Anonymous Participant

1 minute ago, beecee said:

 No I don't see any stars moving away from me: But I also do not see any stars outside of the Milky Way galaxy. Let me continue the science lesson.  You see the expansion of the universe is only observed over large scales; On smaller scales such as walls of galaxies, groups of galaxies and galaxies themselves, gravity decouples us from that expansion rate...understand? Then over even smaller scales, the EMF and strong and weak nuclear play there part in keeping planets together and beings such as you and me.

On your ignorant comment "maybe there is another logical reason" then OK, tell me, what is that other logical reason that explains better then the explanation we have now...Hmmm, I'm smelling that agenda again. 

The most logical reason for the red shift is a loss of energy over time.

7 minutes ago, beecee said:

Obviously taking account of your stance elsewhere. No the universe/spacetime as we know it, had a beginning and we can logically describe that from t+10-43 seconds. Speculatively speaking though, if anything did exist before the BB [quantum foam, nothing] that may have existed for eternity: That as yet is unknown.And time is real, just as space is real, and spacetime. Whether it is fundamental or not is unknown.

You see any stars getting further away? You DO know the big bang boom theory is loosely based on the hubble constant, do you know what that is? 10^43 seconds INDEED!

Using the apparent doppler shift , astrophysicists and astronomers concluded the further away a celestial body is the faster it is moving away....because there is an apparent drop in frequency of light...what if there is another more logical reason why the further away sometime is the less energetic the light reaching us from it is? Could it be over billions of years it looses energy by some natural process?

The fact that the universe is expanding if indeed it is does not prove that the beginning of this expansion was its genesis moment anyway. What is much more likely is it is a part of an never ending cycle of expansion and contraction

Just now, beecee said:

No, the universe is nothing more then a sheer accident.....a quantum fluctuation in the quantum foam, perhaps among other fluctuations and maybe BBs...it is the story of the emergence of gravity from the first Planck instant to shaping the universe that we know of today...it is the story of chemistry and abiogenisis and evolution...it is the story of how we arose from star stuff...it is the story of entropy, complexity and chance.

 

Sounds like a BS "theroy" to me

Lmao!

Again, the universe has most likely always existed, as has life. Time is an artificial construct, as some famous head of science once said ,time exists in our own conscious to keep everything from happening at once, but it does nevertheless. Somewhere a star is dying and a star is being born, and somewhere life is emerging from the "primordial ooze" and somewhere else a planet's life is gasping it's last dying breath, an endless cycle with no beginning or end necessary. A LIVING SENTIENT BEING undergoing the "biological" processes of "life".

Imagine, no need to explain the origin of the universe, which is impossible anyway. The logical conclusion is it must have always existed. We will live and die never answering the most fundamental question everyone is born asking...how the f*** did I get here and why? That is what every real scientist wonders in the deep recesses of his mind. What I want to do now is explain what light is, so can we get on with it?

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

And how many threads do you need to have closed before you get the message? You know the one....No one is going to invalidate any mainstream theory on a science forum where Abnormally Honest can claim what he likes....Secondly I have also remarked that even if your hypothetical is all that it is, by explaining what the incumbent theory does, it needs to extend the boundaries so to speak to oust the incumbent theory. What have you against copy n paste of mainstream scientific articles on a science forum? Are you not able to face the truth of the ridiculous nature of someone on a science forum, virtually trying to rewrite 20th/21st century physics? Who do you believe you are fooling? Yes, I'm a lay person. And I have the choice of standing here in awe at your nonsensical claims, or be smart enough to realize the obvious that has been experienced by many on many science forums...you know, Joe Blow claiming all science is wrong...or that he or she has a better explanation, and all obviously with an agenda, which in time generally comes to light.

By the way, while I'm certainly a lay person, I have read many reputable books by reputable science authors of the like of Sir Martin Rees, Mitch Begalman, Stephen Hawking, Kip Thorne, Paul Davis, Stephen Weinberg, Michio Kaku, and a few more which escape my memory at this time. So stop trying to pull the wool over my eyes and everyone elses. Now give me empirical evidence [not your thoughts and/or beliefs] that light has mass. Give me evidence that you have over thrown SR. The best in this instant you have achieved is some alternative that may match the same predictions of the incumbent, but I truly doubt that very much just going on your past claims.

