Heat and Light

Heat and Light

 

Overview

“Heat” and “Light” are two of the most talked about items in physics. These two items are both methods of energy transfer, and therefore exist as the cause or products of numerous processes. Yet these concepts are often presented in vague terms, and often misunderstood. We can here specify clearly exactly what heat and light actually are.

(1) “Heat” is the free flow of Energy Strings.

(2) “Light” is the emission of the Photon System (energy strings as passengers).

One or both may be released in many physical processes.

Energy Strings Being Transferred

Energy, as a physical form, exists as the Energy String. There are four main types of Energy Strings in physical processes. These are: Gravity, Electric, Magnetic, and Nuclear. The main energy types transferred are electric and magnetic.

Therefore when energy is transferred, this means that these Energy Strings are being transferred from one location to another.

There are two main ways to transfer these energy strings: free energy strings transferred (usually after particle collisions), or energy strings riding on a photon core. The first method is known as “heat”. The second method is known as “light”.

Heat as Energy Strings

The term “heat” in science implies the transfer of energy. Scientists have known this for years, though different ideas on what this means. Earlier scientists considered heat to be a type of fluid, which flows from place to place. This author believes that heat exists as energy strings, which do indeed flow similar to a fluid.

All particles are driven by energy strings inside the particle. These energy strings are primarily Magnetic and Electric. Therefore, when particles collide, some of these energy strings will be shaken out of each particle. Now we have free magnetic strings and free electric strings floating through the air.

These free energy strings are now known as “heat”. Thus all “heat” which has previously been described in physical processes is now understood to be these free energy strings.

Of course the energy strings will usually be absorbed quickly. After a particle collision, the energy strings are shaken out, and become “heat”; yet the proximity of the particles means that these energy strings will be quickly reabsorbed by the nearby particle.

This is, for example, how friction creates increase in temperature. Proximity of particles during friction events will result in fast energy transfer. This results in the quick rate of temperature increase for one or both substances. In other words, the “heat” of the energy strings leaving one object will quickly enter the other object, and raise the temperature accordingly.

This type of energy transfer is quite common in stars. As atoms collide, the energy strings are transferred. The amount of strings at that moment will then indicate possible frequency of photon emitted. The atom may of course collide with other atoms without emitting any photon, in which case the “heat” is transferred from place to place throughout the star.

Temperature vs Heat

We should also note that there is a difference between Temperature and Heat. We can understand “temperature” as the amount of internal energy of the particles at the moment. We can understand “heat” to be the transfer of energy from one particle to the next.

Stated another way, temperature is the average energy at that moment, while heat is the transfer of that energy. Thus “gaining heat” (absorbing energy strings) will “increase the temperature” of the particles, while “losing heat” (escaping energy strings) will “decrease the temperature” of the particles.  

Light as the Emission of the Photon System

The second way in which most energy strings are transferred is the Photon System. Using this system, the energy strings are passengers on a high speed photon core. This allows the energy strings to be transferred over very long distances in a short amount of time.

Rather than free energy strings being shaken out of one particle and then entering nearby particles (“heat”), the photon system launches a particle with energy strings attached.

This photon system will usually travel a long distance before being absorbed by another particle. Once absorbed, many of the energy strings are pulled off the photon, and become internal energy strings of the new particle. Thus, at this moment the energy strings have been transferred.

Heat vs Light - and Distance

Note that photon system is effective for transferring energy strings over long distances. The distance traveled depends of course on the thickness and density of the source material. This is why many photons will be re-absorbed many times in the star before being fully emitted from the outer layers. Yet once emitted from the surface layers, the photon system will travel for millions of miles to its next destination.

The heat mechanism generally travels short distances. This is because the free energy strings are released during collision, which means there are particles nearby to absorb quickly.

Furthermore, the mechanisms to emit are different. The heat mechanism involves shaking of the particle after a collision, which allows many energy strings to be released. The photon system mechanism involves a type of rocket launch; no collision is required, and in fact there I often space between particles. Therefore, the heat mechanism will encounter a second particle quickly, whereas the photon mechanism will not encounter a second particle until much later.

MF

May 2018

 

 

Higgs Boson, Schrodinger Orbitals, and Space-Time: Proven or Not?

Here is a Trivia Question for you. Which of the following has actually been Proven:

a. Higgs Boson

b. Schrodinger Orbitals

c. Space-Time as Gravity

 

What is your guess?

The Correct Answer is “D”…. “None of the Above”!!

 

Despite what you may have been taught, despite what you may have heard through internet, NONE of those concepts have been proven true! There is no actual proof for any of them!

I have looked into each of these concepts in great detail, including the origins of each concept, and what was actually observed in relation to the concept. There is no proof, no observational evidence, for any of them.

I will expand briefly below.
 

Higgs Boson has NOT been Proven

There is no such thing as a “Higgs Boson”. It has not been observed, and even if it had, it cannot be the source of gravity.

What they actually “observed” were photons. Yes. When the Higgs Boson was “discovered”, all that was really discovered were some photons.

The Higgs supporters said that these photons were created from the decay of the Higgs Boson, and therefore these photons were proof of the Higgs Boson. However, these photons can come from many sources. They can come from many particles. The existence of these photons does not necessarily indicate the presence of a “Higgs Boson”.

Then there is the other question….which nobody seems to ask…despite their collective PhDs. This question can be posed as follows: if the Higgs Boson decays, then how can it be the source of gravity, which seems to be stable for centuries?

All of the Higgs Boson supporters will openly state that the Higgs Boson will decay quickly. Yet gravitational energy seems to be eternally stable in many locations. Therefore, anything which decays in less than a second cannot be the source of gravitational energy.

Thus, the Higgs Boson is a hoax. It does not exist. It has never been proven, cannot be the source of gravitational energy.
 

Schrodinger Orbitals have NOT been Proven

The Schrodinger Orbitals are taught a “facts” in every chemistry text book in the world, from high school to college. Yet there is no proof of these orbitals. In fact, they are incorrect.

I will cover this in much greater detail in my book “New Model of the Atom”. Here I will highlight the basic flaws in the Schrodinger Orbitals.

Let’s start with the Bohr-Somerfield Electron Orbits. Those orbits ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. (In my upcoming book, I will show details of the formation and structure of those orbits).

However, the Schrodinger Orbitals have no basis in reality.

How did this come about? First, Schrodinger came up with an equation to describe the energies and possible locations of the electrons. This equation was based on a dubious assumption: that electrons are somehow waves and not particles.

Also note that Schrodinger had no real idea of what this “wave” looked like. Heisenberg himself said that Schrodinger’s understanding of physics was weak. (Heisenberg had much stronger words actually).

From this dubious assumption, Schrodinger created an equation. However, there is no data to fit his equation. Rather he had an equation, and now the scientists had to try and figure out what that equation meant.

Then…and still today…the physical interpretation of the equation is debated. That point makes it clear that there is no physical reality behind the equation.

Then it gets worse. The most common agreed interpretation of the equation is that it is a “probability wave”. A what? Yes. That is what they say…with a completely straight face.

This means the equation is not even describing electrons as waves, but a probability of where these electrons may reside. Using some magical “probability wave” concept.

Then the scientists draw shapes on graph paper, based on the equation. The shapes are not the path of the electrons, but the probability of where the electron might be.

What we end up with then is simply this: drawing shapes on graph paper, based on an equation, which has no basis in physical reality.

The entire set up of the Schrodinger equation, and the interpretation into Schrodinger orbitals, are more flimsy than a house of cards. The drawings of Schrodinger orbitals have less basis in reality than the imaginative drawings of Dr. Seuss. The entire system of Schrodinger orbitals is complete fiction.
 

Space-Time as Gravity has NOT been Proven

Now let us turn to the concept which is almost a religious belief to many scientist: Space-Time as the Cause of Gravity.

Space-Time, as a cause of Gravitational Energy, is absolutely incorrect. There can be no doubt.

“But” you might say “Space-Time has been Proven! In every test ever done!” Really? I’ve heard that before, and it just isn’t true. Oh, some things were observed, but Space-Time as Cause of Gravity was NOT proven.

I have collected numerous facts and numerous arguments which disprove Space-Time as Gravity. There are also many flaws in the Space-Time Concept, which I will show. All of this will be presented in a future book: “Deconstructing Space-Time”.

Here I will present a few of the main points.

1. Space-Time is Geometry, not Physical Reality: This is the main point. The equations and model can tell you where things will be, but NOT why they will be there. Space-Time is a way to track motions, but NOT explain why things move.

2. All “Proofs” of Space-Time just Prove Gravity Exists, not Space-Time: Every one of the predictions and observations simply demonstrate that Gravitational Energy does exist, and can produce certain results. However, ANY model of gravity will work just fine to explain each of these predictions and observations.

Thus, all the “predictions and proofs” are predictions of how gravity will affect objects, and proof that gravity does affect objects in those ways. But there is no reason to say that space-time is the physical cause for that gravitational energy. Any other model of gravity will do just fine.

3. Newton can explain all of Space-Time: Every observation associated with Space-Time can be just as easily explained (in fact more easily explained) by Newtonian Mechanics than by Space-Time.

4. Einstein misunderstands Speed of Light and other Concepts:  There are numerous concepts which Einstein misunderstands, particularly the Speed of Light, and the Cause of Red Shift. He also misunderstands the concepts of Fields.

I don’t need to go into details here, just know that these misunderstandings lead to fundamental flaws and logical errors in the entire Space-Time concept. In other words, the Space-Time concept has NO FOUNDATION. Every pillar in the Space-Time concept is built on shaky ground, and this the entire thing, when exposed, will quickly fall apart.

*Note that I explain true understandings of these concepts in other books.

·      Speed of Light: explained in “Momentum Understood as Energy Strings”, in “Photons in Motion”, and “Deconstructing Space-Time”

·      Cause of Red Shift: explained in “Momentum Understood as Energy Strings” and “The True Cause of Red Shift”

·      All other related concepts will be explained properly in the book “Deconstructing Space-Time”.

 

Therefore: the Space-Time, as cause for Gravitational Energy, has NOT been proven. I

n fact, it can easily be DISPROVEN.

 

Concluding Thoughts

Let us return to the original question. Which of these have actually been proven:

a. Higgs Boson
b. Schrodinger Orbitals
c. Space-Time as Gravity

The correct answer, of course, is D, “None of the Above”. In fact, as we have seen from above, each of these can actually be Disproven as physical realities!

Remember, my Life Missions include Replacing All of Physics with a New Set of Explanations. Those three items above, are three of the major concepts which must be replaced.

Mark Fennell

6/29/2016

 

Light Ejected from Black Hole is Easily Explained

Overview

For many years, scientists have observed streams of light being emitted from black holes. This concept is easily explained - though you wouldn’t think so from reading traditional science articles.

When I first heard of the phenomenon, I could easily explain it. Within a mere second I knew exactly the process.

Yet over the years I have read articles and watched documentaries which attempt to describe the process. Their words are convoluted. Their use of scientific language is fuzzy and vague. And those words are from the famous scientists…the ones respected in the field of black hole studies.

Alas…I guess it is up to me to offer the simple explanation.

The short version is this: There are regions of the dark star (black hole) which have less gravitational energy. Therefore, many objects can leave the dark star at that location. Thus: any photons which migrate to that region will be able to break free, and fly straight up and out. It is as simple as that.

 

Now we will expand on the process to understand more in depth.

Observations

The main observation is this: the black hole is primarily a very large black sphere. No light is observed coming from the region.

However, there are often regions where strong streams of light are ejected from the black sphere. These streams are generally “thin”, as compared to the diameter of the black sphere. These streams will then eject far into space - first beyond the event horizon, and then much further.

Notice also that these streams of light are generally emitted from the same region of the dark star…all the time. The region of emission usually does not change.

Furthermore, in many cases, the emissions occur at polar opposites. That is, there are often two streams, emitted exactly 180 degrees apart.

There are other emissions of electromagnetic energy observed. Most of these are much smaller, and less easy to detect, yet are emitted from various regions of the black sphere.

And of course when a star is pulled into the black hole, beyond the event horizon, some of the star will become part of the black hole, while part of the star ejects in its own fuzzy emissions into space.

