Energy and Polarity

[Aromaz]

@Aromaz, don't you think it is better to call your photon differently? Without reading your description about your photon, people may think it is the same as what currently established and may result confusion.
Aromaz's photon <> light, because we obviously can see light. Still can not decide whether they can be put into a same group. Still can not decide which come first.
Aromaz's photon is useless and unmeasureable. Light is useful and measureable.

On the contrary, my description and use of Photon does actually correspond with that of conventional science. The very basic perception that light and photon is the same thing is in fact wrong; even in Conventional Science.

Wikipedia:


Individual photons can be detected by several methods. In the classic photomultiplier tube (1887 Heinrich Hertz), a photon landing on a metal plate ejects an electron, initiating an ever-amplifying avalanche of electrons. Microchips use a similar effect in semiconductors: an incident photon generates a charge on a microscopic capacitor that can be detected.

Other detectors such as Geiger counters use the ability of photons to ionize gas molecules, causing a detectable change in conductivity.

[witsend]

On the contrary, my description and use of Photon does actually correspond with that of conventional science. The very basic perception that light and photon is the same thing is in fact wrong; even in Conventional Science...

Individual photons can be detected by several methods. In the classic photomultiplier tube (1887 Heinrich Hertz), a photon landing on a metal plate ejects an electron, initiating an ever-amplifying avalanche of electrons. Microchips use a similar effect in semiconductors: an incident photon generates a charge on a microscopic capacitor that can be detected.

Aromaz, isn't there a contradiction here? I actually understand that mainstream do, indeed, attribute 'light' to both a particulate and a wave nature. I also understood that there were tests conducted by some Chinese academics that moved a rotor on an axis by bombarding it with light - thereby proving the existence of the 'particle'. Generally speaking mainstream attribute all particles to have a particulate and a wave nature. The puzzle has been to find out whether it has the same properties as a wave as it does as a particle. That's the wave-particle duality - which was acknowledged by quantum physicists.

EDIT But I do agree with you that the photon has NEVER been held steady that anyone can study it. They've managed to get the proton, electron, and sundry other particles into a 'rest state' by holding them locked in magnetic fields. But no-one has ever held a photon steady enough to actually study it. Therefore one can say that it always operates as a 'wave' but I do also think it's particulate nature has been proved.

[Aromaz]

[Aromaz]

Aromaz, isn't there a contradiction here? I actually understand that mainstream do, indeed, attribute 'light' to both a particulate and a wave nature. I also understood that there were tests conducted by some Chinese academics that moved a rotor on an axis by bombarding it with light - thereby proving the existence of the 'particle'. Generally speaking mainstream attribute all particles to have a particulate and a wave nature. The puzzle has been to find out whether it has the same properties as a wave as it does as a particle. That's the wave-particle duality - which was acknowledged by quantum physicists.

EDIT But I do agree with you that the photon has NEVER been held steady that anyone can study it. They've managed to get the proton, electron, and sundry other particles into a 'rest state' by holding them locked in magnetic fields. But no-one has ever held a photon steady enough to actually study it. Therefore one can say that it always operates as a 'wave' but I do also think it's particulate nature has been proved.

YES, a contradiction - no; but a PARADOX indeed!

First see my next two postings; both in clipping before I saw your latest posting.

EDIT: Prior posting and next posting

[Aromaz]

[Aromaz]

. . . Light

Can you see light? No!
Can you see the reflection of light? Yes.

Can you observe or measure light in a pure vaccum? NO.
There is no light - until the moment the 'light beam' comes into
contact with an object of MATTER.

My laser light is a nice visible beam from my source to the place
where I point/terminate it. When I look carefully, I can see the beam
is only visible because of particles falling/moving through the beam.

But in a dust-less vacuum I can not see or observe my laser either.

Thus comes the next quation you are going to ask: What then is the
"beam of the light"?

[mk1]

@all

The Birth of the Magnetic Battery | New Energy and Fuel

[witsend]

Can you see light? No!
Can you see the reflection of light? Yes.

Can you observe or measure light in a pure vaccum? NO.
There is no light - until the moment the 'light beam' comes into
contact with an object of MATTER.

My laser light is a nice visible beam from my source to the place
where I point/terminate it. When I look carefully, I can see the beam
is only visible because of particles falling/moving through the beam.

But in a dust-less vacuum I can not see or observe my laser either.

Thus comes the next quation you are going to ask: What then is the
"beam of the light"?

Ok. I think I see where you're going with this. But here's the thing. You can shine a laser through the atmosphere - then through empty space - and then finally see it directly on the moon's surface. I understand that this has been done. They managed to keep the light at some improbably small value showing the purity of the laser beam.

