrown off" of an atom, it no longer exibits the same characteristics as it does when it is in the electron cloud. That being said, light IS bent by gravity as evidenced by the discovery of black holes. The fact that you believe emr cannot be "steered" by a magnetic field is a product of your education. You have been taught there is a difference between an electron stream of a patricular energy level and frequency and emr THERE SIMPLY IS NOT. The misconceptions you hold are a result of misinterpretaion of experimental results due to a poor foundation in facts with your basic emr model.
. "Thanks! "
You're quite welcome.
"RWH,
Stop whinging like a 3 year old"
I didn't realize I was. At least a 3 year old has the instinct to question what he is told, that is more than I can say for yourself. It seems to me this is a personal crusade on your part. well, have at it.
"......Actually the mis-conceptions are soley yours."
No sir, I know the theories you shill better than yourself. If you're going to sell something, you ought to know something about it, don't you think?
"What is the speed of light?....Well it's infinite, but only in its own frame! "
Pardon my french , but that's a load of crap.
"I suggest before you discount Einstein, please try to understand the basics. "
Like you do? The fact is , NO ONE REALLY understands Einsteins' work, and niether do you. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND CONTRADICTORY MATERIAL, and if you claim you do 'you're admitting your not actually intelligent enough to understand "special relativity". Direct irrefutable evidence of this is that his theories are still being debated, and NO TWO PEOPLE relate them quite the same way because they are contradictory and can be interpreted in a practically infinite number of ways and still be "correct".
"If only to avoid the "lashings" you deserve."
It'll take a better man than you to lash me, intellectually or physically. If you try you will be sorely disappointed in yourself.
"Of course interstellar transportation will arise, can't see any problems there."
Proving you are a blowhard and a fool, way out of your league. The problems that exist with interstellar travel are complex and manifold, but it is by no means impossible.
"The obvious answer to that "plant" thing is that the electrons /magnetic field interact/ induce sufficient energy into the chlorophyl to bypass the photo-molecular process. There's no fantasy photons at work here! "
I think you are confused, and you obviously don't understand my OP. I don't think there is ANY SUCH THING AS A PHOTON, that in fact photons were made up to explain a phenomenon without truely understanding it.
"if the light is formed by the electrons by your theory - how you can explain the fact, the electron stream can be easily deflected even using a weak electrical or magnetic field (see the AVI or QT animation), whereas the ray of laser light is nearly no influenced by very strong electric or magnetic field?"
the first thing you have to understand is that electrons which are not vibrating passively in an oscilating magnetic field ARE NOT emr. Since these electrons possess far less energy than emr, they are much more easily deflected.
To give you a visual of what I am saying , try imagining this following "experiment".
If you throw a baseball at gradually increasing velocities in a constant cross wind, you will find that the faster (more energy in the case of EMR) you throw the ball, the less it is deflected by the wind.
the first thing you have to understand is that electrons which are not vibrating passively in an oscilating magnetic field ARE NOT emr. Since these electrons possess far less energy than emr, they are much more easily deflected.
To give you a visual of what I am saying , try imagining this following "experiment".
If you throw a baseball at gradually increasing velocities in a constant cross wind, you will find that the faster (more energy in the case of EMR) you throw the ball, the less it is deflected by the wind.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 20 2006, 09:38 AM)
...electrons which are not vibrating passively in an oscilating magnetic field ARE NOT emr...
Yep, I can understand perfectly....
By your opinion the light is just formed by the fast electrons. Well, suppose you have alternate electric current passing throug a coil of wire, it radiates an EMG radiation, i.e. very fast electrons.
How/where such electron emanated exactly - and how they're differ from - lets say - some ultraviolet EMG radiation, fundamentally?
Yep, I can understand perfectly....
By your opinion the light is just formed by the fast electrons. Well, suppose you have alternate electric current passing throug a coil of wire, it radiates an EMG radiation, i.e. very fast electrons.
How/where such electron emanated exactly - and how they're differ from - lets say - some ultraviolet EMG radiation, fundamentally?
"Yep, I can understand perfectly.... "
Sometimes it helps to visualize a concept. It is said a picture is worth a thousand words. I disagree, some pictures aren't worth two words and others would atke millions of words to adequately relate.
"By your opinion the light is just formed by the fast electrons. "
No sir. A "fast" electron does not qulaify as emr because it is not vibrating passively in an oscilating magnetic field. This vibration is what allows emr to to possess more nergy, because it is actually traveling further than the linear distance it traverses, along a curved waveform.
"Well, suppose you have alternate electric current passing through a coil of wire, it radiates an EMG radiation, i.e. very fast electrons."
What you described above is a light bulb, which DOES emit visable as well a longer wavelengths of EMR.
"How/where such electron emanated exactly - and how they're differ from - lets say - some ultraviolet EMG radiation, fundamentally?"
I am assuming where you said "emenated", you mean't "originated" . The electron emitted originated withen the atomic structure of it's source material, as it was replaced by another electron from the power source. Some will claim the same number of electrons flow into a battery, for instance, as flow out of it when it is used to produce emr. If as many electrons flowed into the batteries' + terminal as were flowing out of it's negative terminal, it couldn't possible loose mass, which all batteries do when exhausted. The fact that the battery becomes contaminated with positive ions is another hint.
Sometimes it helps to visualize a concept. It is said a picture is worth a thousand words. I disagree, some pictures aren't worth two words and others would atke millions of words to adequately relate.
"By your opinion the light is just formed by the fast electrons. "
No sir. A "fast" electron does not qulaify as emr because it is not vibrating passively in an oscilating magnetic field. This vibration is what allows emr to to possess more nergy, because it is actually traveling further than the linear distance it traverses, along a curved waveform.
"Well, suppose you have alternate electric current passing through a coil of wire, it radiates an EMG radiation, i.e. very fast electrons."
What you described above is a light bulb, which DOES emit visable as well a longer wavelengths of EMR.
"How/where such electron emanated exactly - and how they're differ from - lets say - some ultraviolet EMG radiation, fundamentally?"
I am assuming where you said "emenated", you mean't "originated" . The electron emitted originated withen the atomic structure of it's source material, as it was replaced by another electron from the power source. Some will claim the same number of electrons flow into a battery, for instance, as flow out of it when it is used to produce emr. If as many electrons flowed into the batteries' + terminal as were flowing out of it's negative terminal, it couldn't possible loose mass, which all batteries do when exhausted. The fact that the battery becomes contaminated with positive ions is another hint.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 20 2006, 10:16 AM)
What you described above is a light bulb, which DOES emit visible as well a longer wavelengths of EMR.... The electron emitted originated within the atomic structure of it's source material, as it was replaced by another electron from the power source.
Well, if I understood you well, by opinion of yours the antenna radiation works like the light bulb radiation - just the wire of the former is more cold. The "electrons of light" are coming from antenna material and they're spreading by the luminal speed - Am I right?
But my previous question was, if both the "electrons of light" are coming from internal structure of atom - how they're differing each of other? The wavelength of EMG radiation of coil and light bulb are quite different obviously - but both they're not influenced by the magnetic field, being formed by the fast electrons. It means, by which quantity such "electrons of light" are differing in both cases?
How do you want to explain the fact, the toroidal coil doesn't radiate the EMG waves at all (the whole field is just inside) - whereas the light spiral emits the EMG waves from the whole surface?
Well, if I understood you well, by opinion of yours the antenna radiation works like the light bulb radiation - just the wire of the former is more cold. The "electrons of light" are coming from antenna material and they're spreading by the luminal speed - Am I right?
But my previous question was, if both the "electrons of light" are coming from internal structure of atom - how they're differing each of other? The wavelength of EMG radiation of coil and light bulb are quite different obviously - but both they're not influenced by the magnetic field, being formed by the fast electrons. It means, by which quantity such "electrons of light" are differing in both cases?
How do you want to explain the fact, the toroidal coil doesn't radiate the EMG waves at all (the whole field is just inside) - whereas the light spiral emits the EMG waves from the whole surface?
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 20 2006, 07:16 AM)
I am assuming where you said "emenated", you mean't "originated" . The electron emitted originated withen the atomic structure of it's source material, as it was replaced by another electron from the power source. Some will claim the same number of electrons flow into a battery, for instance, as flow out of it when it is used to produce emr. If as many electrons flowed into the batteries' + terminal as were flowing out of it's negative terminal, it couldn't possible loose mass, which all batteries do when exhausted. The fact that the battery becomes contaminated with positive ions is another hint.
Losing mass via electrons??...what type of blithering idiot are you?
Mass of electron 9 x 10^-28g
Ad-hoc battery life, say 5 Ampere hours.
Coulomb = Ampere / sec
Number of electrons / coulomb = 6.24 x 10^18
So 5 x 3600 secs = 18000sec
18000 x 6.24 x 10^18 electrons = 1.12 x 10^23 electrons.
Mass of electron: 9.11 x 10-^28g
So to apply your rationale...this battery will lose an amazing 1.02 x 10-^4g worth of electrons
Of course the weight loss has nothing to do with obvious gas leakage etc
Expect a lash from every braindead statement you make.
"Losing mass via electrons??...what type of blithering idiot are you?"
Why would you call a person with an obviously extremely high IQ a blithering idiot? That is to say when you resort to namecalling , you admit you cannot respond in an intelligent manner so you are attempting to disconnect the rational thought processes in me and the other readers. It's instinct. TO put it in terms you can clearly understand ,if you closed your mouth and opened your mind occasionally, you might learn something dispite your limited intellectual capacity. It is your instinct to overcome my superior intellect with violence, and that not being possibly you use violence of language..
For one thing MOST of the electrons flowing out of the cathode of a battery through an electrical circuit DO make it back to the positive terminal of the battery, at a reduced electromotive force, or VOLTAGE. All electrical devices emit emr at some wavelength, some more than others. This is why everything you said is moot, you didn't pay attention or you are simply incapable of understanding. The mass of theses emissions is very low, VELOCITY being the main component of thier energy.
Your calculations apply ONLY if ALL of the electrons flowing out of the cathode are emmited as emr, WHICH THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT~
If you could measure the "mass" of the electrons flowing out of the cathode, and then weight them before they renter the battery at the anode and found they weighed less, it would be clearly evident that some were "lost",would it not?
Well, we CAN'T weight them, but we can calculate based on voltages, amperages and resistance that FEWER electrons reenter the battery than are emitted by it in the case of a device which produces EMR, either as an unwanted by product or an intended emission. This effect has gon e thus far unexplained, but is familliar to ALL competent electrical engineers and even electricians. This loss of mass IS and CAN be measured in a totally sealed battery, and the experiment repeats results over and over.
"Of course the weight loss has nothing to do with obvious gas leakage etc"
Some batteries are sealed, and simply cannot "leak" mass.
"Expect a lash from every braindead statement you make."
It seems to me you have been attempting to lash me , while punishing only yourself..Ok, I'll get out my whipping stick, but truthfully, I didn't come here to punish you ,but to bring down your false religion of psuedoscience and release your mind from the prison you willingly keep it locked in..
Why would you call a person with an obviously extremely high IQ a blithering idiot? That is to say when you resort to namecalling , you admit you cannot respond in an intelligent manner so you are attempting to disconnect the rational thought processes in me and the other readers. It's instinct. TO put it in terms you can clearly understand ,if you closed your mouth and opened your mind occasionally, you might learn something dispite your limited intellectual capacity. It is your instinct to overcome my superior intellect with violence, and that not being possibly you use violence of language..
For one thing MOST of the electrons flowing out of the cathode of a battery through an electrical circuit DO make it back to the positive terminal of the battery, at a reduced electromotive force, or VOLTAGE. All electrical devices emit emr at some wavelength, some more than others. This is why everything you said is moot, you didn't pay attention or you are simply incapable of understanding. The mass of theses emissions is very low, VELOCITY being the main component of thier energy.
Your calculations apply ONLY if ALL of the electrons flowing out of the cathode are emmited as emr, WHICH THEY CLEARLY ARE NOT~
If you could measure the "mass" of the electrons flowing out of the cathode, and then weight them before they renter the battery at the anode and found they weighed less, it would be clearly evident that some were "lost",would it not?
Well, we CAN'T weight them, but we can calculate based on voltages, amperages and resistance that FEWER electrons reenter the battery than are emitted by it in the case of a device which produces EMR, either as an unwanted by product or an intended emission. This effect has gon e thus far unexplained, but is familliar to ALL competent electrical engineers and even electricians. This loss of mass IS and CAN be measured in a totally sealed battery, and the experiment repeats results over and over.
"Of course the weight loss has nothing to do with obvious gas leakage etc"
Some batteries are sealed, and simply cannot "leak" mass.
"Expect a lash from every braindead statement you make."
It seems to me you have been attempting to lash me , while punishing only yourself..Ok, I'll get out my whipping stick, but truthfully, I didn't come here to punish you ,but to bring down your false religion of psuedoscience and release your mind from the prison you willingly keep it locked in..
"1.02 x 10-^4g worth of electrons"
What you wrote looks like [1.02 x 10 to the negative fourth power] ,in scientific notation worth of electrons that would be lost IF ALL of the batteries energy was emitted as emr energy. Actually, the number looks big in scientific notation, but is actually .000102 grams! This is not at all out of line with observations, and is actually a very small number.
Touchette!
My daddy always told me if you wanna run with the big dogs you've got to learn to lift you leg when you pee. You keep peeing all over yourself, don't you?
What you wrote looks like [1.02 x 10 to the negative fourth power] ,in scientific notation worth of electrons that would be lost IF ALL of the batteries energy was emitted as emr energy. Actually, the number looks big in scientific notation, but is actually .000102 grams! This is not at all out of line with observations, and is actually a very small number.
Touchette!
My daddy always told me if you wanna run with the big dogs you've got to learn to lift you leg when you pee. You keep peeing all over yourself, don't you?
@1/10000 of a gram
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 20 2006, 05:43 PM)
"1.02 x 10-^4g worth of electrons"
What you wrote looks like [1.02 x 10 to the negative fourth power] ,in scientific notation worth of electrons that would be lost IF ALL of the batteries energy was emitted as emr energy. Actually, the number looks big in scientific notation, but is actually .000102 grams! This is not at all out of line with observations, and is actually a very small number.
Touchette!
My daddy always told me if you wanna run with the big dogs you've got to learn to lift you leg when you pee. You keep peeing all over yourself, don't you?
RWH,
......... ...get a life!
What you wrote looks like [1.02 x 10 to the negative fourth power] ,in scientific notation worth of electrons that would be lost IF ALL of the batteries energy was emitted as emr energy. Actually, the number looks big in scientific notation, but is actually .000102 grams! This is not at all out of line with observations, and is actually a very small number.
Touchette!
My daddy always told me if you wanna run with the big dogs you've got to learn to lift you leg when you pee. You keep peeing all over yourself, don't you?
RWH,
.........
...get a life!
"Well, if I understood you well, by opinion of yours the antenna radiation works like the light bulb radiation - just the wire of the former is more cold. "
Not exactly. A transmitter works totally differently fron a light bulb. A light bulb has a filliment, or coil of usually tungsten wire which when an adequate wattage is allowed to flow against its resistance, it gets hot. As we all should know, metals emmit visable emr when heated, by either long wavelength " thermal radiation" or any other means.
"The "electrons of light" are coming from antenna material and they're spreading by the luminal speed - Am I right?"
No, the electrons which are emmited originate withen the power source, essentially. The atoms of the antanaes' material simply TRANSMIT these electrons like any other conductor along the appropriate energy levels in thier atomic structures, the antanae is simply part of a very high voltage electrical circuit. That is why "photons" cannot be emiited ecxept by metal antannes in practice. this should be a clue, why can't we use plastic, for instance.... , because a conductor is needed to allow the electrons to flow.
"But my previous question was, if both the "electrons of light" are coming from internal structure of atom - how they're differing each of other? The wavelength of EMG radiation of coil and light bulb are quite different obviously - but both they're not influenced by the magnetic field, being formed by the fast electrons. It means, by which quantity such "electrons of light" are differing in both cases?"
It depends on what energy "shell" of the atom from which they originate, and what happened to them afterwords. It has already been postulated by myself that beta radiation was the result of the collision between two particles, at least one of which was an electron in the form of emr. as we all know, when objects or particles collide, energy is released.
How do you want to explain the fact, the toroidal coil doesn't radiate the EMG waves at all (the whole field is just inside) - whereas the light spiral emits the EMG waves from the whole surface?
Not exactly. A transmitter works totally differently fron a light bulb. A light bulb has a filliment, or coil of usually tungsten wire which when an adequate wattage is allowed to flow against its resistance, it gets hot. As we all should know, metals emmit visable emr when heated, by either long wavelength " thermal radiation" or any other means.
"The "electrons of light" are coming from antenna material and they're spreading by the luminal speed - Am I right?"
No, the electrons which are emmited originate withen the power source, essentially. The atoms of the antanaes' material simply TRANSMIT these electrons like any other conductor along the appropriate energy levels in thier atomic structures, the antanae is simply part of a very high voltage electrical circuit. That is why "photons" cannot be emiited ecxept by metal antannes in practice. this should be a clue, why can't we use plastic, for instance.... , because a conductor is needed to allow the electrons to flow.
"But my previous question was, if both the "electrons of light" are coming from internal structure of atom - how they're differing each of other? The wavelength of EMG radiation of coil and light bulb are quite different obviously - but both they're not influenced by the magnetic field, being formed by the fast electrons. It means, by which quantity such "electrons of light" are differing in both cases?"
It depends on what energy "shell" of the atom from which they originate, and what happened to them afterwords. It has already been postulated by myself that beta radiation was the result of the collision between two particles, at least one of which was an electron in the form of emr. as we all know, when objects or particles collide, energy is released.
How do you want to explain the fact, the toroidal coil doesn't radiate the EMG waves at all (the whole field is just inside) - whereas the light spiral emits the EMG waves from the whole surface?
Hi Robert
I will not post in this thread anymore unless you can answer these three questions.
1) How does your theory for atomic structure explain the structure of molecules? Water for instance has a 104 to 109 degree angle between the hydrogen atoms. Simple circular orbits don't explain this. I ask this because there is strong evidence that the shape of molecules is dependent on the energy level of the valence electron.
2)Why does the strongly emitted EM frequency from a dipole antenna depend on the length of the antenna?
3)Can the discrete energy levels in your model fit with the spectroscopic analysis of atoms and molecules?
As an observation, EM is emitted from an accelerated/decelerated charged particle and not from steady state movement. EM is not produced from DC circuits unless the DC is pulsed.
I will not post in this thread anymore unless you can answer these three questions.
1) How does your theory for atomic structure explain the structure of molecules? Water for instance has a 104 to 109 degree angle between the hydrogen atoms. Simple circular orbits don't explain this. I ask this because there is strong evidence that the shape of molecules is dependent on the energy level of the valence electron.
2)Why does the strongly emitted EM frequency from a dipole antenna depend on the length of the antenna?
3)Can the discrete energy levels in your model fit with the spectroscopic analysis of atoms and molecules?
As an observation, EM is emitted from an accelerated/decelerated charged particle and not from steady state movement. EM is not produced from DC circuits unless the DC is pulsed.
Montec, please except my appologies for my oversight in answering your relavant questions.
"1) How does your theory for atomic structure explain the structure of molecules? Water for instance has a 104 to 109 degree angle between the hydrogen atoms. Simple circular orbits don't explain this. I ask this because there is strong evidence that the shape of molecules is dependent on the energy level of the valence electron."
