PSI Blog 20190710 Plants and waves of light
Abhishek Chakravartty asks:
If
light is a wave and not a particle, then how is it possible that plants use
light to make food during the process of photosynthesis?
[GB:
Thanks for the question. This essentially is what Maxwell answered in 1862 when
he invented the E=mc2 equation. I explained it
in "Infinite Universe Theory" with this quote from Ricker, which was buried
in the glossary:
“The derivation of E=mc2
originates from Maxwell’s formula [f = δE/cδt] which equates the force exerted
on an absorbing body at the rate energy is received by the body. Since force is
also the rate of the change of momentum of the body, which, by the conservation
of momentum, is also the rate of change in the momentum of the radiation, the
momentum lost by the radiation is equal to 1/c times the energy delivered to
the body, or M = E/c. If the momentum of the radiation of a mass is M times the
velocity c of the radiation, the equation m = E/c2 is derived.”[1]
Get that? Didn’t think so. Now let me illustrate how it
works from the simple neomechanical point of view. Remember that neomechanics
describes everything in terms of two fundamental phenomena:
matter and the motion of matter. Photosynthesis is a convergence, the opposite
of the divergence described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The result is
the same whether light is construed as a particle or whether it is construed as
a wave in a medium filled with particles. As seen in Figure 17, supermicrocosms
(particles outside) transfer motion across the microcosmic boundary speeding up
the submicrocosms (particles inside) in the microcosm of the plant.
Figure 17 ABSORPTION OF MOTION. A high-velocity
supermicrocosm collides with and transfers motion to a low-velocity
submicrocosm (internal microcosm). As a result, submicrocosms inside are
accelerated slightly to the right.[2]
As a result, the internal constituents of the
microcosm (plant leaf in this example) are thought to be “energized.” Whether light
is considered a particle or a wave, the result is the same. Regressives,
following Einstein, view light as a photon that has traveled all the way from
the sun, while progressives view light as particle-to-particle motion in an aether
filled with particles. Both types of motion are in accord with the Fourth
Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no
motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).
Incidentally, this process is similar to the “photoelectric
effect” for which Einstein received his only Nobel Prize. Because light is a wave
in a sea of particles, its interaction with baryonic (ordinary) matter always is
digital. That gave rise to Planck’s “smallest unit of motion” and, among aether
deniers, the “wave-particle duality” theory of light and consequent confusion
in quantum mechanics. The photon supposedly brings its own packet of waves
along with it through Einstein’s perfectly empty space. The wave-particle
paradox will disappear when aether denial disappears.
Of course, the opposite effect occurs during atomic fission.[3]
Motion is emitted to the macrocosm (the surroundings of the fissioning atom,
which includes adjacent atoms, the atmosphere, and, most importantly, the
aetherosphere).[4] Without
aether being present to receive that motion across the microcosmic boundary, we
are left with the phantasmagorical image of energy flitting through Einstein’s
perfectly empty space. This magical energy stuff is said by regressives to be similar
to the mass from which it was derived. Of course, “energy” is neither matter
nor motion; it is an equation.
Mass/energy Conversion
Once one accepts the reality of aether, the “conversion
of mass into energy” is simple. Remember, mass is resistance to acceleration. As
explained by neomechanics, this resistance is due to the motion of
submicrocosms. It is why all microcosms must have submicrocosms infinitum and
why there can be no finite, ultimate particle that gives mass to all things. The
idea of massless particles is forbidden by neomechanics as well as the E=mc2
equation. The resistance produced by submicrocosms is best viewed as internal momentum
(P=mv), which increases when submicrocosms receive impacts from across the microcosmic
boundary (Figure 17). It is why a hot cup of tea temporarily has more mass than
a cold one; it is why a hot leaf has more mass than a cold one.
Again, the reverse process occurs during the emission
of motion. Mass decreases during cooling because internal motion is transmitted
to the environment, whether it is the atmosphere, the aetherosphere, or your
finger. So all we are seeing with these mass/energy conversions are simple
reflections of the locations and motions of things. They describe absorption
and emission of motion per Newton's Second Law of Motion. The phenomena do not change
just because they occur across the microcosmic boundary.
There is no such thing as “mass” (it’s a measurement); there is no such thing
as “energy” (it’s a measurement).
In conclusion, be reminded of all this the next time
you look at a plant undergoing photosynthesis. Our wonderful Sun is emitting a
special kind of motion that travels to Earth as waves in the aether. These
waves, like the waves produced by sound, occur in a medium filled with
particles experiencing short-range motion sufficient to accelerate the
constituents of microcosms necessary for our survival.]
[1] Ricker, H.H., 2015, The origin of the equation E=mc^2,
Accessed 20171022 [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Ricker15mc2origin]. [The true author of this quote is
unclear. It was not Ricker. More info at: http://go.glennborchardt.com/emc2origin
in the Einstein section].
[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory:
Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 349 p.
[http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].
[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2,
Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p.
27-31 [10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643]. [My most popular publication, with 4,733 reads on ResearchGate.net].
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment