Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?

From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/11/05 

Date: 10 Mar 2005 18:06:26 -0800

RP wrote:
> TomGee wrote:
> > RP wrote:
> >
> >>TomGee wrote:
> >>
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >>>My light requires a media sea of invisible photon particles, and
my
> >>>model claims such a medium exists called Dark Matter which covers
> >
> > all
> >
> >>>space devoid of visible matter. Thus, all the photon particles
> >
> > ever to
> >
> >>>be needed are there available for lightwaves to crash through and
> >>>create light. My model does not need to have small numbers of
> >
> > photons
> >
> >>>in order for it to work since all that are ever needed exist ready
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>be used anytime. For higher intensities, more photons are
created;
> >
> > for
> >
> >>>lower intensities, less are created. Simple, no?
> >>>
> >>
> >>What's the mechanism?
> >>Light is functionally just the mediation of em interactions,
> >>
> >>
> >
> > True, but that doesn't tell us much. How do the interactions
create
> > and radiate light? What is radiated as particles? What are the
> > mechanics of the mediation?
> >
> >>
> >>and the
> >>purpose of theory is two-fold:
> >>1) to quantify the interactions
> >>2) to provide a mechanism
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I had thought I had done both, but let's see how much further I
must
> > go.
> >
> >>
> >>Your's isn't a mechanism, since it requires a mechanism, or IOW,
now
> >>you need a theory to account for the interaction between your waves
> >>and your photons.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I have posted my theory in bits and pieces in various ngs here
lately,
> > but I will try to briefly describe it without running off-track
into
> > more specific explanations of it.
> >
> > The mechanism I propose is one well-accepted in several other
> > explanations which show the transfer of energy between mediating
> > forces. Photons driven at electrons can free them from their atoms
or
> > cause them to release more photons. Lightwaves contain energy
which
> > can infuse particles having less energy with more energy as shown
in
> > the photoelectric effect.
> >
> > My model claims that space is filled with negative matter and
energy
> > particles which correspond to the Dark Matter and Dark Energy
phenomena
> > under hurried scrutiny today. Negative matter lacks any positive
> > energy and thus becomes invisible to us and we see through it as
> > "space".
>
> >
> > Lightwaves expand from their source in a spherical fashion in quick
> > succession which allows us to view the universe to the extent of
which
> > our eyes are capable. Lightwaves move through space and collide
with
> > Dark Matter particles and infuse them with +energy which increases
> > their negative mass and energy to an extent where the particles
become
> > real particles having positive matter and energy, which in turn
makes
> > them visible to us.
>
> Your wave is just a proxy wave of QM, or "Ghostwave" as Einstein
> called it, and your conversion of virtual photons to real photons
> differs none whatsoever from that of QED, with the exception that
> you've tried to localize them and failed to call your wave a
> probability wave. QED leaves the question of locality of the photons
> open, deferring only to probabilities.
>
>
Yes, thank you. I have no wave distinct from an ordinary light wave,
however, so I would not say it is a probability wave. It is a physical
wave emitted by a source capable of producing such waves. It is not a
theoretical wave but a real wave associated with ordinary light.

I appreciate your view that my conversion process can be confirmed
under QED, since that could eliminate the need for me to show that such
events can and do happen, if QED is correct.

You are correct too in saying that the difference from QED is that I do
not leave the question of locality open. That is because I refer not
to probabilities but to alternative explanations to observed effects
which may offer better scenarios closer to what is actually causing
those observed effects.
>
>
> Your attempt to relate these photons to dark matter is equivalent to
> the zero point field approach of Sarfatti and a few others whose
names
> I don't recall. The difference between yours and theirs is that they
> attribute a material existence to the zpf, and thus real energy
> located in space between masses, an energy that has mass itself.
>
>
Yes, correct. Another difference is that mine explains where the
energy comes from, and it rejects the notion that energy can exist in
space devoid of anything in it, while it supports the idea that space
has a material existence IN it - not to it - which is invisible and has
energy of a type of its own. Thus, it is the space between visible
matter which has dark matter and energy, and not empty space with a
mysterious energy to it.
>
>
> I don't agree with either approach, but I'll split the difference
with
> both of you: The zpf consists of nonlocalized truly virtual photons,
> that merely "represent" PE between charges, the extra mass associated

> with that PE being accounted for by considering the massive particles

> collectively, i.e. total particle-mass + total energy-mass. In the
> same way, the mass of individual nucleons differs from their
> collective sum. no reference is made to either the space between or
> anything being located in it. Mine is consistent with Minkowski's
> spacetime.
>
> >>
> >>Upon closer inspection you should realize that your
> >>photons are redundant, since the electrons can interact directly
with
> >
> >
> >>the advancing wavefront.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yes, I have considered that, and since Dirac posited that electrons
can
> > lose all +mass and energy and disappear from view until they come
up as
> > particle pairs, I agree it would seem that photon particles are
> > redundant in this case, and it is not impossible that it will be
found
> > later to be so.
> >
> > For now, however, my model finds the photon necessary since it is
the
> > other side of the dual nature of light, and since it is not bound
to
> > atoms like electrons, and that to me indicates there can be a
function
> > for it distinct from the functions of electrons.
> >
> >>
> >>This in itself is redundant, since in
> >>Minkowski's universe the interaction is direct, acting though time.
> >>IOW, in hyperbolic 4D spacetime there are no em waves, and no need
to
> >
> >
> >>account for either a medium or mediators.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yes, but, well, I was talking about the reality of our own
universe,
> > not one which makes space and time interdependent wrt each other.
>
> A theoretical reality that has passed every test thrown at it
> shouldn't be regarded as empirical fiction, even if there is possibly

> an alternate explanation.
>
> >
What tests were made to show that space and time are interdependent? I
have asked for any works which show attempts made to show whether or
not that is true. No one has yet submitted one. AE made that
declaration when he invented space-time, but my model contends that
AE's premise is false in view of the fact that while matter and time
may be dependent on the existence of space, space can exist without
either, and so space is not in an interdependent relationship with
time.
> >>
> >>The absorption of energy from the field is equivalent to the
emission
> >>of a negative photon.
> >>
> >>
> > In what way, or, through which process?
>
>
> Field superposition. Advancing fields don't get absorbed or emitted,
> they only superpose. Looking at the interactions from the perspective

> of a Galilean (Euclidean) space provides the illusion of wave
> propagation. The actual superpositions in Minkowski's hyperbolic 4d
> spacetime are always just those of the fields rigidly attached to
> charged particles. IOW, fields are never independent of fermions.
> >
> >>
> >>Because energy is globally conserved only,
> >>emission energy equals absorption energy on average, the illusion
of
> >>photon-particle transport is thus very convincing, and because it
is
> >>in actuality relativity underlying the effect, the superposition of
> >>photon-particles over SR is an exercise in superposition of
Euclidean
> >>and Hyperbolic spacetimes, or IOW, an error in judgment.
> >>
> >>
> > I agree it is very convincing, but how does relativity underlying
the
> > effect make it an error in judgement?
>
> See above.
>
> >
> >>
> >>This
> >>superposition of spacetimes in one theory leads to the quantum
> >>weirdness that is oft mentioned. The adoption of mutually
exclusive
> >>premises does tend to generate weirdness.
> >>
> >>Richard Perry
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Yes, especially when they conflict.
>
> Yep.
>
> Richard Perry

TomGee

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Capt kirk to really boldly go
    ... > was no upper limit to quantum sub micro based energy transference. ... accomplished through these points by using matter and muon waves. ... particles as they move from one geometry of creation to another. ... Hence matter muon wave coupling allows Man to experience ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Capt kirk to really boldly go
    ... > was no upper limit to quantum sub micro based energy transference. ... accomplished through these points by using matter and muon waves. ... particles as they move from one geometry of creation to another. ... Hence matter muon wave coupling allows Man to experience ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: how does light cause interference phenomena?
    ... electronics noise is a useful signal for measurement purposes. ... A flute produces a near perfect sine wave. ... a particular transition of energy states produces single energy photons ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: How does light know it is traveling at c?
    ... Faraday rotation (requires matter tho') is real. ... the photons you've described would penetrate a Faraday screen and I ... > | are understandable in terms of wave mechanics alone if one assumes ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Part 1 Re: Ken, need help with this
    ... where E includes the contribution of the rest mass m0 ... and the kinetic energy from gamma. ... Can we then go the final step and conclude that photons are ... > wave functions. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast