An Energy-Centric Model for Atoms and Electromagnetic Phenomena

[tack]

By posting a new theory in the ‘Alternative Theories’ forum I know I will most likely be labelled as a crackpot and lambasted accordingly. However, I am hoping that some members will take the time to have a close look at the theory and provide some positive feedback about what they disagree and agree with in this proposed theory.

The proposed theory is an energy-centric approach that is based upon the fairly simple hypothesis there is only one type of energy-generating material, given the label ‘energen’. No suggestion is provided regarding the origin of energen; just a description of its physical characteristics. Fundamental particles, such as electrons, are considered to have an energy core consisting of a toroidal concentration of energen; with electric and magnetic fields consisting of less concentrated energen, but being defined by their different field-energy flow/movement patterns.

Although a fairly simple hypothesis, to have any credence, it needed to be able to explain a wide range of things such as atomic structure and electromagnetic phenomenon as well as, if not better than, conventional Science does. And that is a big ask, which caused the application of the new theory to drastically expand and to grow in width and depth. There are now three theory papers (and several simpler summary overviews) covering the topics of atomic structure; the nature of light and other forms of EMR; and electrons, electricity and magnetism. The theory detail and explanations are detailed but not unduly complex.

In some areas (e.g. Fresnel equations, Snell’s law, and Maxwell’s equations for EMR) there is good agreement, although the physical model differs from conventional wisdom. For electricity there is good agreement, with my theory seemingly providing a better explanation of semiconductor current, eddy current, and the Hall Effect than the conventional Science explanation or lack thereof. The real drama, however, relates to the atomic structure area, which I daresay will prove most challenging conceptually for most readers.

Recently some other individuals have contributed by way of editing and acting as a sounding board and devil’s advocate, so later versions of the papers have been attributed to the STEM Development Group. The links to the three topic-specific pdf papers are: The Nature of Light; Electrons and Electricity; Atomic Structure

[tack]

1 hour ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

different ratio of Planck length over Planck time

I might be as thick as a plank, but I fail to see the relevance of your response to the original post.

[tack]

Hi JeffreysTubes8

I see you are passionate about gravitons and gravity waves, but unfortunately this has little to do with the subject matter of my original post. I suggest that you start a new post to put your ideas forward, If you do read any one of the 3 references given in my opening gambit and wish to comment, please do so: but please keep your response relevant to that subject matter. Thank you. 

[OceanBreeze]

Hello tack, sorry about the off-topic nonsense from JT8. I have removed those posts so you can have a clean thread. I haven't had time to review your hypothesis, but it does look interesting and I appreciate the polite way you responded to the nonsensical posts. Hopefully someone will read your ideas and give you some useful feedback.