Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

 As you may know the formula for Energy of an EM wave is E=hf, or E=nhf, where n is number of 'photons', f is the frequency of a photon, and h is the Plank's constant. No one knows what h stands for, other than helper- which is what Plank called it.

Does anyone notice anything wrong with that equation ? There is no Amplitude in it ! And every wave must have an amplitude. Otherwise it is just a straight line, and has zero energy.



'To summarise, waves carry energy. The amount of energy they carry is related to their frequency and their amplitude. The higher the frequency, the more energy, and the higher the amplitude, the more energy.' *

Therefore, the equation E=nhf for EM energy is wrong since it does not take into consideration the amplitude of the wave (but takes immaginary particles and constants into account), and the correct equation must reffer to the amplitude of the wave obviously.

There is no need to reffer to n number of photons, which dont exist for n number of reasons, or for h constant, which was inserted by Plank as a helper in order to calculate black body radiation, but he had no clue what it actually was related too. But thanks to my brilliance which has disproved Einstein's insane mind bending physics, I have realised what it is related to: it is related to Plank's ignorance regarding basic wave physics, which require that their energy depends on their amplitude (not just their frequency), corroborated with Einstein's ignorance regarding the same basic physics of wave propagation (and refraction)- which has made him dream up illogical photon particles-waves which wave in a vacuum without having any amplitude or medium of propagation ! 

So basically they were both stupid and got a Nobel prize for their stupidity. As both ignored basic physics and made up constants from their asses in order to make their theories work or fit the observations. Just because you imagine a number that seems to resolve some equation, which otherwise contradicts basic physics and logic, does not make you a genius. You might well make your theory work mathematically, but you destroy all physics in the process. Like Ptolemy did with his epic epicycles.

* -Reference: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/ ... -of-a-Wave

Main article: https://vasileffect.blogspot.com/2024/0 ... d.html?m=1

Anything that mentions or uses Planks is nonsense.

"Planck's constant is an expression of the angular momentum of a frictionless vortex elementary particle composed of the condensed vacuum and generated in the Big Bang from massless virtual photons that acquire mass when moving in the vortex at the speed of light, as described by Higgs theory."

It's quackery supporting other quackery.

The concept of the photon was a mistake due to a misunderstanding of the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect shows that specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves resonate with specific substances. Each material has its own resonant frequencies based on bond length and other factors. The photoelectric effect does not prove the existence of a photon as a discrete particle. There is no reason to use calculations that assume the photon has a specific energy level. I suppose one could use a hypothetical photon to simply represent one wavelength of an electromagnetic wave. A substance can resonate with a portion of a wavelength though so this negates the need to use a hypothetical photon particle. We have half wave and quarter wave antennas that work well.

I reckon that Planck tells us that (1) amplitude is not important, or, (2) that amplitude duznt exist.
My photon theory is ok with (2).
The discussion here is (i can see) going nowhere fast (as is usual).
Allow me to reduce some of your torment. (3) EM waves exist (ie radio waves exist). (4) EM waves are not photons. (5) Photons are not EM waves.
I hope that that halves your pain. On the other hand a half of an infinity of pain is still an infinity of pain.
My own aether theory of photons answers all questions (or can)(i think).

Crawler states "My own aether theory of photons answers all questions (or can)(i think)."

Cool. I love theories on electromagnetic waves. Please tell us what an electromagnetic wave is based on your theory.

galaxy12 wrote:The concept of the photon was a mistake due to a misunderstanding of the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect shows that specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves resonate with specific substances. Each material has its own resonant frequencies based on bond length and other factors. The photoelectric effect does not prove the existence of a photon as a discrete particle. There is no reason to use calculations that assume the photon has a specific energy level.

I 100% agree, the explanation for the photoelectric effect is very simple and its based on resonance, but what can you expect from a guy who didnt even understand refraction properly, like Einstein and his Nobel coleagues ?

Those people would say that ultrasounds are particles, not waves, because they they can break glass and stones.

galaxy12 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 9:46 pm Crawler states "My own aether theory of photons answers all questions (or can)(i think)."

Cool. I love theories on electromagnetic waves. Please tell us what an electromagnetic wave is based on your theory.

He can do this on his own thread, but as far as I can see all he does is ipse dixit, he does not prove anything that he claims. He just postulates this and that, and expects to be taken seriously.

crawler wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 9:17 pm I reckon that Planck tells us that (1) amplitude is not important, or, (2) that amplitude duznt exist.

Well can you give a quote from Plank at least, instead of guessing what you think he says ?

1. If amplitude is not important, then why would every physics book say it is, as it amplifies the energy of the wave which is directly proportional with the square of its amplitude ?

2. If amplitude does not exist, then the wave does not exist. Because the wave becames a straight line with no crests and throughs. This is basic wave physics, how on earth can you even imagine a wave without amplitude ? And keep in mind Plank's equation E=hf was developed for EM waves, not for photon particles. Einstein took his wave energy equation and applied it to his particle-wave photons.

My photon theory is ok with (2).

Yes, because your photon does not exist (as a wave) so of course its amplitude does not exist either. But Einstein defined his photon as a particle-WAVE !! And a wave by definition must have an amplitude ! I am not debunking your photon quasi particle hole in an aether donut theory here. And as I said you should not name it a photon, because a photon is not what you say it is, its what Einstein said it is. And its a complete non-sense and pseudo scientific bullshit.

crawler wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 9:17 pm I reckon that Planck tells us that (1) amplitude is not important, or, (2) that amplitude duznt exist.

