andrewgray Posted September 29, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2020 (edited) Quote Devin553344 said: Like charges repel while opposite charges attract. I think you missed the basics here. Gravity is not the electrical force. Atoms are neutral. And even if they weren't perfectly neutral it still wouldn't account for gravitation where all matter attracts in the universe. Charge is also invariant while mass is not considering relativity Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgray Posted October 2, 2020 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2020 (edited) Devin, Quote Like charges repel while opposite charges attract. Correct. Quote Gravity is not the electrical force. Correct. What gravity is... is a Residual Electrical Force. That is, (between 2 bodies) the sum of the electrical attractive forces plus the sum of the electrical repulsive forces is very close to zero, but not quite! The sum of the electrical attractive forces plus the sum of the electrical repulsive forces is close to zero by one part in ! That is unimaginably close to zero! But that extremely, extremely small left-over-force is enough to make gravity. We cannot say what the residual charges are. Only that the sum of the electical attractive forces plus the electrical repulsive forces is extremely, extremely close to zero, but ever so slightly attractive! And by symmetry, that would make anti-matter gravitationally repulsive to matter, contradicting Einstein. Devin, Quote Charge is also invariant Correct. So is the "gravitational mass" invariant, since large gravitational bodies in the universe move "slowly" relativity-wise. The gravitational mass would be proportional to the number of proton-electron pairs a body possessed (remembering to count each of its neutrons as one proton and one electron!) So that means that the gravitational force is indeed a vector force... so that means that we will have to deal with Einstein, his equivalence principle, Spacetime Curvature, and his General Relativity! Coming! Andrew Ancel Gray Edited October 2, 2020 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted October 4, 2020 Report Share Posted October 4, 2020 On 10/2/2020 at 1:28 PM, andrewgray said: Devin, Correct. Correct. What gravity is... is a Residual Electrical Force. That is, (between 2 bodies) the sum of the electrical attractive forces plus the sum of the electrical repulsive forces is very close to zero, but not quite! The sum of the electrical attractive forces plus the sum of the electrical repulsive forces is close to zero by one part in ! That is unimaginably close to zero! But that extremely, extremely small left-over-force is enough to make gravity. We cannot say what the residual charges are. Only that the sum of the electical attractive forces plus the electrical repulsive forces is extremely, extremely close to zero, but ever so slightly attractive! And by symmetry, that would make anti-matter gravitationally repulsive to matter, contradicting Einstein. Devin, Correct. So is the "gravitational mass" invariant, since large gravitational bodies in the universe move "slowly" relativity-wise. The gravitational mass would be proportional to the number of proton-electron pairs a body possessed (remembering to count each of its neutrons as one proton and one electron!) So that means that the gravitational force is indeed a vector force... so that means that we will have to deal with Einstein, his equivalence principle, Spacetime Curvature, and his General Relativity! Coming! Andrew Ancel Gray I think you're missing the point, how is it that the sun, planets, moons all attract, but none repel, so your idea is that there is some charge to the sun, planets and moons. Have you worked out any math or calculations? Probably not cause then you would see that your idea is invalid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgray Posted October 5, 2020 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2020 (edited) I'm glad you asked this question, Devin. You see, it is not residual charge that I am talking about. It is residual electric force. There is a big difference. What I am saying is that atoms are completely made up of protons and electrons (each neutron is a proton and electron combo). Then, between two bodies that have the save number of protons and electrons (neutral), the attractive electrical forces are ever, ever, ever, ever so slightly greater than the repulsive electrical forces by one part in ! This says nothing about charge. We are only dealing with attractive and repulsive electrical force. the two bodies have the same number of positive and negative charges. But the attractive electrical forces are ever so slightly larger than the repulsive electrical forces. Calculations? OK. An example: Take two hydrogen atoms, A and B , separated by one meter. They each have one electron and one proton. Now the attractive electrical forces between them are the e-p and the p-e electrical forces. The repulsive electrical forces would be the e-e and the p-p electrical forces. The attractive and repulsive electrical forces would be about: The magnitude of these two numbers are experimentally the same! They only differ by one part in (see the last red digit). You