Plants and waves of light

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].
[4] Borchardt, 2017, ibid, Figure 19.

No comments: