PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-21, 06:19:40
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11
Author Topic: Ether - Does it Exist?  (Read 117246 times)
Group: Guest
Bringing it all back home.

From the search, "definition of the aether."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28luminiferous%29

Quote
In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Aether

Quote
aether - a medium that was once supposed to fill all space and to support the propagation of electromagnetic waves

http://www.answers.com/topic/luminiferous-aether

Quote
The ‘luminiferous’ aether was the medium that pervaded all space, and in which electromagnetic waves existed, postulated by 19th-century physics.

Ether became the subject of one of the more famous experiments in physics, by Albert Abraham Michelson and E. W. Morley. Their experiment involved the splitting and reintegration  of a light wave in such a manner that the presence of ether would slow one of the waves. They disproved the existence of ether and brought America its first Nobel Prize for physics. The experiment also contributed to the development of Einstein's theory of relativity. The abandonment of ether by science led to its eventual abandonment by Spiritualists and Theosophists.

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/aether

Quote
a medium that was once supposed to fill all space and to
         support the propagation of electromagnetic waves [syn:
         ether, aether]

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Aether

Quote
In physics and philosophy, aether was once believed to be a substance which filled all of space. Aristotle included it as a fifth element on the principle that nature abhorred a vacuum. Aether was also called "Quintessence".

Oliver Nicholson points out that the older concept the aether (in contrast to the more well known luminiferous aether of the 19th century) had three properties. Among these characteristics, the aether had a non-material property, was "less than the vehicle of visible light", and was responsible for "generating metals" along with fostering the development of all bodies. [1] Robert Fudd stated that the aether was of the character that it was "subtler than light". Fudd cites the 3rd century view of Plontius, concerning the aether as penetrative and non-material.[2] Other 1800s views, such as James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, and Nikola Tesla, was of the disposition that the aether was more akin to it actually being the electromagnetic field.

This is the understanding of the meaning of the term that I have been discussing all along.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Wow five links in one post.
You have a new record.

 :)
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Now we say that "virtual photons" are exchanged to convey electromagnetic forces.

Call it what you want, but the vacuum isn't "empty".
   
Group: Guest
Wow five links in one post.
You have a new record.

 :)

Yeah that's probably less than one link per incorrect definition of the word that's been discussed on this thread.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Extracts from an article by Paul Dirac, Nature, 1951, vol. 168, pp. 906-907

 
Quote
"Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905,
   notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and
   the situation [about the scientific plausibility
   of aether] has again changed. If one examines the
   question in the light of present-day knowledge,
   one finds that the aether is no longer ruled out
   by relativity, and good reasons can now be
   advanced for postulating an aether. . . .

   We can now see that we may very well have an aether,
   subject to quantum mechanics and conformable to
   relativity, provided we are willing to consider a
   perfect vacuum as an idealized state, not
   attainable in practice.

   From the experimental point of view there does not
   seem to be any objection to this. We must make
   some profound alterations to the theoretical idea
   of the vacuum. . . . Thus, with the new theory of
   electrodynamics we are rather forced to have an
   aether"
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1443
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
'Nature abhors a vacuum' still stands as the basic start of everything.

Find an empty space and you'll break the laws of physics. I mean 'Really empty'.

Extracts from an article by Paul Dirac, Nature, 1951, vol. 168, pp. 906-907

 