could not measure this difference experimentally! But this "teensy weensy tee-niney" difference in magnitude is enough to give the two hydrogen atoms a gravitational attraction! One last thing. Remember, the proton and electron are completely different "animals". The proton is more than a thousand times more massive than the electron. They both pulsate. They probably pulsate differently... So... it does not seem unreasonable, that out to some decimal place, the attractive and repulsive electrical forces are different. Devin, do you believe they are the same out past 36 decimal places? Do you believe they are the same out past a 1000 decimal places? Out past a 10,000 decimal places? They are "different animals". In my mind, no one in their right mind would believe this! (Perhaps electron-positron attractive/repulsive forces go out more decimal places the same, but not electron-proton ones!) Andrew Ancel Gray PS. Now on with Gravity? PSS. There is gravitational repulsion! By symmetry, antimatter would repel "regular matter" gravitationally, not attract, contradicting Einstein. So Devin, do you at least understand what I am saying (but maybe not agree?) ??? Edited October 5, 2020 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montgomery Posted October 6, 2020 Report Share Posted October 6, 2020 (edited) On 10/5/2020 at 11:04 AM, andrewgray said: o... it does not seem unreasonable, that out to some decimal place, the attractive and repulsive electrical forces are different. No, it seems reasonable to expect them to be the exact same. You need to be able to supply a reason why not. All the teeny, tiny, teeniest rhetoric hasn't done that. Would you not be looking for this kind of response on a science forum? For example: One measured nautical mile is exactly the same length as all other measured nautical miles. Edited October 6, 2020 by montgomery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted October 7, 2020 Report Share Posted October 7, 2020 (edited) On 10/5/2020 at 11:04 AM, andrewgray said: I'm glad you asked this question, Devin. You see, it is not residual charge that I am talking about. It is residual electric force. There is a big difference. What I am saying is that atoms are completely made up of protons and electrons (each neutron is a proton and electron combo). Then, between two bodies that have the save number of protons and electrons (neutral), the attractive electrical forces are ever, ever, ever, ever so slightly greater than the repulsive electrical forces by one part in ! This says nothing about charge. We are only dealing with attractive and repulsive electrical force. the two bodies have the same number of positive and negative charges. But the attractive electrical forces are ever so slightly larger than the repulsive electrical forces. Calculations? OK. An example: Take two hydrogen atoms, A and B , separated by one meter. They each have one electron and one proton. Now the attractive electrical forces between them are the e-p and the p-e electrical forces. The repulsive electrical forces would be the e-e and the p-p electrical forces. The attractive and repulsive electrical forces would be about: The magnitude of these two numbers are experimentally the same! They only differ by one part in (see the last red digit). You could not measure this difference experimentally! But this "teensy weensy tee-niney" difference in magnitude is enough to give the two hydrogen atoms a gravitational attraction! One last thing. Remember, the proton and electron are completely different "animals". The proton is more than a thousand times more massive than the electron. They both pulsate. They probably pulsate differently... So... it does not seem unreasonable, that out to some decimal place, the attractive and repulsive electrical forces are different. Devin, do you believe they are the same out past 36 decimal places? Do you believe they are the same out past a 1000 decimal places? Out past a 10,000 decimal places? They are "different animals". In my mind, no one in their right mind would believe this! (Perhaps electron-positron attractive/repulsive forces go out more decimal places the same, but not electron-proton ones!) Andrew Ancel Gray PS. Now on with Gravity? PSS. There is gravitational repulsion! By symmetry, antimatter would repel "regular matter" gravitationally, not attract, contradicting Einstein. So Devin, do you at least understand what I am saying (but maybe not agree?) ??? Andrew, it would appear that in order to understand electric force, you must first understand how it works. Electric force is a function of electric charge. Without electric charge force does not exist. In fact without an imbalance in charge, there is no force to even consider. Which is why I cannot consider your idea. Not to mention the fact that the electric escape energy (force) is subtracted or added to the mass of the parts of the electrons and protons. Which is why there is no additional energy floating around either. So there's no force for your idea. Calculations? Look at hydrogen, the force of the electron is removed from the mass of the electron and proton, this is the basic principle everyone accepts. Keep working on it, but you're headed in the wrong direction