Post by: McQueen on 21/04/2016 09:35:40
To many lay people ( and unfortunately to physicists also)this story was the ultimate proof that Einstein had discovered something new about gravity "What was so great about Newton anyway ??? Anything experiencing acceleration experiences gravity!"
NO! Anything experiencing acceleration experiences a force, but it is not the force of gravity.
In actual fact , although the people of little town can't tell the difference, there are huge differences between the force of acceleration and the force of gravity. For instance what if there were a little town of people on the bottom of the lift floor, what would happen to them ? The answer is that they would either stay in place (if there was no gravity) or fall to the floor of the shaft, they certainly would not experience gravity like phenomena! In Einstein's example what the people of little town are experiencing is the effects of Newton's second and thrid laws of motion.
Thus if the lift cage is m1 and the little town is m2 and they are moving with an acceleration = to a
Since F is the only net force acting on the two masses, it determines the acceleration of both:
The force F2 acting on the smaller mass (i.e., little town) may now be determined.
Note that by Newton's third law, the force F2 acts backward on m1. Note that the net force acting on m1 is consistent with the above.
The floor of the lift is pushing up against little town and little town is pushing back against the floor with a force equal to
.As can clearly be seen from the above calculations the example of the accelerating lift has nothing to do with being equivalent to gravity. The only feature that it has that is different from a problem involving two blocks of wood, is that in Einstein's experiment one of the objects is sentient. The people of little town feel as if they are being acted upon by a gravitational force but that has nothing to do with gravity.
So to come down to it, General Relativity is more or less a pictorial representation of what is already apparent in Newtonian Mechanics. Certainly the explanation or equivalence of gravity with acceleration is completely unfounded , they are two completely different forces.
By contrast the Gestalt Aether Theory of gravitation is word for word and description by description exactly as Newton surmised it might be :
“Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centers of the sun and the planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes used to do) , but according to the quantity of solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to great distances , decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the distances……But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses (Hypotheses non fingo); for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. “
The Gestalt Aether Theory advocates the existence of ‘virtual photon aether’ that permeates every part of the Universe and also puts forward arguments as to how this might have come about. But how does this Aether provide an explanation for gravity ? To answer that question it is necessary to go back to Newton’s theory of gravity:
Gravity is one of the weakest forces found in nature approx.. 10-29times less than the weak force.
How weak is gravity? We can find out by comparing the gravitational force with the electromagnetic force, the other long-range force in nature, in the case of a hydrogen atom. By using Coulomb’s law of electrical attraction and repulsion we can compute the magnitude of the attractive electrical force, FE, between the electron and proton and Newton’s Law of universal gravitation, which will discuss in the next section, to calculate the magnitude of the gravitational force, FG, between the two particles. We find that .
Because both forces decrease as the square of the distance between the objects, the gravitational force between the electron and proton remains almost 40 orders of magnitude weaker than the electric force at all distances. That is a number so large that we can hardly fathom it: roughly the ratio of the size of the observable universe to the size of an atomic nucleus. Relatively speaking, at short distances the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces all have comparable strengths, 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.
The contrast has practical consequences. We can easily feel the magnetic force between two refrigerator magnets, yet we don’t feel the gravitational force of attraction between our hands when they are near to one another. The force is there, but too weak to notice. Physicists use sensitive instruments such as the torsion balances to detect the gravitational force between small objects. But the measurements require great care to ensure that residual electric and magnetic forces do not overwhelm the feeble gravitational effects.
Nevertheless, gravity is the force we experience most often. Whether lifting our arms, climbing a staircase, or throwing a ball, we routinely feel and compensate for the effects of our gravitational attraction to the Earth in our daily lives. We call the direction opposite to Earth’s gravity “up.” Removing the effects of Earth’s gravity in a free fall off a diving board or the weightlessness of space leaves us disoriented. Gravity holds the Moon in orbit about the Earth, the Earth in orbit about the Sun, and the Sun in orbit about the center of our Milky Way galaxy. Gravity holds groups of galaxies together in clusters and, we believe, governs the largest structures in the universe.