We will stay with the first case: the long, thin, streams of light (of various frequencies) observed being emitted from the black hole.

Reviewing the Operation of Black Holes

Remember how a black hole operates: the mass of the star has become so compacted that the gravitational energy density is extremely great. Therefore, passing objects will be pulled into the star due to the strong gravitational energy.

More specifically: the gravity strings in that region of the dark star become extremely dense. Therefore, when any object passes by, all the gravity strings of the passing object will be hooked to the gravity strings of the dark star. The two objects (passing object and dark star) are pulled closer together.

The only way for an object to break free is if it has enough internal energy to overcome the gravitational energy. And this will be the case for each object, to varying distances from the dark star.

Light and the Black Hole/Dark Star

Let is now focus just on the photons (the “light”) in the black hole.

The internal energy of photons is constant. This value is the same for all photons. Therefore, the only difference in the situation will be the gravitational energy.

Where the gravitational energy density is great enough, the photon will not be able to break free. This is because the gravitational energy between the photon and the dark star is much greater than the internal energy of the photon. Therefore, the photon will not be able to fly away, the photon will not be able to fly through space as it normally does.

Thus: all photons which reach a certain distance close to the dark star will encounter so much gravitational energy that even the great energy within the photon is not enough to break free.

Similarly, any photons which are emitted from the star will be immediately pulled back. The effect is similar to a passenger in a car moving forward when the car stops…and yet the passenger is pulled back by seat belt. (The physical process is a bit different, but the effect of moving forward then pulled back is similar).

This is what causes the star to appear “dark”. No photons from that region ever reach our eyes. The star continuously emits photons - just like our own sun - yet the photons are immediately pulled back, and recycled into the system of the star.

For us, from this distance, we see no light being emitted (though photons are constantly being emitted). Thus, the region appears “dark”.

However...photons are being emitted…and if the region of the dark star has a region where the gravitational energy density is much less, then the emitted photons can indeed escape.

Why Light is Ejected from Black Holes

Now that we have reviewed the main processes of black holes, and the main observations of emitted streams of light from some black holes, we can proceed to offer the simple explanations.

The process is simple: There are regions of the dark star which have less gravitational energy density. Therefore, the particles above that region will not be pulled to the dark star with as much energy. The photons now are in a situation where their internal energy exceeds the gravitational energy. Thus, the photons are able to break free, and launch straight up into the space above. Very simple!

Additional Correlations and Details

You will notice how this correlates with the “stream”. The stream of light is somewhat thin, when compared to the diameter of the black hole. This is because the gravitational energy density is less only at that small region.

If the gravitational energy density was this lesser amount all over the star, then photons would be emitted from all directions (as we see from any traditional star). Yet for the dark star, there are only a few regions where the gravitational energy density is decreased enough for photons to leave. Thus: most of the black hole is “dark”; while only a thin stream of light is emitted...from the relatively small region of the dark star.

This is also why the stream is continuously emitted from that region. Because the gravitational energy density is less at that region, and continues to be less at that region, all photons which migrate to that area will immediately fly into the space beyond.

We can also note that the variation in gravitational energy density is normal for stars and planets. The gravitational energy density of any planet varies from area to area. Above the Earth, at the same distance, the gravitational energy varies from region to region. We take an approximate value, but the value actually varies from place to place - even at the same height.

Furthermore, the gravitational energy of any fluid object will vary from place to place. This is the case with objects like stars and gas planets (such as Jupiter). The gravitational energy density of our sun and planets such as Jupiter are known to vary from location to location.

Therefore, it is no surprise that there are some regions of the dark star in the black hole which have less gravitational energy than other regions. There is a process of fluid dynamics within the dark star which causes the gravitational energy density to vary somewhat from location to location.

The net result is that some regions have less gravitational energy. These are the regions from which the photons emit. In some cases, the gravitational energy is weak enough for protons, neutrons, and hydrogen atoms to emit as well - just like from our own sun.

 

Speculation: Solids with Some Fluid Dynamics 

This leads me to a speculation, which I will place here for now. I speculate that much of the dark star is a combination of solid, liquid, and gas.