This is an interesting argument. That means that the light that was emitted from the laser first 'bounces off' various atomic structures in the atmosphere - at chaotic and artbrary angles. And yet - if it is still the same light from the same source - is able to reconstitute itself to travel through the dark night sky without leaving any trace of its path. Then it finds the surface of the moon and 'shines'.

In effect if it can first 'bounce off' atmospheric material - then how can it also stay on path or on track to also 'shine' or reflect off the surface of the moon. That's a really interesting question. Like you - I need to do some homework. Thanks for that Aromaz.



edited

[sucahyo]

sucahyo. The usefulness and measurability of the forces have been well documented and by minds far, far greater than our own.

The difference is in the useless or unmeasureable one. The "impossible" to proof area. Which may become confusing if we didn't mention it. I don't agree that science already explain all the useless but measureable or usefull but measureable, less for useless and unmeasureable. Aether for instance, there are difference even among current free energy leader when describing aether. And somehow I think Aromaz photon do not touch this area.

On the contrary, my description and use of Photon does actually correspond with that of conventional science. The very basic perception that light and photon is the same thing is in fact wrong; even in Conventional Science.

Lol, the word conventional is so ambiguous... Some use it to describe pre 1900, other use it for current science....

Please clarify. Do Photon description at 1900 is the same as at 2000?


Light do not exist could be just a play of world, because thousand would call anything they see as reflection of light, what ever "light" really means. A change of description do not make light unexistant.

[witsend]

Like you - I need to do some homework. Thanks for that Aromaz.



edited

Sorry to quote myself - but off the top of my head - here's the explanation. Visible light comes in certain wave lengths some of which are visible and of which are not. Infra red springs to mind. Now. Let's assume that light can 'reflect off' dense material but it can also 'shine through' less dense material. We know that the density of gaseous atoms are less than those of solids or liquids. Therefore the possibility exists that light can shine through the actual atomic structure - the 'gaps' inside an atom - possibly through what is described as the atom's energy levels.

As we all know, the atom's actual particles are minute compared to the 'volume' of each atom. For instance, if you take the hydrogen atom - then, in your mind's eye - see that proton as being the size of an apple. Then the electron, correspondingly would be the size of grain of sand - or about half the size of your average dried split pea. And on this scale that 'pea' or that 'grain of sand' would be orbiting the nucleus at a radius of about 3 miles which would give it a diameter something somewhat bigger than 5 of your average New York City block. Between them is just a lot of space - differentiated into what are called energy levels. No-one knows that make those energy levels. Another outstanding question in science. It just seems to hold the electron bound in its orbit that it does not 'nose dive' into the proton.

Let's assume that those photons can travel in a straight line through those gaps. But when it hits those gaps it interacts with the 'field' whatever 'field' makes those energy levels - and in doing so it also gets 'slowed down' to a frequency or wave length that we can see - within our visibility range. Then it goes through the next and the next and the next - until it reaches the outer boundaries of our atmosphere. And then there are no further 'thing's or atoms - to pass though. Then it relaxes into it's 'invisible' wave length - and continues its path until it hits the surface of the moon. Then it is not able to penetrate the atomic structure because the matter of the moon is too dense. Then it 'reflects' off the surface of the moon. And it reflects back at an angle that makes that 'reflection' visible.

So. It is the same photon - the same particle - that travels through our atmosphere - visible - through the empty reaches of space - invisible - to reflect off the surface of the moon, thereby making it visible.

Which may answer how the same photon can travel such inordinate distances without actually changing it's particulate nature. All that is varied is it's 'wave lengths'. And as you rightly pointed out. There is nothing in space to 'reflect' it. Therefore is the night sky dark and therefore is the vacuum of space 'dark'. But the existence of myriad photons may, indeed, occupy that space. We just can't see them. They're moving in an invisible wave length.

[witsend]

The difference is in the useless or unmeasureable one. The "impossible" to proof area. Which may become confusing if we didn't mention it. I don't agree that science already explain all the useless but measureable or usefull but measureable, less for useless and unmeasureable. Aether for instance, there are difference even among current free energy leader when describing aether. And somehow I think Aromaz photon do not touch this area.

The properties of aether have not been established not as dark energy or as aether fields or in any way at all. They have only been proposed and - at the moment - required. Mainstream need it to explain how galaxies stay bound. We need it to prove our extraordinary results that rather put paid to thermodynamic constraints. But it's material properties do need definition - else we will never use this energy to it's full potential. I'm reasonably satisfied that we're all trying to discover the properties of this field - whether it's attributed to photons or 'scaffolding type' form work - or to a hitherto unknown and atypical particle.

Lol, the word conventional is so ambiguous... Some use it to describe pre 1900, other use it for current science....

Please clarify. Do Photon description at 1900 is the same as at 2000?

