It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 340
72
<< 337  338  339    341 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2017 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
a reply to: delbertlarson

These particulates travel and touch a plate of some kind?

So you have a plate, and then each 'very small area of plate' (much smaller than a square centimeter) has detectors behind it, so if there is a plate and it is cut up into a thousand or million little squares, each little square can independently weigh the details of impact? And so square A25823 may receive some hit signature, and S34543 may not.

And so then you have each square that received a signature, and how much they received, as if it was a digital kitchen weighing scale, and you threw some grains of rice on it, but instead of weighing the whole, it weighs each grain and where it is.


I can perhaps give some details on this one since detector technology is the one area I'm more accustom to.

There are lots of different types of detectors and they are optimized for different tasks. In a typical Barrel type detector system such as ATLAS or CMS at the LHC they are split into Tracking and Calorimetry

The tracker is a component that these days are typically formed from silicon strips or chips. these are mounted tightly around the interaction point in a cylinder with many many layers.

The idea of this detector is to let the particles that are ejected from the interaction point to pass through and not have their energy or momentum vector perturbed to much by passage though the material. The signals picked up or generated are from ionization of the material within the strips/chips and the collection and digitization of that ionization. Basically each time a highly energetic particle passes through this detector it is receiving radiation damage and will slowly deteriorate with time.

By using a powerful magnetic field, a tracker can give you lots of information as you can bend charge particles in helical paths and determine their charge and momentum.

Outside of the tracker you have calorimetry, usually in two forms. First is an Electromagnetic calorimeter, second a hadronic calorimeter. These detectors have one thing in common, they are designed to 'convert and stop' particles and determine the incident particles energy. How do you stop an energetic particle? Well you put lots of heavy material in its way. But putting a slab of lead in a detector isn't so useful since there is no simple way of knowing how much energy was deposited by a stopped particle in a big chunk of lead. So what is done is sometimes called a lead sandwich in which you interleave layers of active material (similar to your tracker, a material that is activated by the passage of high energy particles and gives you a way of measuring the energy of particles that pass through, this can be a semi-conductor, it can be a scintillator, it can be something like a liquid Nobel gas) So what happens is a particle will pass through several layers and then convert. This conversion is the production of a particle shower by interacting with the material and producing a cascade spray of lower energy particles, eventually the particles that are being produced do not have enough energy to continue the cascade and the shower ends. The energy observed by the active material is then used to determine the energy of the incident particle along with other things such as the shape and depth of conversion.

The electromagnetic Calorimeter is on the inside because leptons and gammas convert more readily, by interacting with t he electrons in the device. hadrons penetrate deeper and will typically pass right through the device.

Behind the ECal is then the same, but typically larger, designed for stopping hadrons in the same way.

Behind the HCal is often a Muon Range device since muons typically pass through everything, so then you range those out by using steel plates and detectors similar to an E and HCal except all you are trying to do is get a id that it was a muon, a rough direction and a rough energy.
There are lots of exotic forms of detection, though in principle the above gives a good rough starting point.

Identifying the particles can be done by looking at things like, event topology and which parts of the detector light up.

So lets say you have a collision, it produces a charm meson, it has lots of ways it can decay, but lets say it decays to a strange quark and emits a positron and neutrino.
The strange meson (or K meson) then decays to... lets say two muons... a muon anti-muon pair.

So what do you observe in the detector?

Well you observe three tracks in the tracker, their net momentum will not be zero, it will have some missing momentum which is because the neutrino leaves the detector and doesn't deposit anything. The momentum none the less will be very close to zero probably so close to zero within experimental accuracy that you might ignore the neutrino. So their will be a positron which will pass through your tracker, it will curve dependant upon the magnetic field, it will give a highly curved track, it will then strike the ecal, and produce a shower in the ecal in a confined cone.

On the other side of the detector, you will have two tracks that hardly bend in the tracker, but one of them bends in the same direction as the positron, and the other the opposite way. You will then have almost no energy deposited in the ECal or the HCal, but your muon ranger will light up and say you had two particles passing through.

You then take what you know, You know the rest mass/centre of mass energy that the beam was opearting at, the energy of the ecal deposition, the charge sign of 3 tracks and that you definitely had a muon and anti-mion.

Ultimately, you perform these experiments billions of times and you statistically determine the decay branches

Hopefully that gives you somewhat a look at how these things are done.

For a proton proton machine, things are more complex as you have two composite objects that collide, but regardless the principle is similar.




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




That is correct, the photons aren't bent by magnetic fields so they can't go around the ring with the protons.

That's not to say there aren't photons, there are and basically they have the opposite effect DanielKoenig suggested of speeding up the protons, rather, the protons lose energy in the form of photons because they are going around a ring, called Synchrotron radiation...


There is also the issue of the acceleration itself. I believe that in QED the radio frequency (RF) cavity is assumed to be full of RF photons, and that it is those photons that do the acceleration, presumably by reducing in number such that the energy is conserved. I believe there may also be some photon emission because of the acceleration, but that may be cancelled by the loss of photons in the cavity (I don't recall the specifics). However, when I've designed accelerators I don't even think about applying QED to the process and I don't think anyone else does either. It is far simpler (and hence less prone to error) to just do the classical calculation. And any corrections one would get are completely negligible to actual accelerator operation.

As you mention, synchrotron radiation is real, and it is even used as a light source for experiments. However, synchrotron radiation is only relevant to the design if the beam energy is high enough. I don't recall it being important at Fermilab (one TeV) but at the SSC (20 TeV) we had some concerns. The primary concern at the SSC (as I recall) was the heat that it would cause to the magnets. For electron accelerators the effect is much stronger, and hence electron accelerators are used as synchrotron light sources.

On a separate matter, I plan to follow up with an email to Nima Arkani-Hamed. I plan to post it as a thread here first for a few reasons. First, I will ask for comments for improvement. Second it will serve as a decent high level summary and overview of the other theoretical threads I have posted, and show how it all combines into a consistent worldview. Third, it might get picked up by Google under "Nima Arkani-Hamed" and "Cosmological Constant", which in turn would give me a better chance that he'll see it.

I don't know if I mentioned it before, but I did have success in writing to John Bell about my thoughts on the lack of a length contraction. I wrote him five times. He responded to the first two and it helped me with my thinking. After he had not responded to my third and fourth letters I wrote a fifth to follow up on the earlier two, and stating I wouldn't be bugging him anymore if I didn't hear back. Some time later a colleague informed me of why the correspondence had stopped. Sadly, John Bell died between the second and third letter.

a reply to: ErosA433

Thanks for the excellent update.



The signals picked up or generated are from ionization of the material within the strips/chips and the collection and digitization of that ionization.