here. Edited October 7, 2020 by devin553344 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgray Posted October 12, 2020 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2020 (edited) On 10/6/2020 at 3:39 PM, montgomery said: No, it seems reasonable to expect them to be the exact same. You need to be able to supply a reason why not. All the teeny, tiny, teeniest rhetoric hasn't done that. Would you not be looking for this kind of response on a science forum? For example: One measured nautical mile is exactly the same length as all other measured nautical miles. Montgomery, Well, if an experimenter cannot measure a value past 10 decimal places, then the value of the 36th decimal place can be hypothesized to be anything! This is just plain philosophical logic. So, I am hypothesizing that the sum of the repulsive electrical forces plus the sum of the attractive electrical forces between proton/electron pairs is slightly skewed towards the attractive side by one part in , leaving a residual force of gravity. You do not have to agree, but I can hypothesize this difference no problem! I believe it is justified just because we have a force of gravity, and because the electron and proton are not matter-antimatter pairs (they are "different animals"). I believe the existence of gravity makes it more likely that the sum of the electrical forces are skewed attractive! And Devin, I understand how electric force works just fine. And yes, what you are referring to is the binding energy. The neutron is a composite of a proton and an electron with a binding energy that is more than hydrogen's, so the neutron's mass is less than hydrogen's. The physics community has had the mass of the neutron incorrect for decades because of the incorrect use of "fauxton" gamma ray "light particles" in the mass equation. No! So no more delays. On with gravity! If gravity is indeed a force, then we will have to deal with Einstein. So let's do that. First, we deal with his Equivalence Principle! Einstein's original equivalence principle essentially states that Quote "locally, one cannot tell the difference between a gravity field and a frame that is undergoing acceleration". But this is not quite correct! So here is how WE are going to alter Einstein's equivalence principle! Einstein's equivalence principle will now state that Quote locally, one cannot tell the difference between masses in motion in a gravity field and masses in motion in a frame that is undergoing acceleration! Notice that we have added the terms "masses in motion" to the equivalence principle. That is because since gravity is a force, and since the gravitational mass and the inertial mass cancel out of Newton's Law (for example:) then acceleration is independent of mass, and all masses follow the same path in a gravity field. OK, so far so good... But this is NOT true for light! For light, one can tell the difference. As a matter of fact, this is how one tells the difference between a gravity field and a frame experiencing acceleration! Light bends in the accelerating frame and not in a gravity field. Quote "Light will bend in a frame experiencing acceleration, but it will not bend in a gravity field!" OK. I know. I know. The "bending around near the sun experiments using a solar eclipse" needs to be addressed. I know. This is a dirty tale of confirmation bias and almost scientific misconduct! Einstein predicted a gravitational bending of light around the sun. OK, here is the sun and the sun's atmosphere: So if we wanted to calculate how much light bends around the sun, we would calculate: Well, it turns out that the amount of bending measured is fairly close to the Gravity Bending term by itself! Oh, no! But that did not stop the confirmation bias! So all they had to do was zero out the Refraction Bending, like this!! : Then... they can claim the light bending agrees with Einstein! Really? Just look at the solar atmosphere! There is going to be lots of bending due to that! Heck, the Earth's atmosphere bends light by 3 degrees! Putting in a "0" for refraction bending so that the bending value can agree with Einstein's is a typical story of confirmation bias and should not be tolerated. IF Einstein would have been correct, then the bending would have BEEN GREATER THAN WHAT WAS CALCULATED FOR THE REFRACTION, and we would expect to see a value GREATER THAN EINSTEIN's! But we do not. So our modified Equivalence Principle is safe, and we see that the bending of light around the sun is most definitely characterized by this equation: Light bending around the sun is due to the refraction from the sun's atmosphere! Next: The Pound and Rebka redshift experiment. Wait till you find out what THEY did! Edited October 14, 2020 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgray Posted January 17, 2021 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2021 (edited) Now, the Pound-Rebka (&Snider) gravitational redshift experiment! The first hint that there was truly "confirmation bias" in General Relativity (GR) experiments comes from the scientific misconduct of the Pound-Rebka-Snider gravitational redshift experiment performed in an elevator shaft at Harvard. You will not believe how bad this is! The Pound-Rebka-Snider redshift experiment basically consists of: 1. Put gamma emitter in elevator shaft in basement. 