Perhaps you have noticed, i don't have any intelligent, scientifically educated critics and nor is anyone attempting to debunk my hypothesis on it's own merits. Why do you suppose that is? You don't have to be a butcher to know what a t bone is

1 minute ago, beecee said:

The fact that light sails work are evidenced that the incumbent theory of light works....simple as that..ie, light has energy and momentum, but no mass, as experiments  and observations over  more then a 100 years have shown.

If your hypothesis is what you claim, [1] you wouldn't be here and would be publishing a paper with a reputable firm for peer review, [2] It would also need to predict or describe better then the incumbent theory to oust the incumbent theory, [3] you would also be smarter then you have shown here, and not mistaken C for "c" and known that a scientific theory does not worry or care about "proof," which in my experience many anti mainstream cranks and religious nuts often use in trying to down grade and rubbish science and the scientific methodology. Not sure yet which one fits in with you.

You're a broken record. If you believe my ideas have no merit, why are you wasting your time commenting repetitively about them, concentrating on attacking me personally and maligning my abilities, but totally avoiding attempting to disprove the idea itself?. You are simply parroting with copy paste. It would seem I am questioning something other than your scientific knowledge, I am questioning your faith based belief in something you scarcely understand obviously.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Light has no mass but it does have momentum. This is put to practical use in light sails.

 

That is patently wrong but I'll wait for your evidence invalidating SR. Please though do not confuse Newtonian concepts with relativistic concepts which you seem to have done in your OP.Oh and don't forget...it's "c" for "celeritas", the Latin word for speed.

Firstly, your so called attempt to show light has mass has failed, secondly scientific theories are not based on proof. A scientific theory is always open for modification based on further empirical evidence, or even total change, but do gain in certainty over time and as they continue to match predictions. Thirdly again until you show differently nothing moves faster then "c" in any local frame of reference. 

Better luck on your next round in trying to invalidate mainstream accepted science.

 

 

The fact that light sails work supports my hypothesis. Momentum does not exist in the absence of mass

It is not necessary for me to invalidate another idea to have a valid hypothesis. Unfortunately some of the ideas you are espousing on this thread do require ignoring known facts in science but none of mine do. There is no reason to believe two mutually conflicting ideas can both be true simply by claiming there is a difference between Newtonian concepts and relativistic ones.  Relativity makes predictions based on mathematical formula that were conceived for that purpose. It is possible to create formula from observation that work but have the underlying concept be false.

The fact that light has mass is evident in the fact that it is deflected by gravity, it transmits kinetic energy across distance,and  your so called light sail works, among many other examples of solid empirical evidence. In science occams razor applies, which means the simplest explanation is the most likely true and therefor the favorable explanation. The simplest explanation for the observations is not twelve pages of equations, but that light indeed has mass.

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

Light has no mass, only momentum and energy;

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass.  The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle.  According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.  Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface.  This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass.  (For details see the Physics FAQ article What is the mass of a photon?).

Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon.  Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc².  They also say that a photon has momentum, and momentum p is related to mass m by p = mv.  What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an old concept that can cause confusion (see the FAQ article Does mass change with speed?).  Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle, which changes with velocity.  By convention, relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so, at least semantically, it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way.  But you can say that the photon has relativistic mass if you really want to.  In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass, which is zero for a photon.

If we now return to the question "Does light have mass?", this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container.  The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E²/c⁴ - p²/c²}.  By this definition a beam of light is massless like the photons it is composed of.  However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in both directions symmetrically in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not.  Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box.  This could be measured--in principle at least--either by the greater force required to accelerate the box, or by an increase in its gravitational pull.  You might say that the light in the box has mass, but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light.  You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.

