What is this "Light" stuff anyway?

[Triodit]

I'll propose a new idea. A very simple one that can be easily tested. Light is a particle that emits an anti gravitational field.
I will go into detail on this and my related theory's of subatomic construction. I've come up with quite a bit and any one part could certianly be wrong.



==A wild Theory==


I Would like to pose two ideas that I have not yet see proof enough to discount. I ask my self what are the two fundimental force that make up matter as it known. gravity and magnetizim. We know to this point that there are both positive and negative magnetic field. No, I'm not talking about pole but the fundamental force it's self. As prove buy the classic flying from in the supper magnet we knon that matter can have a counter a counter magnetic field. we also know but the relative field strengths required to levitate that either the particles producing this field is either weak or contained in a positive magnetic shell.

I lead you down this to set up my theory of photon. so bear with me. I believe that protons have a counter magnetic field. they are larger then electron witch have a positive magnetic field. This just leave 1 more part to the atom the neutron. This is the paricle that produces gravity pulling in both magnetic particles, but as the magnetically repulsive protons are more massive the settel against the neutrons at the electrons are head in orbit buy the shearing forces of the 2 core particles.

Now this gets you the three key particles. But I say there are four, the forth being the photon. This particle, sticking to the patter of positive and negative fields has a counter gravitational field.

I believe that this counter gravitational field can explain all of the photons behavior. so long as you allow me one more completely unfounded theory. I believe that the speed of light is not a function of the photon, but the maximum speed matter can travel BEFORE time dilation before it reaches a stand still. At this speed this speed the matter or photon, would take literally forever to go any faster. SO! if a photon is anti mass then when ever it's near... well anything it get pushed away. The closer the harder. Now in any observable state it will be it will be waving back and forth between mater while traveling in the direction of its momentum. The waving, or wavelength is a function of its size and corresponds with is color.

This brings me to color and transparency an object color, there all function of what photons in there vibrations either; A. pass around the atom. B. comes in at a angel that lets it bounce off. Or C. impacts into the atom. in the third case I believe that these impacting photons can group together and form elections the more massive and shorter wavelength atoms... UV causes this to happen most often, encouraging molecules formations that require a higher electron count. aka sun burns and sun bleaching…. Photo synthesis?

To close I have one me theory to offer you. if in fact colliding photons can make electrons I believe that high speed electrons in a tight space can collide and make all manner and size of photons. Including the ones thought of as heat, inferred. this occurs of course with you run many electrons "electricity" threw a small conductor. The small space causes them to move fast due to the pressure behind them. And of course heat is functions of the rotation of the electrons... witch at high... hotter speeds causes small loose chunks of the electron fly off. The higher the heat the bigger the chunk. So at low heat only the smallest parts come of... inferred photons? But after a critical speed is reach the electrons start randomly shattering crating all colors.... aka the light bulb.

[mkirkpatrick]

I'll propose a new idea. A very simple one that can be easily tested. Light is a particle that emits an anti gravitational field.
I will go into detail on this and my related theory's of subatomic construction. I've come up with quite a bit and any one part could certianly be wrong.



==A wild Theory==


I Would like to pose two ideas that I have not yet see proof enough to discount. I ask my self what are the two fundimental force that make up matter as it known. gravity and magnetizim. We know to this point that there are both positive and negative magnetic field. No, I'm not talking about pole but the fundamental force it's self. As prove buy the classic flying from in the supper magnet we knon that matter can have a counter a counter magnetic field. we also know but the relative field strengths required to levitate that either the particles producing this field is either weak or contained in a positive magnetic shell.

I lead you down this to set up my theory of photon. so bear with me. I believe that protons have a counter magnetic field. they are larger then electron witch have a positive magnetic field. This just leave 1 more part to the atom the neutron. This is the paricle that produces gravity pulling in both magnetic particles, but as the magnetically repulsive protons are more massive the settel against the neutrons at the electrons are head in orbit buy the shearing forces of the 2 core particles.

Now this gets you the three key particles. But I say there are four, the forth being the photon. This particle, sticking to the patter of positive and negative fields has a counter gravitational field.

