1

New Theories / 10 reasons why it is ridiculously obvious matter is made of orbiting photons...

« on: 05/05/2017 20:11:12 »

Just want to point out what an idea that keeps staring everyone on the face, but the science community looks past because of the typical blinders and thinking that keeps repeating itself over and over again in history.

10 reasons why it is ridiculously obvious that matter is made of orbiting photons:

1. Electrons in an atom are constantly absorbing and emitting photons with the majority being in the infrared spectrum.  This is known as heat transfer.
2. E=mc² - mass is converted into photons in the following reactions: nuclear fission in a star or splitting an atom in a nuclear bomb.
3. Radioactivity - Unstable atomic nucleus lose energy (in terms of mass in its rest frame) by emitting radiation in the form of photons.
4. Wave - Particle duality - If matter is made up of orbiting photons, the wave particle duality feature makes more sense.
5. Super Colliders create particles by taking two elementary particles and collide them at high speeds which release energy (photons) that combines to create other particles- mostly unstable.
6. A Pion particle decays into two or three photons - traveling in equally spaced opposite directions.
7. A Higgs boson particle decays into two or three photons - traveling in equally spaced opposite directions.
8. A Delta Baryon can sometimes decay into a proton and a photon or neutron and a photon.
9. It has been calculated that Lasers can create electrons and positrons - https://phys.org/news/2016-09-antimatter-lasers.html.
10. Gamma-Gamma Colliders create elementary particles - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics

It's not like I'm saying, your just going to have to trust me, matter is made up of photons...you see photons come in and out of matter endlessly in science!

Isn't it obvious?

2

New Theories / Re: Does F = ma and E = mc^^2 mean F = E?

« on: 05/05/2017 16:15:56 »

The relationship between Force and Energy is a bit more easily understood by looking at the following formulas for pressure:

Pressure = Force/Area  = Energy/Volume

so:

Force = Energy/length

or

Energy = Force x length (distance)

3

New Theories / Re: Is time constant and the speed of light variable? Space Compression Spring Theory.

« on: 24/02/2017 15:47:13 »

Explanation of Dark Matter:

I wanted to shed light on another explanation of dark matter.  Since the Neutrino model is almost identical to the electron and positron, it must have the same effective mass.  That means its mass is significantly under rated.  Of course, how do you measure something with no net charge or net magnetic field?

This would explain all the extra "matter" in the universe the we cannot see - all those Neutrinos.

4

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 21/02/2017 16:34:21 »

Reply #65 appears to be a typo. Authors are allowed to withdraw their comments so I would ask Spring Theory to do so and I will then delete this one.

Not a typo.

5

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 21/02/2017 04:58:54 »

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.

Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.

The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...

You seem to be advocating some kind of aether theory, but you are way off topic on this thread. Let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand, shall we?

Equivalence principle!!?

The equivalence principle, which states that observers in free fall do not feel their own weight, is not in contention here.

Topic: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

6

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 21/02/2017 04:57:59 »

I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You're suggesting that the phenomenon of time dilation is separate and distinct from gravity. I couldn't agree more. If you interpret GR in terms of variable light speed, time dilation is entirely due to velocity. Same goes for spatial dilation, but that one is a bit of a mixed bag because light speed defines the relationship between space and time. You could turn it around by making space squishy and time rigid, but SR teaches us that it's really a mixture of the two and that is the view I am advocating. Time and space are variable in SR, but light speed is constant. GR extends that concept by making light speed variable in a gravitational field.
BTW - you can link directly to a comment by copying the link above it, which reads "Re: topic".

Agreed to a point, but I hold to the side that time is rigid and space is squishy...

7

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 21/02/2017 04:51:08 »

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.

Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.

The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...

You seem to be advocating some kind of aether theory, but you are way off topic on this thread. Let's try to stay focused on the topic at hand, shall we?

Equivalence principle!!?

8

New Theories / Re: Is there a discrepancy with the equivalence principle?

« on: 21/02/2017 02:26:42 »

If you look at matter as photons in orbit, it makes the nature of space time easier to explain. Also, the bending of space by matter is really a compressing of space that leaves decompressed space at its perimeter.

Light travels slower in decompressed space (gravity wells) so the orbital cycles of matter travel slower which makes time appear to slow down.

The gravity effect is the bending of the photon path due to speed gradients in the direction of decompressed space. It does not matter how massive the "particle" (photon orbital) is, the effect is equivalent for all photon systems, hence the equivalence principle...

9

New Theories / Re: Is time constant and the speed of light variable? Space Compression Spring Theory.

« on: 21/02/2017 00:06:50 »

Can we see the derivation of the path of an orbit given this theory?

Let me know if this answers your question.

10

New Theories / Re: Is time constant and the speed of light variable? Space Compression Spring Theory.

« on: 20/02/2017 23:59:08 »

To create a photon pair, the space compression has to be so that the velocity on the inside of the photon has to be proportionally slower than the velocity on the outside of the photon:

Assuming the distance between the photons is the wavelength, the time it takes the inside of the photon, point a, to orbit must equal the time it takes point b to orbit.


Calculating the velocities for each:

v_a = π ½λ/t
v_b = π ³/₂λ/t

This results in:

v_b/v_a  = (π ³/₂λ/t)/(π ½λ/t)

Canceling like terms leaves:

v_b/v_a  = 3

or

v_b = 3v_a

The velocity at point b due to space compression must be 3 times greater than the velocity at point a.  In terms of space compression (n):

v_a  = c/n_a
v_b  = c/n_b

Substituting:

3c/n_a  = c/n_b

And canceling like terms leaves:

n_a  = 3n_b

Or the space compression at point a must be 3 times the compression at point b.


The interesting thing is this will happen at a specific wavelength based on the properties of space which explains the quantum nature of matter. If the wavelength of the photons are not correct, the "particle" will decay and the photons will spiral out of orbit propagating in opposite directions. Sound familiar?

11

New Theories / Re: Is time constant and the speed of light variable? Space Compression Spring Theory.

« on: 20/02/2017 21:13:36 »

The formula for the speed of light is:

v = c/n

Where:
v = velocity of light
c = speed of light in a vacuum with minimal space compression
n = the compression of space where a value of 1.0 is no compression/decompression


Note that n is similar to an index of refraction, so as spaced is compressed or decompressed, the speed of light changes.  For space compression, the value of n < 1.0 and for decompression, the value of n > 1.0.


Here is a graphical representation of how a photon affects the space around it with hypothetical n values:




 
In decompressed space, the speed of light is less than c and in compressed space, the speed of light is greater than c.


If the photon has a small enough wave length, it can compress space enough so it can trap another photon in orbit.  If the two photons are the same wavelength, they will trap each other and remain in a stable orbit.

This is what creates matter.

12

New Theories / Re: Do Neutrinos exist ?

« on: 03/02/2017 20:51:40 »

The photons are twisted so the magnetic and electric fields counteract each other as a net 0 effect. The alternating fields explain why there is so little interaction between of other "particles".  The model also explains why the neutrino is its own anti particle. Spin is the only difference.

Surely this is a rudimentary description of an electromagnetic field and not of a neutrino ?

This is a description on the electromagnetic field of a Neutrino.

13

New Theories / Re: Do Neutrinos exist ?

« on: 25/01/2017 09:50:27 »

I model the Neutrino as a rotating pair of photons:

Photon A charge, +1/2, (Negative belly 100%)
Photon B charge, -1/2, (Positive belly 100%)
Net charge 0
Opposite charged sides of photons are in synchronous orbit

 The photons are twisted so the magnetic and electric fields counteract each other as a net 0 effect. The alternating fields explain why there is so little interaction between of other "particles".  The model also explains why the neutrino is its own anti particle. Spin is the only difference.

14

New Theories / Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?

« on: 13/09/2016 11:57:25 »

To picture what a photon looks like, you have to first picture what it has:

1. Electrical fields both positive and negative in opposite directions.
2. Magnetic fields both positive and negative in opposite directions.

Maybe it would look something like this:



When the photons "collide" to become matter, they don't change, they just get trapped into orbit around each other to create what we perceive of as matter.

  If you have negative electric charges spinning in a plane positive electric charges spinning in the same direction in an adjacent plane, the magnetic fields perpendicular to the plane will cancel. If they spin in opposite directions they will add. Your pictures shows them separated but I believe that they occupy the same distance from the center axis.

This is a photon pictured when coupled with other photons, like what would happen in a ray of light or photons orbiting each other.  If you had a single photon it would look more like a wave packet or be modeled as a compression of space at it's center with decompression of space at it's perimeter that extends to infinity.

When coupled with other photons, the group forms a wave where the magnetic and electrical poles are clearly offset based on electromagnetic wave characteristics.

The spin effect I show is perpendicular to its propagation direction which I postulate is similar to the Coriolis effect in seismic waves that creates the electrical and magnetic fields.

As far as spin on its axis of rotation - this can be looked at from two different perspectives:
1. The photon doesn't spin, it is the sum of two photons in superposition but with orthogonal electrical and magnetic fields and one delayed in phase behind the other.  This would appear to be a spinning electrical and magnetic field.
2. All photons spin, photons that are measured without spin are the sum of two spinning photons in superposition but with orthogonal electrical and magnetic fields and one delayed in phase behind the other. This electric and magnetic fields would appear to be always pointing in the same direction.

I'm leaning to the first simpler model to create stable photon orbits.

15

New Theories / Re: What does a photon look like and how does it work?

« on: 10/09/2016 13:15:37 »

To picture what a photon looks like, you have to first picture what it has:

1. Electrical fields both positive and negative in opposite directions.
2. Magnetic fields both positive and negative in opposite directions.

Maybe it would look something like this:



When the photons "collide" to become matter, they don't change, they just get trapped into orbit around each other to create what we perceive of as matter.

16

New Theories / Re: Is time constant and the speed of light variable? Space Compression Spring Theory.