I expect the strips function similar to those old tubes I mentioned - they tell us that something hit a long thin rectangular region, but not a small square. But how about the chips? Do you get information from small square regions now? The problem would seem to be how tightly you can pack them so as to not lose tracking through gaps around the edges - but perhaps that problem has been solved by appropriate overlapping of layers, or by design of the chips?



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   
They can be a bit of both, they are often silicon strip detectors that are interleaved as you described in order to give more information and cut out on dead space. The main challenge is putting that high number of channels in such a confined volume. The more channels, the better the detector, and the larger and more expensive it is too.

Chips can be nothing more than small strips, or they can be segmented silicon wafers with independant readout using 3D technology.


There are other exotic trackers too such as Transition Radiation detectors in which photons that are produced when a high energy particle passes between two media of different refractive index can also be used as trackers. These are closer in design to multi-wire proportional chambers quite often.

Lots of technology
and lots of flexibility.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433



The idea of this detector is to let the particles that are ejected from the interaction point to pass through and not have their energy or momentum vector perturbed to much by passage though the material. The signals picked up or generated are from ionization of the material within the strips/chips and the collection and digitization of that ionization. Basically each time a highly energetic particle passes through this detector it is receiving radiation damage and will slowly deteriorate with time.


this means, the detector does not know that "flew" by, it just detects something was there...

you say " energy or momentum " , what do you mean by that ?
is momentum something different than energy ?
what is you definition of energy ? what is momentum ?
do you mean "energy" as electric potential and "momentum" as velocity ?




By using a powerful magnetic field, a tracker can give you lots of information as you can bend charge particles in helical paths and determine their charge and momentum.


powerful magnetic field... ? ...I hope not alone ?

magnetic fields do change the trajectory, but as you say, they just change the direction and do not say what that charged particle is doing experiencing that change....

but to calculate a trajectory, you need to detect at least 3 position points in a row!
if you know 1, you know the position...
if you know 2, you know the direction...
if you know 3, you know the acceleration...

the magnetic fields actually change the experiment by altering the motion of the particles...
this is not observing in my opinion...



Outside of the tracker you have calorimetry, usually in two forms. First is an Electromagnetic calorimeter, second a hadronic calorimeter. These detectors have one thing in common, they are designed to 'convert and stop' particles and determine the incident particles energy. How do you stop an energetic particle? Well you put lots of heavy material in its way. But putting a slab of lead in a detector isn't so useful since there is no simple way of knowing how much energy was deposited by a stopped particle in a big chunk of lead. So what is done is sometimes called a lead sandwich in which you interleave layers of active material (similar to your tracker, a material that is activated by the passage of high energy particles and gives you a way of measuring the energy of particles that pass through, this can be a semi-conductor, it can be a scintillator, it can be something like a liquid Nobel gas) So what happens is a particle will pass through several layers and then convert. This conversion is the production of a particle shower by interacting with the material and producing a cascade spray of lower energy particles, eventually the particles that are being produced do not have enough energy to continue the cascade and the shower ends. The energy observed by the active material is then used to determine the energy of the incident particle along with other things such as the shape and depth of conversion.


so this is a booster, a device that actually generate things you may detect...



The electromagnetic Calorimeter is on the inside because leptons and gammas convert more readily, by interacting with the electrons in the device. hadrons penetrate deeper and will typically pass right through the device.


so.. how does a subatomic lepton elementary particle which has no net electric charge ( not the electron but other so called leptons ) do interact with the electrons in the detector ?
no charge no interaction with an electron I think !

and a word about hadrons...
neutron is an composite of electron "inside" proton and not something individual... so just that you know


and BTW, when you talk about gammas, this is radiation and not a particle...
if we talk about a particle detectors, we need to point it out !



Behind the HCal is often a Muon Range device since muons typically pass through everything, so then you range those out by using steel plates and detectors similar to an E and HCal except all you are trying to do is get a id that it was a muon, a rough direction and a rough energy.


how comes muons, an elementary particle similar to the electron, with an electric charge of −1 e and a spin of 12, but with a much greater mass has passed the Electromagnetic calorimeter ?

is this that "energy and momentum" thing you said playing a role in that ?
"heavy" electron and not e muon at all maybe ??

and again... please tell me how to build a gluon detector



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



That is correct, the photons aren't bent by magnetic fields so they can't go around the ring with the protons.


how could they ??

the word "photon" is just a name for EM radiation, and EM radiation is the manifestation of the change in position of charged particles.

photons do not exist, same like good or bad doesn't, it is just a name for some EM disturbance, not a thing !!



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

The cosmological constant as a concept only exists because of the theory of accelerating universal expansion (after big bang) right? I wouldnt get too worked up about it that you need to squeeze it in or that it as a placeholdery concept is a necessary cornerstone piece of the cosmic puzzle, because it might be a nonsensical and unsoundly unfounded ungrounded premise.

'it looks like, I think, the galaxies are traveling away from us (on average, maybe), and each other, maybe, not only so, but with increasing velocity, therefore all material was at one time entirely together in a singular ballish ball, now if this bubble of everything were to simply have bursted, I dont think that would explain the observation of the not only simply expansion of galaxies, but accelerated expansion, so before the ball bigly banged, not God placed little springs every square centimeter all throughout space, packed all in there equal distance apart, so when the big ball inflated, all the space and stuff pushed against these compressed springs which made all the conglomerates of stuff head away from one another increasingly quickly.' Cosmological constant is asking, what is the mass and energy and size and density and average quantity of these springs in space. Cosmological constant is related in some sense to dark energy and dark matter? If big bang theory is correct, all stuff was together, then it started splitting apart, we can imagine how different types of stuff would react differently to this and create layers and effects like different liquids in a bottle (the oil, water, soda, etc. thing) and if the galaxies really are acceleratingly drifting apart, then there may be one of the many types of stuff has a role in doing this, or it could be that the galaxies really are rotating like tops, but tops uncontrollably entwined with the fabric space/aether around them so when they spin they pull the space, and across distance push and pull or travel away from other galaxies, or this activity just created an optical illusion because it made light have to travel further over the warp of space time the galaxies make. Take a stretchy fabric material, and get multiple people to grab it at different places, take marker and make marks all around where there hands are, dots that represent stars in galaxies, where there hands grab is a galaxy, grab the fabric and then twist, and twist and twist, and it might look like even though the galaxies remained in the same proximity in real space, an ant walking on the fabric might think using its measuring devices that it has been having to walk further and faster to reach what should be same distance.




edit on 16-9-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

In terms of acceleration, I imagine its something like a hot tub and hot tube jets but the jets all aimed in down track direction, the magnets, electromagnetic field generators, the electromagnetic fields they create I imagine are not static (meaning motionless/stationary) right, before the protons pass the magnets, the magnetic field of the magnets are full of a certain direction of motion?

And the protons are pushed/boosted/swept up/carried by this motion? of the magnets magnetic field?

