Light seems sometimes to act like a wave, sometimes like a particle. This seemingly nonsensical behavior has been accepted for so long, and entire careers devoted to it, so much so, that a hypothesis which would explain light's peculiarities, and resolve its apparent duality, is evidently unwelcome among physical scientists - even in violation of their most fundamental principles.
A guiding principle of science specifies that the worthiness of a theory or hypothesis should be judged by its conformity to evidence, and by its comprehensiveness and economy of explanation, all measured against other theories with the same object. But the hypothesis I've offered to numerous physics journals hasn't been explicitly criticized or refuted according to those standards, it's simply been rejected as "unsuitable."
The unsuitability of a hypothesis should be easy to identify and express, if the unsuitability is grounded in defensible principles. I'll paste my paper below, a fairly non-technical discussion, in the hope that it can be evaluated and criticized for its scientific value, rather than, as I suspect has happened, dismissed for its non-conformity to established commitments.
A hypothesis on the nature of light
Abstract
It is proposed that light is at absolute rest, its apparent motion being the reflection of the motion of mass in time. The hypothesis resolves the paradox of the apparent wave/particle duality of light, accounts for its speed being invariant and a limit, explains other peculiarities of its behavior, and identifies the source of gravitational energy.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