Part of this discussion is only concerned with semantics.  It might be thought that it would be better to regard the mass of the photons to be their (nonzero) relativistic mass, as opposed to their (zero) invariant mass.  We could then consistently talk about the light having mass independently of whether or not it is contained.  If relativistic mass is used for all objects, then mass is conserved and the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its parts.  However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object mainly because the invariant mass is more useful when doing any kind of calculation.  In this case mass is not conserved and the mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of its parts.  Thus, the mass of a box of light is more than the mass of the box and the sum of the masses of the photons (the latter being zero).  Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy, which is why relativistic mass is not a commonly used term nowadays.  In the modern view "mass" is not equivalent to energy; mass is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy.  Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not

Let's try to phrase this another way.  What is the meaning of the equation E=mc2?  You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light.  Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass.  In that case photons have mass, but we call it relativistic mass.  Another way to use Einstein's equation would be to keep mass and energy as separate and use it as an equation which applies when mass is converted to energy or energy is converted to mass--usually in nuclear reactions.  The mass is then independent of velocity and is closer to the old Newtonian concept.  In that case, only the total of energy and mass would be conserved, but it seems better to try to keep the conservation of energy.  The interpretation most widely used is a compromise in which mass is invariant and always has energy so that total energy is conserved but kinetic energy and radiation does not have mass.  The distinction is purely a matter of semantic convention.

Sometimes people ask "If light has no mass how can it be deflected by the gravity of a star?".  One answer is that all particles, including photons, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass.  The deflection of starlight by the sun was first measured by Arthur Eddington in 1919.  The result was consistent with the predictions of general relativity and inconsistent with the newtonian theory.  Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity.  The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge.  (The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity.)  A massless particle can have energy E and momentum p because mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2, which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation.  The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of spacetime, so general relativity predicts that light will attract objects gravitationally.  This effect is far too weak to have yet been measured.  The gravitational effect of photons does not have any cosmological effects either (except perhaps in the first instant after the Big Bang).  And there seem to be far too few with too little energy to make any noticeable contribution to dark matter.

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

The simplest explanation for the observations is that light does indeed possess mass , in the classical sense. You state as fact that light is photons which are defined as 'massless particles", you don't know the difference between fact and theory. How can you have a 'particle" which is defined as a minute portion of matter without mass?

  The fact is my hypothesis is based on solid science that does not conflict with established facts, common sense or logic.  "Relativistic" mass" exists only in equations formulated to explain observations within a specific context, ie light has no rest mass but does have mass in it's only definable state. "massless particle" is a contradiction in terms, it is not valid. Calling the observable mass of light "relativistic" is simply a way of getting around explaining how mass is traveling at light speed, which contradicts the theory. It's the only reason why the so called "rest mass" of light is said to be zero. there is no such thing as the rest mass of light because light by definition is moving.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

 

Sadly it is posts such as these that have prevented us ever getting as far as my beliefs.
You can have no idea as to what mine are since I have never expressed them.

Whatever your beliefs are they have no place here, or in any science. I simply don't care

1 minute ago, beecee said:

And you're ignoring more then a 100 years of science, that shows you are totally wrong and obviously inflicted with delusions of grandeur and/or some agenda probably religious, as many religious people are always out to try and invalidate or rubbish accepted mainstream science..

http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/ahp/LAD/C3/C3_elecEnergy.html

http://blair.pha.jhu.edu/spectroscopy/basics.html

Actually I detest the application of or involvement of religious dogma to the scientific process. I am going to request your posts be removed because they are off topic , accusatory and non responsive

1 minute ago, studiot said:

I have been remarkably patient with your cavalier attitude towards the rules here, but since you refuse to answer rational questions, courteously put I have no option but to report this behaviour again.

I have been remarkably patient with you. I have answered your questions even though they were already answered in the original post. The fact that you cannot perceive this is not my problem. What is your real goal is to have this thread locked because it is in conflict with your BELIEFS

Just now, studiot said:

No I was kind enough to ask the same question in three different ways in an attempt to help you understand, since you seem to be having trouble understanding it.

Thank you for that clear, if totally false, statement that "Light is electrons"

The plain fact is that whilst electrons can in some circumstances emit light, yet in other circumstance remain quite happily dark (without emitting light), there are other sources of light generation besides electrons.

Further by your theory, if an electron absorbs some light, one would expect to get more electrons if light were indeed electrons.
yet if an electrons or electrons absorb light you have the same number of electrons as before.

So it is up to you to explain these facts in terms of your hypothesis

I see no cognizant facts , electrons don't 'absorb light". List some means of generation of light that you believe don't include electromagnetic radiation or electrons . You're ignoring the basic premise because it conflicts with the ridiculous photon farce.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

You did not answer my question.

Period.

Since you made several statements to form your chain of reasoning, I am taking them one at a time and correcting them.

 

You cannot expect the rest of the chain to be correct if the first statement in the chain is lacking.

