Thanks Allen for the two links. I felt like responding to the Null Physics forum as I could easily answer many of their points but I decided to wait until book 2 is completed. The zero point energy link explained some things better than I have come across before and I will be able to add some more comments to my section on free energy devices.
The time I spent on the bad astronomy forum was not wasted for two reasons. The first is that it is going to be tough for FET to replace the big bang theory and amend the interpretations of quantum theory, relativity and particle theory. Billions has been spent on building particle colliders and when a new theory comes along and claims that there is only one basic particle then obviously no one wants to hear that. So I was practicing how I would handle adverse comments without resorting to their abusive tactics.
The second is that my time there made me think hard about the meaning of the FET calculation for the flow rate of continuum energy into a body being equal to its escape velocity. The flow rate of continuum energy into one body gives rise to its gravitational attraction that it exerts upon other bodies. That flow rate must be a maximum at the surface of that body because some of the energy flowing inwards is being deposited upon the outermost atoms of that body. Hence the flow rate diminishes as we look further inside that body and become zero at its centre, just as gravity does. The flow rate must also diminish as we move outwards and away from the surface. In our 3-dimensional world this flow rate must diminish according to the inverse square of the distance from the surface, which is exactly as we observe for the strength of the gravitational force.
When I calculated the flow rates of continuum energy at the surfaces of the rocky planets the values were identical to their escape velocities. But for the Sun and the gaseous planets the calculated flow rates were all lower than the known escape velocities. I now know why this is so and once again I have found that FET has not let me down. I am convinced that my values are the correct ones whereas the current ones are wrong for gaseous bodies.
I have to go away again for almost a week to do baby sitting duties but when I return I will present all my calculations on the gaseous bodies and show how I arrived at my figures and how these flow rates can be converted into accelerations of bodies by them. I will also show how combining my escape velocities with those calculated by current theory we can tell that all of the gaseous planets and the Sun have dense solid cores, and what is more we can calculate the sizes of their cores.
I will also respond to earlier points raised regarding zero point energy and why I do not think that they will solve our energy crisis.
Here is my attempt at the FET explanation of the gravitational flow of energy into a celestial body. It took longer than I suggested because I have been laid up with a cold for the last few days.
The only data we need for each body is its radius, the number of nucleons in that body and the rate at which each nucleon draws in continuum energy. The first two are readily available but the last can only be calculated with FET.
The rate at which a nucleon sucks in energy depends upon its spin rate, diameter, and the rate at which energy is solidified upon it. In “Wot, no bang?” I showed how I arrived at the spin rate of a nucleon and why it grew until it reached a critical size whereupon it divides into two linked regions consisting of a core of spinning solid energy and a region of fluid energy radiating outwards. Thus a hydrogen atom is a nucleon that has matured into this latter state and does not therefore consist of a proton and a separate electron. The electromagnetic force that we think of as being a result of these two particles possessing equal but opposite charges is really the constant flow of fluid energy around the solid core. For convenience I will refer to the flow of fluid energy as electron energy.
So how did I arrive at the rate at which fluid energy is solidified upon a growing nucleon? It was not something that just occurred to me in a moment but something that slowly developed over a few years of trying to imagine what a photon would look like if it was a particle. Probably the first real step occurred when I considered energy to be a continuous substance because I speculated that if there were disturbances passing each other they would act upon each other causing them to pair up into whirlpools. These would automatically draw in more energy and therefore spin at an ever increasing rate. Thus the energy density inside a whirlpool must increase with time. I also realised that there must be a limit to the density of energy otherwise there would be no way our universe could have evolved. So I made this limit the point where fluid energy could no longer be compressed and it effectively became a solid.
Because I had been thinking of photons before nucleons, I had arrived at the conclusion that photons must have a very wide range of energy densities from the highest corresponding to gamma photons to the lowest corresponding to radio photons. I knew the energy density of a nucleon from its size and energy content and linking this to the range of photon densities I realised that the fluid energy that made up the continuum must be many orders of magnitude less than that of solid energy.
And because all neutrons and protons were thought to be exactly the same size I assumed that the energy must be solidified as a string (probably with a diameter corresponding to the Planck length), which was then wound upon a central core. But if pure energy has a critical point where it can no longer be compressed then it would be impossible to bend the string an therefore it could not be wound onto the core. So I assumed it solidified just as it was deposited on a very small region with the diameter of the Planck constant i.e. 10^-35m.
