[David]

Okay, great. And thanks!

[David]

Hi Bruce,

I have some practical insights as to how to fix our understanding of radio physics. To get right to it, the problem starts with Einstein. Einstein received the Nobel Prize for his paper on identifying the photon as the quantum of light, but then he failed to quantify the photon properly.

The current understanding of the photon is that it is energy equal to Planck’s constant times frequency:

[latex]E=hf[/latex]

However, Planck’s constant is a constant, and therefore frequency and energy have to be variables. So the photon cannot be both quantum and also a variable amount of energy. Also, this simplistic understanding of the photon fails to understand the actual physics of light.

A photon is produced in an atom when an electron jumps its orbital and transfers its angular momentum to the surrounding space. The space then imparts the speed c, and only the speed c, to the photon. Thus a true quantum photon should be quantified as:

[latex]phtn=h\cdot c[/latex]

All photons are the same, all photons travel at speed c, and photons do not have inherent frequency. Atoms produce photons at frequencies, which are unique to the isotopes that produce the photons. This is why we have the science of spectroscopy. We can identify an isotope by the frequencies at which it emits photons. Light is therefore:

[latex]ligt=phtn\cdot freq[/latex]

Light (radio waves) is not a photon or an energy packet; light is the condition where space is filled with photons being emitted at specific frequencies. Light, like photon, is also a unit of itself. When we talk about light, we should be talking about the unit of light and not energy packets, frequencies, or any other unit. Light is ligt.

When a receiving atom has an empty valence position, that empty valence position fills up with any light that happens to be incident upon that atom, and the light loses its velocity:

[latex]enrg=\frac{ligt}{c}[/latex]

A valence position can only fill up with a specific amount of energy. The “energy packet” only occurs at the valence position of the atom, and the energy packet does not fly through space, and neither is there an energy packet emitted from the emitter. The energy packet is a constant, and therefore one cannot write $$E=hf$$ to describe the physics of light.

In fact, the energy packet equation could also be written as:

[latex]enrg=angm\cdot freq[/latex]

where a constant $$enrg$$ is accumulated by the collection of small bits of angular momentum arriving at the valence position and at the frequency of the emitting atom.

When a true quantum photon is emitted from an emitter, the photon expands as a wave of angular momentum into the surrounding space according to the Compton function. That is, a quantum photon spreads out like a true wave. The angular momentum is therefore dispersed into space and by the time a single photon reaches a valence position in a receiving atom, only a tiny portion of that particular photon is absorbed into the valence position. It is the constant sequence of photons following the initial photon that each add tiny bits of angular momentum to the valence position until that valence position fills up.

The amount of angular momentum from a given photon that arrives at the receiver is determined precisely by the distance between the emitter and the receiver, which is why there is an inverse square law for irradiance.

As for the “relativistic effects” of light near the Earth, the Sun, or any other massive body, this is easily quantified in terms of the length density constant of the Aether (an extension of Karl Schwarzschild’s work). This post would necessarily be much longer if I explained the space density gradient right now, but we can cover it. I have already made another post that touches on the simple Aether equations for curved space.

The physics of light is easy to accurately quantify with the right paradigm.

[David]

☹ The postulates of Special Relativity theory state that space is not absolute, and that photons always travel at c in all reference frames. <div>

To begin with, the Michelson Morley experiment was not based on an absolute space, but rather it was based on a rigid space. The MM experiment showed that space is not rigid. As far as absolute, even Albert Einstein acknowledged that space has physical constants such as the constant speed c of photons, the permeability of space, the permittivity of space, and the rotation of physical objects in space. To these observations, Einstein admitted there had to be some kind of Aether.

<div>

The speed of c is absolute for each quantum of space. A physical photon moves through physical space according to the physics of that space. To claim that a photon will move in a reference frame at a the speed of c is completely unfounded. A reference frame is a human perception. There are no physical measurements of reference frames such that the second postulate could ever be tested.

The conclusion of the aging twin is based on a though experiment, which is based on postulates and imaginary reference frames.

As for General Relativity theory and the clocks with different time measurements, the physicist must choose which coordinate system they want to work with, and stick with that coordinate system. The physicist cannot calculate the clock trajectory in the space density gradient of Riemann curvature mathematics and then pretend what that calculated result may look like in Minkowski or Euclidean coordinates.

A clock that moves through a greater space density gradient at higher altitudes above the surface of a massive object has more space per orbital revolution to travel through than does a clock at lower altitudes. The clocks are still both accurate, but one clock has traveled through denser space than has the other clock. With more space to travel through, it is necessary for the clock to tick more times since the clock keeps accurate time.

The present moment remains the same for both twins, but one twin went off for an adventure through denser space. The extra ticks are due to the velocity through that denser space, and the extra ticks are not due to changes to the present moment.

</div></div>

[David]

“what would happen if “T” time was removed from all the physics equations?”

Truth be told, time is rarely a part of any physics equations. If we look more carefully at the use of time in our units and equations we find that time mainly appears in the denominator. When time is in the denominator, we are not actually talking about time, but we are talking about frequency.

Consider for a moment what part of us seems to experience “time.’ Time is our perception of change as observed in physical matter. However, our mind does not experience a physical flow of time. For if our mind experienced a physical timeline then our mind would be flowing along the timeline the same as the physical matter that is flowing along the timeline. It would be like a leaf floating on a river.

Only when the mind is anchored in the present moment can the mind observe “time” in physical matter.

The present moment is always experienced by the mind as being right here and right now. If it were not for our memories, as created, stored, and recalled in the hippocampus region of our brain, we would have no experience of linear time at all.

Since “time” almost always expresses as frequency in our physics equations, and also since our mind always exists only in the present moment, we need to consider the possibility that in physical reality, time occurs as a constant oscillation between forward time and backward time. The net result would then be a temporal state in which no progress is ever made in either the forward time direction, or the backward time direction (i.e. the present moment).

The fact that physical matter does appear to change in the forward time direction, and that all physical observation of physical matter always take place in the present moment, then wouldn’t it seem more likely that physical matter is seeing only half of the present moment?

Consider the fact that physicists already know that a fundamental property of all stable subatomic particles is that they have half-spin. We know that the half-spin does not refer to angular momentum or rotation, and so the only other real possibility is that the half-spin nature of subatomic particles is that subatomic particles experience only the forward time direction of the temporally oscillating present moment.

The fact that time is almost always expressed as a frequency, rather than as linear time, supports the logic that the real temporal nature of the physical Universe is a frequency of forward time and backward time.

Our experience of the physical Universe is one of observing half-spin matter existing in a full-spin temporal cycle of the present moment. The perception of linear time is provided by the hippocampus of our brain. The brain also provides us with sight, depth perception, hearing, feelings, a sense of direction, and other interpretations of the world that do not solely depend on the physics of matter.

What we need to relearn is that what we thought was time is actually frequency.