A Model for the Propagation of Visible Light and Other Rays

[arfa brane]

Ok, some guys (or maybe "we" is just one guy) got together and decided to invent an explanation for the propagation of light, starting with visible light.

There is some acknowledgement, by these guys, that visible light is part of a much larger spectrum. Indeed, any alternative (or invented) theory will need to explain this, as Maxwell first did with parts of the spectrum at much longer wavelengths than visible light, or for that matter, than infrared which is the domain of molecular vibrations.

If the new ideas don't have a way to recover Maxwell's "laws" of electromagnetism, it's effectively useless to science.

Which is to say, if you decide to start with the visible part of the spectrum, why not start with the radio part? More to the point, explaining why visible light is slowed by dense fields of matter should not have a useful solution in terms of charge-free, and spin-free fields. You will need to alter the laws of physics (or perhaps be in a virtual universe of some kind, devoid of charged particles, say).

Lastly, someone who claims that a theory needs to start with a mathematical skeleton has it backwards, a theory starts with observations and mathematical descriptions of them.

Newton's theories started that way--it took him a while to get the math right, and he didn't come up with an explanation of molecular vibrations impeding the propagation of light, although he was an early spectroscopist.

 

[yaldonTheory]

First off, comments like this: make me wonder about this putative "particle", how can it interact with anything if it has no charge, or spin? You say it does have mass, but mass is something that can be observed and measured; the mass of your particles should have some measurable effect, so why hasn't it been observed?

According to physics something you can never detect has no physical existence, that's a big problem for your theory, even dark matter has some physical evidence for its existence, via astronomical observations.

This is true for theories that cannot apply mathematical equations. For theories that can apply mathematical equations, the equations are considered to be the best instrument that can be used to detect unknown objects. Especially when all other known equipment and apparatuses have failed to detect the physical existence of objects.

These yaldons are the "dark matter" and "dark energy" that scientists have observed.

Do you have a Newtonian version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect? Or superconductivity?

We stated that quantum theory principles (like the Aharonov-Bohm effect) do not have any bearing over The Yaldon Particle Theory. Please refer to post #53 and post#56 for further clarification.

About superconductivity:
This is not related to the 30 pages in the article, but we will provide a brief answer. When there is a copper wire at room temperature with a current passing through it, the copper wire can only handle a certain amount of amps before it is over-heated and melts. If one lowers the temperature around this copper wire, then the copper wire will be able to handle more current before it over-heats and melts. In the same time, the distance between the molecular structure of that copper wire will be closer. Thus, providing less resistance when propagating groups of yaldons are traveling through the copper wire at lower temperatures.

As we have stated in post #53, the propagated groups of yaldons for electricity in the metal wire (copper) behaves like the propagated groups of yaldons for light in the fiber-optic wire. According to equation 9 on page 21, $$\sigma$$ will be kept at a smaller value while keeping the copper wire at a "colder" temperature than when compared to room temperature. As a result, the propagated groups of yaldons in that "cold" copper wire will have a relatively higher speed than when compared to the speed of the propagated groups at room temperature. Then this higher speed will provide better conductivity for that copper wire.

One other major objection I can think up: if your particle only has mass and is "perfectly elastic", it can't possibly interact with photons. "Theorising" that light is delayed by these particles over large distances has that problem, a major problem.

We do not have photons in our model, thus any concept relating to photons is not valid for The Yaldon Particle Theory.

What you seem to be describing is in fact, dark matter, or some model of it. Dark matter is "dark" because it doesn't interact with light, it has mass so can only have gravitational effects.

If the yaldons are part of a periodic propagated group, then it will be considered as visible light or a type of ray. One yaldon (by itself) cannot be considered as light or any kind of ray, but it will be considered as part of "dark matter" in space. This matter (a single yaldon) will also be in motion, then it will have energy ("dark energy"). For more information, please refer to our previous post where we discuss "dark matter" and "dark energy." Please be patient while we work, since we will show how these yaldons are also responsible for gravity.

