An addendum to my Topic of Energy and Matter

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Gerry Nightingale, Jun 6, 2014.

  1. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    Is possible that some error in judgment occurred over a century ago with regard to theoretical particle states? In that, in a valid and reasonable manner, too many assumptions

    were made with assigning a "pseudo-particle" conditions to radiant energy. I believe so. There was a rush to enumerate the basically mysterious existence of light energy

    and electrical energy, to give them particle status and in this concept make it possible to mathematically assign values of "amounts", such as voltage and amperage.

    The assigning of particulate status has an additional vital feature...how to explain movement from a source.


    If radiant energy is thought of as "packets of energy", it would then follow that the energy-packets would conform to the empirical reality presented by molecular structures, even

    though the energy-packets were many orders of magnitude smaller than any molecule! I.E., if molecules can be induced to move, then it follows that energy-packets may also

    move, no matter how small or insignificant as a singular entity. (an individual molecule of water may not be seen to move, but many of them as a coalition can form a wave)

    The molecule/wave condition translates well as a model for the emission of light as a cohesive presence, substituting photons for molecules, at least in terms of the dynamics

    of light movement...photons could then be given an individual status that act as both individual and wave function characteristics.


    This model of photons works well as a means of describing the action of light in terms of quantification and movement (electricity also, as electrons)

    Yet when I look for answers as to "how does light move as a photon without degradation of speed or energy?" the standard models of answers seem to break down into

    vague concepts of what seem to be "ghost" particles that are not subject to degradation, due to the special nature of being energy packets do not yield to time and distance

    factors, as matter particles do...photons exist outside the directives that apply to matter.

    After thinking of photons as energy for several years, and being unconvinced of the "rightness" of radiant energy theory, I began to focus solely on the aspect of energy

    itself, as in "what is radiant energy of itself, it's intrinsic nature independent of matter?"


    In my attempts to answer my own questions, I separated the aspects of matter/energy/time/distance/and speed into quadrant factors, each worthy of it's own aspect.


    After a great deal of examining each aspect, I could not arrive at anything I considered a true answer...but I noticed that the question of the energy itself was the one

    I kept returning to. Matter could be explained, as well as time and distance, but I could not resolve the light energy coupled with speed question.

    I kept thinking..."energy of itself, as itself, energy is"...and finally thought "energy is itself" and this thought "stuck". Energy IS itself.

    The rest, or least the main contentions of the idea that "energy is itself", are already on my first Topic.


    If readers want to debate on "how wrong your thinking is", I will not answer.

    Also quoting standard texts will not get a reply. (I know the fundaments of the texts already, and disagree with much of what is presented as "facts".

    If you can show me with logic where I "went wrong"...this I WILL answer. As best as I am able.

    I don't want to get into a massive debate over "science over fantasy theories from a non-science layman" type scenario.

    (I looked to see how to post this in the cesspool, and couldn't find it. If the mods want it there, I have no problem with it)


    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Okey dokey.



    Okey Dokey.....



    You have no observational or experimental evidence supporting your hypothesis.

    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    ABSTRACT
    Photon beams of 99 eV energy carrying orbital angular momentum (OAM) have been observed in the 2nd harmonic off-axis radiation of a helical undulator at the 3rd generation synchrotron radiation light source BESSY II. For detection, the OAM carrying photon beam was superimposed with a reference beam without OAM. The interference pattern, a spiral intensity distribution, was recorded in a plane perpendicular to the propagation direction. The orientation of the observed spiral structure is related to the helicity of the undulator radiation. Excellent agreement between measurements and simulations has been found.

    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.034801

    http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.034801
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to paddoboy, re: my topic addendum.

    It's odd you would refer to observation, since ANYONE can make them, and I did. What I wrote was NOT an experiment, it was an exercise in logic and deduction. I am making a distinction

    that pseudo-particles may not exist with regard to light energy.

    Also, making machines to "say what you want them to say, and show what you want them to show" means that the machines work as they were designed to do...the results are nothing

    more than circumstances of energy manifestation.

    The basic premises of my assertions that "energy is itself" have not been disproved by the abstract, as the results DO NOT prove the existence of photons, per se.

    The abstract proves that an experiment(s) was created, and results were recorded. The meanings of the experiment are judgments of results, and the results are nebulous with regard to

    my concept of "energy is itself". I have no refutation with the results of the abstract, and don't need one! I am not disputing the reality of "light is energy". I AM disputing that light is composed

    of "packets of energy". (once again, you lifted an article to contest something I wrote, and the article does NOT PROVE "yea or nay" with regard to photon "realness".




