Tuesday, September 20, 2016

The speed of light is constant as measured by what exactly?

Say we live in a part of the cosmos where the underlying velocity of everything maybe over 800,000 meters per second that is moving relative to  well, we are not exactly sure.  Nothing is stationary. As Newton said objects in motion will stay in motion that is assured but even objects at rest are moving we actually know of none that are stationary.  Lets suppose the notion of neutrinos is really that of something standings still that everything in motion can interact with .  I would certainly not call anything a neutrino but I use  the word because supposedly they can be indirectly detected so they might as well be some ultra fine particle that is actually immobile as some kind of imaginary point of reference.  The speed of light has been given the name constant which is really to say it might as well be what is standing still relative to everything else but only sort of.  This is nonsense of course. Photons are moving much faster as we have done many measurements to assign the constant as a number. It has been tested and retested.  Now that we know that photons transmit no energy but only transmit code and that this code interacts with the underlying momentum via velocity of any object working as a detection instrument  the constant maybe more variable for the speed of light  because the code may not express it's message the same way when there are major changes in momentum.  It is from the dark momentum energy that a collision of objects can cause a powerful vaporizing explosion that photons interact with essentially to slow down or stop a subatomic particle thus boosting its angular momentum.  It is something like an elastic bounce.  totally new kind of relativity and the question then becomes does light or photons themselves have variable measurable speed  of light or expression.  The answer maybe the usual no but don't be so sure.  It seems we maybe able to transpose the tone or the octaves of the entire spectrum if the underlying velocity/ momentum of objects is variable.  Now as I dismiss red shift of photons as nonsense here is a way to undermine my perception and actually make that possible.  It has more to do with the detection interface of mater than the photons however.  Our detectors are moving at the cosmic rate that we move at and they could be elsewhere in the universe with an entirely different level of velocity relative to our own and possibly to some fractional extent of the speed of light.  I know my semantics of physics fails badly here.  The point is to go back to my articles that show that light is only code transmitted from electromagnetic disturbances that  are essentially failed communications with in mater.  We humans utilize this phenomenon now to do our own wireless communications. That is not nature's use so far as we know all photons traveling though space are accidents.  Radiation happens because within a material medium where electo magnetic forces are present the radiation allows communication between particles and atoms to bring those together that are necessary in various reactions.  If we have a brine where crystals are forming we can have different kinds of chemicals becoming different types of crystals in the same brine bath.  the sorting process is exactly because dark photons radiate though sending messages of what is where and how  or otherwise the crystals observed would not form.

Monday, August 22, 2016

Carbon is about to destroy your life and the planet? take the carbon quiz and find out.

