- Thank you received: 0
Deep-Gas, Deep Hot Biosphere Theory
17 years 4 days ago #18324
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
I get the feeling there is a lot missing in the basket here. If the force of the photon is observed why not follow that trail? The fact that a need exists in nuclear physics to invent stuff that doesn't exist in the real world must at some point become a obvious problem. Why not consider that a photon has fotce proportional to its frequency while all photons have the same energy? QM would be better if this simple idea was used rather than making huge sand castles of the data.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 4 days ago #18329
by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />I get the feeling there is a lot missing in the basket here. If the force of the photon is observed why not follow that trail? The fact that a need exists in nuclear physics to invent stuff that doesn't exist in the real world must at some point become a obvious problem. Why not consider that a photon has fotce proportional to its frequency while all photons have the same energy? QM would be better if this simple idea was used rather than making huge sand castles of the data.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Jim, you <b>have</b> to visualize a "photon" as a momentum wave in the light carrying medium. So millions or billions or trillions of elysons are involved in the "photon" - much like water molecules in a wave in the sea. A higher frequency does involve more momentum or more "force".
You have to steer clear of the De Broglie insanity of a light wavelength being "snipped" from the electron orbit, so that the electron drops to a lower energy orbit. The lightwave "snake" of course goes arcing its way across the Universe in complete agony. For this, he got a Nobel prize!!
A "photon" is not a singular object. I am arguing the same idea for the "electron". Although, if the liquid Elysium within a proton well could be ejected, it might travel forward as a liquid drop. One would expect the liquid drop to slowly vaporize. For example, when you see lightning, you are seeing the portion of the flow which was vaporized and became light. The rest of it made its way to the ground or to the cloud.
All speculation at this point, of course.
Gregg Wilson
<br />I get the feeling there is a lot missing in the basket here. If the force of the photon is observed why not follow that trail? The fact that a need exists in nuclear physics to invent stuff that doesn't exist in the real world must at some point become a obvious problem. Why not consider that a photon has fotce proportional to its frequency while all photons have the same energy? QM would be better if this simple idea was used rather than making huge sand castles of the data.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Jim, you <b>have</b> to visualize a "photon" as a momentum wave in the light carrying medium. So millions or billions or trillions of elysons are involved in the "photon" - much like water molecules in a wave in the sea. A higher frequency does involve more momentum or more "force".
You have to steer clear of the De Broglie insanity of a light wavelength being "snipped" from the electron orbit, so that the electron drops to a lower energy orbit. The lightwave "snake" of course goes arcing its way across the Universe in complete agony. For this, he got a Nobel prize!!
A "photon" is not a singular object. I am arguing the same idea for the "electron". Although, if the liquid Elysium within a proton well could be ejected, it might travel forward as a liquid drop. One would expect the liquid drop to slowly vaporize. For example, when you see lightning, you are seeing the portion of the flow which was vaporized and became light. The rest of it made its way to the ground or to the cloud.
All speculation at this point, of course.
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 3 days ago #18330
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Gregg, Your view on these details are not mine. I look for data and not models or theories or whatever they may be called. The data shows me the electron as currently understood is an invention required by models. History authorities say the original electron was an energy particle equal to what now is called the charge on the electron. That energy is exactly equal the the energy of a photon in my opinion because what little data that does exist leads me to that opinion. The Energy Bundle of Planck is billions of these particles. There is a lot of wasted time and human talent because these details are not ever examined. Rather they are elevated in status and data is trimed to suit.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
17 years 10 hours ago #18360
by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
Going back to issues in mainstream science about the nature of the atom and its fundamental particles:
First the issue of whether the particles would be spheres. I submitt the following picture:
These are natural crystals within a lead-silver mine in northern Mexico. Their size is up to 5 feet in diameter and 40 feet long. Notice the full sized human at the far left center of the photograph. The structural nature of a crystal is derived from the position and number of chemical bonds in each atom - <b>according to Linus Pauling, of all people!</b> (The champion of electron shells.)
Since he, and others, insist that chemical bonds are made from orbiting electrons and their shells - we have quite a geometric discontinuity here. How would orbiting, spherical, and <b>rapidly spinning</b> electrons cause crystals which have straight lines, straight planes and sharp angles?
These crystals are calcium sulfate dihydrate. This is more disturbing to me than anyone else, since I want this chemical to be a very fine powder in my business.
