An addendum to my Topic of Energy and Matter

That is nice but what exactly does that have to do with the photoelectic effect?

Do you have anything to support your belief?

If a metal rod cannot hold more energy how is it possible to heat up a metal rod?

Where are you going with this? You have not discussed the photoelectric effect as of yet.

You seem to be talking only about black body radiation and not the photoelectric effect, why is that?

So you are simply not going to discuss the photoelectric effect, just black body radiation - fine.:shrug:

While it is true that materials generally expand as heat energy is applied to them that is a nonanswer about the radiated photons or (EM waves if you like).

In EVERYONES concept, energy has no matter! If energy cannot move - that must mean that you do not beleive that light has a speed??

Well both of these statements are wrong. I hate to be so definitive, but it is what it is. Light has a defined speed, it is not something that is theorized it is something that measured. So you are wrong there. Light has momentum, this is not a theory this is something that can be measured so you are also quite simply wrong on that too!

ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? This is pitiful. Guess what Gerry, you do not even know what the photoelectric effect is!! What is really sad is I even wrote down a synopsis of the photoelectric effect in the post where I raised the question!!
Photons are not emitted by the metal, electrons are emitted in the photoelectric effect.
By the way you are wrong to say energy=mass, energy does not equal mass.

No idea what that means
......

You have not given a coherent concept so it cannot explain anything and most of what you wrote is demonstrably wrong.

Maybe you could reread (and hopefully understand) the photoelectric effect and we could try again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In reply to James R., re: your #62.

Cheers! Nice to hear from you.

Do I support anything from QM? I would need specific examples. But, I can state that the QM supposition of "matter density results in an exponential of gravity" is false.

......

Is there some conspiracy to suppress my concepts? No. I meant I don't have enough time left to go "hat in hand" in the manner of a Dickens character...."please, sir, would you

read my theory?" (why would you mention conspiracy? You know full well what I meant, so why "go there?")

......

Feynman was a math "wunderkind" and not much else, at least compared to A.E. (in my opinion)

.....

I don't make "silly claims". I do NOT support the fantastic claims of "ultimate gravity" or "event horizon" propositions as "facts". (My LED screen is one of MANY results from Einstein's

work...not QM. QM did not create the results and conclusions of emission theory. A.E. did.

.....

My "terminology" is not understandable??? Then "all is lost" for me. I used the simplest terms I could think of. Sorry.


.....

A frequency of light "bandwidth" is an assigned mathematical designation, created by humans for humans. An objective observation of color would be "what shade of blue is this?"

and not "does this have color?" Each observer sees things according to the limits of the observer. (Relativity again!)

You "see" with your mind, not your eyes...the process of vision is worth at least a book of response! (it would involve huge amounts of QM)

.....


(Thanks for reading!)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In reply to origin, re: your #61 reply.

I DID answer to the photo-electric effect...in my own terms. You don't "like" or understand what I wrote, and so you dismiss it. Okay...what of it? If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.

......

"Photons are not emitted by the metal, electrons are emitted in the photoelectric effect!" My answer to this? I thought it was in my earlier response.

......

Do you realize the implications of your assertion that "light" has an inherent factor of MOMENTUM? Think on that a bit.....

......

Lose the emoticons...I don't like how distracting they are when I'm reading, and the "smug" factor they represent.



(Thanks for reading!)

 

Huh? I fully understand what you wrote. It is not a matter of like or dislike it is a simple matter that you didn't even address the question. I'm begining to think there may be much deeper problems here than I thought. If I ask you what 2 + 2 is, and your answer is, "the plastron of many male turtles is concave to facilitate mating", that is not answering the question in your own terms that is not addressing the question.

The photoelectric effect is the emission of electrons, ignoring that electrons are emitted is ignoring the entire photoelectric effect. Get it?

If you believe you answered this question then that is more evidence that we are dealing with deeper issues.
......

For someone who is a whiz at theoretical physics (as you claim) you should not be surprised by this. A photon has no mass but it does have momentum. Is your mind blown?

If it makes you feel any better I feel much less smug. Tell you what, after stepping back a bit and looking at this thread, I think I will leave you to your ideas and I hope you have a good time presenting them.

 

In reply to origin, re: your #65 reply.

Where there is no matter or mass there cannot exist a state of momentum, as there is nothing for gravity to act upon. Energy of itself as a "primal force" has no matter.

......

IF gravity were able to exert it's actions upon a "state of energy", it would inherently imply that the "state of energy" (light) has a gravimetric component of itself!

.....

Gravity cannot act upon itself, nor can it "influence" a non-matter entity...there is nothing to exert effect upon.

......


YES...you are right. I AM "dealing with deeper issues". Much deeper than particle theory that dates back to the Stone Age of fire "observations!"