Take the Atmospheric Carbon Quiz? See How Smart You Are. So You Say You Believe In Global Warming ? OK Lets See What You Really know.
Take the Atmospheric Carbon Quiz? See How Smart You Are You Say You Believe in Global Warming ? OK, Take the Quiz and Find Out What You Really Know About Carbon Dioxide in the Earth's Atmosphere. Get All Questions Right and Win a Noble Peace Prize Lex Loeb Contributor Network . This is exercises is not about global warming or climate change. It is about basic scientific facts about earth's atmosphere. The quiz is really simple and multiple choice. Just pick the best choice per question and then go to the end of the article to see the correct answers. You must get all of the answers right to win a Nobel peace prize otherwise you fail the quiz. If you fail the quiz then you might want to brush up on your science studies. These questions are multiple choice. Pick the answer to each question that is closest to the scientific fact or to estimated and abbreviated numbers: . . . . . . . . . . . . The Atmospheric Carbon Quiz: Question 1: Most of the volume of air is made of what? (A) Carbon Dioxide. (B) Oxygen. (C) Pollution. (D) Empty Space. Question 2: How much gas is in earth's air around sea level compared to an equal volume of liquid water? (A) 5 percent (B) Half (C) 1/800th (D) none Question 3: Approximately how much does a cubic foot of air weigh at sea level on earth? (A) 1/2 pound (B) 0.10 pounds (C) One ATM (D) 0.075 pounds Question 4: Which weighs more? Hot air or Cold air? A. Cold Air B. Hot Air C. Both weigh the same amount. 5. What is the most prevalent gas in the atmosphere? (A) Oxygen. (B) Carbon Monoxide (C) Carbon Dioxide (D) Nitrogen (E) Xenon (F) Methane 6. What percentage of The Earth's atmosphere in parts per million per dry volume is Carbon dioxide? (A) 20.95 % (B) 78.08 % (C) 4.0 % (D) 0.00005 % (E) 0.0387% 7. What percentage of the earth's atmosphere ,in parts per million, is 10,000 parts per million of Carbon Dioxide (enough to start being toxic to people an animals)? (A) 50% (B) 1% (C) 0.05% (D) 10% (E) 37.7% 8. Which Gas constituent atom has the greatest relative atomic mass? (A) Carbon. (B) Nitrogen. (C) Oxygen. 9. Does Carbon Dioxide in earth's atmosphere React in normal earth conditions with other gases or water vapor in the atmosphere or act as a catalyst? (A) yes. (B) no it is generally very stable as a gas molecule. 10. At the present levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and all other carbon gases put together which best describes the concentration in parts per 10,000 per volume? (A) 1 in ten thousand parts (B) more than 279 in ten thousand parts (C) 12 in ten thousand parts (D) less than 4 in ten thousand parts 11. If the amount of Carbon doubles in the atmosphere in the next 50 years because of out of control industrial growth what would be the maximum amount of carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million per volume? (A)10,000 parts per million per volume (B)90,000 parts per million per volume (C)776 parts per million per volume (D)3000 parts per million per volume. 13. Are there renegade scientists who believe that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is getting dangerously low to support the earth's photosynthetic plant life on land because prehistoric times had much much larger amounts of atmospheric and dissolved carbon in the oceans? (A) Yes (B) No 14. Is it possible for gases to escape from frozen ice or to enter frozen ice the way old mildew tasting ice from your home refrigerator freezer tastes when left in the freezer too long? (A) Yes (B) No 15. Is it possible for a gas to suck up heat from the atmosphere and discharge the heat into the cold night air or up at higher elevations into outer space sort of the way an air conditioner cooler works by retaining the heat long enough to transfer it away from hotter areas? Is methane a heat sink gas that can be used in cooling systems? (A) Yes (B) No 16. What happens when a gas is heated? (A) It rises (B) It gains kinetic energy and moves at a more rapid speed in the atmosphere. (C) most gases with possible exception of water vapor clouds that have dust seeds tend to take an amorphous diffusion though the atmosphere. (D) All of the above. 17. How does a gas in the atmosphere make objects on the ground and the surface of the ocean hot? (A) They bump into those objects transferring kinetic energy of motion. (B) They radiate infrared and other types of electromagnetic waves into empty space that get absorbed by material objects that retain that heat energy. (C) It really does not mater how much heat is retained by the relatively rarefied gases in the atmosphere because the sun rays hitting the physical surface of earth is many times more efficient as direct exposure. This direct exposure makes surfaces hotter than secondary re-radiation of solar energy from gases in the atmosphere. (D)There is evidence that the earth's surface warms the atmosphere perhaps more efficiently than a relatively diffuse atmosphere can warm the earth's surface. (E) All or any of the above. 18. If it were true that Mars could be made habitable for life from earth by pumping carbon dioxide and other gases into it's diffuse existing atmosphere would that atmosphere need to have more atmospheric pressure than the earth's to be effective especially if Mars does not have sufficient ocean equivalents of surface liquid water? (A) Yes (B) No 19. Which of the following conditions will make an actual greenhouse with flowers growing in side of it cooler? (A) painting the floor of the greenhouse black. (B) Sealing the greenhouse so out door air can't get in. (C)taking the windows out so the open atmosphere and pumping in carbon dioxide to replace the effects of the window panes. (D) increasing the sun's exposure on the greenhouse by having mirrors around it reflect more light in. 20. Scientists say that if you have a methane gas stove in your kitchen and no way to light the gas so it burns you can still cook with it if you expose it to sun light because methane gas can absorb 22-25 times the energy of carbon dioxide exposed to solar energy and retain it longer. (A) True (B) False 21. Polar bears survived the ice age and as a consequence they also survived the greatest melting of ice in the last 30-40 thousand years. (A) True (B) False 22. If a group of scientists predict that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to cause temperatures to rise on earth and data is collected that shows their thesis may be wrong, which of these answers should they not be. (A) A bit skeptical of their hypothesis and their conclusions. (B) somewhat skeptical (C) Angry that the data does not conform to their advanced training and logic. (D) Feeling like they may have made a mistake or entered some wrong assumptions in the way they generated the original thesis. 23. The ancient Maya thought that if they sacrificed human being to gods that control the weather and ate parts of their sacrificial victims that they would get more than enough rain needed to grow luxuriant crops needed to maintain large populations. If the Maya were right about the world ending in 2012 then they must have been good at predicting the weather with the magic of human sacrifice rituals? (A) True (B) False 24. In the prehistoric times sea levels on earth have been as much as 300 to 500 ft higher than they are today and 300 to 500 feet lower than they are today? (A) true (B) false _____________________________________________________________________________ Answers: (warning you are the genius tell me if I have a typo or got any wrong )use these answers to cheat with if necessary: 1=D 2=C 3=D 4=A 5=D 6=E 7=B 8=B 9=B 10=D 11=C 12=unlucky 13=A 14=A 15=A 16=D 17=E 18=A 19=D 20=B 21=A 22=C 23=B 24=A . Close