    (Thanks for reading!) also, I see you...Lunny!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    So Gerry won't reply to you unless you agree with his wild ass guesses.
     
  8. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    For one thing, electricity is the movement of electrons or ions in a medium, light is a squiggle in the spacetime field. They can be converted back and forth by the properties of matter, but they are in no way the same thing. In addition, light experiences no time and no distance as it always travels at exactly lightspeed in all frames of reference. To the photon the place and time of it's emission is the same place and time of it's absorption. Electricity travels fast, but not that fast, and various materials have different conductivity. If you hypothesis is based on the two things being at all similar, it's busted from the start.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to Grumpy, re: your #5.

    Hello and Cheers! Your reply is cogent and succinct and correct in all respects, save for "travel" (in my view)

    My original suppositions regarding matter and energy maintain the premise that light-energy, as well as electrical energy, exist as a metric of continuum, a metric of "potential".

    Sine this potential of energy exists at any where/when of spacetime, the concept of travel is moot...light is either present, or not present, at any frame of reference.

    (convert Kilometers per second to cycles per second, a frequency that is constant)

    In what manner are my assertions "busted from the start?" "Light does not experience time or distance factors" is a virtual mirror of everything I have written!

    "Light is a "squiggle" in the spacetime field? Once again, different words to arrive at the SAME CONCLUSION!!!

    "Different media have different effects with regard to conductivity values". I agree!

    My main contention is with light-energy as "packets". (no photons)



    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  10. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    light year.
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Sure anyone can make an observation, and anyone [especially anyone not qualified in the relevant field] can interpret that observation wrongly.
    In other words what you interpret as a "logical deduction"of an observation is most probably flawed.
    The claim of your's " pseudo-particles may not exist with regard to light energy." is not supported by a 100 years of observations and interpretations by many great men, who are/were qualified in making a proper interpretation, unlike the less likely interpretation of lay people like yourself and I.

    It's really great to be able to think for one's self, but part of thinking for one's self, is also absorbing the irrefutable knowledge of the giants of the past.

    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    electrons are only dislodged by the photoelectric effect if light reaches or exceeds a threshold frequency, below which no electrons can be emitted from the metal regardless of the amplitude and temporal length of exposure of light. To make sense of the fact that light can eject electrons even if its intensity is low, Albert Einstein proposed that a beam of light is not a wave propagating through space, but rather a collection of discrete wave packets (photons), each with energy hf. This shed light on Max Planck's previous discovery of the Planck relation (E = hf) linking energy (E) and frequency (f) as arising from quantization of energy. The factor h is known as the Planck constant.[1][2]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    Supporting that Interpretation we have the Compton effect, an experiment relating to the scattering of x-rays by electrons, carried out by Arthur Compton.
    The Compton effect actually involves a collision between two particles: an electron that is more or less at rest, and a photon of light.




    Uhhhh?
    That's nothing more than a cop out.
    You need to show evidence supporting what you claim. That evidence needs to falsify the incumbent model, or directly support your own.
    You cannot and have not done that.
    Any one can make claims.




    ?? No one is out to show "energy is itself", whatever that means. The two pieces of evidence I have listed shows that light energy comes in discreet packets we call photons.




    Of course you need evidence. That's what science is all about.
    And you can dispute all you like, but until you have evidence to support your concept, you have nothing but words.
     
  12. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    krash661

    I don't think Gerry is factoring in the difference between the photon's view of the Universe, and the Universe's view of the photon. We see the photon travelling at c through spacetime, the photon sees itself as a hole in spacetime through which a quantum of energy can pass. We see the photon as a discrete quantum packet(particle nature)and as a wave(wave nature)with wavelength and frequency.

    Gerry, electrons ARE actual physical particles, photons are squiggles in the space time field that have traits of both particles and waves. To the photon, it is a hole through which the emitting particle and the absorbing particle directly touch to transmit energy instantly, no matter how much distance in spacetime separates those two.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to paddoboy, re: your #8 reply.

    How about something different? As in you formulate a reply that deals with my assertions? Rather than your repetitive coy insults to me.

    You like theory? You support Einstein as a genuine Titan of theoretical physics? Good.

    I'm getting bored with your responses that consist of not very clever insults...go back and read-up on how Albert did the vast majority of his work.

    It involved his MIND and OBSERVATIONS and "logical posits" written on paper. Very little else.

