Anonymous Participant

To answer that question, the first thing we have to do is understand what the definitions of science and religion are: sci·ence ˈsīəns/ noun noun: science the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. re·li·gion rəˈlijən/ noun noun: religion the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.#1 "ideas about the relationship between science and religion" synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More sect, church, cult, denomination "the freedom to practice their own religion" a particular system of faith and worship.#2 plural noun: religions "the world's great religions" a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.#3 In some other dictionaries, religion is defined as “any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) and character of God.” Also, “a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power.” #4 I think it's clear modern science very closely fits the criteria of #4 and in many ways fits the #2 and #3 criteria , and in a few ways #1 Science DOES create a predictable and prescribed response to the assertions of co coreligionists, for instance creationism is dismissed out of hand because it relies on a a belief in a supreme being. In a way it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater because while it does seem unlikely that a God in the classic sense of the word exists, that does not preclude the existence of some organized consciousness we don't yet understand. (which I believe is in fact closer to the truth than atheism) Obviously most modern scientists ascribe a supreme importance to their ideas over those of (other) coreligionists, because when those other beliefs conflict their own BELIEFS they dismiss them out of hand without evidence, and even systematically censor those conflicting ideas from what their view of science is, that is to say belief or non belief in a supreme power or spirit is in fact a faith based idea, it neither can be proved or disproved so neither BELIEF has any place in SCIENCE (see definition above). Is intelligent design a invalid theory of science because it prescribes a belief in an intelligent arrangement of the universe? Probably not, because precluding it on that basis would require #4 and #3 be part of the definition of science, which would make it a religion instead and require BELIEF in faith based ideas in the absence of empirical evidence and actual observations. It is also of particular interest when discussing this subject that many people like myself who do subscribe to the theory of an intelligent arrangement of the universe do not make any particular claims of the existence or non existence of a personal God or of any God, I in fact believe the classic religious view of what God is defies rationality and logic. As a adherent to the theory of intelligent design, I base that adherence to theory on reams of empirical evidence that supports it. I have been repeatedly censored on this board for espousing a belief in an intelligent arrangement of the universe and that meets criteria #4; and #2 to some extent. I also think it is interesting that the idea that the way modern science dismisses out of hand that there is no intelligent arrangement is ignoring evidence and refusing to acknowledge the obvious, that complex forms and interactions, laws and definite predictable responses to different input requires some intelligent design, for instance evolution allows organisms to adapt to environmental stresses and a complex system of interactions with very precise parameters allows the existence of life on this planet. "the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world"- Is "behavior" an intelligent predictable response and does 'structure" require intelligent arrangment? The structure of a double helix strand of DNA with encoded information defines intelligent design. It transmits or preserves information so that the nucleus and mitochondria of a cell can interpret it in order to arrange a specific structure to itself, and intelligence is the ability to interpret information. Therefore there can be no rational doubt whatsoever that DNA and evolution both fit the criteria for "intelligent design" through empirical evidence. Denying it in order to fit a predetermined belief or non belief in a God is irrational and has no real place in science. http://www.reasons.org/articles/harvard-scientists-write-the-book-on-intelligent-design-in-dna I think it is fair to mention that with a very few exceptions all noteworthy scientists of history believed in an intelligent arrangement of the universe. Here are just a few examples: quoting Albert Einstein: "Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." quoting Sir Issac Newton: "One principle in Philosophy is the being of a God or spirit infinite eternal omniscient, omnipotent, & the best argument for such a being is the frame of nature & chiefly the contrivance of the bodies of living creatures. All the great land animals have two eyes, in the forehead a nose between them a mouth under the nose, two ears on the sides of the head, two arms or two fore leggs or two wings on the sholders & two leggs behind & this symmetry in the several species could not proceed from chance, there being an equal chance for one eye or for three or four eyes as for two, & so of the other members. Nothing is more curious & difficult then the frame of the eyes for seeing & of the ears for hearing & yet no sort of creatures has these members to no purpose. What more difficult then to fly? & yet was it by chance that all creatures can fly which have wings? Certainly he that framed the eyes of all creatures understood the nature of light & vision, he that framed their ears understood the nature of sounds & hearing, he that framed their noses understood the nature of odours & smelling, he that framed the wings of flying creatures & the fins of fishes understood the force of air & water & what members were requisite to enable creatures to fly & swim: & therefore the first formation of every species of creatures must be ascribed to an intelligent being." quoting: James Clerk Maxwell "one of the processes of Nature, since the time when Nature began, have produced the slightest difference in the properties of any molecule. We are therefore unable to ascribe either the existence of the molecules or the identity of their properties to any of the causes which we call natural. On the other hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article, and precludes the idea of its being eternal and self-existent. Thus we have been led, along a strictly scientific path, very near to the point at which Science must stop, — not that Science is debarred from studying the internal mechanism of a molecule which she cannot take to pieces, any more than from investigating an organism which she cannot put together. But in tracing back the history of matter, Science is arrested when she assures herself, on the one hand, that the molecule has been made, and, on the other, that it has not been made by any of the processes we call natural." Here are a few more: Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7) George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it." Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed." Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life." Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique." Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."