---------------------------
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 275
Hi All,
If a vacuum was completely empty then nothing would travel through it. It would be a void. This is to me total bs, so something is there.
Looking into space there exist 3 dimensions, true if you only look inside of it. As there IS something else present WE ALL should ask some basic questions.
 There is reported a total of 12 dimensions in physics. These are again reported as being grouped into 4 groups of 3. This to me is incorrect by virtue of our present discussion.  Gravity itself is a perfect example. Its linked to electric charge/flow and is vectorially speaking at right angles to the centre of mass  magnetic and electric fields. If the dimensional grouping is correct then the inherent parts of each group must be able to intermix forming a loose bond between themselves. TT Brown and others have examples of this. The Sweet unit required one winding energized for antigravity effects to take place. The stromerzeuger required a magnetic field from each flat spool although a flat copper plate is above each. All these have OU interests all these have some strange aspect in their construction utilising an extra dimension and reportedly all work.
If we start by agreeing there's more than 3dimensions at work then maybe something may be learnt from these more recent posts.
The only thing omnipresent is the ether, if we lived in Flatland observing everything in 2 dimensins and a 3d object passed Through our planes of existence it would be everywhere at the same time, think about it, that's very easy. Then try and step it up by one more dimension, that's wherre our physics gets above our understanding generally. Mathematically its easy and it fits so....
Steve.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
IJust think about it.  We can get a magnet on magnet interaction with ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIC FIELD.  But we cannot get an ELECTRIC FIELD without evidence of a magnetic field.  Surely that points to the magnetic force being a primary force?

If you truly believe this, then I suggest you find another hobby.
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy - I'm not sure there's any point in repeating the question.  But I'll give it a go.  One magnet interacts with another magnet through space VERY ENERGETICALLY.  It can move either one or both of those magnets that they move together - or for that matter - apart.  When they do so - when they move through that space - as a result of their mutual interaction - then they are, effectively, magnetic fields 'CHANGING IN TIME'.  Now.  TRY as you might - use any methods of detection that you wish - speculate all that you want - THE SIMPLE FACT IS THIS.  THERE IS NO EVIDENT ELECTRIC FIELD IN THAT MAGNET ON MAGNET INTERACTION.

Therefore.  Changing electric fields ALWAYS  induce changing magnetic fields.  Changing magnetic fields DO NOT ALWAYS induce changing electric fields. 

The concept of the electromagnetic interaction is BASED on the 'belief' that you can never separate these two effects.  Maxwell even proposed that this was the mechanism whereby a photon was able to move through space.  But no-one in the field of physics - that I know of - has actually addressed the fact that there's an entire dearth of an electric field in a magnet on magnet interaction.  NO EVIDENCE.  Therefore.  If an electric field relies on a magnetic field before it can manifest - then a magnetic field DOES NOT rely on an electric field to manifest. Therefore - logically - a magnetic field would be the PRIMARY field.

I know perfectly well why you all need that electric field to be the cause and not the effect.  It's to support the delusions that electrons are first required for any magnetic field to manifest.  This inordinate love of that modest little particle.  I'm not belittling the particle.  But it's a MONOPOLE.  It will NEVER NEVER NEVER move, of itself, into any kind of FIELD CONDITION. 

And if you have any kind of respect for experimental evidence then nota bene - Grumpy.  Whatever else comprises dark matter it absolutely CANNOT BE THE ELECTRON.  If it were - then the entire world of mainstream physics would have that proof.  Electrons are always tangibly evident.  They've even PHOTOGRAPHED an electron.  It would be visibly evident.  IT WOULD NOT BE 'DARK'. 

Rosemary

 
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
I give up trying to explain what a magnet is.  Apparently you did not read the free link that I posted to educate you on magnets.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=220.msg7775#msg7775
   
Group: Guest
I give up trying to explain what a magnet is.  Apparently you did not read the free link that I posted to educate you on magnets.

And apparently you did not read my own links or my posts for that matter where I pointed out that what you assume to be reliable educative material is all of it based on fallacy.

If we're to buy into an argument - then let the evidence and logic support it.  I fail to find either the evidence or the logic.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy - I'm not sure there's any point in repeating the question.  But I'll give it a go.  One magnet interacts with another magnet through space VERY ENERGETICALLY.  It can move either one or both of those magnets that they move together - or for that matter - apart.  When they do so - when they move through that space - as a result of their mutual interaction - then they are, effectively, magnetic fields 'CHANGING IN TIME'.  Now.  TRY as you might - use any methods of detection that you wish - speculate all that you want - THE SIMPLE FACT IS THIS.  THERE IS NO EVIDENT ELECTRIC FIELD IN THAT MAGNET ON MAGNET INTERACTION.