This gave a growth time of around 10^10 years for a nucleon, which at that time seemed ridiculous so I moved on to other things for a while. But when I thought about gravity it occurred to me that gravity could be the result of energy being wound up upon growing nucleons. At the same time I had thought about how photons could be absorbed by atoms and I realised that the Planck constant referred to quanta of energy being absorbed and that it did not represent the smallest possible amount of energy that came in a packet.
I played around with the numbers for a while and found that if the spot where energy was solidified was only around 10^-41m across then it would make the flow rate of energy into the Earth exactly equal to its escape velocity. I had also reached the conclusion at this time that photons would lose energy at the same rate as a growing nucleon and we already had a value of this rate from the red shift of starlight. So these two notions both led to the same rate for the deposition of energy onto a growing nucleon.
Once a nucleon reaches a critical size and becomes a hydrogen atom you might think that it stops drawing in energy and solidifying it. But if this was the case then gravity could only be associated with immature nucleons and not those in ordinary matter. So they must still draw it in but instead of it being accumulated upon the core (where it would make it grow beyond its instability limit) it must be shed along with photon energy each time it is emitted. So gravitational energy is constantly being converted into thermal energy and this is what keeps planets and stars from ever going cold.
So now I had established that nucleons draw in energy at a rate of 3.2x10^-18eV/s. As there are around 3.57x10^51 nucleons in the Earth it must be drawing in energy at 1.14x10^34eV/s. The surface area of the planet is 5.12x10^14m^2 and the energy density of the continuum is 1.97x10^15eV/m^3 and therefore the flow rate of energy is equal to 11.3x10^4m/s.
Now this is equal to its escape velocity and might seem contrived as some of the values I have used have been based upon data already known for the Earth. But if this was the case then I would not expect to get the same relationship for stars and other planets. I checked with data for the other rocky planets and was relieved to find the same relationship held. But it was not until recently, when I was debating the collapse of gas cloud under gravity that I calculated the flow rates for the Sun and the gaseous planets.
Earth Sun Jupiter
R 6.38x10^6 6.955x10^8 7.14x10^7
M 5.97x10^27 1.989x10^33 1.90x10^30
N 3.57x10^51 1.187x10^57 1.134x10^54
RE 1.14x10^34 3.800x10^39 3.63x10^36
Vol 1.087x10^21 1.409x10^27 1.525x10^24
SA 5.12x10^14 6.088x10^18 6.406x10^16
D 5.515x10^3 1.412x10^3 1.314x10^3
Vg 1.13x10^4 3.21x10^5 2.88x10^4
Ve 1.12x10^4 6.18x10^5 5.96x10^4
Vg/Ve 1.0 0.52 0.48
R = radius (m) M = mass (g) RE = rate of energy inflow (eV/s)
Vol = volume (m^3) SA = surface area (m^2) D = density (kg/m^3)
Vg = speed of flowing energy (m/s) Ve = escape velocity (m/s)
Saturn Uranus Neptune
R 6.03x10^7 2.556x10^7 2.476x10^7
M 5.69x10^29 8.68x10^28 1.024x10^29
N 3.397x10^53 5.182x10^52 6.11x10^52
RE 1.087x10^36 1.658x10^35 1.96x10^35
Vol 9.184x10^23 6.995x10^22 6.2x10^22
SA 4.568x10^16 8.210x10^15 7.70x10^15
D 6.9x10^2 1.29x10^3 1.64x10^3
Vg 1.21x10^4 1.025x10^4 1.29x10^4
Ve 3.744x10^3 2.17x10^4 2.37x10^4
Vg/Ve 0.32 0.47 0.54
To my surprise (because I had thought that I had done these calculations) I found that the FET flow rates were all lower than the escape velocities by up to 70%. This concerned me for some time but I was sure that there was an explanation because I had been in this sort of situation many times before and in each case FET came through with a sound explanation.
After much thought I concluded that the flow rate of energy into a gaseous body would have a different effect as the same flow into a solid or liquid body. This is because in a gaseous body where the atoms or molecules are separated from each other, the absorbed energy is retained as kinetic energy whereas in a solid or liquid where atoms are linked to each other via electron bonds, the absorbed gravitational energy cannot be stored as kinetic energy but is passed along them via the bonds.
So I recalculated the flow rates and escape velocities of the Sun and gaseous planets using various values for the radii to see at what point they gave identical values. I kept the masses constant which meant that the densities of the bodies were being varied. Once again I was surprised to find that the flow rate of gravitational energy and the escape velocity of each body occurred at almost exactly the same density as that of the Earth. This suggests that the Sun and the gaseous planets really do have solid or more likely molten cores of material with exactly the same composition as the Earth.
This result supports my theory that all rocky planets are really the cores of dead stars. It would appear that our Sun has already grown a massive core that is 70 times as large as the Earth (by radius) and now has an atmosphere of gases only 2.55x10^8 m deep.
Let me now explain why gravity cannot collapse a gas cloud to start the creation of a star. Suppose the Sun was initially formed from a cloud with a radius of 10^16m. The flow rate of gravitational energy into this cloud at its edge would be 1.54x10^-3m/s. The escape velocity of this cloud according to current methods would be 5.18x10^3m/s i.e. around a million times greater. Although there is a wide discrepancy between them they both give the same rate of acceleration of objects into the cloud. I will explain the FET method some other time even though it is very simple. However, the current calculation is extremely complicated and tedious, at least according to the experts on the Bad Astronomy site.
The actual rate of acceleration due to this gas cloud is 0.91x10^-6m/s according to FET and 1.4x10^-6m/s according to current theory. The latter figure was used to show that the cloud would collapse to the size of the Sun in around 120 years. But think about it. Even at 20K, hydrogen atoms are moving in random directions at 770m/s due to thermal agitation due to the constant absorption and transfer or emission of photons. So half the molecules at the edge of the cloud at any one time are moving away from the centre with this average speed, i.e. around 10^8 times faster than can be accelerated by the gravitational force of the cloud. Hence gravity has no hope of reversing this rate of movement and the cloud will rapidly disperse. In fact the light from a nearby star is more likely to blow the gas cloud away than gravity is to collapse it.
Now if we consider debris at this distance we have a different story. The atoms are still moving with an average speed of 770m/s but because there are lots of them linked together their average directions will cancel out. Thus gas molecules whiz about in one particular direction at a time whereas large groups of atoms tend to remain stationary. That is unless there is a constant input from just one direction. Thus although gravity will only move a group of atoms very slowly it will steadily build up and eventually drag them to the centre. This is why stars clear an area around them of debris but not the gases.
If any of this is not clear then let me know and I will attempt to explain it better. If you are happy with it then next week I will explain the structure of an atom and how it collects gravitational energy.
I'm only a few pages away from completing your book and I have enjoyed it very much. There is so much about FET that has inspired me to think further then I have in the past, and I say thanks for that.
I only have had one problem with the continuous aspect of your substance, and that is the need for a boundary for it to separate and travel through the rest of the substance as the photon does. I have tried to read as much as I can on the infinitesimal theories to see if I can get a better picture on the concept of boundary at the core substance level.
The part I like about your theories the most is the one about Earth like planets being the core of used up stars. I really think this is a theory that has merit, and should be put high on your list of things to push, separate from your FET theory. I think that this idea belongs in the discussions of main stream science.
I have much more, but I'll wait for a response to this post first.
__________________ Allen.
"Paradox of Potential popped Aware." ~Allen Barrow
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." ~Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
"Condemnation without Investagation is the Heigth of Ignorance" ~Albert Einstein
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ~Galileo Galilei.
I have just finished another week child minding which is why I have not been posting recently. In my last posting I showed how a gravitational field is the flow of continuum energy into a body caused by spinning nucleons of solid energy sucking it in. For the surface of the Earth the energy is sucked in at a speed of 11.2km/s, which is equal to its escape velocity.
When a stick is dropped into flowing water, the stick almost immediately starts to move at the same rate as the water. So why is it that a person jumping out of an airplane at 1,000m does not immediately accelerate to the same speed as flowing gravitational energy and hit the ground in about 0.1s? The current answer is that bodies experience inertia, i.e. a resistance to being moved. However, just giving something a word for it does not explain why it happens.
The FET answer (given with diagrams in book 2) is very clear why bodies accelerate in a gravitational field and do not instantly adopt its speed. The reason is that when you do the maths you find that the flow of gravitational energy into a body is limited by the ability of the atoms in that body to capture the gravitational energy fast enough.
