0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
How would I imagine a informaton? Do you have a mental concept of it?
In the article "Electromagnetism explained by the Theory of Informatons" (http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0114) the electromagnetic phenomena and interactions are explained by the hypothesis that "information" (more accurate: "e-information") is the substance of the electromagnetic field. The constituent element of that substance is called "an informaton".
I suppose that a photon is an energy package transported by a carrier (§VI,5). I call that carrier an "informaton".
The rate at which an object emits informatons depends only on his rest mass and not on his state of motion or on his electrical charge, factors that are essential for the emission of energy packages.
A (whether or not charged) object at rest or describing a uniform motion doesn't emit energy packages at all.
That implies that, in the case of interactions between masses and between charges at rest or uniformly moving, there are no photons available.
In &6 of the article, I identify an "informaton carrying an energy package" with a "photon". I don't believe that this is contrary to the classical definition, it's a specification.
... a particle manifests its substantiallity ...
"by emitting informatons"
If an electrically charged particle is accelerated it is a source of EM energy.
The temperature of a body is a macroscopic measure for the movements (oscillations) of the constituent particles on microscopic level.
The source of the emission of EM energy are accelerating particles at the microscopic level.
I did not rename the "photon" (see reaction on quote1).
I have introduced the informaton as the constituent element of gravitational and EM fields.
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
And I don't discuss with persons who are biased.
I agree with you. I have no problems to discuss with reasonable people who have differing views and/or a different background than me, but I assume that a serious discussion requires a minimum of respect.
Yeah, but you've defined reasonable people as those people who agree with you
A friend of mine was over this Saturday. I showed him your paper and he agreed with me that it was written by a crackpot. And this friend is far from being just your average everyday physicist. He's last years winner of the Kavli prize in Astrophysics: http://www.kavlifoundation.org/kavli-prize [nofollow]
Where do you find that "definition"?