Gestalt Aether Theory holds that the key to understanding gravity is to understand how weak the gravitational force is. A figure of 10-39 is such a vast number that it is almost equal to all the atoms in the Universe, so for Gravity to be that much weaker than the electromagnetic force is really the first clue. The second clue is that gravity acts over massive distances. We do not know if gravity travels at a finite speed or if it is always there. The Gestalt Aether Theory will answer all these questions.
Newton believed that any theory which would satisfy gravity would have to penetrate to the hearts of stars and planets without any diminution of force ! He stated that it will act not upon the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes used to do) , but according to the quantity of solid matter which they contain. The Gestalt Aether Theory offers an explanation which fulfills all of these requirements. How?
The existence of photon interaction with zero point energy ( Gestalt Aether Theory :calls it the aether) as proven by the existence of the lamb shift shows that electrons as they orbit the nucleus are constantly emitting and absorbing ‘virtual photons’ which although they have normal energies have extremely short life spans. Thus a ‘virtual photon’ might last something on the order of 10-30secs. Sound familiar ? Yes the numbers begin to match, the difference between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force. So gravitation according to Gestalt Aether theory is the result of “virtual “ forces. Is the speed of gravity finite? We do not know and cannot say because electrons everywhere are constantly emitting and absorbing ‘virtual photons’ there is no start and no end to it! What does this result in? It causes the photons of the ‘virtual photon aether’ to line up for tiny trillionth trillionths of a second in the direction of propagation of the emitted virtual photons. This is the force of gravity! Look at a normal atom that comes under irradiation from sunlight during the daytime, its electrons are emitting photons at the rate of 1016secs, you can be sure that the number of ‘virtual photons’ being emitted and absorbed by photons that are idle within the atom approaches the same rate of emission and absorption.
Thus every time a virtual interaction takes place, the photons of the 'virtual photon aether' line up in the direction of propagation of the 'virtual' photon for trillionths of a second causing a miniscule force of attraction to be exerted. This is the force of gravity.
Thus here with the proposal that it is 'virtual ' interactions that are the causative factor behind gravity, GAT theory of gravity gives a sensation of almost superposition on Sir Isaac Newton's musings on gravity. Here gravity is directly related to the denseness of matter since obviously denser materials with more electrons will possess greater virtual interactions than lighter ones. Similarly since 'virtual interactions' are not restricted to surface atoms but occur throughout the matter involved , it means that this property penetrates to the very centers of the sun and the planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force;. The theory also accounts for the fact that gravity propagates its virtue on all sides to great distances , decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the distances .
The explanation of gravity equivalence induced by acceleration, advocated by General Relativity and used almost as its founding principle , seems to be extremely ill-thought out and not satisfactory as a causative or even a supporting factor involving causative factors behind the gravitational force.
Post by: Arthur Geddes on 21/04/2016 16:40:06
Maybe the problem is rationalizing a supra-temporal perspective with our traditional temporal dogma? The minuscule aspect of gravity you identify could correspond to the spatial aspect; the temporal aspect is actually quite profound.
Also; maybe a bit more thinking through the experiment... if i'm in a spaceship accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 & i identify a point relative to the external space; it's easy to think i am accelerating that point as well; once i 'let go' of this imagined point, it's easy to conceive it falling through the floor of the ship, accelerating down at 9.8 m/s^2: gravity eats space, maybe? This is a temporally constrained description of the 'shape' of space-time. If we wanna conserve volume, we can say gravity eats space & spews time; how might that work out?
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/04/2016 23:38:30
Post by: McQueen on 22/04/2016 02:25:04
Quote
Also; maybe a bit more thinking through the experiment... if i'm in a spaceship accelerating at 9.8 m/s^2 & i identify a point relative to the external space; it's easy to think i am accelerating that point as well; once i 'let go' of this imagined point, it's easy to conceive it falling through the floor of the ship, accelerating down at 9.8 m/s^2: gravity eats space, maybe? This is a temporally constrained description of the 'shape' of space-time. If we wanna conserve volume, we can say gravity eats space & spews time; how might that work out?
