[opportunity]

I'm suggesting he wasn't bang on with the photoelectric effect. I'm suggesting that frequency is inversely proposal to energy.

I didn't really understand the rest of the post but I did understand this sentence.  A notion I have mentioned before, 

That λ is directly proportional  to the invert force.   So you was close .   

λ  =  F₁ +  F₂

F₁ = c

 F₂= u   where c is Photons and u is permeability.

That's an interesting idea.

My argument re. Planck was that although his equations work for electron shells, as per the Rydberg formula, I have been considering that the inverse relationship is true on the actual Planck scale. The reasoning for this is entailed in a paper I'm trying to put together so I've been trying to avoid explaining it too greatly, which has made my posts seem a bit clunky. Apologies for that.

Yet I like yor use of the permeability, because "there" we can suggest how "space" can be factored in on a Planck scale of consderation, and as you suggest with an equation regarding permeability. Am I right in thinking that?

[guest39538]

Yet I like yor use of the permeability, because "there" we can suggest how "space" can be factored in on a Planck scale of consderation, and as you suggest with an equation regarding permeability. Am I right in thinking that?

I was considering more the permeability of fields that occupy space such as the Earth's field stopping harmful rays.  In accordance with Newton's third law , the ''sky'' pushes  back because the Earth's field has permeability.
I believe the blue sky is the invert of force of two individual fields of the Earth and the Sun.
Now when considering objects that have colour,  again I feel this is an invert process that the electrical field of the object causes a force feedback of the light to create a wave-length by inverting the incident ray causing a temporal compression.
I am not sure about Plank, because I would say u = λ   and u was the opposing force, pushing back a line to make it wave.

[opportunity]

I think I understand. By temporal compression you're suggesting a "blue-shift" effect?

[guest39538]

I think I understand. By temporal compression you're suggesting a "blue-shift" effect?

Or ''red-shift'', any wave length that is a compression of linear light.


c......................................................................→linear

c.......................................................~~~~~~~→←u

[opportunity]

Of course as per the logic of what you're suggesting; you gave the example of why we see the sky as blue, and so presumably the same could be suggested regarding the red-shift of stars?

[guest39538]

Of course as per the logic of what you're suggesting; you gave the example of why we see the sky as blue, and so presumably the same could be suggested regarding the red-shift of stars?

It is the same logic as red-shift  really. But using my logic red-shift shows contraction of c, but what I have gathered they are viewing the red shift our end which is natural to the inverse of the receding objects light .

[opportunity]

Doing a blue shift or red shift requires on a basic level a contraction or extension of a wavelength of light. That mechanism on a grand scale such as the planet has to abide by a whole host of other observed factors on a planetary scale. Can your theory accommodate likewise?

[guest39538]

Doing a blue shift or red shift requires on a basic level a contraction or extension of a wavelength of light. That mechanism on a grand scale such as the planet has to abide by a whole host of other observed factors on a planetary scale. Can your theory accommodate likewise?

This is my point,   a ''red-shift'' is an expansion of ''blue''   but a contraction of c. 

The light propagating through space is not observed because the wave-length is in my opinion 0, a linear straight line that can   
be any wave-length, in short 0 is not a mixture of frequencies, a mixture of frequencies can be created from 0.

0 is in full expansion without any u stopping it. 

Red shift would be the ''first'' visible compression of 0. 

Not sure if you will follow that or not....Doppler did not consider 0.

[opportunity]

Do you have a paper on this?

"0" as time or space? What Cartesian mode is being used?

I'm happy to look at your work.

[guest39538]

Do you have a paper on this?

"0" as time or space? What Cartesian mode is being used?

I have not written a paper on this, I am not sure about Cartesian mode, I use simple logic such as :

c......................................→

r.................................→←u


c  ≠  r  where r is red-shift  , red is a λ shorter  than c


Δc =  Δλ

[opportunity]

Have you had any feedback yet with this? I just don't know how to criticise. It's hard to judge your point without a solid field of response on this.

[guest39538]

Have you had any feedback yet with this? I just don't know how to criticise. It's hard to judge your point without a solid field of response on this.

I have solved gravity mechanics and don't really get any feedback, to be honest ''they'' think I am an idiot, being honest again I think I am a natural born scientist who can think about anything and put it into reality context. 
I do not find science difficult .

I just 'see' the obvious of things . The obvious of red-shift

red-shift is longer than blue but shorter than ?

The answer gives you a linear of 0 .

[opportunity]

Can you send me a link for your gravity mechanics? I mean, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, as I don't know about your theory of gravity.

[guest39538]

Can you send me a link for your gravity mechanics?

It is in forum , just look at the polarity thread in new theories or the n-field thread. I am still working on the math, in short , neutral is attracted to neutral is gravity.

[opportunity]

"neutral" what? Neutral as in space is self-attractive?

I think if anyone has a new idea, don't hide it. I've posted vast amounts of whatever. Papers and so on. The money shot is exactly that, "is it useful". I get the feeling you don't want to explain your idea completely?

If you think space is self-attractive, like a negative-energy matrix, maybe, I don't know, does that fit?, consider the post I offered in this new theories section: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72390.0

It's hard to define these forks in the road of scientific development.

[guest39538]

"neutral" what? Neutral as in space is self-attractive?

I think if anyone has a new idea, don't hide it. I've posted vast amounts of whatever. Papers and so on. The money shot is exactly that, "is it useful". I get the feeling you don't want to explain your idea completely?

If you think space is self-attractive, like a negative-energy matrix, maybe, I don't know, does that fit?, consider the post I offered in this new theories section: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=72390.0

It's hard to define these forks in the road of scientific development.

I try to hold back some information, but over the years I have ''said'' most of it.

Electrically neutral, atomically Neutral, as in   (-1)  +  (+1)  = 0  or N for neutral.

[opportunity]

Am I missing something? What you just said as an equation is what on what contemporary scientific level of congress?

[guest39538]

Am I missing something? What you just said as an equation is what on what contemporary scientific level of congress?

A set of pan scales.

-1 is a weight

+1 is a weight


-1  =  +1 in weight

[guest39538]

I drew it for you


f1+f2.jpg (18.36 kB . 731x461 - viewed 2585 times)

[guest39538]

-1 is a negative polarity weight  -e electron

+1 is a positive polarity weight  +1e proton

Mass (m1) = (-e)  +  (+1e)  = N (neutral) = 0

→←
N N