Written by Herb Rose

All objects above absolute zero radiate energy and all objects absorb radiated energy. Why? How? All objects have electrical fields (see my article in PSI “The Neutron Molecule”.

For those who believe in quarks remember Occam’s razor. When an object moves that field causes a change in the electric/magnetic field radiating energy.

The changing electric/magnetic field transfers energy to other objects (with less energy) and is converted into kinetic energy. You have the dichotomy of radiated energy producing kinetic energy which then produces radiated energy. Since objects radiate energy in all directions equally how can it reach equilibrium with an object radiating energy to it from one direction?

The answer to these questions lies in the nature or radiated energy and how it is transferred between objects. There is no photon. The photon, or particle nature of light, was created in order to treat radiated energy like the familiar kinetic energy but there is no similarity between them. Light or radiated is a wave, or disturbance, traveling in the fields that surround objects and are produced by objects.

The universe is made from two things: matter and energy-t (to distinguish it from the energy of motion of objects). These two building blocks produce field of force radiating from them that decrease with distance.

Matter produces positive and/or negative electric fields. Energy-t produces gravity and magnetic fields. (Magnetic fields are a directional energy-t field while gravity is an expanding energy-t field. Gravity decreases with the square of the distance as it expands to fill increasing area while magnetism decreases with distance just like a spotlight where mirrors direct all the emitted light in one direction (See my article in PSI “An Experiment With Magnets”)

These are the only two forces (see my article in PSI “A New Theory of Gravity” and “Why the Nuclear Forces Don’t Exist“) and how they interact (see my article in PSI “How It Works”) creates the universe we see.

The two forces have opposite actions. When two magnets with opposite poles are attracted towards each other the strength of the force and the size of the field increases as they combine to form a larger magnet. (Gravity causes objects to combine into a larger object with a greater gravitational field.)

When oppositely charged proton and electron are attracted towards each other the strength of the fields and the size of the fields decrease as they form a neutron molecule.

When two magnets with the same polarity are forced together the strength of the magnetic field and its size decrease as they grow closer. As two electrons are forced together the strength and size of the negative electric field increases.

Energy-t tries to combine objects into larger objects while the negative field of matter keeps objects as separate entities. As the force from energy-t pulls objects closer, the repelling electric field from matter increases, keeping them apart.

When an increase in the energy field occurs it sets up an oscillation where the resulting increase in repelling force from matter pushes back. This is how radiated energy works.

To understand how radiated energy interacts with matter we will use a molecule containing two atoms (diatomic molecule). The model for the molecule is two donuts connected by a flexible and stretchable bond that allow the molecule to flex and the atoms to move closer and further apart.

The atoms are held together by the force of energy-t. In a two atom molecule the atoms spin in opposite direction. This means that if there where are eight or fewer electrons in the outer orbits of the two atoms (Because atoms are formed from the combination of energy-t and matter the matter is contained in an equatorial disk just like a solar system or galaxy, not shells.) the electrons would mesh like gears allowing the energy-t force to pull them closer forming a stable molecule.

The donuts represent the electric fields of the molecule where there is a weak electric field in the center of the atoms (where the positive charge of the protons cancels the negative charge of the electrons), a stronger negative field at the ends of the molecules, and the strongest negative field at the bond between the two atoms.

If there is a flexing of the molecule at the bond, the motion of the atoms will create a disturbance in the surrounding fields radiating energy to it. If there is a disturbance in the surrounding fields that allows a negative wave peak over the bond and a more positive wave peaks over the center of the atoms it will cause a flexing of the molecule and transfer energy to it.

It is the length of the bonds and the number of bonds that determine what energy a molecule can absorb and what energy it radiates. A molecule with multiple bonds can absorb short wave lengths (matching the bonds in it) and convert them into longer wave lengths as the absorbed energy is distributed to the entire molecule.

A molecule can absorb and radiate energy of the same wave length so what determines if energy is absorbed or radiated?

The energy of an electromagnetic wave is a function of its wavelength/frequency. An oxygen atom with a velocity of x passes in front of a sensor designed to detect changes in the electric field. It will produce a wave as the electric field of the atom move towards the sensor and away from it.  The oxygen atom will have energy of E.

The detector will not register the change in the electric field produced by the atom. If an electron is removed from the oxygen atom creating an ion when it moves past the sensor with a speed of x it will have the same energy (E) as the oxygen atom but the sensor will absorb some of this energy and register a change in the electric field.

If two electrons are removed from the oxygen atom and it is propelled in front of the sensor with a speed of x and energy of E, the sensor will absorb more energy and register a greater change in the electric field.

While the energy of an electromagnetic wave is a function of its wavelength the absorption of that energy is a function of the amplitude of the wave. If the wave heights in the fields surrounding a molecule is greater than the flexing across the molecules bond the field will transfer energy to the molecule increasing the flexing.

If the flexing across the bond is greater than the amplitude of the waves in the surround filed the molecule will transfer energy to the field and the amplitude of the flexing will decrease. In both these cases energy will be lost and the wavelengths emitted by the molecule or in the surrounding fields will grow longer.

When the amplitude of the waves in the field and the flex of the molecules bond are the same no energy will be transferred and equilibrium will be established.

This is how radiated energy works and why the speed of light is not constant but varies with the strength of  the energy-t field.

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.

## Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

• ### OneShotOrgan

|

Well done. I’d love to hear more about the slaying of the greenhouse effect on a molecular level like this.

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi OneShotOrgan,
I wrote an article showing how the molecules, atoms, and ions in the upper atmosphere have more energy than the molecules in the lower atmosphere because they absorb high energy uv light and x-rays and heat the lower atmosphere but it was too weird for John. There is a fine line between being a free thinker and being a crackpot and John knows better than I when it is crossed.
Herb

|

What a load of NONSENSE Herb!

Simple temperature measurements carried out in every plane flight confirm that the temperature decreases with increasing altitude in the troposphere, and so the mean molecular kinetic energy in the upper troposphere is lower than at the base of the troposphere in accord with Kinetic Theory.

You are totally and utterly WRONG Herb Rose in saying the top is warmer. Just under half way up the troposphere the solar radiation maintains a mean of about 250K. Do you want to claim the surface is cooler? (LOL)

What happens was explained in three brilliant papers that present a major breakthrough in the field of atmospheric physics. You all at PSI should study them carefully as many thousands of others have at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605 or at https://www.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871/detail/recent-activity/documents/ or at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Cotton/research but not yet on PSI because, although containing the only possible explanation of temperatures and heat transfers in all planets, it must have been “too weird for John” who does not understand the esoteric 21st century physics therein. I cannot emphasise enough just how brilliant is this research and the explanation is clearly based strictly on the laws of physics.

• ### Jerry Krause

|

Hi Herb,

You wrote: “There is no photon. The photon, or particle nature of light, was created in order to treat radiated energy like the familiar kinetic energy but there is no similarity between them. Light or radiated is a wave, or disturbance, traveling in the fields that surround objects and are produced by objects.”

In these pronouncements, which seem to form the foundation for your reasoning, you do not provide specific observations for them. According to your last statement you require the ‘old idea’, which old scientists have concluded on the basis of an experiment result, I believe. I say I believe because I am not a physicist with their understanding (abilities) which I do not possess. And I see no evidence that you have the achievements that a few of the old physicists have had.

When you conclude, “Light or radiated [radiation?] is a wave, or disturbance, traveling in the fields that surround objects and are produced by objects.”, I can understand you assume all space to be filled with ‘objects’ [ether?].

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### chris

|

I’m an engineer. The problem that I had with the photon concept in physics was that there would have to be a photon for each different kind of light. Visible, UV, IR, etc.

• ### Jerry Krause

|

Hi Chris,

You wrote: “there would have to be a photon for each different kind of light. Visible, UV, IR, etc.” This is absolutely correct. And for each wavelength of the electromagnetic sprectra from the shortest wavelength to the longest wave length. What is the problem with this?

