Energy and Polarity

[witsend]

In the 1900' this same item we now call Photons was referred to as "Quanta" and "Wave-Packets". The current description and actual acceptance of Photons are valid since 1926 and still basically intact in 2010.

In all manner - Conventional and alternative - light is only a reflection.
On its own; light does not exist. Photons are not light. Let me give you more reason to ponder:

If Light = Photons; then how can you have absolute darkness? Even the most dark of places MUST have photons, else matter will disintegrate very fast; and you will not have oxygen to breath. Photons (like Neutrino and gravity) is omnipresent; but light is not.

Aromaz. I'm at a loss. Photons themselves move in waves. Some waveforms are visible to the naked eye. Some waveforms are only visible to specialised instrumentation. We have not yet developed the required instrumentation to see 'invisible' wavelengths. Their variety is mathematically and potentially infinite - on either side of their visible wave lengths. I've heard the visibility spectrum accounted for as follows. Imagine a thin line stretching from the tip of the South American continent right through to the North Pole. Then picture it crossing one street. We can see that street. That's it. The rest is out of range of our eyesight. What we can't see appears dark - exacly in the same way that we can see the surface of a body - but an Xray - which we can't see - travels straight through that body. All are photons - all in waveform. But we have not evolved the senses to see them.

edit What I'm trying to point to is this. Space appears to be dark. Just as - at night - everything appears to be dark. But with the right 'night goggle' everything at night can be made visible. In the same way - if we had the right instruments to see with - we may also be able to see the photons in space itself. We don't see those photons, not because they're not there - but because we do not have the physical wherewithall to to see with.

[Aromaz]

Aromaz. I'm at a loss. Photons themselves move in waves. Some waveforms are visible to the naked eye. Some waveforms are only visible to specialised instrumentation. We have not yet developed the required instrumentation to see 'invisible' wavelengths. Their variety is mathematically and potentially infinite - on either side of their visible wave lengths. I've heard the visibility spectrum accounted for as follows. Imagine a thin line stretching from the tip of the South American continent right through to the North Pole. Then picture it crossing one street. We can see that street. That's it. The rest is out of range of our eyesight. What we can't see appears dark - exacly in the same way that we can see the surface of a body - but an Xray - which we can't see - travels straight through that body. All are photons - all in waveform. But we have not evolved the senses to see them.

I agree with all you said regarding the light spectrum, no disputes at all. Please this is not an argument; this is rolling ideas!

Regarding photons moving in waves – yes and no. Waves -as in groups that were released at same point of origin in pulses, yes. As in photon moving in rolling wave like fashion; I doubt, but then we do not know – yet.

Question comes to mind: Photons=Light or Photons<>Light.

What we are talking about when measuring light waves; as in EM spectrum; is the measurable effects of the Light Carrier; and I dare say it is not really waves but vibration that gives us the frequency.

Here let me use an example: Aurora Borealis; very nice example of ‘light’ moving in waves. However, since all the colour in a specific arrangement of an Aurora Borealis are of the same colour; what would the light frequency be? That of the ‘waves’ or that of the light (reflection) colour?

How do we measure light frequencies? By having the light hit the measuring cell directly and cause a vibration. We measure the vibration of the incident.

Let us try a hypothetical experiment:
If we take a piece of copper wire and pass it through an electromagnetic (volt) tester - where the tester does not even come close to the wire, we can detect (measure) the energy.

Of all instrument we have available; our eyes are the only and best to use for the visible light spectrum. I have done experiments where I send pulses of information (i.e. music) with laser beam across my 12 meter lab and pick the same sound up with a photovoltaic or solar cell on the other side. But however hard I try with similar and other types of EM scanners/meters - I cannot catch even a slightest disturbance. And when passing through a specially constructed sealed acrylic box - I can not see even the laser beam inside that box; but I can see the spot where it comes in and where it goes out! Blank those spots off - no laser beam.

In all honesty: I do not know how and what LIGHT really is; other than what we can see and measure is only the reflection of light;

and I do not put LIGHT and PHOTONS in the same slot anymore.

Personally I still have to follow this line; till now my interest was more into the other part of the Photonic effect – Gravity. So let me work a bit on Light

[Aromaz]

...edit What I'm trying to point to is this. Space appears to be dark. Just as - at night - everything appears to be dark. But with the right 'night goggle' everything at night can be made visible. In the same way - if we had the right instruments to see with - we may also be able to see the photons in space itself. We don't see those photons, not because they're not there - but because we do not have the physical wherewithall to to see with.