In order to do the calculations we need to use the law of conservation of energy and to know the rate at which an atom can capture gravitational energy. The law of conservation of momentum says that when two bodies collide they may have different speeds after the collision but the total momentum of two bodies is the same before and after the collision. Momentum (p) is the product of mass (m) and velocity (v); i.e. p = mv. But FET does not need mass to define the amount of substance in a body because it assumes energy to be a real substance and therefore we only need to know the total energy of a body to define its amount completely. Hence momentum in FET is equal to Energy times velocity; i.e. p = Ev. When a nucleon absorbs energy, in order for that nucleon to accelerate it must hold onto that energy hence we can treat the collision of gravitational energy as being a collision in which the two bodies stick together and therefore the equation we need is E1v1 + E2v2 = (E1 + E2)v3 where E1 is the amount of gravitational energy absorbed, E2 is the amount of energy in a nucleon.
Now when gravitational energy is absorbed it is initially moving at whatever speed is dictated by the body pulling that energy into itself. However, as soon as that energy is absorbed it moves at light speed because it is mixed with the electron energy and this always moves at light speed. Hence v1 must be equal to c. Now when we drop a body from an airplane its initial speed downward is zero and hence E2v2 is zero and after one second its speed will be v3. Because the amount of gravitational energy absorbed per second from the Earth’s gravitational field is very small compared to the amount of energy in a nucleon we can say that E1 + E2 is equal to E2. Hence the equation we need becomes E1c = E2v3.
Our only problem now is to work out how much energy a nucleon absorbs per second from the flowing gravitational energy. To do this, imagine that a nucleon is like a sailing boat with the solid core being the boat and the electron its sail. A boat with no sail will be blown along with the wind but only very slowly. When the sail is raised it captures far more of the wind and therefore moves much faster. So what we need to know is the surface area of an electron.
We do know this but we can calculate the true value from how fast an object accelerates in a known gravitational field. Before that though, we can estimate a rough value as follows. When atoms combine to form molecules they do so by sharing electron energy between them. This means that the electrons must extend for a distance longer than the longest known bond length. This is around 3x10^-10m and therefore an electron must be at least 1.5x10^-10m long in order to overlap an electron from a neighbouring atom. So if we assume an electron to be a circle of this radius it would have an area of 7x10^-20m^2.
The amount of energy crossing this area per second must be equal to a volume given by this area times the length of a column of energy corresponding to 1 second. If the energy is moving at 11.2km/s then the length will be this long and the volume of energy is equal to 7x10^-20 x 11.2x10^3 m^3. Now the density of continuum energy around the Earth is equal to 2x10^15eV.m^3 and therefore the total amount of energy flowing into an electron is equal to 7x10^-20 x 11.2x10^3 x 2x10^15 = 1.6eV per second.
So now we have a rough value for E1 and can calculate how fast an atom will be accelerated by gravitational energy. So E1xc is equal to 1.6x3x10^8 i.e. 4.7x10^8 and this is also equal to E2v3. We know E2 is equal to 10^9eV and therefore v3 is equal to 0.47m/s. So if the area of an electron is equal to 7x10^-20m^2 it will be accelerated by 0.47m/s every second in the Earth’s gravitational field. This is quite a bit less than the known value of 9.8m/s for the acceleration of an object in Earth’s gravity but then we did calculate a minimum value for the area of an electron. If we put v3 equal to 9.8 in the momentum equation we find that the surface area of an electron is actually equal to 1.46x10^-18m^2, i.e. nearly 50 times larger than I calculated above.
This is not unreasonable because I would expect the energy density of an electron to be at least 100 times larger than the bond length in molecules. This is because when electrons overlap and share energy they pull each other close together by the action of the centripetal force. Also, an electron is not circular but is very much elongated and therefore, depending upon its spread it could even be as much as a thousand times greater than a bond length. Fortunately we do not need to know the exact shape of an electron at the moment so we can be satisfied with the calculated value.
I used this value in my calculation for the acceleration of an object into a large molecular gas cloud and even though my calculated flow rate of gravitational energy was around a million times smaller than the escape velocity calculated for this cloud by current theory, I obtained the same value of 0.9x10^-6m/s as current methods. Note that my method of calculation is very simple whereas current theory is very complicated and uses pages of equations.
Notice that for a large gas cloud the gas molecules are moving at hundreds of millions of times faster than this due to thermal motion even at the boiling point of hydrogen and therefore there is no way that gravity can cause a gas to condense and begin the process of star formation.