.......

You want me to "prove" things to you? Okay...see if you like this (I doubt it, but it is an example)

......

On 12/31/13, I wrote a "Topic" of my theory of quantum-state gravity. (another "phys" site) and 3 months later, Hawking recanted his thirty-years worth of gravity theory

regarding blackhole gravimetric "event" possibilities at a surface interface.

Are the two connected? As in "he read my post and changed his mind?" NO. (extremely unlikely, and my concepts deny his in any event)

So, how is this proof of anything? Simple...it proves that "long established theories that are accepted" are subject to CHANGE!




(Thanks for reading!)

 

Gravity is not a requirement for momentum.

But carry on and enjoy.

 

I wasn't going to post here anymore, but I like to tie up loose ends, so here we go again.

A couple of points. Light/photons follow geodesic paths in space/time, and due to the momentum energy does create it's own albeit tiny space/time warpage and consequently gravity.

Gravity itself is non linear and it has been shown that gravity makes gravity....

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
see....
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity

General relativity: a theory with non-linear laws
Let us approach general relativity step by step, starting with situations in which gravity is comparatively weak. In such situations, the predictions of general relativity differ only by very little from those of Newtonian gravity. Physicists describe such situations using what are called post-Newtonian approximations, which systematically add general relativistic effects to a scenario initially described with the help of Newton's theory. In such descriptions, one of the things to notice is that, binding energy indeed serves as a source of gravity - an example for the "gravity of gravity", since in the last analysis, gravity itself is responsible for this particular source of further gravity.

Next, we can take a look at situations which have no counterpart in Newtonian physics. A prime example are gravitational waves, and these are also an example for the gravity of gravity: As such waves propagate, energy is transported through space. But energy is a source of gravity, so when two gravitational waves meet, they do not just pass through each other, they interact. If both waves are weak, the interaction will be almost unnoticeable, but for stronger waves, the consequences can be quite dramatic - in some cases, the collision of two gravitational waves could lead to the formation of a black hole!

Speaking of black holes, the collapse of a star to form such an object is another example where the gravity of gravity becomes important. You might think that during such a collapse, as matter becomes compressed further and further, its contribution to local gravity would become more and more important. But in fact, that is not the case - on the contrary, in the innermost regions of the collapse, close to the black hole's singularity, the gravity of gravity itself is mostly responsible for the structure of space and time (more about this can be found in the spotlight text Of singularities and breadmaking.

That gravitational sources do not simply add up - that there is such a thing as the gravity of gravity - can also be seen directly in Einstein's equations, Einstein's recipe for how matter and other sources of gravity interact with the geometry of spacetime. These equations are non-linear in the same sense that the equation x²=4 is nonlinear. If you add two values for x which satisfy the equation, say x=-2 and x=2, then the result x=0 will not satisfy the equation as well. In the case of Einstein's equations, this corresponds to a statement somewhat like the following: If you add up two gravitational fields, including their sources, where each field-source-combination obeys Einstein's equations, then the sum will not be another combination of fields and sources compatible with Einstein's laws of gravity.

In fact (and this is the reason for the cautious "somewhat" in the previous sentence), in general relativity, there are even more fundamental problems when it comes to adding up sources. In many situations, using the concepts of general relativity, you cannot even state what it means to add up "fields including their sources". All the simple examples above presuppose a background structure of space and time. We talked about two spherical masses and stated that, at a given moment in time, the total force is the sum of the force when only one of the spheres is present at its given location in space plus the corresponding force for the other sphere. This only makes sense if it is possible to specify what the "given location" is, and what the "given moment in time". But in general relativity, the geometry of space and time is influenced by sources of gravity. Imagine some configuration of masses. If I remove one of them, then the distances of the others to some specific test particle will automatically change. Could I simply move the test particle around, restoring its original distances to the remaining masses? In general, not even that will be possible - restoring some of the distances to their original values will necessarily cause the distances to some of the other masses be different. Under these circumstances, there is not even a sensible definition of what it means to remove one of the spheres and examine how that removal affects the gravitational attraction acting on a test particle in one and the same location.

There is another way of putting this. In Einstein's theory, you're always dealing with complete universes. Even if you use the theory to describe a single black hole, then strictly speaking what you are describing is a very simple, but nonetheless complete model universe - a universe containing a black hole and nothing else. Throughout that universe, the geometry of space and time is influenced by the black hole. Not only is there no uniquely defined way to add two universes - how will you decide which location in one of the universes is "the same" as a given location in the other universe? In many examples, such an addition seems completely impossible - for instance, how could you possibly add a big bang universe for which the volume of space is finite, and an infinitely extended model universe containing a single black hole?