Ed: Oh yikes, I actually just read some of your article. It seems to be saying that photons are these yaldon things (with no charge, no spin, but with mass) propagating.

We never stated that yaldons are photons. According to our model, there are no photons. Please refer to previous posts, we state this many times.

...photons have no rest mass, and they are spin-1 quanta. Moreover, they are understood to be gauge particles with an associated gauge field, gauge symmetry (Maxwell's equations), and so on.

I'm afraid the ideas in that article contradict at least a century of observations.

Please try to not mix concepts from other theories with The Yaldon Particle Theory, since The Yaldon Particle Theory is a purely classical model.

Ok, some guys (or maybe "we" is just one guy) got together and decided to invent an explanation for the propagation of light, starting with visible light.

There is some acknowledgement, by these guys, that visible light is part of a much larger spectrum. Indeed, any alternative (or invented) theory will need to explain this, as Maxwell first did with parts of the spectrum at much longer wavelengths than visible light, or for that matter, than infrared which is the domain of molecular vibrations.

If the new ideas don't have a way to recover Maxwell's "laws" of electromagnetism, it's effectively useless to science.

Which is to say, if you decide to start with the visible part of the spectrum, why not start with the radio part?

Please refer to equation 'a' on page 12 of YT: The Propagation of Rays. This equation will cover the entire spectrum (including radio waves). As we have stated the $$M_g$$ (momentum of propagated group) and f (frequency) will determine the type of ray. Equation 'a' on page 12 of the article is able to satisfy all the frequencies in the spectrum. As a result, we do not need an explanation from any other theories or models.

More to the point, explaining why visible light is slowed by dense fields of matter should not have a useful solution in terms of charge-free, and spin-free fields. You will need to alter the laws of physics (or perhaps be in a virtual universe of some kind, devoid of charged particles, say).

According to YT: The Propagation of Rays, starting from page 17 to equation 9 on page 21, we explain the speed of light in dense transparent materials. Once again, we do not need an explanation from any other theories or models.

Lastly, someone who claims that a theory needs to start with a mathematical skeleton has it backwards, a theory starts with observations and mathematical descriptions of them.

We never stated that a theory should begin with Math. If you are referring to post #17 where we state:

"Overall, the math is considered a skeleton to the body of a theory. A theory without Math would make for a sloppy body."​

We are simply stating that a body is better with a skeleton than without one. Just like a theory is better with Math than without Math. Please do not draw false conclusions from our statements. Thank you.

Newton's theories started that way--it took him a while to get the math right, and he didn't come up with an explanation of molecular vibrations impeding the propagation of light, although he was an early spectroscopist.

You are asking the wrong people, we are not Newton to answer this for you.

 

[yaldonTheory]

What is the novelty in your theory?

We show light's duality and its various effects. Please refer to all the posts in this thread since Nov. 8, 2016.

 

[yaldonTheory]

This will be interesting, as it will bring into play Statistical Thermodynamics, as well as Quantum Theory. You guys are nothing if not ambitious.

We are very ambitious to know the truth.

 

[yaldonTheory]

We are representing another model to explain the phenomena that are observed. We are not mandating anyone to choose our model, we are simply providing another option to compare and contrast with the present theories. Thank you.

 

[arfa brane]

These yaldons are the "dark matter" and "dark energy" that scientists have observed.

Trying to make your effort look legitimate by appealing to observations won't save your idea. Dark matter does not interact in any way with visible light; you can't have it both ways.

That seems to be what you propose: dark matter and the way it doesn't interact with Maxwell's equations are because the particles of dark matter propagating is why there are Maxwell's equations . . .

 

[exchemist]

We are representing another model to explain the phenomena that are observed. We are not mandating anyone to choose our model, we are simply providing another option to compare and contrast with the present theories. Thank you.

Yes that's always an interesting exercise. And sometimes things emerge, even from models that don't fully account for the range of observed phenomena, which give somebody, somewhere, ideas for future use.

But I do think you will struggle if you attribute mass to these things and treat them as elastic solid particles. I think it is going to break down all over the place when you come to interactions between light and matter.

 

[hansda]

We show light's duality and its various effects.

What are light's duality? Is it wave-particle duality?

What are the various effects due duality of light?

 

[arfa brane]

What are light's duality? Is it wave-particle duality?

I would say wave-particle duality is what someone means by "light's duality".

What are the various effects due duality of light?

The effects are seen in any quantum experiments with light. Depending on how you measure things, light interferes (hence is wavelike), or it takes one of two paths (hence is particle-like).

 

[hansda]

I would say wave-particle duality is what someone means by "light's duality".

The effects are seen in any quantum experiments with light. Depending on how you measure things, light interferes (hence is wavelike), or it takes one of two paths (hence is particle-like).

These are knowledge, as per existing physics. What are yaldon Theory's novelty then?

 

[yaldonTheory]

We have finished a second book about the yaldon particle theory. In this book, we define the fundamental properties of a yaldon particle, which obey the Laws of Newton.

By these yaldon particles obeying the Laws of Newton, we are able to explain the following phenomena:
~all bodies emitting infrared
~black-body radiation
~a physical model for light's duality
~a relation between the energy and frequency of propagated rays
~a reason as to why the universe appears to be expanding, and a ratio provided for the red-shift due to the distance that light travels
~the change of the speed of light in transparent substances
~explanation for the emission and absorption lines in low-pressure gases
~a formula for natural resonance
~light's constant speed
~the cause of surface tension
~the reflection of light
~the refraction of light in transparent substances
~the separation of colors (dispersion)
~diffraction and interference with formulas provided
~polarization
~greenhouse effect
~the electric current
~the new model for the atom which adequately satisfies the periodic table of elements

This theory can explain all phenomena, and currently we have explained a wide range of phenomena while keeping our original assumption. No present theory (individually) can explain as much as the yaldon theory can, without depending on alternative concepts. The only concept needed are the Laws of Newton. By doing so, we have made Physics physical.
There was a concern from our last book, ten months ago, that since our model does not have an electron; how can we implement the yaldon particle with the periodic table of elements. This is why we decided to reveal the new model for the atoms without an electron. This can be seen in chapter 4 of the book, The Yaldon Particle Theory: The Explanation of Thermodynamics, Propagation of Rays, Related Phenomena, and the Model of the Atom.

Following will be a direct link to the .pdf which will take you to the full scope of this work. Thank you.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-vl7kjDEZ8HV2lZN1dId3JpcUU/preview

 

[NotEinstein]

Let's take a look at it. It opens by saying there are many unexplained phenomena, listing (among other) volcanoes, and red shift for the light that is received from far stars. I take it the authors have never heard of plate tectonics and the theory of relativity?

Following is the definition of a yaldon particle. It has an average speed? Well, that's an interesting property of a particle; I can't wait to find out how that is even possible!

Then it calls the Big Bang theory a "science fiction model". Right, so that's another part of science the authors don't understand.

The first new paragraph on page 2 opens with a horrible typo: there are parentheses missing in the formula of Newton's Second Law. It now reads: F t = m v. (At least I hope that's a typo...) It then takes this formula as a cornerstone of the theory. Note: Newton's formula is an approximation derived from the theory of General Relativity in mainstream science. The document then posits that this formula means there must be some bounded system for there to be mass. This is obviously non-sense, because one can easily define mass without there being any bounded system. Heck, that's what Newton himself did! At this point, we can already see that this yaldon theory is build upon a misunderstanding of several fundamental parts of Newton's theory. But let's move on anyway.

All static theories are dumped: "All theories involving energy without the presence of a moving mass will not be included in the yaldon model since they go against Newton's Second Law of Motion". I think we've now read enough to discard the entire yaldon theory outright: it takes a derived formula, applies it to a much broader range of systems than what it's supposed to apply to, and just waves away all "theories" that don't conform to this. In other words, it uses Newton's Second Law of Motion to dismiss (among things) Newton's Laws of Motion. That's... special.

Also note how this statement throws out Lagrangian mechanics. But since that's equivalent to Newtonian mechanics... Yep, yaldon theory uses Newton's Laws to throw out Newton's Laws. Very special!

