PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-11-29, 03:13:43
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11
Author Topic: Ether - Does it Exist?  (Read 117936 times)
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

A proton has mass.  An electron has mass.  Have you ever heard of the universal law of gravitation?  I don't know how you "invent" this "world view" in your head Rosemary but it is really strange sometimes.
My dear MileHigh.  If you have found something - some particle - that responds to gravity - then indeed you've got something exceptional.  Having said that - photons are known to bend within a gravitational field.  But that's it.  Otherwise particles and gravity are strangers.  Which is most fortunate really.  LOL  What gets me is the patronising way you tell me to learn about physics.  And then you come out with this.

No they would not connect just because you say so.  You have to have an unbalanced force to remove the orbital energy from the moon so that it could crash into the Earth and there is none.  Therefore the moon would continue to orbit around the Earth.   What "known laws of charge" are you talking about and how do they explain your premise?  You are clearly unable to answer the question with a rational explanation.
More of the same.  I'm not sure that I can claim to be rational in proposing that anything that's as big as the moon has a negative or positive charge.  But I'm afraid I must stick to my guns here MileHigh.  In the highly improbable event that the moon and earth were oppositely charged - then in the event that they did not 'nose dive' and intersect at some point - then they would be DISOBEYING the laws of charge.  And I'm not about to recount the Laws of Charge.  Just look them up.  And they're LAWS.  Not principles.  Broadly opposite charges move together in a straight line.  Which is why I question the fact that the electron and proton absolutely ignore each other within an atomic structure.  LOL.  You see now the affliction in 'asking the odd question'?  it takes away that smug dependency on mainstrem opinion.  Of COURSE you're free to parrot mainstream.  But then you're likely to contradict yourself.  And right now you're not even parroting mainstream.  You're inventing a branch of physics where gravity exceeds the atomic structure.  That's rich with possibilities.  But you'd also need to rewrite physics.  Not a bad thing in and of itself.  It's got to be done sooner or later.

You need to learn some basic physics also Rosemary.  I am just pointing out how often you are out of your element.  You can continue to rant about how science doesn't know this and science doesn't know that.  Nobody says that science knows everything for sure.  But you continuously make it clear that you go out on a limb and make grand pronouncements without really having the knowledge to back them up.  It's just an observation.]
Indeed.  The joke is that I'm quoting mainstream.  And you're quoting physics a la MileStratospheric.  Frankly I prefer your physics.  It's way more inventive.  LOL.  

Rosemary  :)
   
Group: Guest
Keeping it simple...
More harmonious and less cacophony...
http://wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf

Looks like the only tool needed is resonance.

And I do respect Walter Lewin. Been watching him for years.


Hi 'Jack' -  LOL.  It's a mouthful to say GiantKiller - and I've been dying to reference that hijack number.  No offence intended.

I've FINALLY read that link of yours.  I should have done so earlier.  It's BRILLIANT.   I'm now going to try and find out more about Znidarsic.  Thanks very much for that.  EXCELLENT stuff.  MileHigh may be interested.  Here's a sample quote.  LOL

Logical reasoning was replaced by a form of quantum-indoctrination.
Yes, it was obvious that everything atomic was in reality quantized,
but within a single generation, the world of physics had begun to
completely ignore the fact that not a single PhD could explain the
physical causations behind why an atom is stable, why an electron
doesn't continue to radiate energy below the ground state orbital and
eventually crash into the nucleus, or why an electron doesn't drop
straight from a top energy level to the ground state energy level and
emit a high energy photon in one fell swoop. Furthermore, the ...

Many thanks GK.  Very good reading indeed.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

You are really making a "LOL" spectacle of yourself.

Quote
My dear MileHigh.  If you have found something - some particle - that responds to gravity - then indeed you've got something exceptional.  Having said that - photons are known to bend within a gravitational field.  But that's it.  Otherwise particles and gravity are strangers.  Which is most fortunate really.  LOL

http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/Tutorial/NewIBPS/PS16/PS16.htm

Quote
15. Compare the electric force holding the electron in orbit around the proton nucleus of the hydrogen atom, with the gravitational force between the same electron and proton.  What is the ratio of the these two forces?

    Solving this require us to use F = kq1q2/r2 to calculate the electric force holding the electron in addition to the gravitational force between the two. After calculating each, to find the ratio we simply divide the electric force by the gravitational. Use the proton and electron’s charge for q1 and q2, the radius is diameter of a hydrogen atom divided by two.