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi Jerry,
The justification for the photon is the photo electric effect where there is an immediate current. The reasoning was that if light were a wave it would take time for the wave to add enough energy (quantum) to dislodge an electron from an atom. Einstein proposed the photon where a bundle of waves acted like a particle even thought had no mass. The fallacy lies in the objection. In crystals and metals electrons are already separated from atoms and exist as ions held by ionic or metal bonds. All a wave needs to do is provide enough energy of the right wavelength to distort a bond and free the electron. The photoelectric effect is the same as the piezo electric effect where mechanical pressure on a crystal distorts a bond and causes an electric current.
Deep space does have matter. 1 hydrogen atom per cubic cm.
Have a good day,
Herb

• ### Jerry Krause

|

Hi Herb,

Can you give me a reference to where and when Einstein proposed that a photon was “a bundle of waves”?

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi Jerry,
I can’t give you a reference because I thought it was common knowledge. A photon is a particle with no mass created to explain both the photoelectric effect and the interference pattern of light produced in the Young experiment. Because they could not reconcile both the wave nature and the apparent need for kinetic energy they gave their ignorance a name “photon” and called it knowledge. Physicist could treat light as a particle or a wave depending on what they wanted.
Have a good day,
Herb

• ### Jerry Krause

|

Hi Herb,

Do you understand anyone can think anything, but that does not make what they think correct?

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### geran

|

Herb, did you mean to have this posted on April 1st? If you messed up and posted it early, thanks. It is definitely hilarious.

I don’t know which is funnier, your made-up terms (energy-t) or your confused examples (“…magnetism decreases with distance just like a spotlight where mirrors direct all the emitted light in one direction”)

Hilarious.

Now you will have to do something even funnier for April 1st. I can’t wait.

• ### Carbon Bigfoot

|

I love it when Herb & Jerry spar. We lowly Ch E s study just enough to make us dangerous but thermodynamics, unit operations of chemical processes, physical chemistry and reaction kinetics was our preoccupation. One of the concepts the atomic structure, i.e., the Rutherford Model never made any sense to me. Particle Physics was not emphasized as much as the organic modeling of hydrocarbons so went happily on with my life for 50+ years.
Over the last year I have been fighting the installation of Smart Meters on my property in SE Pennsylvania and In August of last year I attended the 5G Summit on line to understand the science behind the biological impacts of EMF/RF/EMI microwave & millimeter wave radiation to defend my Formal Complaint filed with Public Utility Commission ( still on going an will not be resolved any time soon ) and an epiphany took place.
One of the speakers discussed a different concept of atomic structure:
When you look at a cell under the microscope, or whatever, what you can actually see is a torroidal field, a kind of donut shape. And you can see that there’s a black hole in the middle of that. And that’s where there is a zero point. So the zero point is the central point within each atom of everything whether it’s a table, a human being, etc.
And what it’s doing is it centering that light ring. So effectively, what they are saying is that from that zero point field, which is a magnetic field, which is actually a still charged, so there’s no charge going on in that field. And from that field emanates a light ring, which constitutes the cell in your body. So it’s effectively the science behind how we are actually light beings.
And that electrical current, or that light ring follows certain laws of nature. And the laws of nature that it compresses the light ring to form it, or constitute the matter in your body. And then it expands that light ring and discharges it to the ether. So it’s following in rapid succession, this process of almost living and dying, living and dying, living and dying. How about them apples Herb & Jerry?

• ### Herb Rose

|

Hi Carbon,
I’m not sure what you are saying so I will try to explain what I am trying to say. Atoms have two fields magnetic (from energy) and electric (from matter). Because the positive electric charge is located in the center of the atom, even though the atom as a whole is neutral, it will have a negative charge at its surface. When energy is added to an atom/molecule (where the magnetic fields have combined) the magnetic attraction between it and neighboring atoms/molecules increases pulling them closer together. This action compresses the negative charges of the atom surfaces increasing the force that is keeping the atoms/molecules apart which then pushes the atoms/molecules apart. It is this oscillation of moving together then separating that is the electromagnetic wave or light that transmits energy through the fields of objects. The right hand rule says that the motion of the wave will be perpendicular to both the magnetic and electric fields of the atoms/molecules so the disturbance is transmitted from one atom/molecule to neighboring atoms/molecules.
I do not know if this helps but I don’t understand what you mean by “light rings”. I think of everything as being composed of energy and matter and “light” is the flow of energy in the object and to other objects.
Herb

• ### Jerry Krause

|

Hi Carbon,

Thank you for giving me (us) some insight as to your experiences. 50+ years. Before going much further I need to ask, given your pseudo name and this comment, what organic textbook did you use in organic chemistry?