Absolutely correct; We do see ElectroMagnetic energy on both sides of the visible light energy with special instruments.

However, I wonder. Do we see Infra Red light, or do we see resulting Heat. Same with UV - do we see the UV light beam, or do we see the result of the UV bouncing off matter?

However, I will think around Light for a few days and see what I can come up with - within or without my current developing theory.

I doubt I will move away from Light<>Photons. Because Photons are responsible for too much incidents without light; and the general speed of photons in most of these incidents indicate that it could not be light.

[witsend]

Absolutely correct; We do see ElectroMagnetic energy on both sides of the visible light energy with special instruments.

However, I wonder. Do we see Infra Red light, or do we see resulting Heat. Same with UV - do we see the UV light beam, or do we see the result of the UV bouncing off matter?

However, I will think around Light for a few days and see what I can come up with - within or without my current developing theory.

I doubt I will move away from Light<>Photons. Because Photons are responsible for too much incidents without light; and the general speed of photons in most of these incidents indicate that it could not be light.

As I understand it we see the localised waveform as and where it occurs in space - in the same way that we see a bird in the sky - in localised space. The seeing of the object is an interaction from a distance. It does not require a direct experiential transfer of that waveform or that photon to our physical senses. The magic of eyesight is just that. It is able to 'read' visible waveforms in localised space within the 'fraction of time' that those waveforms are evident. And precisely because light or photons can 'share a path' they are able to channel that vision over time. They 'map' the reflected object within a consistent framework precisely because there are many of such particles moving along that same field.

Cannot tell you how much I repect your decision to resolve this question before moving on. I absolutely agree. One needs to establish the basis or the foundation of a thesis - if it's to hold water. Frankly I think we're on the same page somehow. I do think that light itself interacts directly with the aether - but that it's a subtle moment. And I do think that photons are simply composites of an 'aether particle'. It's defining that particle that's tricky.

[Aromaz]

NOTE:
If I am not mistaken, in his Nobel Price paper published in "Annalen der Physik" Albert Einstein diferentiate between ElectroMagnetic wave (Light) and the 'energy pockets' within the EM wave. "Energy Pockets" in 1905 is what was renamed Photons in 1926.

a) The intensity of the light source has no effect on the maximum kinetic energy of the (photo)electrons.
b) There is virtually no delay between the time the light is activated and the release of first (photo)electrons.
c) At low frequencies the photoelectric effect does not take place
According to Einstain this disaproved the Wave Theory of light.

Just a note which I came across while scanning my note-pad about light!

[Jbignes5]

Never off topic...

'crystal' is an exact item of matter; which I am unable to apply to this logic.

Let me try to understand your reference and example:

You are saying that any item is composed of the same item but in smaller units.
In example: (Never mind the numbers, just an illustration)

1 Photon = 1 Photon
1 Electron = two or more photons
1 Proton = two or more electrons; which is two or more photons each
1 Hydrogen Atom = 1xProton and 1x electron; which is multiple Photons?

OR in the same direction – as example:

1 Photon = 1 unit of the same energy
1 Electron = 3 units of energy
1 Neutron = 4 units of energy
1 Proton = 5 units of energy
1 Atom (H) = 1 Proton, 1 Electron thus is 8 units of energy.

So what you are trying to convey is that all matter, particles and whatever is just multiples of the exactly the same thing? Small building block of the same material forms a big building block and a number of big building blocks forms even a bigger building, a number of big buildings forms a complex; yet the complete complex is just a collection of the same small units we started with.

If I understand your trend above correct. Then I do agree 100% with you.

Above all said: it is leading off topic because we are talking here of
ENERGY AND POLARITY; not the crystaline structure of the universe.

If one wants to know what energy is one would have to know if it has structure. Well I propose that it indeed has structure. If it did not it would all flow together. it is very clear that we must have some kind of separation even at the smallest scales. So this led me to how does energy get polarity if it has structure and walla that led me to the polarity vehicle or "conductor". So I started researching geometry because it has to be something that doesn't use the charges but is just via the shape of that conductor. The charges were easy and since quartz is a natural container for charges, Meaning that if one struck the quartz it would shake off the charges and discharge and it indeed did that through the piezo effect. Do you realize that the electronic lighters we have put out 10-12k volts per hit on that crystal? Thats just insane amount of voltage for a tiny crystal. But it led me to believe that this is the secret.
I am sorry you think I went off topic but if I was to say that energy had a physical form you would have laughed at me and for the most part people do till they start seeing the connections I have made.
My theory does not come from nowhere. It comes from very long nights of trying to figure this all out. There is a lot we don't know and to tell you the truth I think it is much more simple then we could ever imagine.
On the fundamental level or smallest (quantum) there is still a structure and that structure guarantees that energy will always be present. It does not get destroyed and it does not go away in the sense of fading away. Like wise it can never be created because that was done along time ago.
Yes the building blocks is what I knew deep down was true. It has to be and the only way that could happen is if it was fractal based. Why, because that fractal base is present in all of nature. Start doing microscopic examinations of real matter and you will see that geometric shapes are abundant on the microscopic level.
The self organization ability of this network comes from the fact that everything is segmented or has distinct separations from another. I posted my study on materials and even phase transitions of solids to fluids and back and how that phase transition can capture the underlying network of the crystals. This network has multiple purposes ranging from electrical to sound to light propagation but one has to understand the ambient nature of the energy. It is in small packets but those packets are made of other packets as well. The ambient nature of energy is slight just measurable but if one knew how to attract the vehicle of those charges then you could have a source of energy that was sooo vast that you couldn't channel that much at one time.
We are backwards in our thinking. Energy is everywhere and it is attracted twords a higher potential, thats what causes it to flow via it's vehicle. A battery is just a higher source of potential. When we expose that potential to the outside charges via wires(antenna) it flows into our systems not out.
Remember that 1 cubic inch of matter either solid or in our atmosphere has so much energy that we probably couldn't channel that much into our devices. And if done right will return to that matter in a cycle after we use it.

[witsend]

Personally I expect we will find not all photons are equal.

Futher - and keep this in the pocket for now - I do think we will also find that there is something else that acts as carries for light; possibly neutrinos or the likes. Photons are generally considered to be slow! On the other hand, Nuetrinos are very fast. However this is currently even on my list of questions.

Do remember space is not an absoluut vacuum, neither is space free of dust.

Yes, we should (and I do) keep in mind that light is in fact a whole lot of spectrum; more about the how and why of that later.

Neutrinos have never been seen nor measured. They are theoretically required. But - in all other aspects they are seen to be similar to photons. They have a spin integer of 1 and therefore not influenced by charge. It's the scientific opposite but equivalent of saying that a bath full of water can be thoeretically described as a single molecule. By implication that water comprises many molecules and many atoms forming those molecules. By implication light can be factored to something as small as a neutrino. But that neutrino may yet be a photon - but with a wavelength in really small fractions of the light spectrum.

[Aromaz]

If one wants to know what energy is one would have to know if it has structure. Well I propose that it indeed has structure. If it did not it would all flow together. it is very clear that we must have some kind of separation even at the smallest scales. So this led me to how does energy get polarity if it has structure and walla that led me to the polarity vehicle or "conductor". So I started researching geometry because it has to be something that doesn't use the charges but is just via the shape of that conductor. The charges were easy and since quartz is a natural container for charges, Meaning that if one struck the quartz it would shake off the charges and discharge and it indeed did that through the piezo effect.

Polarity requires structure; charges needs polarity.

I do not think the level on which we are now - Before matter; has any structure to it. Neither can crystals form any part of energy at this timescale.

Crystals are highly organized structural molecules; matter. We are still theorizing in time long before matter. Crystals do manifest a large array of energy in many different forms; due to it very complicated structure.

[witsend]

NOTE:
If I am not mistaken, in his Nobel Price paper published in "Annalen der Physik" Albert Einstein diferentiate between ElectroMagnetic wave (Light) and the 'energy pockets' within the EM wave. "Energy Pockets" in 1905 is what was renamed Photons in 1926.

a) The intensity of the light source has no effect on the maximum kinetic energy of the (photo)electrons.
b) There is virtually no delay between the time the light is activated and the release of first (photo)electrons.
c) At low frequencies the photoelectric effect does not take place
According to Einstain this disaproved the Wave Theory of light.

Just a note which I came across while scanning my note-pad about light!

Aromaz, I'm open to correction but Eintein actually was the first to argue that light moves as a particle in the vacuum. Very unpopular at the time as the consensus was that it only ever propogated as a wave.