And nowhere in my theory do I claim a circular orbit of electrons where they stay a consistent distance from the nucleus., in fact in my model they are moving in sine wave like waveform pattern of "vibration" ,with an overall spherical pattern to the extent of thier rapid wanderings around the nucleus. In chemistry we learned the energy level of valence (or shared) electrons tend to dictate the shape of the molecule as you have stated. Though I have not yet adequately explained this phenomenon, niether has anyone else. Perhaps it is possible from this new perspective. Let me think about it.
"2)Why does the strongly emitted EM frequency from a dipole antenna depend on the length of the antenna?"
Standing waves form in the flow of emr through the antanae. ,which are not emitted efficently and do not represent a complete wavelength and they are always formed in antanaes not matching perfectly at least an even factor of the wavelength one wishes to emmit. 1/4 wavelegth, 1/2, 1/8, 1/16 ,all WILL work , but in practice we know that an antanae matching the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy we wish to emit does so it in a far more efficent fashion, making the use of power less for the same output as in an "out of tune " antanae.
"3)Can the discrete energy levels in your model fit with the spectroscopic analysis of atoms and molecules?"
YES! I am not an expert on spectrographical analysis , but I believe the results of said analysis are compatible with my model of the atomic structure. DO we have anyone here who IS an expert on how the spectrograph actually works?
"As an observation, EM is emitted from an accelerated/decelerated charged particle and not from steady state movement. EM is not produced from DC circuits unless the DC is pulsed."
"Pulsed" is actually a kind of alternating current , not of varying direction of flow, but of intensity between zero and highest amplitude. EMR is produced when electrons are set into vibration at the frequency of emr they represent. This can be done as described above, or with an oscilating electromagnetic field where potential is reversed at the frequency of the emr ,as in the case of a simple radio transmitter. Some radios use peizeo crystals "tuned" to produce a specific frequency when electons flow through them to produce an emr emission., and they work in reverse as well. They can have emr flow through them from the antanae (reciever) and convert them to a flow of electrons.
"1) How does your theory for atomic structure explain the structure of molecules? Water for instance has a 104 to 109 degree angle between the hydrogen atoms. Simple circular orbits don't explain this. I ask this because there is strong evidence that the shape of molecules is dependent on the energy level of the valence electron."
And nowhere in my theory do I claim a circular orbit of electrons where they stay a consistent distance from the nucleus., in fact in my model they are moving in sine wave like waveform pattern of "vibration" ,with an overall spherical pattern to the extent of thier rapid wanderings around the nucleus. In chemistry we learned the energy level of valence (or shared) electrons tend to dictate the shape of the molecule as you have stated. Though I have not yet adequately explained this phenomenon, niether has anyone else. Perhaps it is possible from this new perspective. Let me think about it.
"2)Why does the strongly emitted EM frequency from a dipole antenna depend on the length of the antenna?"
Standing waves form in the flow of emr through the antanae. ,which are not emitted efficently and do not represent a complete wavelength and they are always formed in antanaes not matching perfectly at least an even factor of the wavelength one wishes to emmit. 1/4 wavelegth, 1/2, 1/8, 1/16 ,all WILL work , but in practice we know that an antanae matching the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy we wish to emit does so it in a far more efficent fashion, making the use of power less for the same output as in an "out of tune " antanae.
"3)Can the discrete energy levels in your model fit with the spectroscopic analysis of atoms and molecules?"
YES! I am not an expert on spectrographical analysis , but I believe the results of said analysis are compatible with my model of the atomic structure. DO we have anyone here who IS an expert on how the spectrograph actually works?
"As an observation, EM is emitted from an accelerated/decelerated charged particle and not from steady state movement. EM is not produced from DC circuits unless the DC is pulsed."
"Pulsed" is actually a kind of alternating current , not of varying direction of flow, but of intensity between zero and highest amplitude. EMR is produced when electrons are set into vibration at the frequency of emr they represent. This can be done as described above, or with an oscilating electromagnetic field where potential is reversed at the frequency of the emr ,as in the case of a simple radio transmitter. Some radios use peizeo crystals "tuned" to produce a specific frequency when electons flow through them to produce an emr emission., and they work in reverse as well. They can have emr flow through them from the antanae (reciever) and convert them to a flow of electrons.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 20 2006, 06:31 AM)
No sir, I know the theories you shill better than yourself. If you're going to sell something, you ought to know something about it, don't you think?
"What is the speed of light?....Well it's infinite, but only in its own frame! "
Pardon my french , but that's a load of crap.
"I suggest before you discount Einstein, please try to understand the basics. "
Like you do? The fact is , NO ONE REALLY understands Einsteins' work, and niether do you. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND CONTRADICTORY MATERIAL, and if you claim you do 'you're admitting your not actually intelligent enough to understand "special relativity". Direct irrefutable evidence of this is that his theories are still being debated, and NO TWO PEOPLE relate them quite the same way because they are contradictory and can be interpreted in a practically infinite number of ways and still be "correct".
"If only to avoid the "lashings" you deserve."
It'll take a better man than you to lash me, intellectually or physically. If you try you will be sorely disappointed in yourself.
"Of course interstellar transportation will arise, can't see any problems there."
Proving you are a blowhard and a fool, way out of your league. The problems that exist with interstellar travel are complex and manifold, but it is by no means impossible.
"The obvious answer to that "plant" thing is that the electrons /magnetic field interact/ induce sufficient energy into the chlorophyl to bypass the photo-molecular process. There's no fantasy photons at work here! "
I think you are confused, and you obviously don't understand my OP. I don't think there is ANY SUCH THING AS A PHOTON, that in fact photons were made up to explain a phenomenon without truely understanding it.
Dear Dork-ins....The speed of light is indeed infinite in it's own frame of reference, any half-wit knows this.....what does this make you?
Einstein contradictory?.......Only if one understands and the other's a living brain donor.
I only "lash you" as it's fun, but seriously, I'm only trying to help with your bloated delusion of self importance.
As for the technology/understanding that may one day take our species to the stars, I've devoted considerable time/effort. If you regard hyperspacial communication and mass/energy interconversion the efforts of a fool, again, what does this make you....."a bit of a twit"
"What is the speed of light?....Well it's infinite, but only in its own frame! "
Pardon my french , but that's a load of crap.
"I suggest before you discount Einstein, please try to understand the basics. "
Like you do? The fact is , NO ONE REALLY understands Einsteins' work, and niether do you. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND CONTRADICTORY MATERIAL, and if you claim you do 'you're admitting your not actually intelligent enough to understand "special relativity". Direct irrefutable evidence of this is that his theories are still being debated, and NO TWO PEOPLE relate them quite the same way because they are contradictory and can be interpreted in a practically infinite number of ways and still be "correct".
"If only to avoid the "lashings" you deserve."
It'll take a better man than you to lash me, intellectually or physically. If you try you will be sorely disappointed in yourself.
"Of course interstellar transportation will arise, can't see any problems there."
Proving you are a blowhard and a fool, way out of your league. The problems that exist with interstellar travel are complex and manifold, but it is by no means impossible.
"The obvious answer to that "plant" thing is that the electrons /magnetic field interact/ induce sufficient energy into the chlorophyl to bypass the photo-molecular process. There's no fantasy photons at work here! "
I think you are confused, and you obviously don't understand my OP. I don't think there is ANY SUCH THING AS A PHOTON, that in fact photons were made up to explain a phenomenon without truely understanding it.
Dear Dork-ins....The speed of light is indeed infinite in it's own frame of reference, any half-wit knows this.....what does this make you?
Einstein contradictory?.......Only if one understands and the other's a living brain donor.
I only "lash you" as it's fun, but seriously, I'm only trying to help with your bloated delusion of self importance.
As for the technology/understanding that may one day take our species to the stars, I've devoted considerable time/effort. If you regard hyperspacial communication and mass/energy interconversion the efforts of a fool, again, what does this make you....."a bit of a twit"
"Dear Dork-ins...."
Namecalling acknowledged as intellectual weakness.
"The speed of light is indeed infinite in it's own frame of reference, any half-wit knows this.....what does this make you?"
A whole wit.
"Einstein contradictory?.......Only if one understands and the other's a living brain donor."
You don't even come close to the level of brightness required to understand even in general what we are discussing here, as evidenced by your childlike banter and apparent ignorance. Those who can deliver the meat have no need to go to the butcher to get it.
"I only "lash you" as it's fun, but seriously, I'm only trying to help with your bloated delusion of self importance."
I've met ten thousand just like you in my short time on this planet, and not a one of you is qualified to pour piss out of a boot ,much less succesfully win an intellectual debate with me . Notice I don't have to call you an idiot, you left no doubt all on your own.
"As for the technology/understanding that may one day take our species to the stars, I've devoted considerable time/effort."
Yeah, I'll bet yoou never miss an episode of "Star Trek", do you?
And you called me a dork! I think you would retract that comment were we to meet in person , with an appology.
" If you regard hyperspacial communication and mass/energy interconversion the efforts of a fool, again, what does this make you....."a bit of a twit" "
At least I don't get my science from Gene Roddenbury.
Namecalling acknowledged as intellectual weakness.
"The speed of light is indeed infinite in it's own frame of reference, any half-wit knows this.....what does this make you?"
A whole wit.
"Einstein contradictory?.......Only if one understands and the other's a living brain donor."
You don't even come close to the level of brightness required to understand even in general what we are discussing here, as evidenced by your childlike banter and apparent ignorance. Those who can deliver the meat have no need to go to the butcher to get it.
"I only "lash you" as it's fun, but seriously, I'm only trying to help with your bloated delusion of self importance."
I've met ten thousand just like you in my short time on this planet, and not a one of you is qualified to pour piss out of a boot ,much less succesfully win an intellectual debate with me . Notice I don't have to call you an idiot, you left no doubt all on your own.
"As for the technology/understanding that may one day take our species to the stars, I've devoted considerable time/effort."
Yeah, I'll bet yoou never miss an episode of "Star Trek", do you?
And you called me a dork! I think you would retract that comment were we to meet in person , with an appology.
" If you regard hyperspacial communication and mass/energy interconversion the efforts of a fool, again, what does this make you....."a bit of a twit" "
At least I don't get my science from Gene Roddenbury.
Thanks for the fun...let's get back to the physics!
"Thanks for the fun...let's get back to the physics! "
As far as I can tell, the rest of us have been talking about physics while you have made repeated attempts at humor that leave me pitying you.
You can't discuss real physics because you don't know anything about it.
All I've seen you talking about is science fiction.
As far as I can tell, the rest of us have been talking about physics while you have made repeated attempts at humor that leave me pitying you.
You can't discuss real physics because you don't know anything about it.
All I've seen you talking about is science fiction.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 21 2006, 04:01 AM)
the rest of us have been talking about physics while you have made repeated attempts at humor that leave me pitying you.
Well, Robert, the hypothesis of yours (I've certain trouble to call it a "theory") has a number of weakness, although isn't so easy to disprove it at the first glance, surprisingly. For example, before some time, the Good_Elf was spreading a certain model, where the electron is formed by the convoluted photon loop. Because the weak interaction properties of electron aren't manifested obviously (the lepton charge and the corresponding dipole moment are a quite subtle) - it's not so easy to distinguish the moving electron from moving photon loop. After all, a model's of vacuum formed just by the virtual photons has a success for a long time, just because the light is the most dominant form of energy spreading inside of our world.
But at your level of abstraction it shouldn't be so big problem. The light radiation doesn't require some conductive material with excess of electrons to be abble to radiate the light, it even doesn't require the electron presence at all! Even the non-inertial movement of the lone proton is able to generate a EMG wave from virtually nothing buy the same way, as the movement of other EMG charged particles (positron, muon, tauon and others). The original mass of proton is retained during such process by such a way, it's obvious, the radiation of light has nothing to do with some electron movement.
Well, Robert, the hypothesis of yours (I've certain trouble to call it a "theory") has a number of weakness, although isn't so easy to disprove it at the first glance, surprisingly. For example, before some time, the Good_Elf was spreading a certain model, where the electron is formed by the convoluted photon loop. Because the weak interaction properties of electron aren't manifested obviously (the lepton charge and the corresponding dipole moment are a quite subtle) - it's not so easy to distinguish the moving electron from moving photon loop. After all, a model's of vacuum formed just by the virtual photons has a success for a long time, just because the light is the most dominant form of energy spreading inside of our world.
But at your level of abstraction it shouldn't be so big problem. The light radiation doesn't require some conductive material with excess of electrons to be abble to radiate the light, it even doesn't require the electron presence at all! Even the non-inertial movement of the lone proton is able to generate a EMG wave from virtually nothing buy the same way, as the movement of other EMG charged particles (positron, muon, tauon and others). The original mass of proton is retained during such process by such a way, it's obvious, the radiation of light has nothing to do with some electron movement.
"Well, Robert, the hypothesis of yours (I've certain trouble to call it a "theory") has a number of weakness, although isn't so easy to disprove it at the first glance, surprisingly."
I am using "theory" instead of "hypothesis" because I am quite beyond the experiment stage. In fact I can use the results of previous experiments and observations to qualify my hypothesis as a theory. Perhaps you are right, and I am applying the wrong nomenclature to my ideas. Perhaps you don't realize I've been at this for quite some time, I originally wrote down the basic hypothesis in a high school physics class over twenty nine years ago. No one has ever been able to disqualify it's viability, so don't feel alone.
"For example, before some time, the Good_Elf was spreading a certain model, where the electron is formed by the convoluted photon loop."
An electron has mass, a foton does not. An electron transfers energy the same way other energy transfers in gods' creation take place.
"Because the weak interaction properties of electron aren't manifested obviously (the lepton charge and the corresponding dipole moment are a quite subtle) - it's not so easy to distinguish the moving electron from moving photon loop. "
Perhaps because what you THINK is a foton is actually an electron, as I have been advocating.
"After all, a model's of vacuum formed just by the virtual photons has a success for a long time, just because the light is the most dominant form of energy spreading inside of our world."
I'm not sure I understand that staement, so i cannot comment.
"But at your level of abstraction it shouldn't be so big problem. "
There is absolutely nothing abstract about my theory, I cannot see your point. The strength of it is that it relies on proven science, and NOT abstract ideas.
"The light radiation doesn't require some conductive material with excess of electrons to be abble to radiate the light,"
No, it requires an input of either electrical energy or emr to do so.
" it even doesn't require the electron presence at all! "
HORSE HOCKEY, emr and electricity are both composed physically of electrons.
"Even the non-inertial movement of the lone proton is able to generate a EMG wave from virtually nothing buy the same way, as the movement of other EMG charged particles (positron, muon, tauon and others). The original mass of proton is retained during such process by such a way, it's obvious, the radiation of light has nothing to do with some electron movement. "
As far as I know what you've said here is a science fiction without foundation in proven facts. Positively charged particles ARE NEVER a component of emr though they may APPEAR to be a source of it at first glance, since it is difficult to determine said source. My guess would be your "EMG" (what the hell IS EMG?) is a stray contamination of your "experiment" in this case. EMR has many sources, and can be generated by the containments' components. Radiation composed of or originating withen positive particles IS NOT EMR.
Again, this is an example where the experimental results are being selectively interpreted to favor your belief. You are now claiming, if I am to understand it, that protons emit emr. This is a complete falsehood and as far as I am concerned an off the wall supposition based erroniously on misinterpreted observations on your part. Whoever is claiming such a thing is simply not credible as a physicist.
Show me the goods......
I am using "theory" instead of "hypothesis" because I am quite beyond the experiment stage. In fact I can use the results of previous experiments and observations to qualify my hypothesis as a theory. Perhaps you are right, and I am applying the wrong nomenclature to my ideas. Perhaps you don't realize I've been at this for quite some time, I originally wrote down the basic hypothesis in a high school physics class over twenty nine years ago. No one has ever been able to disqualify it's viability, so don't feel alone.
"For example, before some time, the Good_Elf was spreading a certain model, where the electron is formed by the convoluted photon loop."
An electron has mass, a foton does not. An electron transfers energy the same way other energy transfers in gods' creation take place.
"Because the weak interaction properties of electron aren't manifested obviously (the lepton charge and the corresponding dipole moment are a quite subtle) - it's not so easy to distinguish the moving electron from moving photon loop. "
Perhaps because what you THINK is a foton is actually an electron, as I have been advocating.
"After all, a model's of vacuum formed just by the virtual photons has a success for a long time, just because the light is the most dominant form of energy spreading inside of our world."
I'm not sure I understand that staement, so i cannot comment.
"But at your level of abstraction it shouldn't be so big problem. "
There is absolutely nothing abstract about my theory, I cannot see your point. The strength of it is that it relies on proven science, and NOT abstract ideas.
"The light radiation doesn't require some conductive material with excess of electrons to be abble to radiate the light,"
No, it requires an input of either electrical energy or emr to do so.
" it even doesn't require the electron presence at all! "
HORSE HOCKEY, emr and electricity are both composed physically of electrons.
"Even the non-inertial movement of the lone proton is able to generate a EMG wave from virtually nothing buy the same way, as the movement of other EMG charged particles (positron, muon, tauon and others). The original mass of proton is retained during such process by such a way, it's obvious, the radiation of light has nothing to do with some electron movement. "
As far as I know what you've said here is a science fiction without foundation in proven facts. Positively charged particles ARE NEVER a component of emr though they may APPEAR to be a source of it at first glance, since it is difficult to determine said source. My guess would be your "EMG" (what the hell IS EMG?) is a stray contamination of your "experiment" in this case. EMR has many sources, and can be generated by the containments' components. Radiation composed of or originating withen positive particles IS NOT EMR.
Again, this is an example where the experimental results are being selectively interpreted to favor your belief. You are now claiming, if I am to understand it, that protons emit emr. This is a complete falsehood and as far as I am concerned an off the wall supposition based erroniously on misinterpreted observations on your part. Whoever is claiming such a thing is simply not credible as a physicist.
Show me the goods......
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 21 2006, 05:56 AM)
Radiation composed of or originating within positive particles IS NOT EMR .... Whoever is claiming such a thing is simply not credible as a physicist...
Can you prove this statement? You told me, your theory is perfectly matching the mainstream physic theories and/or experiments.
Now you're scaring me... Do you really believe, the proton's synchrotron radiation isn't formed by the EMG radiation, although it's widely used in experimental science as the X-ray source?? You can click to the pictures bellow to view it at the original, better readable resolution).
Can you prove this statement? You told me, your theory is perfectly matching the mainstream physic theories and/or experiments.
Now you're scaring me... Do you really believe, the proton's synchrotron radiation isn't formed by the EMG radiation, although it's widely used in experimental science as the X-ray source?? You can click to the pictures bellow to view it at the original, better readable resolution).
"Can you prove this statement? "
I believe that if 1/1000 of the capitol resources invested in researching /proving /disproving nonsense theories like special relativity and quantum theory were invested in experiments to "prove that statement", I could do so easily .
I could do so regardless of the accuracy of the statement , using the same tactics all granted or privately funded researchers use, they skew the results regardless of the observations to somehow match their ideas.
Then when the engineers can't make it work, they simply shrug thier shoulders and say "oh well, the teat isn't dry YET, is it?"
This tactic is well known to all of us here, or it should be. So let us not decieve ourselves , if we must decieve others.
