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: 341
79
<< 338  339  340    342  343  344 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433
"Action at a distance" is an interesting topic in the history of physics. Isaac Newton was bothered by the idea as this quote suggests:

Action at a distance
Isaac Newton said in letters to Bentley, 1692:

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]


So he didn't know if it was material or immaterial, but he presumed there had to be an "agent" which Einstein's theory spelled out as space-time having properties. But Einstein's explanation saying that empty space has properties is still bothersome to apparent logic because, human logic goes, if the space is empty, how can it have properties? Apparently it does and we can measure and predict the properties and their effects, but this still seems to contradict our inherent logic.

So then I think we have to take a step back and consider the origin of our logic. On evolutionary timescales it hasn't been that long since our ancestors were swinging in trees and trying to avoid getting eaten by predators, and I think it's safe to say they had little exposure to empty space or a vacuum. 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 which are totally outside our evolutionary experience (ditto for most of particle physics).

The point I'm trying to make here is that instead of asking the question "why doesn't the universe appear to conform to my sense of logic? What's missing about our understanding of the universe?" which seems to be Daniel's approach, I think another approach that should be considered is "What's wrong with human logic? 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, but since many experiments have so far failed to show this idea as incorrect, my inclination is to suspect that my logic is more suspect at this point than our experiments in demonstrating the properties of the universe. Thus even though it may not satisfy my logic to say so, experiments lead me to believe that Einstein was right that empty space really does have properties. I can also be glad that the logic was good enough for my ancestors to avoid being eaten by predators so I can be here to write this, but I think my logic and that of most humans probably still has room for more evolution to deal with modern challenges that have only been around for the evolutionary "blink of an eye".




posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I have a question about Quantum Chromodynamics. I understand the basic idea of color charge in valent quarks, but has anyone actually been able to measure or directly observe color charge in action?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
I have a question about Quantum Chromodynamics. I understand the basic idea of color charge in valent quarks, but has anyone actually been able to measure or directly observe color charge in action?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
Let me answer your question with a question about direct observation. Let's say you're eating a steak. Are you directly observing the steak, or are you only seeing the light reflected off of the steak and then thus inferring the existence of the steak because of the light it reflects?

As physicsgirl explains, we've inferred properties of quarks without ever actually directly observing one and she explains why they aren't directly observed as separate entities. She touches on the color charge but she doesn't get the right color for anti-red, which should be cyan but I think the color she's calling "blue" is actually closer to cyan which would be anti-red, so it would be better if she had an actual blue m&m but I guess it's not that important since the colors referred to with color charge aren't real colors as you probably know. Anyway quarks probably don't look exactly like m&m's as seen in the video, but for illustration purposes it's easier if you have something you can actually look at:

What are Quarks? Sugar Edition!


Here's Richard Feynman sort of admitting you can't "directly observe" a steak either, in his bit about hungry philosophers:



edit on 2017920 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig

I am thinking that gravity may be a different effect rather than needing an additional particle in the mix. 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. But that thought - similar to my thought about the scalar potential being a sort of pressure - is only speculation. Sometimes my speculations work out (such as my derivation of Maxwell's Equations) but sometimes my speculations do not work out. By "work out" I mean that you take a concept and then logically and rigorously develop math from it. And then you test the math against all experimental predictions to ensure it agrees with what is found in nature. In this realm, vector calculus (and perhaps tensor analysis) is what is needed. We shouldn't just throw around concepts and think we have done anything important, nor, in my opinion, should we resort to running couplings and renormalization or other sorts of incantations of magic and think we have done anything important. Again, what is important is to start with the concepts, reduce the concepts to mathematical formulas, and compare the resultant predictions against experiment.

Now, to answer the central aspects of your questions (without the math - for the math see InfoGalactic):

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.

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.)

6) You create aether whenever you pair-create charge. And you destroy aether whenever you annihilate charges. But whenever you do, it is done in pairs. Also, this is detached aether in this case, and not the underlying aether sea. (One can have philosophical discussions about the aether sea, but I don't know that it affects the math, and I haven't given it a lot of thought.)

