In reply to origin, re: your #104 reply.
Do you have ANY effective rebuttal to any of my concepts, or do you just enjoy writing smart-ass comments of opinion? If you want to engage in semantics, find someone else, because I have no interest in it.
You have not done a stellar job of presenting any concepts. The only one I can identify so far is this:
The frictional-density factors of matter serve to enable the potential of dimensional-energy as an actuality. This frictional-density factor, or (Fdf) is serving as the causation for the manifestation of dimensional-energy, both in-situ and at a distance from the source. In this concept, (Fdf) can occur at molecular and atom levels. The amplitude of (Fdf) at a source serves to create a "new thing", and it is this "new factor" that causes the metric of potential of dimensional-energy to manifest. (for want of a better adjectives, I call this a "signal-push", or (Fsp). This (Fsp) has nowhere to "fit" in the metric of dimensional-energy potential.
This is rather difficult to understand since you made up compound words to apparently represent what you think are new properties but you did not define these terms. You also talk about 'potentials', 'actuality' and 'manifestations' of energy in a unique way without going into any detail. You talk of the 'amplitude' of Fdf which seems like you just like the sound of the word amplitude so you added it to the coversation. 'Metric of potential' is another neat sounding buzz word that seems ot have no meaning in the context you are using it.
However, after a bit of proding I think I understand what you are trying to say based on your example. You said about your Friction-density factor:
The increase of density of matter into a mass results in friction. If the amount of mass is sufficient, then (Fdf) will result in hyper-thermic excitation of both molecular structures and atoms. A Star is created.
So we have a bit of a definition. As the pressure increases heat will be produced. Hyper-thermic excitation means hot. If the heat is high enough molecular bonds will break. At truly enormous pressures and temperatures fusion will occur.
The problem is that this is nothing new, it has been known for hundreds of years. Do you think making up new compound words to describe well known phenomena is science? Atoms increase in temperature as compression occurs in a molecular cloud because as the 'outside' moves towards the center the atoms in the material gain translational kenetic energy from the 'outside' atoms moving in. In a piston and cylinder arrangement the piston moving adds the kenetic energy. Another way to look at this is that work is being done to the system and the result of that work is an increase in the internal energy of the system.
So defining one of your other terms, dimensional-energy, you said:
What do I mean by "dimensional-energy?" It refers to any of what is commonly known as radiant energy, or energy which is emitted from a source.
So again for reasons I do not understand you have taken a well known phenomena and made up a new compound word to describe it. Why?
Anyway lets use the earlier example of the temperature rising due to an increase in pressure. If the material is in a vacuum the heat can only be radiated from the material as electromagnetic radiation. So this is called blackbody radiation which you have decided to refer to as 'dimensional-energy'.
So, as near as I can tell, you have done nothing other than assign your new made up terms to a known phenomena.:shrug:
You have also made the rather remarkable statement:
You are ignoring my contention that THERE ARE NO PHOTONS as packets of energy and by direct implication, NO ELECTRONS either, at least with regard to emission.
This is simply a contention as you state with no reason or explanation. I asked you how your contention would explain the following phenomena, but got no response:
If there are no photons and no emitted electrons how do you explain the photoelectric effect, photovoltaic cells, beta radiation detectors, blackbody radiation, cathode ray tubes, etc., etc...?
I will still have what I consider a valid concept, regardless of where it is posted.
That is nice that you consider it valid, but for anyone else to consider it valid it needs to explain what we observe and it should be supported with evidence, math would be nice but I do not think if is going to be forthcoming. Any evidence supporting your contentions would certainly help to show your contentions are valid.
Yes, under YOUR mandate, Relativity is "word salad" and also a generous amount of "calculus salad" as well.
This is 100% wrong. Saying relativity is word salad shows that you have no understanding of it at all.
YES..."Relativity" is still unproven as an ACTUAL FACT.
This shows a misuderstanding of the scientific process. Relativity will never be a fact it will stay a theory that has stood up to every test to date. In science we know that as more discoveries are made theories will be modified. It will probably never be considered wrong, but I assume there will come a time where it will be modified. Just like Newtons theory on gravity is not wrong, but general relativity has modified the theory of gravity.
So if you want to show how your conjectures explain some phenomena (anything) better than the current theories - go for it.