It is the motion of a magnetic field that moves accelerates a charged particle right?

If you just hold a magnet anywhere, the magnetic field it creates is not just a solid motionless mass of things, is it?

The magnetic field is a result of the motions of electrons.

The continuous motions of the electrons create the continuous magnetic field.

Is it possible to even speculate (of course it is) what percentage of magnetic activity has to do with the electron itself, and what percentage has to do with the motion of the electron/s?

When it is said 'a magnetic field exists over there, around that magnet' (or an electro magnetic field does), is that electromagnetic field, is that magnetic field, electromagnetic radiation?

Is the magnetic field anything but electromagnetic radiation?

Is the magnetic field motionless electromagnetic radiation?

Is electro magnetic radiation the 'motionless' electromagnetic field, moved?

(the magnets in accelerators, that accelerate proton beams, are electro magnets, or both?)

So all said, a simple conceptual distinctual question to determine the differentiation as to how the magnet accelerates the proton. If for nothing else, for fun, as the search for understanding truth can be. Proton beam coming around the track, approaching a magnet which accelerates it:

The magnet is 'doing something to' (and/or by its existence) alter the space surrounding it, the space which protons are about the pass through:

and this is space right, there is no air in there, in the pipe/tube the proton beam is traveling down is pure vacuum, which can either mean absolutely pure perfect nothing nothing nothingness or '3-4-7 fundamental fields entwined which are some how maybe massless but trust me they exist because everything you can see is evidence they exist because they exist and everything you see is made of them' (or that plus a frothy foamy fabric of particles popping in and out of existence)

Ok so there is a well defined material body called magnet [-------]
Its body can effect bodies without its body touching those bodies.

The only conceivable way for bodies to effect bodies without touching them is a material medium existing between them (like splashing in water to bob a bouy a distance away, or a dj playing music a distance away causing a body to dance) , or for the body to contain or posses other bodies which it can projectile.

Either the electromagnetic field is a substantial medium that exists inbetween bodies, or the electromagnetic field is the result of bodies consuming particulates (like hungry hungry hippos) and then tossing them back and forth.


Do magnets capture a lot (a lot a lot) of photons and then continuously churn them out away from the center to create a force field?

Or does the force field exist everywhere in space, and the electrons in the magnets movement pushes this field into its novel configuration?

Where there is no em radiation, where there are no photons, is there EM field, and is it motionless (in reference to what?)?

Is EM field, motionless em radiation?


Something I was thinking about a few days ago directly related, a good way to conceptualize thinking about this topic, but I am hesitant to bring this up in this post and maybe detract from those above questions I want you to try to sincerely answer and muse on, but it does tie directly in:

A lightbulb. Where is the em radiation/photons/particles/waves coming from?

Are all the photons/em radiation that emits from the lightbulb in the filament?

Are all the photons/em radiation in the gas of the bulb?

Are all the photons/em radiation traveling through the wire? (instead of 'are all the' if it is split between any or all of these, I should ask, what percentage of photons/em radiation come from these sources?)

And/or are the photons/emradiation outside and around the filament and bulb?

Is the filament a hungry hippo which over its lifetime collected a lot of photons, and then connected to a live wire, electrons shake at point a, which shakes at point b, which shakes at point c, at d at e at f at g, till the electron shake reaches the electrons of the filament which shake their photons loose, and when the filament burns out, it has ran out of photons?

I guess the other simple obvious example would be a log fire, the wood over a long life collected a lot of photons (which are...or are not... independent particles) and when a chain reaction of electron shaking occurs (one can say, catches fire), all those photons collected are let go?

But some reason this is said to not be the way things are, it is said there is an actual field that pervades inbetween things?

Because a photon is not a thing that can be captured and held?

Just attempting to ask some thought provoking questions and see what you see. The purpose of all my questions are obviously for me to attempt to understand reality more clearly, but equally I ask as many questions as I can as deeply as I think I can to people who claim they know about a subject to attempt to show us both possibly what it is they do not fully understand, to then attempt to proceed with discussing and questioning and wondering what was wrong or lacking with prior understanding to see if we can discover anything the one in the know has missed. You certainly seem to be interested in the topic, and know a great deal, so I can only hope to discuss pertinent information that might be related to your quest of understanding which is currently out of your reach. You actually have created your own theories to degrees and are interested in the nature of problems and contradictions and issues in the paradigm of physics, we hate ignorance, foolishness, stupidity, stubbornness, failure, I cant stand that it is said 'there are contradictions, incompatibilities with theories of physics', shrugging shoulders we cant figure it out, its so annoying.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig


PART 1.

I am not really expert on gravity. However, it is quite clear that it exists, and that Newton was very close to correct. It is also celebrated that Einstein improved upon Newton with his explanation of the perihelion shift of Mercury as well as the bending of light in a gravitational field.

When I first was taught special relativity theory (SRT), I thought perhaps I just wasn't smart enough to understand it - like many (most? all?) engineering-minded people. I could do the math though, and continued with my physics education. General relativity theory (GRT) was optional in graduate school so I never took it, since I didn't understand SRT. Then when I was about 30 I became convinced that SRT was wrong because of Bell's Theorem tests. (And at about that time I also understood what relativity was.) And if SRT was wrong then GRT must be too. So why study something that is wrong?

Only within the last several weeks did I start to dig further into GRT. And rather than start with the texts, I began this time with Einstein's paper. I see that I may need to buy a text though, since the presentation is a bit terse in places and I can't always understand the flow of the paper at a few points. The reason for my renewed interest is the following important understanding: while SRT and GRT may be wrong, they do predict experimental results quite well. Hence, the math may be correct or close to correct and it may only be the underlying interpretation that needs correction. It is important that such a change in underpinning lead to experimental tests that can tell the difference however, as only then are we following the scientific method.

For the case of SRT we can simply return to the absolute theory of Lorentz, or to my absolute theory. I have proposed experimental tests that could possibly differentiate between my theory and the other two. Of course the differences are hard to detect, and will occur only in very specific experiments, since both Einstein and Lorentz are in excellent agreement with experiment to date. I suspect something similar may be occurring with respect to GRT - that the math may be correct or nearly so, but not because of a relativity principle, but rather because of an effect that gravity has upon the aether. And hence I began study recently of GRT. However it could take quite a while to find the time to get through it.

All that said, my view includes the fact that many extremely talented and intelligent people have worked on GRT and cosmology for many years. Hence I believe it is likely a valid assumption that the math being used is a close representative of the experimental data. And finally, in getting back to your post regarding gravity - I do not yet have an alternative explanation for gravity and so I can't really adequately address the portion of your posts concerning gravity. (This was a rather long way of excusing myself from answering.)

I can however respond to your postings about electromagnetism.

