What is a Photon?

RM:Affectance Ontology has a photon of light as what could be called a “puff of affectance”. In contemporary physics terms, affectance is ultra minuscule electromagnetic pulses. When those pulses are randomly directed, they constitute a mass or gravity field. When they are uniformly directed, they are observed as a “photon of electromagnetic radiation”. A photon is merely a puff of gravitational field energy or a puff of extremely low concentrated mass.

They debate the issue of whether a photon is a wave or a particle because such an affectance puff would at times seem as either. There is not an actual sinusoidal wave, like you see in diagrams. A photon comes closer to being a tiny cloud than a wave. And those clouds can be combined such as to behave much like an ocean wave. Of course, once combined, the many clouds are not longer many, but rather one oddly shaped traveling cloud that can produce a variety of effects.

A crude diagrammatic image of a photon:

Photons don’t actually have a true, physical wavelength as such. They have what is effectively a wavelength. They might as well have a wavelength for all practical purposes in physics (almost). They do have an overall length and width but those features can change dramatically without altering the energy content or assigned “wavelength”. Merely reflecting a photon off of a mirrored surface alters its physical shape. The density of the puff of affectance can be greater or lesser and thus produce higher or lower energy photons. If such puffs were to be compressed sufficiently, they would become tiny mass particles (“neutrinos”) traveling as extreme speeds. People experience colors because of the energy requirements of their variety of optic cells.

Such tiny puffs of electromagnetic affectance get produced most often by atoms as electrons drop their orbit distance around the nucleus. The affectance squirts out from between the electron and the nucleus in a straight line as a short puff traveling at light speed. The fact that most of the energy of the minuscule pulses is traveling in almost exactly same direction causes the pulses to stay together and thus seem much like a “particle”. And in addition, if touching and not running into too much randomizing interference from the ambient field, such minuscule pulses will inherently migrate a little closer to each other although cannot increase their individual density of affectance pulses. Affectance adheres to affectance. This allows such tiny little puffs to bend around objects without dissipating as if they were a true “solid” particle.

The speed of travel of these photons (the “speed of light”) depends upon the density of their ambient affectance (“mass/gravity field”). When traveling near massive objects where the mass field is strong, they travel slower. The tiny portion of each photon that is closer to the object travels a tiny bit slower than the rest of the photon and thus causes the photon puff to gradually veer toward the direction of the object. In contemporary physics, this effect is called “gravitational lensing” and depicted below as a light source passes behind a black-hole:

The higher density photons are more greatly affected by higher density mass fields and thus bend more strongly. When photons travel through materials, such as glass, they are close enough to the mass particles to be strongly affected and thus bend their travel course into the greater density material. Prisms will cause the separation of the higher density portions of affectance from the lower as the puffs pass through and thereby separate the colors/densities.

The speed of propagation of a photon through a simple ambient field (void of winds and gradients) can be calculated from the combined densities of the photon and the ambient field:

C = (1- (ad0+ad1) / (1 + ad0*ad1))

wherein C is the speed of the photon, ad0 is the affectance density of the ambient field (the “mass field”), and ad1 is the affectance density of the photon (its “color”). Note the when they refer to a “constant speed of light”, they are referring to the “constant speed of light in a truly absolute vacuum” of nothingness (which can’t ever actually exist).

According to the current mainstream physics everything becomes faster near massive objects (because of the gravitation), but according to the affectance ontology photons become slower near massive objects. I know according to the affectance ontology there is no pushing and pulling. Do the density of the photon’s ambient affectance (“mass/gravity field”) and the near massive objects (because they are also affectance) strengthen each other, so that we have to add their amounts together and note that both slow down the speed of travel of that said photon?

?? Did you mean “smaller”? Objects become smaller but not faster, according to both contemporary physics and RM:AO. In relativity perspective, the objects do not change at all, but rather everything else changes in reverse (relativists are extremely self centered).

True.

If I read that right, the answer would be “yes”.

A higher density (aka “shorter wavelength”) photon travels slower through high density fields (aka “strong gravity” or dense materials such as glass) than lower density photons, even if the field has no material objects such as atoms in it, as expressed by the equation:

The density of both the field and the photon combine in order to cause the eventual speed of the photon through the field. If either the field or the photon were higher, the photon would travel slower.

And you might note that affectance is measured as:

I meant the fact that if two objects come closer then the orbital speed of the less massive increases. For example: The orbital speed of the Moon was higher when the Moon was closer to the Earth. Today the orbital speed of the Moon is lower than it was at the time when the Moon and the Earth were much closer than today.

What about the rotation?

The physicist call that effect “synchronisation” or “synchronous rotation”. Today the Moon shows us always the same side, becasue the Moon is synchronisated by the Earth.

I’m not familiar with any theories of the Moon having been closer, but then such isn’t my field. As far as orbiting things moving faster, there are two separate issues.

As an object falls, it accelerates simply because it is accumulating velocity (accumulating more and more directed affectance in the direction of its travel). Although the gravitational effect brought about that acceleration, the speed is entirely an issue of how fast the object was already going at any particular altitude. If a ball is dropped from 10 meters above the Earth, at 9 meters, it isn’t moving very fast. But if that same ball was dropped from 100 meters, at 9 meters it would be move quite fast.

The other issue involves the required speed in order to maintain an orbit. The orthogonal speed of an object (relative to the gravitational vector) is what allows the object to avoid falling closer to the Earth. If the object is closer to the Earth, the gravitational effect is stronger and thus the object must have a greater orthogonal velocity to maintain a momentum sufficient to offset the greater gravitational effect. At a greater distance the object can maintain an orbit while moving much slower simply because the gravitational effect is much weaker.

If the orthogonal speed of the Moon was to be slowed, the Moon would begin to fall toward Earth. As it fell, it would accelerate. If it had not been slowed too much, the Moon would keep accelerating while still moving orthogonally and thus quickly rush just past the Earth in a new very elliptical orbit. Following the path of that ellipse, the Moon would slow as it progressed away from Earth because the Earth is providing a gravitational effect against the Moon’s velocity. And as the Moon turned and headed back toward Earth, it would gain velocity again because that same gravitational effect is with its velocity.

If the Moon was to be brought closer to the Earth without also being orthogonally propelled faster, it would spiral down and hit the Earth because its orthogonal momentum would not be sufficient to compensate for the increased gravitational effect from being closer tot he Earth.

Is that what you were talking about?

Of course photons of light are only very, very slightly effected by the Earth’s mass field (not counting the atmosphere effects). Very technically speaking a photon does not have what they call “mass” (which would require directionally randomized affectance within it), but it is still made of the same substance, “affectance”, and thus is still inspired to migrate closer to mass objects just as if it had the same kind of mass as mass objects have (“rest mass”).

I don’t know if anyone has ever talked about this before, but photons have momentum and thus could be inspired to orbit an extremely massive object such as a black hole and thereby forming a “ring of light” around the equator, similar to the rings around Saturn. Of course one could not see those rings without being in the path of the orbiting light. And interestingly, the rings would actually be a rainbow of rings as each distinct photon density, “color”, found its separate orbit distance. Perhaps that is what causes some of the observed light that seems to shine from some black holes as mass particles get struck by the orbiting photons (not that all of the colliding, exploding, and fissioning already going on wouldn’t be enough).

And just as with the Moon, if such orbiting light was to veer too close to the black hole, it would merely spiral down into the black-hole to become a part of its horrendous mass.

But unlike the Moon analogy, when light “falls” closer to a mass object, it does not accelerate, but rather slows down to eventually disperse into the chaos of affectance that composes a black-hole. It is important to note that black-holes are not made of matter material like stars and planets. There are not atoms involved. And that means that its gravitational field has a different gradient than normal mass objects (that gravitational constant “G” doesn’t apply).

A photon is a moving spin/wave. Light moves through the aether like the cogs in a watch using alternate left and right spinning cogs (ethons) which carry the light wave forward. The ethons are spinning at the speed of light. (The ethons are unattached until a wave pushes them together.) Thus, light is carried by the inherent spin speed of the ethons which is a signature aggregate speed of the universe. Note - Its is logically impossible for light to generate its own speed. The speed of light is way too fast for it to be generated from the source. Other wave forms are much slower because they rely on the source to give them energy to move forward.

Years ago, I thought photons of light were spinning. Rational Metaphysics taught me better. They have nothing to do with spinning. They are merely puffs of that stuff that you are calling “aether”, or more accurately, “affectance”.

Spinning is the only way that the forces of the universe can be united, so I guess you’ll have get used to it!

Again, you remind me of Carleas, “it’s the only thing that I can manage to figure out, therefore it is the only possibility.”

And yeah, I’m used to guys like you.

I have been working on this problem for 40 years. I didn’t just trip over it accidentally. My theory makes sense logically, mathematically and rationally. All the pieces click together like pieces of Lego. The common denominator of spin is the key to understanding how the universe works. Once you have the key you can unlock all the mysteries of the universe.

Well, I’m sure it wasn’t a total waste of your time. It probably took me 40 years to decide to think about it. But then only a few years to get it worked out and another couple to prove it.

Not entirely. And that makes all the difference.

Well, being one who actually has that “key”, I have to conclude that you do not.

What do you imagine causes a photon to spin (or anything else for that matter)?

Its not exactly a photon that spins. For a start, there is no such thing as a photon.

Now that we have got that out of the way, I can explain the true picture, as I see it.

First, the aether contains left and right spinning ethons (particles of aether). These particles spin at the speed of light. How do I know this, you might ask? Easy - E=MC2 The Einstein equation virtually screams this out for everybody to see. Thus, the spin energy of two particles of aether which collide and stop spinning will give out the energy of the speed of light squared. This is how the sun works. This is confirmed by the fact that the atmosphere of the sun is millions of times hotter than the sun’s interior or surface.

Note - Spin is the only logical way that the universe can store energy. If you want to make some electricity, what do you do? You have to rub two surfaces together. And what does the rubbing action do? It creates spin energy!

Now, back to light transference. The aether particles which are in what we call ‘empty space’ are alternate left and right spin ethons. These particles spin at the speed of light but are unattached to one another. When a light wave interacts with the aether, it pushes the aether particles together. This creates a two dimensional spin wave. Note - Each wave is diametrically opposed in a circular motion to the other. The spin action creates a temporary form of mass as the wave moves forward. Thus, this explains the photoelectric effect.

Emmm… okay…

• “Now you can explain what you see as the true picture”.

First, “spin at the speed of light” doesn’t make any sense. Even Einstein knew that his relativity concepts could not be applied to spinning objects. But what radius are you thinking of when you say “at the speed of light”? Why is the “ethon particle” holding together if spinning so fast? And of what are they made?

I think it is just as feasible that fairy mites cause it when you aggravate them or get them dizzy. They spit out electric sparks.

So of what is the “light” made?

People, don’t you all think that you are looking at this from a far too teleological viewpoint? A foton being an object, having mass… Has anyone ever SEEN a photon? Or only it’s effects? And what was that with the photons through the hole again? Interference? How can 1 photon have a wavelength?

How about we switch to deontology and try to accept that how we perceive this photon is only a phenomenon? Then let us try to figure out what that thing in itself is that can appear to be a wavelength and a particle to us?

Already did that. That is what the OP is explaining.

Who said that an ethon exists in our dimension? What happens in the sub-atomic world happens in a different dimension to ours, where time has a different meaning. In this world, the ethon can spin at what ever speed it likes. To us, the atom can only appear as a blur. This is because things are happening at the speed of light, which is a dimensional signature. You need to have a good imagination to understand how the universe works, being smart or intellectual doesn’t work.

So, you can make electricity by not rubbing two objects together? Good luck!

Light is a spin/wave. Its not made of anything. Your not paying attention. (Mass is just left and right ethons in rotation around one another.)

Oh, I see. It is from the [size=150]Magical Dimension[/size].

That is pretty trivial actually. Been doing that since high school (or earlier).

…can’t imagine why.

Then what are all of you talkng about for so long?
If we take energy as a movement and we place that into the mental construt that our minds are capable of (inside the conditional space and time) and we try to examine 1 specific moment of this noumenon, the phenomenon we get will always be a particle idea; because we placed it in a space time framework (which is the only thing our brains are wired to do) and the we stop time…

===EDIT===
So, guess you all are still talking about the phenomenon?

Well, I was talking about an ontological element commonly called a “photon”, a bit of light. Platospuppy proposed and has argued his own theory stating that photons don’t actually exist and that light isn’t made of anything at all.

Science to date has been arguing about how photons seem to behave like particles at times and like waves at other times. I proposed Affectance ontology as a different way of examining light (and all existence) which expresses a photon of light being merely a small "puff of affectance (affectance being the most underlying field/substance of the entire universe, much like aether).

Maybe I missed that part. I’ll read back.