"You told me, your theory is perfectly matching the mainstream physic theories and/or experiments. "
Yes sir, actually it not only stays withen the bounds of proven physics , it is simply the best explaination for emr. Photons were created out of thin air simply to explain the phenomenon of emr.
"Now you're scaring me... Do you really believe, the proton's synchrotron radiation isn't formed by the EMG radiation, although it's widely used in experimental science as the X-ray source??"
No, I do not, in fact the x ray source is the x ray frequency electron stream shown on your diagram.
You have no idea how x rays are actually formed and what they are composed of.. It is not suprizing in todays dumbed down academia, Ive went through three days of explaining why on another forum.We have repeatedly been told that x radiation is produced when electrons of a matching energy level are absorbed by certain materials, the x ray being a product of this collision. BULLSHIT, the only reason we are taught this is because it is the only way to explain the bending of x rays in such devices as telivisions and x ray machines without blowing the "photon" theory out of the water. The only thing the x rays impact with metal actually does is alow the energy to be radiated in a "phased" fashion. Picture this little experiment. Lets say you have 30 loudspeakers all connected to the same amplifier signal , some out of phase with others' -/+ polarity and distance for the listener. In this condition the sound level reaching the listener is very low, because of the lack of syncronicity in the sound waves arival to the listeners ear. Some are actually canceling each other out. Now, when you place all of the speakers the same distance from the listeners ear and get them all in phase +/- wise, the sound is reenforced and is much louder. This is what your proton experiment above does, makes the radiation "IN PHASE". Granted, sound waves are not the same as x radiation, but they obey the same principals involved with other waveforms.
The fact you are missing is the most obvious of all, that the "electron stream vibrating at the frequency (energy level) of x rays" IS ALREADY X RADIATION BEFORE IT COMES IN CONTACT WITH THE METAL SENSORS THAT DETECT IT, or the plates that allow it to reemit in a coherent fashion.
I believe that if 1/1000 of the capitol resources invested in researching /proving /disproving nonsense theories like special relativity and quantum theory were invested in experiments to "prove that statement", I could do so easily .
I could do so regardless of the accuracy of the statement , using the same tactics all granted or privately funded researchers use, they skew the results regardless of the observations to somehow match their ideas.
Then when the engineers can't make it work, they simply shrug thier shoulders and say "oh well, the teat isn't dry YET, is it?"
This tactic is well known to all of us here, or it should be. So let us not decieve ourselves , if we must decieve others.
"You told me, your theory is perfectly matching the mainstream physic theories and/or experiments. "
Yes sir, actually it not only stays withen the bounds of proven physics , it is simply the best explaination for emr. Photons were created out of thin air simply to explain the phenomenon of emr.
"Now you're scaring me... Do you really believe, the proton's synchrotron radiation isn't formed by the EMG radiation, although it's widely used in experimental science as the X-ray source??"
No, I do not, in fact the x ray source is the x ray frequency electron stream shown on your diagram.
You have no idea how x rays are actually formed and what they are composed of.. It is not suprizing in todays dumbed down academia, Ive went through three days of explaining why on another forum.We have repeatedly been told that x radiation is produced when electrons of a matching energy level are absorbed by certain materials, the x ray being a product of this collision. BULLSHIT, the only reason we are taught this is because it is the only way to explain the bending of x rays in such devices as telivisions and x ray machines without blowing the "photon" theory out of the water. The only thing the x rays impact with metal actually does is alow the energy to be radiated in a "phased" fashion. Picture this little experiment. Lets say you have 30 loudspeakers all connected to the same amplifier signal , some out of phase with others' -/+ polarity and distance for the listener. In this condition the sound level reaching the listener is very low, because of the lack of syncronicity in the sound waves arival to the listeners ear. Some are actually canceling each other out. Now, when you place all of the speakers the same distance from the listeners ear and get them all in phase +/- wise, the sound is reenforced and is much louder. This is what your proton experiment above does, makes the radiation "IN PHASE". Granted, sound waves are not the same as x radiation, but they obey the same principals involved with other waveforms.
The fact you are missing is the most obvious of all, that the "electron stream vibrating at the frequency (energy level) of x rays" IS ALREADY X RADIATION BEFORE IT COMES IN CONTACT WITH THE METAL SENSORS THAT DETECT IT, or the plates that allow it to reemit in a coherent fashion.
I agree there is always a distinct possibility that my "hypothesis" is flawed in some fundamental way. After all, I AM breaking new ground regardless of what you think the ligitamacy of my credentials to do so. I am only a lowly mechanical engineer, after all. It occurs to me "education" could also be descibed as brainwashing under other circumstances, I did not except what I was taught unless I could prove it adequately to myself.
No human is without imperfections in his deductive reasoning, regardless of intellectual status . I am no exception. The fact that I can find no real flaw in this THEORY and niether can anyone else in itself MAKES IT LIGITAMATE AS SUCH, since experimental techniques exist which could easily disprove it IF IT WERE FALSE.
Because experimentation cannot be manipulated to show a theory is false does not disqualify it as a possibility, ON THE CONTRARY.
The fact remains that if the scientific method is applied consistently to determining the viability of my "hypothesis" versus the one "mainstream science" (dumbed down acadamia) continuously misrepresents as fact, my THEORY would be adopted immeadiately by most physicists.
Let's face it, if it [the nature of electromagnetic energy] really is as simple as I claim, and it is, then the vast majority of modern subatomic physics is nothing more than an elaborate, complex and self perpetuating faith based deception, a science fiction known as such by a few, yet presented as science fact to the student of physics. This is how you were brainwashed . There is a reason for it, and I would think it would be quite obvious. If I am right, could there even be an "elite", either academically OR socially? The academic elite would be ridiculed as the pseudo religious fanatics they are, and there would be no place or need of classes in a society where energy was available to all free of "cost". The fact that interstellar space travel IS possible should be somewhat obvious to you by now, since the computer you are sitting in front of contains technology from either out of this timeline (possible) or off this world. It would be an admission of undeniable stupidity to claim the technological advancements made in the last 50 years all orinated withen the minds of twentieth century humans. So we went from horse driven carraiges to supercomputers in 100 yearss all on out own, correct?
Ok, so when else in history did we see such a rapid advancement? If we can have computers that create virtual realities and possess artificial intelligence, why can we not travel to our nearest planetary neighbor?
No human is without imperfections in his deductive reasoning, regardless of intellectual status . I am no exception. The fact that I can find no real flaw in this THEORY and niether can anyone else in itself MAKES IT LIGITAMATE AS SUCH, since experimental techniques exist which could easily disprove it IF IT WERE FALSE.
Because experimentation cannot be manipulated to show a theory is false does not disqualify it as a possibility, ON THE CONTRARY.
The fact remains that if the scientific method is applied consistently to determining the viability of my "hypothesis" versus the one "mainstream science" (dumbed down acadamia) continuously misrepresents as fact, my THEORY would be adopted immeadiately by most physicists.
Let's face it, if it [the nature of electromagnetic energy] really is as simple as I claim, and it is, then the vast majority of modern subatomic physics is nothing more than an elaborate, complex and self perpetuating faith based deception, a science fiction known as such by a few, yet presented as science fact to the student of physics. This is how you were brainwashed . There is a reason for it, and I would think it would be quite obvious. If I am right, could there even be an "elite", either academically OR socially? The academic elite would be ridiculed as the pseudo religious fanatics they are, and there would be no place or need of classes in a society where energy was available to all free of "cost". The fact that interstellar space travel IS possible should be somewhat obvious to you by now, since the computer you are sitting in front of contains technology from either out of this timeline (possible) or off this world. It would be an admission of undeniable stupidity to claim the technological advancements made in the last 50 years all orinated withen the minds of twentieth century humans. So we went from horse driven carraiges to supercomputers in 100 yearss all on out own, correct?
Ok, so when else in history did we see such a rapid advancement? If we can have computers that create virtual realities and possess artificial intelligence, why can we not travel to our nearest planetary neighbor?
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 21 2006, 08:00 PM)
I agree there is always a distinct possibility that my "hypothesis" is flawed in some fundamental way. After all, I AM breaking new ground regardless of what you think the ligitamacy of my credentials to do so. I am only a lowly mechanical engineer, after all. It occurs to me "education" could also be descibed as brainwashing under other circumstances, I did not except what I was taught unless I could prove it adequately to myself.
My degrees are in Electrical Engineering (Electronics), and virtually everything I learned in college, properly applied, works. While I'm hardly an expert in E&M, I have taken many semesters of courses that involve the theory.
................... The fact that I can find no real flaw in this THEORY and niether can anyone else in itself MAKES IT LIGITAMATE AS SUCH, since experimental techniques exist which could easily disprove it IF IT WERE FALSE.
Because experimentation cannot be manipulated to show a theory is false does not disqualify it as a possibility, ON THE CONTRARY.
The fact remains that if the scientific method is applied consistently to determining the viability of my "hypothesis" versus the one "mainstream science" (dumbed down acadamia) continuously misrepresents as fact, my THEORY would be adopted immeadiately by most physicists.
Your theory flies in the face of everything known since Maxwell. Maxwell's equations show that EM radiation is due to acceleration of charge. The electron wasn't even known at that time.
Hertz showed that EM radiation does exist at much lower frequencies than light. Around 1876.
Marconi received a Nobel Prize for his 'invention' of Radio. Did you know that low frequency radio energy can be generated by an AC alternator? One with a lot of pole pairs to increase the AC frequency.
The Navy uses TACAMO to communicate with undersea submarines. Frequencies below 60 Hz were planned at one time. With 'antennas' covering much of Northern Wisconsin.
Radio does not depend on electron shell jumps to radiate EM waves (photons, electrons, by your theory). All it requires is acceleration of charge in a long enough antenna for efficient radiation to occur. Yes, the charge is composed of electrons, but 'what goes in comes out'. Otherwise, charge would accumulate and the excess charge would result in a high voltage on the antenna and feed line to it.
Your theory flies in the face of everything known since Maxwell. Maxwell's equations show that EM radiation is due to acceleration of charge. The electron wasn't even known at that time.
Hertz showed that EM radiation does exist at much lower frequencies than light. Around 1876.
Marconi received a Nobel Prize for his 'invention' of Radio. Did you know that low frequency radio energy can be generated by an AC alternator? One with a lot of pole pairs to increase the AC frequency.
The Navy uses TACAMO to communicate with undersea submarines. Frequencies below 60 Hz were planned at one time. With 'antennas' covering much of Northern Wisconsin.
Radio does not depend on electron shell jumps to radiate EM waves (photons, electrons, by your theory). All it requires is acceleration of charge in a long enough antenna for efficient radiation to occur. Yes, the charge is composed of electrons, but 'what goes in comes out'. Otherwise, charge would accumulate and the excess charge would result in a high voltage on the antenna and feed line to it.
Let's face it, if it [the nature of electromagnetic energy] really is as simple as I claim, and it is, then the vast majority of modern subatomic physics is nothing more than an elaborate, complex and self perpetuating faith based deception, a science fiction known as such by a few, yet presented as science fact to the student of physics. This is how you were brainwashed . .....
Also, I assume engineering students.
Who depend on physics based theories to create "things of use to humans". For some reason, such things generally work. In spite of the "brainwashing received in college".
.............................
The fact that interstellar space travel IS possible should be somewhat obvious to you by now, since the computer you are sitting in front of contains technology from either out of this timeline (possible) or off this world. It would be an admission of undeniable stupidity to claim the technological advancements made in the last 50 years all orinated withen the minds of twentieth century humans. So we went from horse driven carraiges to supercomputers in 100 yearss all on out own, correct?
................
Sounds like you have been reading too much fiction from guys like Lt Colonel Corso. Who claimed he was involved in seeding technology from Roswell.
Fact it, there is a strong paper trail describing the development of sold state devices such as transistors and integrated circuits. Also, for the Maser and Laser. No 'alien technology' is required. Further it would be very difficult to get much of anything from technology just a few decades ahead of what humans currently have.
Charles H. Towns developed the Maser in 1953, this lead to the Laser in 1960. Even Wikipedia has quite a bit of detail on the development. Similar trails apply to 'transistors', integrated circuits, etc. All were developed with standard physical theories. Much more than experiments, the modern world depends on these high technology devices.
"Radio does not depend on electron shell jumps to radiate EM waves (photons, electrons, by your theory). All it requires is acceleration of charge in a long enough antenna for efficient radiation to occur."
And that "charge" is negative, is it not? WHY YES! and guess where it gets the negative charge from?
" Yes, the charge is composed of electrons, but 'what goes in comes out'. Otherwise, charge would accumulate and the excess charge would result in a high voltage on the antenna and feed line to it."
Again reenforcing my theory, thank you. If you're pumping electrical energy in an it isn't building up, it must be being radiated into the enviroment, or at least leaked. We already proved it isn't all coming out of the circuit and back to the positive side of the power supply, and even calculated the loss of mass that would be expected WERE ELECTRONS TO BE RADIATED IN THE FORM OF EMR. Those of us familiar with chemical batteries have long known that sealed batteries lose a small amount of mass when discharged, and gain it back when charged, This is not open for debate, it is simply fact.
Kirchhoff developed several laws relating to Electrical Networks. One is that "Charge/Current is conserved. The sum of currents flowing into a node is zero. As much flows out as flows in".
We now know current in conventional electrical networks is composed of electrons.
While Current in a loop is conserved, Power may be radiated. Applied engineering uses the concept of "Radiation Resistance". Prad = Rr * I^2.
While dRr = k (dl/dLambda)^2
Lambda = c/f. Thus, a relatively short filament of current adds little radiation resistance loss. Regardless, some EM energy is radiated from a short filament of alternating current. Though, negligible relative to Rs * I^2 at relatively low frequencies. Where Rs is due to bulk resistivity of a practical conductor.
In fact, even Maxwell's Displacement Current would radiate power if varying with time. No charged particles are required for the Displacement Current.
"Similar trails apply to 'transistors', integrated circuits, etc. All were developed with standard physical theories. Much more than experiments, the modern world depends on these high technology devices."
RWH: Isn't it odd that we can learn to use these technologies, even repair them, but how many of you actually KNOW how it works?
Sold state circuits can be very complex, no one understands all the details.
In fact, I took a course in Integrated Courses in grad school. We used a Motorola book, written five years after Kirby invented the IC (1959). A year later the guy working next to me at Hewlett Packard had a 'breadboard' with 5000 MOS transistors hand wired together. Once it was working, the LSI IC's were designed and manufactured. Much more advanced than what could be purchased at that time.
While I haven't worked directly in 'Solid State Physics', I've been fairly close to some of the developments. From my viewpoint, everything 'hangs together'.
"Kirchhoff developed several laws relating to Electrical Networks. One is that "Charge/Current is conserved. The sum of currents flowing into a node is zero. As much flows out as flows in.
We now know current in conventional electrical networks is composed of electrons.
While Current in a loop is conserved, Power may be radiated. Applied engineering uses the concept of "Radiation Resistance". Prad = Rr * I^2.
RWH: You have to understand the difficulty in measuring the loss of mass involved in the emission of electrons as emr. Kirchoff would have had difficult even measuring such small mass losses.
I'll agree that EM radiation involves an Energy-Mass transfer. Photons have Energy = hv, which is also equal to delta m/c^2. Thus, photons have mass and momentum. They create a force on the surface they fall on. Small, but measurable.
An electron has a rest mass (about 511,000 eV), and an additional mass due to the potential (voltage) it has been accelerated through. Equal to qV/c^2.
The flow of electrons through the fictitious Radiation Resistance reduces their energy; a voltage is developed: V=I*Rr. The number of electrons is not changed, charge is conserved.
It's hard to relate EM waves to streams of photons. Regardless, many experiments have shown the duality. Of course, particles also have properties of waves. Implemented in the Electron Microscope.
RWH: MOST of the energy emr transmits is a product of it's light speed linear velocity and especially it's frequency of waveform oscilation . At these velocities and frequencies of oscilation, even tiny masses contain high kenetic energies. If you think about it, an electron following a waveform in an overall linear fashion is actually going further in reality than it is in a straight line from point a to point b.
Yes, I see that. But don't believe electrons are intimately associated with EM waves.
RWH: The loss of mass caused by the emission of emr is very small and hard to measure, and has frequently written off as experimental error or defective equipment. Also, an atom which has lost an electron and radiated it as emr is "eager" to absorb another, and any emr present will quickly provide it. If you rapidly discharge a sealed battery it WILL lose a tiny amount of mass, and when you recharge it it WILL regain this mass. Again, this phenomenon has been demonstrated over and over. The losses in mass are measured in ten thousandths of a gram in a small battery, or hundreths of a gram in the case of a lvery arge battery, an easy amount to overlook or write off as irrelevant or error.
Discharge an ideal 'battery' and its mass decreases. By delta E/c^2. However, the change in mass of chemical (in this case, electrochemical) processes is generally too small to measure.
Consider a 'AA' NiMH cell. It might provide 2A for 1 hr at 1.2 V. About 9,000 J.
Mass decreases by 9e3/9e16. 1.0 e-13 kgm. Way to small to measure.
My degrees are in Electrical Engineering (Electronics), and virtually everything I learned in college, properly applied, works. While I'm hardly an expert in E&M, I have taken many semesters of courses that involve the theory.
QUOTE
................... The fact that I can find no real flaw in this THEORY and niether can anyone else in itself MAKES IT LIGITAMATE AS SUCH, since experimental techniques exist which could easily disprove it IF IT WERE FALSE.
Because experimentation cannot be manipulated to show a theory is false does not disqualify it as a possibility, ON THE CONTRARY.
The fact remains that if the scientific method is applied consistently to determining the viability of my "hypothesis" versus the one "mainstream science" (dumbed down acadamia) continuously misrepresents as fact, my THEORY would be adopted immeadiately by most physicists.
Your theory flies in the face of everything known since Maxwell. Maxwell's equations show that EM radiation is due to acceleration of charge. The electron wasn't even known at that time.
Hertz showed that EM radiation does exist at much lower frequencies than light. Around 1876.
Marconi received a Nobel Prize for his 'invention' of Radio. Did you know that low frequency radio energy can be generated by an AC alternator? One with a lot of pole pairs to increase the AC frequency.
The Navy uses TACAMO to communicate with undersea submarines. Frequencies below 60 Hz were planned at one time. With 'antennas' covering much of Northern Wisconsin.
Radio does not depend on electron shell jumps to radiate EM waves (photons, electrons, by your theory). All it requires is acceleration of charge in a long enough antenna for efficient radiation to occur. Yes, the charge is composed of electrons, but 'what goes in comes out'. Otherwise, charge would accumulate and the excess charge would result in a high voltage on the antenna and feed line to it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
................... The fact that I can find no real flaw in this THEORY and niether can anyone else in itself MAKES IT LIGITAMATE AS SUCH, since experimental techniques exist which could easily disprove it IF IT WERE FALSE. Because experimentation cannot be manipulated to show a theory is false does not disqualify it as a possibility, ON THE CONTRARY. The fact remains that if the scientific method is applied consistently to determining the viability of my "hypothesis" versus the one "mainstream science" (dumbed down acadamia) continuously misrepresents as fact, my THEORY would be adopted immeadiately by most physicists. |
Your theory flies in the face of everything known since Maxwell. Maxwell's equations show that EM radiation is due to acceleration of charge. The electron wasn't even known at that time.
Hertz showed that EM radiation does exist at much lower frequencies than light. Around 1876.