    Are you by any chance still in high school? Why is you cannot form a reply that deals directly with my assertions? Can you write nothing of your own?


    ALL of "physics theory" IS SUPPOSITION!!! You don't seem to be able to grasp this.


    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  14. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to Grumpy, re: #9 reply.

    Sorry...I thought perhaps you had read my original Topic of "energy and matter". (it's interesting and boring at the same time...must involve QM somewhere)

    There are NO photons or electrons. They are suppositional states of pseudo-matter.

    Even Einstein could never prove the existence of actual, real photons and electrons. (no one else has either) A.E. used the photon in the manner of an aspect, or quality of "thereness".

    I cannot accept "voodoo" physics, or "spooky action at a distance" and neither did A.E.

    (Grumpy...I've read many of your replies in various Topics, and I really enjoy your refutations! Good stuff!)

    P.S. I could write much more concerning my own Topic, but I'm uncertain if they would have ANY significance...all the "feedback" I get is recitations of Dogma! I never realized

    how entrenched the "meme" mind-set is in theory...as in "All is known, and the Known is infallible, and therefor can never be questioned".



    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543



    No all of physics theory is not just supposition...But supposition or more correctly gobblydook does apply to what you are trying to foist on the forum under confined conditions, and your own set of rules.
    That is not on...OK?


    I've given you two valid explanations as to why light has a duel nature and does indeed come in discreet packages.
    Now instead of making up stories about non existent insults and acting all indignant, why don't you offer something, anything to falsify what I have offered. Or at least evidence that at least matches existing observations.
    You can't.
    That's OK, nothing wrong with that, just be up front about it, that's all.
     
  16. krash661 [MK6] transitioning scifi to reality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,973
    why are you even still allowed to post here
    (shrugs)
     
  17. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to paddoboy, re: your #12 response.

    Telling someone that their suppositional posits are "gobblygook" is insulting and demeaning. Period. You have nowhere near the intellect you think you have to assess my concepts

    as "gobblygook". "You" have not provided any logical expressions as to why there cannot be a metric-continuum of light-energy as a "potential" factor.


    To deny potential is to deny the principles of "Action and Reaction!" Period. One condition CANNOT exist without the other, and this is such an inherent factor of reality I am surprised

    you don't seem to be able to acknowledge this a "real thing".

    Experiments that "You" have provided me? As if you were a participant, or more likely, the "guiding hand" who performed them!!! "You" did NOT create "theoretical physics!!!"

    Your references DO NOT provide any proof that deny or substantiate ANYTHING I have written, and you don't seem to be able to understand the differences between competitive

    models of theory and "facts?" There are NO "absolutes" in theoretical quantum physics! Anything is subject to change with regard to theory! How can you not know this?

    WTH do you mean, provide "PROOF?" Energy and matter exist. They are real. I wrote of new concepts that serve to explain "how I think energy exists, and the implications" and YOU

    don't agree. So what? Are you the "final word?" in physics theory?

    You know, or someone else you can reference knows, EVERY "hidden or unknown" with regard to the UNIVERSE!!?? By all means, tell me everything! I want to know also!

    YOU offer "proofs" as though YOU YOURSELF CREATED THEM!!! You did not. NO. (you use your "references" as if you yourself wrote them, and you didn't)

    You offer opinions and references and nothing else, because you have nothing else.

    (read "Grumpy"s replies, this is the proper way to debate and question! He does not like my stuff either, but does not resort to sly innuendos as to the intellect of the poster)



    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Insulting and demeaning?
    That in essence is what being in pseudoscience means. Pseudoscience + Gobbledygook go together like a hand in a glove.
    And I don't believe I have superior intellect as per your implied insult.
    The fact that I am a layman, does though stir the cockles of some. :shrug:


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    No I certainly did not create theoretical physics, but I see most of it including quantum theory, as being the most supported by evidence...The same evidence you want to rule out of contention.



    I certainly do believe in eventual change in some fields, and I also believe that those changes will be initiated within the mainstream qualified circles, not coming from left field somewhere.



    I don't believe I have used the word "PROOF"
    Reference please?


    I have never claimed we know everything, or that anyone else knows everything. But I can reference you to some lectures by qualified experts that have a good idea of what and why things happen.....



    http://academic.reed.edu/physics/fa...s/Quantum Mechanics/Class Notes/Chapter 3.pdf

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.3348.pdf
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2014
  19. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,876
    Gerry Nightingale

    Actually, they are as I described them to the best of our knowledge of physics, including the photon not experiencing time or distance.