    Electric Force: F = kq1q2/r2 = (8.99E9)(-1.602E-19)(1.602E-19) / (.53E-10)2 = 8.2E-8 N

    Gravitational Force: F = Gm1m2/r2 = (6.67e-11)(1.673e-27)(9.11e-31) / (.53e-10)2 = 3.6E-47 N

    Divide and Conquer: 8.2E-8 / 3.6E-47 = 2.3E39 N ratio Electric/Gravitational

I told you that both protons and electrons have mass and there is a universal law of gravitation yet you were too arrogant to try looking anything up.

Quote
And I'm not about to recount the Laws of Charge.  Just look them up.  And they're LAWS.

http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.eiu.moonorbit/

Quote
The Moon, Earth's natural satellite, seems to hover in the sky, unaffected by gravity. However, the reason the Moon stays in orbit is precisely because of gravity -- a universal force that attracts objects. With the right combination of speed and gravity, satellites can fall around, instead of into, the body that they orbit. In this animated video segment adapted from NASA, learn about how the Moon stays in orbit around Earth.

Quote
Gravity is an attractive force between any objects with mass. When an object that is not supported by anything falls due to the force of gravity of another object, it is said to be in free fall. An orbit is essentially a path of constant free fall. For example, the Moon is falling towards Earth. However, it also has an orbital speed from the momentum gained during its formation that allows it to fall around Earth with a trajectory that follows the same curve as Earth's surface. Because these paths are parallel, the Moon perpetually falls around Earth without ever touching it.

By charging the moon and the Earth with opposite polarities all that you are doing is making it look like there is more gravitational attraction between them because the force would be in exactly the same direction.  Therefore the orbital mechanics would still apply.

There is a little movie associated with the link that explains to children how the moon stays in orbit around the Earth. I suggest that you watch it.

This whole conversation with you has been a farce and I'm done with it.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

You are really making a "LOL" spectacle of yourself.

http://tuhsphysics.ttsd.k12.or.us/Tutorial/NewIBPS/PS16/PS16.htm

I told you that both protons and electrons have mass and there is a universal law of gravitation yet you were too arrogant to try looking anything up.

http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.eiu.moonorbit/

By charging the moon and the Earth with opposite polarities all that you are doing is making it look like there is more gravitational attraction between them because the force would be in exactly the same direction.  Therefore the orbital mechanics would still apply.

There is a little movie associated with the link that explains to children how the moon stays in orbit around the Earth. I suggest that you watch it.

This whole conversation with you has been a farce and I'm done with it.

MileHigh

MileHigh - you keep promising to be done with this.  Hopefully this time you mean it.  To claim any kind of gravitational influence on particles is absurd in the extreme.  Particles are NOT known to respond to gravity.  Nor is it proposed in that example that you quote.  And how on EARTH can the force between two attractive objects be in the same direction.  If anything moves towards or away from another then they're both moving in diametrically opposite directions - in both cases.  Take two objects that attract.  The one moves towards the other.  Then the one will move east say while the other would move west towards each other.  And take two objects that repel.  Then the one moves away from the other.  The one will move east say while the other would move west away from each other.  Always two separate directions.  Far from sharing the same direction in space they'd be opposite.  The only thing they'd share is all that attraction - or repulsion.

And when it comes to arrogance!  What can I say?  You admit to no further need for any new knowledge.  I've never made any such admission.  On the contrary.  But it does seem that my grounding in physics is at least enough to argue your rather facile points here.  And may I recommend you read GiantKiller's excellent reference.  It may help enfranchise all that much needed thought on your part.  Right now you're borrowing obscure reference to substantiate your entire lack of logic in the hopes that you need never do more than continue to sit in your arm chair and pontificate.  LOL

Rosemary  

added
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

You are almost unbelievable sometimes.  Every object possessing mass is attracted to every other object possessing mass in the Universe.  That's why they call it the universal law of gravitation.  This includes all particles that have mass.  When I said, "the force would be in exactly the same direction" I was talking about the gravitational and hypothetical electrical forces between the Earth and the moon.

Quote
You admit to no further need for any new knowledge.