A couple of lines down we change the definition of the yaldon: its radius gets replaced by an average radius; apparently the shapes of these particles can be different, but we're ignoring that (for now?).

Then we get the definition of yaldon density, which is actually a description of (absolute?) flux per unit time. The usage of the word "speck" without a proper definition is worrying: these are particles we're talking about, right? A formula follows, where the speck density is equated to the density of a(n averaged) yaldon particle itself.

Formula 1-1 strongly suggests groups of yaldons do not count as yaldon specks, so I guess that's the difference. A "speck" is a group of a single yaldon (and not counted as a group). Probably should've defined these terms more clearly... (The last paragraph before the next heading confirms this.)

Oh, page 5 ends with a dimensionally incorrect formula. Volume =/= speed. This happens because up above a time interval has been set to 1 sec, and then its unit dropped, without noting this notational slight of hand. So we now know that is there are time-units missing/extra, just multiply/divide by factors of "1 sec" to fix it.

 

[NotEinstein]

It's ether. This is a darn ether model. Look at the picture on page 14: rays are propagated by density-waves in the yaldons. Yaldons permeate everything. Ergo, it's ether!

I guess that explains why there's an explicit rejection of GR: it would eviscerate this model.

Edit: Yeah, check on page 37: "When a body in the universe is not in motion, ..." It needs an absolute reference frame.

Conclusion: The yaldon model is in violation with experimental data for at least a 100 years. We can safely discard the yaldon model. Next!

 

[James R]

Pity. The name is so elegant.

 

[NotEinstein]

Pity. The name is so elegant.

Just wait until you realize with a big bang what the super-symmetric version of a yaldon particle is called. I hear season 11 is starting!

 

[yaldonTheory]

The first new paragraph on page 2 opens with a horrible typo: there are parentheses missing in the formula of Newton's Second Law. It now reads: F t = m v. (At least I hope that's a typo...) It then takes this formula as a cornerstone of the theory.

This equation from our work has been online and on SciForums for 10 months, and no one has found any fault with it... up until now. Then the case is that either all those enthusiasts who viewed our work for the past 10 months are wrong, or is it "NotEinstein" who is wrong?
In order to find out, we must give a lecture on basic Algebra.
$$F t = m v$$ is not a type-error, it is Newton's Second Law. It can be re-written as follows:

$$F=m\frac{v}{t}$$​

After being re-written as such, we can declare this as a function of time or velocity.
$$F(t)=m\frac{v}{t}$$ (this is a function of time)
$$F(v)=m\frac{v}{t}$$ (this is a function of velocity)
The fact that you were unable to comprehend this, demonstrates your poor ability in basic Algebra.

Let's take a look at it. It opens by saying there are many unexplained phenomena, listing (among other) volcanoes, and red shift for the light that is received from far stars. I take it the authors have never heard of plate tectonics and the theory of relativity?

Yes, we are well aware that plate tectonics move... and the yaldon theory can explain why they move, as well as the source for the pressure of the lava. Whereas, no existing theory can explain this. As we stated before, no theory can explain as much as the yaldon theory can.

Following is the definition of a yaldon particle. It has an average speed? Well, that's an interesting property of a particle; I can't wait to find out how that is even possible!

It is possible since all phenomena can be explained by this assumption, and it is the reason for all energy in the universe.

Then it calls the Big Bang theory a "science fiction model". Right, so that's another part of science the authors don't understand.

We stated 10 months ago, that there are stars older than the alleged moment that the "big bang" happened. According to the Big Bang model, the observer will always be in the center of the universe. This is not an objective model, this model is subjective to the point of observation. Theories that are not supported by formulas and equations are never consistent and always modified (patched).
For example: by explaining away the center of the universe as being this subjective point of view (point of observation) is due the moment that the "big bang" happened as being everywhere and anywhere at all times is not very scientific.

Note: Newton's formula is an approximation derived from the theory of General Relativity in mainstream science.