Indeed. It is an enduring indictment on science that it has NOT progressed. The only thing that has progressed is the knowledge of how to 'exploit' the forces. That's when the devil is in the detail. And we all know how detailed this progress is. Just look across at the Gulf of Mexico. There's the evidence.

[Aromaz]

Ok. I think I see where you're going with this. But here's the thing. You can shine a laser through the atmosphere - then through empty space - and then finally see it directly on the moon's surface. I understand that this has been done. They managed to keep the light at some improbably small value showing the purity of the laser beam.

This is an interesting argument. That means that the light that was emitted from the laser first 'bounces off' various atomic structures in the atmosphere - at chaotic and artbrary angles. And yet - if it is still the same light from the same source - is able to reconstitute itself to travel through the dark night sky without leaving any trace of its path. Then it finds the surface of the moon and 'shines'.

In effect if it can first 'bounce off' atmospheric material - then how can it also stay on path or on track to also 'shine' or reflect off the surface of the moon. That's a really interesting question. Like you - I need to do some homework. Thanks for that Aromaz.



edited

Ahh, you are actualy talking of the laser beam projected to a reflector on the moon's surface. Yes you are correct, the beam does pass through the athmosphere - with very little effort; but not ALL the beam particles does pass through; some are meeting with some solid matter - dust, is reflected and does not reach the moon. Same also happens in the outer space which is not vacuum. As note: The Apache observatory gets better results more often thant he French or Russian counter parts. Air in New Mexico is generally cleaner.

No, the units that gets scattered when meeting with solid particles does not re-structure or re-align; they go their own way; those are the ones that makes you 'see' the light beam from off-angle.

[witsend]

Ahh, you are actualy talking of the laser beam projected to a reflector on the moon's surface. Yes you are correct, the beam does pass through the athmosphere - with very little effort; but not ALL the beam particles does pass through; some are meeting with some solid matter - dust, is reflected and does not reach the moon. Same also happens in the outer space which is not vacuum. As note: The Apache observatory gets better results more often thant he French or Russian counter parts. Air in New Mexico is generally cleaner.

No, the units that gets scattered when meeting with solid particles does not re-structure or re-align; they go their own way; those are the ones that makes you 'see' the light beam from off-angle.

You're giving me my own argument here Aromaz. I know this and I agree. But then we're back to the same question. If photons are - indeed - giving us light then photons are the source of light. Surely? It's just that we're restricted to only seeing some of those visible waveforms.

[Aromaz]

Lol, the word conventional is so ambiguous... Some use it to describe pre 1900, other use it for current science....

Please clarify. Do Photon description at 1900 is the same as at 2000?

Light do not exist could be just a play of world, because thousand would call anything they see as reflection of light, what ever "light" really means. A change of description do not make light unexistant.

Lol, the word conventional is so ambiguous... Some use it to describe pre 1900, other use it for current science....

Please clarify. Do Photon description at 1900 is the same as at 2000?

Light do not exist could be just a play of world, because thousand would call anything they see as reflection of light, what ever "light" really means. A change of description do not make light unexistant.

Conventional = "Based on or in accordance with general agreement, use, or practice; customary" That which is generally accepted or agreed with as the correct.

In the 1900' this same item we now call Photons was referred to as "Quanta" and "Wave-Packets". The current description and actual acceptance of Photons are valid since 1926 and still basically intact in 2010.

In all manner - Conventional and alternative - light is only a reflection.
On its own; light does not exist. Photons are not light. Let me give you more reason to ponder:

If Light = Photons; then how can you have absolute darkness? Even the most dark of places MUST have photons, else matter will disintegrate very fast; and you will not have oxygen to breath. Photons (like Neutrino and gravity) is omnipresent; but light is not.

[Aromaz]

. . . So. It is the same photon - the same particle - that travels through our atmosphere - visible - through the empty reaches of space - invisible - to reflect off the surface of the moon, thereby making it visible.

Which may answer how the same photon can travel such inordinate distances without actually changing it's particulate nature. All that is varied is it's 'wave lengths'. And as you rightly pointed out. There is nothing in space to 'reflect' it. Therefore is the night sky dark and therefore is the vacuum of space 'dark'. But the existence of myriad photons may, indeed, occupy that space. We just can't see them. They're moving in an invisible wave length.

Personally I expect we will find not all photons are equal.

Futher - and keep this in the pocket for now - I do think we will also find that there is something else that acts as carries for light; possibly neutrinos or the likes. Photons are generally considered to be slow! On the other hand, Nuetrinos are very fast. However this is currently even on my list of questions.

Do remember space is not an absoluut vacuum, neither is space free of dust.

Yes, we should (and I do) keep in mind that light is in fact a whole lot of spectrum; more about the how and why of that later.