Marconi received a Nobel Prize for his 'invention' of Radio. Did you know that low frequency radio energy can be generated by an AC alternator? One with a lot of pole pairs to increase the AC frequency.
The Navy uses TACAMO to communicate with undersea submarines. Frequencies below 60 Hz were planned at one time. With 'antennas' covering much of Northern Wisconsin.
Radio does not depend on electron shell jumps to radiate EM waves (photons, electrons, by your theory). All it requires is acceleration of charge in a long enough antenna for efficient radiation to occur. Yes, the charge is composed of electrons, but 'what goes in comes out'. Otherwise, charge would accumulate and the excess charge would result in a high voltage on the antenna and feed line to it.
Let's face it, if it [the nature of electromagnetic energy] really is as simple as I claim, and it is, then the vast majority of modern subatomic physics is nothing more than an elaborate, complex and self perpetuating faith based deception, a science fiction known as such by a few, yet presented as science fact to the student of physics. This is how you were brainwashed . .....
Also, I assume engineering students.
Who depend on physics based theories to create "things of use to humans". For some reason, such things generally work. In spite of the "brainwashing received in college".
QUOTE
.............................
The fact that interstellar space travel IS possible should be somewhat obvious to you by now, since the computer you are sitting in front of contains technology from either out of this timeline (possible) or off this world. It would be an admission of undeniable stupidity to claim the technological advancements made in the last 50 years all orinated withen the minds of twentieth century humans. So we went from horse driven carraiges to supercomputers in 100 yearss all on out own, correct?
................
Sounds like you have been reading too much fiction from guys like Lt Colonel Corso. Who claimed he was involved in seeding technology from Roswell.
Fact it, there is a strong paper trail describing the development of sold state devices such as transistors and integrated circuits. Also, for the Maser and Laser. No 'alien technology' is required. Further it would be very difficult to get much of anything from technology just a few decades ahead of what humans currently have.
Charles H. Towns developed the Maser in 1953, this lead to the Laser in 1960. Even Wikipedia has quite a bit of detail on the development. Similar trails apply to 'transistors', integrated circuits, etc. All were developed with standard physical theories. Much more than experiments, the modern world depends on these high technology devices.
"My degrees are in Electrical Engineering (Electronics), and virtually everything I learned in college, properly applied, works."
It couldn't possibly be that though much of the conventional knowledge you aquired is solid, the theory behind some of it is not. As I stated before, I could devise a formula to accurately determine the velocity of a vehicle by how many bowling allies it goes by in an hour, but it doesn't mean bowling allies have anyhting to do with velocity!
"While I'm hardly an expert in E&M, I have taken many semesters of courses that involve the theory."
Where you were drilled with theories and forced to state them as fact to pass the course, correct?
Where I'm from we call that brainwashing. If you fail to respond as desired, negative reenforcement is used to "correct" your ways, and you fail the course or test.
"Your theory flies in the face of everything known since Maxwell. "
No sir, not what we've known, but what some of us have theorized.
The fact that my new theory conflicts with these theories I have clearly stated myself. So does that automatically make me worng?
"Maxwell's equations show that EM radiation is due to acceleration of charge. The electron wasn't even known at that time. "
And Maxwells' ORIGINAL unedited work backed up my theory 100%
"Hertz showed that EM radiation does exist at much lower frequencies than light. Around 1876."
And that proves what? SO WHAT!
"Marconi received a Nobel Prize for his 'invention' of Radio. "
Marconi did not invent radio, many people working together sis.
"Did you know that low frequency radio energy can be generated by an AC alternator?"
Yes, in fact this is actually an "experiment " that helps reenforce my theory, an alternator produces ac current, which in turn produces EMR in a corresponding frequency.
"One with a lot of pole pairs to increase the AC frequency.
The Navy uses TACAMO to communicate with undersea submarines. Frequencies below 60 Hz were planned at one time. With 'antennas' covering much of Northern Wisconsin. "
Again, how is THIS relavant to your mission of disproving my theory?
"Radio does not depend on electron shell jumps to radiate EM waves (photons, electrons, by your theory). All it requires is acceleration of charge in a long enough antenna for efficient radiation to occur."
And that "charge" is negative, is it not? WHY YES! and guess where it gets the negative charge from?
" Yes, the charge is composed of electrons, but 'what goes in comes out'. Otherwise, charge would accumulate and the excess charge would result in a high voltage on the antenna and feed line to it."
Again reenforcing my theory, thank you. If you're pumping electrical energy in an it isn't building up, it must be being radiated into the enviroment, or at least leaked. We already proved it isn't all coming out of the circuit and back to the positive side of the power supply, and even calculated the loss of mass that would be expected WERE ELECTRONS TO BE RADIATED IN THE FORM OF EMR. Those of us familiar with chemical batteries have long known that sealed batteries lose a small amount of mass when discharged, and gain it back when charged, This is not open for debate, it is simply fact.
Remember, I have thought out all of this for years, it's not going to be that easy to disprove it. I'm not trying to baffle you with bullshit, I don't have to. Whether my idea is right or wrong , it certainly is not such an attempt at confusing you to the point where it is impossible to disprove, this new theory is simple. Perhaps the problem you have with believeing it is that YOU actually understand it, and it makes sense, unlike the other photon theory. Its kind of like the old adage you don't think a club that would have you is worth joining!
"Also, I assume engineering students. [were brainwashed]
Some of us were I am sure, and some engineers apply such theories to the detriment of the humans that use the devices they develop. But remember, most of the information and knowledge we depend on as mechanical engineers is science fact, not theory. The same applies to electrical engineering. The quantum theory doesn't have t be true for ANY of your develpments to work.
"Who depend on physics based theories to create "things of use to humans". For some reason, such things generally work. In spite of the "brainwashing received in college".
They work because engineers make them work during the research and development stage, and "things" do not always go as predicted.
"Sounds like you have been reading too much fiction from guys like Lt Colonel Corso. Who claimed he was involved in seeding technology from Roswell."
Never heard of him, and I don't have any preconcieved notions about what happened at Roswell. I feel Roswell was a red herring, personally. "THEY" ( you know, the same "they" that exploits the rest of the human race with technology) don't want us to know the tech was GIVEN to "THEM", for whatever reason, but the fact that it was is clearly evident when all the facts are known. You do not know the facts. Research the origins of Texas Instruments, and it should become quite clear to you this WAS NOT ordinary research and development..
"Fact it, there is a strong paper trail describing the development of sold state devices such as transistors and integrated circuits."
And why not? If the tech was provided, why not the background on it? Reverse engineering COULD have determined these facts independant of "alien" help at any rate.
" Also, for the Maser and Laser. "
Which work by making coherent waveforms of light, which even further reenforces my theory. In fact ALL of the observations point to it's being correct, though these observations are consistently misinterpreted.
"No 'alien technology' is required. Further it would be very difficult to get much of anything from technology just a few decades ahead of what humans currently have. "
The hard drive in your computer represents a technological advancement of perhaps five hundred years over what we knew in 1900. I'm sorry to say if you cannot percieve this fact , our dialogue here is practically useless.
"Charles H. Towns developed the Maser in 1953, this lead to the Laser in 1960. "
The laser an maser are infinitley less complex than the motherboard on a computer, or even one minor IC flowgate.
In fact, they are not out of line with normal technological advancement, like miniaturized intergrated circuits are.
"Even Wikipedia has quite a bit of detail on the development. "
Since Wikepedia has been found and proven to be an unreliable source of information that can e altered at will by it's users, I am suprized you would cite it's credibility as backing your contentions.
"Similar trails apply to 'transistors', integrated circuits, etc. All were developed with standard physical theories. Much more than experiments, the modern world depends on these high technology devices."
Isn't it odd that we can learn to use these technologies, even repair them, but how many of you actually KNOW how it works?
It couldn't possibly be that though much of the conventional knowledge you aquired is solid, the theory behind some of it is not. As I stated before, I could devise a formula to accurately determine the velocity of a vehicle by how many bowling allies it goes by in an hour, but it doesn't mean bowling allies have anyhting to do with velocity!
"While I'm hardly an expert in E&M, I have taken many semesters of courses that involve the theory."
Where you were drilled with theories and forced to state them as fact to pass the course, correct?
Where I'm from we call that brainwashing. If you fail to respond as desired, negative reenforcement is used to "correct" your ways, and you fail the course or test.
"Your theory flies in the face of everything known since Maxwell. "
No sir, not what we've known, but what some of us have theorized.
The fact that my new theory conflicts with these theories I have clearly stated myself. So does that automatically make me worng?
"Maxwell's equations show that EM radiation is due to acceleration of charge. The electron wasn't even known at that time. "
And Maxwells' ORIGINAL unedited work backed up my theory 100%
"Hertz showed that EM radiation does exist at much lower frequencies than light. Around 1876."
And that proves what? SO WHAT!
"Marconi received a Nobel Prize for his 'invention' of Radio. "
Marconi did not invent radio, many people working together sis.
"Did you know that low frequency radio energy can be generated by an AC alternator?"
Yes, in fact this is actually an "experiment " that helps reenforce my theory, an alternator produces ac current, which in turn produces EMR in a corresponding frequency.
"One with a lot of pole pairs to increase the AC frequency.
The Navy uses TACAMO to communicate with undersea submarines. Frequencies below 60 Hz were planned at one time. With 'antennas' covering much of Northern Wisconsin. "
Again, how is THIS relavant to your mission of disproving my theory?
"Radio does not depend on electron shell jumps to radiate EM waves (photons, electrons, by your theory). All it requires is acceleration of charge in a long enough antenna for efficient radiation to occur."
And that "charge" is negative, is it not? WHY YES! and guess where it gets the negative charge from?
" Yes, the charge is composed of electrons, but 'what goes in comes out'. Otherwise, charge would accumulate and the excess charge would result in a high voltage on the antenna and feed line to it."
Again reenforcing my theory, thank you. If you're pumping electrical energy in an it isn't building up, it must be being radiated into the enviroment, or at least leaked. We already proved it isn't all coming out of the circuit and back to the positive side of the power supply, and even calculated the loss of mass that would be expected WERE ELECTRONS TO BE RADIATED IN THE FORM OF EMR. Those of us familiar with chemical batteries have long known that sealed batteries lose a small amount of mass when discharged, and gain it back when charged, This is not open for debate, it is simply fact.
Remember, I have thought out all of this for years, it's not going to be that easy to disprove it. I'm not trying to baffle you with bullshit, I don't have to. Whether my idea is right or wrong , it certainly is not such an attempt at confusing you to the point where it is impossible to disprove, this new theory is simple. Perhaps the problem you have with believeing it is that YOU actually understand it, and it makes sense, unlike the other photon theory. Its kind of like the old adage you don't think a club that would have you is worth joining!
"Also, I assume engineering students. [were brainwashed]
Some of us were I am sure, and some engineers apply such theories to the detriment of the humans that use the devices they develop. But remember, most of the information and knowledge we depend on as mechanical engineers is science fact, not theory. The same applies to electrical engineering. The quantum theory doesn't have t be true for ANY of your develpments to work.
"Who depend on physics based theories to create "things of use to humans". For some reason, such things generally work. In spite of the "brainwashing received in college".
They work because engineers make them work during the research and development stage, and "things" do not always go as predicted.
"Sounds like you have been reading too much fiction from guys like Lt Colonel Corso. Who claimed he was involved in seeding technology from Roswell."
Never heard of him, and I don't have any preconcieved notions about what happened at Roswell. I feel Roswell was a red herring, personally. "THEY" ( you know, the same "they" that exploits the rest of the human race with technology) don't want us to know the tech was GIVEN to "THEM", for whatever reason, but the fact that it was is clearly evident when all the facts are known. You do not know the facts. Research the origins of Texas Instruments, and it should become quite clear to you this WAS NOT ordinary research and development..
"Fact it, there is a strong paper trail describing the development of sold state devices such as transistors and integrated circuits."
And why not? If the tech was provided, why not the background on it? Reverse engineering COULD have determined these facts independant of "alien" help at any rate.
" Also, for the Maser and Laser. "
Which work by making coherent waveforms of light, which even further reenforces my theory. In fact ALL of the observations point to it's being correct, though these observations are consistently misinterpreted.
"No 'alien technology' is required. Further it would be very difficult to get much of anything from technology just a few decades ahead of what humans currently have. "
The hard drive in your computer represents a technological advancement of perhaps five hundred years over what we knew in 1900. I'm sorry to say if you cannot percieve this fact , our dialogue here is practically useless.
"Charles H. Towns developed the Maser in 1953, this lead to the Laser in 1960. "
The laser an maser are infinitley less complex than the motherboard on a computer, or even one minor IC flowgate.
In fact, they are not out of line with normal technological advancement, like miniaturized intergrated circuits are.
"Even Wikipedia has quite a bit of detail on the development. "
Since Wikepedia has been found and proven to be an unreliable source of information that can e altered at will by it's users, I am suprized you would cite it's credibility as backing your contentions.
"Similar trails apply to 'transistors', integrated circuits, etc. All were developed with standard physical theories. Much more than experiments, the modern world depends on these high technology devices."
Isn't it odd that we can learn to use these technologies, even repair them, but how many of you actually KNOW how it works?
Hi Robert...and everyone else...
For a theory to be of value it must possess utility, that is it must point to new and novel experiments or inventions as well as explaining the empiricism of the old. When the utility of the theory is hopeful or proven, then others will strive to understand the mechanics behind it.
Far too frequently we are bombarded with a concordia of theories espousing a better explanation than another for known effects... but missing that essential ingredient.. utility, without which, the arguments become moot at best... just a debate about who can paint the prettiest picture.
So this is my question... "Where is the utility in your theory?" Regards
For a theory to be of value it must possess utility, that is it must point to new and novel experiments or inventions as well as explaining the empiricism of the old. When the utility of the theory is hopeful or proven, then others will strive to understand the mechanics behind it.
Far too frequently we are bombarded with a concordia of theories espousing a better explanation than another for known effects... but missing that essential ingredient.. utility, without which, the arguments become moot at best... just a debate about who can paint the prettiest picture.
So this is my question... "Where is the utility in your theory?" Regards
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 21 2006, 11:25 PM)
"Radio does not depend on electron shell jumps to radiate EM waves (photons, electrons, by your theory). All it requires is acceleration of charge in a long enough antenna for efficient radiation to occur."
And that "charge" is negative, is it not? WHY YES! and guess where it gets the negative charge from?
" Yes, the charge is composed of electrons, but 'what goes in comes out'. Otherwise, charge would accumulate and the excess charge would result in a high voltage on the antenna and feed line to it."
Again reenforcing my theory, thank you. If you're pumping electrical energy in an it isn't building up, it must be being radiated into the enviroment, or at least leaked. We already proved it isn't all coming out of the circuit and back to the positive side of the power supply, and even calculated the loss of mass that would be expected WERE ELECTRONS TO BE RADIATED IN THE FORM OF EMR. Those of us familiar with chemical batteries have long known that sealed batteries lose a small amount of mass when discharged, and gain it back when charged, This is not open for debate, it is simply fact.
Kirchhoff developed several laws relating to Electrical Networks. One is that "Charge/Current is conserved. The sum of currents flowing into a node is zero. As much flows out as flows in".
We now know current in conventional electrical networks is composed of electrons.
While Current in a loop is conserved, Power may be radiated. Applied engineering uses the concept of "Radiation Resistance". Prad = Rr * I^2.
While dRr = k (dl/dLambda)^2
Lambda = c/f. Thus, a relatively short filament of current adds little radiation resistance loss. Regardless, some EM energy is radiated from a short filament of alternating current. Though, negligible relative to Rs * I^2 at relatively low frequencies. Where Rs is due to bulk resistivity of a practical conductor.
In fact, even Maxwell's Displacement Current would radiate power if varying with time. No charged particles are required for the Displacement Current.
"Similar trails apply to 'transistors', integrated circuits, etc. All were developed with standard physical theories. Much more than experiments, the modern world depends on these high technology devices."
RWH: Isn't it odd that we can learn to use these technologies, even repair them, but how many of you actually KNOW how it works?
Sold state circuits can be very complex, no one understands all the details.
In fact, I took a course in Integrated Courses in grad school. We used a Motorola book, written five years after Kirby invented the IC (1959). A year later the guy working next to me at Hewlett Packard had a 'breadboard' with 5000 MOS transistors hand wired together. Once it was working, the LSI IC's were designed and manufactured. Much more advanced than what could be purchased at that time.
While I haven't worked directly in 'Solid State Physics', I've been fairly close to some of the developments. From my viewpoint, everything 'hangs together'.
Hi Robert...and everyone else...
Greetings.
"For a theory to be of value it must possess utility, that is it must point to new and novel experiments or inventions as well as explaining the empiricism of the old."
Many already existing electronic inventions are made possible by the basic concepts described in my theory. Proving this new theory by experimentation should be easily accomplished. I believe the key to proving it beyond absolute doubt is simply to apply what we have already learned to doing so, and by re examining our previous experimental results from a different perspective, without the preconcieved notion that photons are an absolute reality. For instance many previously noted observations which could never be explained by quantum theory are explained by mine,l ike the loss of mass which occurs in chemical batteries when they are discharged by electromagnetic emitters, and how they gain it back when recharged. If the mass of the theoretical electrons emitted as emr matches the loss of mass in the batteries, that would be a damned good indication we were on to something. I believe this new theory will eventually lead to many new inventions once it is recognised for what it is, the most likely contender among the emr theories and the theory that if applied to research will lead to a new energy source of previously unimaginable proportions, one that will most certainly change our world. If that is not utility, I don't know waht is.
"When the utility of the theory is hopeful or proven, then others will strive to understand the mechanics behind it. "
I was hoping to get some help with my research here, and in a way you have helped me. I personally function best under critical examination, and pressure from my peers to prove my ideas. I hope you will accept me as your peer , though I am obviously not in your "camp" as it were. Perhaps we can even work together to prove (or disprove) the electro-mechanical theory of emr. Perhaps we can collectively devise a series of experiments which could point toward an answer. All I am asking is for you to CONSIDER my theory, not swallow it without tasting it.
.
"Far too frequently we are bombarded with a concordia of theories espousing a better explanation than another for known effects... but missing that essential ingredient.. utility, without which, the arguments become moot at best... just a debate about who can paint the prettiest picture."
Yes, I agree.
Though many inventions are made possible by the principals described in my theory, this is not neccessarily known to thier inventors. You don't neccessarilly have to know precisely how something works to make it work.
We two pieces of flint together long enough over some tinder we can make fire. Some caveman might then proclaim "rocks make fire", and who could deny it!
. One things for sure, we know from that point forward that if we hit two pieces of flint together long enough they will ignite tinder. We don't HAVE to know why, and though we could reach many conclusions as to why, when we strike too pieces of flint together in the presence of tinder a fire will be the result . This will happen irregardless of why or what we precieve as why..What I am saying is that the "utility" is already there, in the telivision downstairs and the cell phone on your hip.
"So this is my question... "Where is the utility in your theory?" Regards "
I am working on it, and though my resources are quite limited and my "staff" practically non existant, I am making significant progress. Inventions are frequently stolen by unscrupulous individuals. This new idea I am working on belongs to all of us. I really don't care if anyone "steals" it.
Greetings.
"For a theory to be of value it must possess utility, that is it must point to new and novel experiments or inventions as well as explaining the empiricism of the old."