The dark star, the black hole, is known to be very dense…which results in dense gravitational energy. Think about it: what is most dense? A solid. Therefore I speculate that much of the dark star is actually a solid. Or more likely, a collection of solids.

The second most dense entity is a liquid. Therefore, I speculate that much of the dark star is also liquid. Finally, of course much of the dark star is made of gas.

Therefore, I speculate that the dark star - the center object of the “black hole” - is actually a combination of solids, liquids and gasses.

I envision the system to look like ice cubes in a glass of tea. Or we can visualize several icebergs slowly floating in the cold ocean. I envision the system to be made of many dense solids, suspended in the liquid or sometimes gently floating in the liquid.

There might also be another phase - a type of gel. This would be somewhere between solid and liquid phases. Many of the solids would therefore be suspended in this gel.

The solids provide much of the gravitational energy density; while the liquids provide much of the fluid dynamics (and some gravitational energy density). The gasses provide both fluid dynamics and emission of photons.

These ideas are all of course speculation, and I will develop in the future.

Regarding the emission of light streams, we can incorporate these ideas as follows: The dense icebergs would provide most of the gravitational density; thus the gravitational pull of the “black hole”.

However, the fluid dynamics of the liquid and gas would allow the gravitational energy density to fluctuate. The various molecules can be stirred around, and will move to different locations. This will allow the gravitational energy density (based on those molecules) to change across the dark star (slowly, but can change).

Furthermore - and this applies to our light streams specifically - consider the dense objects being suspended in liquid. Where these icebergs are grouped together, the gravitational energy density will be extremely dense. Conversely, where there are fewer of these icebergs - and in some areas no icebergs at all - the gravitational energy will be much less.

Therefore: I speculate that these regions of the dark star which emit streams of light are regions which have fewer (or none) of these solid rocks, none of these icebergs.

The fluid dynamics of the dark star, for whatever reason, put more of these solid chunks in some regions than in others. Where there are more solid chunks in a region, the gravitational energy density will be greater. Where there are fewer of these solid chunks in a region, the gravitational energy will be less.

And where there are no solids, there are none of these icebergs, the gravitational energy will be very much less. It is these regions where the photons and small atoms will leave the dark star system. It is above these regions where we see the long streams of light extending from the black hole.

MF

12/1/2015

 

 

Space Time Refuted with Bicycle Analogy (Speed vs Frequency)

Overview

The concept of “space-time” is fundamentally flawed. It works as mathematical equations, but not as representation of physical reality.

There are several reasons why the concept of “space-time” is flawed, and therefore several methods to disprove the concept of space-time. I will focus on one of those flaws today.

We will refute space-time today by discussing the concept of the speed of light. Einstein said that space-time must exist, and contort in various ways, in order to explain the constant speed of light. This is not true. The constant speed of light can easily be explained without the use of space-time.

Truth Explained Briefly

I will begin by offering you the concepts in brief form. I do this so you can see the flaws in space-time, and the true physical realities, at the very beginning. We will then delve into the specifics to see the details.

The main reason Einstein created the concept of “space-time” was to explain how light could travel at the same speed…regardless how fast the source of the light was traveling.

He could only imagine an answer by having space and time both being able to contort. However, this is wrong. And the actual solution is much simpler.

We must look at both the frequency of the photon as well as the speed of the photon. While it is true that the speed of the photon is always the same, the frequency of the photon will always vary. And there lies your answer.

The energy of the source (such as star) will be applied to the emitted photon. However, the energy goes into the frequency rather than the speed. Thus: the speed is left alone, while the frequency is directly related to the energy from the star.

Stated another way: A faster star will emit photons of faster frequency. A slower star will emit photons of a slower frequency. Energy is indeed transferred from the star to the photon, and in proportional amounts but only the frequency. Meanwhile, the speed of the photon itself is unaffected by the speed of the star.

 

Truth Explained in Greater Detail

Now we will take the story and expand the details.

The speed of light is constant. This phrase has several different meanings depending on the context. The context we are interested in is the fact that light emitted will travel at the same speed, though emitted from stars traveling at different speeds.

At first this seems contradictory to experience. If you throw a ball from a train, the speed of the ball will be the total of: the speed from your arm plus the speed of the train. And a faster train will therefore result in a faster ball being thrown. These facts are absolutely true.

Yet we don’t see the same with light. The speed of the star which emits the light is irrelevant; the speed of the emitted photon is always the same.

How can this be? Einstein used space-time to explain it. (In fact, he created space-time primarily to explain this observation). And therefore Einstein gives us space contracting, space expanding, time slowing down, and various other effects.

This is neat circus trick; but is absolutely wrong. And is totally unnecessary.

What Einstein failed to take into account was the frequency of the light. Although the speed of the emitted light remains constant, the frequency of the emitted light will vary.

Furthermore, the frequency of the emitted light will vary directly in relation to the speed of the emitting star. And there is your true answer.

So now we have the truth for why the speed of light is constant - regardless of the speed of the emitting star: The varying amounts of energy from the star in motion will be transferred to the frequency of the emitted light, not the speed of the emitted light.

And thus we can return to classical (Newtonian) physics.

1. The star has a certain amount of inherent energy, which we observe in the speed of the star.

2. This energy is indeed passed onto the photon when it is emitted.

3. However, the energy passed along will only go into the frequency of the emitted photon, never in the speed of the emitted photon.

4. Therefore the frequency of the emitted photon is directly related to the amount of energy transferred from star to the photon; and this energy is directly related to the speed of the emitting star.

5. This means that a star which travels slower will transfer less energy to the photon - and the frequency will be slower. Similarly, a star which travels faster will transfer more energy to the photon - and the frequency of the photon will be faster.

6. The result is a photon which a) travels at the same speed regardless of the star; and b) has a frequency which is directly related to the speed of the star.

In brief: a faster star will emit photons of faster frequency. Slower star will emit photons of slower frequency. Energy is indeed transferred in proportional amounts. However, the speed of the photon itself is unaffected by the speed of the star.

All of this is simple Newtonian mechanics.

It is also now very similar to the classic analogy of throwing the ball from the train. The only difference for the photon (vs the ball on the train) is that the energy goes into the frequency rather than the speed.

Therefore: we can explain the concepts of constant speed of light and red shift of faster moving stars using classical mechanics. There is no need for space-time.

Analogy of the Bicycle

An analogy I like to use to show how this works, and how space-time is not necessary, is to talk about air in the tires of a bicycle.

We have a bicycle, with two tires. Both tires are filled with air. However, the first tire remains untouched. It doesn’t matter what we do, or don’t do, the amount of the air in the first tire will remain the same. In fact, the tire is sealed, without any openings. There is no way to open the tire to adjust the air even if we wanted to.

The second tire is the only tire which will vary. It is only the second tire which will be able to inflate or deflate to different amounts.

This is the situation we have before us. Now when we send in air to the “bicycle” the air will only go into the second tire. Why? Because only the second tire will allow additional air. The first tire is sealed, and no air can come in.

Thus, if we add air, in general, to the bicycle as a whole, what we really are doing is adding air to the second tire only.

Further, the amount of air we add will result in the second tire being inflated to different amounts. If we add more air to the second tire, then the tire will be inflated to a larger size. If we add less air to the tire, then the tire will be inflated to a smaller size.

And again…none of the air we add to the “bicycle” gets into the first tire. The amount of air in that tire is fixed and cannot be changed.

This situation is identical to our photons when emitted from any source. In our photons, we also have two regions of energy and how that energy is used: 1) in the speed of the photon, and 2) in the frequency of the photon. The first (speed of the photon) remains untouched. The second (frequency) can vary depending on how much energy we add.

Expanding on the Bicycle Analogy to Explain Speed vs Frequency of Light

The bicycle above is very similar to the reality of the emitted photons. Comparing the analogy of the bicycle to the reality of emitted photons:

A. The photon system has two locations of energy

Just as the bicycle has two tires, each completely independent of the other, the photon has two energy systems, each completely independent of the other. (The specifics are described and illustrated in my book “Photons in Motion”)

B. The speed of the photon remains constant

The energy for the speed of the photon remains constant. Just as the amount of air in the first tire remains constant, the amount of energy used for the speed of the photon remains constant…and therefore the basic speed of the photon remains constant.