Vice versa, even within a single universe there is no general procedure for identifying the extent to which one of many bodies contained in that universe contributes to gravity. The gravitational field can only be described as a whole. It cannot be constructed from more elementary building blocks.

Non-linearity makes relativistic physics more difficult than Newtonian gravity or electrodynamics. There is no general way of building up more complex situations from elementary building blocks. For each complex situation, the calculations must start anew. If you know how a test particle would move in the vicinity of two different single black holes, that does not tell you what gravity the particle would feel if both black holes were present.


""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Quite possibly true, but that change if it occurs, will in all likelyhood be from the established mainstream science.
Plus some theories such as the BB, SR/GR and Evolution are really so obviously near factual, and so well supported by the continuing mountains of evidence, that any new theory, [eg: a QGT] will almost certainly encompass them and extend their zones of applicability, rather then invalidate them.



(Thanks for reading!)[/QUOTE]

 

in reply to paddoboy, re: your #68 reply.

I have an answer to the "quoted" material. "Quantum-dimension gravity".


(Thanks for reading!)

 

In reply to origin, re: your #67 reply.

"Gravity is not a requirement for momentum???????????????"

I could spend the next 6 months writing a reply to the above, or just let it go.....let it go, I think.

I ANSWERED THE QUESTION of photon-emission. You utterly and completely missed it somehow, or maybe looking at a different thread got in the way.

(1) I stated there are NO PHOTONS as "discrete packets of energy"...and you say there are. We both say we support Einstein as is, regarding theory. (I hope)

(2) I write something concerning the "rod" experiment, that I believe the light-energy is being manifested in-situ, rather than actual movement of a photons...that WAS my

answer! I didn't say you had to agree! You maintain I refuse to answer. I did answer, you just don't consider as an answer.

(3) Remember paragraph 8 on the quoted experiment post! What word did Einstein use? "assumed particle" This does not serve as a dictate...there is "room for interpretation".

My denial of the photon does not in ANY instance invalidate the experiment...the results of A.E.'s conclusions are the SAME AS MY OWN.

......

The speed of light becomes the frequency of light in "cycles per second" rather than Kilometers per second.

(origin...why get angry over an alternate theory? What difference does it make what I write? You think I can "overthrow" anything? I don't, not really. There is so much inertia

against concepts like mine that only a very few will ever see them. I believe in my concepts...but I also know "how things are", origin. I may well be a fool, but I'm far from stupid)


(Thanks for reading!) carry on and enjoy.

 

And that as far as I know, that by the very definition, supports the fact that light can be correctly interpreted as travelling in discreet packets we call photons.
Thank you linesman, thank you ball boys!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In reply to paddoboy, re: your #71 reply.

Not so fast, paddoboy! The concept of a gravity "metric of potential" follows the same parameters as dimensional-energy...where there is matter, gravity is an actuality. Just as with

energy, matter serves as causation for gravimetric actuality.

......

Energy = mass, mass = gravity.

......

Consider this; A photon is emitted. It travels from a distant star, say 50 light-years from Earth...it manages to reach an atmosphere 20 miles in depth, transit the atmosphere, and

strike my darkened paper, and imparts it's energy? No, sorry...I can't "buy" this.

.......

Grumpy tells me "light as energy does not experience "time or distance" factors, and it happens I agree. (except for the photon component)

.......

So....would I be safe in assuming the photons are transiting a "hyper-dimension" of a sort? A "short-cut" before some factor interrupted the transit and caused the photon

to be subducted into "normal" timespace, and was stopped by my dark paper? Really?

Or did the photon transit 50 l/yrs. in the "normal timespace continuum?" And manage to avoid all the Googolplex of matter in deep space, and an additional 20 miles of dense

atmosphere so it could reach the finish line...my dark paper.

......

Which of us is wrong, paddoboy? You, me, or Grumpy? Because something is a "red herring" here. You tell me. Or could Albert have been wrong, as in "let us assume the electron

has become a particle state of energy".

......

Sorry, your team has missed the goal. You just "think" the ball/photon scored.



(Thanks for reading!)

 

100 years of data and research by many giants past, says you are delusional. Sorry about that.
You are too close to your idea. Stand back, think, shed the baggage, and the only logical conclusion is you are wrong, entirely.

 

Actually space, time, space/time, energy, matter, gravity are all real and depend on one another. Take away One, and you have nothing.
Or as my old mate Sten Odenwald put it....

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.
https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html
......""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Consider something far easier....
A photon is emitted from the star we call Sun...150 million kms away. It manages to strike your darkened paper 8.25 minutes later.
What you should be considering, is that it happens many trillions of times every second of every day, and has for the past 4.5/5 billion years.
No problem, no contradiction, no anomaly...Just straight out physics and verified observations.