The most logical reason for the red shift is a loss of energy over time.

You see any stars getting further away? You DO know the big bang boom theory is loosely based on the hubble constant, do you know what that is? 10^43 seconds INDEED! Using the apparent doppler shift , astrophysicists and astronomers concluded the further away a celestial body is the faster it is moving away....because there is an apparent drop in frequency of light...what if there is another more logical reason why the further away sometime is the less energetic the light reaching us from it is? Could it be over billions of years it looses energy by some natural process? The fact that the universe is expanding if indeed it is does not prove that the beginning of this expansion was its genesis moment anyway. What is much more likely is it is a part of an never ending cycle of expansion and contraction

Sounds like a BS "theroy" to me Lmao! Again, the universe has most likely always existed, as has life. Time is an artificial construct, as some famous head of science once said ,time exists in our own conscious to keep everything from happening at once, but it does nevertheless. Somewhere a star is dying and a star is being born, and somewhere life is emerging from the "primordial ooze" and somewhere else a planet's life is gasping it's last dying breath, an endless cycle with no beginning or end necessary. A LIVING SENTIENT BEING undergoing the "biological" processes of "life". Imagine, no need to explain the origin of the universe, which is impossible anyway. The logical conclusion is it must have always existed. We will live and die never answering the most fundamental question everyone is born asking...how the f*** did I get here and why? That is what every real scientist wonders in the deep recesses of his mind. What I want to do now is explain what light is, so can we get on with it?

Perhaps you have noticed, i don't have any intelligent, scientifically educated critics and nor is anyone attempting to debunk my hypothesis on it's own merits. Why do you suppose that is? You don't have to be a butcher to know what a t bone is

You're a broken record. If you believe my ideas have no merit, why are you wasting your time commenting repetitively about them, concentrating on attacking me personally and maligning my abilities, but totally avoiding attempting to disprove the idea itself?. You are simply parroting with copy paste. It would seem I am questioning something other than your scientific knowledge, I am questioning your faith based belief in something you scarcely understand obviously.

The fact that light sails work supports my hypothesis. Momentum does not exist in the absence of mass It is not necessary for me to invalidate another idea to have a valid hypothesis. Unfortunately some of the ideas you are espousing on this thread do require ignoring known facts in science but none of mine do. There is no reason to believe two mutually conflicting ideas can both be true simply by claiming there is a difference between Newtonian concepts and relativistic ones. Relativity makes predictions based on mathematical formula that were conceived for that purpose. It is possible to create formula from observation that work but have the underlying concept be false. The fact that light has mass is evident in the fact that it is deflected by gravity, it transmits kinetic energy across distance,and your so called light sail works, among many other examples of solid empirical evidence. In science occams razor applies, which means the simplest explanation is the most likely true and therefor the favorable explanation. The simplest explanation for the observations is not twelve pages of equations, but that light indeed has mass. The simplest explanation for the observations is that light does indeed possess mass , in the classical sense. You state as fact that light is photons which are defined as 'massless particles", you don't know the difference between fact and theory. How can you have a 'particle" which is defined as a minute portion of matter without mass? The fact is my hypothesis is based on solid science that does not conflict with established facts, common sense or logic. "Relativistic" mass" exists only in equations formulated to explain observations within a specific context, ie light has no rest mass but does have mass in it's only definable state. "massless particle" is a contradiction in terms, it is not valid. Calling the observable mass of light "relativistic" is simply a way of getting around explaining how mass is traveling at light speed, which contradicts the theory. It's the only reason why the so called "rest mass" of light is said to be zero. there is no such thing as the rest mass of light because light by definition is moving.

