[yor_on]

You write "the maxima of the rate of change of the fields"
Is there just one 'frequency' to that 'rate of change'?

I can see why it may make sense to split photons interaction into two 'parts'
If you want them to be responsible for both 'gravity' and 'matter'.

Another problem I have though is that if photons somehow create 'matter', how then do you treat motion.

We are made of 'matter' as a lot of other 'moving' things in spacetime.
Do you see it as photons constantly interact with us, or as some sort of 'standing wave' phenomena that uphold our 'material' structure in our three dimensional world?

Hope I made myself clear now:)

[Vern (OP)]

Another problem I have though is that if photons somehow create 'matter', how then do you treat motion.

Photons don't "somehow" create matter. Photons create matter by being trapped in a resonant pattern; you could call it a standing wave except it is not bouncing back and forth; it is resonating in a circle one wave length in circumference.

Motion is simply a group of such patterns moving through space. The photons still exist in the patterns and are all moving as fast as they can go; the speed of light. Movement then must distort a massive object. This is the cause of relativity phenomena.

[yor_on]

Ok Vern.
You said "Motion is simply a group of such patterns moving through space."
How do they get trapped in that 'resonant pattern'?

It's like there are several different motions, all at the same time.
You have the photons 'resonant pattern' moving, then, on a macroscopic plane, you have the motion of that said object.

So you have photons creating matter as well as gravity.
And you have spacetime wherein this takes place?
Or am I looking at it wrongly?

[Vern (OP)]

Ok Vern.
You said "Motion is simply a group of such patterns moving through space."
How do they get trapped in that 'resonant pattern'?

It's like there are several different motions, all at the same time.
You have the photons 'resonant pattern' moving, then, on a macroscopic plane, you have the motion of that said object.

So you have photons creating matter as well as gravity.
And you have spacetime wherein this takes place?
Or am I looking at it wrongly?

I went back through how I arrived at my present view of nature. Here it is in the order that I was afflicted by it [] The answer to all your questions are in there. The very first thing is the cause of electromagnetic charge. It results from bending the path of a photon etc. etc.

[yor_on]

Ok, I will read up on it some more:)
But I'm still curious to if you differ between our (3D space and time) and photons/gravity/matter?

[Vern (OP)]

Ok, I will read up on it some more:)
But I'm still curious to if you differ between our (3D space and time) and photons/gravity/matter?

Nope; I'm a 3D space and time guy; three dimensions of space and one of time. But my space and time are fixed in the classic sense. There is a special frame of reference; it probably is the frame of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation.

[Vern (OP)]

Quote from the evidence that the universe is made of photons alone.

Case Six: Time slows for a moving object. Time dilation is a natural consequence of the photon construct of nature. The repetition rate of patterns in Atoms must slow when atoms move. This is because the overall distance a photon must move to remain in the pattern is greater when the containing object is moving. Since the photon is already moving at the speed of light and can't move any faster, it uses more time to complete the pattern. The repetition rate of these patterns is the final arbiter of time in all things. So time slows for a moving object. And knowing this, we can also know that the effect of the slowing of time is accumulative for the moving object. We can solve the so called "twin paradox" simply by knowing which twin moved the greater distance relative to the special fixed frame of reference in space. No matter that our instruments can't determine that fixed frame, it still must exist. Instruments can't detect it because all instruments are effected by movement just exactly as they would necessarily be effected if they were made of photons.

[K.Margiani]

Vern can you implementation ground broken experiment for the mainstreams about tired quantum to produce red-shifted Sun’s spectrum. It needs few thousand dollars. You can call your friends to help you. I see you have good knowledge in physics.
If you are agreeing please send me your CV, or shortly who are you. By  E-mail only.
Good luck!

[Vern (OP)]

Vern can you implementation ground broken experiment for the mainstreams about tired quantum to produce red-shifted Sun’s spectrum. It needs few thousand dollars. You can call your friends to help you. I see you have good knowledge in physics.
If you are agreeing please send me your CV, or shortly who are you. By  E-mail only.
Good luck!

I suspect that any experiment in support of tired light would be attacked and dismissed by the mainstream. We have generally concluded that the Big Bang is a creationist theory, and just as the mainstream does not attack religion, we do not attack the Big Bang religion (theory)

[Vern (OP)]

If you are agreeing please send me your CV, or shortly who are you. By  E-mail only.
Good luck!

Just Google for Vernon and Linda Brown
We'll be right on top. For my photonic schemes, just Google for Brown Photonic Theory
And the web site link will be right on top.

[Vern (OP)]

It seems to me that you would need some sort of gravitational ' electromagnetic field' connecting all spacetime for it to work?
Like some sort of supra leading 'magnetic field' that will keep 'things' like Suns and Earths in 'place' not caring for any aberration:)

That might work, but if it would be electro-magnetic it seems to me that we should see effects of it in biological material etc.

Yes; it seems that there needs to be an all invasive field for gravity to work. In QED we call the field virtual particles. The particles can remain virtual only if they exist for such a short time that they can't be detected. I can understand the QED concept, but I don't really see the benefit of exchanging the field for virtual particles.

The field strength of a field might govern whether it reacts directly with local matter. If there is no direct reaction, it can be all invasive. Even though the field doesn't react directly, it can still contribute toward the saturation amplitude of photons moving through it.

[Mr. Scientist]

Vern, i have a theory which can collaborate yours mathematically. Willing to see it?

[Vern (OP)]

Vern, i have a theory which can collaborate yours mathematically. Willing to see it?

Sure; I'm always interested in new theories, even wild hypothesis []

[Vern (OP)]

Professor Willis Thompson saw an early copy of my Photonic Theory of Everything and wrote a paper about it. It is not surprising that it did not muster peer review at Nature. We suspected it would be another 200 years before science progressed through the present theories to get back to where they were in the early 1900's.

The following is Thompson's abstract from the link:

The main ideas of the paper are:

1) An electron is created when a gamma ray of very high frequency interacts with a similar ray under a minimum energy condition. The gamma ray is bent so strongly that it forms a stable resonating circle. An equation to find the diameter of the electron from its mass is derived from three other basic equations. The diameter of the electron is found to be several orders of magnitude larger than previously accepted.

2) In terms of electron mass taken equal to unity, by the Photon Theory, the total mass of the proton and that of the neutron are found to agree with past measurements; however, there are two new inner photon shells in each of the particles which have not been acknowledged or named.

3) The charge of an electron develops from asymmetry when the photon goes into resonance. There is recent experimental evidence of this. Single photons are now trapped in resonant cavities and found to exhibit electric charge.

4) The electromagnetic amplitude available at any one point in space is the maximum value equal to Planck's constant.

5) "Massive" objects are comprised only of photons. The mutual attraction of "masses" is explained.

6) Wave-particle duality is explained as the observation of maxima of waves, which previously have been assumed to be particles.

7) A red shift of certain spectrum lines is described by partial absorption of photons, contradicting the part of Quantum Mechanics, which states that only complete photons can be absorbed.

The universe is in a steady-state condition- where photons are being continuously changed into mass and vice versa. This opposes the expansion theory of the universe (the "big bang"). However, it is not the same as The Hoyle Steady-State Theory, wherein mass is created from nothing.

9) Ultimately, all mass and energy are effects of the time variant cause, photon action. This does not allow the existence of a massive neutrino.  Neutrinos must be mass less.

10) The theory exhibits complementarity with Einstein's principle of special relativity except Postulate 2 (inertial frame of reference) and complementarity with Quantum Mechanics except for the item referred in (7) above.