 

So please reply to my question.

 

Without using existing light to generate heat, what is the connection between thermally generated light and electrons?

You've asked three different questions now, not the same one. Light is electrons

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

You need to invalidate the current model...understand?

 

Ummm..NOPE

Another model of light describes it as a collection of particles called photons. These photons have no rest mass but do have energy (kinetic energy).

K.E. = 1/2 m v2 , where "m"= mass

There are no known instances where kinetic energy exists in the absence of mass, mass is a necessary component for Kinetic energy to exist. It would seem the photon theory has some basic underlying problems and conflicts with known science fact

Just now, studiot said:

Since you once again decline to answer me I will sign off for the morning.

There is no need to reply to your question, it has already been answered. The fact that you don't realize it has is not relevant.

6 minutes ago, beecee said:

You're on a science forum, and you will be judged by your adherence to the scientific method or lack thereof, more likely. The fact that I raise issues and points that question your sincerity and the real probability you have an agenda of sorts[religious?]  and having you avoid answering them, along with previous episodes, points to you being the purveyor of nonsense.

Evidence in this and other threads show that your responses are no more then cop outs in many instances.

The point is that you have failed to invalidate the incumbent model. A model that has stood for a century with ensuing greats adding further insights and making successful predictions AS PER THE FOLLOWING.

http://acme.highpoint.edu/~atitus/phy221/lecture-notes/10-1-energy-quantization.pdf

Photon model of light

There are two models of light that are useful to explain various experiments. One model of light describes it as an electromagnetic wave made up of a propagating wave made up of an oscillating electric field and oscillating magnetic field (in a plane perpendicular to the electric field). The color of light depends on its wavelength (or frequency where λf = c in a vacuum). Light can be made up of many electromagnetic waves of various colors giving you what is called a spectrum. White light is made up of equal amounts of all of the colors of the visible spectrum. Another model of light describes it as a collection of particles called photons. These photons have no rest mass but do have energy (kinetic energy). The energy of a photon is E = hf where h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of the light. Thus the “color” of a photon depends on its energy. Visible light is a small region of the entire range of possible energies of photons. The entire range is called the electromagnetic spectrum which ranges from gamma rays with very high energy to radio with very low energy. The range of energies of the spectrum is shown on pg. 214 of your textbook. The visible range of the spectrum is from 1.8 eV (red) to 3.1 eV (violet). The unit of energy most often used for light is the electron-Volt. Note that 1 eV= 1.6 × 10−19 J

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

When your speculative hypothetical can improve on that model, then you may have ssomething worthwhile...In the meantime.....

"One model of light describes it as an electromagnetic wave made up of a propagating wave made up of an oscillating electric field and oscillating magnetic field (in a plane perpendicular to the electric field). The color of light depends on its wavelength (or frequency where λf = c in a vacuum"

Correct. Now when you get an education where you can actually understand what you are reading perhaps you will see how this foundation and Maxwells equations support my hypothesis.

Just now, studiot said:

Nonsense.

 

I asked you what does thermally generated light have to do with electrons, since you seem to think they have some fundamental connection to light.

You have not answered this question.

Well, no you didn't actually but now that you have,,,,How do you heat something? I asked that before because the answer is in the question. When electromagnetic energy impacts matter if is either reflected or absorbed and then re emitted. The exact same amount of energy goes in as comes out eventually.  This is because atoms can only hold so many electrons in their electron shells.Thermally generated light is simply a result of electromagnetic energy being absorbed into the matter and re emitted. The hotter matter is the higher frequencies it emits because electrons are being forced out of higher energy level shells. I don't think you realize it but this question has already been answered, you just don't seem to understand how.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

That is what I asked you, so why are you asking me?

 

Rhetorical question, it seems to me I already answered the question, which I did. You just didn't realize it apparently.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Your reply has nothing to do with the fact that your original claim goes too far or even with the instances where it is factually correct.

Your original claim was therefore incorrect.

So correct it and move on, because there are further significant issues with your hypothesis.

I would agree that many sources of light are associated with electron activity, but how do you explain thermally generated light emitted by a hot body?

 

I'm not going to argue with you about whether the original statement was correct or not, but it was. In all cases where electromagnetic energy comes in contact with matter, wavelengths of electromagnetic energy different from the incident radiation ARE emitted. In some cases the same wavelength is also emitted.