The above answers might be something you and others find odd and objectionable. However, they include the key items necessary to derive Maxwell's Equations. I suspect Maxwell may have considered a solid, but my guess is that he did not include two components, and I further guess that he did not consider the possibility of negative mass.

I am very glad you took some time to do an initial look at my aether model. Now comes the next step. You should carefully work through the math. When you do so you will see clearly how the postulates lead directly to Maxwell's Equations. And once you have done that, you can go back and understand what physical entities underlie the electric and magnetic fields as well as what electromagnetic radiation really is. You'd likely be one of the first ten (five? three?) people to have such an understanding. I know a reviewer for the Physical Review read it, and possibly two of them did. One informed me about the need for my fundamental constant (a) and another (who may have been the same one) called me up to discuss the pending rejection. By then I knew that there were certain things that just could not appear in PRL, and so I told him I knew they'd likely not publish it there, but I wanted to have the reviewers look for errors. He did not find any errors, but that paper, like most of my best work, was rejected by PRL.

The following goes you as well as for everyone reading this post! Please take some more time with the InfoGalactic site. And to repeat: get into the math. There will always be doubt that the math is correct until you verify it for yourself. When something this significantly different comes along, even reviewed works are doubted. (And rightly so!) Only when you work through it all yourself will the doubt disappear. And feel free to ask questions along the way.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

So he didn't know if it was material or immaterial


Would have been nice to know the definitions of those terms, I presume he meant something maybe related to the concept of mass or not (substance existing, on the fence of having rest mass and not), but more likely, but related, the concept of stability? What is the meaning of the word immaterial, you cant grab and hold it in your hand, therefore light is immaterial, no theoretical hand can stop and grab and hold it in place = immaterial (though, something exists)?

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? If something/substance exists in the universe, but cannot be rolled into a stable ball that can be used to build, like a tree, rock, person, water, air, star, it is 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,


Your trouble here has to do with assumptions and presumptions, envisions, definitions, imaginations and personal (and maybe convoluted historical) relations to words meanings (and as you suggest, nature).

Mankind assumed, presumed, declared, 'observed', that 'outer' space is empty. Because it looks that way. I look around and see a tree and a rock, a tree and a rock is not empty space. I like between the earth and the moon and I see no trees or rocks (forget asteroids etc), so it is safe (is it... is it...?) to assume and presume, and declare that outer space is empty. So now we can define outer space as empty and we can make a word for it, when you have no rocks and trees or air, call that space 'vacuum', now we know that outerspace is vacuum, now we know outerspace is empty, now we know vacuum is empty.

Lets go back a bit. We are standing in front of one another in a field. But wait, every square inch is not full of trees and rocks... so even non outerspace, even on earth space is empty, even between rocks and trees and people is vacuum. What is this air you speak of, I cant see it, from my primitive observation I must say that it is empty space, and lets make this nifty word that equals the concept of purely empty space (read that again and again, concept, concept, in this case precedes the perfect knowledge, the concept of vacuum was created as a definition, equalling empty, before it was perfectly absolutely proven that all throughout the universe was perfectly empty space), ok, ok, you have convinced me, air exists... what appears to be nothing in between us, is actually full of lots of something, who would have thought! who would have guessed, declared, assumed, perceived, who would have observed!

But there are no trees inbetween the earth and moon, and it is not full of air... therefore it is safe to say this time we are certain, it is absolutely nothing, so we can use our word we created to equal the concept of pure nothing (the absence of stuff/matter/energy/thing) vacuum, every square inch in between the earth and moon is not full of trees, rocks, and air... therefore it is pure nothing, therefore it is vacuum, just like we, I, thought was between you and me, and trees and rocks, because really who would guess air, you cant see it. Its safe to assume at first if you cant see anything, then nothing must be there. We cant see anything in between earth and moon, therefore nothing must be there.

But wait, theres more. By not direct observations, but circumstantial, relational observations, it appears to make high and holy sense that there is some reason the moon stays near the earth, some physical reason.