C. The frequency of the photon varies

The frequency of the photon can vary. In fact, scientists know well that the electromagnetic energy is a spectrum of frequencies. I have shown in my book “Photons in Motion” that the frequency is based on amount of energy used in a particular location. When we add more energy to this location, we get a faster frequency; when we add less energy to this location we get a slower frequency. This is very similar to our bicycle having a specific tire (tire #2) which we can fill with varying amounts of air.

As you can see, all of this is based on classical mechanics, and there is no need for space-time to be created to explain any aspects of this.

 

Technical Note: Atoms vs. Star, and Placement

The explanations of Red Shift (for stars moving away from observer) and Blue Shift (for stars moving closer to observer) are a bit more complex and subtle. These details will be explained and illustrated in future books and articles.

However, I would like to mention a few technical points as related to this article on constant speed versus varying frequency. Everything we said above still applies, however we are really looking at the speed of individual atoms rather than the speed of the star as a whole.

Thus, instead of saying “a faster star will emit faster frequency photon”, we should more specifically state “a faster atom will emit a faster frequency photon”.

The subtlety is important when looking at Red Shift vs Average Frequency vs Blue Shift. Every star has numerous atoms, traveling at their own speeds. The atoms which travel the fastest will emit photons which are then shifted to a slightly higher frequency. Conversely, the atoms which are slowest, will emit photons that are shifted to a slightly lower frequency.

Generally: the faster atoms will be on the side which the star is traveling. If the star is moving to the right, then this is because the atoms of the star are faster on the right side. This will result in faster frequency photons emitted on the right side. Conversely, the slower atoms will be on the opposite side of the star from direction of travel; in this example they would be on the left side.

The “frequency shift” we see will then depend on which side of the star we are on. Using the example above, if we are facing the right side of the star, we will see photons emitted at higher frequencies (Blue Shifted). Conversely, if we are the left side of this star, we will see photons emitted that have lower frequencies (Red Shifted).

Again, these concepts will be explained and illustrated in great detail in future publications. I merely wanted to add some technical points for those readers who desire to know more at this time.

 

Conclusion: Space-Time Refuted as Cause of Constant Speed of Light

Einstein created the concept of “space-time” primarily to explain the constant speed of light…when emitted from a source (such as a star) at any speed.

However, this space-time is merely a circus trick. It is complex in its maneuvers, and yet totally unnecessary.

Both the constant speed of light and the variation in frequency can be explained using classical physics. In fact, it is because the frequency varies for photons emitted that we have our answer for why the speed of light remains constant.

That is: the energy from the light source will always go into the frequency of the emitted photon, and never into the speed of the photon.

Therefore, we have refuted the primary reason for the creation of space-time. We have also provided a more accurate and simpler explanation for the observations.

Mark Fennell

10/16/2015

New Explanations of Motion and Momentum now Published

My book on Motion and Momentum is now available. This book is available as both an e-book and a paperback edition. This book explains Motion and Momentum - more accurately and more intuitively than most books.

“Momentum Understood as Energy Strings and Molecular Motion”

The e-book version: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U34IZK0

Paperback version:  https://www.createspace.com/5346783

Some of the topics include:

1. Motion understood using Atoms and Energy Strings

2. Momentum using Atoms and Energy strings

3. Energy Transfer Processes

4. Energy flows in Multiple Directions

5. Observable Motion of Objects versus Molecular Motion

6. Speeding Up, Slowing Down, and Sudden Turns

7. Friction understood as Physical Entities

8. Friction and Momentum: New Understanding of Common Situations

9. Speed of Light: Constant Energy versus Constant Speed

The explanations I offer are much more accurate than those commonly used in physics texts.

Also note that the last three items are significant on their own. Friction was never understood (as a physical entity, what it is, and how it works) until I presented it in this book.

And the sections on the Speed of Light...comparing constant energy versus constant speed...provide a summary of major insights in this area, which will be more fully presented in other books.

It is a short book, and sounds like a simple topic...as if it has been done a hundred times before...but really there is much here that is new to science, and will advance the way we think about many important processes related to motion.