Therefore.  Changing electric fields ALWAYS  induce changing magnetic fields.  Changing magnetic fields DO NOT ALWAYS induce changing electric fields. 

Rosemary

Rebuttal:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c4

Quote
Faraday's Law of Induction

The line integral of the electric field around a closed loop is equal to the negative of the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the area enclosed by the loop.

This line integral is equal to the generated voltage or emf in the loop, so Faraday's law is the basis for electric generators. It also forms the basis for inductors and transformers.

Changing magnetic fields DO ALWAYS induce changing electric fields.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest

The only thing omnipresent is the ether, if we lived in Flatland observing everything in 2 dimensins and a 3d object passed Through our planes of existence it would be everywhere at the same time, think about it, that's very easy. Then try and step it up by one more dimension, that's wherre our physics gets above our understanding generally. Mathematically its easy and it fits so....
Steve.

Hello Steve.  I think that our string theorists propose groupings into three space dimensions with their own distinctive time dimensions.  And - from what I've read - those dimensions can be as many as 34 and climbing.  The point, I think, is this.  Einstein and even our quantum theorists determined a 4th dimension that needed to be factored in - being TIME.  And since it's observed that nothing exceeds light speed then time itself is relative to that speed.   So.  That's it.  4 dimensions max.  

But here's the thing.  If there's an aether and if it's all pervasive then it's also invisible.  So.  If it exceeds our detection then it must also exceed light speed.  Now.  Provided we structure in this new concept then, theoretically we suddenly have the potential of multiple timeframes that are no longer restricted to or relative to light speed.  And space itself can then, theoretically be subdivisible to multiple levels of length/breadth and depth all operating within distinctive and separated time frames.  Our string theorists play with these concepts.  Effectively they're toying with concepts of aether but without using the word.  God forbid.

Then as I've mentioned ad nauseum - the Caltech researchers and theorists proved the existence of yet another force.  Dark energy from dark matter.  Also invisible - also with the required particle that they have absolutely NOT been able to find. And this in all aspects relates to the aether fields that were early proposed to be the actual carrier of the electromagnetic interaction. But they're all still stuck. IF there is an aether or dark fields - call it what you will - then what exactly makes it invisible?  But by rights what they should be asking is if there is gravity or if there is this nuclear force - then by the same token - WHAT makes THEM invisible?  What they've depended on saying - thus far is that just as the electron is responsible for the electromagnetic interaction - there's a gravity particle and there's a strong force nuclear particle.  Once you've got that particle then you're back to the 4 dimensional comfort zone. BUT THEY'VE NEVER FOUND THOSE PARTICLES.  They're still looking.  It's been an extraordinary search - spanning decades if not nearly a century.  And they've found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  

Which means that they're now seriously considering that - just perhaps - there's a 'non standard' LOL particle that is fundamental to all these forces.  This means that they're acknowledging - for the first time in this modern history of science - that perhas there are things that can, indeed, exceed light speed.  And that's the confusion.  And right now we're looking an one aspect of that general dilemma.  It's to do with the fact that just perhaps they got electric current flow wrong too.  Because it may very well be that this same INVISIBLE force is responsible for electric current flow as well.  Perhaps it's got nothing to do with the electron being the cause of the electromagnetic interaction.  And then they'll have to burn all those text books.  

Rosemary    
   
Group: Guest
Rebuttal:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq2.html#c4

Changing magnetic fields DO ALWAYS induce changing electric fields.

And that's the way the cookie crumbles.

MileHigh

I absolutely agree with this.  No argument.  But that's got absolutely nothing to do with my point.  There is no electric field in a magnet/on magnet interaction. 

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
I absolutely agree with this.  No argument.  But that's got absolutely nothing to do with my point.  There is no electric field in a magnet/on magnet interaction. 