.......

I also agree. Again, fairly well known for light/photons.

 

I am only commenting because you are directly addressing me.

That would be a wasted 6 months.

Momentum of a mass: \(p = mV\) No gravity needed
Momentum of a photon: \(p=\frac{h}{\lambda}\) No gravity needed

Yes, but that was not what we were discussing we were discussing the photoelectric effect which is the emission of electrons. I have no idea how to make it any plainer than that.

I am not angry I just was pointing out your misconceptions. I told you I will not bother to do that any longer, so just stop asking me stuff and you can go along without my input.

Enjoy

 

In reply to paddoboy, re: your #74 reply.

Do you realize the implications of "consider something far easier?" True enough, my "dark paper" absorbed some few photons, but the Googols of others means I am still surrounded

in light...a metric of light. (in this frame-of-conditions, it's full daylight) Paddoboy...the implications of the "frame" means the "light is there" it is "manifest"...because there is

NO TRANSIT involved. NO amount of matter could interfere with "transit" factor...because NO transit was involved.

Light is either "there" or "not there"...time and distance mean nothing to light, because it's "potential" is ALWAYS present in any given frame.

.....

Consider this analogy; if radio "waves" have an inherent bandwidth of "cycles per second", then why is it "false" to imply that "light" has the same inherent characteristics?

The "c" factor of radio-waves is identical to the "c" factor of light! Does this "straight out physics fact" say nothing to you?

To me it means the two factors are "inhabitants" of the same "metric of potential". If the "two factors" have a commonality of potential, and the same factor of "c", then the

implications cannot be denied....both radio-waves and light-waves emanate from a common source. A "continuum of potential"

......

Now another factor comes into play...the producer of light and radio-waves. A source, such as a star. IF there is a quantum "metric of potential", it would be inherent that the

star's matter is "disturbing" this "potential" in some manner. I do not think the star's matter is "creating" BOTH factors of "potential" and "actuality"....this would defy the

principles of action and reaction, as in "a thing must be pre-existent for a force to act upon it". A Star cannot "create" itself, nor can it serve to create a "metric of potential" in

advance of the Star's "thereness". The metric of potential WAS/IS "there" prior to the Star's existence.

(in what manner, thus far in this reply, is anything I have written "delusional"...this is "bad form", paddoboy)

......

I have to cut-off a big storm is coming and it will break my link...ta-ra!

 

It simply depends on FoR's

As I have told you a few times now, You are delusional if you really believe that what you have trumps more then 100 years of data and past giants.
And secondly, if you really did have something, then you would not be here, and you would be implementing the scientific method and getting proper peer review.
Otherwise what you think you have is just fantasy.

 

In reply to reply #75, re: replies.

I didn't tell you to offer answers on MY thread. YOU did that of your own volition. You have your agenda, which consists of quote-mining as rebuttal, and adding a few choice

nouns of your own...which is unfortunate for YOU, not me. Quote-mining is NOT rebuttal from you, as none of it originated from you! Adding "comments" of

"read this" means you know how to "cut and paste", NOTHING MORE! You simply don't understand the "substance" of what I write...and that's okay.

An "alternate theory" means it is INHERENTLY ALTERNATE. It will not "validate" the works of others. That is something YOU don't see, or want to see.


P.S. If all I wanted to do was "post my delusions" all over the internet, why would I do it with my ACTUAL NAME ON IT!!?? Think on that.


(Thanks for reading)

 

I have no qualms about quoting reputable articles and giants of the present and past. And that will continue when I see the need.
We all do it...Even you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I do understand the substance of what you are writing. It's pure nonsense because it contravenes all our observational data, and has no observations confirming itself....simple as that.

I'm not against alternative hypothesis per se. Only when they do not match the data available to us.
And you do not have a scientific theory. You have an unsupported hypothesis.

I don't know. I don't even know if that's your real name. And I don't really care, one way or the other. :shrug:

 

In reply to paddoboy, re: your # 77.

So...we're back to that again? "Peer review?" "Implement the scientific method?" Okay...that's exactly what I WANT! So, you tell me how to do this, because I have

exhausted every venue I can...and at no small expense either, including the purchase of a $500 laptop! You think maybe I got "online" so I could look at porn?

(plus $50 a month for an ISP and modem/dish etc.)

.......

"Just fantasy?" Okay...then why did you come on the thread to start with? Just some form of amusement?

How about this...you show my stuff to the "people you know" who are involved with theoretical physics, and then they can contact me directly, if they want to.

What's wrong with that idea?

THEY can then inform my stuff is "utter crap", and then you will have the pleasure of "rubbing my nose in it!"


(Thanks for reading!)