Jump to content
Science Forums

Simon4159870717

Members
  • Content Count

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Simon4159870717 got a reaction from MitkoGorgiev in A thought experiment about light   
    I never witnessed any experimental evidence personally. So I doubt everything.
    I believe in photons because I think photon is the lowest unit of light. Light must be composed of something, and it's okay to call it a photon.
    I am very interested in light, I will read your articles.
  2. Like
    Simon4159870717 got a reaction from MitkoGorgiev in A thought experiment about light   
    My friend, if I say:
    Gravity is not caused by the curve of space, but by the consumption of space.
  3. Like
    Simon4159870717 got a reaction from MitkoGorgiev in DOES TIME EXIST?   
    I don't think time exists in reality either.
    I think time is same idea with lenth and weight, it is created by human, it is kind of concept exists in our mind. But it is NOT a fact that can be dilated.
  4. Like
    Simon4159870717 reacted to MitkoGorgiev in Read Me!   
    Yes, the members of the academic clergy are very scared of it, not because it will destroy their cherished beliefs, but because they will lose their reputation and authority and then they will have to tear up their diplomas.
    My explanation of how the light produces the colors is so true that even a 12-years old kid can understand it.
    Remember this and remember it very well:
    "The truth is understandable, the untruth is not understandable.
    Consequence: if something is not understandable, suspect its truthfulness."
    All the theories of the contemporary physics, including the Einstein's crap, are not understandable.
    Consequence: it is all crap.
    But new theories are born due to my hard work and they will change the world of science and thus the world in general. Maybe I won't live to see it, but it will happen for sure.
    My theories are not fables as the fables of the contemporary physics. They are based on very easily verifiable experiments.
  5. Like
    Simon4159870717 reacted to marcospolo in Read Me!   
    What are you people so scared of exactly?
    That someone may propose a theory that destroys your cherished beliefs?
    What if someone posts a theory that is hopelessly wrong? It can be shown as being wrong easily I presume.
    Sometimes, proposing a really stupid idea may lead to something great, prompt some new line of thought.
    If you only include theories that already conform to tour made up preconceived beliefs, then there is no way forward.
    Anything you don't personally like the sound of, you relegate to the "utter BS" category?
    This makes Science a club of bigots.
     
     
     
  6. Like
    Simon4159870717 got a reaction from ItalyIreland3 in Photons Repulsions   
    Photons Repulsions
     
    Hypothesis
    Light is made of photons
    In March 1905, Einstein created the quantum theory of light, the idea that light exists as tiny packets, or particles, which he called photons. After this, there appear many theories and conclusions of light. Einstein’s one is good and simple enough , more complicated hypotheses will come out with specific conclusions.
    Photons are repulsive
    Between the same kind of energy, they always are repulsive. If they are not repulsive, they probably will merge into a bigger unit, and we should find out the mega size energy. In a distance, they will kick each other away, then they won’t touch each other. Photons are repulsive.
     
    The formation of diffraction
    let ‘s imagine two photons are two pinballs. When they collide in a plane, they kick away in specific directions, which depends on the angle they collide. If there are considerable collisions, the directions in which kicked away are not specific, they could be considered to be kicked out in 360 all directions. If two light intersect with an angel, the photons collide, they will not move by the original direction anymore, but a new direction after repulsion. The new moving directions are really hard to measure accurately. Because these two lights are moving in C, so we can naturally comprehend the photons will move within a scope like a cone, which angle depends on and bigger than the angle of the two lights. 
     
    Some photons will NOT move to the screen they should without repulsion. After multiple repulsions, some areas on the screen get more photons and look brighter, other areas get barely photons like shadows. These visible shadows and bright make up diffraction.
     
    Conclusions
    The two lights must be the same frequency and intensity
    Not any two light can generate diffraction. To generate a visible diffraction, we need two lights with the same frequency and intensity. Only with the same frequency and intensity, these two lights could stay stable repulsions. So normally we use ONE light source to generate diffraction.
    The angle of lights is decisive for diffraction
    The angle of lights determines the angle of the CONE. It is the most important factor. If the angle, frequency and intensity are stable, the diffraction would be stable. If one of the PHASE changes (It is not appropriate to call it phase, but there is no better name, so let’s call it phase temporarily), the photon will hit the one in front or behind. Because the angle is not changed, the photons' new directions are still in the same scope of the cone, and the diffraction would not change.
    Photons don’t have wave–particle duality but only particle property
    People say light has wave–particle duality, mostly because the diffractions look like water ripple. A water wave is a mechanical wave, it’s kinetic energy delivered by water. But diffraction is not simply an overlay of mechanical waves. Because water ripple looks depending on the amplitude, and the amplitude of light is too small to be seen by eyes, and it wouldn’t show as we see as diffraction but uniform light. The diffraction is generated by photons repulsions, which don’t need wave property.
    Rear-Reverse-Detecting experiment can prove it or not.
    This experiment might prove photons repulsions theory right or wrong. Prepare a diffraction set but without screen, aid the lights toward void to make sure the lights won’t be reflected by anything. Behind the light source, set a light detector facing the lights moving direction. If the photons repulsions theory is right, the detector can detect some photons from the light source stably.


     
    Double-slit experiment
    It is a famous experiment, and it can be explained by photons repulsions theory.
    When the light passes the slit, the light diffuses to left and right, up and down, the light moving direction will be in the scope of the long-strip-cone. There are 2 factors cause this diffusion:
    The reflection from the slit. Some photons pass the slit and hit the surfaces of the slit, then reflect to other directions.
    The gravity lens from the slit. The mass of the slit causes the gravity lens to bend the light.
    When the light passes the double-slit, the two long-strip-cones intersect. The photons repulse stably and hit the screen in multiple strips as we can see.
    In the which-way experiment, we release very small amounts of photons to observe, maybe only one photon. When the photon(s) pass the one slit, it will move in the long-strip-cone, but there is no other photon (or enough photons) to repulse. So the photon(s) move in the long-strip-cone without repulsions. Then all photons hit in the two strips. 
    The conclusion of which-way experiment will hurt some physicists’ feelings: the light doesn’t generate diffraction because there are not enough photons to repulse, but not because somebody is observing them. 
     
    Michelson–Morley experiment
    It’s a famous experiment as well. Here, I don’t want to discuss the purpose of it and the assumptions.
    If all the mirrors in the experiment are set stably enough, the angle of the lights won’t change, then the diffraction won’t change either.
    This experiment supports photons repulsions theory.
     
  7. Like
    Simon4159870717 got a reaction from devin553344 in Electron-Proton Asymmetry Hypothesis   
    Thanks, I'll work on that in future.
  8. Like
    Simon4159870717 got a reaction from devin553344 in Electron-Proton Asymmetry Hypothesis   
    Thanks, you are so kind. I'll use some days to read your links, then we will discuss about it.
     
    Sometime, it is really hard to shake somebody's faith (in God or Albert Einstein). I won't waste his time, or mine.
×
×
  • Create New...