The fourth proof of the GAT ( Gestalt Aether Theory):

  • 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 584
    • View Profile
The third proof of Gestalt Aether Theory (GAT) attempted to demonstrate how the Quantum Mechanics  concepts of fields had evolved; from an original conception of electrons vibrating to create fields, to the conception that each fundamental particle had its own field  and that these fields were an independent entity that had their origin with the beginnings of the Universe, although no-one as yet knows how this may have come about. 

By contrast GAT theory states that there are no fields, there exists only a medium through which electromagnetic radiation can travel. This medium is the 'virtual photon aether' that had its origins at the beginning of the Universe at the time of the Big Bang expansion. The theory is very accurate almost like an account book: so much energy received, so much energy sent out, this much energy resulted in light ( radiation) travelling such and such a distance and spreading out over such and such an area.  Original individual photon energy equals final photon energy and total energy dispersed equals total energy received. The amazing thing about the GAT theory is that not only can it account for the emission of 'visible' light, but also for  the emission of electromagnetic radiation, using precisely the same principle. If looked at in a purely logical manner, the fact that the same underlying principle is responsible for both visible and electromagnetic radiation  is a huge argument in favour of the GAT.

Quantum Mechanics states that there are two or three reasons for the emission of electromagnetic radiation, none of which involve photon emission. This, if looked at in an unbiased manner, poses almost insurmountable problems for Quantum theory. Why ? Because visible light and electromagnetic radiation possess identical characteristics and attributes, both travel at the speed of light, both preserve their unique individual identities or energy until they are absorbed by electrons, both have zero mass, both are electrically neutral and so on. How given these attributes can light and electromagnetic radiation have different causation ? Further if the Quantum Mechanics explanation is carried to its logical end, it must mean that each of the trillions and trillions of photon frequencies are all contained within the tiny confines of the electron or are easily accessible nearby (aside:  from tiny sub-microscopic worm holes!). This is bad science and also does not compute.

The fourth proof of the Gestalt Aether Theory has to do with the scattering and reflection of light.  The quantum mechanics approach to scattering and reflection is truly amazing. Some QM theories state that incoming photons 'bounce' of the material resulting in the 'rays' following the laws of reflection. Other theories state that when light is reflected it is being reflected as a  wave.  Thus the incoming electromagnetic wave is being reflected by the electromagnetic 'properties' of  the electron. This is as close to an explanation of the Quantum mechanics reasoning for the phenomenon of reflection as it is possible to give, without going deeper into a mathematical analysis.

 Yet even a cursory examination of these two theories examined against the facts shows that they are inherently flawed. Taking the first theory, and considering the atom, what exactly are the photons bouncing of, after all the atom is not a solid, far from it.  Thus this particular explanation of reflection ( it is taken for granted that different degrees of reflection exist) is not acceptable. Taking explanation two that it is the 'wave' property  of the electron that reflects the incoming electromagnetic radiation. It is necessary to ask, what happened to Max Planck, or does the rule of quanta apply only in certain circumstances ? The answer of course is that although (if QM insists)  the photon might behave as a wave in one situation and a particle in another, this is one situation where the photon always behaves as a quanta or a packet of energy. Proof of this: Max Planck's original experiment with Black Body radiation.

If a doubt still exists. Just take out your mobile phone and look at it. Here data (nowadays even non-smart phones are smart) is being processed at the rate of several gigahertz per second.  If the humble cell phone can process data at the rate of gigahertz per second, can a doubt still exist that the smaller atom can't handle an electron oscillating at several hundred terahertz a second ? And IF the atom has that capability what reason could there be to undergo a change of state where reflection is concerned and use a different process for scattering. It is improbable to the point of being absurd.  Not only does this prove, what no dedicated QM disciple of this  forum  ( or any forum) has ever been able to accept, namely that quantum mechanics can be wrong, but it is also a cogent argument against the wave/particle duality and one in favour of the GAT hypotheses that the photon is both wave and particle simultaneously.  It also proves that the GAT theory that the frequency of light emission is not merely an abstract concept but one due to the frequency or rate at which electrons oscillate to emit that particular frequency of light. Thus if an object is looked at and it is blue in colour it means that millions of electrons are vibrating or oscillating at the rate of 600 x 10 14 a second and each vibration results in a line of photons being produced.  Since these lines of photons radiate in all directions the light is incoherent, and result as has been explained in the Third Proof of GAT in light following the inverse square law of dispersion.

Thus if the QM theory for reflection is  wrong NEWTON rules, light travels in straight lines. 

Note: The GAT  theory is that the  photon is a solenoid wave formation, that is structured such that it can store energy, when it delivers that energy it is almost particulate in form.   [;D]
« Last Edit: 30/03/2016 05:31:57 by McQueen »
“Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it’s wrong.”