The point is that these are two whole different forces, a push given to something does not automatically equate to gravity even though it might create some of the same effects. Where would Newton have been if he were thinking in terms of gravity as due to acceleration ? Einstein introduced the special relativistic notion that information travels at the speed of light or slower that had rendered insufficient the Newtonian concept that gravitation is an “invisible thread” or “action-at-a-distance” connecting two masses. In the sense that 'action at a distance' infers instantaneous communication. Einstein's solution was to replace 'action at a distance' by the concept of a field, this is the crux of the matter, IF a field can serve the purpose of a communication medium, then surely the 'aether' as envisioned by Gestalt Aether Theory' would serve the purpose much better. As for the temporal aspect of Greater Relativity. There had to be something different from a topographical image of what Newton's gravity represents; if for instance, one envisions looking down on the solar system from some point in space, what would be seen is a series of ridges and valleys, the ridges occurring at the juncture between two planetary bodies or between the sun and a planetary body where the gravitational force was at its strongest and the valleys occurring where such formations do not exist. In what respect does this differ from Einstein's description of Greater Relativity as the distortion of space? To take it one step further and to equate this distortion to a space time warp was what was needed for credibility. Although this might be harsh, there is really no excuse for (a) replacing the 'aether' with a 'field' and (b) attributing one quite different force to be the causative factor for another completely different force. What is particularly disturbing is the manner in which gravity has been 'divorced' from matter, as if it had nothing to do with it. This is patently false.
Quote
When you calculate the value of g you are calculating a value of acceleration. Just check the units. You have to be able to explain the mechanism that changes the value of an objects kinetic energy.
A wonderfully lucid and insightful statement, IF a clue is forthcoming as to the reason for the acceleration! Coming to the second half of that statement that is indeed exactly what the Gestalt Aether Theory of Gravity does explain. To explain in a little more detail: Take an atom , take an electron in that atom, in order for it not to fall into the nucleus by radiating away its energy it constantly emits and absorbs 'virtual photons' which although possessing the same energy as a normal photon are so short lived on the order of 10-30 secs, as to not violate the laws of the conservation of energy. (This is empirically proven through experiment). These 'virtual photons' when they are emitted cause the 'virtual photons' of the aether to line up in the direction of propagation forming a line whose ends rest on infinity and the energy of the emitted virtual photon travels along this line of 'virtual photons' causing a brief 'tug' of attraction, whose strength depends on the distance traveled. It is this miniscule force that leads to the 'acceleration' due to gravity.
Post by: jeffreyH on 22/04/2016 04:06:18
Post by: Arthur Geddes on 22/04/2016 04:38:55
When you calculate the value of g you are calculating a value of acceleration. Just check the units. You have to be able to explain the mechanism that changes the value of an objects kinetic energy. What is it that causes an object to change its straight line trajectory towards a centre of mass. You will need field equations that are radically different from those of general relativity since it does not explain the mechanism of gravity. It is a pity that none of the 'new theories' posted here address this in any way.
If this link works, here's a pretty good description of how a straight line gets curved:
& i think G.R. suggests that gravitational field IS spacetime rather than a field in spacetime....; the only flat spacetime is inside a hollow shell of uniform mass, maybe?
Post by: Arthur Geddes on 22/04/2016 04:48:14
What is particularly disturbing is the manner in which gravity has been 'divorced' from matter, as if it had nothing to do with it. This is patently false.I don't think it has been; every massive particle has its own spacetime: the universe is a sum of material spacetimes; instead of gravity divorced, universes are married to matter.
Post by: McQueen on 22/04/2016 05:32:00
Quote
So what spin does a photon have? Why is that critical to the validity of your theory? If you don't know or don't understand the answer then you have no business in calling your speculations a theory.
Jeffrey, I have several references referring to your desire to learn QM and with questions about what books would be good to read. So don't come the savant with me ! If you cannot or will not accept the implications, what can I say !
Quote
I don't think it has been; every massive particle has its own spacetime: the universe is a sum of material spacetimes; instead of gravity divorced, universes are married to matter.
The only problem Arthur is that it is so far from the quotidian realities of life, that it is something like hypothesising a theory for chaos. Take for instance the extremely simple and basic problem of how an electric current propagates in a wire. It is unfortunate but there is to date no reasonable explanation. YET a reasonable explanation does exist, if we simply give up the accepted explanation that it is electrons OR the 'electromagnetic field' that carry a current and consider a scenario where it is photons that carry out this function. Everything falls into place . How can you stick to 400 year old explanations for basic physics and then talk in terms of 'every massive particle having its own space time'. It doesn't make sense.
