CONTROVERSIAL...? GET THIS! ...photons w/o charge...

[humanbydefault]

I appologize for using an open channel to clarify my doubts. I've been having some "difficulties" lately in trying to post my writtings but it could have been some computer glitches right?
I also want to thank you for helping us [me and the rest of us] in the spelling thing... It's really very helpful. In relation to the deleting of this posting and the other two behind this current one I have no objection at all, as the way you put it: That is my "wish."
There is [however] one last point I'm concern about since you've been so helpful so far with your explanations I'd like to take advantage of your kindness and answer me a last question for me:

As a MODERATOR are you answering threads and postings based on your own personal views about a given physical phenomena?

You see... I have been kicked out from regular physics forum [by MODERATORS] before EVERY TIME I tried to express with a due courtesy and manners my own views about the universe just because they happen to disagree with orthodox ones.
It's not that I want to see a sort of deja vue here, but those "moderators" [inquisitors for me] were attacking me with orthodox concepts you could read in any book on physics. Somehow your opinions about my views do not seem to come from orthodox and rigid concepts and that scare me Sr... There is a thing called "conflict of interests" in politics and in management and I just want to make sure that this is not happenning here either.
I see the NEED for a moderator, do not judge me wrong. People ask questions about simple concepts and about specific works done in the past be scientists and it should be someone with knowledge to answer them... Those moderators [even if they happen to disagree with orthodox views] have to stick their responses to those accepted ideas... Am I wrong?
You tell me, Sr.
Look I just want to have the freedom to express myself to others with respect, that's all. You may "delete" this posting along with what is being said before... If you respond again to my threads or postings I'll appreciate you include for me a note referring to WHO IS OOPOSING MY VIEWS: ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE FORUM OR "THE MODERATOR" Would you please, Sr.?
I'm sorry for the time and computer storage waste in these subjects, You may delete them all ASAP and I'll appreciate your response when you are ready...
HUMANBYDEFAULT

[dleviwing]

HBD;
Though we differ in many views, we also share many others. It would be interesting to explore our differences and those of other members rather than just assume we have the only solution. I am as guilty as you on this point. Even though I believe my view is best, I continue to evaluate it with the ideas of others.

We have one major agreement; there is something wrong with mainstream science interpretation of the numbers.

BTW: No need to apologize for speaking your mind. This is your thread.

[humanbydefault]

We [the great majority of those who write here their own views] are guided by their own instincts and emotions. Sometimes emotions get in a direct confrontation with logic and common sense and that is pretty often since the genesis of quantum mechanics. I 'd like to see this forum just as the place where Einstein and his friends used to sit and discuss their dreams... No rigid rules whatsoever just purely theories and hypothesis based in personal observations... Wouldn't it be great?

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[dleviwing]

HBD;
I have performed an edit to your original post and reprinted it here, to make it easier to read and comment on your concepts. Hopefully I have not changed your intended meanings. I have numbered the paragraphs to reference them in my reply.

Einstein's view of Planck's work was that of a "packet of energy" [1] and thus the concept of the photon as a real entity. This concept explained the phenomena of the "photoelectric effect". No other EM phenomena requires this view to explain the EM waves phenomena. All other phenomena are explained perfectly with wave theory. If we apply your concept of the true nature of the vacuum [3], we can eliminate the need to even have a photon concept in our terminology.

If you expand your reasoning of [3], [4], and [5], you will in effect combine the fundamental natural forces of gravity, electroweak force, and strong nuclear force. This would eliminate the need to say that the source of gravity is the core of stars. It would show it to be at the heart of every subatomic structure and its interactions with the ethereal state of matter.

The photon charge you mention [6] can be viewed as the domain produced by the interference and harmonic patterns of the ether. Most refer to this as the permeability or permittivity of the vacuum. You have come closer to describing the physical process that accounts for cause than most others on the forum.

I believe if you were to refine your concepts to the absolute fundamentals, our differences would not seem to be so great. Very few have made the important connection of angular velocity (actual spin) to the functioning nature of our universe.

1.. More than 100 years ago the work of Planck and Einstein among many others stated that photons have NO CHARGE whatsoever. You see, they can't deflect magnetic needles and they can't repel magnets. Photons (Light) do not repel each other when two beams of light confront in space... etc.

