I posted a theory I had been working on in my mind for 30 years to a few respected physics forums 2 years ago. To this date no one has disqualified any part of it.
Feel free to ask questions, but not until you have at least attempted to read and understand a short synapsis. One argument I will not entertain is conflicts with existing theory disqualify it, that is the alternate 'mainstream' theory cannot be used to 'debunk' this new theory.
Here is the theory, which has reached that level of recognition due to it's falsifiability through dozens of experiments and the support it has in all known observations, as well as the fact no one has ever cast serious doubt on the viability of it:

Electro-mechanical theory Of Electromagnetic Energy

Electro-mechanical electromagnetic radiation theory explained

It is accepted as fact that protons, electrons and neutrons exist, and these particles are the components that make up the vast majority of the mass of the matter around us. Though electrons have a very small mass, the energy stored in thier motion is significant, because thier velocities around the nucleus are substantial. Each orbital shell of an atom possesses what is called an "energy level", this energy level being effected by the electrons distance from the nucleus . So electrons in a "low energy shell" possess less energy than one in a "high energy shell". In conventional electromagnetic theory, electromagnetic radiation is emmited in the form of a massless particle known as a photon when an electron "drops" from a higher energy to a lower energy, This photon is represented in conventional theory as not only a massless particle, but one that possesses and can transmit energy in the form of a wave. There are several conflicts with conventional physics in this theory. Up until this point kenetic energy had been described as mass in motion. represented by the simple formula:

Velocity equals the square root of 2 times kenetic energy over mass.

Excuse me if I dont write these formulas as its impossible to do so in this forum. The photon defys this well proven formula by possesing energy, and apparently no mass.

According to this" hypothysis", the photon does not exist. The fact that this photon does not exist. is evident it has never been isolated or fully defined in a logical fashion. The definition of a photon itself is dependant on another dubious theory, and this new theory doesnt rely on any such theory for its conclusions..


What Is Electromagnetic radiation?


In conventional theory, electromagnetic radiation is defined as massless particles emitted from atoms when electrons move from a higher to a lower energy level.

::This energy is radiated moving in waveforms of various frequencies, the shorter wavelengths possesing the higher energy levels.::

Make a mental note for future reference that the highlighted part is NOT theory, but proven ,undisputed fact . The precedeing paragraph, however, is unproven, though anecdotal evidence does tend to support the belief.
What is electromagnetic energy (cont.)

The wave form frequency and energy level relationship are important to this new theory , and later you will see why. With electromagnetic energy, the higher the frequency, the more energy a given amplitude of electromagnetic radiation can transmit through space(and matter).
In conventional ways, we can observe that other physical manifestations of waveforms do not obey the same energy/frequency relationship as electromagnetic waves, with energy transmitted by a specific wave dependant mainly on amplitude .

Electromagnetic energy is thought of as oscillating , coupled electric and magnetic fields that travel freely through space at the speed of light.Notice the word electric and the word magnetic, the accepted (coupled)components of electromagnetic waves. Visable light itself is of course a low energy electromagnetic wave that our eyes have receptors to sense.
Other forms of waves cannot pass through open space, only the electromagnetic wave is capable of this phenomenon.


Quantifying the Energy Of Electron Orbits

Though is seems a giant leap of faith at this point to consider the electron as a partical moving in a waveform, just to explain a stable orbit, observations do bear out this likelyhood,as shall later be explained.

Integer( wavelength )=2pi(radius of orbit)


Energy levels Explained

When a particle is going around in a circle, the speed of the particle is related to the force applied outward, and therefor the force holding it in place. It is neccesary that a force exists because the direction of motion is constantly changing.
This force is the energy contained withen electromagnetic energy.
Note that this does not conflict with Bohrs model of the atom.
The wavelength of the electromagnetic wave is related to the velocity of the associated particle,in this case an electron.
This force is the "electrical force of attraction" between the electron and proton, in turn depends on the radius of the orbit. In this way it could be desceibed as an electro-mechanical model.


The "orbitals" are energy levels and they occur in steps.

Let us assign the variable Y to given orbital(integer)

energy of "Y" orbital= -13.6/(Y)(Y) electron volts


1 electron Volt = 1.6 x 10-19 Joules
This represents the amount of energy gained when an electron is accelerated by 1 electron volt.
This includes the electical and kinetic energy of the electron.Higher energy states have larger values of Y.



What particle is oscillating in an electromagnetic emmision?

We have established thus far that an electron in a specific electron energy level possesses a certain energy and wavelength dependant on what energy level it occupies. The further from the nucleus the electron orbits, the less the energy it contains and the longer the wavelength of its motion. Please note at this time that this same relationship is noted in electromagnetic emmisions, and is not theoretical in any way.

According to the quantum theory, the energy is released as a photon .The photon is used to explain the fact that when an emmision occurs, no mass is lost by the atom that emitted it.



How Electromagnetic Energy is "created" and what it is.

We have already theorized and basically proven that electrons revolve or orbit around the nucleous of an atom, vibrating in varying frequencies according to their wavelengths, and thus thier energy is dependant on thier distance from the nucleus.

-Now make a mental image of the following experiment:-

Take a device which vibrates a certain frequency and tie it to the end of a string, turn it on, and spin it in a circle over your head. Let this vibrator represnt an electron of a certain frequency/energy level,and the string represent the bond that holds the electron in its orbit around the nucleus, that is the magnetic bond between the negative charge of the electron and the overall positive charge of the nucleus. Note that this is a flawed model for several reasons, but it will suffice to prove the point in question.

It is easy to understand why this bond must be at least as strong as the centripital force acting upon the vibrator and causing it to be thrown outward in a straight from the center of rotation, so in the case of the electron some force exist to keep it in it´s orbit,and this force is magnetic in nature in the case of the atom we are trying to model. Now imagine, for whatever reason, this bond is broken, in the case of our experiment the string holding the vibrator breaks and the centipital force throws the vibrator outward. Is the vibrator still vibrating? At what frequency? In what trajectory does it travel?
The already proven centripital acceleration of electrons is the mechanism by which the electron is energetically expelled from the atom in a straight line .This is the mechanical component of the theory. When the bond is broken the magnetic component which held the electron in place is released along with the electron.This is why electromagnetic waves have electrical and magnetic interaction as their observable manifestation.


Why Electromagnetic energy has no "charge".

One of the apparent disqualifiers to this theory is "If electromagnetic energy is composed of electrons, why does it have no charge?"
The fact is, it does. This is evidenced in the photo-electric effect, which up to this point has been inadequately explained without using photons in the hypothesis or conclusion. The fact is, observations prove light induces a negative charge in certain atomic stuctures.
As for the "photon", Lets call it what it is, an electron oscilating passively in a oscilating magnetic field ,an oscilation that represents precisely its predicted frequency and energy level determinable by the electron energy level it originates from ..

You will need to avoid saying things like "force is the energy" if you want to borrow the established definitions used in physics to couch your "theory"-- a force is not the same thing as an energy, and one could never be the other.
That's because so far, the only falsifiable elements you've mentioned are precisely Bohr's model of the atom.It is also not a new theory. What is the new thing you're suggesting?

Your "theory" is nothing but a high-school explanation of an atom. It isn't exactly wrong, at that level, but it doesn't add anything at that level either. It also cannot be relied on quantitatively, beyond the quantization of angular momentum-- that is, it's the Bohr model, taken to a Newtonian limit, and it still makes no predictions. Are you saying you know the energy the electron will have when it is expelled? No, you cannot know that, experiments show it will depend on various factors you have said nothing about in your "theory".
It sounds like you are trying to say something new here, but unfortunately you have made no predictions. How would you use these "words" to estimate the strength of any particular observable? That is a requirement for any theory. A theory is not just a string of words intended to sound like it makes sense, it has to make predictions for measurables. Yours are?
I believe you mean positive charge, but that's hardly an important omission compared to the absence of any quantitative predictions. The reason your "theory" has not been falsified is that it is not wrong-- but it is also not a theory, as it makes no predictions that could be falsified. If I am wrong, please cite such a prediction, and say how it could be falsified if it were not true.

You made on valid statement in your response, and helped me edit and refine my work. You claimed force is not energy, and that is very true. However , I think you purposely misrepresented the CONTEXT, did you not?
A force is not energy, this is very true, but a force can act on a mass and create energy. This is just nose picking on your part, let's see your real science. Thanks for helping in the editting process anyway.

You made on valid statement in your response, and helped me edit and refine my work. You claimed force is not energy, and that is very true. However , I think you purposely misrepresented the CONTEXT, did you not?
A force is not energy, this is very true, but a force can act on a mass and create energy. This is just nose picking on your part, let's see your real science. Thanks for helping in the editting process anyway.

Every one of your simplistic and somewhat irrelevant questions has already been asked, by individuals far more qualified to ask them than yourself.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5488&st=0

My theory predicts the following: If high energy neutron bombardment of atomic nuclei managed to disintegrate the nucleus , the energy released by "freeing" the electrons from thier orbitals by removing the positively charged nucleus' components would not only be tremendous, but the PRECISE energy produced could be predicted by the APPARENT mass loss of the fissionable material. The mass 'lost' is radiation, emr and components of the 'dislodged nuclei". My theory also predicts that a treendous and calculable amount of electromagnetic energy will be released.

In high school I was taught the quantum theory as if it were fact. There was absolutely nothing resembling my theory taught. Perhaps you have references to back up this false claim. It is ovbviosu from your response that you DID NOT READ THE THEORY AT ALL, OR IF YOU DID YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND THE SIMPLEST OF FORMULAS. The method of qauntifying the energy of a specific wavelength of EMR is given. Your 'arguement' is hollow and deceptive.

Specifically, under what conditions would you get a different energy release than we see in rather well understood fission? And, specifically, what is that different energy release?

Why doesn't normal ionization show great releases of energy?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

This appears to be the crux of the argument. Since the photon is dependant on the energy level of the electron it adds one other problem. The electron is a real particle and should take time to 'jump' from one energy level to the next.

This time of movement does not exist, the energy transfer is instant. That implies a real particle moves at infinite mass between two orbits or else how does a charge propagate at the speed of light?

Using the same argument it is not wrong to say the 'jump' does not exist, it is wrong to say the electron is reduced to a charge effect only on this forum and so by inference it does not exist. But an interesting wrong thought none the less.

Hold on, you are going to accuse me of "nosepicking" for pointing out a misstatement on your part? I think you have rather overlooked the entire rest of my long post, yes? I did give you plenty of "real science", your comment is ridiculous.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. Your theory makes false predictions, this is not what an observation would show. How do I know? The observations have been done. The energy released in the apparent mass loss does not show up in the "orbiting electrons", it shows up in a host of new particles that are studied all the time in particle accelerators. We know how to calculate this, you offer no such means. It's not clear if your theory is wrong, as it is highly unclear. But it is certainly not anything new. If you would dispute that, please supply a prediction you make that the current theory disagrees with, and then cite an experiment that has not already been done that could distinguish that difference.

How would you know our relative qualifications? But one thing is clear-- I see why they stopped bothered trying. But here is one question you may wish to answer for yourself: who is the appropriate judge of when a "theory" has been debunked-- the person who originated and is devoted to the theory, or the community for which it was intended to convince?

[quote=Van Rijn;1040579]Specifically, under what conditions would you get a different energy release than we see in rather well understood fission? And, specifically, what is that different energy release?[/QUOTE

It isn't 'different' in any respect. The formula used is newtonian m however!

MOVING MASS possesing energy is released is in the form of radiation, that is subatomic particles moving at linear velocities up to the speed of light in the case of EMR (EMR will be used in the place of
electromagnetic radiation in my posts from this point forward)

[quote=Van Rijn;1040579]
Why doesn't normal ionization show great releases of energy]?[/QUOTE

Because there is no complete disintegration of the nucleus in the case of ionization.

To put it bluntly Ken , I can tell by the questions you ask and the arguements you use.
You know enough about the quantum model to know that it conflicts with my own, and little more on this subject apparently.
I am not trying to be a smartass, all of the questions you asked have been answered ad nauseum, if you'll excuse the latin cliche'.

May I politely suggest you review the board rules, especially those regarding civility and decorum?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

yeah sure, find any way you can to censor the ONLY guy who knows how things really work. just the mere act of asking him to censor himself means that he is close to the truth, and that if his truth (THE truth) were to get out, all things we know to be true would now be false, and it would be the dawn of a new era of peace and understanding where wars and poverty don't exist, and everyone gets a free lifetime pass to Disney World.
so, to summarize, don't stifle his creativity, or it will be taken as an affront to his intellectual superiority.

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

Why are you using classical values? I belive that it has been pretty well determined that the classical values are incorrect.

I bow to his greatness.

So are you saying you get exactly the same results as conventional theory would suggest? If so, this is not a useful prediction.