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

So if photons really are just code and nothing more than.....ok I can actually control your mind.


The Inverse of the Inverse Square Law proves that photons carry no mass and no energy but only code.

Looking for the proof I needed it was not hard to find.  If God created photons why and what would be the purpose of having them radiate from a source if the purpose of having photons was to transmit energy?  If God had that intention he would have invented something better than the laser.  It would be the inverse of the inverse square law .  It would concentrate photons rather than radiate them into space and concentrate them at a point identical to the source from which they came.  The same would be true of the other inverse square law phenomena which I think are just limited to photons, gravity and magnetism.    The suggestion that all three of these obey the inverse square law implies something about all of these.  All come from a source that has mass but all three have no mass, and none of them actually transmit energy though space in spite of the apparent illusions.  Any implications that any of them have properties of waves or frequencies are according to remote detectors made of mater even if they should have counteractive properties.   


As for infrared detection ....infrared radiation is a signature of something that was hotter before shedding those infrared photons as detected.   There might be no reason to believe an object that had had excess infrared energy is necessarily still hot without them.  The curious thing about infrared radiation is that what ever has shed them apparently has no need for the excess 'Heat'.  If it was not excess than they would not be radiated or re-radiated but retained as some form of internal kinetic energy?   That assists in creating the proof that photons do not actually transmit energy that is a property of themselves nor provide a carriage for transporting it.   The idea of semantics of photons as pure code wins again.

Friday, June 24, 2016

Changing The Basic Metric/ Constant Of The Cosmos From The Speed of Light to Momentum.

Maybe the speed of light is irrelevant?  Einstein wanted to make the speed of light the basic metric for the entire universe.  That was because of it's consistency as a measured constant .  Light has to be detected for the speed of light to be measured and that takes mater of variable forms across the electro magnetic spectrum.  My discovery that photons actually don't transmit energy though space but are code as in messages being sent that have 'semantic' properties across the spectrum and periodic table and that light neither has properties of wave nor frequencies since those are properties of the material indicators from material detectors leads to all new conclusions.  The first problem was trying to figure out where the subatomic angular momentum push comes from  if no energy is transmitted by the photon though empty space.  That led to the quick realization that momentum as all mater is in motion or relative motion due to the rest of the objects in the cosmos being in motion.  Einstein thought that a person in free fall would not feel any sensation of falling as such and that is the same thing as being on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy all moving at more than 30 thousand meters per second relative to other objects out there in the universe. 