Wait, did you feel that... what is this, wind... I cant see it, but it has an effect on objects... how are those leaves moving... the leaves must have souls... ghosts must be pushing the leaves... ghosts must be keeping the moon near the earth, the moon must have a soul which does not want to be lonely thus ever runs after the earth, because certainly there can be no other physical reason the moon stays near the earth because I cant see any physical mechanism that keeps the moon near the earth. I cant see any physical mechanism that moves the leaves, I cant see any physical mechanism that moves a person, but we now know it is a persons soul which does that, so the leaves and moon must have a soul, thusly, therefore, it must be safe to say.


No offense meant but I think your who evolution spiel is entirely out of proportion, (as I attempted to begin to relay above), as the concept of something and nothing is the most fundamental for 1, for 2 the concept of learning that what appears to be invisible is actually full of stuff has multiple times been expressed and convincingly, and 3, there are millions of things humans do and accomplish far beyond 'it looks like there is nothing there, but there might be something there' that are very distant from our past and present primitivity, the main reason being, there are so few possibilities, they are so easy to grasp: Either there is actually an area of nothing, or there actually is not. Either an area appears to be pure nothing and is, or is not. Either an area appears to not be pure nothing and is, or is not. Air appears to be pure nothing, it has convincingly been expressed to be not. Between the earth and moon and sun appears to be pure nothing, to me, and many other, and einstein, it has convincingly been expressed to be not.

If between the earth and moon and sun there is majority pure nothing, we are hard pressed to hear any proposed theoretical, hypothetical suggestions as to how the observed functions of earth sun moon staying near one another occurs, if we consider there may be invisible stuff inbetween moon and earth and sun, it becomes easier to suggest hypothetical, theoretical mechanisms which may result in the observed functions. You are the one who respects occams razor at all, I am not telling you to use it, I think there are ways to grasp what has been said without needing to resort to it.


edit on 21-9-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   

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.


Tornado, hurricane, whirlpool, may be similar functions as to what, why and how gravity is and works (and central supermassive black hole too).

The sun is moving 'forward' (revolving around milkyway center) and it is rotating.

When you look in between the earth and the moon, and between the sun and all planets, you see what looks like black, empty nothingness. But as you already envision with your light aether theory you can imagine it full of little balls or somethings.

When tornados occur they are usually full of dirt and dust so you can see them, but imagine if they could form without that (is it called water devils, tornados over water, they almost look invisible). You are familiar with taking a spoon or stirrer and mixing a liquid and creating a whirlpool?

All(ish) solar systems of the galaxy are revolving around a center (of spiral galaxies at least...maybe). Does this not imply the possibility that the aether is also revolving? And so you refer to it as a solid, though this is also the behavior as has been expressed in liquid and gasses, (whirlpool, tornado, hurricane) (though really these concepts of phases of matter are human conventions and imposed limits, the aether could be some mixed phase, or like gelatinous or something).

The sun and the planets are moving and rotating, this cannot be ignored. All perceptions and conceptions and observations and experiments of gravity are done under these conditions.


Lets imagine (its easier if we dont try to imagine all planets at once so lets imagine for sake of clarity and discussion only the sun and earth existed in the solar system), the sun was stationary, not even rotating.

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.

(we are going to consider 2 scenarios, 1st a simple earth placement, and 2nd after, the concept of potential orbiting)

So we take the earth and we place it in the vicinity of the stationary sun... what theoretical, hypothetical mechanics would make the earth crash into the sun? (would produce the common effect we are familiar with termed the attractive force of gravity?

If we have a solid like metal, and somehow get a massive sphere of marble into its center (which displaces the metal that was in that center) and then somehow get a less massive sphere of wood in the vicinity of that marble, would we expect the wood sphere attracted to the marble?

how about instead of metal, if we did that with jello? Or how about a swimming pool full of marbles, place a giant boulder in the 3d middle, displacing that 3d middle of marbles, and then place a cannonball in the boulders vicinity, would the cannonball be attracted towards the boulder?

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.

I think it is very significant to be able to understand components in a variety of situations to be able to understand them at all, like understanding the components of a car at rest and in motion. But as stated, the sun and earth are not at rest, they are in motion. But before moving to that motion, lets consider stationary scenario 2, in terms of orbit.