Whatever your beliefs are they have no place here, or in any science. I simply don't care

Actually I detest the application of or involvement of religious dogma to the scientific process. I am going to request your posts be removed because they are off topic , accusatory and non responsive

I have been remarkably patient with you. I have answered your questions even though they were already answered in the original post. The fact that you cannot perceive this is not my problem. What is your real goal is to have this thread locked because it is in conflict with your BELIEFS

I see no cognizant facts , electrons don't 'absorb light". List some means of generation of light that you believe don't include electromagnetic radiation or electrons . You're ignoring the basic premise because it conflicts with the ridiculous photon farce.

You've asked three different questions now, not the same one. Light is electrons Ummm..NOPE

Another model of light describes it as a collection of particles called photons. These photons have no rest mass but do have energy (kinetic energy). K.E. = 1/2 m v2 , where "m"= mass There are no known instances where kinetic energy exists in the absence of mass, mass is a necessary component for Kinetic energy to exist. It would seem the photon theory has some basic underlying problems and conflicts with known science fact There is no need to reply to your question, it has already been answered. The fact that you don't realize it has is not relevant.

"One model of light describes it as an electromagnetic wave made up of a propagating wave made up of an oscillating electric field and oscillating magnetic field (in a plane perpendicular to the electric field). The color of light depends on its wavelength (or frequency where λf = c in a vacuum" Correct. Now when you get an education where you can actually understand what you are reading perhaps you will see how this foundation and Maxwells equations support my hypothesis.

Well, no you didn't actually but now that you have,,,,How do you heat something? I asked that before because the answer is in the question. When electromagnetic energy impacts matter if is either reflected or absorbed and then re emitted. The exact same amount of energy goes in as comes out eventually. This is because atoms can only hold so many electrons in their electron shells.Thermally generated light is simply a result of electromagnetic energy being absorbed into the matter and re emitted. The hotter matter is the higher frequencies it emits because electrons are being forced out of higher energy level shells. I don't think you realize it but this question has already been answered, you just don't seem to understand how.

Rhetorical question, it seems to me I already answered the question, which I did. You just didn't realize it apparently.

I'm not going to argue with you about whether the original statement was correct or not, but it was. In all cases where electromagnetic energy comes in contact with matter, wavelengths of electromagnetic energy different from the incident radiation ARE emitted. In some cases the same wavelength is also emitted. How does heat produce electromagnetic energy? How do you heat matter up? All matter emits light energy unless it reaches a temperature of absolute zero because it is absorbing and remitting electromagnetic energy

No contributor to science was known before he made a significant contribution that garnered such noteworthiness. The fact that you judge me unqualified is irrelevant, it is an unqualified assertion unsupported by facts. Yes, but the point is the phenomenon is empirical evidence to support my hypothesis. The Bremsstrahlung effect is an example of where high energy electrons produce x radiation (electromagnetic energy) as they are diffused by coming in close proximity to powerful electric fields in high proton count nuclei . In other words electrons in, EMR out

"IN ALL EXAMPLES where light energy comes in contact with matter, the result is light is emitted in different frequencies from the incident light " The fact that it CAN be emitted at the same frequency does not disqualify the statement, but you do make a valid observation. I am aware it can be reflected or re emitted at the same wavelength, Again, when you have a meaningful contribution to make which I doubt will ever happen, I will respond to it.

I am not going to allow you to derail this thread as you did before, if you have something on topic to present I will response to it. I see nothing of value or that needs response in your post, just the same old nonsense 1) a vibrating electromagnetic field 2) because it has a net charge of 0 in the form of electromagnetic energy. It is supported by empirical evidence, some of which has already been presented. That you do not perceive this or acknowledge it neither concerns me nor surprises me.

Yes, fluorescence is the emission of usually shorter wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation resulting from the incidence of low frequency electromagnetic or particle radiation on certain materials. This phenomenon is supported by and described by my hypothesis . if you are not interested in what I have to say, why are you here? there are plenty of other threads to reply to! Theories do not disqualify hypothesis in science, not that these do

1) Pardon me for the typo. I guess it disqualifies my hypothesis in your mind but that's alright. 2) I am here to test my hypothesis to criticism and "tune it up" , hoping for at least few intelligent contributors to allow for it before I do present a peer reviewed paper. 3) My qualifications are an aptitude in science in the top tenth of the 99th percentile based on comparative testing with people like you and others on this forum and a similar result in repeated intelligence testing , "IQ" test in top tenth of 99th as well. . I also have a life long love of science and 50 years of dedicated independent study, as well as a "formal education" in the subjects of physics, chemistry, biology, comparative religion, and geology.