I submit that Reality once again trumps human theory.
Gregg Wilson
First the issue of whether the particles would be spheres. I submitt the following picture:
These are natural crystals within a lead-silver mine in northern Mexico. Their size is up to 5 feet in diameter and 40 feet long. Notice the full sized human at the far left center of the photograph. The structural nature of a crystal is derived from the position and number of chemical bonds in each atom - <b>according to Linus Pauling, of all people!</b> (The champion of electron shells.)
Since he, and others, insist that chemical bonds are made from orbiting electrons and their shells - we have quite a geometric discontinuity here. How would orbiting, spherical, and <b>rapidly spinning</b> electrons cause crystals which have straight lines, straight planes and sharp angles?
These crystals are calcium sulfate dihydrate. This is more disturbing to me than anyone else, since I want this chemical to be a very fine powder in my business.
I submit that Reality once again trumps human theory.
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 11 months ago #20471
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Gregg, What would use a fine non-abrasive powder like this for? What would prevent it from being ground into so fine a power it flow like water? Could it be used to absorb neutrons? Do you think oil can be extracted for cheap from it?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
16 years 11 months ago #18378
by Gregg
Replied by Gregg on topic Reply from Gregg Wilson
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Gregg, What would use a fine non-abrasive powder like this for? What would prevent it from being ground into so fine a power it flow like water? Could it be used to absorb neutrons? Do you think oil can be extracted for cheap from it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Jim
Its use is a highly narrow, technical application. When wastewaters are both an ecological burden and a loss of otherwise "good" water, we remedy the matter by sending the waste water through an evaporator. When boiling almost any water, one will quickly run into problems of scaling by CaCO3 and CaSO4. The CaCO3 problem can be rectified by acid addition to the feed water, which converts carbonate over to dissolved CO2. The water then goes through a Deaerator where a countercurrent steam flow strips the CO2 out of the water. This step is necessary anyway because oxygen and other "noncondensible" gases must be removed from the feed water. Otherwise, the oxygen would corrode the evaporator rapidly and other gases would build up in the evaporator. We can't solve the CaSO4 problem by chemical reaction or strypping (normal spelling of the previous word is not permitted by the Editor for reasons only known to God). However, we load the feed water with CaSO4 powder. When evaporation has driven the brine well beyond the precipitation limit for CaSO4, this precipitation will take place on the powder instead of on the metal heat transfer surfaces. It is vital that the total surface area on the powder crystals outnumbers the metal surface by a factor of 4,000 to 1. Otherwise, ordinary scaling will occur and the evaporator will be out of business within two days. Using this powder mechanism allows us to recover up to 99% of the waste water as very pure water.
Powdered CaSO4, called Terra Alba, is also used in the food industry but I have no idea why....
Gregg Wilson
<br />Gregg, What would use a fine non-abrasive powder like this for? What would prevent it from being ground into so fine a power it flow like water? Could it be used to absorb neutrons? Do you think oil can be extracted for cheap from it?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hi Jim
Its use is a highly narrow, technical application. When wastewaters are both an ecological burden and a loss of otherwise "good" water, we remedy the matter by sending the waste water through an evaporator. When boiling almost any water, one will quickly run into problems of scaling by CaCO3 and CaSO4. The CaCO3 problem can be rectified by acid addition to the feed water, which converts carbonate over to dissolved CO2. The water then goes through a Deaerator where a countercurrent steam flow strips the CO2 out of the water. This step is necessary anyway because oxygen and other "noncondensible" gases must be removed from the feed water. Otherwise, the oxygen would corrode the evaporator rapidly and other gases would build up in the evaporator. We can't solve the CaSO4 problem by chemical reaction or strypping (normal spelling of the previous word is not permitted by the Editor for reasons only known to God). However, we load the feed water with CaSO4 powder. When evaporation has driven the brine well beyond the precipitation limit for CaSO4, this precipitation will take place on the powder instead of on the metal heat transfer surfaces. It is vital that the total surface area on the powder crystals outnumbers the metal surface by a factor of 4,000 to 1. Otherwise, ordinary scaling will occur and the evaporator will be out of business within two days. Using this powder mechanism allows us to recover up to 99% of the waste water as very pure water.
Powdered CaSO4, called Terra Alba, is also used in the food industry but I have no idea why....
Gregg Wilson
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.290 seconds