In my aether model, static electric fields are proportional to the separation of one aetherial component from the other, and the magnetic vector potential is the transverse component of the displacement of the two aetherial components from their equilibrium position. As for the forces on charged particles, I haven't yet satisfactorily addressed that. I've had some ideas that come close. In my aether model charge is simply freed aether. It could be that the electrostatic potential implies a pressure, and when you model a cube of free aether (charge is identified as free aether), in a pressure gradient one side will have a greater force on it than the other, so that part of the Lorentz force equation can be understood. Working from the flow postulates can get you some of the magnetic part of the equation, but again, I haven't worked that through yet so I can't really specify an exact model for forces. With that in mind, I will try to answer some of your questions.



It is the motion of a magnetic field that moves accelerates a charged particle right?


It is usually the electric field that accelerates charged particles. Now a changing magnetic field can lead to an electric field, and the old betatrons did use changing magnetic fields to accelerate. But the more normal way to do it is to provide electric fields to do the acceleration, such as the electric fields in an electrostatic accelerator or in a radio frequency cavity. Also note that no one considers the magnetic field to be "in motion". It is just a value of a field at a fixed point. The value of that field can of course change over time.



If you just hold a magnet anywhere, the magnetic field it creates is not just a solid motionless mass of things, is it?


In my aether model the static magnetic field results from just a solid motionless displacement of the aetherial masses. In the consensus view the magnetic field is just a value (a number and a unit) at a point in space.



The magnetic field is a result of the motions of electrons.


Almost correct. The magnetic field is a result of the motions of charge and the change in the electric field. Lots of particles have charge and if they move (including spinning) they will generate a magnetic field. Changing electric fields can also generate magnetic fields.



The continuous motions of the electrons create the continuous magnetic field.


In accelerator magnets I believe the above statement is essentially correct. Although in superconductors there is a pairing (Cooper pairs) of electrons that is quantum mechanical in nature and critical to our understanding.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig


PART 2.



Is it possible to even speculate (of course it is) what percentage of magnetic activity has to do with the electron itself, and what percentage has to do with the motion of the electron/s?


Some of the magnetic field of an electron is from its linear motion, and some if it is from its intrinsic "magnetic moment". The latter can be related to the electron's "spin" and I believe that QED may have an explanation. However once you get into QED you get away from the underlying pictures you seem to be thinking about and you get into pure math. (And math that is incomprehensible in terms of pictures.) I believe that the spin of the charge, perhaps being caused by preonic orbiting constituents of the electron, likely leads to the intrinsic magnetic moment. I believe a finite size to the preons as well as their own spin also plays a role. That would lead to magnetic fields being completely caused by motion of charge. But I have zero math on that so it is just speculation at this point.



When it is said 'a magnetic field exists over there, around that magnet' (or an electro magnetic field does), is that electromagnetic field, is that magnetic field, electromagnetic radiation?


No. Electromagnetic radiation is light, radio waves, x-rays and so on. In electromagnetic radiation we have oscillating electric and magnetic fields. The fields change over time and space, usually extremely rapidly. There are also static fields - fields that don't change in time and space, but are nearly constant (they are constant while the charges are in constant motion or have a constant distribution). The magnets in accelerators produce static magnetic fields. Now a caveat here is that those static magnetic fields aren't always completely static. As we increase the flow of current through the wires the magnetic field increases in value. But it is not electromagnetic radiation.



the magnets in accelerators, that accelerate proton beams, are electro magnets, or both?


Magnets don't typically accelerate proton beams. Magnets are used to bend the beams around a ring. There is a special place in each ring that provides the acceleration. Accelerators use electro-magnets mostly although storage rings can use permanent magnets as well. (Iron and some other materials can have permanent magnetic fields without electron flow. They work by aligning the intrinsic magnetic moments of large numbers of electrons within the atoms.)



The only conceivable way for bodies to effect bodies without touching them is a material medium existing between them


The above statement is radically out of step with present physics theory. However, I largely agree with it, and it is what my aether model begins to show. It remains to derive the Lorentz Force Equation from aetherial assumptions.



Either the electromagnetic field is a substantial medium that exists inbetween bodies, or the electromagnetic field is the result of bodies consuming particulates (like hungry hungry hippos) and then tossing them back and forth.


See above how my aether model describes the electric field and the vector potential. The magnetic field is just a mathematical operation on the vector potential. It turned out that the vector potential, not the magnetic field, was "the physical thing".



A lightbulb. Where is the em radiation/photons/particles/waves coming from?


I believe light always comes from the oscillation of charge. In radio transmitters bunches of electrons are moved inside the klystrons within broadcast antennae. They do work against an existing radio field (electrons oscillating in walls of an RF cavity) to grow the field, and amplitude or frequency modulation of that carrier radio frequency is broadcast. The radio's antenna then does the inverse as electrons in the wire move up and down in response to (and absorbing some of) the carrier frequency, and then electronics converts the signal to allow communication. When atoms undergo changes in their energy state the quantum mechanical wave function has a oscillating term that matches the frequency of the light that comes out. (I recall being struck by this when I was 20 - but it was explained to me it was an artifact and no one believed in the causality it implied to me.) For your question I believe it is a series of quantum state transformations of the vibrational states of the atoms within the filaments of the light bulb. The whole atomic structure vibrates more and more as we heat it, since that is where the energy goes: the heat energy goes into vibration; the particles making up the filament are a solid and so aren't freed by the energy, so the only thing they can do is vibrate. Each of these vibrations has a quantum state. When going from one state to a lower one, light is emitted. You can view that as being caused by the charges within the vibrating matter oscillating at the frequency needed to produce the light.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig


PART 3.

Continuing the discussion of what happens in a light filament:



electrons shake at point a, which shakes at point b, which shakes at point c, at d at e at f at g, till the electron shake reaches the electrons of the filament which shake their photons loose, and when the filament burns out, it has ran out of photons?


Atoms really are always shaking. When they go from more shaking to less shaking they emit a photon. The photon so emitted is created during the transition from more shaking to less shaking. The photons aren't in the material to begin with - they are created. Filaments burn out (I believe, I've never studied this) by the heat leading to chemical reactions with the stored oxygen inside the bulb. The bulb has a very low oxygen pressure to minimize this effect, but eventually it occurs. That is why you need the bulb and don't just have filaments out in the open air. The bulb either has a low total pressure or it is filled with a gas that won't chemically interact with the filament.



I guess the other simple obvious example would be a log fire,


In the case of fire what you have are chemical reactions. This can lead to three sorts of excited states: internal atomic excited shell states; molecular rotation; and molecular vibration. As all three classes of quantum excitations decay to lower quantum states they will emit light, as there's a lot of movin' and a-shakin' goin' on. In the light bulb filament we only had a-shakin'. But in both cases the photons weren't there to start with - they are created during the quantum transitions. Again, in my view it is because the underlying charge is oscillating. In the consensus view it is just there because of "first principles" and we should trust the math and observations only. (Machian positivism, following the philosophy of David Hume.)



Because a photon is not a thing that can be captured and held?


Now that is an excellent question! While a photon "in the wild" is a single quantum of electromagnetic radiation that is a wave packet traveling at the speed of light (and some would disagree even with that characterization) I have always been curious about whether a photon is indeed captured and held within the atom itself. It is entirely possible that one quantum of light is stored for each electron bound to the nucleus, since I am not sure if we'd know how it was there or not. However, I hope from my preceding answers that you can see that your initial thoughts on this are perhaps off, and you may not have meant by your question what I mean by it. But in any event, I consider it to be a most excellent question!



The purpose of all my questions are obviously for me to attempt to understand reality more clearly, but equally I ask as many questions as I can as deeply as I think I can to people who claim they know about a subject to attempt to show us both possibly what it is they do not fully understand, to then attempt to proceed with discussing and questioning and wondering what was wrong or lacking with prior understanding to see if we can discover anything the one in the know has missed.


I do the same. I am never certain I have the answers. What I do have are theories that explain an awful lot though.



we hate ignorance, foolishness, stupidity, stubbornness, failure, I cant stand that it is said 'there are contradictions, incompatibilities with theories of physics', shrugging shoulders we cant figure it out, its so annoying.


Some of this is pretty hard to understand, so we should cut the professionals some slack. And we will always get to the point where there is something next. If we just keep asking why? eventually we reach the point where we either say "we don't know" or "God ordained it thusly".

I hope my answers here helped. Your posts indicate you are rather off-base on your understanding of electricity and magnetism at the moment, and I would suggest a college course if you can afford the time and money to take one. There is also a lot of good stuff online now. The undergraduate classes are usually pretty good. It is in the more advanced courses that things get off track in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: ErosA433

this means, the detector does not know that "flew" by, it just detects something was there...

you say " energy or momentum " , what do you mean by that ?
is momentum something different than energy ?
what is you definition of energy ? what is momentum ?
do you mean "energy" as electric potential and "momentum" as velocity ?


Momentum is a component of energy, there is not magic definition I am talking about the total energy of a particle which is described by the invariant mass formula, we have explained it to you many times again, stop trying to give leading questions. I am explaining how these detectors work and the model.

A detector can be set up as a trigger... in which yes it just knows something was there, or it can be set up and able to tell you something about what happened, such as, There was something here, and it left x amount of ionization within my volume. This is something that is very useful and real information can be extracted about the event.



powerful magnetic field... ? ...I hope not alone ?

magnetic fields do change the trajectory, but as you say, they just change the direction and do not say what that charged particle is doing experiencing that change....

but to calculate a trajectory, you need to detect at least 3 position points in a row!
if you know 1, you know the position...
if you know 2, you know the direction...
if you know 3, you know the acceleration...

the magnetic fields actually change the experiment by altering the motion of the particles...
this is not observing in my opinion...

having that opinion basically proves you don't know anything about particle physics or understanding how any of this equipment works.

If you for example fire several particles, a electron, muon, pion, proton and a gamma at the same energy (yes its a particle no amount of smug 'matter of fact' attitude changes it, get over it) through a magnetic field with a tracking detector as i described, they will each give fundamentally different curvature, different sign of curvature depending up on the charge or no curvature at all, and possible no signal at all (for the case of a gamma) If you have a detector that is set up to be able to measure not just a trigger but an energy deposit, you can actually tell the difference between each of these particles using dE/dx



so this is a booster, a device that actually generate things you may detect...


You give it a label... for no apparently reason, it doesn't boost anything, it is a method of extracting energy of a high energy particle, if you want to understand how much energy a particle has, beyond a certain point the only way of doing it effectively is to stop it dead. This is what the calorimeter does.



so.. how does a subatomic lepton elementary particle which has no net electric charge ( not the electron but other so called leptons ) do interact with the electrons in the detector ?
no charge no interaction with an electron I think !

yeah they have a name, you are as always trying to sound like an expert but don't actually know the names of the particles you are talking about. If you are talking about neutrinos then, for a detector of those scale, neutrinos mostly pass straight out of the detector... like i explained in an earlier post... A neutrino actually has a coupling to the electron, and no not all thse interactions are electrostatic in nature as so yes, shock horror, a neutrino can interact with an electron despite the neutrino being neutral and the electron being charged.



and a word about hadrons...
neutron is an composite of electron "inside" proton and not something individual... so just that you know


and BTW, when you talk about gammas, this is radiation and not a particle...
if we talk about a particle detectors, we need to point it out !

Given your frankly outright incorrect statements and ignorance of the names of these things, we dont have to point anything out because a neutron is not a composit of an electron and proton... no amount of tongue smilies will change that, and gammas are high energy photons, which are also particles. Again, masses of evidence for this to be the case, please get over it and learn the science rather than spreading ignorance.




how comes muons, an elementary particle similar to the electron, with an electric charge of −1 e and a spin of 12, but with a much greater mass has passed the Electromagnetic calorimeter ?

is this that "energy and momentum" thing you said playing a role in that ?
"heavy" electron and not e muon at all maybe ??

and again... please tell me how to build a gluon detector


Your ignorance in all this and yet at the same time self righteousness by somehow pretending to be an expert is just laughable when you ask that question.

If you knew anything about particle physics you would understand the interactions of particles are described by a coupling strength. Yes a muon is a lepton, but it is not an electron, and the muon-electron coupling is weaker than a electron-electron coupling. It is such that muons are light enough to be produced in highly relativistic states meaning they can then pass straight through material with lots of electrons and only leave behind a small track of ionization. A muon can stop inside a detector, though with the energy we are talking about, its a rare occurrence. Same with the Tau, the tau coupling to the electron is even weaker than the muon, but, due to its mass, they are typically not produced with much energy and basically decay rapidly to muons, gammas,electrons

You tell me how to build a gluon detector, you are apparently the expert in all things detectors and particles, never mind me.... though its interesting really given that, iv actually built and operated such detectors and you sound like you have done little more than operate a computer over to some conspiracy forums.

Again, if you knew what a gluon did when emitted outside a particle, you'd not ask that question. Again, its either a leading question or just you trying to set up another demonstration of your ignorance.
edit on 16-9-2017 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2017 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
PART 1

originally posted by: delbertlarson


I am not really expert on gravity. However, it is quite clear that it exists.


Einstein is likely right in his general conceptual description of gravity, if the universe is 'natural'. Back to my eternally correct statement:

The only conceivable way for a body to effect a body without its body touching the other, is a material medium existing between them, or for the body to contain or posses other bodies which it can projectile.