It only seems to be an approximation, due to current theories inability to apply it in order to explain phenomena (unlike the yaldon theory). This is why Newton's Second Law is the cornerstone for the yaldon theory.

The document then posits that this formula means there must be some bounded system for there to be mass. This is obviously non-sense, because one can easily define mass without there being any bounded system. Heck, that's what Newton himself did! At this point, we can already see that this yaldon theory is build upon a misunderstanding of several fundamental parts of Newton's theory. But let's move on anyway.

You should really ask us for clarification, instead of drawing false conclusions. It makes you appear to be as one who takes decisions without realizing that they do not have full understanding.
We never stated that mass has to be in a bounded system. But, in order to get correct values for the momentum, force, energy, and time (in respect to the point of observation) the moving mass has to be bounded. If there is no observer, then there is no need for a bounded system.

All static theories are dumped: "All theories involving energy without the presence of a moving mass will not be included in the yaldon model since they go against Newton's Second Law of Motion". I think we've now read enough to discard the entire yaldon theory outright: it takes a derived formula, applies it to a much broader range of systems than what it's supposed to apply to, and just waves away all "theories" that don't conform to this. In other words, it uses Newton's Second Law of Motion to dismiss (among things) Newton's Laws of Motion. That's... special.

Also note how this statement throws out Lagrangian mechanics. But since that's equivalent to Newtonian mechanics... Yep, yaldon theory uses Newton's Laws to throw out Newton's Laws. Very special!

Any theory involving energy without a mass in motion will violate Newton's Second Law. Proof is as follows:

$$[F_{net} =m\frac{v}{t}] \times s$$​

Where s is the distance that the mass (m) moves in the equation above. After simplifying:

$$F_{net} \cdot s=mv\frac{s}{t}$$
$$F_{net} \cdot s=mv^2$$​

Where $$F_{net} \cdot s=Energy$$
Then:

$$Energy=mv^2$$​

The above equation shows the relation between Newton's Second Law and energy. We are trying to keep Physics simple and effective. Proof is in the fact that no individual theory can explain as much as the yaldon theory can.

 

[yaldonTheory]

A couple of lines down we change the definition of the yaldon: its radius gets replaced by an average radius; apparently the shapes of these particles can be different, but we're ignoring that (for now?).

Then we get the definition of yaldon density, which is actually a description of (absolute?) flux per unit time. The usage of the word "speck" without a proper definition is worrying: these are particles we're talking about, right? A formula follows, where the speck density is equated to the density of a(n averaged) yaldon particle itself.

Formula 1-1 strongly suggests groups of yaldons do not count as yaldon specks, so I guess that's the difference. A "speck" is a group of a single yaldon (and not counted as a group). Probably should've defined these terms more clearly... (The last paragraph before the next heading confirms this.)

Once again, if you don't understand, it would be pertinent to re-read or ask for clarification.
We never changed the definition of what a yaldon particle is, the value of ($$r_y$$) is the assumed average radius of a single yaldon particle. As long as we implement $$r_y$$ in our calculations, it will not matter if it is an average value or not.
We simply use the term "speck" as a form of imagery to show how a single yaldon particle is far smaller than any object in the universe. We specify this imagery with a radius or average radius (does not matter) of $$r_y$$, in order to provide formulas for our concept.

Oh, page 5 ends with a dimensionally incorrect formula. Volume =/= speed. This happens because up above a time interval has been set to 1 sec, and then its unit dropped, without noting this notational slight of hand. So we now know that is there are time-units missing/extra, just multiply/divide by factors of "1 sec" to fix it.

We will try to keep the Algebra as simple as possible for you.
Starting from Fig. 1.3 on page 6, let the area of base(b) be equal to $$A_B (meter)^2$$.
To find the volume of Box B in Fig. 1.3 (which equals $$V_B$$) one must multiply the height (d) by the base ($$A_B$$).
Then:

$$V_B = d \cdot A_B$$​

Where: $$d = s_y \cdot t$$
Then:

$$V_B = s_y \cdot t \cdot A_B$$​

When: $$t=1 second$$ and $$A_B = 1 meter^2$$
Then:

$$V_B = s_y (\frac{meter}{second}) \cdot 1 (second) \cdot 1 (meter^2)$$​

The units for second cancel out, and after simplifying:

$$V_B=s_y (meter^3)$$​

As one can see from the proof above, our units are fine, there is no need to multiply by any other factor. Thank you for your concern.