Should our planet suddenly crash into any object just sitting still it would become as annihilated as all or part of the earth in that collision.  We don't feel that energy or even know it exists. It is like sitting on top of a dam just before the dam breaks....just floating on a lake not knowing we have all that potential energy to go into a free fall. On a rocket ship the astronauts may not even realize they are in forward motion until they collide with something that makes a gaping hole in  the space craft or totally blows it up in the collision.  It is thus "dark energy",  imperceptible  except in the instance of a collision of some sort.  That's momentum and at the subatomic level it may just be this invisible energy of momentum that photons release as they deliver their code to atoms and their subatomic particles on collision.  So it thus says the speed of light is irrelevant.  The coding sent in photons was meant for instantaneous communications between atoms or molecules where they originated not for deep space travel which is why they might as well be seen as instantaneous  just distended possibly over billions of years.  It is the interface of the detection mater where the photon is detected and the energy detected is most likely (it becomes more obviously the proof of it when you go on thinking about it) because of the dark energy of momentum which is what happens at the photon collision level.  That says the interaction of code and energy is already part and parcel of the mater and not incoming from space as some component of a photon.  My radiometer proof clearly shows photons can't have mass.  I only recently discovered they also have no energy either.  It is just a frame of reference error an illusion that we think photons transmit energy.

Momentum of objects in space is then obviously the basic metric and constant  of photonic energy release.  Almost everyone agrees that virtually everything in space is in motion.  Does that mean that light or photons can slow down mater?  Ah , yes to a very small degree.  The idea of the force of light is actually the opposite.  Moving on to astronomy we have ideas that we are observing a universe that is expanding and now one expanding and never slowing down.  You can retest theories like that with the photon data to decide  from a momentum perspective instead of the speed of light analogy.  Much of mater we observe in the universe is at one with the universe by virtue that it is part of a system of momentum such as the earth sharing the basic momentum of the sun and the rest of the solar system. it promotes an order that prevents chaos of solar system objects crashing into each other very often.  Things out of step with this momentum in the vicinity are a hazard to themselves and to the rest of the solar system.  Not one with the universe.  The next thing to think about with the dark energy of momentum is how it relates to nuclear physics as it just might and thinking of the dynamic collisions that might help lead to the right conditions that build heavy unstable radioactive atoms.

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Photons As Pure Code: The New Theory of Everything. Key To The Universe New Law of Physics.

What if everything you thought you knew about the science of physics was completely wrong?  What if the reason it is completely wrong is because of a few failures of basic assumptions and semantic errors in the language of physics?  Building on my old set of 'new laws of physics' from a completely new venture into empirical observations I discovered what really is the key to the universe new law of physics and an upgraded theory of everything that says forget string theory and correct the errors in the theory of relativity.  Photons are pure code.  That is the "key to the Universe," New Law of Physics.  Pure code?

Photons have no mass. They transmit no energy though empty space nor within atoms and molecules.. The have neither attributes of waves nor frequencies without an interaction with mater. That is because photons are pure code.  Yes code just like the electromagnetic signals we send for  and radio broadcasts.  Code pure code.  It really explains everything and this is not one of those analogy theories that says the cosmos is some giant infinite enormous holograph.


let me quickly go though the empirical proofs that say all of this is true:

No Mass: My old radiometer proof shows this to be true because the photon imparts no momentum but rather the opposite in a collision with a material interface.  Say a photon is a tennis ball with mass and it collides with a tennis racket it should cause the tennis racket to move in the direction of the incoming ball but instead in the radiometer proof we find that the tennis racket  reacts by allowing electrons to fly off its interface toward the ball which means there was no momentum and thus no mass.  that's a simplification of the original proof given two separate types of radiometers one with a rarified gas and the other with a hard vacuum. What was though to be the force of light is anything but.  Originally I had thought energy was being transmitted but that eventually came to be proved false.  Force requires mass and without mass we are talking about code.  Pure code which is a signal sent to a material interface that causes a reaction because it is just a signal code.  The explanation is quick and easy once you track back and find photons as "DARK PHOTON" AS ELECTRO MAGNETIC ENERGY IN ATOMS AND MOLECULES,   DARK PHOTONS ENABLE ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES OF ATOMS AND MOLECULES TO HAPPEN AND OF COURSE THAT WOULD MEAN SIGNALING CODE. We live in a biological world which is all about code from DNA well code extends into base chemistry of mater.  I have crystals that are complex with inclusions of other crystals made of similar and different crystals formed together and separately and sets of crystal growths with multiple independent crystals with exactly similar shapes which says code code code. I can't tell you whether electro magnetic code in mater is pure code or not because it is part and parcel of mater but in transmission though empty space as a photon (anywhere in the spectrum) it is pure code. Has no mass.

