Energy and Polarity

[Aromaz]

[witsend]

Thunderbolts of the Gods | Watch Free Documentary Online

I think that's the link. Amazing stuff.

Sorry to be quoting myself. But the link is very good. I've taken the liberty of posting it here as well.

Aromaz, the simple fact is that mainstream have already defined the required terminologies. Nothing wrong in following them. If we're to re-invent descriptions and term definitions then this exercise is probably fraught with unnecessary delays and complications that are probably better avoided.

IF Photons≠Light.
THEN either must have existed before the Other.

Golly Aromaz. I see no earthly requirements for photons unless they're the particle that is responsible for the light wave? If you're arguing that light is not the result of photons - then you're also saying that light has no particulate nature. We've been over this. If light is not particulate in nature - then something is that has been proven to move at light speed - to move in straight lines - to irradiate from a source - to bend within a gravity field - to operate within a wide spectrum of frequencies some of which are visible. That's what is described as 'light'. It is attributed to photons that are presumed to be neutral particles with a spin of 1. This required because photons 'share a path'. If they had a single charge, then they could not share a path. Maxwell described it as an electromagnetic interaction that somehow propels itself through space. No-one has ever been able to hold a light particle in space such as they've managed with all other stable particles.

IF Photons can exist without light.
THEN Photons existed before Light.

Again. Photons are postulated as being THE particle that manifests as a light wave. No-one has ever considered this to be required EXCEPT as an explanation for the particulate nature of light. Please bear in mind that it's particulate nature has been proved. In effect the existence of the photon is not at question. One can question mainstream - of course. I make a habit of it myself. But it would be absurd to question what is known. There, unfortunately or fortunately, mainstream have the edge.

IF Photons are responsible for Light
AND Photon(With or Without Light) is responsible for Polarity ? ? ?

Where did this come from? How can light be responsible for polarity? How can a photon be responsible for polarity? There is an apparent charge in all particles that relate to the spin - and, possibly to the polarity or some magnetic property in each such particle. But I very much doubt that a neutral particle can be the source of all polarities? I'm open to persuasion. But I just don't see it. Sorry.

TRUE Polarity is responsible for Electricity.
THEN maybe we need to look at P photons for Alternative Energy
NOT the Electron.

Again. What do you mean by 'TRUE' polarity. Not sure of your definition here at all. I simply can't argue it.

The result (light) will be our guide to understand the cause (Photons)

Remember the earlier Magnetic vs Elecricity model?

A prompt for pondering:
Maybe it is NOT and Electric Universe;
Maybe it is a PHOTONIC universe.

Again. In the same way we could ask 'Why not a GRAVITON universe - or a NEUTRON universe?' It adds nothing to the general picture.

With the utmost respect I simply do not follow the logic. I do, however, entirely concur with your opinion about Talbott and Thornhill. I think their video is a really articulate summation as to why Quantum and Classical physics do not apply to what is now known in mainstream science. But their argument is based on an electric universe. Electric energy is - as they've pointed out - linear and its reach is therefore prescribed in space and subject to light speed. I would have thought that dark energy - which is very much required by cosmologists as it's been proven though gravitational lensing - would also need to be more entirely pervasive. And the explanation of the universe as an electric field - would also remain within the bounds of light speed. This would not satisfy questions related to the locality paradox that we discussed earlier.

[Aromaz]

Is that to say Photons is light; or light is a result of certain photon incidents?

3) Sorry, ahead of schedule. The photon is responsible or cause of polarity. The way I see it
There is very little anybody can argue with them. Matter of experimental and cosmic observation is on their side.

"But their argument is based on an electric universe. Electric energy is - as they've pointed out - linear and its reach is therefore prescribed in space and subject to light speed. I would have thought that dark energy - which is very much required by cosmologists as it's been proven though gravitational lensing - would also need to be more entirely pervasive. And the explanation of the universe as an electric field - would also remain within the bounds of light speed. This would not satisfy questions related to the locality paradox that we discussed earlier.Cherenkov Radiation." in particular the speed observations.