EDIT. OK. Here's a link. I'll look for some more.
Albert Einstein's Year of Miracles: Light Theory : NPR

[Aromaz]

Neutrinos have never been seen nor measured. They are theoretically required. But - in all other aspects they are seen to be similar to photons. They have a spin integer of 1 and therefore not influenced by charge. It's the scientific opposite but equivalent of saying that a bath full of water can be thoeretically described as a single molecule. By implication that water comprises many molecules and many atoms forming those molecules. By implication light can be factored to something as small as a neutrino. But that neutrino may yet be a photon - but with a wavelength in really small fractions of the light spectrum.

I agree 100%. Unless, there is something else; unknown!

What I conveniently called Photon (refer posting #43); might very well be closer to Neutrino; but then there are also properties ascribed to Neutrino that does not fit with the Energy Pocket behaviour, which is rather closer to Photonic.

Maybe in the long run (if this theory does devellop) someone will need to rename all the earlier phases of this energy - in particular the different models of Photons.

[Aromaz]

Aromaz, I'm open to correction but Eintein actually was the first to argue that light moves as a particle in the vacuum. Very unpopular at the time as the consensus was that it only ever propogated as a wave.

EDIT. OK. Here's a link. I'll look for some more.
Albert Einstein's Year of Miracles: Light Theory : NPR

I

Aromaz, I'm open to correction but Eintein actually was the first to argue that light moves as a particle in the vacuum. Very unpopular at the time as the consensus was that it only ever propogated as a wave.

EDIT. OK. Here's a link. I'll look for some more.
Albert Einstein's Year of Miracles: Light Theory : NPR

I will try to get the actual paper, in German and use the little I might still remember from my father to read it again; in original version.

However, from the above link I quote Einsteins words:
"According to the assumption to be contemplated here, when a light ray is spreading from a point, the energy is not distributed continuously over ever-increasing spaces, but consists of a finite number of energy quanta that are localized in points in space, move without dividing, and can be absorbed or generated only as a whole."

I fail to read particle? Rather I can still read Photon, which is "Energy Quanta"
Yes, this also brings Photon=Light into the same slot again. What is the contend in the rest of the wave then?

I will be gone for next 10 hours! See later.

[Jbignes5]

What?

Polarity requires structure; charges needs polarity.

I do not think the level on which we are now - Before matter; has any structure to it. Neither can crystals form any part of energy at this timescale.

Crystals are highly organized structural molecules; matter. We are still theorizing in time long before matter. Crystals do manifest a large array of energy in many different forms; due to it very complicated structure.

Ok then how do crystals grow... We know that it needs a solution and a seed! Pay attention to the seed word. Which came first the crystal or the seed? Where did the seed come from?
On the scale we can see crystals but if our capabilities to see farther in grows then we should see more crystals, meaning it is a fractal. Fractals have no end my friend and thats why energy can never be created nor destroyed! If you agree that nature has fractals in it you have to agree by the term of Fractals. You can not have one without the other. Energy has to have separation even at the smallest of scales because if it did not then it all would not work. The photon you are talking about I believe is these crystals or was misinterpreted because we thought energy could be radiated. By itself energy is inert till it has a vehicle.
Man I wish I could model this stuff to be better able to show you my concept. I tried downloading some programs to model with but I was never good at that stuff. I am more of a hardware tech.
This is the main reason I wanted someone to help me with modeling on the computer the exact rules of fractals and geometry in a graphical simulation.
All real matter is, is a collection of physical matter that is statically attracted to a source charge one little strings of these particles that was present from the black holes material. The stuff is crushed up and separated from it's charges from the extreme environment of the black hole.
I even tried to go into the source of these crystals earlier and how my theory applies even to the creation of our space.
But I guess I'll never be able to have that clear vision because no one really see's what I am trying to show is the real action of energy and charges and how it can move as units and even affect other charges in the matter that formed around the node in the middle of that matter.
Here is another reference to what each side are. Check the references of where it comes from and what it is related to!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_triangle

Pay attention to the dates and history behind this.

[Stealth]

Energy,light

I don't hold to the rule of thermodynamics of energy conservation. If energy cannot be created or destroyed,then how did it come into being to begin with? How can we achieve overunity if we cannot create more energy than we consume? I agree there is enormous energy in the vacuum,aether, and we can harness this enegy with the correct geometrically designed machine.I believe the universe is in a constant stage of creating energy and matter.
As I see it, light is not one frequency, but many frquencies woven together. We cannot see a light bulb flashing on and off because our eyes cannot function as fast as 60 times per second. Also a candle with flash on and off at a similar rate,this has been captured on high speed film. We cannot see all light, just the slower particles that are within our eyes frequency range.Good Luck. Stealth

[Joit]

I don't hold to the rule of thermodynamics of energy conservation.