Post by: jeffreyH on 22/04/2016 07:50:46
Post by: McQueen on 22/04/2016 09:51:04
So the 'spin' of a sub atomic particle is actually there to justify the fact that it has a magnetic dipole and can therefore interact with an electromagnetic 'field'. See pic below:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediafire.com%2Fconvkey%2F2669%2F898881zot1ewubn4g.jpg&hash=d696da24a6244cc51e15f0d7b1768654) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/898881zot1ewubn/Neutron_spin_dipole_field.jpg)
According to Gestalt Aether Theory the photon also possesses such an electromagnetic field :
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediafire.com%2Fconvkey%2F87fa%2F9itthf3lesr77eb4g.jpg&hash=5e86cf7aff95af6a0614d7b4777f4900) (http://www.mediafire.com/view/9itthf3lesr77eb/photon.jpg)
So there you are there is your spin OR at least your spin equivalent .
Post by: Arthur Geddes on 22/04/2016 16:06:01
the quotidian realities of lifek; you gotta splain that one.
Quote
Take for instance the extremely simple and basic problem of how an electric current propagates in a wire. It is unfortunate but there is to date no reasonable explanation. YET a reasonable explanation does exist, if we simply give up the accepted explanation that it is electrons OR the 'electromagnetic field' that carry a current and consider a scenario where it is photons that carry out this function.Are you aware of the explanation that involve the impedance of transmission lines, source/sink with reflections? Seems adequate to me.
Quote
Everything falls into place .I'm not seeing your coherence.
Quote
How can you stick to 400 year old explanations for basic physics and then talk in terms of 'every massive particle having its own space time'. It doesn't make sense.I'm not 'sticking' to anything except coherence.
Post by: McQueen on 23/04/2016 01:54:17
k; you gotta splain that one.
Sorry, everyday occurrence , daily life. Was reading Jeffrey Archer and got carried away.
Are you aware of the explanation that involve the impedance of transmission lines, source/sink with reflections? Seems adequate to me
I have heard of impedance matching, but that is going too much into the practical workings of a circuit and ignoring the basic premises by which that circuit supposedly works. Here is the current ( excuse the pun) theory for the propagation of electricity:
The mechanism of energy transport through a medium involves the absorption and re-emission of the wave energy by the atoms of the material. When an electromagnetic wave impinges upon the atoms of a material, the energy of that wave is absorbed. The absorption of energy causes the electrons within the atoms to undergo vibrations. After a short period of vibrational motion, the vibrating electrons create a new electromagnetic wave with the same frequency as the first electromagnetic wave. While these vibrations occur for only a very short time, they delay the motion of the wave through the medium. Once the energy of the electromagnetic wave is reemitted by an atom, it travels through a small region of space between atoms. Once it reaches the next atom, the electromagnetic wave is absorbed, transformed into electron vibrations and then reemitted as an electromagnetic wave. While the electromagnetic wave will travel at a speed of c (3 x 108 m/s) through the vacuum of interatomic space, the absorption and re-emission process causes the net speed of the electromagnetic wave to be less than c.
It is with these 'electron vibrations ' that the problem arises. Considering that there are trillions of possible radio frequencies ( without considering visible light) each with its own unique individual energy or identity, how is it possible for the electron to vibrate at exactly the right frequency OR for the electromagnetic wave to preserve the individual energy of each vibration. The answer is that it is not possible, in a wave, energy is dispersed. A wave phenomena cannot explain a quanta outcome.
I'm not 'sticking' to anything except coherence.
Here again coherence is almost exclusively a wave property. If you would like to read more about how the Gestalt Aether Theory explains that photons could convey a current. click here (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66289.0)
Post by: Arthur Geddes on 23/04/2016 04:55:45
...that is going too much into the practical workings of a circuit and ignoring the basic premises by which that circuit supposedly works.Hmmm...
What's the difference between a conductor & an insulator, as you understand it?