How does heat produce electromagnetic energy? How do you heat matter up? All matter emits light energy unless it reaches a temperature of absolute zero because it is absorbing and remitting electromagnetic energy

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

And unsupported hypothesis from an unqualified source on a science forum,  most certainly do not disqualify recognised scientific theories.

No contributor to science was known before he made a significant contribution that garnered such noteworthiness. The fact that you judge me unqualified is irrelevant, it is an unqualified assertion unsupported by facts.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

Seem pretty plain to me.

Allow some suitable light energy to come in contact with suitable matter and that some of that matter flouresces, as per textbook.

 

Yes, but the point is the phenomenon is empirical evidence to support my hypothesis. The Bremsstrahlung effect is an example of where high energy electrons produce x radiation (electromagnetic energy) as they are diffused by coming in close proximity to powerful electric fields in high  proton count nuclei . In other words electrons in, EMR out

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

Note the first three lines of this reference.

 

If you said sometimes the frequency is the same, sometimes it is different I could agree with you.

 

But you chose to shout the all embracing "IN ALL EXAMPLES", despite your 'formal education in chemistry.

At least you had the courtesy to reply me this time, unlike in the science & religion thread earlier today.

"IN ALL EXAMPLES where light energy comes in contact with matter, the result is light is emitted in different frequencies from the incident light "

The fact that it CAN be emitted at the same frequency does not disqualify the statement, but you do make a valid observation. I am aware it can be reflected or re emitted at the same wavelength,

1 minute ago, beecee said:

What nonsense? That you claim your C was a typo, and I showed good evidence that it was more ignorance?,  or that I'm offering more observations as to the unsupported rhetoric and nonsensical, all encompassing claims that you make.

I smell an agenda afoot...religious?  

Again, when you have a meaningful contribution to make which I doubt will ever happen, I will respond to it.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

If you did it once I would believe it was a typo: You did it numerous times.

Like I said, I have observed you unjustly, illogically and amateurishly disputing much of science in your posts: All with plenty of gusto and bravo, but none with any real empirical evidence.

So you have no qualifications to invalidate any incumbent theory, in conjunction of course with the lack of any real evidence to invalidate them?

So have I. But I also realise that I have much more to learn and I certainly have no delusions re my qualifications or ability to try and debunk current scientific knowledge all from my armchair in front of a computer, on a science forum, open to any Tom, Dick and Harry.

I could though refer you to some really good reputable science books.

I am not going to allow you to derail this thread as you did before, if you have something on topic to present I will response to it. I see nothing of value or that needs response in your post, just the same old nonsense

59 minutes ago, Strange said:

When you raised this before, we got as far as establishing that you agree that light is quantised but that the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the electron and not the photon. Is that correct?

If so, I guess my first question would be: why isn't light charged? Why isn't its path changed by the presence of charge or a magnetic field?

This also sounds as if you are suggesting the velocity is dependent on the wavelength? Or have I misunderstood?

And does this mean that you don't think of a waveform being somehow associated with the electron, but that it is actually moving in a sinusoidal path? 

This raises more questions:

1. What causes the electron to move sinusoidally? That would require a force to change its velocity (direction of motion) wouldn't it?

2. We know a charged particle radiates when it is accelerated, so why doesn't the electron lose energy and come to a halt?

1) a vibrating electromagnetic field

2) because it has a net charge of 0 in the form of electromagnetic energy.

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

And unsupported hypothesis from an unqualified source on a science forum,  most certainly do not disqualify recognised scientific theories.

It is supported by empirical evidence, some of which has already been presented. That you do not perceive this or acknowledge it neither concerns me nor surprises me.

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I have come to expect unsupportable all embracing statements from you.

Have you not heard of Flourescence?

Yes, fluorescence is the emission of usually shorter wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation resulting from the incidence of low frequency electromagnetic or particle radiation on certain materials. This phenomenon is supported by and described by my hypothesis . if you are not interested in what I have to say, why are you here? there are plenty of other threads to reply to!