[witsend]

This is a new angle. If you're proposing that all particles are also composites of photons then this is based on what? Frankly I'm inclined to agree with the concept of particles being composites of a fundamental particle. But light - whether or not you agree that it comprises photons - still travels at light speed. What is needed to resolve some outstanding questions in physics is 'superluminal' velocity - to reconcile locality paradoxes.

Is that to say Photons is light; or light is a result of certain photon incidents?

I think I'm finally beginning to see the problem here. Think of it like this. All photons have a 'shine' and that 'shine' is simply a property of the photon itself. Think of it as a really small localised glowing colour. Some of those colours are visible to our eyes. Others are not. Here's another anology. You know how you can concentrate light through the curved surface of a magnifying glass. The effect is that one will see a bright light concentrated into a single spot. That spot can be hot enough to generate a fire or flame in the surrounding area. The photon does not burn. The photon simply reflects off and away at a co-incident angle to continue through space at light speed. But what burns in the material that has been ignited by those photons? By that light? To my way of thinking that means that light itself has an inherent caloric value associated with it's colour. The brighter the hotter. Now. Take that hypothetical 'incident' further. We remove the magnifying glass. The source of the fire is removed. But the fire continues to burn. The flame itself that is generated by that concentrated light is localised in space. We can see that flame through space and in time. But whatever's burning - whatever it is that glows with fire is certainly not also travelling through space at light speed. We see it where it is. In the same way we see light where it is. In other words particles have an inherent property something akin to 'fire' that is able to 'glow' and, given the required frequency, then that 'glow' can be visible.

[witsend]

"But their argument is based on an electric universe. Electric energy is - as they've pointed out - linear and its reach is therefore prescribed in space and subject to light speed. I would have thought that dark energy - which is very much required by cosmologists as it's been proven though gravitational lensing - would also need to be more entirely pervasive. And the explanation of the universe as an electric field - would also remain within the bounds of light speed. This would not satisfy questions related to the locality paradox that we discussed earlier.

Again. Just my own viewpoint. I know that a magnetic field can interact with another magnetic field without producing an electric field. To the best of my knowledge there has been one experiment conducted to address this question. Results were inconclusive. This means that thus far, no-one has ever been able to prove an electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction. However there has never been an electric field that is independent of a measurable magnetic field. Therefore am I inclined to argue that the magnetic field is the primary field - the 'egg' that comes before the 'chicken'.

[Aromaz]

@ witsend; you are pulling me on a path I did not want to elaborate on this forum!

Actually I do not agree that light travels at light speed; But this is another issue; What is light then? Now I am on very thin ice here; if any ice at all.

Photons does not always travel at the speed of light either; but the speed of light is one of the velocities it does achieve.

If we rephrase:
Light waves are moving through space . . .and . . . Light is the Electromagnetic spectrum
With
Photon waves are moving through space . . .and . . .Photons is the Electromagnetic spectrumReverse engineering: (Basic view)
Proton annihilate into Electron/Positron pairs and Gamma (Photon) pairs.
Electron/Positron annihilate into two photons (or sometimes single photon)
Infra-, ultra-, Alpha, Beta, Gamma are all photons with variety of charge/energy.
Thus I think it is fairly safe to say all matter eventually dissociate to Photons.

THEN: To complete the cycle, the reverse must also be true: Photons is the building block of the atom-molecule and universe.

ABOUT LIGHT:not motive but a complete other form of energy

[witsend]

Ok Aromaz, I think I need to sit back and see where your thinking goes. I would point out one thing though. When our physicists accellerate particles and fire the one into the other there is an extraordinary event. I've heard it described as adding a banana to an apple and coming up with an entire fruit salade of apples, bananas, peaches, apricots, strawberries, quinces, pineapples, oranges, lemons - and on and on. It defies logic. Our particle accellerators show a number of 'nuances' that are infinite in their variety. But the conclusion is ALWAYS back to that banana and that apple - unless either or both particles are what they call baryons. Then they fall into the stable composites of that known baryon range. In other words an electron and photon will always end up as an electron or a photon. That's when the nuances have decayed. But a proton can become something more complex - as can a neutron. That's why they attribute the composite nature to some particles and not to others. Photons and electrons are not considered to be composites of anything because they always end up as they started.