I hope this makes some sort of sense for you but it is much clearer in book 2 where I have diagrams to help explain it.
I am glad you enjoyed my first book on FET. You say that you are not clear how a photon remains as a discrete packet of energy without a boundary and does not expand back into the same density as the surrounding continuum. I have not thought much about the integrity of photons since I first came up with their creation mechanism many years ago. At that time I just assumed that because they were spinning, or more correctly rolling along, they would generate a centripetal force that compressed the energy inside it as all whirlpools do. This is one area where the maths ought to be able to explain their consistency but as yet I have not attempted to do much apart from say that the size of the centripetal force must be directly related to the amount of energy within a photon and therefore the diameter must be linearly related to the amount of energy in a photon. But because they are not spinning at 10^23rps they do not compress the energy inside them to become solidified.
I was at a science park with my granddaughter the other day and there they had a cannon with one end fitted with a loose fitting fabric that could be hit with the hand to produce a puff of air out of the open end. The cannon could be aimed at a board with hundreds of discs hanging on it and these moved when the puff of air struck it. This shows that a compressed region of air can remain fairly intact and travel as a pulse of energy.
Another example of how matter can remain as a discrete package is a smoke ring. Small ones can be generated by smokers and much larger ones by volcanoes. The reason the ring remains intact for so long may be that the smoke is moving as a vortex but not at a very high speed. So it appears that even a small rotation effect can keep something from being dissipated rapidly.
I therefore see photons as having a uniform density throughout and therefore the boundary with the continuum is just a sudden change in energy density. Whereas smoke rings eventually break up, photons are spinning so much faster that they are stable except for the energy that is lost as they leave a string of solid energy behind them. The string is presumably kept in its solid form because it is kept at the right tension by virtue of the photon moving away from its source at light speed.
In book 2, where I have included a section on gravity diversion, there is a good example of how a body spinning at much slower rates than nucleons can channel energy inwards. Perhaps an analysis of this system may be the clue to solving the maths of photon integrity.
As for book 2, I am getting so far behind that I have decided to only include photon interactions with matter, along with electricity and magnetism plus a little more on atomic structures. Quantum theory and relativity are very large subjects and therefore I will have enough on these subjects to put into an extra book. Hopefully this will allow me to come back on track for book 2 but as I am having a month in the USA later this year I may be being a bit optimistic.
I agree with your comments about my suggestion that rocky planets are the remnants of star cores. When I discovered that FET predicts the Sun and the gaseous planets to all have rocky cores with exactly the same density as the Earth I was tempted to make this subject one of several possibilities that could be submitted to a journal. It has the advantage that even if working scientists could not accept FET as a serious contender for a TOE, the theory can stand alone and would also eliminate the need for an explanation of why rocky planets cannot be made from the accumulation of space debris.
Hi Jimbo, nice to see you drop by. I appreciate your responce to my question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoPpAScience
I only have had one problem with the continuous aspect of your substance, and that is the need for a boundary for it to separate and travel through the rest of the substance as the photon does. I have tried to read as much as I can on the infinitesimal theories to see if I can get a better picture on the concept of boundary at the core substance level.
Unfortunately you misunderstood my questioning.
I was questioning in regards to the boundary of the continuous substance and not the boundary of the Photon, even though they are related. It is the boundary of core/fundamental/continuous substance that consumes my main attention these days. What I would like to know is, what is your view of the structure of your continuous substance? There must be boundary to the continuous substance in order for it to form strings of CS that are spun into whirls of CS.
This is why I mentioned Photons, because of their ability to move through the CS. Just like the smoke rings you mentioned, there must be boundary to the individual aspects of the smoke ring in order for it to spread apart the medium the smoke is moving through. I am interested in what all those that use substance in their theories, think the boundary of the substance is like. Also, if the substance within the boundary is fluid or solid?
__________________ Allen.
"Paradox of Potential popped Aware." ~Allen Barrow
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." ~Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
"Condemnation without Investagation is the Heigth of Ignorance" ~Albert Einstein
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ~Galileo Galilei.
Jim, I think you should start a thread in regards to your Sun core theory. I personally think it has merit. I have things I would like to post to the idea, but would prefer to post it in a thread for the theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbo
I agree with your comments about my suggestion that rocky planets are the remnants of star cores. When I discovered that FET predicts the Sun and the gaseous planets to all have rocky cores with exactly the same density as the Earth I was tempted to make this subject one of several possibilities that could be submitted to a journal. It has the advantage that even if working scientists could not accept FET as a serious contender for a TOE, the theory can stand alone and would also eliminate the need for an explanation of why rocky planets cannot be made from the accumulation of space debris.