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1701.06867.pdf

Abstract :

In the year 1900 Max Planck was led by experimental observations to propose a strange formula for the intensity as a function of frequency for light emitted by a cavity made in a hot substance such as a metal. lPlanck provided a derivation based on peculiar properties to be obeyed by the emitters and absorbers in the cavity. I attempt to point out some nuts and bolts reasoning that could have provided a clue to the physical reasoning. In 1905, Einstein made the bold hypothesis that under certain circumstances, radiation could be absorbed and emitted as packets of energy and also propagated without spreading out like waves. Einstein was able to predict the formula for the photoelectric effect based on his hypothesis. While the formula was experimentally verified by 1913, his peers seem to have rejected its interpretation in terms of light quanta. Einstein himself was aware of its inherent contradictions. The first part of this article goes over this period of struggle with the photon concept, and sets the stage for the entry of S N Bose’s critical contribution in 1923.

 

Theories do not disqualify hypothesis in science, not that these do

Just now, beecee said:

Sorry, personally I'm not going through your very lengthy post in any detail, rather I'll just make some observations....

[1] The symbol for the speed of light is "c" not C                                                                               [2] Your speculative hypothetical is just that, and if you really had anything concrete based on evidence, or invalidating the current incumbent model, you would not be here. You would write up a proper scientific for peer review.                                                                                         [3] You seem to have a beef with many areas of scientific endeavour: What are your qualifications, taking into account the error in point [1]

1) Pardon me for the typo. I guess it disqualifies my hypothesis in your mind but that's alright.

2) I am here to test my hypothesis to criticism and "tune it up" , hoping for at least few intelligent contributors to allow for it before I do present a peer reviewed paper.

3) My qualifications are an aptitude in science in the top tenth of the 99th percentile based on comparative testing with people like you and others on this forum and a similar result in repeated intelligence testing , "IQ" test in top tenth of 99th as well.

. I also have a life long love of science and 50 years of dedicated independent study, as well as a "formal education" in the subjects of physics, chemistry, biology, comparative religion, and geology.

T

Just now, Strange said:

When you raised this before, we got as far as establishing that you agree that light is quantised but that the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the electron and not the photon. Is that correct?

If so, I guess my first question would be: why isn't light charged? Why isn't its path changed by the presence of charge or a magnetic field?

This also sounds as if you are suggesting the velocity is dependent on the wavelength? Or have I misunderstood?

1 minute ago, Strange said:

The particle of light is an electron. Electrons have different properties in different states, for instance a free electron traveling through a CRT tube doesn't "look" like one flowing through a conductor or in the electron cloud around an atom, and they have different properties. The direction of light isn't altered by a magnetic field but it is deflected by gravity or passing through matter. The reason it isn't deflected by a magnetic field is because having a charge (-) isn't a property it possesses in that state, moving at C and oscillating passively to a vibrating magnetic field. I will attempt to explain why this is later but I would rather stay in a predetermined sequence of my own choosing in presenting my hypothesis.

There are examples where light can be "captured" and converted to electrical energy and a flow of "normal" electrons, also explained by rather dubious theories. IN ALL EXAMPLES where light energy comes in contact with matter, the result is light is emitted in different frequencies from the incident light, for instance sunlight on the hood of a car causes a reflection in various "colors" as well as low frequency infrared. The only case where it is not emitted it DOES cause a charge to exist, for instance a photo voltaic cell. The energy of light is dependent on it's frequency because it is following a waveform, with higher frequencies it has to travel father to go the same linear distance. Draw two sine waves on a sheet of paper one with half the wavelength of the other and the same amplitude and it is easy to see how a particle following that wave travels farther with higher frequencies, and thus is in reality moving faster.

If light energy is composed of electrons, why does it not possess a charge? This seems like an instant disqualification for my hypothesis because if the light component  electron had a charge i would be deflected by powerful magnetic fields even though it is moving at a very high velocity. The reason it isn't is actually quite simple, because the "light electron" has different properties than the ordinary free electron because it has another component and thus property absent in "normal" electrons. We know light possesses the property of electromagnetism, in fact it is referred to in scientific nomenclature as "electromagnetic energy" because it exhibits the qualities of a vibrating magnetic field. If it was not continuously shifting in magnetic polarity it would have a negative charge, and removing the vibration results in a charge,and that is what a photo voltaic material does. In other words light energy shifts millions of times per second between electron and positron but emits from the electron cloud of an atom.

 what I am going to attempt to do is explain the Duality properties of light within the context of classic Newtonian Physics.