The only way this can be avoided is in a simulated/video game universe. In Mario you can see mario throw a fire ball at a creature and look closely at the pixels and you will see the creature was hit and killed and the body of the fire ball image didnt even touch its body, the action we are seeing takes place somewhere else, in the software codes. In a reality in which there is stuff, different types of stuff, and action that takes place is action between that stuff, there is no hidden hard drive which rules and organizes and computes all the actions, only the bodies of the stuff, touches bodies of stuff,if there is a network of bodies that make a medium, like water molecules or air molecules, or gravity particles, then a body can effect a body at a distance without its body touching. Then the effects of a cannonball in the deep end can be felt as a wave in the shallow, the vibrations of a mothers voice box can be felt from 100 yards away as a childs chills, and then the motions of the sun can have an effect on the motions of 8ish planets.

Real universe: My statement holds.
Fake universe: almost anything goes, limited by technology and imagination (see, video game physics)





It is important that such a change in underpinning lead to experimental tests that can tell the difference however, as only then are we following the scientific method.



I am most interested in conceptual comprehension. I am most interested in most fully and closely resembling actually exactly realities substances and mechanics in my understanding than anything else. In the past this sort of inclination has steered physics with its counterpart being experimentation, and formalizing. If the state of theoretical fundamental physics absolutely clearly conceptually comprehended reality, its substances and laws, mechanics which forced those substances to act, react, interact, I would have no interest. I am only interested because there appeared to be ignorance and confusion, contradiction, incompatibility and mystery. I cant stand the thought that people in authoritative positions think they see and know the truth but are wrong. A model can work but be wrong. I can tell a person 'I bet you if I add water, and sun, and soil to these tomato seeds the tomato will grow, because when you add these together, it calls invisible spirits from the to come out and start building the tomato' (or the classic epi cycle example, but what I really am speaking of I suppose is the concept of field theory (does there or does there not actually exist real existing physical entities in space called magnetic field (called electromagnetic field)(is it really certain all the assumptions and interpretations about particles, decay, detection, creation are correct). All physics models may work 1000% percent well and perfect, but I am interested in the story, the fluff, the perception and conception, what actually is the case. I am interesting in eliminating those faulty 'invisible spirits' theories where they should be eliminated, where they can be unarguably argued to be false, faulty reasoning.

There is a lot of that, and most of my responses have been attempting to show that, some interpretations are unreasonable.






but rather because of an effect that gravity has upon the aether.


How handy it would be to propose a theory: ok, and then there is this 'something' that exists at every point in space which has the exact characteristics needed to have to have the rest of my theories work.

When you propose aether, we have to go back to cosmology, do we, how do you propose the aether (in your case, double) came to be? And I thought the reason for you proposing aether was for em radiation and for gravity?

A problem is being too general, as I expressed above 'how handy it would be', well I dont know why particles have mass, so what if there was this invisible fairy that existed everywhere in the universe that gave particles mass, call it the higgs fairy. Is just giving simple names to simple ideas without in the mind (and/or on paper) fleshing out the actual realistic logistics of the physical possibilities of such.

So you say, light aether, gravity aether.

Light aether is: Em field.

The proclamation that independent of charged particles there exists 'something' that is unlike all other particles, that exists everywhere in space, that is waiting to be disturbed, like water, and when disturbed propagates waves.

There is another of these: gravity aether (gravity field, gravity medium)

independent of massful particles there exists 'something' that is unlike all other particles (in a certain way), that exists everywhere in space, that is waiting to be disturbed, and when disturbed, is indented/warped, and maybe propagates waves.


There appears to be these two observable facts: The body of the lightbulb effects my eye without the body of the lightbulb touching my eye.

The body of the earth effects the moon without the body of the earth touching the moon.

::
The only conceivable way for a body to effect a body without its body touching touching the other, is a material medium existing between them, or for the body to contain or posses other bodies which it can projectile.


ok, and when talking about fields, em field, we are talking about in vacuum, to get away from the potential of the em field to be some component of charges, like in air: to really get down to most fundamental conception, we need to think about the most simplest and basics, in vacuum, how is light created, and how does it propagate.

Either: there exists a 'waiting to be propagated light substance' that surrounds everything.

Or: there exists pieces and parts and waves of light here and there; that is captured, like baseballs and marbles and snakes are captured, and then tossed this way and that.

Either photons/em radiations are things that at some point the body of the sun caught a bunch of, and is now throwing away from itself

Or: there exists a em/photon medium everywhere in space, and the sun has a lot of shakey charges which keep rippling it


Gravity, it does not seem like it could be the projectile particle case as light might be.

It does not seem as if the earth can cause the moon to stay near it by tossing gravity particles at it.

It seems the most likely candidate for the cause of gravity, is that there exists a medium of 'some type of stuff' in between and surrounding the earth and the moon, and the existence and motion of the earth in this material medium, effects the medium in such a way, that the moon cannot help but follow in the track the earth creates.


edit on 16-9-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
PART 2

originally posted by: delbertlarson

In my aether model, static electric fields are proportional to the separation of one aetherial component from the other, and the magnetic vector potential is the transverse component of the displacement of the two aetherial components from their equilibrium position.


If electric and magnetic fields exist in a true vacuum, if I can be shown in a true absolute vacuum, that a magnet works, than is that not extraordinary evidence that there exists something beyond the body of the magnet that causes the observation of magnetic attraction and repulsion?

Or is there a feasible way of modeling the magnet 'tossing projectiles' to cause attraction/repulsion? And why I say vacuum is key, is because we obviously see magnets work in non vacuum, but that is surrounded by air, so I do not know if it is possible for the charges of air to have any role.

Field theory/aether theory is that 'something, lots of some type of invisible something, exists surrounding and inbetween matter we are familiar with, in a magnet the aligned orientated spin of electrons 'does something' to this invisible stuff (just as the mass of the sun 'does something' to invisible stuff to keep the earth near) to cause another magnet to attract or repulse.

So now the interesting thing, as you hinted, is how these two separate components, which somehow may exist everywhere throughout space (like the universes water and air) interact, or are connected, how they smoothly operate without getting in each others way.

How do these massive amounts of apparently quite different somethings mediums actually physically exist in space.

How does the em field/aether physically exist as itself in space at all places it exists. It can be attempted to be expressed how wood exists where it exists in space, how air, how water exists where it exists in space, how copper, how the elements exist where they exist in space, how does the em field, how does the gravity medium exist as it does in space?





"It is the motion of a magnetic field that moves accelerates a charged particle right?"

Also note that no one considers the magnetic field to be "in motion". It is just a value of a field at a fixed point. The value of that field can of course change over time.


Ok, so I am holding 2 magnets. I bring the magnets together one way and at a certain point I feel them of their own accord draw together. Another way I feel them push apart.