Someone might say, the reason the earth orbits the sun is not because gravity entirely, but because of the circumstances of solar system creation sent the earth in motion and the earth stayed in motion, ok sounds reasonable.

So the same scenarios as before, we have our solid medium/aether (of marble, metal, wood, jello, a pool of marbles, a pool of billiards, a pool of pennies, a pool of steel wool, a pool of cotton balls, etc. all separate independent trials) and we have our bodies of mass representing the sun and earth. But this time instead of just placing the second lesser mass body representation of earth in the vicinity of the representation of sun and asking if we can conceive of any materials and mechanisms which would create the scenario we observe with the suns relation with the earth, this time we put the representative earth in motion in the vicinity.

Now can we think of how things may react, any theoretical, hypothetical materials and mechanisms, with this mass B (earth representation) placed into motion in the vicinity of the stationary mass A (sun representation)?

Place it into motion with however many mph you want, or we may as well try multiple trials, try 1 mph, try 10 mph, try 100 mph, try 1000 mph.

Any conceivable way to get mass B to orbit mass A?

If you may notice, the concept of displacement, with motion, displacement over space and time, creates a tunnel. That may be a handy conceptual tool in all this.

So that is stationary mass A in medium/material/solid/aether. And placed into motion remain in motion unless acted on by another something mass B.

But, the sun is moving.

So now we do this theoretical conceiving again with mass A placed into motion, in the medium/aether/solid and maybe mass B along with it. Mass A placed into motion in a straight line? (thats not how it is in nature, lets try to mimic nature).

The sun does not travel in a true straight line right, it arcs, it is revolving around the center of the galaxy, so this is a conundrum in a conundrum in a conundrum.

But might the same concept, the same mechanics which allow, cause, force the earth to revolve around the sun, force the sun to revolve around the galaxies center?

Any way, the sun is in motion, traveling 'forward' at an imperceptible arc around galaxy center.

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?

Any way, we have our test 3d swimming pool we can fill with any hypothetical material we want to try to get this equation to work.


edit on 22-9-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
...Continued...

originally posted by: delbertlarson

I am thinking that gravity may be a different effect rather than needing an additional particle in the mix.



So lets just imagine the sun is revolving around the center of the swimming pool. Somehow we got that to work, and now we are waiting to toss our earth mass B in to see if we can get it to orbit the sun and remain doing so.

The earth is rotating, but we dont know how significant that is to the equation.

The sun on its lap is about to pass us, so we get our earth ready.... here it comes....ok we fire it out of the cannon, can we imagine a hypothetical possible type of material that is filling the swimming pool, that allows the earth to remain orbiting the sun?

Now, I know the theory is that a potential main reason the earth is and able to orbit the sun is circumstances and proximity's of their creation, that when created they were created in orbit and revolution so it is easier to imagine if created in such a relation it may be easier to remain in such, and that all our efforts of waiting till the sun gets near us on its lap to shoot the earth towards it will not conceptually yield the possible reaction to result in a conceivable model of the system.

To cut to the chase, personally after thinking about these issues, though it may not take long, one may consider that the aethers/mediums personal local motion may have to do with the nature of these bodies orbits.

Does the sun create a tubular tunnel in the aether, (as a body traveling through displacing a medium must) and does the earth orbit this tunnel.

As the sun leaves point a, point b, point c, point d, of the tunnel it creates, as the sun moves to point e, f, g, h, does the tunnel created at point a, b, c, d, collapse? Does this have an effect on how the earth orbits the sun?

And lastly, does the suns rotation have any effect? Does the suns rotation while creating this tunnel, cause the material/aether that comprises the standing and potentially collapsing tunnel to itself rotate, and does this contribute to the observed phenomenal effect of the earth orbiting the sun.

This is all gravity so far, but I will respond to your other statements in this post later, I think it important to get on the same page with this so far and not mix them too much yet (even though I initiated tossing gravity in the mix, your response caused me to attempt to paint my picture of the potential fundamentals of the potential cases).