But I will admit I had to look up what the Rutherford Model of the atom was and when I found out what it was I am quite certain I never studied it a student and as an instructor. What I remember is the Rutherford experiment which directed attention to what the atom had to be: something with its mass in its tiny center with 99.999+ percent of the atoms mass and the rest of the atom’s volume empty space. Hence, the gold foil a solid, was not at all solid. A revolutionary experimental ‘truth’ which no classical physicist nor chemist ever considered (imagined).

You then wrote, concerning your epiphany, “so there’s no charge going on in that field.” In that empty space of about the positively charged nucleus and its electrical field is tiny, tiny electrons with almost no mass, be still mass, which makes them matter and not merely energy like light, each with a electrical negative charge the equal of the positive charge of a proton.

And therein entered the physicist–Schrodinger. Using what could be considered a classical wave theory of physics.

But before this, there was Niels Bohr and the observed line sprectra of the hydrogen discharge tube. And Bohr explained this line sprectra with a planetary model of the atom in which the electrons orbited the nucleus as the planets orbited the sun. This is the transition model of the atom I studied and taught. But I taught my students this planetary model could not be correct because it could not explain the structure seen of a snow flake.

The history of observation and imagined theory is very, very important.

Have a good day, Jerry

• ### Carbon Bigfoot

|

Herb & Jerry I am totally surprised that you brilliant minds have never hear about the Tesla Disciple, Dr. Illia Lakicevic and his JULA Model.as explained in this Youtube video (starting at 36:00) which has been around since 2012..I have not studied this theory in depth and I am not a physicist—but the experimental demonstration I believe can not be dismissed out of hand.
Not that I understand why you ( Jerry ) are requesting but I studied Organic Chemistry under a Sun Oil employee, a Dr. Leum utilizing a 2nd Edition of Morrison & Boyd, 4th Edition of Perry’s ChE Handbook and revised 10th of Lange’s. I studied P-Chem under a Navy Scientist, a Dr. Verderami using the 3rd Ed. of Daniels & Alberty’s Physical Chemistry. All at Drexel University-hope that helps.

Herb I’m not sure I can answer your questions because this theory dismantles most conventional understanding of atomic physical structure, magnetic fields, frequency and oscillation. and the imbalance of agitated energy the human body attempts to balance from microwave radiation.

• ### Jerry Krause

|

Hi Carbon,

You were lucky to have studied organic chemistry from a professor who had industrial experience and used Morrison & Boyd as a textbook. Except, based upon what you have written and I have read, I wonder if you have grasped the significance of the following which I suspect you read.

“The Structural Theory (page 3) “Organic chemistry nowadays almost drives me mad. To me it appears like a primeval tropical forest full of the most remarkable things, a dreadful endless jungle into which one does not dare enter for there seems to be no way out.” (Friedrich Wohler, 1835)”

I was not so lucky and my organic chemistry professors (undergraduate and graduate school) did not assignment us Morrison & Boyd’s textbook. And therefore I know about that “dreadful endless jungle” which I had to petition that be allowed to continue my graduate studies because I really earned a C the last quarter of the remedial organic course I was officially required to earn a B or better.

So, I had not read what Morrison & Boyd wrote directly following Wohler’s quote until as a chemistry instructor at a community college I began to teach an organic course for ‘chemistry and chemical engineer majors.

For these authors continued: “How can we even begin to study a subject of such enormous complexity? Is organic chemistry today as Wohler saw it a century and a half ago? The jungle is still there–largely unexplored–and in it are more remarkable things than Wohler ever dreamed of. But, so long as we do not wander too far too fast, we can enter without fear of losing our way, for we have a chart: the structural theory.”

Therefore, because you never entered that jungle without the chart of the structural theory, you do not seem to fully appreciate the structural theory which allowed Watson and Crick, with the results of Rosalind Elsie Franklin’s X-ray diffraction measurements, to determine the structure of the DNA molecule.

This is a history; but Herb do not tell me, or any one else, that it is not science and that meteorology is not a SCIENCE because it has a history of discovery.

Have a good day, Jerry