2. Put gamma absorber in elevator shaft near the roof. 3. Show gravitational redshift is present by showing that a Doppler Shift is necessary to bring emitter and absorber into resonance. First of all, to get a Doppler Velocity, Pound and Rebka mounted the gamma emitter onto a bi-directional speaker AND NEVER MEASURED ANY VELOCITY OF THE SPEAKER! Let me repeat. Pound & Rebka ASSUMED a speaker velocity, but never measured any velocity of the speaker! Amazing. And why use a bi-directional speaker for the Doppler velocity of the emitter? Why not put the emitter on a uni-directional sled and carefully sweep out the MEASUREABLE velocities???? Huh? (they probably initially did this AND SAW NOTHING!) Amazing! Continuing... Pound, Rebka, & Snider depended on an assymetry in the velocity plot to obtain their results, but they used a ferroelectric transducer for the speaker. Ferroelectric transducers typically have hysteresis and are natively assymetrical. I could claim that their speaker was assymetrical, and NOT THEIR VELOCITY DATA... BECAUSE THEY NEVER MEASURED ANY SPEAKER VELOCITIES! Amazing! Here is where they assume their speaker Doppler velocity from the paper, "Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation": It is truly amazing that one has to dig this deeply into an experiment to see that it is scientifically bad. We shall see this for the other GR experiments! Coming! We will see that gravity is a special relativity compatible residual electric force! Andrew Ancel Gray Edited January 17, 2021 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devin553344 Posted September 22, 2021 Report Share Posted September 22, 2021 Andrew Gray, I'm looking to publish my theory also, I would like to ask you what journal you published yours in. Thanks for any response. I tried to publish it in phys-D but their papers are more experimental works and experimental theory which is not inline with my ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UnDrUnquantum Posted January 3 Report Share Posted January 3 I am still reading your work. There are many parallels with mine. Let us be friends. Please see www.thresholdmodel.com Thank you Eric S Reiter Pacifica CA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgray Posted January 3 Author Report Share Posted January 3 (edited) UnDr., Sure, we can be friends! I looked over your work and you are almost there! You are correct in your view that it is the threshold of the detector that is making the spots on the detector, NOT an absorption of a "quantum". But you still refer to EM radiation that is "singly emitted", implying an emission of a "quantum". This is where you are incorrect. Let me "enlighten" (pun intended) you! There are NO light particles! Let me make it official! : Quote There is no such thing as a light particle. I have been playfully calling fictional light particles "fauxtons"... fauxton is whimsical combination of "faux" ( adjective, made in imitation, artificial, pronounced /fō/ ) and "ton" from "photon". So let me again summarize my positions for you: 1. There are no "fauxtons" !!! Any theory with "fauxtons" in it will have to be tossed out. ( for sure "virtual fauxton" is doubledygook ) 2. The photoelectric effect is an acceleration resonance followed by a non-acceleration resonance (light with pulsating electrons)... The Compton effect is a non-acceleration resonance with a Doppler Shift from an inner atomic orbital, the x-ray frequency limit is a Nyquist Limit ... etc... 3. Emitted atomic frequencies are simply disturbed resonant orbital frequencies of electrons in non-radiating, "pulsating-just-right" orbits, and 4. Light is a wave, and only a wave. 5. Electrons are particles and only particles (they are pulsating though, creating patterns in electron microscopes and fooling physicists into thinking they are also waves!) 6. There are no "neutrinos"! Since charges pulsate, then microscopically, the electric force is not conservative. So we have electromagnetic tunneling. This means that an electron can "tunnel" away from a decaying nucleus (β decay) without strict conservation of energy and momentum! No "made-up" neutrinos needed to make up the difference! They tunneled! There are no neutrinos! No neutrino oscillations! No "sterile neutrinos"!! 7. Since gamma radiation is waves (remember there are no gamma particles! NO!), then the equation for the neutron mass does NOT have the "gamma fauxton energy" in it and we can go back to Chadwick's original insistence that the neutron is a combination of a proton and electron (and NOT "quarks"! NO!). 8. Since neutrons are protons+electrons, that means that matter is ALL protons+electrons! Nothing else! 9. That means that since protons are NOT the antiparticles of electrons, their Coulomb forces are NOT EXACTLY opposite out to a thousand decimal places! That is Felectron→electron + Fproton→electron + Fproton→proton + Felectron→proton ≈ 0 , but not exactly zero. That is, way out there in some decimal place, the sum differs from 0, and the net result is gravity! 10. Gravity is a residual electrical force, and we have: 11. Special Gravitivity, NOT General Relativity! Consequently... 