Photons have no attributes of frequency  nor waves.  What empirical proof is there?  that goes back to my moving Young double slit experiment revisiting.  I immediately found that photons are not reacting with each other in space nor necessarily in a gas between their source and the double slit screen and it's projection screen beyond. No where the waves and frequencies are observed are always in the material interface particularly that of the detection devices.  Frequencies and waves are observed but it varies across the periodic table with a set of derivative spectral signatures for each element and then for various molecules even more spectral probability. Where interference is displayed is in the detection interface and those material interfaces in between even sometimes by gases in the air.  To prove it well you can get period interference but by moving the double slit you can tune your photon code to have no interference.  Interference is because of coded overload at the points of detection.  The code sent by photons changes angular momentum at reception much of it in what have been called outermost electrons. 

Energy is not transmitted.  Well go back to comparing the spectral signatures of elements in the periodic table .  A wide variety of elements will have no reaction what so ever to photons that can just pass though with out interfering with photons which is why we see though glass or send light though fiber optic cables. We may or may not slow down the transmission but we don't actually have the code reveal itself.  Photons as dark photons with in matter are communications code it tells water how to behave in its various states of mater as one simple example.  When photons emerge from mater it is generally because of something that failed to communicate because the photon was never received internally as a dark photon.  Much of what astronomers see are failed internal communications code from stars etc.  photons serve very little use traveling billions of light years.  It is with a material body that they do serve a communications coding purpose.

Of course anyone versed in standard physics should be crying foul by now.  Bad physics stupid author of this blog.   But they will come around to the theory eventually because of the empirical evidence solidly supporting everything I am saying.

So than what is pure code  and how does this all change physics forever?  What it does is tells us why things behave the way they do.  It quickly follows that everything in the cosmos is likely in communication with every other thing in close proximity with code interceptions radiating in every direction.  The big question then is if photons don't transmit energy why do we see energy displays from interactions with photons so frequently?   first of all go back to the angular momentum coding idea which explains why we have the misunderstanding that photons should have mass when they cannot. photons carry code that impart instructions for a range of angular momentum changes for various types of atoms in different ways across the spectrum though not every type of photon affects every type of mater it varies and there is a huge range of probabilities. That means that the energy is already on board mater...I say on board matter as if all mater is tiny space ships.  That's an analogy because dark energy just happens to be energy we don't see till we find our selves in a high speed collision with another object.  I can be standing on the surface of the earth and a meteor suddenly appears coming at me at 60,000 meters per second  partly because I am on earth moving at 30,000 meters per second and the asteroid is also moving at that speed. I will quickly vaporize and become photons and gases in that collision along with all or part of the earth too and the asteroid.   So Yes atoms already have that dark energy of motion.  not motion verses the speed of light per se but motion verses an imaginary grid in space,  without that grid there is no metric for motion and the energy is dark until collision as it was just explained.    So pure code in the form of photons can just take energy of motion which is otherwise invisible and cause it to react and reveal itself thanks to photons changing angular momentum probably mainly at the level of outer most electrons.    That changes every thing in physics and science as well.  It also starts to impact relativity first because photons no longer have the mass wrongly in error ascribed to them.  what is interesting is that the interception at the speed of light as a collision that imparts the coded message does seem curious.  I would refocus the super collider on that theory and forget about either being part of the framework of space...pure analogy is all that is.  pure code is real.

start thinking of photons as pure code and voila all of the mass defect issues in physics are solved.  lots of other problems are solved and then plug in the periodic table and the molecular  range of possibilities of all of them to the spectrum, the full spectrum of em waves and frequencies charts.  Suddenly the universe starts looking different suddenly the idea of space time takes on new implications..  It really solves all the problem areas in physics and in chemistry it immediately explains the strange ability of electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen at one pole and oxygen at the other instead of having the gases emerge just anywhere from the liquid. 

That's just the pure code new key code for the universe theory not the rest of the coming theories . I am still thinking it out and even look at thrust and rocket engines run by angular momentum of pure force, not sure of coding there, of giant flywheels for trust rather than rocket fuel.  angular momentum is what fly wheels do and what atoms in rockets do just by virtue of having trust.  strange.....  and more:  http://probabilitydimension.blogspot.com/