Before I go any further, I just have to ask for an explanation of your own personal logic in all of this. After debunking your ludicrous claims, I do hope that it dawns on you that simply making another topic with the exact same nonsense I've reasonably attempted to point out doesn't exactly absolve you of whatever idiocy that followed you around in the first place. Not only that, but posting the same moronicism twice only invites me to make more comments. So let me share some insights on your wonderful theory on a chapter-by-chapter basis.
Chapter I:
1. Big whoop. All elementary particles can 'retain their energy', whatever you mean by that. We are receiving more neutrinos than photons from most of those stellar sources, and we are also receiving cosmic rays (as in, various other elementary particles).
2. Same as any other quantum object.
3. A photon can't move in a straight line and curve at the same time, now can it? Straight lines is an approximation. Only QM can describe their behaviour properly.
4. Same as any other particle in QFT.
5, 6. Basic consequences of SR. Also holds for other particles.
7. Everyone knows that.
Conclusion: That model you want already exists: QFT, QED, GWS. Too bad it's beyond your grasp. You clearly have no idea that virtual particles arise from perturbation theory applied to QFT.
Chapter II:
Anyone who knows electromagnetism will know all your objections to Maxwell's theory are baseless and only reflect your lack of understanding of the theory. For a more complete rebuttal to your most egregious statements, see
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=37087. The main points here are that you've no idea how a capacitor works, there's no such thing as electrical energy that travels down the wire; electrons travel down the wire at very slow speeds, and their small speed is compensated by astronomical numbers of traveling electrons in conduction.
Chapter III:
Photons in series and parallel? Maybe you should tell the quantum computing guys about this model so they can have a good laugh. I know that I am at the moment. I don't expect you to understand photon-photon scattering in QED so there's no point for me to post it. Here also goes your statement that I've already you is incorrect that photons obey the Pauli principle. At least that much courtesy could be expected that you'd verify it, but unfortunately that was not to be. Let's make sure everyone is on the same page with your logic. You claim physics uses a model of conduction that it doesn't, and that the model doesn't work because photons obey the EP, which they don't. From that you conclude physics is wrong. Brilliant.
Chapter IV:
I've already addressed this. Conduction is made by electrons, or in some materials, by other ions. In a diode one can measure the current generated by both kinds of carriers. Semiconductors would not work under your model. In other words, my computer would be burning right now from other reasons than the processor getting logic errors from even your most simplest
statements in this chapter.
Chapter V:
These claims have already been refuted in your first post for which I still await a response. Lower down the page, I see some more misunderstanding of virtual particles. As for the light bulb, measuring 0.02 photons simply means that two photons in a hundred will cross that area. If you do such an experiment, you will indeed see photons arrive one at a time, you can even count them, and presuming you wait long enough, they will be uniformly distributed. What "long enough" means depends on the circumstances.
Chapter VI:
Since your model holds no water, none of this follows. My compliments on your creativity though. And by the way, all things being equal, a current of a higher frequency does result in more energy available for doing work.
Chapter VII:
More misunderstanding of the QED vacuum, and QFT in general.
Chapter VIII:
See
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AffineSpace.html for what an affine space is. Thanks for the review of basic multivariable calculus, but I'm afraid no physics came out of this one.
Chapter IX:
Your example has absolutely nothing to do with Cooper pairing, and I doubt you'll ever gain the ability to calculate that binding for yourself. I think the better thing you should be wondering is why electrons form a bound state in the first place. Really now, it's a much easier way to attack the theory. If your theory is so great, maybe you can teach us to make a room-temperature superconductor so that I can finally use it to build a processor that can calculate the amount of idiocy in your theory without overheating.
Chapter X:
You're just dabbling with elementary equations all high school students know. I don't see a viable model, just sans-proof that 'aumic' theory explains gravity. All models of gravity based on photons are doomed to failure: by that logic, an electron should weigh the same as a B
+ meson, since the net coupling of the photon to the object is the same.
In conclusion, your theory is so fundamentally flawed that I can grab high school students from nearly any school I choose to debunk it. At this point I have only bothered to point on the blatantly obvious so that no naive mind is tricked here. I do hope that no more idiocy stems from your posts, but moreover, that such idiocy does not spread to others who do not need it. The only lesson that can be had from all of this is how not to address physics and what happens to those who try to do so in an idiotic fashion. Because people of your ilk usually do not reform their ways, the only question remaining is how much you are willing to endure this form of...convincing before you decide to head out to a less scientifically-oriented place. For you, I recommend a Yahoo! chatroom. At least there your wild claims may be accepted by the people there, assuming they stop talking about their supposed "hacking" and various other fantasized activities to bother to listen.
I always read a thread when I see anti_crank posted to it.