EM / Photons Traveling in Liquids

Introduction

In this chapter we will discuss the ways in which Electromagnetic Energy travels through liquids.

As we discuss the traveling of the photon system through a liquid, you will begin to see some important concepts more clearly. The first of these is the difference between internal speed of the photon versus rate of the photon to travel through the liquid. The distinction is important.

In brief: the photon itself never slows down. The photon always travels at the same speed. However, due to the obstacles (the molecules of the liquid) the photon system takes longer to travel through the substance than in empty space.

You will also begin to understand the ways in which the photons can interact with the molecules of the liquid, and be altered by this interaction. This can lead to variations such as: full absorption; partial absorption; deflection at various angles; and passing through unchanged.

Review of the Photon System

Before we begin, let us briefly review the physical structure of the Photon System. We begin with the Photon Core. This core is a solid sphere, which contains an enormous amount of energy. Attached to this core are two sets of energy strings: Electric and Magnetic.

The Photon Core is like a high speed train; the Energy Strings are like the Passengers on that train. Thus, the Photon Core travels at a very high speed, from one location to another. The Energy Strings will come along for the ride - until circumstances encourage the strings (some or all) to get off the core.

This is the Photon System.

Liquid Behavior: Analogy of Christmas Shoppers

To understand the way the photon system travels through the liquid, we can use the analogy of Christmas Shoppers.

At a typical shopping mall during the Christmas season, there are numerous people. It is crowded. Each person is going his own way. Sometimes with the others, sometimes crossing to get somewhere else. Yet but because there are so many people, the individuals move very closely together. Indeed, the shoppers bump into each other, as they try to cross paths.

This is exactly how water behaves. Water molecules are individual entities, going their own ways. However, they are close enough together to be generally packed. Therefore, just like our Christmas shoppers, the water molecules have individual movement, yet are close together. This means that water molecules generally flow together, in group movements, as well as bumping into each other as different molecules attempt to go in different directions.

All of this bustling, tumbling, bumping into each other is what liquid molecules do. You know from experience that it takes a long time to travel through a crowded mall. The same can be true of any object - including a photon system - to travel through a liquid.

Photons Through Liquid:

Analogy of Child Among Christmas Shoppers

Now that we understand the behavior of the liquid, let us look at the photon as it travels through the liquid. Again we will return to the analogy of the Christmas Shoppers, with a small child to represent our photon.

A small child can run very, very fast. You know this. Allow a child to roam in an empty meadow, and she will run very fast from one end to the other.

However, place that same child in the crowded mall at Christmas time, and even she will have a difficult time getting through. She will push ahead, but often be blocked.

On the other hand, she has an advantage. Being small, she can find the holes between the adults. Slimmer and shorter spaces that most people can’t squeeze through…she can easily slip into and race ahead. (Until, of course, she runs into another wall of adults).

Therefore, while she is usually fast, and is small enough to move through the smaller areas between people…she is hindered in her traveling. It therefore takes her longer to get where she is going, than on that empty meadow.

The same is true for our photon in the liquid. The photon is normally very fast, but here the photon is hindered by all the molecules in the way. The photon however is very small, and like our child, can find the empty spaces to wander through.

Therefore, the photon system has a desire to move forward, and seeks the spaces where this is possible. Yet the photon system is hindered by all the molecules moving and tumbling in the way. This means it takes a longer time for the photon to travel through the liquid, then it does in free space.

Has the speed of the photon changed? No. However the rate for the photon to travel is much slower…simply due to all the obstacles in the way.

Speeding Up Again When Leaving

The photon speeds up again when it leaves the liquid. More accurately, the photon never changed it speed. Rather, the photon is allowed to travel freely, unhindered…which is faster than it was when in the liquid.

Again we return to the analogy of the child in the crowded mall. When she is free to roam in the meadow, she can run very fast. Yet here among the crowds of people, she is blocked, and must meander her way through the spaces. The progress is slow.

Yet, she eventually passes all the other adults. Through her squirming and sliding into the small spaces between the adults, the child eventually makes her way through all of them…and emerges in the very front.