I believe that this counter gravitational field can explain all of the photons behavior. so long as you allow me one more completely unfounded theory. I believe that the speed of light is not a function of the photon, but the maximum speed matter can travel BEFORE time dilation before it reaches a stand still. At this speed this speed the matter or photon, would take literally forever to go any faster. SO! if a photon is anti mass then when ever it's near... well anything it get pushed away. The closer the harder. Now in any observable state it will be it will be waving back and forth between mater while traveling in the direction of its momentum. The waving, or wavelength is a function of its size and corresponds with is color.

This brings me to color and transparency an object color, there all function of what photons in there vibrations either; A. pass around the atom. B. comes in at a angel that lets it bounce off. Or C. impacts into the atom. in the third case I believe that these impacting photons can group together and form elections the more massive and shorter wavelength atoms... UV causes this to happen most often, encouraging molecules formations that require a higher electron count. aka sun burns and sun bleaching…. Photo synthesis?

To close I have one me theory to offer you. if in fact colliding photons can make electrons I believe that high speed electrons in a tight space can collide and make all manner and size of photons. Including the ones thought of as heat, inferred. this occurs of course with you run many electrons "electricity" threw a small conductor. The small space causes them to move fast due to the pressure behind them. And of course heat is functions of the rotation of the electrons... witch at high... hotter speeds causes small loose chunks of the electron fly off. The higher the heat the bigger the chunk. So at low heat only the smallest parts come of... inferred photons? But after a critical speed is reach the electrons start randomly shattering crating all colors.... aka the light bulb.

Thanks and welcome Triodit to the toequest community,hope you quickly settle in and start posting,I see you have made a start,will not comment on this as yet as I need time
to digest its contents.

warm regards michael.

[dleviwing]

Triodit;
The magnetic properties of particles is called their “magnetic moment” and is related to the angular momentum of the particles. Light is an electromagnetic wave and a photon is the quantitative measure of the absorption or emission of these waves. These are only a few of the misconceptions you seem to have in understanding light and matter.
This site can help with your studies: http://lightandmatter.com/

[Triodit]

I wanted to add something I came up with in my favorite thinking spot, the heliport on our boat at sunrise. I'm not there by choice mind you so I spend most of the time in my head.

I'd also like to beg the community at large, PLEASE somebody say something, I'll bee happy to here that I'm loonie but this is my first go at coming up with something and I've got no way to even pretend to test any of it so I was hoping some of you with say college and what not could either use it. Or help me understand where I got lost.



==Part Too==

I was reading several other treads and I came acrossed something the I just had to learn about.
Superfluid

In big letters and everything, and I knew that anything that has earned the "Super" prefix has to be way better the the original. I try to keep in mind that my source was Wikipedia so it my be BS, but this is what it says

"Superfluidity is a phase of matter or description of heat capacity in which "unusual" effects are observed when liquids, typically of helium-4 or hydrogen, overcome friction by surface interaction when at a stage, known as "lambda point", at which the liquid's viscosity becomes zero. Also known as a major facet in the study of quantum hydrodynamics, it was discovered by Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitsa, John F. Allen, and Don Misener in 1937 and has been described through phenomenological and microscopic theories. "

Now on the surface this seem it sounds like we have a fluid defying gravity. But I'm prepared to say that it is not. At first I considered that it could just be a magnetic reaction but as far as I'm concerned electrons repel, period. ANY other theory would cause them, on a macroscopic scale, to form a ball. no, to make an atom work you need both push and pull in the middle, and push on the outside.

Now wait you may say,we know magnets pull together, but I'll ask you. How much do you really know about lines of force? I know a fair bit and I know that the thing that comes out of the magnet is not a string of electrons.

But we know that gravity strength is both a factor of distance form it source and the density of its source. and I remember hear the words inverse square of the distance use to describe it's field strength.

Well this made me think of gasses in general. They all seem to fly. sure where told the bounce. but I think it's more then that. being less massive they have less to be pulled on or pull with. Therefor I will will say The temperature required to transition between states is the combined function of the; A. the gravity emitted by the atom, a content for each type and B. the rotational speed of the orbiting elections.