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:12 am Well can you give a quote from Plank at least, instead of guessing what you think he says ?
1. If amplitude is not important, then why would every physics book say it is, as it amplifies the energy of the wave which is directly proportional with the square of its amplitude ?
2. If amplitude does not exist, then the wave does not exist. Because the wave becomes a straight line with no crests and throughs. This is basic wave physics, how on earth can you even imagine a wave without amplitude ? And keep in mind Plank's equation E=hf was developed for EM waves, not for photon particles. Einstein took his wave energy equation and applied it to his particle-wave photons.

I did not realise that Planck was referring to em waves, i thort he was referring to photons. Waves (eg em waves) of course depend on amplitude (re energy etc).

My photon theory is ok with (2).

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 12:12 amYes, because your photon does not exist (as a wave) so of course its amplitude does not exist either. But Einstein defined his photon as a particle-WAVE !! And a wave by definition must have an amplitude ! I am not debunking your photon quasi particle hole in an aether donut theory here. And as I said you should not name it a photon, because a photon is not what you say it is, its what Einstein said it is. And its a complete non-sense and pseudo scientific bullshit.

I am not sure what to think re the name photon (ie Einstein's photon)(& my photon). My photon is certainly not a wave.
But allow me to sneak in a bit of my theory which is not entirely off topic. I say that an atom consists of photons orbiting a nucleus (not electrons orbiting a nucleus). And, i say that conductors have photons hugging their surface, these huggons flying around at the speed of light. So, photons impacting a surface bump (can bump) huggons off the surface. The huggons, when they jump off the surface, form loops (they bite their own tail), & we call (can call) these looped photons (free) electrons. Free electrons can live on a surface, in which case they are still free electrons (what we call static electricity).

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 11:59 pmHe can do this on his own thread, but as far as I can see all he does is ipse dixit, he does not prove anything that he claims. He just postulates this and that, and expects to be taken seriously.

Do u reckon that it has been proven that electrons orbit a nucleus?
Do u reckon that it has been proven that photons are waves?
Postulates are more important than proofs. A proof of a postulate usually needs an additional say 10 postulates (that are hardly ever mentioned). In any case there is no such thing as a proof.

galaxy12 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 9:46 pmCrawler states "My own aether theory of photons answers all questions (or can)(i think)."

Cool. I love theories on electromagnetic waves. Please tell us what an electromagnetic wave is based on your theory.

If u do a search on this forum for photaeno then u will see my postings/comments re photaeno drag & photaeno congestion.
But i dont have a lot to say about em radiation. Three kinds i think. Charge. Magnetism. Magnetic waves (radio waves).

U might as well also do a search for my elektons, & for my elekticity. Then u will be getting closer to what i think, closer to reality. It all fits so nicely. I must be a genius.

I am more of a visual person. Do you guys have images with descriptions that you can post to help explain your theories? I really hate math and I don't want to have to learn new terminology. I am just trying to find the theories that are simplest and accurate. Thanks.

galaxy12 wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 3:35 am I am more of a visual person. Do you guys have images with descriptions that you can post to help explain your theories? I really hate math and I don't want to have to learn new terminology. I am just trying to find the theories that are simplest and accurate. Thanks.

My stuff has nearnuff zero math.
But for nice diagrams have a look at J G Williamsons papers re his atomic model (its a bit like my model).
And Conrad Ranzan has some drawings in his papers (see his cellular universe website).

crawler wrote:I did not realise that Planck was referring to em waves, i thort he was referring to photons.

Well maybe you should document more before contradicting others on topics that 'you think' you know. Plank was not reffering to photons, just Einstein was reffering to them when he 'explained' the photoelectric effect by treating light as a particle that was a wave in itself, and used Plank's EM wave equation to calculate the energy of his particle-wave non-sense. Frankly I think Einstein was completely insane, and Tesla thought too as well. Thats why he called him a curly haired crackpot.

Waves (eg em waves) of course depend on amplitude (re energy etc).

Well tell that to Plank, who of course ignored amplitude because he was ignorant of basic wave physics. Not only did he not deserve a Nobel, he did not deserve to finish highschool. And Einstein too.

What in the bloody hell wave as we caused here?

amplitude is..[znip].. the energy of the wave which is directly proportional with the square of its amplitude ?

2. If amplitude does not exist, then the wave does not exist.

And we've completely gone into never never land.

mariuslvasile wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 1:07 am

crawler wrote:I did not realise that Planck was referring to em waves, i thort he was referring to photons.

Well maybe you should document more before contradicting others on topics that 'you think' you know. Plank was not reffering to photons, just Einstein was reffering to them when he 'explained' the photoelectric effect by treating light as a particle that was a wave in itself, and used Plank's EM wave equation to calculate the energy of his particle-wave non-sense. Frankly I think Einstein was completely insane, and Tesla thought too as well. Thats why he called him a curly haired crackpot.

Waves (eg em waves) of course depend on amplitude (re energy etc).

Well tell that to Plank, who of course ignored amplitude because he was ignorant of basic wave physics. Not only did he not deserve a Nobel, he did not deserve to finish highschool. And Einstein too.

But, if Planck was correct that amplitude is not needed, then that shows that whatever it is that he is talking about (& i say that he is talking about photons)(whether he knows it or knot) is not a wave (ergo: photons are not waves).