Rosemary

There are changing electric fields in the air around the magnet on magnet interaction.

The atomic magnetic dipoles that create the magnetic fields associated with the magnets in the first place can sort-of be represented by a changing electric field.  You can imagine a one-time expenditure of energy due to an imaginary electric field that had to "spin up" all of the electrons in the atomic dipoles in the first place.  In some ways a magnet is like an emnergized superconducting inductor and it took some energy provided by something like an electric field to get it into the energized state.

No matter how you look at it, magnetic and electric fields are intertwined in both directions; electric fields are intertwined with magnetic fields.  There is no asymmetry like you are trying to suggest.

MileHigh
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Rosie,

Why do you say that "electrons" are the cause of electromagnetic interactions?

==========================================

The electron is a subatomic particle carrying a negative electric charge. It has no known components or substructure. Therefore, the electron is generally believed to be an elementary particle.

An electron in motion relative to an observer generates a magnetic field, and will be deflected by external magnetic fields. When an electron is accelerated, it can absorb or radiate energy in the form of photons.

==========================================

In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction and the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation.  It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances.
   
Group: Guest
Rosie,

Why do you say that "electrons" are the cause of electromagnetic interactions?
I don't say this.  Never have.  On the contrary.  I go out of my way to deny this.

The electron is a subatomic particle carrying a negative electric charge. It has no known components or substructure. Therefore, the electron is generally believed to be an elementary particle.
I know this.  It's also got a mass of 1 a half spin, an antiparticle and it's considered to be stable into infinity.  So what?  I think we're all reasonably well versed in mainstream science.  And I'm not arguing.

An electron in motion relative to an observer generates a magnetic field, and will be deflected by external magnetic fields. When an electron is accelerated, it can absorb or radiate energy in the form of photons.
I also know this.  So what?

In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction and the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation.  It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances.
Not sure of your point at all Grumpy.  I think we all know what mainstream's take is on all of this.  I thought we were discussing aether.  And mainstream do not buy into aether concepts.  Not yet - or not fully.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 555
Rosemary,
I think you are missing the electron flow in an atom when you think of a permanent magnet.  It is the electron circling the proton that gives rise to the magnetic field of the atom.  It is not very hard to picture the electron or electrons circling the nucleus in a plane (like the solar system) especially in the ferrous metals.  Which would produce a bipolar magnetic field, line all these little electromagnets up and you have a permanent magnet. So the moving electron comes first I would say. Electric field then magnetic field I don't see how it could be otherwise. ^-^


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 275
Hi,
Rosemary,
time isn't a dimension in my thoughts. It only exists so long as its changing. If stopped, any physical object can still be measured, x,y,z. What I was suggesting is add another dimension to these and therefore create an in or out vector. A classical interpretation of this is the proverbial ghost. (The most common example).
In field theory these seem to align at 90 degrees respect to each other so an underlying supporting construct which contains all of them could actually exist.
Imho this construct would have its limitations as to permit time as a function, restrained by a constant or limitation. Without this limitation everything would exist in all places simultaneously.
However there is a measurable limitation, so to speak, in a total vacuum. It HAS permeability and permativity therefore an impedance. This is around 440 ohms, (roughly) .
So if a wave can travel through a vacuum then while it exists this underlying construct must support its existence allowing it to travel. This is evident looking into distant space with telescopes.
There is also another theory that physical matter is standing waves, again this construct would support matter too.
Im sure you have read of the wave structure of matter as it fits with most if not everything in our known limited laws of physics.
Im interested if you have any comments on this as the construct may be better known as the aether.
Steve.
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary,
I think you are missing the electron flow in an atom when you think of a permanent magnet.  It is the electron circling the proton that gives rise to the magnetic field of the atom.  It is not very hard to picture the electron or electrons circling the nucleus in a plane (like the solar system) especially in the ferrous metals.  Which would produce a bipolar magnetic field, line all these little electromagnets up and you have a permanent magnet. So the moving electron comes first I would say. Electric field then magnetic field I don't see how it could be otherwise. ^-^