That's a lie and you are just blatantly spinning.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

You are almost unbelievable sometimes.  Every object possessing mass is attracted to every other object possessing mass in the Universe.  That's why they call it the universal law of gravitation.  This includes all particles that have mass.  When I said, "the force would be in exactly the same direction" I was talking about the electrical and gravitational forces between the Earth and the moon.

That's a lie and you are just blatantly spinning.

MileHigh

NO MILEHIGH.  Every ATOM has mass and that mass responds to the gravitational force.  If there was any tendency of particles to respond to gravity then they would NOT be able to sustain their condition inside the atom.  And no-one has ever found any particle respond to gravity - regardless of it's mass or lack of it.  And no-one has ever explained the fact that the electron does not nose dive into the proton.  If it obeyed the laws of charge it would.  And don't try and say that some gravitational principle accounts for this.  It quite simply doesn't.  If it did it would be duly recorded.  There's NOTHING wrong with mainstream's ability to observe and measure.  We'd ALL know about this if it were the case. 

It's one thing to keep quoting mainstream as the authority.  But in this case you're misquoting mainstream - regardless of its authority.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
There is no "Rosemary's Exception Rule" when it comes to particles that have mass.  The law is universal, and you should just keep plugging away up the learning curve.

No doubt gravitational effects are probably almost always ignored for particles, look at the ratio of electrical to gravitational force for an electron in the hydrogen atom:  2.3E39 ratio Electric/Gravitational.

The main thing is to UNDERSTAND and I have rarely encountered someone as pig-headed as you.  The electron does NOT nose-dive into the proton, that's the REALITY.  I have tried to explain that to you and failed.  So stick to your cognitive dissonance guns Rosemary and refuse to believe that the electron stays in orbit because you don't think it should because you can't understand the concepts while at the same time acknowledging that the electron DOES remain in orbit about the nucleus.

This is just like Aaron's inability to understand the energy dynamics of a bouncing ball.  I give up.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
There is no "Rosemary's Exception Rule" when it comes to particles that have mass.  The law is universal, and you should just keep plugging away up the learning curve.

No doubt gravitational effects are probably almost always ignored for particles, look at the ratio of electrical to gravitational force for an electron in the hydrogen atom:  2.3E39 ratio Electric/Gravitational.

The main thing is to UNDERSTAND and I have rarely encountered someone as pig-headed as you.  The electron does NOT nose-dive into the proton, that's the REALITY.  I have tried to explain that to you and failed.  So stick to your cognitive dissonance guns Rosemary and refuse to believe that the electron stays in orbit because you don't think it should because you can't understand the concepts while at the same time acknowledging that the electron DOES remain in orbit about the nucleus.

This is just like Aaron's inability to understand the energy dynamics of a bouncing ball.  I give up.

MileHigh

Well.  I'm not allowed to mention the fact that I'm amused.  So I won't.  I'll not refer to it at all.  On the contrary. 

And I absolutely agree with you. The electron really DOES NOT nose dive.  Anywhere.  Unless it's out of the atom.  Then it does - if it can.  Either towards or away from whatever it senses.  And what's more, the electron does stay in orbit inside the atom.  So you're absolutely right.  Can't argue with you here MileHigh.  Nor will I reference the points we're actually arguing.  Because then you'll accuse me of being pigheaded.  God forbid. 

It's the first time that Aaron's thinking on anything at all has been compared to my own.  Also an interesting association.  I'm sure you're well aware that there's nothing in common with our ideas.  Or are you simply trying to 'diminish by association'.  Rather as you did with Professor - where you implied that all reference to ether has only ever been endorsed by publication in esoteric pseudoscientific journals. I really can't accuse you of 'fighting fair' or even of fighting honestly -  MileHigh.  Nor can I accuse you of being logical. 

Defintely will not laugh out loud.   In fact  :(  Is that acceptable? 
Rosemary.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
Keeping it simple...
More harmonious and less cacophony...

http://wbabin.net/ntham/davis.pdf

Looks like the only tool needed is resonance.

And I do respect Walter Lewin. Been watching him for years.


May I also add my thanks for the input Killer of Giants.

When our minds become loaded down with all manner
of "accepted knowledge" a return to simplicity is often
all that is needed to break us out of a loop of circular
thinking and spinning wheels...

The great lengths that are gone to in defense of long
held beliefs in order to postpone admission of error
is somewhat amusing.