Many already existing electronic inventions are made possible by the basic concepts described in my theory. Proving this new theory by experimentation should be easily accomplished. I believe the key to proving it beyond absolute doubt is simply to apply what we have already learned to doing so, and by re examining our previous experimental results from a different perspective, without the preconcieved notion that photons are an absolute reality. For instance many previously noted observations which could never be explained by quantum theory are explained by mine,l ike the loss of mass which occurs in chemical batteries when they are discharged by electromagnetic emitters, and how they gain it back when recharged. If the mass of the theoretical electrons emitted as emr matches the loss of mass in the batteries, that would be a damned good indication we were on to something. I believe this new theory will eventually lead to many new inventions once it is recognised for what it is, the most likely contender among the emr theories and the theory that if applied to research will lead to a new energy source of previously unimaginable proportions, one that will most certainly change our world. If that is not utility, I don't know waht is.
"When the utility of the theory is hopeful or proven, then others will strive to understand the mechanics behind it. "
I was hoping to get some help with my research here, and in a way you have helped me. I personally function best under critical examination, and pressure from my peers to prove my ideas. I hope you will accept me as your peer , though I am obviously not in your "camp" as it were. Perhaps we can even work together to prove (or disprove) the electro-mechanical theory of emr. Perhaps we can collectively devise a series of experiments which could point toward an answer. All I am asking is for you to CONSIDER my theory, not swallow it without tasting it.
.
"Far too frequently we are bombarded with a concordia of theories espousing a better explanation than another for known effects... but missing that essential ingredient.. utility, without which, the arguments become moot at best... just a debate about who can paint the prettiest picture."
Yes, I agree.
Though many inventions are made possible by the principals described in my theory, this is not neccessarily known to thier inventors. You don't neccessarilly have to know precisely how something works to make it work.
We two pieces of flint together long enough over some tinder we can make fire. Some caveman might then proclaim "rocks make fire", and who could deny it!
. One things for sure, we know from that point forward that if we hit two pieces of flint together long enough they will ignite tinder. We don't HAVE to know why, and though we could reach many conclusions as to why, when we strike too pieces of flint together in the presence of tinder a fire will be the result . This will happen irregardless of why or what we precieve as why..What I am saying is that the "utility" is already there, in the telivision downstairs and the cell phone on your hip.
"So this is my question... "Where is the utility in your theory?" Regards "
I am working on it, and though my resources are quite limited and my "staff" practically non existant, I am making significant progress. Inventions are frequently stolen by unscrupulous individuals. This new idea I am working on belongs to all of us. I really don't care if anyone "steals" it.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 22 2006, 11:09 AM)
Many already existing electronic inventions are made possible by the basic concepts described in my theory....
Which ones? Does your theory predict some new/unknown testable phenomenas?
Which ones? Does your theory predict some new/unknown testable phenomenas?
"Kirchhoff developed several laws relating to Electrical Networks. One is that "Charge/Current is conserved. The sum of currents flowing into a node is zero. As much flows out as flows in.
We now know current in conventional electrical networks is composed of electrons.
While Current in a loop is conserved, Power may be radiated. Applied engineering uses the concept of "Radiation Resistance". Prad = Rr * I^2.
You have to understand the difficulty in measuring the loss of mass involved in the emission of electrons as emr. Kirchoff would have had difficult even measuring such small mass losses.
MOST of the energy emr transmits is a product of it's light speed linear velocity and especially it's frequency of waveform oscilation . At these velocities and frequencies of oscilation, even tiny masses contain high kenetic energies. If you think about it, an electron following a waveform in an overall linear fashion is actually going further in reality than it is in a straight line from point a to point b. If you have two cars that need to travel 100 miles and one can go in a straight line and the other must travel a curved road, the car going down the curved road must actually go faster to reach the destination simulaneously with the car going down the straight road. Which car has more KE?
This is why high frequency electrons measure higher energy levels., because they are ACTUALLY moving well beyond the LINEAR point a to point b speed of light along a waveform, and not in reality in a straight line. The higher the frequency, the further they are actually going while traversing whatever linear distance they cross.
.The loss of mass caused by the emission of emr is very small and hard to measure, and has frequently written off as experimental error or defective equipment. Also, an atom which has lost an electron and radiated it as emr is "eager" to absorb another, and any emr present will quickly provide it. If you rapidly discharge a sealed battery it WILL lose a tiny amount of mass, and when you recharge it it WILL regain this mass. Again, this phenomenon has been demonstrated over and over. The losses in mass are measured in ten thousandths of a gram in a small battery, or hundreths of a gram in the case of a lvery arge battery, an easy amount to overlook or write off as irrelevant or error.
We now know current in conventional electrical networks is composed of electrons.
While Current in a loop is conserved, Power may be radiated. Applied engineering uses the concept of "Radiation Resistance". Prad = Rr * I^2.
You have to understand the difficulty in measuring the loss of mass involved in the emission of electrons as emr. Kirchoff would have had difficult even measuring such small mass losses.
MOST of the energy emr transmits is a product of it's light speed linear velocity and especially it's frequency of waveform oscilation . At these velocities and frequencies of oscilation, even tiny masses contain high kenetic energies. If you think about it, an electron following a waveform in an overall linear fashion is actually going further in reality than it is in a straight line from point a to point b. If you have two cars that need to travel 100 miles and one can go in a straight line and the other must travel a curved road, the car going down the curved road must actually go faster to reach the destination simulaneously with the car going down the straight road. Which car has more KE?
This is why high frequency electrons measure higher energy levels., because they are ACTUALLY moving well beyond the LINEAR point a to point b speed of light along a waveform, and not in reality in a straight line. The higher the frequency, the further they are actually going while traversing whatever linear distance they cross.
.The loss of mass caused by the emission of emr is very small and hard to measure, and has frequently written off as experimental error or defective equipment. Also, an atom which has lost an electron and radiated it as emr is "eager" to absorb another, and any emr present will quickly provide it. If you rapidly discharge a sealed battery it WILL lose a tiny amount of mass, and when you recharge it it WILL regain this mass. Again, this phenomenon has been demonstrated over and over. The losses in mass are measured in ten thousandths of a gram in a small battery, or hundreths of a gram in the case of a lvery arge battery, an easy amount to overlook or write off as irrelevant or error.
"Which ones? Does your theory predict some new/unknown testable phenomenas?"
I think we are collectively on the verge of a tremendous discovery that will rewrite physics beyond Maxwell.
I am a spark and you are a catalyst, and the facts are the fuel.
I also think this new discover will inevitably lead to a power source of previously unimaginable proportions. Have patience. you should live to see it.
I think we are collectively on the verge of a tremendous discovery that will rewrite physics beyond Maxwell.
I am a spark and you are a catalyst, and the facts are the fuel.
I also think this new discover will inevitably lead to a power source of previously unimaginable proportions. Have patience. you should live to see it.
it is 3 am here ,and I am mentally exhausted. I will respond further when I am able.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 22 2006, 08:50 AM)
"Kirchhoff developed several laws relating to Electrical Networks. One is that "Charge/Current is conserved. The sum of currents flowing into a node is zero. As much flows out as flows in.
We now know current in conventional electrical networks is composed of electrons.
While Current in a loop is conserved, Power may be radiated. Applied engineering uses the concept of "Radiation Resistance". Prad = Rr * I^2.
RWH: You have to understand the difficulty in measuring the loss of mass involved in the emission of electrons as emr. Kirchoff would have had difficult even measuring such small mass losses.
I'll agree that EM radiation involves an Energy-Mass transfer. Photons have Energy = hv, which is also equal to delta m/c^2. Thus, photons have mass and momentum. They create a force on the surface they fall on. Small, but measurable.
An electron has a rest mass (about 511,000 eV), and an additional mass due to the potential (voltage) it has been accelerated through. Equal to qV/c^2.
The flow of electrons through the fictitious Radiation Resistance reduces their energy; a voltage is developed: V=I*Rr. The number of electrons is not changed, charge is conserved.
It's hard to relate EM waves to streams of photons. Regardless, many experiments have shown the duality. Of course, particles also have properties of waves. Implemented in the Electron Microscope.
RWH: MOST of the energy emr transmits is a product of it's light speed linear velocity and especially it's frequency of waveform oscilation . At these velocities and frequencies of oscilation, even tiny masses contain high kenetic energies. If you think about it, an electron following a waveform in an overall linear fashion is actually going further in reality than it is in a straight line from point a to point b.
Yes, I see that. But don't believe electrons are intimately associated with EM waves.
RWH: The loss of mass caused by the emission of emr is very small and hard to measure, and has frequently written off as experimental error or defective equipment. Also, an atom which has lost an electron and radiated it as emr is "eager" to absorb another, and any emr present will quickly provide it. If you rapidly discharge a sealed battery it WILL lose a tiny amount of mass, and when you recharge it it WILL regain this mass. Again, this phenomenon has been demonstrated over and over. The losses in mass are measured in ten thousandths of a gram in a small battery, or hundreths of a gram in the case of a lvery arge battery, an easy amount to overlook or write off as irrelevant or error.
Discharge an ideal 'battery' and its mass decreases. By delta E/c^2. However, the change in mass of chemical (in this case, electrochemical) processes is generally too small to measure.
Consider a 'AA' NiMH cell. It might provide 2A for 1 hr at 1.2 V. About 9,000 J.
Mass decreases by 9e3/9e16. 1.0 e-13 kgm. Way to small to measure.
"I'll agree that EM radiation involves an Energy-Mass transfer. "
Then you are forced by your own reasoning to discard the photon as a viable component of light.
Einstein claimed mass simply does not exist at light speeds. If you are agreeing that a mass transfer is involved, you are basically reaching the point in your reasoning I did 29 years ago .
"Photons have Energy = hv, which is also equal to delta m/c^2. Thus, photons have mass and momentum. "
So which is it, do photons have mass or not? If mass cannot exist at light speed , and is converted to pure energy, WTH happens to that mass? Is it not a basic law of science that matter can niether be created nor destroyed? When was that law disproven? Are photons like the elite, in that they are not required to abide in the law?
"They create a force on the surface they fall on. Small, but measurable."
Yes , they do, and if you were to attempt to create any force without mass, you'd find yourself wasting your time.
"An electron has a rest mass (about 511,000 eV), and an additional mass due to the potential (voltage) it has been accelerated through. Equal to qV/c^2. "
And that is where your emr "force" comes from. Most of the energy of course is stored in the oscialtion of the particale, so linear acceleration of the surfaces they strike is not much of a factor.
"The flow of electrons through the fictitious Radiation Resistance reduces their energy; a voltage is developed: V=I*Rr. The number of electrons is not changed, charge is conserved. "
Not exactly, but since you're the electrical engineer, I won't argue the point with you.
"It's hard to relate EM waves to streams of photons. Regardless, many experiments have shown the duality. Of course, particles also have properties of waves. Implemented in the Electron Microscope."
What if the reason they have both the properties of a particle and a wave because they are like as I stated, a particle moving from point a to point b in a wave?
[RWH: MOST of the energy emr transmits is a product of it's light speed linear velocity and especially it's frequency of waveform oscilation . At these velocities and frequencies of oscilation, even tiny masses contain high kenetic energies. If you think about it, an electron following a waveform in an overall linear fashion is actually going further in reality than it is in a straight line from point a to point b. ]
"Yes, I see that. But don't believe electrons are intimately associated with EM waves. "
What you believe is not important. it is what you know that you must rely on. If we build theory upon theory , we could become sidetracked (like we are) ,and make no real progress.
[RWH: The loss of mass caused by the emission of emr is very small and hard to measure, and has frequently written off as experimental error or defective equipment. Also, an atom which has lost an electron and radiated it as emr is "eager" to absorb another, and any emr present will quickly provide it. If you rapidly discharge a sealed battery it WILL lose a tiny amount of mass, and when you recharge it it WILL regain this mass. Again, this phenomenon has been demonstrated over and over. The losses in mass are measured in ten thousandths of a gram in a small battery, or hundreths of a gram in the case of a lvery arge battery, an easy amount to overlook or write off as irrelevant or error.]
"Discharge an ideal 'battery' and its mass decreases. By delta E/c^2. However, the change in mass of chemical (in this case, electrochemical) processes is generally too small to measure."
It's odd that if you calculate the electron loss in an emr emitter, the result is ALMOST the same as if you calculate it using Einsteins basic energy/mass conversion formula .
[Consider a 'AA' NiMH cell. It might provide 2A for 1 hr at 1.2 V. About 9,000 J.
Mass decreases by 9e3/9e16. 1.0 e-13 kgm. Way to small to measure.]
I don't blame you for believing that fairy tale we were all taught, people believe what they are taught from the beginiing by people they trust, especially as children, and they are quite reluctant to give up these faith based ideas. Einstein is presented to children by the media and acadamia as a virtually unimpeachable god of science.
Somewhat like a religion, isn't it.
Then you are forced by your own reasoning to discard the photon as a viable component of light.
Einstein claimed mass simply does not exist at light speeds. If you are agreeing that a mass transfer is involved, you are basically reaching the point in your reasoning I did 29 years ago .
"Photons have Energy = hv, which is also equal to delta m/c^2. Thus, photons have mass and momentum. "
So which is it, do photons have mass or not? If mass cannot exist at light speed , and is converted to pure energy, WTH happens to that mass? Is it not a basic law of science that matter can niether be created nor destroyed? When was that law disproven? Are photons like the elite, in that they are not required to abide in the law?
"They create a force on the surface they fall on. Small, but measurable."
Yes , they do, and if you were to attempt to create any force without mass, you'd find yourself wasting your time.
"An electron has a rest mass (about 511,000 eV), and an additional mass due to the potential (voltage) it has been accelerated through. Equal to qV/c^2. "
And that is where your emr "force" comes from. Most of the energy of course is stored in the oscialtion of the particale, so linear acceleration of the surfaces they strike is not much of a factor.
"The flow of electrons through the fictitious Radiation Resistance reduces their energy; a voltage is developed: V=I*Rr. The number of electrons is not changed, charge is conserved. "
Not exactly, but since you're the electrical engineer, I won't argue the point with you.
"It's hard to relate EM waves to streams of photons. Regardless, many experiments have shown the duality. Of course, particles also have properties of waves. Implemented in the Electron Microscope."
What if the reason they have both the properties of a particle and a wave because they are like as I stated, a particle moving from point a to point b in a wave?
[RWH: MOST of the energy emr transmits is a product of it's light speed linear velocity and especially it's frequency of waveform oscilation . At these velocities and frequencies of oscilation, even tiny masses contain high kenetic energies. If you think about it, an electron following a waveform in an overall linear fashion is actually going further in reality than it is in a straight line from point a to point b. ]
"Yes, I see that. But don't believe electrons are intimately associated with EM waves. "
What you believe is not important. it is what you know that you must rely on. If we build theory upon theory , we could become sidetracked (like we are) ,and make no real progress.
[RWH: The loss of mass caused by the emission of emr is very small and hard to measure, and has frequently written off as experimental error or defective equipment. Also, an atom which has lost an electron and radiated it as emr is "eager" to absorb another, and any emr present will quickly provide it. If you rapidly discharge a sealed battery it WILL lose a tiny amount of mass, and when you recharge it it WILL regain this mass. Again, this phenomenon has been demonstrated over and over. The losses in mass are measured in ten thousandths of a gram in a small battery, or hundreths of a gram in the case of a lvery arge battery, an easy amount to overlook or write off as irrelevant or error.]
"Discharge an ideal 'battery' and its mass decreases. By delta E/c^2. However, the change in mass of chemical (in this case, electrochemical) processes is generally too small to measure."
It's odd that if you calculate the electron loss in an emr emitter, the result is ALMOST the same as if you calculate it using Einsteins basic energy/mass conversion formula .
[Consider a 'AA' NiMH cell. It might provide 2A for 1 hr at 1.2 V. About 9,000 J.
Mass decreases by 9e3/9e16. 1.0 e-13 kgm. Way to small to measure.]
I don't blame you for believing that fairy tale we were all taught, people believe what they are taught from the beginiing by people they trust, especially as children, and they are quite reluctant to give up these faith based ideas. Einstein is presented to children by the media and acadamia as a virtually unimpeachable god of science.
Somewhat like a religion, isn't it.
If you are getting 9000 joules out of an AA nickle metal-hydride cell you are most likely ruining it. This is a theoretical output, not actually obtainable in practice because most devices cannot function on an almost completely discharged battery.
I use these in model aeronautics and a four pack of AA's is generally good for around 10,000 joules before the voltage gets too low to operate the servos correctly.
The chargers we use have timers and metered, precise outputs.
I use these in model aeronautics and a four pack of AA's is generally good for around 10,000 joules before the voltage gets too low to operate the servos correctly.
The chargers we use have timers and metered, precise outputs.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 22 2006, 04:40 PM)
"I'll agree that EM radiation involves an Energy-Mass transfer. "
Then you are forced by your own reasoning to discard the photon as a viable component of light.
Einstein claimed mass simply does not exist at light speeds. If you are agreeing that a mass transfer is involved, you are basically reaching the point in your reasoning I did 29 years ago .
Einstein essentially invented the Photon in his 1905 'Photoelectric Effect' paper. Though I understand his original interpretation simply quantized EM waves with specific energies.
"Photons have Energy = hv, which is also equal to delta m/c^2. Thus, photons have mass and momentum. "
So which is it, do photons have mass or not? If mass cannot exist at light speed , and is converted to pure energy, WTH happens to that mass? Is it not a basic law of science that matter can niether be created nor destroyed? When was that law disproven? Are photons like the elite, in that they are not required to abide in the law?
Photons have no Rest Mass, thus they can travel at c.
"They create a force on the surface they fall on. Small, but measurable."
Yes , they do, and if you were to attempt to create any force without mass, you'd find yourself wasting your time.
Mass and Energy are just two representations of the same thing.
"The flow of electrons through the fictitious Radiation Resistance reduces their energy; a voltage is developed: V=I*Rr. The number of electrons is not changed, charge is conserved. "
Not exactly, but since you're the electrical engineer, I won't argue the point with you.
I think EM radiation occurs when part of the Induction Field around a filament of varying current gets decoupled and propagates into space. It decouples more as frequency increases (relative to length of filament).
I'll admit I never understood the math involved. Which was given in the first two courses I took in EE.
"It's hard to relate EM waves to streams of photons. Regardless, many experiments have shown the duality. Of course, particles also have properties of waves. Implemented in the Electron Microscope."
What if the reason they have both the properties of a particle and a wave because they are like as I stated, a particle moving from point a to point b in a wave?
It seems virtually impossible to visually consolidate the wave/particle nature of light. Regardless, many experiments show the different sides of the model.
Note a 10 Hz EM wave has a photon energy of 10*h. Very low. The wavelength is c/10, 30 million meters. How can only one photon of 10 Hz radiation relate to that large distance?
Just a macroscopic example of what applies at light frequencies, where a wavelength around 1000 times the diameter of an atom is generated by only one electron orbital jump.
If one substitutes an electron for the photon, one has more or less the same problem. And, many more.
Note bubble chamber images typically display many particle tracks. Electrons are very common. To balance mass-energy and momentum, photons are often invoked. And, many other particles, including neutrinos. Which were not 'directly observed' for about 25 years after their theoretical prediction.
It certainly appears to me that if your 'electron associated with EM' idea could be incorporated, then most all of the experimental evidence for 'Particle Theory' would have to be dumped.