As I explained above, either the magnets are throwing projectiles at each other, or they are disturbing an invisible medium in between them which results in the action. (Or since I dont do this in pure vacuum, and explanations of vacuum and pure vacuum are difficult, and I have not played with magnets in pure vacuum, from my observation it could be they are doing something to the air which surrounds them)

If the (unparenthesesd) later, which seems to be the most likely candidate (though they all at this point seem theoretically possible, at least the tossing projectiles for repulsion is easy enough to imagine, one side throwing balls east one side throwing balls west and this action and the balls colliding pushes them a part: but the attraction might be hard to explain with this thought: one side throwing balls east and the other side throwing balls east)

the magnet, said the electrons of the magnet, are doing something to the invisible something medium to cause depending on orientation attraction or repulsion.

"Also note that no one considers the magnetic field to be "in motion". It is just a value of a field at a fixed point. The value of that field can of course change over time."


This is why I asked 'what percentage if intrinsically the electron, and what percentage is the electrons movement', because if a certain or decent percentage of magnetic action is due to electron movement, then I do not know how it could be said the magnetic field (and I mean here the magnetic field the magnet causes) 'has no movement'.

I am talking about the magnetic field surrounding a magnet.


So you are suggesting (it is suggested), when a magnet is brought from its area to another, it is continuously warping the magnetic field, but in a easy to understand classical analogy sense of, solid, as if the magnetic field is a solid, like metal, or clay, and wherever the magnet is brought, it props the magnetic medium material into its formation, like making a cup out of clay, and as long as the magnet is there, the cup is there, a solid cup, there is no movement or motion of 'that which composes the cup'.

I was merely thinking it might be that the continuos movement of the electrons in the magnet, continuously moved the magnetic medium just beyond it. From my perspective it seems possible this is the case, and that this concept is ignored, and it is just imagined that it has no movement, it is a solid cup, however the solid cup has then 'properties', which may be analogous to as if the cup could impart motion. If my case is correct, it is conceptual overlookings like this that could add up and create a blurry picture.

But now we must consider why a material is not magnetic, we take a magnet, and take a non magnet, the magnet makes some cup, some indentation, with the magnetic medium/field/aether, but the electrons, magnetic moments, are not aligned in the non magnet, so it is not effected like the magnet is.

So the electrons in the magnet do something to the magnet medium around the magnet, the electrons in the non magnet do things too, but because they are not aligned they have an unaligned messy effect on the magnetic medium.

you are in a pool, there is a floating ball 2 feet in front of you, you take your hands and move them in a certain way in front of you and you attract the ball, you are an electron, you push the water, and you can repulse the ball. This is evidence that a bodies motion in a medium can exhibit the effects of repulsion and attraction of another body at a distance without the bodies touching.

A non magnet would be akin to random chaotic splashing which neither attracts or repulses.

but we notice in this analogy, the 'magnetic field' (that which allows repulsion and attraction) requires movement, to consider the magnetic field of a magnet not being in motion the analogy would then switch from the motive water attempting to theorize and express that it is motion in the body that causes motion outside of the body which causes the motive properties of attraction and repulsion, the charges of the magnet would then be 'pushing' the magnetic medium surrounding into a solid stable position, it would then be more like the thought of gravity, of bodies displacing medium, so two magnets, form solidish structures just beyond their bodies, and these solid structures have properties, that if you bring the two magnets close enough together the solid structures extending from their bodies, would then force attraction or repulsion, I suppose it might be like a mound and an indentation? One pole pushes out beyond and forms a mound, and one pole pulls the em medium inwards and forms an indentation in the em medium, and two mounds repulse, and two indentations repulse, but a mound attracts into an indentation?

edit on 16-9-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
PART 3


originally posted by: delbertlarson


I believe that the spin of the charge, perhaps being caused by preonic orbiting constituents of the electron, likely leads to the intrinsic magnetic moment.


Why do you theorize the electron having constituents is necessary (necessarily the case)?




"When it is said 'a magnetic field exists over there, around that magnet' (or an electro magnetic field does), is that electromagnetic field, is that magnetic field, electromagnetic radiation? "


No. Electromagnetic radiation is light, radio waves, x-rays and so on. In electromagnetic radiation we have oscillating electric and magnetic fields. The fields change over time and space, usually extremely rapidly. There are also static fields - fields that don't change in time and space, but are nearly constant (they are constant while the charges are in constant motion or have a constant distribution). The magnets in accelerators produce static magnetic fields. Now a caveat here is that those static magnetic fields aren't always completely static. As we increase the flow of current through the wires the magnetic field increases in value. But it is not electromagnetic radiation.


ok well there are the magnets for bending and magnets for accelerating, the discussion kind of turned into fundamentals of both (do the bending around the ring magnets also accelerate the proton beam a bit? where does n and s pole play into this? Would the protons react differently depending on orientation to magnets (depending on magnet orientation?), but about the accelerating electro magnets, what are they doing to the electromagnetic medium that accelerates the protons?




See above how my aether model describes the electric field and the vector potential. The magnetic field is just a mathematical operation on the vector potential. It turned out that the vector potential, not the magnetic field, was "the physical thing".



Ok and what is the 'vector potential', how does it physically exist in space, how many parts does it have, how close are the parts together, how big and massive are the parts?



A lightbulb. Where is the em radiation/photons/particles/waves coming from?


I believe light always comes from the oscillation of charge.


So you believe that there is a light/em medium that exists everywhere in space, (like water exists everywhere in water space), and if you have a charge, you can shake the charge, which shakes the em medium and that is how em radiation is generated? You can just keep shaking in the same place and just keep shaking the em medium/creating em radiation just as you can stand in water and splash and keep splashing and keep making waves?

The question would be, how did this medium get at all points in space? A fully perfectly connected medium that stretches the entire universe, how could that have possibly happened.

This also begs questions such as how it can be said that em radiation can decay or fully decay, and how em radiation can turn into or along with other particles (decay) and form into other particles.

Would that just be like saying, how can water turn into ice, or evaporate, or how can water be mixed in with soda or juice?

The only reason I think I felt strange about that potential is the insistence that it exists everywhere in space, that if areas of it in space can fundamentalyish change or decay, disappear, then it would be like if you were in the water splashing making waves, there could just be a whirlpool, a hole, in the medium, negating the 'it exists at every point in space', and making it so there can theoretically be points in space where you can shake a charge and no em radiation propagates? Let me try to express this another way.