2.. We [as human beings] have OBSERVED WITH OUR MEASURING DEVICES that the smallest electrical charge is the charge of ONE electron. WHY? Well, the answer to that is a puzzle for everyone. Are there theories TRYING and ASSUMING to have the right answer? There are millions of them, but don't be misguided by that. The answer is hiding inside the true nature of the vacuum, and no where else.

3.. It is true that in the vacuum and in every place the laws of the vacuum rule, the charge of ONE ELECTRON is the "supreme" unit. However, these laws does not rule inside the atomic structure and therefore across molecules and lattices or crystals. I said it before that there is no "wave function" attached to the idea of tunneling of charges. My point is simple, HARMONIC patterns that extend in space [the square of the distance] from the core of the atom with a decrease of energy-density.

4.. Electro-magnetic energy is "transformed" in those harmonics or patterns [standing nuclear waves] and they are scattered in two ways: either photons or electrons! The actual condition that determines which one is "manufactured" is the rule imposed by the VACUUM.

5.. Now! when two or more atoms join together in molecules and chains of them, there are harmonics [orbitals] that extend BEYOND simple electronic orbits [as we are thought to be limited by the number of electrons]. The energy NEEDED to manufacture quanta of E-M energy inside them is logically less dense [smaller that the needed to produce one electron].

6.. THAT'S WHY I've said that even photons have charge! Photons are made by E-M energy Since the DENSITY RULED BY THE VACUUM [UNIVERSE IN FACT] equals that of ONE ELECTRON CHARGE, any action or intervention OUTSIDE THE MOLECULAR STRUCTURE of pure photons will be useless in our measuring results; HOWEVER, inside a complex maze of interacting harmonics [orbitals] like the ones found in crystals and chain of molecules, reality is different.

7.. One photon could change the shape of the actual bond and function of molecules and substance made by molecules if the right amount of energy "hits" the right place inside the chain.

8.. Our body and our brain do not work with high voltage and electrons. The actual potential and currents flowing is due to the action of patterns whose density is much smaller than one electron-charge.

9.. So, we have RULED that the charge of ONE ELECTRON is a universal CONDITION to the flow of current and NO ENERGY less dense [smaller] than that one could be even consider real. If you concentrate your conclusions based in your limited observations outside the atom. Magnets are the amplification of a process that is formed by billions if not trillions of patterns spinning in the same direction.

10. Why would be molecules any different? Are we so "small" that we couldn't even consider that even molecules could behave the same way? And why limiting the pattern to the small? Couldn't be thinkable the fact that a gravitational system in a solar system would be born from the actual amplification of a spinning process of masses and charges inside a star?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Dave and HBD, we're getting closer, me thinks...

regards

[humanbydefault]

I have never expressed in the past that a holded any type of scientific credentials of any kind and that's the whole truth. I've been attrracted to physics since I was little. There was a physics professor in high school that proposed to the school principal the possibilities to send my straight to the university instead of finishing the regular years and the thing he saw in me was the interest and imagination I showed toward Newtonian physics. It may not say much about it but I fell in love with theoretical physics a long time ago and I know that those "revelations" I had two or three years ago when I started to write them in a piece of paper were as real to me as the thought that I exist... Of course I may not exist at all according to some philosophies (?)
I want to thank you for being patient when it came to my poor scientific background and my alien "forms of expressions." It is difficult for someone without the right fundaments to be able to express what he or she has seen in his or her mind. I also want to appologize to you about my past rethorical language against experimentalists... That has never been the way to put through a good idea and I was wrong about it big time!
You were also right about the limitations to understand the nature of how the eather may act upon energy. I always referred to it as a sort of unknown cause that make the vacuum changing the status of what we called elemental particles. I still have a hintch inside me, a sort of feeling that feels like the power of faith that tells me that the eather is borne in stars and it is a consequence of the process happening inside the sun.
The idea or concept is not entirely mine. Keppler once said :"There is a force in the sun that make the planets move..." I just included a pattern of standing waves between the layers of the star to account for the needed SPIN and therefore the reason for orbits to exist... Keppler didn't live the days of quantum mechanics [this is an understatement of course] but I have always had the feeling that if he had he would discover the true cause of the phenomenon... It's just a thought.
I appreciate the synthesis you did with those thoughts of mine in the post above... I probably never see those concepts materialized in our human scientific bagage but it is a relief being able to express them to others.
Oh! one last word... Thanks for the spelling work. I speak Spanish, Hungarian and English but all of them with some mistakes here and there.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