"Discharge an ideal 'battery' and its mass decreases. By delta E/c^2. However, the change in mass of chemical (in this case, electrochemical) processes is generally too small to measure."
It's odd that if you calculate the electron loss in an emr emitter, the result is ALMOST the same as if you calculate it using Einsteins basic energy/mass conversion formula
Take a fluorescent lamp. Visible photons are emitted when electrons excited to higher energy orbitals fall back to lower energy states. The fluorescing material is not ionized, and each atom remains neutral. No electrons are gained or lost.
Then you are forced by your own reasoning to discard the photon as a viable component of light.
Einstein claimed mass simply does not exist at light speeds. If you are agreeing that a mass transfer is involved, you are basically reaching the point in your reasoning I did 29 years ago .
Einstein essentially invented the Photon in his 1905 'Photoelectric Effect' paper. Though I understand his original interpretation simply quantized EM waves with specific energies.
"Photons have Energy = hv, which is also equal to delta m/c^2. Thus, photons have mass and momentum. "
So which is it, do photons have mass or not? If mass cannot exist at light speed , and is converted to pure energy, WTH happens to that mass? Is it not a basic law of science that matter can niether be created nor destroyed? When was that law disproven? Are photons like the elite, in that they are not required to abide in the law?
Photons have no Rest Mass, thus they can travel at c.
"They create a force on the surface they fall on. Small, but measurable."
Yes , they do, and if you were to attempt to create any force without mass, you'd find yourself wasting your time.
Mass and Energy are just two representations of the same thing.
"The flow of electrons through the fictitious Radiation Resistance reduces their energy; a voltage is developed: V=I*Rr. The number of electrons is not changed, charge is conserved. "
Not exactly, but since you're the electrical engineer, I won't argue the point with you.
I think EM radiation occurs when part of the Induction Field around a filament of varying current gets decoupled and propagates into space. It decouples more as frequency increases (relative to length of filament).
I'll admit I never understood the math involved. Which was given in the first two courses I took in EE.
"It's hard to relate EM waves to streams of photons. Regardless, many experiments have shown the duality. Of course, particles also have properties of waves. Implemented in the Electron Microscope."
What if the reason they have both the properties of a particle and a wave because they are like as I stated, a particle moving from point a to point b in a wave?
It seems virtually impossible to visually consolidate the wave/particle nature of light. Regardless, many experiments show the different sides of the model.
Note a 10 Hz EM wave has a photon energy of 10*h. Very low. The wavelength is c/10, 30 million meters. How can only one photon of 10 Hz radiation relate to that large distance?
Just a macroscopic example of what applies at light frequencies, where a wavelength around 1000 times the diameter of an atom is generated by only one electron orbital jump.
If one substitutes an electron for the photon, one has more or less the same problem. And, many more.
Note bubble chamber images typically display many particle tracks. Electrons are very common. To balance mass-energy and momentum, photons are often invoked. And, many other particles, including neutrinos. Which were not 'directly observed' for about 25 years after their theoretical prediction.
It certainly appears to me that if your 'electron associated with EM' idea could be incorporated, then most all of the experimental evidence for 'Particle Theory' would have to be dumped.
"Discharge an ideal 'battery' and its mass decreases. By delta E/c^2. However, the change in mass of chemical (in this case, electrochemical) processes is generally too small to measure."
It's odd that if you calculate the electron loss in an emr emitter, the result is ALMOST the same as if you calculate it using Einsteins basic energy/mass conversion formula
Take a fluorescent lamp. Visible photons are emitted when electrons excited to higher energy orbitals fall back to lower energy states. The fluorescing material is not ionized, and each atom remains neutral. No electrons are gained or lost.
QUOTE (RAF+Mar 23 2006, 03:01 AM)
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 22 2006, 04:40 PM)
"I'll agree that EM radiation involves an Energy-Mass transfer. "
Note a 10 Hz EM wave has a photon energy of 10*h. Very low. The wavelength is c/10, 30 million meters. How can only one photon of 10 Hz radiation relate to that large distance?
Basically, if you could add speed or voltage to that photon somehow could you not then lower the distance variable or even the variables surrounding the gradual as you said slowdown of the photon. What does this photon do in theory? Goes to ground at some point?
Also could you not already use existing networks of frequencies to carry this type of a signal to make speeds as well.
Just a few questions the post sparked in my mind, basically it's adding velocity.
A key role in any type of equation of this sort.
I'm still a lil fuzzy on the math on how big a 10 hz wave is though I have checked those measurements. Now what if you could be connected somehow with something that far away. This would explain a few pagan religions with stars and cosmos and numbers and the cosmos lining up with people. This could explain a lot more.
Edited to say: Like maybe if you looked at it from the other perspective.
Do these cause.
Of course there's the if then statement that comes in.
Note a 10 Hz EM wave has a photon energy of 10*h. Very low. The wavelength is c/10, 30 million meters. How can only one photon of 10 Hz radiation relate to that large distance?
Basically, if you could add speed or voltage to that photon somehow could you not then lower the distance variable or even the variables surrounding the gradual as you said slowdown of the photon. What does this photon do in theory? Goes to ground at some point?
Also could you not already use existing networks of frequencies to carry this type of a signal to make speeds as well.
Just a few questions the post sparked in my mind, basically it's adding velocity.
A key role in any type of equation of this sort.
I'm still a lil fuzzy on the math on how big a 10 hz wave is though I have checked those measurements. Now what if you could be connected somehow with something that far away. This would explain a few pagan religions with stars and cosmos and numbers and the cosmos lining up with people. This could explain a lot more.
Edited to say: Like maybe if you looked at it from the other perspective.
Do these cause.
Of course there's the if then statement that comes in.
QUOTE (Zarabtul+Mar 23 2006, 03:18 AM)
QUOTE (RAF+Mar 23 2006, 03:01 AM)
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 22 2006, 04:40 PM)
"RAF:I'll agree that EM radiation involves an Energy-Mass transfer. "
Note a 10 Hz EM wave has a photon energy of 10*h. Very low. The wavelength is c/10, 30 million meters. How can only one photon of 10 Hz radiation relate to that large distance?
Basically, if you could add speed or voltage to that photon somehow could you not then lower the distance variable or even the variables surrounding the gradual as you said slowdown of the photon. What does this photon do in theory? Goes to ground at some point?
Also could you not already use existing networks of frequencies to carry this type of a signal to make speeds as well.
I never said the photon slows down. Photons travel at c; always!
I just took a low frequency (10 Hz) to bring the problem down to a really long wavelength. Lambda = c/v, so a broadcast station at 600 kHz radiates 500 m waves. Normally with a large number of photons (at energy hv). However, if the power were dropped way down, the photons would drop in density. It's easy to detect individual photons of visible light; I think Zephyr posted an image.
At nominal communication frequencies it is believed that quantization of the photons sets a lower limit of of signal detection. Note photon energy would be higher at 3 GHz than at 10 Hz. 3e9 * h J. Still very low; communications links to satellites
are limited by the Big Bang background if nothing else. At a temperature of 2.7K. Less than 1/10 the noise introduced by the lowest noise amplifiers I'm aware of. But, not that hard to see how it raises the floor of system noise. In fact, first evidence of the Cosmic BG was discovered when an AT&T antenna in N.J. displayed noise that couldn't be accounted for otherwise. Resulted in a Nobel Prize for the two guys who helped figure out where than noise came from.
Anyway, this just relates to the standard model of EM radiation and photons. A very large number of experiments and practical applications are consistent with photons, not electrons, being associated with EM waves.
I'm still a lil fuzzy on the math on how big a 10 hz wave is though I have checked those measurements. Now what if you could be connected somehow with something that far away. This would explain a few pagan religions with stars and cosmos and numbers and the cosmos lining up with people. This could explain a lot more.
Wavelength = 300/F(MHz). A 300 MHz wave is 1 meter long. A 300 Hz wave would be 1,000 km.
Again, I mentioned some common engineering applications of EM. All which generate EM waves by accelerating charge.
I'm not so familiar with laser diodes (used in CD Roms, etc). However, this is where solid state physics becomes really important. Electrons falling through semiconductor energy/voltage barriers generate photons of similar energy, meaning they have a frequency/wavelength in the visible or IR range.
"Photons have Energy = hv, which is also equal to delta m/c^2. Thus, photons have mass and momentum. "
So which is it, do photons have mass or not? If mass cannot exist at light speed , and is converted to pure energy, WTH happens to that mass? Is it not a basic law of science that matter can niether be created nor destroyed? When was that law disproven? Are photons like the elite, in that they are not required to abide in the law?
RAF,
Greetings , we must be the same age.....good to share this forum with another "old fart"
This aside; I've an explaination why photons do not exhibit mass.
Mass in my model is the effect of a singularity as it auto-dynamically passes up-space between 3-D to 4-D producing a linkaged "brane" effect we name" time-space", a product of multi-dimensional wave propagation around a 4D+ envelope (Vacuole)
Photons are vacuolar/ wave manifestations limited to the 2-3D realm, therefore their wave prop' cannot be expressed as time-space... i.e, they're massless.
Have a peep @ my GUT, for a more detailed account:
Spacial Vacuoles
Z:"I'm still a lil fuzzy on the math on how big a 10 hz wave is."
Wavelength = 300/F(MHz). A 300 MHz wave is 1 meter long. A 300 Hz wave would be 1,000 km.
Basically you're saying it's for 10 hz waveform an equivalent of 186.411 miles. Approximatly this is the number I was able to deduce from your math.
In English units, [186,000mi/sec]/10 (cycles)/sec is 18,600 miles. Even RWH got that one right.
Associated Photons have very low energy. Which means the position of each Photon is spread out a very large amount. Due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
delta E * delta t ~ h
E/f = h ~ delta E * delta t
delta E/E ~ 1/(f * delta t)
Hope that makes sense. It says that the relative energy of the Photon is known more accurately when 'measured' over longer periods of time. For a 10 Hz wave and a measurement time of 0.1 seconds, the uncertainty in energy is on the order of the 'average' energy. delta E/E ~ 1/(0.1*10) = 1.0. Further 'position' is very uncertain, probably by 'thousands of miles'.
Note a 10 Hz EM wave has a photon energy of 10*h. Very low. The wavelength is c/10, 30 million meters. How can only one photon of 10 Hz radiation relate to that large distance?
Basically, if you could add speed or voltage to that photon somehow could you not then lower the distance variable or even the variables surrounding the gradual as you said slowdown of the photon. What does this photon do in theory? Goes to ground at some point?
Also could you not already use existing networks of frequencies to carry this type of a signal to make speeds as well.
I never said the photon slows down. Photons travel at c; always!
I just took a low frequency (10 Hz) to bring the problem down to a really long wavelength. Lambda = c/v, so a broadcast station at 600 kHz radiates 500 m waves. Normally with a large number of photons (at energy hv). However, if the power were dropped way down, the photons would drop in density. It's easy to detect individual photons of visible light; I think Zephyr posted an image.
At nominal communication frequencies it is believed that quantization of the photons sets a lower limit of of signal detection. Note photon energy would be higher at 3 GHz than at 10 Hz. 3e9 * h J. Still very low; communications links to satellites
are limited by the Big Bang background if nothing else. At a temperature of 2.7K. Less than 1/10 the noise introduced by the lowest noise amplifiers I'm aware of. But, not that hard to see how it raises the floor of system noise. In fact, first evidence of the Cosmic BG was discovered when an AT&T antenna in N.J. displayed noise that couldn't be accounted for otherwise. Resulted in a Nobel Prize for the two guys who helped figure out where than noise came from.
Anyway, this just relates to the standard model of EM radiation and photons. A very large number of experiments and practical applications are consistent with photons, not electrons, being associated with EM waves.
QUOTE
I'm still a lil fuzzy on the math on how big a 10 hz wave is though I have checked those measurements. Now what if you could be connected somehow with something that far away. This would explain a few pagan religions with stars and cosmos and numbers and the cosmos lining up with people. This could explain a lot more.
Wavelength = 300/F(MHz). A 300 MHz wave is 1 meter long. A 300 Hz wave would be 1,000 km.
Again, I mentioned some common engineering applications of EM. All which generate EM waves by accelerating charge.
I'm not so familiar with laser diodes (used in CD Roms, etc). However, this is where solid state physics becomes really important. Electrons falling through semiconductor energy/voltage barriers generate photons of similar energy, meaning they have a frequency/wavelength in the visible or IR range.
QUOTE (RAF+Mar 23 2006, 03:01 AM)
"Photons have Energy = hv, which is also equal to delta m/c^2. Thus, photons have mass and momentum. "
So which is it, do photons have mass or not? If mass cannot exist at light speed , and is converted to pure energy, WTH happens to that mass? Is it not a basic law of science that matter can niether be created nor destroyed? When was that law disproven? Are photons like the elite, in that they are not required to abide in the law?
RAF,
Greetings
, we must be the same age.....good to share this forum with another "old fart" This aside; I've an explaination why photons do not exhibit mass.
Mass in my model is the effect of a singularity as it auto-dynamically passes up-space between 3-D to 4-D producing a linkaged "brane" effect we name" time-space", a product of multi-dimensional wave propagation around a 4D+ envelope (Vacuole)
Photons are vacuolar/ wave manifestations limited to the 2-3D realm, therefore their wave prop' cannot be expressed as time-space... i.e, they're massless.
Have a peep @ my GUT, for a more detailed account:
Spacial Vacuoles
[QUOTE=fivedoughnut,Mar 23 2006, 06:41 AM][QUOTE=RAF,Mar 23 2006, 03:01 AM]
RAF:"Photons have Energy = hv, which is also equal to delta m/c^2. Thus, photons have mass and momentum. "
RWH:So which is it, do photons have mass or not? If mass cannot exist at light speed , and is converted to pure energy, WTH happens to that mass? Is it not a basic law of science that matter can niether be created nor destroyed? When was that law disproven? Are photons like the elite, in that they are not required to abide in the law?
[/QUOTE]
I added initials to the above quote, it's getting confusing as to who said what.
"RAF,
Greetings , we must be the same age.....good to share this forum with another "old fart"
Based on the DOB in your forum info, it looks like I'm a lot riper flatulence than you.
"5DN: This aside; I've an explaination why photons do not exhibit mass.
"Mass in my model is the effect of a singularity as it auto-dynamically passes up-space between 3-D to 4-D producing a linkaged "brane" effect we name" time-space", a product of multi-dimensional wave propagation around a 4D+ envelope (Vacuole)
"Photons are vacuolar/ wave manifestations limited to the 2-3D realm, therefore their wave prop' cannot be expressed as time-space... i.e, they're massless.
"Have a peep @ my GUT, for a more detailed account:"
I skimmed over your GUT; however I have enough trouble just comprehending the standard basics. I have had vague ideas of how 'particles' might amount to torsion in the 'fabric of space-time', which would involve both energy and forces. I'll leave it to others to work out the multidimensional details.
RAF:"Photons have Energy = hv, which is also equal to delta m/c^2. Thus, photons have mass and momentum. "
RWH:So which is it, do photons have mass or not? If mass cannot exist at light speed , and is converted to pure energy, WTH happens to that mass? Is it not a basic law of science that matter can niether be created nor destroyed? When was that law disproven? Are photons like the elite, in that they are not required to abide in the law?
[/QUOTE]
I added initials to the above quote, it's getting confusing as to who said what.
"RAF,
Greetings
, we must be the same age.....good to share this forum with another "old fart" Based on the DOB in your forum info, it looks like I'm a lot riper flatulence than you.
"5DN: This aside; I've an explaination why photons do not exhibit mass.
"Mass in my model is the effect of a singularity as it auto-dynamically passes up-space between 3-D to 4-D producing a linkaged "brane" effect we name" time-space", a product of multi-dimensional wave propagation around a 4D+ envelope (Vacuole)
"Photons are vacuolar/ wave manifestations limited to the 2-3D realm, therefore their wave prop' cannot be expressed as time-space... i.e, they're massless.
"Have a peep @ my GUT, for a more detailed account:"
I skimmed over your GUT; however I have enough trouble just comprehending the standard basics. I have had vague ideas of how 'particles' might amount to torsion in the 'fabric of space-time', which would involve both energy and forces. I'll leave it to others to work out the multidimensional details.
Not to be throwing around accusations or anything, but at least one of my latest posts on page five have disappeared, and it would appear quotes are accidently being attributed to me that did not originate with myself.
We need to keep straight who said what or it gets to the point where none of us know what the other is saying.
I am here to be taken to school on my theory, and so far you have all been unable to find a significant discrepency.
Thus far all we seem to be able to discuss is the mystical properties of the non -existant ,undefinable and illogical PHOTON.
Let's discuss the PROBLEMS WITH MY MODEL OF EMR*, and not those of the photon, which is completely excluded from my hypothesis.
Apparently you guys are the old schoolers and as is required of me from a social point of view, I respect what my elders tell me if they seem sincere in thier mission. tell me what is wrong with my theory but let's leave the photons on another thread, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE MAKE THIS RESPECTFUL AND TIMELY GESTURE ,WE CAN MOST LIKELY MAKE PROGRESS. *
*(upper case letters should be italicized instead of capitolized)
We need to keep straight who said what or it gets to the point where none of us know what the other is saying.
I am here to be taken to school on my theory, and so far you have all been unable to find a significant discrepency.
Thus far all we seem to be able to discuss is the mystical properties of the non -existant ,undefinable and illogical PHOTON.
Let's discuss the PROBLEMS WITH MY MODEL OF EMR*, and not those of the photon, which is completely excluded from my hypothesis.
Apparently you guys are the old schoolers and as is required of me from a social point of view, I respect what my elders tell me if they seem sincere in thier mission. tell me what is wrong with my theory but let's leave the photons on another thread, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE MAKE THIS RESPECTFUL AND TIMELY GESTURE ,WE CAN MOST LIKELY MAKE PROGRESS. *
*(upper case letters should be italicized instead of capitolized)
I am wondering if it is possible I might have violated the forums' constitution by saying something of an unacceptable nature.
Maybe I didn't post it properly somehow, I can't remember if I actually saw it posted or not.
Anyone, what I said was I didn't think you were applying the scientific method properly in the debunking of my theory, or hypothesis if you prefer.
It is unacceptable to use one theory to disprove another one which conflicts with it in fundamental ways, this according to the "laws" of common sense if not the scientific process.
If you can find no fault in it other than it's conflicts with pre existing theories, then you've found no ligitamate fault in it at all whatsoever!
I placed this thread on this forum for the purposes I stated, I've been straight with you up until now and I will continue to be.
What I require of you as physics scholars is help me in debugging what I believe will prove to be a solid theory regardless of my station in academia, one which will be proven if not by myself, then by someone else in the very near future.
In fact I believe it can easily be proven if we approach the research from a new perspective independant of preconcieved notions based on theories presented to us as absolute facts so as to stifle independant thinking to the contrary.
Maybe I didn't post it properly somehow, I can't remember if I actually saw it posted or not.
Anyone, what I said was I didn't think you were applying the scientific method properly in the debunking of my theory, or hypothesis if you prefer.
It is unacceptable to use one theory to disprove another one which conflicts with it in fundamental ways, this according to the "laws" of common sense if not the scientific process.
If you can find no fault in it other than it's conflicts with pre existing theories, then you've found no ligitamate fault in it at all whatsoever!