I do drop the Theorie with you.
At all it is written and used to common, and anywhere used as a argument,
as look, Ou is not possible because ... Its only like a Holy Grail with a lot of Holes at the Bottom,
and, as usual, it looks more like another Big Lie
Look at Milcovic's Wipe, it is only converted and amplified.
Its maybe just the lack of the Term from Energy what we get teached.

And well, few pages back, i see, Agent.A had some good Points, but why dont he state them
as instead just mention a Name from an other Theorie and cover the answers with personal 'Statements'.

[Jbignes5]

I don't hold to the rule of thermodynamics of energy conservation. If energy cannot be created or destroyed,then how did it come into being to begin with? How can we achieve overunity if we cannot create more energy than we consume? I agree there is enormous energy in the vacuum,aether, and we can harness this enegy with the correct geometrically designed machine.I believe the universe is in a constant stage of creating energy and matter.
As I see it, light is not one frequency, but many frquencies woven together. We cannot see a light bulb flashing on and off because our eyes cannot function as fast as 60 times per second. Also a candle with flash on and off at a similar rate,this has been captured on high speed film. We cannot see all light, just the slower particles that are within our eyes frequency range.Good Luck. Stealth

Well we would have to know what is outside of our black hole to know where the energy comes from. To tell you the truth fractals go both ways. Meaning the further you go in the same must be the further you go out. With each step being the resolution, or viewpoint.
We don't use energy we convert it to motion to do our bidding. In some way or another through the matter we convert the charges into another form. Well we don't convert it matter does we just organize that device to be able to convert it.
I guess the operative word you used was HARNESS. We make up ways to channel or divert it. We could never use it up. We will never be able to contain it only channel or divert it. Our thinking is backwards on the Radiative part. The radiative part is only a method to allow the real charges in that is all around us. Until we understand this concept then we will never harness this energy that we use in a most destructive way. Yes the old way works but we have to use something to initiate the process and that transforms the higher forms like gas into dangerous pollutants. If we want to start harnessing natures energy we have to start understanding how nature connects to it's source and how nature does it without destroying that potentials container.

This is what Tesla found out. He did in fact devise such a way to harness the flow of the energy in a cyclic manner. Meaning that he did it such that it had an in and an out. Just like nature does in most cases. The cases that it doesn't work as designed give effects like Volcanoes and huge storms or even tornadoes. Tesla knew it was fuidic in nature.. Meaning the medium that it was in was a perfect dialectric and that the charges that he knew were there and could see in every brush effect from his coils was the effects of not an out pouring of the voltage but the charges flowing into cycles around that hv source. He knew it behaved like a fluid but it also had to have a structure because of the effects being geometrical.
This simple realization allowed him to make virtual connections in his wireless design but after warden cliff he knew no one would back him. He needed to get people to understand that they and in fact he was originally wrong. So he tried the pierce arrow experiment. This experiment was a stroke of genius. He left subtle clues that one could pick out just from reading his other patents to his methods of thinking. He didn't go that far into any Theory because he hated theories. He didn't have to because it didn't matter what caused it. He only knew he could generate motion or induce motion from it. Kinda like he did in the Niagra falls method. Except then the motion or cycle was already being supplied.
I hate having to bring that up but it is why I started down this avenue of rediscovery. So did Tesla know about the shape? maybe, he did several discovery of geometric coils that actually gave me the clues I needed to have to figure out the action of the conductors of charges. I know you are not to the point of structure and mass but for me it was easier to deduce the concept by going backwards from Tesla's writings. So thats how I made these connections. I don't believe that one could figure out what energy is on a clean slate. You would have to de engineer to figure that out from a logical point of view. Not build up from the fundamental source.
So this led me to a search of what we can see and the structure that gets recorded by phase changing matter. Just like snow flakes are made. The lattice and fractal nature of snowflakes led me to believe that if energy is leeching out of the water then it will leave a copy of that process in the ice left over. This also brought me to check what metals really are and how they have a structure as well after phase changing happens. Even the natural formation of most ore has a fractal structure to it and most metals are considered a Crystalline based matter.
Here are some beautiful pictures of electron microscope shot of ices crystals:

Snow Crystal Micrographs

The next example is between 2 gold crystals:

World's Best Microscope Can Produce Images Less Than Diameter Of Single Hydrogen Atom

And this is on quantum computing but look at the picture and see what The great E thought of everything being connected....

Quantum Ghosts Are Helpful