New Theory on the Propagation of Light and the Nature of Photons

[mooeypoo]

nnnnnnnnoo. You offer a theory that doesn't work in conjuction of current theories (hence, if your theory is accepted, it is to REPLACE current theories).

 

The burden of proof is on you to prove your theory.

 

We are not rejecting your theory on any grounds OTHER THAN you not proving your theory. You seem to either brush off the burden of proof or demand we prove the current theories.

 

Do your research on the current theories, they are proven and they predict and they have observational substantiations.

 

Yours have none.

 

The burden of proof is on you.

[D H]

I just showed other view, other idea, other explanation about.

You have not provided an explanation. An explanation at a minimum must match what we already know about reality (postdictions) and preferably tells us something new (predictions).

A jugde cannot defeat/reject a new clue in an investigation just because the witness who brought the clue doesn't have any proof/evidence.

This makes no sense. A clue to what? That clue is evidence. On the other hand, if someone makes an unsupported and unsupportable claim in court, judges can not only throw said claim out, they can throw the claimant in jail for contempt of court.

[Klaynos]

You've failed to address the points I made in post 61.

 

The atoms in a vacuum, (although why are we not talking about a perfect vacuum, there is a massive vacuum in the LHC photons propagate in there fine as can be witnessed by the fact the magnets work) are not close enough to just magically pass the knowledge of a photon wants to move through that space to each other.

 

If you are not proposing new particles but relying on the ones that are already tehre you need to propose a new force (with some evidence) that can mediate the knowledge of the photons between the particles. This leads to the issue of if you're bothering to have those particles media the knowledge of a photon, what property do they have that is different from that of a photons, because you'd then have some quantum number conservation laws to contend with.

[swansont]

Since the beginning of time there was a plenty of particles everywhere. This doesn't contradict neither the BigBang cosmology nor the Newtonian cosmology (infinite-eternal universe). I don't know where is vacuum. Maybe vacuum "is present" in a sort of "porosity" that regulates the density of matter. So these "particles everywhere" constitute the light conductivity.

 

My "photosensibile particles" are massive. They are atoms. It is impossible to conceive something massless. In physics it is a delirium.

 

You can see my photosensible particles in air, glass, water, and so on. We can see them, but we can't falsify our points of view about the problem whether they travel or not (at least yet).

 

Implications of moving with respect to these particles: you are right, even it could imply the famous "aether wind". But the same problems are present in the accepted theory too. I say that considering those streams of millions and millions of travelling photons everywhere that the accepted theory states.

 

 

I can take a vacuum pump and reduce the concentration of atoms by 12 or 13 orders of magnitude, and not affect the ability of light to pass through the region.

 

Moving with respect to an aether was tested more than a century ago. The concept failed the test. This idea comes to us pre-falsified.

[insane_alien]

My "photosensibile particles" are massive. They are atoms

 

really? then where do they fall in the periodic table?

[Sayonara]

This has gone on long enough.