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' (*the other aspect (or another) of that which is termed 'gravity' besides 'how does the earth orbit the sun' is 'how/why do objects remain on the surface of the earth), which maybe we can discuss after you comment your thoughts on this and after I write and we discuss my statements and questions about the rest of your post on EM, aether, and your theory thereof, or any time of convenience and/or desire.



posted on Sep, 22 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

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?
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.

Einstein points this out when he discusses the fact that Newton was troubled by action at a distance, so we have to cope with new ways of thinking, such as "fields".

"Relativity and the Problem of Space" Albert Einstein (1952) English translation published 1954



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.



We cant see anything in between earth and moon, therefore nothing must be there.
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.

If you think there's something in space like an aether, then you can try to hypothesize what properties that something would have and how you might detect it, maybe in some variant of Michelson-Morley's experiment, but if you can't hypothesize what properties it might have or how you might verify its existence, you may as well accept the current consensus view that it no longer seems necessary.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig




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.


The aether overlaps with the sun. The sun is a large number of particles. Each charge (detached aether) within each particle pushes the attached solid aether outwards a little, but the attached solid aether has a much greater density than the charge density of the particles, so what you have is a small disturbance from the particles within a solid aether, even in something as large as the sun.



Lots and lots of words....


Your musings on a non-solid aether are just speculations. To become a theory you need math. If you can derive Maxwell's equations from a non-solid aether, then you'd have a theory. I don't think it is possible though, because of the transverse polarization exhibited by light.



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.


The aetherial situation is more akin to electrons moving within solids - like current flowing through wires. I am still working on the force equations. So far I've just got Maxwell's Equations satisfactorily derived.



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?


From the derivation of Maxwell's Equations all I can say is that charge density (detached aether density) is usually a small quantity with respect to attached aether density. As speculation, the preons might have charge densities similar to the solid aether, and if we assume a classical radius for the preons, they have a radius roughly 50 times smaller than the classical radius of the proton. So this would indicate that the attached aether has a far greater density than normal matter. But again, this is speculation. Theory requires math, and science requires tests of the theory.



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'


We are not on the same fundamental page. While we both seek an underlying aetherial model, you are thinking in terms of tunnels and flows and considerable complexity. I already have a model of a solid that leads to Maxwell's Equations, and I focus on reducing the complexity to simplicity. The Lorentz Force equation and Newton's gravitational equation are simple things (they don't have too many terms). My next task, and one I did not succeed at 30 years ago, although I got close on part of it, is to arrive at the Lorentz Force equation and Newton's gravitational equation in a way consistent with the aether proposed to result in Maxwell's equations.

I made progress just last week. I now believe my very old thought about pressure and density isn't the answer. Rather, I think it is the change in tension/pressure within the solid due to the presence of sources (detached aether) that might be the key. I am moving somewhat from speculation to modeling now. I have no idea if I will get to the end point or not anytime soon.

But the point is that Newtonian gravity - that very simple formula - accounts for pretty much all of the effects you mention in your post, as well as the * more. So rather than attempt to put in all the complexity in the analysis, it is my aim to recover Newton's force law alone. And after that there are the general relativity corrections which have some experimental support as well.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


In the quote you give, note Mach again. That is the departure point of Einstein. No more physical models, just principles, followed by math, leading to experimental tests.

Also, when you say things don't touch in the old sense of things I partially agree. But I don't think it is relativity and its insistence of point-like interactions that is the main culprit - rather it is quantum mechanics. We now know that when two atoms nestle inside an ionic solid that they aren't solid balls touching in a classical sense. Rather, it is a Pauli exclusion of the electron wave functions that keeps them a certain distance apart even though their opposite charges continue to provide a force of attraction. So yes, its certainly different than the old thoughts of touch!