T If light energy is composed of electrons, why does it not possess a charge? This seems like an instant disqualification for my hypothesis because if the light component electron had a charge i would be deflected by powerful magnetic fields even though it is moving at a very high velocity. The reason it isn't is actually quite simple, because the "light electron" has different properties than the ordinary free electron because it has another component and thus property absent in "normal" electrons. We know light possesses the property of electromagnetism, in fact it is referred to in scientific nomenclature as "electromagnetic energy" because it exhibits the qualities of a vibrating magnetic field. If it was not continuously shifting in magnetic polarity it would have a negative charge, and removing the vibration results in a charge,and that is what a photo voltaic material does. In other words light energy shifts millions of times per second between electron and positron but emits from the electron cloud of an atom.

what I am going to attempt to do is explain the Duality properties of light within the context of classic Newtonian Physics. While this new idea is certainly not well known to mainstream science, it does meet the criteria for a legitimate hypothesis , and it is not mere speculation because this new idea comes much closer to explaining the properties of light without defying known conventional physics, creating contradictions in logic or paradoxes, I.E. kinetic energy without mass. As most of us here know I would hope, Kinetic energy is a property of a mass in relative motion to a given point or as we often refer to it, frame of reference. Kinetic energy varies within different frames of reference. Light is no different and I will explain why, the Doppler shift does not apparently cause a change in the velocity of light, only it's wavelength. So a light source emitting a given frequency and moving away from us has a lower frequency that the same light source has moving towards us, the kinetic energy is higher in the latter case because the frequency is. In this way light obeys the classic Newtonian qualities of kinetic energy, though the light is not moving faster or slower linearly. The qualities of light have always been rather mysterious, as we know it has the qualities of both a particle and a waveform. The photon is the accepted particle component of light, it is defined basically as a mass-less particle that has the ability to transmit kinetic energy across distance. Higher frequencies have higher energies. This photon supposedly can't have mass because as we know the current set "speed limit" for mass in any frame of reference is "<C". In later posts I will prove with specific examples that mass does reach and exceed light speed in a given frame of reference, there are several examples obviously where it can be demonstrated using hard data. (Have patience and try not to derail the subject!) What I am going to attempt to prove is the most logical conclusion, light appears to be a particle with actual mass propagating in a waveform because that is exactly what it is. As you shall see, if a particle is moving at "light speed" and following a high frequency wave pattern it is actually moving much faster than "C". Consider the following thought experiment: Two cars leave Los Angeles for New York City. One takes the "interstate" which has few curves or deviation in direction and the other takes "the back roads", which have many more curves and deviations in direction. Both arrive in New York City at precisely the same time and travel the same linear distance between two points on the Earths surface in exactly the same amount of time, but one of the cars must move faster and thus have a higher kinetic energy to reach it's destination at the same time. When and if this is acknowledged and understood I will begin to explain what light is and why it exhibits the properties of both a wave and a particle, and why shorter wavelengths/higher frequencies possess greater energy levels. I will accept any rational critique of what I have written thus far, but I remind you a hypothesis is not disqualified simply because it disagrees with a theory. What I intend to do is present a better explanation for what light actually is that explains all of the properties it exhibits.. It is accepted as fact and confirmed by innumerable experiments that protons, electrons and neutrons exist, and these particles are the components that make up the vast majority of the mass of the matter around us. Though electrons have a very small mass, the energy stored in their motion is significant, because their apparent velocities in the 'electron cloud" around the nucleus are substantially high. Each orbital shell of an atom possesses what is called an "energy level", this energy level being effected by the electrons distance from the nucleus and its velocity. So electrons in a "low energy shell" possess less energy than one in a "high energy shell". In conventional electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic radiation is emitted in the form of a mass-less particle known as a photon when an electron "drops" from a higher energy to a lower energy, This photon is represented in conventional theory as not only a mass-less particle, but one that possesses and can transmit kinetic energy in the form of a wave. There are several conflicts with conventional physics in this theory. Up