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.
It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity that I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this Agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my readers.[5]
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So he didn't know if it was material or immaterial
Now that our logic is being forced to deal with things that it never had to deal with on evolutionary time scales, such as properties of the vacuum, I think in addition to asking the question if it's logical for empty space to have properties, we also have to ask whether our logic has evolved sufficiently to understand things like the vacuum
Could it be that since our ancestors were never exposed to a vacuum, they had no reason to develop any logic relating to the vacuum?"
So I admit it bothers my logic a little that empty space appears to have properties,
originally posted by: delbertlarson
It could, perhaps, be an increase in aetherial density that leads to a corresponding pressure. (Each of the little balls shown in the pictures might get a little smaller once mass is present.) This could cause a pressure gradient, and with mass as a source term for the effect, that might lead to gravity.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
I am thinking that gravity may be a different effect rather than needing an additional particle in the mix.
The point was the concept of action at a distance bothered Newton because he had a primitive understanding of science, but since then our understanding has grown and turned many ideas upside-down. The problem with "action-at-a-distance" was that people's everyday experience was that putting an arrow in a bow allowed the bowstring to propel the arrow, we thought by touching. However now we know that's not what really happens, because on small scales there is no touch, it's really another form of "action-at-a-distance". When you sit in a chair, it holds you up by "action-at-a-distance" albeit a short distance but still we now know that what we thought of as "touch" doesn't really happen like we used to think.
originally posted by: DanielKoenig
How many types of 'non nothing' fall under the category of immaterial? What would Newton have meant by the gravity medium potentially being immaterial? Did he mean baryonic matter, did he mean atomic, by material?
Newton himself and his most critical contemporaries felt it to be disturbing that one had to ascribe physical reality both to space itself as well as to its state of motion; but there was at that time no other alternative, if one wished to ascribe to mechanics a clear meaning.
It is indeed an exacting requirement to have to ascribe physical reality to space in general, and especially to empty space. Time and again since remotest times philosophers have resisted such a presumption...
The psychological origin of the idea of space, or of the necessity for it, is far from being so obvious as it may appear to be on the basis of our customary habit of thought. The old geometers deal with conceptual objects (straight line, point, surface), but not really with space as such, as was done later in analytical geometry. ...
Science has taken over from pre-scientific thought the concepts space, time, and material object (with the important special case "solid body") and has modified them and rendered them more precise. ...
Atomistics also compels us to give up, in principle, the idea of sharply and statically defined bounding surfaces of solid bodies. Strictly speaking, there are no precise laws, even in the macro-region, for the possible configurations of solid bodies touching each other.
In spite of this, no one thought of giving up the concept of space, for it appeared indispensable in the eminently satisfactory whole system of natural science.
Mach, in the nineteenth century, was the only one who thought seriously of an elimination of the concept of space, in that he sought to replace it by the notion of the totality of the instantaneous distances between all material points.
I think it's probably best to consider limiting the usage of the word "nothing" because in science it seems that "nothing" isn't a very good descriptor of even "empty space" or a "vacuum" which has properties so if it has properties, it's not "nothing" in that sense.
We cant see anything in between earth and moon, therefore nothing must be there.
The sun takes up point a and b and c and d ....and x and y and z and z1 and z2 and z3 ...and z9999 of space.
The aether cannot take up point a and b and c and d.... and z1 and z2.... of space.
Lots and lots of words....
What theoretical solid would induce the mechanics of attraction from massive body A placed in the solids center (displacing the substance that was occupying that solids center) and lesser massive body B placed in the vicinity of body A.
For the sun to revolve, what is the breakdown in percentages of what the sun is doing to the aether as opposed to what the aether is doing to the sun which causes its revolution?
These two responses are just so you and I can get on the same fundamental page on the apparent theoretical, hypothetical, conceptual possibilities of the physical mechanisms which result in (only 1 of*) the observed activity of that which has been termed 'gravity'
originally posted by: delbertlarson
1) The mass of one type of aether is negative, and has the exact opposite value as the other type. Hence the total mass of the aether is zero.
2) You see uniformly packed balls because that is the form of a solid. The aether needs to be a solid because only solids support transversely polarized waves, and light is a transversely polarized wave.
3) Poisson's equation (relevant to both em and gravity) involves sources and sinks, and that is the clue that charge might be some "extra" aether. Negative charge could have been "missing" aether, but in my model things worked out with a two component aether instead.
4) Electromagnetic radiation is a wave on the aether. Both components move together. It is a transverse wave within a solid. It can dissipate. What quantum mechanics tells us though is that once that wave interacts with something else, then the whole wave collapses as a result of the interaction, so the dissipation is not always apparent.
originally posted by: delbertlarson
5) Yes, if you oscillate charge in one direction you will generate a different wave than if you oscillate in a different direction. (The polarization of the wave will be different.)
what is the mass of each aether particle, how strongly they are bonded to each other, how dense they are, etc. (if not exactly, could you arrive at some significant range of potential candidates?
For the aether to be able to be warped, it must be able to be moved.
When massive bodies move through space in the local universe, that is to say move through the potential EM/Gravity aether, and as expressed above, disturb/warp/displace the aether, is that displacement (does that displacement cause) EM radiation? Or is this obvious, in that it is considered anyway, that the Earths movement through the EM field is continuously producing EM radiation?
is because supposedly the EM aether cannot move at any speed other than c?
But something seems fishy about this, if we imagine a planet moving through EM/gravity aether at 0.00000001 mph, and it is pretty much spherical, the front forward pointing side of its equator body would be touching the aether (do we presume every point of its surface is touching the aether) and continuously displacing it
What is the meaning of 'mass is negative'? ... Where did you come up with this concept, where did you get the idea that such a thing could be possible, what is the meaning of such a thing.
I was more asking logistically, it is astonishing how so uniformly 2 types of component could be so homogeneously packed throughout...in and in between all galaxies
What could have happened to result in such a uniform distribution, are the two particle components attracted to one another, so that every A finds a B and B finds an A
By negative charge, do you mean, generally, electrons?
are you suggesting that every so often, maybe (an exaggerated for example) million times per square inch the em aether is in 'sheets' so that a wave occurs 'on the surface' of the sheet?
Lots and lots and lots of words
How do you pair-create charge? When charges are annihilated where does the substance go? It turns into neutrino and, I dont know if you can say light, because you are saying aether is light.
originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Also if whales are mammals where are their nipples?
originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Simple question.
An agitated or shaken soda or beer can.
Why does tapping the side of the agitated can release or normalize the pressure so it doesnt burst foam into your face when you crack the top open.
How does that eliminate the pressure the gasses produce or equaluze them so they dont foam up like crazy and spunk you in the face.