It's ether. This is a darn ether model. Look at the picture on page 14: rays are propagated by density-waves in the yaldons. Yaldons permeate everything. Ergo, it's ether!

I guess that explains why there's an explicit rejection of GR: it would eviscerate this model.

For your information, an aether (ether) is an undefined substance. The Yaldon Particle Theory has a defined particle with properties that are implemented by using math and Newton's Laws.

Edit: Yeah, check on page 37: "When a body in the universe is not in motion, ..." It needs an absolute reference frame.

As we have stated before, starting from the first paragraph on page 2 of The Yaldon Particle Theory: "According to Newton's Second Law, there cannot be momentum, force, energy, or time without a mass in relative motion to other points of references in a bounded system."
Also, on page 40, in the second sentence of the first paragraph, we state: "...the observer is in motion." If you need us to repeat ourselves about this concept, we can add this statement again in more places of the book.

Conclusion: The yaldon model is in violation with experimental data for at least a 100 years. We can safely discard the yaldon model. Next!

The statement above makes "NotEinstein" act as a judge, jury, and executioner for matters in Physics and Math, without having full knowledge in the subject matter. This is proven in the fact that we have shown him/her to be lacking basic Algebra skills.
We are not violating any experimental data. As we have stated before, we are merely providing another model to compare and contrast with current theories. After all this work and effort placed into developing this model, we expect encouragement to continue our work. We find that the members here have the need to attack anything that seems foreign. Thank you.

 

[yaldonTheory]

[Deleted due to a duplicate post in error]

 

[James R]

Any theory involving energy without a mass in motion will violate Newton's Second Law.

Er... what?

Proof is as follows:

$$[F_{net} =m\frac{v}{t}] \times s$$​

Where s is the distance that the mass (m) moves in the equation above. After simplifying:

$$F_{net} \cdot s=mv\frac{s}{t}$$
$$F_{net} \cdot s=mv^2$$​

Where $$F_{net} \cdot s=Energy$$
Then:

$$Energy=mv^2$$​

The above equation shows the relation between Newton's Second Law and energy.

Only it's supposed to be $$\frac{1}{2} mv^2$$. The velocity varies as the mass accelerates.

We are trying to keep Physics simple and effective.

You need to also get it right.

Proof is in the fact that no individual theory can explain as much as the yaldon theory can.

I'm skeptical.

 

[NotEinstein]

This equation from our work has been online and on SciForums for 10 months, and no one has found any fault with it... up until now. Then the case is that either all those enthusiasts who viewed our work for the past 10 months are wrong, or is it "NotEinstein" who is wrong?

I will straight-out admit I misread it: it's a "v", not an "a". But let's look at this anyway.

In order to find out, we must give a lecture on basic Algebra.
$$F t = m v$$ is not a type-error, it is Newton's Second Law. It can be re-written as follows:
$$F=m\frac{v}{t}$$
After being re-written as such, we can declare this as a function of time or velocity.
$$F(t)=m\frac{v}{t}$$ (this is a function of time)
$$F(v)=m\frac{v}{t}$$ (this is a function of velocity)
The fact that you were unable to comprehend this, demonstrates your poor ability in basic Algebra.

Sooo, if I chose t = 0 at my starting point, the force is infinite? Sorry, who here has poor abilities?
I take back my comment about a typo: the formula is just plain wrong.

Yes, we are well aware that plate tectonics move... and the yaldon theory can explain why they move, as well as the source for the pressure of the lava. Whereas, no existing theory can explain this. As we stated before, no theory can explain as much as the yaldon theory can.

How about gravity compressing the earth, causing pressure?
Also, you are now saying volcanoes are explained (thus contradicting your text), but that plate tectonics are unexplained. That's a totally different statement.