until this point kinetic energy had been described as a property of mass in relative motion to a frame of reference, for instance a bullet leaving the muzzle of a gun had kinetic energy relative to the shooter. This kinetic energy is represented by the simple formula: K.E. = 1/2 m v2 As we all know, the theoretical (and that's what it is) photon defies this well proven formula by possessing Kinetic energy, while at the same time it has momentum and inertia (it resists a change in it's direction) but no physical mass. According to this new hypothesis, the photon as described by mainstream physics does not exist. The fact that this photon does not exist. is evident it has never been isolated or described or defined in a logical fashion that is in agreement with conventional and proved physics. This paradoxical definition of a photon itself is dependent on a dubious theory, and this new hypothesis doesn't rely on any such unproved theory for its conclusions. The paradox of the photon is that it possesses kinetic energy while lacking a basic component necessary for it to exist, mass. What Is Electromagnetic radiation? In conventional theory, electromagnetic radiation is defined as mass-less particles emitted from atoms when electrons move from a higher to a lower energy level. ::This energy is radiated moving in wave-forms of variant frequencies, the shorter wavelengths possessing the higher energy levels.:: Make a mental note for future reference that the highlighted sentence above is NOT a theory, but proved, undisputed fact . The preceding paragraph, however, is unproven, though all of the empirical evidence does support it, and none of the observations disqualify it.. The wave form frequency and energy level relationship are important to this new theory, as will become apparent. With electromagnetic energy, the higher the frequency, the more energy a given flux density of electromagnetic radiation can transmit through space(and matter). In conventional ways, we can observe that other physical manifestations of wave-forms do not obey the same energy/frequency relationship as electromagnetic waves, with energy transmitted by a specific wave dependent mainly on amplitude , and this is simply because the ordinary wave is just energy traveling through a medium, like a wave on the ocean or sound waves moving through matter. . With light the matter follows the waveform moving with it. Electromagnetic energy is best and moist succinctly defined as oscillating , coupled electric and magnetic fields that travel freely through space at the speed of light. Notice the word electric and the word magnetic, the accepted (coupled)components of electromagnetic waves. Other forms of waves cannot pass through open space in the absence of a medium to propagate itself or in the absence of matter,, only the electromagnetic wave is capable of this phenomenon Quantifying the Energy Of Electron Orbits Though is seems a giant leap of faith at this point to consider the electron as a particle moving in a waveform just to explain a stable orbit, observations do bear out this likelihood,as shall later be explained. Integer( wavelength )=2pi(radius of orbit) Energy levels Explained When a mass is moving around a given point (like for instance an electron around the nucleus of an atom) , the velocity of a given mass is directly related to the force applied outward (centripetal acceleration) , and therefor the force required to hold it in place. It is necessary that a force exists because the direction of motion is constantly changing. This force being released is the energy electromagnetic energy. Note that none of what I have stated thus far does not in any way conflict with Bohrs model of the atom. The wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is related to the velocity of the associated particle, in this hypothesis it's not some mysterious "particle" with superstitious, illogical and paradoxical qualities, it is simple an electron. This force is the " force of attraction" between the electron and proton, in turn depends on the radius of the orbit. In this way it could be described as an electro-mechanical model. The "orbitals" are energy levels and they occur in steps. Let us assign the variable Y to given orbital(integer) energy of "Y" orbital= -13.6/(Y)(Y) electron volts 1 electron Volt = 1.6 x 10-19 Joules This represents the amount of energy gained when an electron is accelerated by 1 electron volt. This includes the electrical and kinetic energy of the electron. Higher energy states have larger values of Y. (If anyone here has any questions about what has been said thus far or can or will attempt to disqualify anything I have thus far , let him contribute. However, if you ask banal questions, post ad hominems or personal attacks, they will be ignored categorically as they were used as a pretext to close and block responses to a similar thread I posted earlier and I see no purpose in entertaining them. I will do my best to answer any questions pertaining directly to the subject matter.

We? Speak for yourself. Newton believed in an architect of the universe like every other notable scientist in history. They believed this because there is no other rational explanation for all of the observations they were making. It's not what they couldn't explain, it's what they could see. Be specific and explain how special relativity or quantum theory applies to computer hardware. Good luck CHECK