I placed this thread on this forum for the purposes I stated, I've been straight with you up until now and I will continue to be.
What I require of you as physics scholars is help me in debugging what I believe will prove to be a solid theory regardless of my station in academia, one which will be proven if not by myself, then by someone else in the very near future.
In fact I believe it can easily be proven if we approach the research from a new perspective independant of preconcieved notions based on theories presented to us as absolute facts so as to stifle independant thinking to the contrary.
Hi RWH,
Looking up into the sky at night should help us to distinguish between charged particles and uncharged particles .. the charged particles heading for Earth tend to end up at the magnetic poles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28astronomy%29 ) whereas the uncharged particles are not influenced by the Earth's magnetic field and are what we are receiving when we see stars in the sky.
-C2.
Looking up into the sky at night should help us to distinguish between charged particles and uncharged particles .. the charged particles heading for Earth tend to end up at the magnetic poles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28astronomy%29 ) whereas the uncharged particles are not influenced by the Earth's magnetic field and are what we are receiving when we see stars in the sky.
-C2.
"Hi RWH,
Looking up into the sky at night should help us to distinguish between charged particles and uncharged particles .. the charged particles heading for Earth tend to end up at the magnetic poles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28astronomy%29 ) whereas the uncharged particles are not influenced by the Earth's magnetic field and are what we are receiving when we see stars in the sky.
-C2. "
That is a good point, one that has been brought up over and over as an apparent disqulaification of the basic premise of my theory.
However, there are two points I would like to make in defense of my idea.
1) Light IS bent by extreme gravity, and gravity is known to act only on particles with mass.
Therefor , most likely anyway, WHATEVER PARTICLE THAT MAKES UP LIGHT HAS MASS.
2) When an electron is in it's "orbital shell" in an atom it is neccessary that it possess the negative charge, this is the electrostatic bond that holds the electron , and allows it to circumnavigate the atoms' nucleus without being "throw off" in a linear fashion. Once it is thrown off, this charge must be released with it, and this is a sticking point to my theory, and a very difficult one to explain.
That's why I am here, to discuss these sticking points and to refine my ideas.
My intuition tells me highly energetic electrons ARE bent by strong electromagnetic fields in measurable ways, though maybe not with our current level of technology. It is also possible that the nature of the negative charge of the electron is changed in some way when it is released from the atom.
Maybe someof you have some ideas to contribute.
Out of all of the disqualifications I have faced, this is the toughest, but lests face it, this doesn't come close to the problems associated with the photon model!
Looking up into the sky at night should help us to distinguish between charged particles and uncharged particles .. the charged particles heading for Earth tend to end up at the magnetic poles (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28astronomy%29 ) whereas the uncharged particles are not influenced by the Earth's magnetic field and are what we are receiving when we see stars in the sky.
-C2. "
That is a good point, one that has been brought up over and over as an apparent disqulaification of the basic premise of my theory.
However, there are two points I would like to make in defense of my idea.
1) Light IS bent by extreme gravity, and gravity is known to act only on particles with mass.
Therefor , most likely anyway, WHATEVER PARTICLE THAT MAKES UP LIGHT HAS MASS.
2) When an electron is in it's "orbital shell" in an atom it is neccessary that it possess the negative charge, this is the electrostatic bond that holds the electron , and allows it to circumnavigate the atoms' nucleus without being "throw off" in a linear fashion. Once it is thrown off, this charge must be released with it, and this is a sticking point to my theory, and a very difficult one to explain.
That's why I am here, to discuss these sticking points and to refine my ideas.
My intuition tells me highly energetic electrons ARE bent by strong electromagnetic fields in measurable ways, though maybe not with our current level of technology. It is also possible that the nature of the negative charge of the electron is changed in some way when it is released from the atom.
Maybe someof you have some ideas to contribute.
Out of all of the disqualifications I have faced, this is the toughest, but lests face it, this doesn't come close to the problems associated with the photon model!
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 24 2006, 05:59 PM)
Light IS bent by extreme gravity, and gravity is known to act only on particles with mass. Therefore, most likely anyway, WHATEVER PARTICLE THAT MAKES UP LIGHT HAS MASS.
By the very same logic, the gravity is acting on each particle, therefore it says anything about the photon mass.
Simply wake up, Robert - the photon is quite different particle, than electron. It can be generated without free electrons at all (just by inertial movement of other charged particles). The electron has a EMG and leptonic charge, whereas the photon has no charge. The electron motion is influenced by the magnetic field, and this effect is the more pronounced, the higher speed of electron is.
Whereas the photon path isn't influenced by the magnetic field at all, etc, etc.
Furthemore, your hypothesis isn't able to predict something new, it's useless. You're just ignoring the experimental fundamentals of physic and wasting time all of us.
By the very same logic, the gravity is acting on each particle, therefore it says anything about the photon mass.
Simply wake up, Robert - the photon is quite different particle, than electron. It can be generated without free electrons at all (just by inertial movement of other charged particles). The electron has a EMG and leptonic charge, whereas the photon has no charge. The electron motion is influenced by the magnetic field, and this effect is the more pronounced, the higher speed of electron is.
Whereas the photon path isn't influenced by the magnetic field at all, etc, etc.
Furthemore, your hypothesis isn't able to predict something new, it's useless. You're just ignoring the experimental fundamentals of physic and wasting time all of us.
Hello RWH,
I have been away from the forum for a while, and have a lot of catching up to do. I read your theory and want to go back to your original posting (the preceding posts seems to be diversions from the actual theory).
Your theory implies in-depth knowledge of an electron (a particle not yet fully defined)
1. It is not established if an electron is a composite or a single particle, what is your view?
2. What is the mechanism of the self-induced vibration of the electron in your case?
3. A field of force (or field of attraction) around a nucleus is fairly unified force unaffected by the electrons “orbiting” and not a “string” to each of the electrons. What do you mean by this “string” breaking? If the force of attraction is “broken” it would not affect only one electron but ALL electrons orbiting.
Could you explain?
I have been away from the forum for a while, and have a lot of catching up to do. I read your theory and want to go back to your original posting (the preceding posts seems to be diversions from the actual theory).
Your theory implies in-depth knowledge of an electron (a particle not yet fully defined)
1. It is not established if an electron is a composite or a single particle, what is your view?
2. What is the mechanism of the self-induced vibration of the electron in your case?
3. A field of force (or field of attraction) around a nucleus is fairly unified force unaffected by the electrons “orbiting” and not a “string” to each of the electrons. What do you mean by this “string” breaking? If the force of attraction is “broken” it would not affect only one electron but ALL electrons orbiting.
Could you explain?
[By the very same logic, the gravity is acting on each particle, therefore it says anything about the photon mass.]
The point was , it takes a gravitational field unacheivable by our current technology to bend light waves. This is a known indicating the distinct possibility that even though EMR does possess mass and a charge , it could be virtually undeflected by relatively weak GRAVITATIONAL and THEREFOR RELATIVELY WEAK MAGNETIC charges as well. This is why I have tryed in vain to get research in done in recognized universities who possess the experimental apparatus neccessary to confirm the details involved with lights' velocity, mass and frequency as it relates to it's deflection in gravitaional and magnetic fields.
["Simply wake up, Robert - the photon is quite different particle, than electron. It can be generated without free electrons at all (just by inertial movement of other charged particles). ]
And I suppose you're going to claim this is a fact and not what it is, a supposition. The source of your emr is not positively charged particles.
"The electron has a EMG and leptonic charge, whereas the photon has no charge. "
BULLSHIT, light can and does produce electrons in the form of electricity if the right "catchers mitt" is used. Photons have no charge because things that don't exist have no charge, except perhaps in the imagination.
"The electron motion is influenced by the magnetic field, and this effect is the more pronounced, the higher speed of electron is. "
Yeah, but they hit a roadblock at a linear velocity of C, don't they?
If you were to stretch out a high frequency EMR wave that had traveled a linear distance of , say ten miles, you'd find the waveforms' stretched out" was actually thousands of miles!
So with the emr electron unlike the straight line, non vibrating electron you are describing above, the energy is much higher because the oscilation makes the distance the electron must cover much farther, and therefor it's ACTUAL (not linear) velocity is much higher and it's KE much greater.
[Whereas the photon path isn't influenced by the magnetic field at all, etc, etc.]
Horse hockey, you need to review what I wrote above on this post already on the subject.
"Furthemore, your hypothesis isn't able to predict something new, it's useless. "
That's a nice sentiment on your part, isn't it?
The words "useless" and "your hypothesis" side by side in the same sentence. I already have predicted something new, you just are too pig headed to hear.
"You're just ignoring the experimental fundamentals of physic and wasting time all of us. "
No sir, I am concentrating on the basics, laws, and I am sticking to what we know for absolute certain, and the more I debate with the more intelligent of you the more solid my theory becomes.
Perhaps if you learned english without using a computerized translater you might know what the hell I said.
["Hello RWH,
I have been away from the forum for a while, and have a lot of catching up to do. I read your theory and want to go back to your original posting (the preceding posts seems to be diversions from the actual theory).
Your theory implies in-depth knowledge of an electron (a particle not yet fully defined)]
I have no absolute knowledge about physics (or electrons)that you don't also possess, it is how I am applying this absolute knowledge that is different. We can draw conclusions but we will never be able to observe the nature of emr at its basic levels because quite simply it is moving too fast and the components that make it up are too small to ACTUALLY image.
["1. It is not established if an electron is a composite or a single particle, what is your view?"]
I see no reason to suspect at this point that the electron is anything other than one particle and not a composite of smaller particles, because electrons (at least to my knowledge), always possess the same mass, even while in the "free" (or emr) state.
[2. What is the mechanism of the self-induced vibration of the electron in your case?]
Very good question, the most intelligent question asked of me yet.
I did not go into that detail because it involves ideas which I am not comfortable stating as part of my hypothesis.
I believe it is possible that electrons are forced into an oscilation by the repeling of like charges (other electrons "orbiting" adjacent atoms' nuclei). The distance of rotation around the nucleus creates the frequency of oscilation in adacent atoms in the same energy levels. It seems to me, once they were vibrating there would be very little to dampen thier vibration, so it would continue untill the electron impacted another subatomic particle.
Two electrons do not attract each other, they repel the like charge. So the with the nature of matter being atoms sharing electrons, some interference or oscilation based on the specific distance from the atoms nucleus, its atomic mass and the repeling forces would have to exist if logic is applied carefully.
[3. A field of force (or field of attraction) around a nucleus is fairly unified force unaffected by the electrons “orbiting” and not a “string” to each of the electrons.]
I was simply representing the electromagnetic bond between the negatively charged electron and the positively charged nucleus with a string of a sufficient strength to hold the vibrating device in my "Experiment", it was simply a visual aid in understanding the mechanical component of this hypothesis. The string represneted this bond, which could exist at any angle of rotation in the experiment , and in the case of the electron.
"What do you mean by this “string” breaking? If the force of attraction is “broken” it would not affect only one electron but ALL electrons orbiting."
That is another adequately difficult question, and it needs answering.
In my theory emr emission can occur when electrons are forced out of the electron shells of the atoms they originate in when an atom "captures" an electron in the form of emr or it is supplied through an electric current of appropriate voltage or electromotive force..
. Because the electrons of the surrounding atoms would induce the oscillation required in the new , captured electron, energy is apparently conserved (or replaced if you wish) in the atom even though the emr which caused the emission could be of a lower ,or perhaps higher energy level . The new electron will of course go to the opening in the atoms' energy shells that is available, the one it forced out. While this would appear to neccessarily require that the total amount of energy stored in the motion of a particular objects' electrons would decrease, this is not a significant problem because such an KE loss would be undetectable. It would also appear that the bombardment of matter with emr of lower energy levels CAN AND DOES result in the "accumulation of kenetic energy" and a release of an electron of a much higher energy level than the input emr. Low energy levels can and do produce high energy levels of emr output, and vice versa.
Direct evidence supporting this is the fact that when you heat metal with long wavelength EMR OF ONE WAVELENGTH, it emits higher and higher frequencies of light as the metal is heated. Also, everyone has grown up knowing that visable light can produce long wavelength EMR in objects it is absorbed by.
Because the absorbed emr or electric current provided another electron to replace the one that was lost, the net change in charge in the atom is zero.
The point was , it takes a gravitational field unacheivable by our current technology to bend light waves. This is a known indicating the distinct possibility that even though EMR does possess mass and a charge , it could be virtually undeflected by relatively weak GRAVITATIONAL and THEREFOR RELATIVELY WEAK MAGNETIC charges as well. This is why I have tryed in vain to get research in done in recognized universities who possess the experimental apparatus neccessary to confirm the details involved with lights' velocity, mass and frequency as it relates to it's deflection in gravitaional and magnetic fields.
["Simply wake up, Robert - the photon is quite different particle, than electron. It can be generated without free electrons at all (just by inertial movement of other charged particles). ]
And I suppose you're going to claim this is a fact and not what it is, a supposition. The source of your emr is not positively charged particles.
"The electron has a EMG and leptonic charge, whereas the photon has no charge. "
BULLSHIT, light can and does produce electrons in the form of electricity if the right "catchers mitt" is used. Photons have no charge because things that don't exist have no charge, except perhaps in the imagination.
"The electron motion is influenced by the magnetic field, and this effect is the more pronounced, the higher speed of electron is. "
Yeah, but they hit a roadblock at a linear velocity of C, don't they?
If you were to stretch out a high frequency EMR wave that had traveled a linear distance of , say ten miles, you'd find the waveforms' stretched out" was actually thousands of miles!
So with the emr electron unlike the straight line, non vibrating electron you are describing above, the energy is much higher because the oscilation makes the distance the electron must cover much farther, and therefor it's ACTUAL (not linear) velocity is much higher and it's KE much greater.
[Whereas the photon path isn't influenced by the magnetic field at all, etc, etc.]
Horse hockey, you need to review what I wrote above on this post already on the subject.
"Furthemore, your hypothesis isn't able to predict something new, it's useless. "
That's a nice sentiment on your part, isn't it?
The words "useless" and "your hypothesis" side by side in the same sentence. I already have predicted something new, you just are too pig headed to hear.
"You're just ignoring the experimental fundamentals of physic and wasting time all of us. "
No sir, I am concentrating on the basics, laws, and I am sticking to what we know for absolute certain, and the more I debate with the more intelligent of you the more solid my theory becomes.
Perhaps if you learned english without using a computerized translater you might know what the hell I said.
["Hello RWH,
I have been away from the forum for a while, and have a lot of catching up to do. I read your theory and want to go back to your original posting (the preceding posts seems to be diversions from the actual theory).
Your theory implies in-depth knowledge of an electron (a particle not yet fully defined)]
I have no absolute knowledge about physics (or electrons)that you don't also possess, it is how I am applying this absolute knowledge that is different. We can draw conclusions but we will never be able to observe the nature of emr at its basic levels because quite simply it is moving too fast and the components that make it up are too small to ACTUALLY image.
["1. It is not established if an electron is a composite or a single particle, what is your view?"]
I see no reason to suspect at this point that the electron is anything other than one particle and not a composite of smaller particles, because electrons (at least to my knowledge), always possess the same mass, even while in the "free" (or emr) state.
[2. What is the mechanism of the self-induced vibration of the electron in your case?]
Very good question, the most intelligent question asked of me yet.
I did not go into that detail because it involves ideas which I am not comfortable stating as part of my hypothesis.
I believe it is possible that electrons are forced into an oscilation by the repeling of like charges (other electrons "orbiting" adjacent atoms' nuclei). The distance of rotation around the nucleus creates the frequency of oscilation in adacent atoms in the same energy levels. It seems to me, once they were vibrating there would be very little to dampen thier vibration, so it would continue untill the electron impacted another subatomic particle.
Two electrons do not attract each other, they repel the like charge. So the with the nature of matter being atoms sharing electrons, some interference or oscilation based on the specific distance from the atoms nucleus, its atomic mass and the repeling forces would have to exist if logic is applied carefully.
[3. A field of force (or field of attraction) around a nucleus is fairly unified force unaffected by the electrons “orbiting” and not a “string” to each of the electrons.]
I was simply representing the electromagnetic bond between the negatively charged electron and the positively charged nucleus with a string of a sufficient strength to hold the vibrating device in my "Experiment", it was simply a visual aid in understanding the mechanical component of this hypothesis. The string represneted this bond, which could exist at any angle of rotation in the experiment , and in the case of the electron.
"What do you mean by this “string” breaking? If the force of attraction is “broken” it would not affect only one electron but ALL electrons orbiting."
That is another adequately difficult question, and it needs answering.
In my theory emr emission can occur when electrons are forced out of the electron shells of the atoms they originate in when an atom "captures" an electron in the form of emr or it is supplied through an electric current of appropriate voltage or electromotive force..
. Because the electrons of the surrounding atoms would induce the oscillation required in the new , captured electron, energy is apparently conserved (or replaced if you wish) in the atom even though the emr which caused the emission could be of a lower ,or perhaps higher energy level . The new electron will of course go to the opening in the atoms' energy shells that is available, the one it forced out. While this would appear to neccessarily require that the total amount of energy stored in the motion of a particular objects' electrons would decrease, this is not a significant problem because such an KE loss would be undetectable. It would also appear that the bombardment of matter with emr of lower energy levels CAN AND DOES result in the "accumulation of kenetic energy" and a release of an electron of a much higher energy level than the input emr. Low energy levels can and do produce high energy levels of emr output, and vice versa.
Direct evidence supporting this is the fact that when you heat metal with long wavelength EMR OF ONE WAVELENGTH, it emits higher and higher frequencies of light as the metal is heated. Also, everyone has grown up knowing that visable light can produce long wavelength EMR in objects it is absorbed by.
Because the absorbed emr or electric current provided another electron to replace the one that was lost, the net change in charge in the atom is zero.
It might be helpful to look at the theory and practice of the elecron microscope .. and how it differs from that of an optical device. The first point seems to be that a vacuum is required..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope is a start .. I haven't found a good account of the theory .. can anyone suggest a good place to look?
-C2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_microscope is a start .. I haven't found a good account of the theory .. can anyone suggest a good place to look?
-C2.
Thank you for the intresting link, Confused.
I am disappointed that dispite my best efforts and my use of syntax and nomenclature that should be understandable to almost anyone with above average intelligent , I appear to be unable to adequately relate my ideas.
It is my opinion that most of you have given up, or simply don't understand the theory and how it quantifies and predicts energy levels of EMR produced by specific electrons in a particular energy level of an atom.
While Ultra low frequency EMR would APPEAR to disqualify the theory in part, this is simply an oversight on the critics' reasoning. The vibration of electrons could be slowed down after emmision by interactions with other forces acting upon the emr particle (electron).
This is simply the best and most logical explaination for the properties demonstrated by EMR and it's interactions with it's "enviroment", for lack of more appropriate word.
I do not care who gets credit for what I have postulated here, only that it is researched properly and not suppressed or withheld from common knowledge.
UTILITY OF THE THEORY? > < WHAT DOES THIS THEORY PREDICT?
_____________________________________________________________
If I am right, it is possible to obtain almost limitless energy from the kinetic energy stored in all matter in the motion of it's electrons.
Though the electrons make up a very small mass in a particular piece of matter, thier centripital acceleration is adequate to release tremendous amounts of energy from a very small mass because the velocities of the electrons actually exceeds the speed of light by a very large factor.