Post by: McQueen on 23/04/2016 06:21:47
What's the difference between a conductor & an insulator, as you understand it?This is actually a very rewarding approach, because the properties of materials has a lot to do with phenomena associated with it. Thus an insulator is a material that has very few free electrons associated with it while a conductor has plentiful free electrons associated with it, the brillouin zone in short. So it is all about bandwidth and free electron availability. But that is not all, a lot depends on the physical properties of the materials concerned. If a material is also paramagnetic or diamagnetic it will generally have better conductive properties. for instance titanium which has few free electrons and is only slightly paramagnetic has a conductivity of only 3.1%.
Post by: McQueen on 23/04/2016 07:44:25
If this link works, here's a pretty good description of how a straight line gets curved:Sorry for ignoring this very informative link it didn't load properly the first time but it seems to be fine now. To be frank ( and I hope you don't mind) I find this video absolutely ridiculous. Yes, time exists, and yes the apple thrown in a straight line horizontally will fall to earth BUT it is not as the video states purely a function of time and something due to space warp. IT IS perfectly explained by Newton's laws of motion where the forward momentum of the apple initially exceeds the gravitational force and then as the forward motion lessens the apple begins to fall towards the earth in a parabolic arc. This is surely a more accurate description of events than saying that it is all due to space time warp ? It was Newton's genius, against all established thought which first stated that a body set in motion will continue in its direction of motion until acted upon by an external force. What is so brilliant about Einstein repeating this to suit his own purposes ? Further what exactly are the mathematical values of this space time warp when applied to the apple and the earth ? Would they by any chance exactly emulate Newton's calculations ?
Note I have absolutely nothing against Einstein, in fact I am a huge fan, but in this context, I don't think he quite cuts it.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/04/2016 08:11:28
[ Invalid Attachment ]
[ Invalid Attachment ]
qm1=qm2=r=F0 where q is charge and m is mass and r is radius and F is force
added - [ Invalid Attachment ]
kE not exist, kE=V where V is velocity.
Post by: guest39538 on 23/04/2016 08:53:30
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: McQueen on 23/04/2016 09:48:52
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/04/2016 13:30:13
Post by: McQueen on 23/04/2016 14:38:07
I read a lot of irrelevant stuff and saw some pretty pictures but alas no spin numbers. For the electron you have the Pauli exclusion principle. Tell me what you think this has to do with electron spin then I might actually start to think you are not joking.
Jeffrey, the only advice I can give you is to go back and re-read your newly acquired text books. You might come up with something more convincing. Why don't you give me your take on spin, since you seem to attribute such extreme value to it ? Say something positive instead of negative.... like what you say can't be true because...... and don't BS just to make a point it won't be appreciated.
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/04/2016 18:37:13
I think others explain it better than me.
Post by: jeffreyH on 23/04/2016 19:07:52
Post by: McQueen on 24/04/2016 02:31:22
1) Propagation of electricity.
2) Formation and propagation of radio waves.
3) Manner in which light really does spread out in accordance with the inverse square law, instead of being in a disembodied state during the course of its travel and only manifesting at the place where it is detected.
4) Shows that concepts such as reflection being due to the bouncing off of electromagnetic waves from the atom are not only false but also do not conform to observable evidence. This in itself is a huge breakthrough.
5) Gives a plausible and well supported explanation for gravity.
6) Explains and predicts super conductivity.
7) Gives a cogent explanation for the formation and existence of the aether and so on.
Each of the above is a path breaking innovative thought that completely changes presently held views on physical phenomena but also form one coherent and well held together system of thought. At present particle physics , except in the most generalised way has not entered into any of these explanations, in spite of which the theory holds together well.
Post by: jeffreyH on 24/04/2016 09:56:03
Post by: jerrygg38 on 24/04/2016 13:40:19
Post by: McQueen on 25/04/2016 02:50:07
Einsteins elevator would not explain why a heavy ball on the floor of the elevator would attract another ball nearby.Thus the elevator would have to accelerate in all directions simultaneously.
Absolutely , excellent, exactly my point as to why Einstein's Greater Relativity theory is so flawed. It is not possible to substitute one force, namely acceleration, for another force, namely gravity. What the heavy ball is experiencing is Newton's second and Third laws. Newton has clearly stated that a body once set in motion would continue to move in the direction of its motion until acted upon by an external force. This was his genius. When Einstein claims exactly the same thing as being a part of his new theory, it isn't acceptable.