Whew!! It took a lot of work, but she is now ahead of them all. At last there is nobody in front of her. Now she can run again…at her usual fast speed.

The same situation occurs with our photon system in the liquid. In space, the photon travels extremely fast. In air, our photon also travels fast…though sometimes hitting a few air molecules now and then. As the photon hits the liquid - such as a glass of water - the photon seems to slow down dramatically. This is because the photon is hindered by all the liquid molecules.

However, the photon is very small, and can find spaces to get through. Eventually the photon passes among the many molecules in the way, reaching the other side. Finally, when the photon leaves the liquid, and back into the air, the photon is no longer hindered. The photon travels its normal fast speed. (Though with a few bumps in the air molecules along the way).

Analogy of Han Solo and the Asteroids

There is a second analogy we can use to understand photons as they travel through liquids. This is Han Solo traveling through the asteroids.

In the second Star Wars movie, “Empire Strikes Back”, there is a scene where Han Solo pilots his Millennium Falcon through the Asteroid field. This scene is almost exactly how a photon moves through a liquid.

Using this analogy we not only visualize how photons travel through a liquid, but also see what happens as photons are bumped off course, or absorbed completely.

A video clip of Han Solo in the Asteroid Field can be found here: https://youtu.be/TKsVVmOGV9I

Watch the asteroids. They are coming from all directions. They tumble and roll. This is exactly the way liquid molecules behave.

Now look at the space ships. They are much smaller, are trying to find their way. The ships fly through the empty spaces…to the other side of the asteroid field. This is exactly what photons do. When photons enter a liquid, such as water, the photons want to keep flying along…through the empty spaces between the molecules…and exit the liquid.

You will also notice how difficult it is for a space ship to pass through the asteroids without being hit by an asteroid. Indeed, you see the Millennium Falcon being hit by asteroids a few times. You also see some of the Empire’s ships crashing completely into other asteroids. It really is almost impossible for any space ship to enter the asteroid field without being bumped, hit, or destroyed completely.

The same is true for a photon entering a liquid. Any photon which enters a liquid will be hit by one or more molecules along the way. This leads to several options for the photon, all of which are seen in the video analogy:

1. This could just be a glancing blow, which will deflect the photon at an angled path. (In the same way as the Millennium Falcon being shaken by glancing blows of asteroids).

2. The photon could lose a few energy strings, when hitting the molecule at just the right angle - in the same way that a ship would lose a few parts after being hit.

3. Or, the photon could be completely absorbed, after a direct hit. In this case, the original photon would never reach the outside of the liquid. This would be similar to the crash and total destruction of the ships into the asteroid.

Therefore we can easily visualize photons being bumped and hit by liquid molecules, by remembering the Han Solo in the asteroid field. In both cases, the goal is make it through the tumbling objects safely. Yet in reality, the odds are very high for being hit multiple times on route.

For the photon, this can result in three main possibilities: 1) being deflected at an angle, 2) partial removal of energy strings after being hit (this is also known as “partial absorption”), or 3) complete absorption of the photon system.

Of course no analogy is perfect, and in this case there is one difference: photons are not piloted. The ships in the asteroid field have an advantage of being manually steered through the spaces. The photon does not. Therefore the photon will be hit many more times by molecules than any ship through an asteroid field. However, the situations are very similar, and the visuals are almost identical.

Photons Bumping into Molecules: Resulting Options

As stated above, when a photon travels through liquid, the photon will likely bump into many molecules along the way. The main options, as listed above, include: 1) Deflection, 2) Loss of Energy (and likely deflection), 3) Complete Absorption. Here we will describe the options in more detail.

Factors in Options

The options depend primarily on the electric and magnetic fields. Specifically: which direction these fields are pointing, and how long they remain in that direction (from the pulsation rate), when the photon system encounters the molecule.

In order for a photon to be partially or totally absorbed, the energy fields must match the energy fields of the object they encounter. That is, the fields must be traveling the same direction, at the same time. When this occurs, the energy fields of the EM Photon System will join with the fields of the other particle. This is what leads to partial or total absorption.