12. Spacetime is flat, flat flat. All "curved spacetime verification experiments" suffer disgracefully from confirmation bias, the worst being the Pound-Rebka experiment! 13. So our part of the universe is experiencing a "Big Explosion", and not a "Big Bang". And we are fairly near to its center because things appear to be receding from us fairly uniformly (but not exactly, because in the literature, there are hints that this is not exactly true!) 14. Things further away are receding more rapidly because that is the nature of explosions! Duh. 15. The universe must have a finite amount of matter. "Infnite something" is a paradox! "Infinite nothingness" is the ONLY infinite NON-paradox! 16. Dark matter is just a bunch of rogue planetary "systems" that do not emit any light. They would be so far apart that we could NOT see them. Duh. 17. Dark Energy is fiction... IF ( and I mean "IF" ) galaxies are actually accelerating away from us, that would mean they are anti-matter galaxies, and anti-matter would have to be repulsive to matter in this new scenario. 18. And finally, our universe MUST be cyclical without a beginning or an end. A beginning of time, or "something-out-of-nothing" is nothing but a paradox... So UnDr., you say Quote We are not completely abandoning quantum mechanics. I say any theory with "fauxtons" in it will have to be abandoned... so yes, Quote We are completely abandoning quantum mechanics! (because quantum mechanics is anchored with "fauxtons", and any theory with "fauxtons" will have to be completely abandoned.) Let me know what you think. Andrew Ancel Gray Edited January 3 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engcat Posted August 23 Report Share Posted August 23 (edited) On 1/3/2022 at 4:19 PM, andrewgray said: Let me "enlighten" (pun intended) you! There are NO light particles! I say any theory with "fauxtons" in it will have to be abandoned... so yes, What exactly do you mean? Surely it is a quanta of energy? Do you mean that light is evenly distributed in an EM field and does not travel? How do you think light travels if it is not a quanta, if you think it travels? Edited August 23 by engcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgray Posted August 24 Author Report Share Posted August 24 (edited) No. There are no light "quanta". That is, there are no "fauxtons". "But how can that be?", I can hear you saying. Well, all modern physics experiments have a "New Wisdom" explanation that does NOT involve "fauxtons". For example: 1) The Compton change in x-ray frequency comes from an nonacceleration resonance of an inner orbital electron that is receding from the source causing a Doppler shift in frequency. This calculation matches Compton's data better than his "fauxton" theory... because... if you calculate the required receding velocity and apply it to the other "approaching" side of the orbital, you will see the x-ray frequency change in the opposite direction. And indeed, if you look back at the literature you see plenty of examples of the scattered x-rays with increasing frequencies! Compton's "fauxton" theory does not include these! It is faux! 2) The low intensity double slit experiment is easy to explain. The incident light is just a low intensity EM wave (!) that strikes silver bromide crystals on the film at "threshold intensity". The most sensitive silver bromide crystals activate first, fooling physicists into thinking that there are "light particles striking the film" How dumb is this? Well if you take the intensity for "minimum blackening" you will find that these dumb physicists are off by a factor of a billion energy units! A single dot on the film is a billion times too bright to be a single "fauxton". Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. 3) As you will read in previous posts, there are no hydrogen "energy level transition fauxtons! The hydrogen frequencies are simply the actual orbital frequencies of the electron in non-radiating orbits! "How are they non-radiating", I can hear you ask. They are non-radiating because both the electron and the proton have pulsating electric fields and are timed in such a way that the electron is OFF while the proton is ON, so the electron is accelerated only while it is OFF, so it does not radiate! 4) The photoelectric effect is explained by first an acceleration resonance that ejects electrons from the metal sideways (transversely at 90 degrees from the wave... ...which contradicts QM theory!) Next, as the electron is accelerated according to De Broglie, the electron's pulsation frequency speeds up and it has a nonacceleration resonance with the incident light which limits the electron's energy! This explains the photoelectric effect! Fauxton particles that are absorbed coming from above the metal and knocking them sideways instead of down is just dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. If you took a machine gun and fired bullets from above into floating Styrofoam balls on the space station, they would embed into the Styrofoam and would be knocked down, not sideways like the photoelectrons! Again, dumb. Dumb. Dumb! Photoelectrons are knocked "sideways" as proven by experiment, which contradicts the light particle absorption hypothesis of Einstein !!!! We could go ON and