That said, I tend to think that we can still make considerable progress with aetherial science reverting to the old ways. While the aether is likely (speculating again) quantum mechanical in its smallest essence, my derivation of Maxwell's Equations was completely classical. I suspect derivations of the Lorentz force equation and Newton's gravity equation will be classical as well.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

(not to get too mixy, yet, as I said, but just to tack onto my last gravity response, I kept saying 'any conceivable material and mechanism', but I just thought to say, knowing the certain circumstantial variables, the formal square laws of gravitation, can figures be plugged in to approach determining some variables of possible gravity aether/medium/material, or would the range be too large (1000000 particles of size 1 or 10000001 particles of size 1.00001 or 1000002 particles of size 1.00001 or .... and so on per cubic yard), not to mention the details of this be apparently inconsequential (if you cant make a lawn mower run on gravity aether particles who cares attempting to more closely envision their characteristics). What I am wondering is we know (...do we...) the mass of the sun, and earth, and we know how effected the earth is by the mass of the sun (and maybe the fact of its motions): So what I am asking is like wondering if we had floating ball in our swimming pool and we knew its mass, and you were standing outside of the pool with another ball, and you threw the ball into the pool, and that created waves, which made the first ball bob up and down as the waves passed, and we measured the energy of the waves, could we use all that information, to determine things about the fundamental nature of water, how many water particles are in the pool (per 20 cubed feet, or per 20 cubed inches, or per 20 cubed centimeters, or per 20 cubed picometers), what is the mass of each water 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? Fundamentally those are the sorts of things, I think, we should, seekers of the true information in regards to the actual nature of fundamental physics, be curious about in wanting to know and understand about the fundamental nature of gravity.) I really don't think we understand the gravity of this situation. )

(also, I originally wrote this near the top in my gravity response but thought it too clunky and basic or obvious to include, but now I see that there is an interesting aspect that maybe calls for some attention: the concept of the aethers movement, displacement via mass, to consider how fast the aether might move! especially if you are suggesting the same medium/aether responsible for EM may be responsible for gravity, it would be very interesting to contemplate how and how quickly this aether moves in the presence of moving mass:

....
For the aether to be able to be warped, it must be able to be moved.

Point A. not warped. Mass at point Z heading towards point A. Mass reached point B100. Mass reaches point B10. Mass reaches point B9. Mass reaches point B6. Mass reaches point B4. Mass reaches point B1. Mass reaches point B.09. Mass reaches point B .08..... Mass reaches point B.001

Point A begins to warp. as Mass reaches point A. The aether at point A must move. It must take some amount of time for the aether at point A to move.

Mass reaches point -A. Point A begins to unwarp. Mass reaches point -B. (point -B warps). Mass reaches point -C....

This concept of warping... displacement, occurs in solids, liquids and gasses. And is the obvious and self evident fact that multiple somethings cannot occupy the exact same point in space at the exact same time.

Aether exists at point A. Mass arrives at point A, Aether must move from point A, Mass passes point A, perhaps Aether 'is forced?' to return to point A.

But this concept alone I do not believe is enough to suggest why and how the planets orbit the sun.
....

Ok, so. First thing to ask. 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?

The reason I think the question of speed of the gravity aethers movement is important (if you also say the gravity aether may be nothing other than the EM aether), 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, but can it so easily, simply, and obviously be said that the displaced movement of the aether 'material' is moving at c?

Or I guess thats why I asked the previous is this displacement creating EM radiation, or can the aether material be displaced like that, and move, without creating EM radiation, and without moving at c. I guess similar maybe to how air molecules can be moved without traveling at the speed of sound, or is that inaccurate?

And now that I have written so much again here and on this I will save my EM reply for a new box and another time. But I hope we have some insight, clarity, confusion, conversation, disagreement, understanding with regards to my responses on gravity.



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 09:54 PM
link   

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.


What is the meaning of 'mass is negative'? See here is where you can point me to your math and show me an m with a minus sign next to it, but I have read that you yourself too are a big believer and lover of actual reality and wanting science to get back to explaining how things actually exist, so how can 'something exist' and have/be negative mass? 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.




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.


I was more asking logistically, it is astonishing how so uniformly 2 types of component could be so homogeneously packed throughout such a vast area. For example earths ocean, 2 types of component roughly, H and O, relatively uniformly packed over a very large space, the distance between the earth and sun, and if em aether exists between all stars in the milky way, and if the em aether exists in and in between all galaxies, it is just difficult to imagine how every single micrometer is packed full of particle A and particle B so uniformly that the transfer of EM radiation across distances does not appear to glitch, really. If you went anywhere in the universe with an accelerateable charge, and accelerated it, it is theorized em radiation would propagate away from the charge, and in order for their theory and your theory to be correct, there would have to be this perfect orientation of particle type/s at every point in space. It just seems, interesting at the least. 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, or are there large 10 by 10 by 100, 100 by 100 by 100 cubed areas of only As.... well at least not for the negative charge, as they repulse right.







