Re: Speed of Light
Warren York ( infonet@home.com )
Sun, 15 Aug 1999 16:46:13 -0500
Slavek Krepelka wrote:
>
> Hi Warren,
>
> we are obviously on the same track, except that I am skinning the cat
> with an entirely different knife.
====================================================================
Warren writes:
Hello Slavek and all:
I hope it's not that cat in the box. That cat belongs
to Copenhagen or at least his name is on the box. :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavek wrote:
> Concerning E=mCC. The thing may hold truth as long as only the what I
> call the first order of quantum phenomena is concerned, i.e. photons,
> electrons, neutrons etc. It is the same order in which the Law of
> Entropy holds truth. But the behavior of color in refraction of light
> says that there is at least one more and lower order to the wave
> function of a photon and this seems to be totally missed by QM, as well
> as Newton and Relativities. In this order, the Entropy is ballanced, in
> this order you can find the reason for what you people call strong
> force, and what Relativities call vacuum.
===================================================================
Warren writes:
OK, Please tell me more. You have my attention.
(Still thinking about that poor cat your skinning)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavek wrote:
> Again, I cannot argue math, but I can argue the principles any time.
> This brings us to Young's experiment. The water wave as drawn in
> textbooks looks great when drawn on paper, but when you run it in
> reality, there is no interference pattern at all even with a single
> frequency wave. You would have to stop the waves and start to move water
> along them. This means that photons are particles and that these
> particles have wave-frequency property as individuals. Young is one of
> the crucial examples of gross misinterpretation of an experiment. That
> is why the photon counters count photons and not light.
===================================================================
Warren writes:
Humm, not sure about this. I think the difference is you are using
matter to demonstrate energy. You may be making that same big mistake
all the others have done in the past. Water would be of the Matter world
although we know it is made up of energy but it is considered matter
state. Single Photons or light are in the energy state and considered
energy (no rest mass). As to our Unified Field Theory of Light they
start taking on mass properties (rest like mass) when they are captured
by each other as pairs. They don't reach there full quanta mass point
until they are at 918 pairs. Then they are considered mass (having rest
mass properties). This is our theory however and not accepted or even
known in general. Notice how Young's and Grimaldi's experiment does
however in the physical (matter world) show the interference patterns
and fringes? This is because the medium being used was of the energy
world (photons) and not of the matter world (water waves). There is
something interesting going on here now that you look at it. Seems there
are dual wave state laws depending on the medium being matter or being
energy. The difference in state depends the physical outcome or energy
outcome but with the same law of waves. Mistake number 2. We are dealing
with two worlds (states) and not just one as viewed from the matter
world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavek wrote:
> The idea that only electron will absorb and radiate a photon is not
> quite correct. It will do in case of emitted electron, but when we start
> talking about matter of a material structure, this property belongs to a
> closed valence bond and closed valence bond does not identify with an
> electron. That is where the shortfall of QM lies. QM treats free
> emissions and radiations in the same way it treats material particulate
> disregarding that the mutual relationships within material change the
> conditions and therefore properties of that particulate.
========================================================================
Warren writes:
Slow down some here. I did not state ONLY an ELECTRON will absorb and
radiate a photon. I have been focused on just the electrons relationship
with the photon. I am only one person and to spread myself too thin
would
loose sight of what is taking place. I have only ventured outside this
window a small bit so far. I can not comment more until I can research
it further. I leave the possibilities open for others to discover. This
is what comparing findings and theories is all about. Discovering
relationships. 1-800 Relationship But in both worlds not just one. :)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavek wrote:
> That is why you do not understand that quark is one third of a photon
> string (better said chain) and that its charm and color is given by its
> relationship (distortion) with the rest of matter. That one third is
> your 1/3 spin.
========================================================================
Warren writes:
The electron is a 1/2 spin. This is interesting however for I was just
thinking the other night about quarks relationship to our Theory. There
should be 4 quarks involved unless this is the change of state. Three
in the energy world and one composite being the actual physical state
of being. Anyway what I find in our theory and Quarks is that they are
not what they are thought of as Quarks. What a quark is in relationship
to our theory is part of a bigger picture. You are viewing or seeing
evidence of the sections of one of the two photon paired tubes or
worm holes inside the electron. In short, A Quark should be part of
the photon (quanta) motion of the paired action. This should relate
to the spin also. I haven't finished yet but I think I can place the
action directly in relationship to what are thought of as quarks.
Remember that quarks are elusive critters and this is why. They are
part of an internal action going on within the target. Again, only
according to our theory and not the books.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavek wrote:
> In my world of physics, every photon and electron has its own major and
> minor wave and frequency. It also has major and minor amplitude
> disregarded by everyone I have ever encountered in my searches. That
> major amplitude is the answer to the forbidden question: Where is the
> electron when it jumps its orbits.
======================================================================
Warren writes:
Even though we now think of the electron as having an electron cloud
both the cloud example and Bohr's view will hold true. I like to use
Bohr's view because it helps give order being strictly a static view.
The Electron Cloud view however is a dynamic view which is better for
a true view. Both will work and are good. Now in our theory from the
Bhor's view the electron gains photon pairs and therefore gains
energy and also becomes physically larger. It makes an actual TIME
JUMP in orbit as it absorbs the photon and then falls back and gives
up that energy also in the form of photons as they become unpaired
making another actual TIME JUMP back to lower orbit or state depending
on your view used. This holds true to findings today except man states
the photons come from the Dirac field. Humm, There is no Aether now
there is a Dirac field which sounds like a replacement for a special
condition to me.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavek wrote:
> If you calculate your photon "electron" absorption using white light,
> you are averaging the photon energies against energy of your standard
> electron and you get your number.
> That number is mean in two respects. First it is an average, and second
> it misleads you being an average compared to the average of a standard
> electron principles. You thing you got some concrete result.
=====================================================================
Warren writes:
Not sure what you may have just said here. Can you give an example so
I may place the thought?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavek wrote:
> In analogy; once you know the distances and speeds of trains along with
> the layout of the tracks, you can calculate absolutely perfectly where
> they are going to be at any given time. What you cannot calculate is
> what makes those trains run. You are finding out the schedule. Not that
> it is not important, but it is only a part of the story, same as my way
> is only a part of the story.
=====================================================================
Warren writes:
Yes, I see your point but in our Theory we can address this. Very good
point I might add. So you don't have to linger and ask me what we found
according to our GUT of Light I will address it now. Lets start at a
higher state in the theory. We are at the photon's existence stage. We
now have free photons doing there thing going every which way. When
two photons cross each others paths in just the right manner by chance
or out of chaos motion (action) they become captured by each other.
This capture is due to rotations of each passing photon. The very first
stages of gravity but not at a quanta point just yet to be called
gravity. We know the speed is constant but that will lead to cool and
exciting things later when dealing with different mediums to produce
this capture upon demand. The two photons go into orbit around each
other opening the door to attract more photons or go back out of
capture again. This attraction is not gravity yet at this level but
will build to be that once the quanta point or 918 photons are captured.
At that point energy (paired photons) are now considered matter
(one electron) and that dual capture energy is of the total is felt as
gravity. Gravity is the displacement of Space/Time by the existance of
matter within it. This means TIME (engineerable TIME and not just the
word) is present. At this level TIME is rotational equilibrium of the
Hopf ellipse (TIME Line) all based on Light. We have (in nature) just
made an electron. That would seem like the ZPE or Free energy as it is
sometimes called to me. I can explain also using our theory how the
Casimir Effect can aid in producing electrons as a Free Energy device.
We'll call that the building of an electron.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavek wrote:
>
> Regards Slavek.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best regards to all, Warren