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
Every object possessing mass is attracted to every other object possessing mass in the Universe.  That's why they call it the universal law of gravitation. This includes all particles that have mass.

MileHigh

IF every object here includes charged particles or even neutral particles - then every particle would gravitate to every other particle.  Light would clump together.  Electrons would clump together.  Protons would clump together.  Everything would just clump together and there would be no separation of anything at all into recognisable and separate objects.  Use your common sense MileHigh - if you have any.  Particles are EXEMPT from gravitational influence - with the entire exception of photons.  And they just keep moving.  But given a gravity field - they'll bend around it. 

Rosemary
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1443
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
It is said that he who admits wrong is the fastest to learn.
I would prefer find my self incorrect sooner than to find I was wrong all the time.
 :)
May this year be an eye opener for all.

May I also add my thanks for the input Killer of Giants.

When our minds become loaded down with all manner
of "accepted knowledge" a return to simplicity is often
all that is needed to break us out of a loop of circular
thinking and spinning wheels...

The great lengths that are gone to in defense of long
held beliefs in order to postpone admission of error
is somewhat amusing.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
It is said that he who admits wrong is the fastest to learn.
I would prefer find my self incorrect sooner than to find I was wrong all the time.
 :)
May this year be an eye opener for all.

Giantkiller:

I am not really sure what you are saying here.  Is it perhaps that you linked to a paper written by somebody that challenges certain aspects of quantum mechanics and we are all supposed to roll over and just assume that your link is the "truth?"

Admitting that you are wrong takes critical thinking skills and you really have to know the material that you are looking at.  I don't think anybody that has commented on your linked paper knows enough about quantum mechanics to make a call on the veracity of what's stated in that paper and that includes you and me.

So I did a bit of poking around.  Lane Davis has a YouTube page.  He is 24 years old.  His clips include his treatise on quantum mechanics, plus all of the usual alternative fare.  There is stuff about anti-gravity, the NWO and the Illuminati,  9/11 conspiracies, cold fusion, fluoridated water, false flag operations, H1N1 conspiracies, etc.  In other words, the whole nine yards.

http://www.youtube.com/user/seattle4truth

I came across this in his paper:

Quote
But in the realm of known laws of electrical engineering, 100% energy
transfers require a 100% impedance match. Impedance is a measure
of resistance, and can be applied not only to electrical systems, but
to mechanical ones as well (such as a clutch in a manual transmission
car). Impedance matching is required to transfer electrical power
from power stations to your house. The job of the massive trans-
formers that are seen near power stations (or the smaller ones going
from the power line to your house) is to match the impedance of one
set of lines to the next set of lines. If this doesn't happen, the en-
ergy from the lower impedance line will bounce o the line with the
higher impedance and the energy will not transfer eciently. In order
to get all of the energy to transfer, the impedances must be matched
100%.

Guess what, this is garbage.  Lane is just parroting what he has heard about impedance matching and applying it to high tension electrical power transmission lines without really knowing what he is talking about.

So, based on my poking around and without reading the paper, I am not prepared to give any credence to it at all.  I don't have the desire to read it nor do I have the background to be able read it and appreciate it anyways.  My feeling is that if I truly did have the proper background, I would be able to poke so many holes through it that it would be beyond a Swiss cheese.  I am prepared to filter it out ahead of time without doing a full investigation into it as pseudoscience junk.  You can call it a qualified prejudgment of your linked paper if you want to.

Dumped:

Quote
May I also add my thanks for the input Killer of Giants.

When our minds become loaded down with all manner
of "accepted knowledge" a return to simplicity is often
all that is needed to break us out of a loop of circular
thinking and spinning wheels...

The great lengths that are gone to in defense of long
held beliefs in order to postpone admission of error
is somewhat amusing.

I advise you to think critically about where the potential multiple sources of error are and who is believing what and what "accepted knowledge" you are talking about.  Just because something is "alternative" doesn't necessarily mean that it's true or right.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Giantkiller:

Admitting that you are wrong takes critical thinking skills and you really have to know the material that you are looking at.  I don't think anybody that has commented on your linked paper knows enough about quantum mechanics to make a call on the veracity of what's stated in that paper and that includes you and me.

Then I must conclude that you are incapable of critical thinking skills because you clearly are incapable of admitting that you're wrong.  Let me remind you of a couple of points that are still raw and recent.  You claimed we didn't reference any results in our TIE or IEEE paper.  WRONG.  You claimed that particles respond to gravity.  WRONG. 

When you have enough critical thinking at your disposal to admit these points then we can possibly move on and consider this new reach of yours where no-one here understands quantum mechanics.  We'd need to be told what it is that we don't understand.  I for one would like to know.  So.  Let's start with that 'admission'.  That way we at least know that you've got some critical thinking skills worth talking about.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
And MileHigh - let me presume to educate you on New Age Physics.  It's based on the uncomfortable realisation that quantum and classical physics are founded on the wrong bases.  And that's MAINSTREAM.  Not New Age.  It's just that New Age Physics knows that what's been missed is a dynamic aether field.  Not the static steady scaffolding proposed by string theorists - nor even by our dark energy experts.  Something far more energetic.  But right now - both Classical and Quantum theorists have relied on an entire dismissal of the concept.  They are and were wrong.  And the proof is now everywhere.  But they, like you, are still trying to ignore the evidence.  And frankly - they/you are running out of excuses to keep ignoring it.  And trying to re-instate a sense of 'shock and awe' at the ponderous nonsense that they/you keep referencing - is absolutely NOT going to cut it.  You don't have to be a genius to see that you've been wrong.  You just need to ask the ocassional question.  That's more than enough.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

You can shout and rant as much as you want, it's not going to make a big difference in the scheme of things.  I'm not qualified to talk about quantum physics nor are you.

MileHigh

   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

You can shout and rant as much as you want, it's not going to make a big difference in the scheme of things.  I'm not qualified to talk about quantum physics nor are you.

MileHigh



I don't think I'm ranting.  And I'm over qualified to talk about quantum physics.  It's been my special area of interest and study for over 12 years now. Do NOT assume that I share your inability to work in concept MileHigh.  You should, by now, have seen some of that evidence of the fact.  But it's further proof of your entire lack of generosity or your entire want of reference to the facts.  You'd prefer to deny or ignore talent than ever acknowledge it - unless of course it's your own.  I really don't give a damn.  But when it comes to this anxious propagandising about my apparent lack of ability or right to comment - that I see serious harm done.  And I'm not about to give you that amount of license. 

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

I am talking about real quantum physics where you go to university, get an undergraduate degree in physics, and then focus on quantum physics for your Master's and your PhD research and studies.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary:

I am talking about real quantum physics where you go to university, get an undergraduate degree in physics, and then focus on quantum physics for your Master's and your PhD research and studies.

MileHigh

What a load of cobblers.  Not even our experts require that.  They just require evidence of actual knowledge.  EVEN FOR PUBLICATION.  SINCE WHEN has a degree been the ONLY BASIS TO ALLOW COMMENT?  If it was then Faraday would have been DOOMED - as would EINSTEIN himself - to quote just 2 for starters.  What rubbish you talk MileHigh.  It's all that you respect because it's never occurred to you that there are those of us who can attain a high level of competence without any degree at all.   Not, may I add that I'm presuming that I'm in the same class as Einstein.

Rosemary

added
   
Group: Guest
Well.  I'm still a bit bruised but I've got a sneaking suspicion that I may have  actually delivered a final punch in a punch up.  Rare experience for me because by now - under normal circumstances - I'd be banned.  

Just to get back on topic - the down side of quantum physics is that it's based on certain imponderables related to the wave particle duality and other rather pretentious questions related to Schrondinger's poor little cat.  The actual question here is to ask if that cat is first drugged before it's put in that box?  Because if not, then it would give us every evidence of life.  And - at it's least - that protest would likely be noisy.  In truth - all that our quantum giants managed was to say - 'guys - we actually will never know what the hell is going on because we can't see the whole picture'.  Had they done this then we could all have avoided all those thousands of pages and all those ponderous explanations.  You see.  What they DISCOVERED is that you can apply a kind of statistical analysis to any particle interaction to predict an outcome.  Nothing wrong with that.  It's been the basis of statistical studies everywhere.  But it hasn't got the purity of classical requirements where causality is everything.  In effect the quantum theorists would be right in saying, for example, that 3 out of every 5 marriages will end in divorce - or whatever.  And the classicist would rather say - if this person marries that person then there will be that divorce.  Something like that.  But those stats were good.  Still are.  They do the job and they do it well.

But both sides hold onto one argument - with the tenacity of a ship wrecked sailor holding onto a floating plank.  It's this.  Unless an object has infinite mass then it cannot exceed light speed.  I would argue that a field is the sum of it's particles.  And the field can have infinite mass.  The aether particles.  And that - with or without respect - may be our aether.  That it cannot be directly and tangibly evident - is precisely because it exceeds light speed.  Light 'trails in its wake'.  Light itself would then be SLOWER than the velocity of the field.  Surely that's not too difficult to digest?  And precisely because the evidence is that 'light bends' with the gravity field - then perhaps gravity fields hold these really fast little numbers - those 'faster than light speed' gravity particles.  And precisely because of Einstein's cosmological constant - then - if light moves through the vacuum at a constant speed - then the probability is that this hidden field would also move at a constant speed.  Just faster.

So.  Here's the thing.  If gravity fields are made up of aether particles and because light seems to follow the general shape of a gravity field - then?  At some stage and in some way light must be interacting with the field.  That's the puzzle.  How does light interact with the field if light itself is slower than the field?  Well.  Nature also gives us the answer here.  Virtual particles decay into the vacuum.  Could it be that they 'slot in' to that field and simply disaapper from sight?  If so, then we also are told by our experts is that paricles are what they call discontinuous.  They seem to flicker in an out of sight.  Perhaps, all particles decay.  But if they're stable - then they have some property in themselves that interacts with the field when it decays.   And that interaction just pushes them back into our visible realms.  That way.  Light itself, for example, would be moved by the particle in the field.  And provided the aether particles were EVERYWHERE - then that interaction would be at a constant speed.

Not a popular argument.  It's downside is that it proposes that the energy in the particle itself is irrelevant.  It's the interaction with the field that imparts energy to the particle to move it through space.  But that's the basis of my argument.  So Grumps - in the unlikely event that you're still reading here - the question is not 'does ether exist'.  The actual question is what is this ether?  The fact that it exists is pretty well proven.  Just no-one is actually prepared to look at the evidence.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
That Last Paragraph.   Nice to see the nail hit on the head so accurately!

I offer no opinion on the rest, but my views are already all too well known. (Why particles?)

Seems that there is more to your thinking than many realize.  Your question IS the correct one!
(Now if some could actually devise methods for answering it, without basing the answer on previous "Theory"....)
   
Group: Guest
That Last Paragraph.   Nice to see the nail hit on the head so accurately!

I offer no opinion on the rest, but my views are already all too well known. (Why particles?)

Seems that there is more to your thinking than many realize.  Your question IS the correct one!
(Now if some could actually devise methods for answering it, without basing the answer on previous "Theory"....)

Hello Loner.  It intrigues me that you you need someone to answer that question.  Presumably you mean someone other than me?  Intriguing.  Presumably my answers here will be of no force an effect?  For some reason?  Only someone else's answers matter.  I'm not sure why my own must be ignored. But I'm sure you've got good reasons for this.

But thank you for acknowledging that my question is appropriate.  That's at least some tribute.

Rosemary 
   
Group: Guest
OK.  I am certainly not ignoring your "answer", I am just not fully agreeing with some of the details.

As far as a thread "Does it exist?" goes, I think that answer is agreed.  As far as the actual makeup of "What" the aether is, I feel that is for another thread, as there are not yet correct terms to correctly define it, from a conventional point of view.  You are on the way, but, again, I am not in full agreement on the details.  That is certainly not to say that I am right and you are wrong.  Possibly the inverse is true.  As I was blathering before, physical tests, not based on existing "Theory" must be devised.  (For me, at least...)

Theoretical discussion on the makeup of the aether presupposes the existence of one.  As MH has been pointing out, the description from the 19th century certainly won't cut it, but the correct representation is still, IMHO, up for grabs.  Different thread, maybe?
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1443
Frequency equals matter...


Buy me a drink
Why waste time dissecting sand to count the facets of each grain when you can easily build castles?

