🚀 go-pugleaf

John Sefton <john@petcom.com> wrote in message news:<40C12A7B.5050502@petcom.com>...
> Sergey Karavashkin wrote:

> 
> http://www.petcom.com/~john/
> Galaxy model for atom

Dear John,

I looked through your web pages with a great interest, but at the same
time with many questions to you. I will try to tell, how I see it, and
you will correct my opinion, where I'm wrong, either point more
clearly your statements.

First of all, as far as I could understand, your formulations are
based not on physical regularities but on intuitive guess, on analogy
with galactic spirals. In particular, in the chapter 'Pushy' Gravity,
page 4, you, grounding on observed spiral arms of galaxies, introduce
magnetic spiral arms in galaxies and atoms, doing not substantiating
the cause of their origin. As opposite, in our paper we first
substantiate the cause of origin of spiral field of charges, then on
its basis we model the processes in atoms and galaxies. The more, we
emphasise, the causes are different in atoms and galaxies, the
structure is the same. So there not necessarily has to be two arms,
and we gave examples.

In the item 2, Galaxy Model: How light and Neutrinos Might be modelled
by Spinning Charge-Pairs, you model the photon as a pair of revolving
opposite charges moving with the speed of light. I will not touch the
very problem, how much appropriate and viable is the photon theory, I
much enough told of it in the newsgroups. I would only like to point
some things important in view of your ideas.

First, if a pair of opposite charges revolves around each other, at
definite intervals of their trajectory their velocity inevitably will
exceed the light velocity. With it they will lead their own radiation,
which is certainly impossible.

Second, the charge and mass of a body are indivisible, still no one
observed an opposite. So you can of course claim the absence of mass,
but before modelling on such grounds, it would be not excessive to
substantiate it experimentally. Otherwise your photon will be massive
and its departure from trajectory in the field of gravitating bodies
will be noticeable, just as of a ball.

Third, when the charges make a pair, their rotation axis has to be
strongly perpendicular to the direction of motion, which is impossible
in view of gyroscopes on whose theory you are basing.

Fourth, if you suppose that the period of EM wave contains many
photons, they inevitably have to be charged, as EM field varies its
magnitude both in space and time. A pair of mutually rotating charges
cannot provide it. In order photon to be not charged, it has to
contain exactly a period of wave, then I would ask you to calculate
the orbit of your charges in a radio wave.

Fifth, the idea of photon means not only its propagation in space but
also that material bodies radiate and absorb it. Which energy can pass
a closed system in collision, for example, with an electron? Note, it
has not mass, but even if it had, the pulse of affection will be
directed along the motion, not perpendicularly, as it takes place when
E-field interacted with a charge.

Sixth, how will you provide non-interaction of photons in the crossing
beams? The wave physics explains it by the wave superposition which is
easily modelled even on the water surface. In case of photons, and
especially of your kind of photons, this would be very, very
problematic.

Seventh, if two charges are mutually rotating, they form a dipole and
have to deflect in E-field. There have been conducted very many
experiments on the light deflection in magnetic and electric fields,
but nothing of the kind was revealed.

Finally, what is your idea of stability of such system of charges? 

Note, each of these questions is enough to prove your conception
untrue. And these are far from all questions which arise when reading
your conception of photons.

The next question will be about your diagram of orbiting charge in
your H-animation. You spent so much labour, but I don't see the
statement of problem, nor the experimental analogues of this
complicated revolution. You mention the Earth in this connection, but
the Moon's orbit is not so complicated. The rings of Saturn also do
not follow such trajectories, and the whole planetary system is
arranged as a disk, not as an eight. In this connection, I would like
to know better your substantiation of such motion of orbiting bodies.
But if it was only your intuition, believe me, without sound
substantiation of the system of forces they are not viable.

I look forward to hear your explanation of these points.

Sergey