In contrast, when the fields are pointing in the opposite direction when they meet, then the fields will repel each other. This will result in deflection of the photon, without any loss of energy.

It also helps if the energy fields are pointing in the same direction for a longer time. A photon with lower energy, for example, will have a longer pulsation frequency. This means that the energy fields will point in one direction for a longer time, and more likely to be partially or totally absorbed.

Similarly, if the liquid is colder, or denser, then the motion of the molecules themselves are slower. Allowing greater time for energy strings to join from one particle to another.

The Basic Options

When a photon hits a molecule, many things are possible. This depends on what exactly the photon hits, and the position at which the hit occurs. However, we can make some broad statements.

1. Total Absorption: This occurs when the photon system enters into a particle. Each particle of the atom (electron, proton, neutron) has surface holes. The photon is much smaller than these surface holes, and can therefore enter into the particle easily. This is total absorption.

**Notice how we again see this in the Han Solo video…as they look for caverns to dive into. The photon will enter protons and electrons in a very similar way**

2. Partial Absorption and Energy Loss: This occurs when some of the energy strings of the photon are removed, but not all. This usually occurs when a proton has magnetic or electric energy strings flowing in the same direction as those of the photon. Some of the energy strings of the photon will then join their kind (magnetic or electric) of the proton.
 

Thus, some of the energy strings physically connect to the energy strings of the photon…like Legos…and pull away from the photon system. The photon system goes on its way, though with less EM energy (and a shift to lower frequency) than before.

Note that the amount of energy transfer will depend on the strength of the new energy string that is created. Using the Lego analogy again, if we stack 50 Lego’s together, then it is possible to break the stack almost anywhere. Where will it break? Which end will have more Lego blocks? Thus, there can be quite a variation in amount of energy transfer from the photon to the proton.

3. Deflection: A photon will be deflected with the energy fields are pointing in opposite directions. For example, every electron has an electrical field pointing outward. Also, many protons have magnetic fields which loop through the protons, like pearls on a necklace.

If the photon has its fields (electric or magnetic) facing the opposite direction upon approaching the proton, then the fields will be repelled, and the photon system will be deflected. The angle of deflection will depend on the angles at which the two fields touch each other. Note that in this case, there will be no energy loss for the photon. Only a change in direction.

4. Energy Loss and Deflection: This situation typically occurs when the photon brushes or glides against the fields of the proton, and these are in the same direction, but only partially brushing of the photon to the proton. This means that only the energy strings furthest from the photon core will attach to the proton, while the rest of the photon system goes on its way.
 

The “deflection” then occurs because there is a slight tug of the merged energy strings before the photon system breaks away, goes on its way again. The effect is similar to the bending of light around a star; that is, a slight change in angle, but not much. 

Multiple Particles in a Liquid Molecule

Another complicating factor is the various particles in a molecule. We have electrons and protons, each of which can absorb photons. We also have molecular electrons of the molecular bond, which are slightly different from the electrons of the individual atoms. Let us look at some of these.

1. Electrons orbiting an atom

      Photons can be easily absorbed into electrons. The photon core is small enough to fly through the holes of the surface of the electron. If the photon approaches the electron away from the field, then there will be no repulsion, and the photon will easily be absorbed.

      In contrast, if the photon approaches the electron at the location of the electron’s electrical field, and when electrical fields of each are pointing opposite direction, then the two fields will repel. This will cause deflection of the photon. The angle of deflection will depend on the angle when the two fields meet.

       Electrons also have magnetic energy. This magnetic energy can extend from the electron to the space beyond. If the photon approaches this magnetic field in opposite directions, then again the photon will repel, and be deflected.

       However, if the photon manages to glance by the electron, at either the electric or magnetic fields, and the fields of both particles are in the same direction…then this will result in partial energy transfer, and likely a slight deflection of the photon.

2. Protons in an atom

       A photon can enter a proton more easily than in an electron, as the entrance holes of the protons and neutrons are much bigger than the electron. Furthermore, the electric field of the proton flows inward, not outward. This means that the photon will never be electrically repelled.

       There are several options here. If the photon reaches the proton away from the proton’s electrical field, then the photon will simply dive into the hole. This is complete absorption.

The photon can also be partially absorbed. This will happen when the magnetic fields of the photon and of the proton are pointing in the same direction. Some of the magnetic energy of the photon will leave the photon for that of the proton, and the photon will go on its way, with slightly less EM energy (and lower frequency).

3. Electrons of the Molecular Bond

The electrons of the Molecular Bond deserve special attention. They have the characteristics of regular electrons…plus more. Photons of many frequency can be deflected, and partially absorbed. However, to be fully absorbed requires that the photon’s pulsation frequency match the molecular orbital frequency.

The frequencies must be identical. And, the photon must arrive at just the right time, for the fields of all three to match, in order to be fully absorbed.

Full Absorption of Photon System in a Molecular Bond

In other publications I have discussed my model for the molecular orbits. Let us review that model briefly. In this model, the molecular orbit is like a race track, oval in shape, with two cars driving.

The molecular orbit therefore consists of an oval track, along which two electrons travel. From the side, we see two parallel tracks, with each electron seeming to travel in opposite directions. When the electrons approach each other, on their parallel tracks, this is when the molecular bond contracts. When the electrons move away from each other, on their parallel tracks, this is when the molecular bond expands. This process, therefore, is the physical cause of contraction and expansion, repeatedly.

In other words, this process is the “vibration” of the molecular bond. The rate of this repeated action is the “frequency” of the molecular bond.

Therefore, in order for a photon to fully be absorbed by the “molecular bond”, and not just individual electrons, the frequency of the photon must be identical to the frequency of this race track expansion-contraction vibration.

The photon must also arrive at just the right moment…where the fields of both electrons, and of the photon, align perfectly. The energies of the EM system will then be split up…some of the energies in one electron, and some of the energies in the other electron.

*The two electrons may in fact be energetically linked… with magnetic energy strings and electric energy strings connecting the two electrons*.

The photon core may be absorbed in one of the electrons. However, I think it more likely that the photon core is held between the two electrons, as they race around the track.

I am still working out the details. However some things are clear. In order to be fully absorbed in a molecular bond:

a. The Frequency of the Photon System must be the Same Frequency as the electrons going around the race track loop.

b. Both electrons must absorb some of the energies of the photon - of that one photon system, at the same time.

c. The Photon System must arrive at the exact time, with the moment of pulsation, such that this total absorption of energies in both electrons is possible.

Summary of Electromagnetic Energy Traveling Through Liquids

In this chapter we looked at how Electromagnetic Energy travel through liquids, such as water.

Liquid molecules are constantly in motion. They move individually and in groups. They tumble, roll, and migrate. The photon system is a photon core, with energy strings as passengers.

This photon system normally travels at fast speeds. However, due to the all the liquid molecules in the way, the photon is blocked and bumped into. Therefore it takes longer for the photon system to travel through the water than normal.

Notice it is not that the photon has slowed down. Rather, the photon just takes longer to get past all the obstacles. Indeed, when the photon exits the water, we see the photon return to its normal fast speed, as there are fewer obstacles in the way.

The photon is very small compared to the molecules, which allows the photon to travel between the spaces between the molecules. However, the molecules are constantly tumbling and in motion. This means that any photon entering water will likely be hit by molecules, and often multiple times.

There are several options which can occur. The most common include: 1) total absorption, 2) partial absorption of energies and slight deflection, 3) deflection without any loss of energy.

Which option will occur must depend on a variety of factors. The most important of these are a) the alignments of the energy fields, and b) the angle at which these fields touch.

Other factors include: c) the specific frequency of the EM pulsation, d) the internal energy of the atomic particle, and e) frequency matching.

These are the main options, and how they occur. Note that this is just an overview. There are additional factors to consider, and details to be discussed. These will be examined in future chapters and books.

 

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