Dave and HBD, we're getting closer, me thinks...

regards

Honestly? I wish we could make the difference... but it is certanly a long shot. I personally do not have the mathematical background to create the needed equations and that's a fact. That does not prevent me from believing in a diferent version of reality. I've criticized Eisntein views right here in this forum [a few times] however I do share a common view of reality with him: The TOE he fought so hard to discover has to be backed by logic and common sense a 100%. He was a product of his time... just as we are. He was from a generation that had to deal with the quantum theory and the transition between the quantum world and the Newtonian one. It will be seen as the era of General Relativity. In my personal opinion Einstein was concerned [just as Bohr was in his field] with the measurement performed by observers [we]. The truth is that the measurement process is in fact a disturbing one whether we want it or not. The moment we "observe" the quantum phenomenon with light [photons] or any other way we are disrrupting the wave or medium of propagation of the energy we intended to study.
Rumor has it that the last days of Einstein life he was working in a weird view trying to explain matter as a from of distorsion of space-time etc. He was obsessed with time leaving behind the main question: What is the true nature of time?
There is no consense on that subject yet, but I have no doubts that time [as the interval between one entropy state and the next entropy state... being that observation performed in the same frame] is dependent on the nature of the VACUUM [eather]. Since the EATHER is different across the cosmos time [namely the actual rate of those "intervals"] will also change with it... I don't know if you follow me or I got lost again in my thoughts...
But thank you for you comments.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[dleviwing]

HBD;
Most of the math is already in place. It is the paradigm of physical cause and effect interpretation of the numbers that is needed. That is what you have been doing in your posts. Scientist have been so engrossed in the mathematics that they have failed to realize that a physical and classical interpretations is possible.

[humanbydefault]

I recall reading that small article in a book titled "The Time Arrow." It was about an experiment where a laser beam aimed to a radioactive material and how the actual decay was literally stopped! (?)
BUT IF IN FACT THAT'S POSSIBLE... WHAT IS THE MEANNING OF THAT?
I was thinking about it for a long time and I reached some wild conclusions I'd like to share with you in this post... That is if you like this part of physics.
For a long time now researchers are being "watching" out for the famously coined "PROTON DECAY." So far [thanks God!] no protons has shown the willingness to do so which I found pretty LOGIC. The point is that I figure out a "thought experiment" where we could attempt to achieve the same objective but with a different approach.
Here is my thesis:
Instead of storing a big mass of water in a huge tank and keep "watching it" with sensors I propose something different.
Japanesse scientists discovered that instead of a bunch of protons decaying in mass what they detected was a great number of neutrinos heading toward the precious liquid. "Tons of energy" in the form of neutrinos were crossing the tank and some of them wer absorbed by the water.
I think that their "teapot" had a good reason not to boil at all!
Not only that they were "watching it" [and you know what I mean now by watching-observing... Disrrupting a decay process...] but that incoming neutrinos were "cooling" the batch preventing it from reaching the "CRISIS."
I have a crazy idea that sounds like this:
Let's fill a container with liquid Helium instead of pure water. At the center of the batch lets place a small content of hydrogen molecules [a buble if you like] and lets wait! I assume that Helium will repell every attempt from the universe to feedback Hydrogen... a necessary step to avoid the disrruption of the standing wave pattern between two speck of radiation.
After a relatively "short amount of time" that buble will be literally "begging" for energy or the collapse of the primary fusion will be inevitable. I could imagine the genesis of a mini-sun right here on Earth. An incredibly huge amount of energy FORCED TO OPEN in front of our very eyes... Probably the final solution for free and cheap energy...

It is a wild and weird thought experiment but an intriguing one... Don't you think?
I wonder if you have a personal opinion about it... I think that clean, cheap and easy to get ENERGY would be something that every true physicists COULD ONLY DREAM ABOUT...
Write me your PROS and CONS over this challenge to the universe for survival of our race. I can take rejections too.

humanbydefault

[dleviwing]

HBD;
I haven't thought much about destructive proton decay. I can however make a suggestion that when using the term "energy", try to think of the physical motion or interaction of the matter that produces this phenomena called energy or force. Like mass, the term energy is used too often without really knowing what the numbers mean.