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.


By negative charge, do you mean, generally, electrons? So you are saying half the aether is what we know of as electrons, and atoms are composed of 'quarks' making protons and neutrons, coupled to 'pieces of aether'? In between the earth and moon and sun is packed full of electrons? If this was the case, if you took protons and neutrons anywhere in a 'vacuum' would you not be creating atoms all over the place just by being there? Would 'negative charge' which half fills all space/vacuum even in particle accelerators, when you send the proton beam down the track would the negative charges that compose the aether not be attracted to the protons in the beam?




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.


Dont mean to nitpick too much but by 'on the aether' do you imply that as uniformly and densely packed as the aether may be, that extremely frequently it is not so densely packed it is more like billions of 'sheets' and that there for instead of the aether being a (relatively) densely packed material like water where in such could be said a wave occurs in the medium of water, 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?



posted on Sep, 23 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   
^^continued^^

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.)


This particular direction of topic I am particularly interested and curious about, though I must say it all equally. I will try to express more clearly what I am attempting to envision correctly.

Lets say you are holding a rock, a rock that contains charges, and you are standing on Earth (or to be more pure should we say in deep space or in a vacuum or something):

You hold out you arm away from your body and you move the rock up and down, just once up and once down in a fluid motion. There are many charges in/of the rock, charges are 'connected to, touching' the em field/aether. I guess I should break the moving hand motion into different parts: instead of up and down, I should first ask: Just from position 0 up to position 1 and hold there. Next ask, position 0 and then fluidly up to position 1 fluidly back to position 0.

In the first example (and then in the second example), what direction/s does the EM radiation radiate towards?

And: If you were to do this in air, in water, almost in any other medium we can think of, 3d/4d, the medium would transfer the energy in all directions radiating away from the rock/hand motion right? But I believe the belief and/or knowledge is that in relation to the em field/aether em radiation does not propagate in all directions? (I used to ask this question as instead of a holding a rock, holding a single electron (imagine it was possible, to most purely visualize this relation, but no one really wanted to try to answer))

So if what I was told was true, that something like a skinny singlish straightish wavy line or two wavy lines propagated away from a single accelerated charge, yet according to you, this propagation away is the 'up and down chain reaction' or particles (?) how/why when so many em aether particles are surrounding this, do they also too not catch the wave and start waving (as I presume occurs in most 3d mediums and why the wave travels in all directions...is that true, 3d sphere wave?).

To better illustrate this:

Imagine 10 by 10 (really by 10, but lets try to see if you catch my drift if not already with simplified) area of EM aether particles.

In our plane, 10 is up/top 1 is down/bottom:

Our rock/electron is located at 4.5.

In a fluid motion we bring our electron up to 5 and down to 4 and then rest it at 4.5.

Now assuming for a second even though it might be that the wave propagates up and down, you can still catch what I am trying to get at, it propagates left to right.

The wave travels from the left at 1 to the right towards 10, but remains fluctuating crest and trough of 4 and 5 for and 5 to 5 to for to 5 to 4 to 5.

What is keeping the em aether particles at 5.1, 5.2 5.5, 6, 7, 10, 4, 3, 2, 1 on the vertical axis from being disturbed? What is keeping the wave so tightly knit. This is all assuming what I think I have been told that EM propagates something like this, instead of anytime a charge is accelerated at all, the EM aether particles at degree 360a, 360b, 360c, 360d, ...360z, 360z1, 360z2, ..... etc. 359a, 359b, 359c...359z..,330a, 330b.....1a, 1b, (in short, a the sphere of em aether particles surrounding the charge, do not propagate away from the charge in all directions when the charge is accelerated)



6) You create aether whenever you pair-create charge. And you destroy aether whenever you annihilate charges. But whenever you do, it is done in pairs. Also, this is detached aether in this case, and not the underlying aether sea. (One can have philosophical discussions about the aether sea, but I don't know that it affects the math, and I haven't given it a lot of thought.) Philosophy is just called critical thinking, something science can't exist without. The same things you don't like about accepted theory exist because a lack of so called philosophizing, of sufficient critical thinking.