__________________ Allen.
"Paradox of Potential popped Aware." ~Allen Barrow
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious." ~Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
"Condemnation without Investagation is the Heigth of Ignorance" ~Albert Einstein
"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." ~Galileo Galilei.
Before FET I always thought of a boundary as being a region where two different substances met so that there was a distinct difference between many properties either side of that boundary. I believe that energy has no structure except for being highly compressible so that its density can vary. So boundaries can only exist in energy by virtue of having different densities. There is though a maximum density beyond which energy cannot be compressed and this occurs with solid energy. Hence a nucleon, which is a region of solid energy is completely uniform throughout and has a sharp boundary with its surroundings which have a lower density.
In “Wot, no bang?” I introduced a few laws that I though must apply to energy when considered to be a real continuous substance. One of these is that a region of high energy density will pass through a region of lower density which implies that a region of low energy density must flow around a region of higher energy density. Another is that if the densities are identical then the two regions will merge into one.
So far I have found these laws to be very useful as they tell us exactly where and how an atom manages to absorb both photon and gravitational energy. Because FET is new and only studied in depth by me, there is a possibility that I have not yet discovered all of its secrets. I have given much though to how boundaries consisting of density differences can be maintained and have reached the point where I am fairly happy with my explanations. These may not be correct but they have so far proved to be useful for interpreting all of the observations that I have studied.
So to my mind a photon flying through continuum energy displaces the continuum energy in front of it much like a moving vehicle deflects air around it. Now you might think that this causes a resistance to the photon just as air does to a moving vehicle and that a photon might slow down over time. But when you consider the mechanism behind the slowing down of a vehicle you can see why the speed of a photon is not altered by its passage through continuum energy.
Air molecules are constantly striking a vehicle and with each collision there is an exchange of energy as the electrons of an air molecule are forced into contact with the electrons of the atoms comprising the vehicle. Remember that electrons have an energy density that scans the whole range from that of solid energy down to that of the continuum and therefore during a collision they must reach a point where they have equal densities and can therefore exchange energy.
When the vehicle is stationary the number of collisions between air molecules and the vehicle is roughly constant and will depend upon the density (pressure) and temperature of the air. When the vehicle moves it will collide with more air molecules in front of it and less air molecules behind due to the pressure difference at the two ends of the vehicle. Thus more energy is lost to air molecules at the front than at the back as the speed increases. Consequently the vehicle loses more of its stored energy that is moving in the forward direction than in the backward direction. So either more energy has to be generated by the engine to make up for this loss of forward motion or else the vehicle will slow down.
High energy photons such as gamma rays are almost spherical with a diameter around 10^-15m and their energy density is close to that of solid energy, which is around 10^39 times as dense as continuum energy and might be expected to experience very little resistance to their motion, just as a vehicle will experience very little resistance moving through a very high vacuum. However, you might think that a radio photon with a diameter of thousands of metres would struggle to push continuum energy around it. However, lower energy photons become increasingly disc shaped as they become less dense towards the radio end of the spectrum. Hence radio photons might have large diameters but their thickness falls to around 10^-41 m just before they merge with continuum energy. Hence the continuum energy passes easily along the sides of a radio photon.
But the real reason that a photon does not lose speed on its travels is because the law of conservation of momentum tells us that the speed of a body will only change if (kinetic) energy is lost from it. A photon has a uniform density throughout and therefore its boundary with the continuum must be a sharp change in density so that energy cannot be exchanged between them. So because a photon cannot give energy to the continuum it must maintain the same speed that it started out with.
Now I have claimed that a photon does lose energy equal to that of the red shift of starlight by leaving behind a string of solid energy. But because a photon is rolling along with an average speed of light, the forward speed of the energy in a photon varies from twice the speed of light at its top to zero at its bottom. Because the energy is lost at the bottom of a photon it does not change the average forward speed.
In books 2 and 3 I have explained much more on how low density energy flows around high density regions. I explain how photons that are thousands of times larger than a typical atom can easily pass through a transparent solid. I also explain how a photon can pass simultaneously through two separate slits to generate an interference pattern and why the flow of gravitational energy arising from one body speeds up when another body enters its space.
Linear Mode