While this new idea is certainly not well known to mainstream science, it does meet the criteria for a legitimate hypothesis , and it is not mere speculation because this new idea comes much closer to explaining the properties of light without defying known conventional physics, creating contradictions in logic or paradoxes, I.E. kinetic energy without mass. As most of us here  know I would hope, Kinetic energy is a property of a mass in relative motion to a given point or as we often refer to it, frame of reference. Kinetic energy varies within different frames of reference. Light is no different and I will explain why, the Doppler shift does not apparently cause a change in the velocity of light, only it's wavelength. So a light source emitting a given frequency and moving away from us has a lower frequency that the same light source has moving towards us, the kinetic energy is higher in the latter case because the frequency is. In this way light obeys the classic Newtonian qualities of kinetic energy, though the light is not moving faster or slower linearly.

The qualities of light have always been rather mysterious, as  we know it has the qualities of both a particle and a waveform.  The photon is the accepted particle component of light, it is defined basically as a mass-less particle that has the ability to transmit kinetic energy across distance. Higher frequencies have higher energies. This photon supposedly can't have mass because as we know the current set "speed limit" for mass in any frame of reference is "<C". In later posts I will prove with specific examples that mass does reach and exceed light speed in a given frame of reference, there are several examples obviously where it can be demonstrated using hard data. (Have patience and try not to derail the subject!)

What I am going to attempt to prove is the most logical conclusion, light appears to be a particle with actual mass propagating in a waveform because that is exactly what it is. As you shall see, if a particle is moving at "light speed" and following a high frequency wave pattern it is actually moving much faster than "C". Consider the following thought experiment:

Two cars leave Los Angeles for New York City. One takes the "interstate" which has few curves or deviation in direction and the other takes "the back roads", which have many more curves and deviations in direction. Both arrive in New York City at precisely the same time and travel the same linear distance between two points on the Earths surface in exactly the same amount of time, but one of the cars must move faster and thus have a higher kinetic energy to reach it's destination at the same time. When and if this is acknowledged and understood I will begin to explain what light is and why it exhibits the properties of both a wave and a particle, and why shorter wavelengths/higher frequencies possess greater energy levels. I will accept any rational critique of what I have written thus far, but I remind you a hypothesis is not disqualified simply because it disagrees with a theory. What I intend to do is present a better explanation for what light actually is that explains all of the properties it exhibits..
 It is accepted as fact and confirmed by innumerable experiments that protons, electrons and neutrons exist, and these particles are the components that make up the vast majority of the mass of the matter around us. Though electrons have a very small mass, the energy stored in their motion is significant, because their apparent velocities in the 'electron cloud" around the nucleus are substantially high. Each orbital shell of an atom possesses what is called an "energy level", this energy level being effected by the electrons distance from the nucleus and its velocity. So electrons in a "low energy shell" possess less energy than one in a "high energy shell". In conventional electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic radiation is emitted in the form of a mass-less particle known as a photon when an electron "drops" from a higher energy to a lower energy, This photon is represented in conventional theory as not only a mass-less particle, but one that possesses and can transmit kinetic energy in the form of a wave. There are several conflicts with conventional physics in this theory. Up until this point kinetic energy had been described as a property of mass in relative motion to a frame of reference, for instance a bullet leaving the muzzle of a gun had kinetic energy relative to the shooter. This kinetic energy is represented by the simple formula:

K.E. = 1/2 m v2

As we all know, the theoretical (and that's what it is) photon defies this well proven formula by possessing Kinetic energy, while at the same time it has momentum and inertia (it resists a change in it's direction) but no physical mass.

According to this new hypothesis, the photon as described by mainstream physics does not exist. The fact that this photon does not exist. is evident it has never been isolated or described or defined in a logical fashion that is in agreement with conventional and proved physics.

 This paradoxical definition of a photon itself is dependent on a dubious theory, and this new hypothesis doesn't rely on any such unproved theory for its conclusions. The paradox of the photon is that it possesses kinetic energy while lacking a basic component necessary for it to exist, mass.

                                                                                         What Is Electromagnetic radiation?

In conventional theory, electromagnetic radiation is defined as mass-less particles emitted from atoms when electrons move from a higher to a lower energy level.

                      ::This energy is radiated moving in wave-forms of variant frequencies, the shorter wavelengths possessing the higher energy levels.::

   Make a mental note for future reference that the highlighted sentence above is NOT a theory, but proved, undisputed fact . The preceding paragraph, however, is unproven, though all of the empirical evidence does support it, and none of the observations disqualify it..

The wave form frequency and energy level relationship are important to this new theory, as will become apparent. With electromagnetic energy, the higher the frequency, the more energy a given flux density of electromagnetic radiation can transmit through space(and matter).
In conventional ways, we can observe that other physical manifestations of wave-forms do not obey the same energy/frequency relationship as electromagnetic waves, with energy transmitted by a specific wave dependent mainly on amplitude , and this is simply because the ordinary wave is just energy traveling through a medium, like a wave on the ocean or sound waves moving through matter. . With light the matter follows the waveform moving with it.

Electromagnetic energy is best and moist succinctly defined as oscillating , coupled electric and magnetic fields that travel freely through space at the speed of light. Notice the word electric and the word magnetic, the accepted (coupled)components of electromagnetic waves.
Other forms of waves cannot pass through open space in the absence of a medium to propagate itself or in the absence of matter,, only the electromagnetic wave is capable of this phenomenon
                                                                                                                     Quantifying the Energy Of Electron Orbits

Though is seems a giant leap of faith at this point to consider the electron as a particle moving in a waveform  just to explain a stable orbit, observations do bear out this likelihood,as shall later be explained.

                                                                                                    Integer( wavelength )=2pi(radius of orbit)

                                                                                                                                                 Energy levels Explained
When a mass is moving around a given point (like for instance an electron around the nucleus of an atom) , the velocity of a given mass is directly related to the force applied outward (centripetal acceleration) , and therefor the force required to hold it in place. It is necessary that a force exists because the direction of motion is constantly changing.
                                                                  

                                                                          This force being released is the energy electromagnetic energy.

                                                                          Note that none of what I have stated thus far does not in any way conflict with Bohrs model of the atom.

   
The wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is related to the velocity of the associated particle, in this hypothesis it's not some mysterious "particle" with superstitious, illogical and paradoxical qualities, it is simple an electron.
This force is the " force of attraction" between the electron and proton, in turn depends on the radius of the orbit. In this way it could be described as an electro-mechanical model.

                                                   The "orbitals" are energy levels and they occur in steps.

                                                          Let us assign the variable Y to given orbital(integer)

                                                          energy of "Y" orbital= -13.6/(Y)(Y) electron volts

                                                                               1 electron Volt = 1.6 x 10-19 Joules
                                            This represents the amount of energy gained when an electron is accelerated by 1 electron volt.
                       This includes the electrical and kinetic energy of the electron. Higher energy states have larger values of Y.
(If anyone here has any questions about what has been said thus far or can or will attempt to disqualify anything I have thus far , let him contribute. However, if you ask banal questions, post ad hominems or personal attacks, they will be ignored categorically as they were used as a pretext to close and block responses to a similar thread I posted earlier and I see no purpose in entertaining them.  I will do my best to answer any questions pertaining directly to the subject matter.

5 minutes ago, Silvestru said:

"In medieval times, no one understood how planets and stars could move in their orbits, so angels were thought to guide them in paths along crystal spheres circling the earth. But with the work of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton, the motion of the planets was explainable by the action of gravitation.

Isaac Newton, even though he was the one who first discovered the law of gravitation and applied it to the motion of planets, still thought that a supernatural being was required to periodically adjust orbits. But later French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace showed that the instabilities that Newton worried about would iron themselves out."

Do you see a pattern here? We introduce God whenever we fail to find a reasonable explanation or a logical answer. It's natural. 

(I am not dismissing the great work of the above scientists in any way shape or form) I am just trying to prove a point.

We? Speak for yourself. Newton believed in an architect of the universe like every other notable scientist in history. They believed this because there is no other rational explanation for all of the observations they were making. It's not what they couldn't explain, it's what they could see.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Another impressive demonstration of ignorance. I can assure you that without quantum theory and special relativity, your computer would not exist. This is based on a long career actually designing the components in computers, as well as some understanding of the theory.

Sad, really.

(And without general relativity, the internet would collapse.)

Be specific and explain how special relativity or quantum theory applies to computer hardware. Good luck

CHECK