It is possible since all phenomena can be explained by this assumption, and it is the reason for all energy in the universe.

You're arguing the wrong way around. It's not possible because it works. It can only work if it's possible.
I'm not saying an "average speed" is wrong, it's just so off the beaten track that I'm not sure it's scientifically sound.

We stated 10 months ago, that there are stars older than the alleged moment that the "big bang" happened.

I read your text stand-alone. If it's a part two, please say that in the text.

According to the Big Bang model, the observer will always be in the center of the universe.

Center of the observable universe. Subtle, but an important difference.

This is not an objective model, this model is subjective to the point of observation.

And clearly a point you've missed.

Theories that are not supported by formulas and equations are never consistent and always modified (patched).

That's called science. As more information becomes available, we update our models.

For example: by explaining away the center of the universe as being this subjective point of view (point of observation) is due the moment that the "big bang" happened as being everywhere and anywhere at all times is not very scientific.

Why not?

It only seems to be an approximation,

But it literally is one. From GR, take the weak gravitational limit, and then the low speed limit (= speeds are much smaller than the speed of light). You get Newtonian physics! In other words, GR is a more generalized version of Newtonian physics. So yes, in mainstream science Newtonian physics is most definitely an approximation.

due to current theories inability to apply it in order to explain phenomena (unlike the yaldon theory). This is why Newton's Second Law is the cornerstone for the yaldon theory.

Well, GR seems to describe time dilation just fine? You can't argue that Newtonian physics is correct when you need to add your yaldon particles for it to work. You are arguing that "yaldon theory" works, not that Newtonian physics work.

You should really ask us for clarification, instead of drawing false conclusions.

You should really write more clearly, instead of posting a paper-like text and when people misunderstand it, blaming them for not asking for clarification.

It makes you appear to be as one who takes decisions without realizing that they do not have full understanding.

I indeed do not have a full understanding of yaldon theory, because the way the text is written seems to conflict with the basic premises it claims to uphold.

We never stated that mass has to be in a bounded system.

From your text: "According to Newton's Second Law, there cannot be momentum, force, energy, or time without a mass in relative motion to other points of references in a bounded system." I realize now that the grammar is ambiguous. Please explain how the words "bounded system" fit grammatically into this sentence.

But, in order to get correct values for the momentum, force, energy, and time (in respect to the point of observation) the moving mass has to be bounded.

Non-sense according to Newtonian physics. Forces can be defined without a bounded system. Heck, whether a system is bound or not is determined by forces and energy!

If there is no observer, then there is no need for a bounded system.

If there is no observer, there is no need for any system. Your statement is philosophical, not scientific.

Any theory involving energy without a mass in motion will violate Newton's Second Law. Proof is as follows:
$$[F_{net} =m\frac{v}{t}] \times s$$
Where s is the distance that the mass (m) moves in the equation above. After simplifying:
$$F_{net} \cdot s=mv\frac{s}{t}$$
$$F_{net} \cdot s=mv^2$$
Where $$F_{net} \cdot s=Energy$$
Then:
$$Energy=mv^2$$
The above equation shows the relation between Newton's Second Law and energy. We are trying to keep Physics simple and effective. Proof is in the fact that no individual theory can explain as much as the yaldon theory can.

I've already explained why the formula is garbage.

Once again, if you don't understand, it would be pertinent to re-read or ask for clarification.
We never changed the definition of what a yaldon particle is, the value of ($$r_y$$) is the assumed average radius of a single yaldon particle.

Page 1, first sentence of the second paragraph. $$r_y$$ is explicitly defined as radius, not "assumed average radius of a single yaldon particle". Please write your definitions more carefully then!

As long as we implement $$r_y$$ in our calculations, it will not matter if it is an average value or not.
We simply use the term "speck" as a form of imagery to show how a single yaldon particle is far smaller than any object in the universe. We specify this imagery with a radius or average radius (does not matter) of $$r_y$$, in order to provide formulas for our concept.

I'm not objecting to the term, I'm objecting to its undefined usage in the text.