ON. All explanations of modern physics experiments have a "New Wisdom" explanation that is logic and reality based. "How do I think that light travels?", you ask. Come on engcat. If you take some electrons and push them up and down a radio antenna, you send ripples down these electron's electric force lines in the form of radio waves! Waves that travel out at c. Simple enough! Do you think these radio waves come out as radio-on particles? Of course not. Well just increase the frequencies of the EM emissions from about 100 MHz to 100THz and you have your visible light waves traveling at c just like radio waves! They simply have much higher frequencies! Whew! There goes a radio-on particle by me! It nearly hit me! Andrew Ancel Gray Edited August 26 by andrewgray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
engcat Posted August 24 Report Share Posted August 24 7 hours ago, andrewgray said: Whew! There goes a radio-on particle by me! It nearly hit me! Andrew Ancel Gray I would like to focus on that part since we agree that radiation propagates like a wave. The issue is the quanta part. To that end, does the wave equation apply then to light at all, since without quanta we cannot talk about probability of finding it? Second, if light has no quantas then how do we detect it? Like how and what exactly do we see around us? What falls on our retina so that we can distinguish a coffe maker from the counter top for example. If it is just electron emission that is responsible for that, would there not be a continual loss of electrons. I think there are some issues that need explaining on the quanta part of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffreysTubes8 Posted August 26 Report Share Posted August 26 On 8/24/2022 at 5:59 AM, engcat said: I would like to focus on that part since we agree that radiation propagates like a wave. The issue is the quanta part. To that end, does the wave equation apply then to light at all, since without quanta we cannot talk about probability of finding it? Second, if light has no quantas then how do we detect it? Like how and what exactly do we see around us? What falls on our retina so that we can distinguish a coffe maker from the counter top for example. If it is just electron emission that is responsible for that, would there not be a continual loss of electrons. I think there are some issues that need explaining on the quanta part of things. You’re talking about waves as in oceanic. But a wave in particle physics are just two separate particles with a remote causal connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewgray Posted August 26 Author Report Share Posted August 26 Quote To that end, does the wave equation apply then to light at all... Yes, Maxwell's equations gives us an EM wave equation, the simplest being the EM plane wave: E = Ey sin( kx-ωt ) B = Bz sin( kx-ωt ) This type of behavior applies to radio waves at 10 MHz, microwaves at 10 GHz, infrared at 10 THz, visible light at 300 THz, ultraviolet at 10 PHz, x-rays at 10 EHz, and gamma rays at 10 ZHz! Engcat, they are all the same. A radio tower emits radio waves, not radio-on particles! An x-ray tube emits x-ray waves, not x-ray particles! Einstein hypothesizing EM particles was just dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. EM particles will have to be abandoned as faux! "Fauxtons!" We can talk about the probability of detecting a wave, engcat, no problem! Just get yourself an EM detector and start taking detection data vs. wave intensity. Simple. And just how do we detect EM waves, engcat? Come on. You do it everyday with your smartphone and your radio! EM waves make electrons move up and down in an antenna, causing a time dependent voltage to be generated and detected! This is true for ALL frequencies! What falls onto our retinas? Well, waving electromagnetic forces fall onto our retinas, stimulating them to send signals to our brain! No, engcat. You do not need electron emissions for EM radiation, only electron accelerations. It is accelerating charges that emit EM radiation! The issues in "the quanta part of things" are these: "How was Einstein so dumb to hypothesize light quanta in the first place?" How were we so dumb to swallow such foolishness? And JeffreyTubes, there are no "particle waves" either! "Wavicles" (!) are as faux as fauxtons! Quote A particle is a particle and a wave is a wave! Talk about dumb. Andrew Ancel Gray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffreysTubes8 Posted August 27 Report Share Posted August 27 19 hours ago, andrewgray said:And JeffreyTubes, there are no "particle waves" either! "Wavicles" (!) are as faux as fauxtons! I wouldn’t be so sure. It is possible that if they are close together in their trajectories in the future or past, and only remote in the present, or only influencing each other in the past even, that moving one a certain way in the present can cause it influence the other in reverse-linear time. Linear time is just a construct of our perception, we could just as well experience time from present to past. When we make one action as opposed to another it replaces one future with another, the past could be like that at the particle scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.