    "From the perspective of a photon, there is no such thing as time. It's emitted, and might exist for hundreds of trillions of years, but for the photon, there's zero time elapsed between when it's emitted and when it's absorbed again. It doesn't experience distance either.
    ...
    The closer you get to light speed, the less time you experience and the shorter a distance you experience. You may recall that these numbers begin to approach zero. According to relativity, mass can never move through the Universe at light speed. Mass will increase to infinity, and the amount of energy required to move it any faster will also be infinite. But for light itself, which is already moving at light speed… You guessed it, the photons reach zero distance and zero time."

    http://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-experience-time.html#jCp

    You are arguing with Relativity, not with me.

    Grumpy

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to Grumpy, re: your #16 reply.

    Cheers...excellent response, and I will try to answer the "photon" question.

    You are wrong to think I am contesting Relativity as written by Einstein. In fact, I support it 100%! What I DO NOT support are perversions of Relativity written by many in

    theoretical physics to support "suppositional QM states" that have more holes in them than the Warren Commission Report. ("voodoo physics")

    ...

    I am basically repudiating the model of "packets of energy" traveling from a source to a media barrier, whether as electrons or photons.

    In my concept model, radiant energy does not experience time or distance factors, principally because there is no need for transit...a continuum metric is already in

    place, where "time/distance/greater/lesser" values have no relevance. The energy-metric of potential is a "constant" of itself that never varies, a direct parallel of c.

    All the necessary factors for the manifestation, the actuality of light, are "in-place"...with the exception of one. Matter.

    ...

    Matter serves to enable the manifestation of dimensional-energy by the mechanism of friction...the factor of friction creates an "aberration" of quantum push-factor that has

    nowhere to fit in the metric of potential, no "where" of diffusion or storage, and the potential becomes manifest in the "real" Universe.

    ...

    Also, in your last paragraph, I AGREE completely with Relativity factors as you presented them with regard to matter.

    As I see it, my concepts preserve Einstein, Poincarre', Lorentz, and other giants of the past (pre-1955) NOT Hawking, for one, or t'Hooft, for another.

    (I could refer you to read my stuff on another site, but ALL of it was "deleted" by the "Reichsmarshall der Calculus" of that domain, and possibly the "GuitarHero" site)

    Another "You can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!" type of moderator.



    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  21. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    In reply to paddoboy, re: your #15 reply.

    Please read my #17 reply to "Grumpy". I don't need any Lecture references on theoretical physics...Einstein is enough for me.

    Also, I do NOT write "pseudo-science" unless someone is paying me to do so.


    (Thanks for reading!)
     
  22. Gerry Nightingale Banned Banned

    Messages:
    278
    A further reply to AIP's, re: this thread.

    I issued a challenge once to debate the "possibility" of a quantum-metric of gravity (after all, a "master" who deals in calculus and trigonometry should have no problem

    dealing with the parameters) with no response..."unworthy of debate" I suppose. Or maybe he had no effective riposte.

    I see he is using one of his alter-ego "puppets" on this site, the one has nothing to say except meaningless ramblings.

    I invite you to try me on again...minus your "irrable dictu" truncations.


    (6 21 3 11 25 5 21 * 13 16 5 14 14 5 13, L' addission savant du merde)
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Yep, agreed, Grumpy is one of our most knowledgable, gifted and qualified experts we do have on line.
    He has refuted our three chief alternative pushers and their hypothesis many times, each of them were claiming to have formulated a ToE. Quite delusional I'm sure you'll agree.
    And also Grumpy has just refuted your hypothesis.



    Then why are you in pseudoscience?

    Didn't you say that you agree with Einstein?
    Have you heard of the photoelectric effect?

    """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
    electrons are only dislodged by the photoelectric effect if light reaches or exceeds a threshold frequency, below which no electrons can be emitted from the metal regardless of the amplitude and temporal length of exposure of light. To make sense of the fact that light can eject electrons even if its intensity is low, Albert Einstein proposed that a beam of light is not a wave propagating through space, but rather a collection of discrete wave packets (photons), each with energy hf. This shed light on Max Planck's previous discovery of the Planck relation (E = hf) linking energy (E) and frequency (f) as arising from quantization of energy. The factor h is known as the Planck constant.[1][2]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
    """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

    So really, you disagree with Einstein, and a 100 years of giants and knowledge.
     

Share This Page