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!)
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!)