Room.  Think of this.  Take your average hydrogen atom and then make the proton at it's heart the size of an apple.  Then circling that heart at a radius of about 8 kilometers is the electron.  And if the proton is as big as your average Granny Smith - then that electron would be roughly the size of a split pea.  So.  ALL THAT SPACE?  What's in there?  Or is it just a vacuum - a great big empty black hole?  IF it was nothing but space - then there would be nothing to prevent the electron from making a nose dive into the proton.  They're oppositely charged and in a vacuum there'd be nothing to hold them apart.  But clearly something is.  So.  Here's my proposal.  WHAT IF?  What if the electron itself is TRAPPED between two magnetic fields?  But before you get there you'll have to propose that the magnetic fields are already there and that they've got a fundamental material property.  The rest is easy.

We know that a magnetic field shares our space dimensions else it would not be able to influence anything at all.  And it does.  And in our dimensions of space we've got length, breadth and depth. That means that potentially there are three distinct possible dimensions to the magnetic field.  Now.  I've already proposed that atoms that are attached by this 'cosmic glue' are one dimensional magnetic fields.  A single rope - a single line of only one of Farraday's lines of force.  And this turns into a necklace which then orbits.  And in orbiting it can neutralise the repellent valence conditions of two like atoms this based on the fact that one half of the orbit will always be opposite to the other.  Therefore it has two optional charges.  It can orbit as a figure 8 or it can orbit as a zero.  And either way it can move into just about at any 'spin' or at any 'justification' as required to attach just about any charge - any valence condition - that could be around the outskirts of any atom at all.

So.  To continue with that 'what if' thing.  What if the hidden material properties of an atom are two dimensional magnetic fields.  Length and breadth - and NO DEPTH.  Then that shape would be 'like a saucer'.  Then.  Just perhaps the electron is trapped between these multiple ropes - a kind of 'choker' but with varying sizes in each concentric circle - that it takes the shape a simplified Elizabethan ruff.  

Interestingly - if you then propose - as I've done - that all particles are structured from the fundamental magnetic particle - transmuted - but extracted from the quantum of magnetic particles in that 'saucer' - then - if the particles in this wide but hidden atomic field - were transmuted into more protons and neutrons and electrons - as each gained in complexity - then the more complex the atom - then.  More particles would have been taken from that magnetic field and the atom would then be correspondingly smaller.  And this indeed, fits with the fact.  The iron atom is way smaller than our gas atoms.  

Personally I find this a far more logical explanation than the manifestation of any field at all coming out of all that empty space - that 'black hole' around the atom - which is something you all seem to manage very well.  And I've said it often.  It's evident that you can all imagine a magnetic field resulting from nothing but the arbitrary directional spin of any electrons at all. I need to give it a material property or I can't manage it.  I'm just not clever enough.  It bends my mind out of shape.  LOL.  

Just one more thing - at the risk of making a long post even longer - as apparently I tend to do.  There's this.  We depend on identifying a magnetic field by being able to detect a distinct north and south pole.  But we could never find any variation in charge in a pure magnetic field - assuming there is such a thing.  Because each part of the field would be precisely balanced out by the other half.  The only time we could find that charge difference is if there was some kind of separation of those orbits by matter.  Something like a permanent magnet.  Or something like our earth holding its own magnetic field - some of it outside and some of it inside.  

Rosemary
« Last Edit: 2010-12-16, 01:18:55 by aetherevarising »
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 555
Well Rosemary,
That is quite a theory, the biggest problem with theories is proving them.  I have a number of theories of my own and I have to say they don't quite jive with yours. But it is interesting conjecture. 


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Guest
so.  That's what I propose is the structure of the aether.  And it's EVERYWHERE.  Primary magnetic fields comprising a whole load of magnetic dipoles that only ever interact with each other.  And then.  Everything that we see - everything that we can measure - everything that moves at the speed of light - is actually being shaped and moved and arranged by these vast complex fields.