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.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig



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?


I haven't gotten into the nature of the aether particles yet, nor really if there are particles. So far I am treating it as a solid mass. In my derivation of Maxwell's Equations (near Eq. 2 on the InfoGalactic article) I assume the density of the aether is much larger than the density of charge, but our experiments are largely macroscopic. So I really can't say what experiment tells us about aetherial density. It would take study, and perhaps additional experiments, to find out. Aether could be more dense than nuclear matter, or perhaps only as dense as particle beams. It is a good question, and it has important ramifications.



For the aether to be able to be warped, it must be able to be moved.


The aether can be moved. That is what causes light and electromagnetism. I am thinking about gravity now. My goal is to arrive at the Lorentz Force Equation and Newton's gravitational laws as first approximations. The solution has eluded me in the past, but yesterday I think I finally got static electric fields understood.



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?


No. Only when charge (a free clump of one of the two forms of aether, isolated from its other form) is accelerated do you get EM radiation. Without acceleration of charge, just steady state currents or steady state charge distribution, you get static EM fields. And neutral bodies (where both forms of aether are present in equal amounts) produce no EM fields even when they move.



is because supposedly the EM aether cannot move at any speed other than c?


c is the speed of light in the aether. It is entirely possible that longitudinal disturbances in the aether could travel faster than c. Furthermore, in the Coulomb gauge, the scalar potential is instantaneous, inferring infinite speed. I suspect that in the aether things would not be completely instantaneous, but c is not necessarily the limit.



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


From the laws of the aether, materials can freely move within it. This is discussed in the InfoGalactic article.



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.


Negative mass was needed to make Maxwell's Equations work out. It means that if you put a force on it in the + direction it gets accelerated in the - direction. It also means that the total mass of the aether is zero. I resisted putting this in, but after a while I realized there is no real reason why such a thing is not possible.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig



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


It is entirely possible that there may exist flows and different aetherial conditions on galactic scales. (Glaciers are solid, yet they flow.) A solid aether explains Maxwell's Equations for light. This does not mean that light from the most distant stars does not change in some way as it gets to earth. The aether could be a solid uniform block toward infinity, but that is not required. Arbitrageur raised a point in an earlier post - that the speed of the edge of the universe exceeds c. I think he said it was 3c, but don't recall the exact number. I objected, but then quickly dropped my objection to that because I realized it is entirely possible aetherial conditions may be different at places far away from us.



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


In the aether the two components are bound to each other under normal circumstances.



By negative charge, do you mean, generally, electrons?


Electrons have negative charge. Protons have positive charge. But each of them also have mass, spin and other properties. So far, I assume aether is pure charge, and comes in two forms - one positive, the other negative. It may have other characteristics, I don't know. Normally each type is bound to the other in a solid. When freed from binding you get a charge/anti-charge pair, and it can form any number of particle pairs that we see in high energy experiments as the charge gets "dressed" with mass and spin.



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?


No. The waves occur within the solid. The use of my word "on" was not a good word choice.



Lots and lots and lots of words


In an antenna you move electrons up and down the metal rod. It radiates in all directions. The radiation is polarized transversely in the direction of the antenna as I recall. You should check this article for more. For my purposes, once I've derived Maxwell's Equations, everything presently understood via Maxwell is understood via the aether.



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.


When enough energy is put in, usually by collisions, possibly photons, possibly particles, you can pair create aether. When the two forms of aether combine they can annihilate, releasing energy. The energy can go into aetherial oscillations - which we call light.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
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.
edit on 24-9-2017 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Also if whales are mammals where are their nipples?



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Also if whales are mammals where are their nipples?


Too lazy to google it?
www.discoverwildlife.com...



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   

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.


That is an urban myth. Tapping has no anti-foaming effect whatsoever.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 338  339  340    342  343  344 >>

log in

join