I hope I have already adequately and acceptable explained why, and how the electron by it's known properties is KNOWN to DEFINITLY exceed light speed. The by products of such a reaction would be simply the nuclear elements of the atom, protons and neutrons.
Since the electron has mass, Einstein is simply wrong.
I am disappointed that dispite my best efforts and my use of syntax and nomenclature that should be understandable to almost anyone with above average intelligent , I appear to be unable to adequately relate my ideas.
It is my opinion that most of you have given up, or simply don't understand the theory and how it quantifies and predicts energy levels of EMR produced by specific electrons in a particular energy level of an atom.
While Ultra low frequency EMR would APPEAR to disqualify the theory in part, this is simply an oversight on the critics' reasoning. The vibration of electrons could be slowed down after emmision by interactions with other forces acting upon the emr particle (electron).
This is simply the best and most logical explaination for the properties demonstrated by EMR and it's interactions with it's "enviroment", for lack of more appropriate word.
I do not care who gets credit for what I have postulated here, only that it is researched properly and not suppressed or withheld from common knowledge.
UTILITY OF THE THEORY? > < WHAT DOES THIS THEORY PREDICT?
_____________________________________________________________
If I am right, it is possible to obtain almost limitless energy from the kinetic energy stored in all matter in the motion of it's electrons.
Though the electrons make up a very small mass in a particular piece of matter, thier centripital acceleration is adequate to release tremendous amounts of energy from a very small mass because the velocities of the electrons actually exceeds the speed of light by a very large factor.
I hope I have already adequately and acceptable explained why, and how the electron by it's known properties is KNOWN to DEFINITLY exceed light speed. The by products of such a reaction would be simply the nuclear elements of the atom, protons and neutrons.
Since the electron has mass, Einstein is simply wrong.
Looking over this thread and re reading everyones' posts from page one has left me with a revelation of sorts.
I have been asked repeatedly to make a prediction that would lend credence to my theory.
Here is a prediction. If somehow we could dislodge the nucleus' components from an atom with accellerated neutron bombardment, the electrons would have nothing left to hold them in place and would be emmitted as EMR. Once neutrons were "knocked" out of one nucleus, they would impact other nuclei, resulting in a self sustaining "chain reaction"
Since early nuclear scientists first theorized the nature of the nuclear fission reaction, they have adamantly insisted that in this fission reaction varying amounts of matter is converted into energy.
With my theory no such energy conversion from mass is neccessary in a fission reaction, with the energy already present in the atom in the form of inertia against the bonds which hold it together.
As you all know, the main energy component of a fission reaction is EMR. WHy can we have fission reactions in smaller atoms? It's possible we can by approaching the problem from this new perspective. If a neutron source could be developed that is efficient enough to use to bombard matter with large amounts of high energy electrons, emr would be the result.
MY THEORY PREDICTS THE NUCLEAR FISSION REACTION
This is bigger than any of you realize I think. Maybe I stumbled upon it or maybe I am simply reaching a conclusion anyone would who used only available proven information to form their ideas. Unlike any of you, I did not let education supercede my own intuitive thought process. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!
None of thee ideas post Maxwell are proven, or even solid.
I have been asked repeatedly to make a prediction that would lend credence to my theory.
Here is a prediction. If somehow we could dislodge the nucleus' components from an atom with accellerated neutron bombardment, the electrons would have nothing left to hold them in place and would be emmitted as EMR. Once neutrons were "knocked" out of one nucleus, they would impact other nuclei, resulting in a self sustaining "chain reaction"
Since early nuclear scientists first theorized the nature of the nuclear fission reaction, they have adamantly insisted that in this fission reaction varying amounts of matter is converted into energy.
With my theory no such energy conversion from mass is neccessary in a fission reaction, with the energy already present in the atom in the form of inertia against the bonds which hold it together.
As you all know, the main energy component of a fission reaction is EMR. WHy can we have fission reactions in smaller atoms? It's possible we can by approaching the problem from this new perspective. If a neutron source could be developed that is efficient enough to use to bombard matter with large amounts of high energy electrons, emr would be the result.
MY THEORY PREDICTS THE NUCLEAR FISSION REACTION
This is bigger than any of you realize I think. Maybe I stumbled upon it or maybe I am simply reaching a conclusion anyone would who used only available proven information to form their ideas. Unlike any of you, I did not let education supercede my own intuitive thought process. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX!
None of thee ideas post Maxwell are proven, or even solid.
QUOTE (RAF+Mar 23 2006, 06:34 AM)
[QUOTE=Zarabtul,Mar 23 2006, 03:18 AM][QUOTE=RAF,Mar 23 2006, 03:01 AM] [QUOTE=Robert W. Hawkins,Mar 22 2006, 04:40 PM]"RAF:I'll agree that EM radiation involves an Energy-Mass transfer. "[/QUOTE]
Note a 10 Hz EM wave has a photon energy of 10*h. Very low. The wavelength is c/10, 30 million meters. How can only one photon of 10 Hz radiation relate to that large distance?
I never said the photon slows down. Photons travel at c; always!
At nominal communication frequencies it is believed that quantization of the photons sets a lower limit of of signal detection. Note photon energy would be higher at 3 GHz than at 10 Hz.
I'm still a lil fuzzy on the math on how big a 10 hz wave is.
Wavelength = 300/F(MHz). A 300 MHz wave is 1 meter long. A 300 Hz wave would be 1,000 km.
Basically you're saying it's for 10 hz waveform an equivalent of 186.411 miles. Approximatly this is the number I was able to deduce from your math.
Note a 10 Hz EM wave has a photon energy of 10*h. Very low. The wavelength is c/10, 30 million meters. How can only one photon of 10 Hz radiation relate to that large distance?
I never said the photon slows down. Photons travel at c; always!
At nominal communication frequencies it is believed that quantization of the photons sets a lower limit of of signal detection. Note photon energy would be higher at 3 GHz than at 10 Hz.
I'm still a lil fuzzy on the math on how big a 10 hz wave is.
Wavelength = 300/F(MHz). A 300 MHz wave is 1 meter long. A 300 Hz wave would be 1,000 km.
Basically you're saying it's for 10 hz waveform an equivalent of 186.411 miles. Approximatly this is the number I was able to deduce from your math.
As an afterthought, all of the products of a fission nuclear reaction can be explained by my theory without difficulty.
Mass disintgrates at the atomic level reducing atoms to thier seperate components, but it is not converted to energy. If all the products of a controlled fission reaction were collected and weighed , it would equal the original mass. The loss of mass apparent in fuel rods is small, and can be explained easily by thier disintegration and absorption into the surrounding containment , and enviroment.
Get busy and prove me wrong or get on your knees to a new god. Personally I only bow to one god, and he doesn't have a Nobel prize (C.O.S.) nor a jewish surname.
I don't even believe God has favorites he shines on exclusively . In fact, I don't even believe in jewish intellectual superiority. I don't understand why so many noble prize winners are jewish, not that I am anti semetic or anything.
It just seems to me the jews achieve credibility in the world of science through thier names and their religion and not the integrity of thier ideas .
It also seems to me there is a disproportionate number of jewish nobel prize winners across the board, which sounds like they might be blowing thier own horns out of tune. Wise up. Jews are not intellectually superior to non jews, they're just more educated on average. Judaism is a religion with many races represented and een mixxed. There is simply no logic in assuming jews like Einstein are actually intellectually superior to those who question thier far fetched fictions.
Mass disintgrates at the atomic level reducing atoms to thier seperate components, but it is not converted to energy. If all the products of a controlled fission reaction were collected and weighed , it would equal the original mass. The loss of mass apparent in fuel rods is small, and can be explained easily by thier disintegration and absorption into the surrounding containment , and enviroment.
Get busy and prove me wrong or get on your knees to a new god. Personally I only bow to one god, and he doesn't have a Nobel prize (C.O.S.) nor a jewish surname.
I don't even believe God has favorites he shines on exclusively . In fact, I don't even believe in jewish intellectual superiority. I don't understand why so many noble prize winners are jewish, not that I am anti semetic or anything.
It just seems to me the jews achieve credibility in the world of science through thier names and their religion and not the integrity of thier ideas .
It also seems to me there is a disproportionate number of jewish nobel prize winners across the board, which sounds like they might be blowing thier own horns out of tune. Wise up. Jews are not intellectually superior to non jews, they're just more educated on average. Judaism is a religion with many races represented and een mixxed. There is simply no logic in assuming jews like Einstein are actually intellectually superior to those who question thier far fetched fictions.
a 10 cycle per second waveform of EMR has a wavelength equal to 1/10 the distance it travels in 1 second.
So 186,000 miles /10 is what for christs' sake? the wavelength can be calculated without need of paper or pencil, it is 18,600 miles.
You can't figure this out you have the wrong hobby.
Try horseshoes or something.
So 186,000 miles /10 is what for christs' sake? the wavelength can be calculated without need of paper or pencil, it is 18,600 miles.
You can't figure this out you have the wrong hobby.
Try horseshoes or something.
I only mentioned the jewish issue because it has always been a pet peive of mine that individuals are afforded special treatment based on religion. As far as I am concerned this is discrimination against the gentiles, and counterproductive to the advancement of science..
What you all are doing here in enforcing the idea of jewish intellectual superiority, and that is a crying shame . I'll bet not many of you are even jewish. Most of you probally don't even believe in a God, or see the lack of logic in believign what religion someone is could effect thier intelligence!
. Most of the Einsteinian fanatics have a religious furvor to thier countenance when thier god is attacked or maligned.
COME AND GET SOME!
What you all are doing here in enforcing the idea of jewish intellectual superiority, and that is a crying shame . I'll bet not many of you are even jewish. Most of you probally don't even believe in a God, or see the lack of logic in believign what religion someone is could effect thier intelligence!
. Most of the Einsteinian fanatics have a religious furvor to thier countenance when thier god is attacked or maligned.
COME AND GET SOME!
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 26 2006, 04:11 AM)
I only mentioned the jewish issue because it has always been a pet peive of mine that individuals are afforded special treatment based on religion. As far as I am concerned this is discrimination against the gentiles, and counterproductive to the advancement of science..
What you all are doing here in enforcing the idea of jewish intellectual superiority, and that is a crying shame . I'll bet not many of you are even jewish. Most of you probally don't even believe in a God, or see the lack of logic in believign what religion someone is could effect thier intelligence!
. Most of the Einsteinian fanatics have a religious furvor to thier countenance when thier god is attacked or maligned.
COME AND GET SOME!
Ah!...at least we have one thing in common....I still think you're a bit of a twit though
What you all are doing here in enforcing the idea of jewish intellectual superiority, and that is a crying shame . I'll bet not many of you are even jewish. Most of you probally don't even believe in a God, or see the lack of logic in believign what religion someone is could effect thier intelligence!
. Most of the Einsteinian fanatics have a religious furvor to thier countenance when thier god is attacked or maligned.
COME AND GET SOME!
Ah!...at least we have one thing in common....I still think you're a bit of a twit though
A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education.
George Bernard Shaw
Google me idiot there is a reason I ask.
Andrew Strasser
George Bernard Shaw
Google me idiot there is a reason I ask.
Andrew Strasser
"Ah!...at least we have one thing in common....I still think you're a bit of a twit though "
That's ok . By the way, even though my status has apparently been elevated from dork to twit in the convoluted egotistical trainwreck you call a mind, I still think you're a dumbass.
That's ok . By the way, even though my status has apparently been elevated from dork to twit in the convoluted egotistical trainwreck you call a mind, I still think you're a dumbass.
"google me idiot there's a reason I ask"
How 'bout I just call you one instead?
The way the namecalling is going on this thread, you're open to attack as well as I.
Say something lame like this and you're bound to get slammed by myself after the abuse I have taken for sharing the accumulation of knowledge of many years .
*** did you want me to do, google "me idiot"?
Talk about a *** moronic waste of space , air and natural resources.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: I see there is a "swear word" or obscentity filter in place here, thank God. Sometimes I just can't help but to use an occasional f word without thinking about the youngsters who might be here.
I've been around intelligent , independant minded individuals all my life , and they all share one characteristic, they all swear like sailors in the face of utter unadulterated stubborn supididty.
How 'bout I just call you one instead?
The way the namecalling is going on this thread, you're open to attack as well as I.
Say something lame like this and you're bound to get slammed by myself after the abuse I have taken for sharing the accumulation of knowledge of many years .
*** did you want me to do, google "me idiot"?
Talk about a *** moronic waste of space , air and natural resources.
EDITORIAL COMMENT: I see there is a "swear word" or obscentity filter in place here, thank God. Sometimes I just can't help but to use an occasional f word without thinking about the youngsters who might be here.
I've been around intelligent , independant minded individuals all my life , and they all share one characteristic, they all swear like sailors in the face of utter unadulterated stubborn supididty.
Aye, A good waste of space you are. Shall you kick me or throw stone young lad. Or shall you answer me with content and be wise in your many years. You'll get what you deserve. Try and test that.
Or how bout I just call on you....
What frequency burns off nuclear waste again I remember coiling that wire just can't seem to remember the frequency.... Gimmie a minute it might come to me....
Or how bout I just call on you....
What frequency burns off nuclear waste again I remember coiling that wire just can't seem to remember the frequency.... Gimmie a minute it might come to me....
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 26 2006, 07:42 AM)
I still think you're a dumbass.
Such hypothesis are solely irrelevant to physical forum, therefore they've no place here.
I believe, the theory of your's can have some rational core (the electron can be considered as the photon wave compacted/quantized by it's own energy density (gravity) to particle shape), but such insight wipes a lot of less or more subtle differences between the particles (fermions) and waves (bosons) behavior - so it's usability is quite limited from practical point of view. It can serve as a demonstration, how abstract and thin can be slices of our reality understanding. In fact, we can postulate a quite consistent theory based on each particular aspect of Aether behavior (spiral character of light, photon character of electron, etc..).
You can found a more detailed explanation here.
Such hypothesis are solely irrelevant to physical forum, therefore they've no place here.
I believe, the theory of your's can have some rational core (the electron can be considered as the photon wave compacted/quantized by it's own energy density (gravity) to particle shape), but such insight wipes a lot of less or more subtle differences between the particles (fermions) and waves (bosons) behavior - so it's usability is quite limited from practical point of view. It can serve as a demonstration, how abstract and thin can be slices of our reality understanding. In fact, we can postulate a quite consistent theory based on each particular aspect of Aether behavior (spiral character of light, photon character of electron, etc..).
You can found a more detailed explanation here.
"This guy's not only out of his depth....He's out of his bloody mind"
POLLY WANT A CRACKER?
If you could see how willfully ignorant you appear from my point of view you would shut up. You obviously have the ability to parrot what you have in front of you , but where are your original ideas? Abscent any individual imagnination, you're simply not qualified to judge those of others, by logic.
It is easily and painfully apparent you have no idea what you're talking about, but trying to sound knowledgeable. It is easy to copy and paste material and re write it."
To Quote you...
Aye great link Zephir
Researching to prove your own theory being denied. How dumb is that....
POLLY WANT A CRACKER?
If you could see how willfully ignorant you appear from my point of view you would shut up. You obviously have the ability to parrot what you have in front of you , but where are your original ideas? Abscent any individual imagnination, you're simply not qualified to judge those of others, by logic.
It is easily and painfully apparent you have no idea what you're talking about, but trying to sound knowledgeable. It is easy to copy and paste material and re write it."
To Quote you...
Aye great link Zephir
Researching to prove your own theory being denied. How dumb is that....
QUOTE (Zarabtul+Mar 26 2006, 03:48 AM)
QUOTE (RAF+Mar 23 2006, 06:34 AM)
Z:"I'm still a lil fuzzy on the math on how big a 10 hz wave is."
Wavelength = 300/F(MHz). A 300 MHz wave is 1 meter long. A 300 Hz wave would be 1,000 km.
Basically you're saying it's for 10 hz waveform an equivalent of 186.411 miles. Approximatly this is the number I was able to deduce from your math.
In English units, [186,000mi/sec]/10 (cycles)/sec is 18,600 miles. Even RWH got that one right.
Associated Photons have very low energy. Which means the position of each Photon is spread out a very large amount. Due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
delta E * delta t ~ h
E/f = h ~ delta E * delta t
delta E/E ~ 1/(f * delta t)
Hope that makes sense. It says that the relative energy of the Photon is known more accurately when 'measured' over longer periods of time. For a 10 Hz wave and a measurement time of 0.1 seconds, the uncertainty in energy is on the order of the 'average' energy. delta E/E ~ 1/(0.1*10) = 1.0. Further 'position' is very uncertain, probably by 'thousands of miles'.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 26 2006, 04:42 AM)
"Ah!...at least we have one thing in common....I still think you're a bit of a twit though "
That's ok . By the way, even though my status has apparently been elevated from dork to twit in the convoluted egotistical trainwreck you call a mind, I still think you're a dumbass.
.....I guess we're friends now!
That's ok . By the way, even though my status has apparently been elevated from dork to twit in the convoluted egotistical trainwreck you call a mind, I still think you're a dumbass.
.....I guess we're friends now!
"Aye, A good waste of space you are. "
We are all known by our works and our accomplishments. That is the ultiimate meaning of a persons' worth.
"Shall you kick me or throw stone young lad."
I simply ahd no idea what you wanted me to do based on your comment.
" Or shall you answer me with content and be wise in your many years."
I can only respond intelligently to an intelligable question.
Quote:
[" You'll get what you deserve. "]
You sound like you're trying to frighten me into silence or something. Are you insane?
Quote:
["Try and test that."]
It sounds to me like you might have become enraged by something I said. I don't know where you are and couldn't care less, really. If it's because of the comments I made about the false jewish intellectual superiority, then I could care less what you think , personally.
Quote:
["Or how bout I just call on you...."]
That sounds a bit like a threat...your comments are so unintelligable it's hard to tell what you're saying, but that sounds a bit ominous to me. If you do not issue a retraction I will bring this possible threat of violence to the attention of the proper authorities.
We are all known by our works and our accomplishments. That is the ultiimate meaning of a persons' worth.
"Shall you kick me or throw stone young lad."
I simply ahd no idea what you wanted me to do based on your comment.
" Or shall you answer me with content and be wise in your many years."
I can only respond intelligently to an intelligable question.
Quote:
[" You'll get what you deserve. "]
You sound like you're trying to frighten me into silence or something. Are you insane?
Quote:
["Try and test that."]
It sounds to me like you might have become enraged by something I said. I don't know where you are and couldn't care less, really. If it's because of the comments I made about the false jewish intellectual superiority, then I could care less what you think , personally.
Quote:
["Or how bout I just call on you...."]
That sounds a bit like a threat...your comments are so unintelligable it's hard to tell what you're saying, but that sounds a bit ominous to me. If you do not issue a retraction I will bring this possible threat of violence to the attention of the proper authorities.
never mind, I see now you're just another dumbass.
Youre question didn't appear on your thread, originally. the rest of your post looks like that of a schitzophrenic who was about to get violent without the question!.
Youre question didn't appear on your thread, originally. the rest of your post looks like that of a schitzophrenic who was about to get violent without the question!.
QUOTE (Robert W. Hawkins+Mar 26 2006, 05:18 AM)
"Never mind, I see now you're just another dumbass."
Zacharia_Andrew
science.box.sk Zara tis simple friend but that would take research eh.
Zacharia_Andrew
science.box.sk Zara tis simple friend but that would take research eh.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.