The faster the electrons are moving when there atoms come together the hard the push away. SO! for the temperature to be the same for say all lead atoms the gravity emitted by the electrons has to be base on the part of the atom that is the same for all lead atoms.




I'm stopping here because it late but I have more to add. I did a little quick research and I reilive that if what I just said is true it the proton that make gravity and i will be changing my first post. Please leave your thoughts

[dleviwing]

Triodit;
You should start with something a little less complex until you develop your skills and understanding. Some of what you say is reasonable and some is just a lack of understanding. What kind of discussion are you looking for; simple, technical, or theoretical? Checking out member blogs may help you.

[N0B0DY]

Dave,

Would you estimate that an electron or positron could account for the difference in the mass of a neutron and proton, if the relativistic mass acquired by the electron or positron is considered?

In other words, since the mass of nucleons consists of mostly relativistic mass, is it possible to replace quarks with electrons and positrons?

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
Though I personally do not view “Relative Mass” as a different phenomena than “Rest Mass”, our current science dogma does. The mass denoted for any particle or nucleon is Rest Mass, not relativistic mass. Only if the nucleons are accelerated to near the speed of light would the relativistic mass be greater than the rest mass quantity.

In my own concept, mass is a phenomenon that is related to quantitative uniform motion of fundamental substance and its systems. Linear, angular, or wave symmetry motions are all uniform; chaotic electromagnetic wave motion such as space eludes our ability to measure mass of the substance of space or Higgs Bosons; we interpret this motion only as energy.

[N0B0DY]

Understood, Dave. That would be the point exactly, that there is no difference to relativistic mass or kinetic energy and rest mass. Actually I thought that references made to relativistic mass were dropped.

What I'm looking for is a way to drop the quarks and replace them with electrons and positrons as a step towards reducing the million and one particles of the standard model. I bolded below what I was referring to, and am thinking that in 2010 or so when quarks are better known there will be evidence to support the substructure of quarks in the form of electrons/positrons.

The difference in masses of the neutron and proton is said to be to great to be accounted for using a single electron or positron, but wouldn't additional mass be acquired through decay in the form of kinetic energy? If so, would quarks then still be needed?

"On the other hand, the proton (size about 10-15 m) is much heavier than the combined masses of its three components (two up quarks and one down quark). The proton's mass in energy units is 938 MeV, while the up quark has a mass of only about 4 MeV and the down quark about 7 MeV. The majority of the proton's mass comes from the kinetic energy of its quark components. Within a proton the quarks are confined to a "box" only 10-15 m across. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates that the product of uncertainties in position and momentum must be greater than h-bar, so a quark localized to 10-15 m must have a momentum uncertainty of at least 197 MeV in energy units. The energy contributions from three quarks having about this momentum in each of three space directions approximately equals the proton mass. The proton thus derives its net mass energy mainly from the internal motions of its constituent quarks, not from their rest masses."

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
If you use the concept that mass is a function of uniform motion, then the solution is very simple. The simple view is that if you increase the uniform motion (linear, angular or wave symmetry motion) of an electron, you can increase its mass to that of a quark. The quarks actually are an increase in both angular and wave symmetry motion. The positive quarks are quantitatively higher frequency wave symmetry and the negative quarks are basically a quantitative increase in angular motion. This is denoted by charge. The actual physical quantity of substance of a quark and an electron may be as you suspect; no difference. The greatest difference is in how they interact with the substance of their environment (space or Aether).
This is only my interpretation using my Toronic concept of matter but it does work in all phenomena form the micro to the macro. The speed of light is not a “Speed Limit” to the motion of fundamental matter.

[N0B0DY]

Dave,

Eventhough I have a very large problem with references made to intrinsic properties, especially absolute motion, your blog is excellent imo.

Would you mind explaining this in greater detail, though: "The positive quarks are quantitatively higher frequency wave symmetry and the negative quarks are basically a quantitative increase in angular motion." You made reference to only electrons, and I wasn't sure if you were implying both electrons and positrons.

Also, is it possible for electrons and positrons to consist of left- and right-handed neutrinos respectively?