“Momentum Understood as Energy Strings and Molecular Motion”

e-bookversion: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U34IZK0

paperback version:  https://www.createspace.com/5346783

 

 

 

Photon Core as Supporting Material For Light

Overview

Scientists have long debated what the “medium” is for light. I read a book recently which essentially said that nobody really knows what the medium, or underlying substructure is, for electromagnetic energy.

I immediately thought: “The answer is quite simple. It is the photon core.” And then I thought of some analogies which would easily explain this situation.

Therefore this article will be an easy presentation of the photon core as supporting material for all frequencies of electromagnetic energy.

Background: Photon System Solved

Before we begin, it is important for the reader to know that I have solved the physical substructure of electromagnetic energy. I have worked out every physical nuance of the system.

In fact, the details are so intimately worked out and illustrated that it is practically a blueprint. You could essentially build a photon based on the details and illustrations I have developed.

This detailed physical structure of electromagnetic energy, which I call the “Photon System”, is fully explained and illustrated in my upcoming book “Photons in Motion.”

It is important that you know how well the photon system has been worked out, because what I provide below is just a brief version, with a friendly analogy. Stated another way: I already know more than what I write here. This article is not about the full details, but rather the basic idea of how it works.

The Photon Core is the Supporting Material for EM

The supporting material for all of electromagnetic energy is the Photon Core. It is as simple as that. The photon core is the medium, the physical structure, which delivers electromagnetic energy from one location to another.

Note that there are still many scientists who view EM as a wavy string, which is absolutely incorrect. Despite Einstein and Compton proving the existence of photons, many scientists still consider EM like an accordion or a spring, which can be stretched and compressed. This is absolutely incorrect. Electromagnetic energy is first and foremost a particle, and the center of this system is the “Photon Core”.

Photon Core as a Train

The photon core is very similar to a train. In fact, it is easiest to think of the photon core as a very high-speed train.

Think about a high speed train: passengers get on at one point, and get off at another. The train is the vehicle which carries the passengers there. The photon core is very similar: energy gets on the “train” (the photon core) at one location, and gets off the train (leaves the photon core) at another location. It is as simple as that.

The photon core is like the high speed train in another way. The high speed trains are usually designed for extremely long distances, which means no stops in between. Thus, the passengers get on the train, the train goes extremely fast, for a very long distance. At the other end, the passengers get off the train.

The photon core is much the same way. Energy strings get “on” the photon core, just as the passengers get on the train. Then the photon core travels at an extremely high speed, for a very long distance. When the photon core is absorbed later on, this can be considered the “destination”. At this point, the energy strings get off of the photon core. Thus, electromagnetic energy has been transferred.

Photon Core as Permanent Vehicle

There is another useful, and important, aspect of comparing the photon core to a train. Both are permanent vehicles.

You know that the train never changes or disappears. The train always remains intact. It is only the specific people who get on and off the train which will change each time. The train itself remains unchanged and permanent.

In a similar way, the photon core is a permanent vehicle. The photon core never changes. The photon core never disappears. It is only the energy strings which get on and off the photon core that changes. The photon will always remain the permanent, unchanging method of transport.

EM Transportation in the Photon System

Thus, like the train, wherever the photon core is at any one time, energy strings can get on. At the right moment the photon (with its “passenger” energy strings) will be launched into the air. This photon core, as a vehicle, will travel with its energy string passengers over a long distance, until the photon core is absorbed. There, the energy strings will get off, and proceed to interact with the particle which absorbed the photon.

At the same time, energy strings already in that particle can get “on” the photon core – just as people at that new location can get on the train. And again, when the situation is right, the entire photon system will be launched – in a similar way to the train leaving the station.

This is the basic process of how electromagnetic energy is transported from one location to another.   

Summary

Therefore you can see that the photon core is really a vehicle, a method of transport, for the electromagnetic energy. The photon core is like the high-speed train which goes from place to place, while the energy strings are like the passengers which get on and off the train at different locations.

That is the basic physical structure of conveying electromagnetic energy. That is basic process. When you understand it, you will realize that it is all quite simple.

Mark Fennell

Jan 20, 2015