Here's the analogy.  We're stuck in a room with a single window looking out at the sky.  We've never felt wind.  We don't know it exists.  We know nothing about the properties of the atmosphere.  We assume nothing's there.  So when the wind blows the leaves across the sky - we think the leaves have their own energy to move across the sky.  What would not necessarily occur to us is that first there's the wind and that the leaves do NOT in fact, have that innate energy to move anywhere at all.  We've assumed that particles - those leaves - have their own energy quotient.  What we've not allowed for is that they need that wind.

And the thing is this.  IF those magnetic particles DO move at faster than light speed - then they definitely would not share our time frame.  They'd be invisible - or DARK.  

And I haven't even touched on the three dimensional field - the TORUS.  But I'm entirely satisfied that like the one dimensional fields are responsible for the electromagnetic force - the 2 dimensional fields control the strong nuclear force - then 3 dimensional fields - that torus - would control the gravitational field.  It simply moves all material bodies to the centre of that field.  And that centre would be positioned exactly where every toroidal field is manifest.  Gravity would be 'relative' to the size of the torus.  

Just one thing guys.  All we need is to assume that a magnetic field is made up of those little particles.  And I personally think we see these particles every time we see a fire.

Rosemary

Edited.  Sorry. I wrote 2 where I meant 3. 
   
Group: Guest
Well Rosemary,
That is quite a theory, the biggest problem with theories is proving them.  I have a number of theories of my own and I have to say they don't quite jive with yours. But it is interesting conjecture. 

LOL Room.  There's plenty 'room' for conjecture.  But - in my defense - I used our experimental evidence to prove the material property of a magnetic field.  And it's not pink bunny rabbits I'm proposing.  Both on the large and small scale - the evidence does seem to fit.  But I don't expect anyone to buy in.  It's just an enormous comfort to share the idea at all.  Even if it's rather taxing on the time and the attention.  So.  Thanks for listening.

Rosemary 
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 555
Rosemary I think all of us who believe in the ether think it  is some very tiny particle or something and is probably able to move faster then the speed of light, it may be something that we can never really know because of where we are trying to observe it from.  So lets just call it the ultamaton or something and go on from there. I believe this ultamaton is manifest in a magnetic field as the constituent of the magnetic field itself.  And that works if you are right and the ultamatons are bipolar, like little magnets as they could be entrained by moving electrons. I don't think anyone believes the ether is electrons but if electrons can exert a force on the ether or ultamatons, then the ultamatons should be able to exert a force on the electrons and may actually have a hand in creating them somehow.  If we learn how to manipulate this ether it doesn't matter if we can see it or prove it exists or even know what it is.


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Guest
So if a wave can travel through a vacuum then while it exists this underlying construct must support its existence allowing it to travel. This is evident looking into distant space with telescopes.
There is also another theory that physical matter is standing waves, again this construct would support matter too.
Im sure you have read of the wave structure of matter as it fits with most if not everything in our known limited laws of physics.
Im interested if you have any comments on this as the construct may be better known as the aether.
Steve.

Hello Steve.  I nearly missed this post.  Not sure that I could follow it all.  Physical matter?  Presumably you're referring to gross visible matter?  Then if they're made up of 'standing waves' those waves are also variable and localised because that's the essential condition of visible matter.  I just can't see the need for it.  Yes I think that all apparent vacuums are absolutely FILLED with these fields of dipoles.  And yes I think that they interact with matter.  But I'm not sure about the 'wave'.  What I actually need is an interactive moment of the particle with the field.  Effectively all stable particles would need to decay back into the field - and then be re-energised and then move out of the 'reach' of the field.  It would make the actual manifest particle 'discontinuous'  flickering in and out of our measurable dimensions.  Effectively it would decay and then become manifest.  But so quick.  Hardly noticeable.

Not sure if we're on the same page here.

Rosemary
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-21, 06:19:40