Quote
Harmonic resonance is an extraordinarily diverse and varied phenomenon seen
in countless forms throughout the universe, from gravitational orbital resonances,
to electromagnetic oscillations, to acoustical vibrations in solids, liquids, and
gases, to laser resonance in light and microwaves. Harmonic resonance spans a
vast range of spatial scales, from the tiniest wave-like vibrations of the elemental
particles of matter, to orbital resonances that emerge from spinning disks of gas
and stars. But across this vast range of spatial scales and diverse media, there
are certain general properties of harmonic resonance that are common to all of
them. They all tend to oscillate at some characteristic frequency, and at its higher
harmonics, frequencies that are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency.
They all exhibit spatial standing waves, whose wavelength is inversely
proportional to their frequencies. They all tend to subdivide one, two, or threedimensional
spaces into equal intervals of alternating reciprocating forces
dynamically balanced against each other, with the twin properties of periodicity
and symmetry across every possible dimension of space and time. These, and
many other properties, are properties of resonance in the abstract, manifested
across all those diverse forms and media. Harmonic resonance is a higher order
organizational principle of physical matter, that transcends any particular
implementation in a physical medium. It is the properties of that transcendent,
more general concept of harmonic resonance that are the focus of this book,
because it is those transcendant properties that reveal the essential properties of
resonance itself, and explain how those properties lead to the emergence of mind
from brain.
The minimal prerequisite for harmonic resonance is some system that when
deflected from some rest state, or equilibrium condition, experiences a restoring
force that pushes it back toward that equilibrium state. Also required is some kind
of inertia, or momentum term, that makes it overshoot the equilibrium point and
pass on through, continuing on to a deflection of equal magnitude in the opposite
direction, from which point the restoring force will accelerate the system back
toward the equilibrium center again, setting up for repeating back and forth
oscillations that can continue indefinitely in the absence of frictional losses.

Magnetic fields have no frictional losses. Or do they? 8) :o


---------------------------
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3042
Why waste time dissecting sand to count the facets of each grain when you can easily build castles?
...

Magnetic fields have no frictional losses. Or do they? 8) :o

Hmmm...  Well said.


Do we truly understand what "propels" radiation?

At the "electromagnetic speed of light?"

Is it "pushed" or "pulled" or does it just "go?"
« Last Edit: 2011-01-05, 22:31:16 by Dumped »


---------------------------
For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.
   
Group: Guest
OK.  I am certainly not ignoring your "answer", I am just not fully agreeing with some of the details.

As far as a thread "Does it exist?" goes, I think that answer is agreed.  As far as the actual makeup of "What" the aether is, I feel that is for another thread, as there are not yet correct terms to correctly define it, from a conventional point of view.  You are on the way, but, again, I am not in full agreement on the details.  That is certainly not to say that I am right and you are wrong.  Possibly the inverse is true.  As I was blathering before, physical tests, not based on existing "Theory" must be devised.  (For me, at least...)

It would be nice to think this question is resolved.  It really isn't.  It's probably going to go down in history as one of the most glaring 'mistakes' that our theorists have made.  While there is a readiness perhaps - on these forums - to assume the existence of this aether - it is not that readily available on our campuses.  And that's where acceptable theories are usually forged and invariably promoted to the general public.  Never mind that the Michelson Morley tests never actually 'disproved' aether.  It's promoted as it if WAS disproved.

The truth is this.  ALL modern classical and quantum theory rely on the existence of a 'carrier' particle as the energy 'exchange' medium.  And all quantum and classical theorists depend on the fact that any particle - including these carrier particles - move at or within light speed.  That's the actual problem.  You see - relativity concepts require that magical constant that was identified by Einstein.  And until these fields are acknowledged to exist and that they move at superluminal speed - then an awful lot of logic is forever rendered illogical in their theories. 

Meanwhile - what is required is some kind of proof that their foundation thinking is wrong.  That proof is readily available - all over the place.  And they're ignoring it.  Even those that know about dark energy are trying to find a particle that 'fills the vacuum'.  But none of them are looking at the 'field' - at a full on FIELD EFFECT.  And, in my humble opinion - that's where they would possibly find that particle.

Loner, I've said this before.  Your excessive modesty is entirely unjustified.  It is always a pleasure to read your comments.  But one has to search for them behind all that self effacement.  We're all given license to comment here on Poynty's forum.  And your own rights are inviolate.  Why clutter them with these anxious reminders that you may be right or wrong.  It's the nature of the beast.  We may all be right or wrong.  So what?  We're discussing certain viewpoints - is all.  And frankly, in my opinion, your own view point is invariably thoughtful and well considered.  I wish my own were up to that same standard.  Please.  No more self-effacement.  It's entirely unnecessary. 
   
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 2021-11-29, 03:13:43