Lets say the entirety of universal space equaled 100 (3d) units of space (the theory of spatial expansion furthers my point, because how would the EM field have continued to get larger, more numerous), is it said the EM field/medium/aether covers 100 units of space? (this is also a good place to express my surprise at these all encompassing aether and field theories) The gravity medium/aether covers 100 units of space? The higgs field covers 100 units of space? That seems like an eternal impossibility, to have finite units of space, and for multiple types of things to each occupy all units of space (yes I am familiar with pauli exclusion, but I think that is irrelevant to bring up here, would prefer the fundamental concepts addressed). If EM medium is real, gravity medium is real, how can they each occupy 100% of space? (unless of course, as I have seen suggested, they are somehow two sides of the same coin, or some very finely integrated thing, or it would simply be one takes up 50% the other takes up 50%, but they would have to be so embedded and entangled in such a way that seems, something. And well further, we know they cant really take up all space, because that would leave no room for the other stuff, quarks and electrons and such, but I will assume and presume when it says 'em and gravity medium take up all space, exist everywhere all throughout', it is implied that they take up all space not taken up by other objects.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
PART 4

originally posted by: delbertlarson

Continuing the discussion of what happens in a light filament:


Ok, well mainly what I was attempting to get at with those questions, I think I spoke more and more on above, and it really came down to: does an em medium exist all throughout space, or does it not: does em particulates and waves only exist as separate entities which are captured and released.



The photon so emitted is created during the transition from more shaking to less shaking. The photons aren't in the material to begin with - they are created.


Here is an interesting point I think, 'the potential for photons to be created exist all around all materials' (that is the idea of the em field/medium/aether), with my questions on how motionless is this field/medium/aether, I was wondering I guess, well now we get to how the em radiation propagates through the field:

Imagine a 3d medium, imagine how you imagine the 3d (4d) medium of em field/aether:

imagine you holding a rock in that medium (a rock has charged particles).

Imagine shaking the rock. How does the medium react?

Key, key, point in all this.

Does a single line propagate away from the shaking rock? Does a line like snake like wave propagate away? Does a sphere propagate away? Does a compression wave propagate away? When you are standing in the air medium, and shake a rock, the air medium reacts in a way. When you are standing under in the water medium and shake a rock, the water medium reacts in a certain way, (I have always had issues with the explanation of how the em medium reacts) how does the em medium react, from the point of shaking (charge acceleration)?

You see, does each '''point''' in/of the em medium have independence of a sort, so that in the rock, there is charge 1, charge #2, charge #3, 4, 7, 100.. charge #9999999 of the rock, and each of these charges are at some distance from one another, though all apart of the single object rock. Each of these charges before rock acceleration are 'touching the em medium in a certain way' (interesting point, how are they touching)

(just as in water, in air, different points of the water and air medium are touching different points of the rock, and when the rock starts to move, it is those different points that start to move in relation to those points touching on the rock)

In em medium, when the rock starts to be shaken, when the rock first goes from non movement, to movement, do each of those points of em medium touching #1 thru #9999999 charge react independently?

And with the whole 'switching magnetic switching electric field' business:

Is this implying that the em medium is some 'mesh'? Like vertical lines are magnetic field, horizontal lines are electric field, so the whole universe has this substantial tightly knit and packed grid? and the lines are actually some type of 'something' and the type of something that the vertical lines are are fundamentally different from the type of something the horizontal lines are?



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig

About the em medium, please read this. At least click on the link and give it a shot. It might be a bit hard to follow depending on your present knowledge level, but I'd be happy to answer questions along the way. That reference should have all the answers you seek about the aether.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

First look,

This is two component aether for EM gravity not included?)?

(your images look pretty compact, as much as you insist you are not that with gravity, it must be placed on some middle burner that there must be some similar concept as to how it operates and it cannot be entirely ignored on this scale of things because it is right in the mix, so with the em aether/s being so pervasive and compact, where is room left for the all pervasive and compact gravity aether, or is that not hard to understand, you would just add another color ball/particle in the image, it would be like if you had an olympic size swimming pool completely filled with an equal number of baseballs, tennis balls, and golfballs, there is just such a nice mixture and all 3 quantities and qualities are so pervasive that any action in any area a b c d in the universe activates the em aether and the gravity aether, and this is further exampled by the observations of em following gravities bending, which implies there is some intimate embedding)

Another question is, how are the two components so neatly and evenly packed? So that there is never large areas of only 1 or the other, or part of your point is there are cases of area, clumps, predominantly of one type? Which is where maybe you raise my most suspicion, by claiming such cases are charge itself, is what we consider electrons?


If we imagine in your image, there existing an object of charges among the em aether, and that object being accelerated, how would the wave/s appear to propagate without expanding and dissipating? I guess I have asked similar questions before like, in the em aether, when a charge is accelerated, does the radiation propagate in all direction? If you imagine the object being shaken once (or a few times) up and down, the reaction of the aether above and below the object, would respond differently than the aether to the sides and front and back?

lastly, can the aether be created or destroyed, can its particles decay? What are the claims light can be used to produce particles?

I guess lastly, why 2 components, why could 1 type of particle aether not work for em? (I am assuming, 1 particle responsible for magnetic, 1 for electric?)



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
hey daniel king, why dont you design an experiment, perform it, and post your results once and for all. the others delbert, eros et all havent been able to do this. so you lead the pack and hopefully they will follow your example



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:41 AM
link   
I would say the pro-tip here for you Daniel is

Ask a small number of questions (not 15 in a row) and you might get some answers that are coherent. The reason why few people are replying to your answers anymore is because.

1) You ask 20 questions per post, the first two or three are reasonable questions, the later seventeen are related to your own assumptions regarding to the answers to the first three
2) There are people here to do actually know things beyond popular science and the armchair, and they more often than not like to use their time wisely, not reading a thesis of random questions, leading statements and mental unravelling
3) There is a lot of historical research that you can do and asking questions about the things you are unsure of is only 1-5% of the actual task of learning
4) Because you don't understand something doesn't mean its ok to invent something
5) Logical reasoning is fine, except when your logical reasoning is mistaking an assumption, for logic, which you appear to do
6) There are more than one logical path to many of the correct or at least accepted answers to many of your problems.
7) The standard model of particle physics has many terms in it, they all have specific meanings. These are almost impossible to dismiss with a forum post of text, it requires quite a lot of real effort. Simply dismissing it and saying "No" is not at all credible unless one can come up with something equally powerful



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
Back to my eternally correct statement:

The only conceivable way for a body to effect a body without its body touching the other, is a material medium existing between them, or for the body to contain or posses other bodies which it can projectile.


Except that this is not an eternally correct statement in the slightest.

Fields are not aether, they also do not need to be material. Material aether has been studied for many many many years and for the most part found to be disproven, there are a couple of experiments where the results are a bit so so as previously discussed here

We can make arrangements of electric fields in which your idea of 'tossing projectiles' simply doesn't work on simple directional analysis alone.

Secondly, perfect vacuum has never been achieved, even in space it isn't perfect and the concept of a field would work equally in vacuum as air.



new topics

top topics



 
72
<< 337  338  339    341 >>

log in

join