Firstly matter does not attract matter. Matter is pushed together with matter as they radiate dot-waves. At the big bang the entire universe existed at the size of a single neutron. This exploded at a faster that light rate since nothing existed outside the neutron. billions of black holes formed from the single black hole and this formed a spherical surface at a distance Ru from an absolute center. they in turn exploded to form all the galaxies.
The second line of this statement seems to be Universally accepted, namely that the Universe originated from a singularity and then experienced an inflationary stage during which it reached something near its present size. When speaking about the size of the Universe, we have no clear idea of what that might be. One of the premises used to figure out the size of the Universe is to calculate from the distance the earliest detectable light from the Universe might have traveled, this is close to 13.5 billion years, during this time the Universe would have travelled a distance of 46.5 billion light years due to the expansion of the Universe. Unfortunately even this calculation is subject to conjecture, because no-one can really tell the rate at which the Universe is expanding. In fact all of the evidence seems to point to exactly the opposite, that the effects of the early acceleration are slowing down. I say this because the further we look back in time ( i.e., the further the galaxies are from earth, the faster they seem to be accelerating away from earth) the decrease in speeds of galaxies moving away from earth slows with distance from the earth. The closer galaxies moving away more slowly. This makes sense if one considers that the further away we look the further into time we are looking.
This exploded at a faster that light rate since nothing existed outside the neutron. billions of black holes formed from the single black hole and this formed a spherical surface at a distance Ru from an absolute center. they in turn exploded to form all the galaxies. As dot-waves are radiated from the galaxies, they push the universe apart. At the same time there is a kickback effect and matter is pushed by the resulting gravitational waves. thus it looks like matter attracts matter but the gravitational waves push matter together as the universe expands. Today matter is only about 4% of the universe while the gravitational waves in dark matter/dark energy consist of about 96%.
By Ru I presume you refer to the radius of the Universe, I do not know what dot waves are. In the Gestalt Aether Theory the whole of the Universe is filled with light, although that light now has such low energies that it is practically impossible to detect. This light takes the form of almost stationary di-poles that are capable of orienting themselves at 3600 degrees. Thus when a real photon is emitted these low energy photons line up in the direction of propagation of the real photon forming a line whose ends rest on infinity and the energy of the real photon travels along this line of aligned virtual photons. Gravity is also , according to Gestalt Aether Theory , due to similar interactions taking place at infinitesimally shorter time intervals.
Thus it is possible , since the aether depicted in Gestalt Aether Theory, has both a static and a dynamic role that it is both dark matter And dark energy.
Post by: jeffreyH on 25/04/2016 20:02:29
Post by: McQueen on 26/04/2016 10:32:14
Post by: jerrygg38 on 04/07/2016 14:21:11
Einstein's particular math calculations are good but his reality is false. Acceleration is linear such as the elevator but gravity is spherical and unfortunately spherical Doppler space time has been left out of our learning.
Post by: jerrygg38 on 04/07/2016 14:38:42
By Ru I presume you refer to the radius of the Universe, I do not know what dot waves are. In the Gestalt Aether Theory the whole of the Universe is filled with light, although that light now has such low energies that it is practically impossible to detect.
My dot-waves are the lowest form of mass/energy in the universe. They add to each other to form particles and photons. Basically they have a mass of 1.566E-72kilograms and charge of 2.755E-61coulombs. Everything is made from them and they fill the universe. Protons slowly radiate them and the visible universe slowly converts into an invisible universe. The spherical dot wave can oscillate from a dot to a particlular radius. Therefore it is spherical energy. Within a photon the dot-waves tend to be bipolar. It is massless because mass needs spherical energy forms and the photons only have linear and orbital energy. Within a hydrogen atom the photon converts to an orbital patterns which spins out a spherical Bohr type patterns and thus produces mass. In addition some of the energy enter the electron and converts back to spherical energy. Thus the dot-wave is a very flexible quantum of energy and the total energy is
Energy = spherical+linear +orbital.
Physics have been written using linear and orbital energy. Spherical forms of energy have be omitted. That is where physics has gone wrong but it is not easy to measure spherical energy.