« on: 21/08/2016 15:53:37 »

Another interesting model is the Neutrino:

Photon A charge, +1/2, (Negative belly 100%)
Photon B charge, -1/2, (Positive belly 100%)
Net charge 0
Opposite charged sides of photons are in synchronous orbit

In this case the magnetic fields and electrical fields of the orbiting photons alternate. The alternating fields explain why there is so little interaction between of other "particles" as there is a net charge of zero.  The model also explains why the neutrino is its own anti particle. Spin is the only difference.

17

New Theories / Re: Is time constant and the speed of light variable? Space Compression Spring Theory.

« on: 21/08/2016 15:36:24 »

I havent read through everything here yet, but I do like it. Theres alot to take in, so I'll do it in bite sized pieces, or I could start making my coffee stronger. But I've read enough to be satisfied, you have build up a literacy model in your mind which is consistent with many aspects of nature. So whether you're right or wrong, thats still a commendable effort. And even if you do turn up some problems within youre theory, there is no-doubt you are approaching real truths. I think the best evidence of things is found in the associations and interactions between various phenomena, and describing those in a self consistency, and that seams to be a focus of your considerations. I think you have good instincts, and nicely done.

I appreciate it.  It's allot to digest, but the pieces are starting to come together. It's refreshing to hear from an open objective mind.

18

New Theories / Re: Is time constant and the speed of light variable? Space Compression Spring Theory.

« on: 20/08/2016 18:32:05 »

My theory is based on the fact that photons are not transverse waves, they are longitudinal with the closest thing in nature being seismic waves (particularly Rayleigh waves). 

Which experiment do you base your claim on?
I've seen many experiments clearly show that electromagnetic wave is transversal by showing linear polarization.

I'm trying to explain the mechanism to make the longitudinal waves appear transverse.  By my theory, the measurements in experiments show dual traverse wave electrical and magnetic characteristics, but the physical mechanism the explains this is a longitudinal wave traveling in "space matter".

19

New Theories / Re: Is heat attracted to cold ?

« on: 29/07/2016 01:15:50 »

At the risk of over simplifying the point, I will try to explain the concept of heat:

There is a particular wavelength of photons that all atoms absorb and emit extremely easy.  These are infrared photons. They just happen to be in the middle of the electromagnetic spectrum (wavelength wise).

Variations in heat or cold (depending on your perspective) are determined by the amount of infrared photons in a particular system. For example, if a room is at 70 degrees F, then a certain concentration of infrared photons are constantly being bounced around, absorbed, and emitted between all atoms in the room. 

If you introduce a block of ice into the room at 32 degrees F, then this block will have a lower concentration of infrared photons and will start absorbing the room infrared photons more readily than the rest of the atoms in the room until it is at equilibrium (or the same temperature) with the room. At the same time the atoms in the room will experience a slightly lower concentration of photons and appear slightly cooler in temperature.

Is that too simple?

20

New Theories / Re: Is time constant and the speed of light variable? Space Compression Spring Theory.

« on: 19/07/2016 11:59:55 »

What is a photon orbit in a particle decay scenario?

The weapon used by gauchos to catch game consists of two or three bolas (balls) held together by a string or strings. Centrifugal force stretches the string(s) because the balls have angular momentum relative to one another.

Whatever force holds a pair of photons in orbit can be thought of as the string between a pair of bolas. If the string snaps, the two bolas fly apart, relative to one another, along lines which are tangent to their previous circular orbit; they are parallel, but not collinear; the two parallel paths are separated by the diameter of their previous orbit. The center of mass of the pair continues to move at its previous speed in a straight line, while the individual bolas keep their velocity relative to that moving center of mass.

What makes photon pairs different from bolas is that the individual photons lack proper mass. Only the photon pair can have proper mass. You can derive the proper mass of the pair by adding the individual energies and multiply by the speed of light squared.

Adding momentum to the pair is like boosting the forward moving photon more than the rearward moving photon (in a given coordinate system). If you add momentum to one side only, you get motion of the pair. (If I could persuade my brain's math coprossessor to come out of retirement, I'd derive E = mc² from this model.)

I'm glad to see that others are now talking about orbiting photons. This is the first time I've seen others discussing my orbiting photon concept, other than to say it can't happen. As far as I know, this part of my model was totally unique until now. I'd like to know if anyone else had this idea before I thought of it; I think that was about 8 years ago.

For the speed of light to vary, you must discard the definitions of time, distance and speed, since the meter and second are defined by the constant speed of light. We used to measure the speed of light in relation to the circumference and rotational speed of planet Earth. Now, we measure everything else in relation to the speed of light. Measuring something whose value is fixed by definition is like measuring the number one. "Hmmm, this number one seems to be bigger than that number one. The number one must be variable."

Photons can have any amount of energy, not just the specific quanta of energy that must be exchanged when electrons jump between orbitals. Yes; photons originate with specific energies, and a particle can only absorb specific energies, but the expansion of space gradually reduces the amount of energy that arrives in a distant reference frame; and this does not happen in quantum jumps. There is no smallest quantum of energy.

Any, yes; it is proper to say a photon has energy and momentum; not that it is energy or momentum. What it is is a disturbance of the aether; it takes a certain amount of energy to create that disturbance.

Great explanation on the reason for the offset when a particle decays into two photons.