Atoms and The Unknown

originally posted by: ErosA433

Light on the other hand is a different beast all together and Im not going to expand on it unless you really want to.

You cannot for example get a speaker system and ramp up the frequency and produce light.... the two things are VERY different.

Well considered post.

Whatever happened to that research where they were converting high frequency acoustic waves into light (albeit it Terrahertz frequency light via layered Pizo-Electric nano films): 2009 link .

I'm sure I read something recently about plasmonics and acoustic conversions but now cant find anything on google post 2009....

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: ErosA433

Light on the other hand is a different beast all together and Im not going to expand on it unless you really want to.

You cannot for example get a speaker system and ramp up the frequency and produce light.... the two things are VERY different.

Well considered post.

Whatever happened to that research where they were converting high frequency acoustic waves into light (albeit it Terrahertz frequency light via layered Pizo-Electric nano films): 2009 link .

I'm sure I read something recently about plasmonics and acoustic conversions but now cant find anything on google post 2009....

Look into plasmonic nanotubes and think of how we can manipulate energy at the nano level FTW!

originally posted by: Bedlam
survey: You believe in aether (y)/(n)

That depends on how you define aether. Guess who said this in 1924:

Absolute time and space

1924: Because it was no longer possible to speak, in any absolute sense, of simultaneous states at different locations in the aether, the aether became, as it were, four-dimensional, since there was no objective way of ordering its states by time alone. According to special relativity too, the aether was absolute, since its influence on inertia and the propagation of light was thought of as being itself independent of physical influence....The theory of relativity resolved this problem by establishing the behaviour of the electrically neutral point-mass by the law of the geodetic line, according to which inertial and gravitational effects are no longer considered as separate. In doing so, it attached characteristics to the aether which vary from point to point, determining the metric and the dynamic behaviour of material points, and determined, in their turn, by physical factors, namely the distribution of mass/energy. Thus the aether of general relativity differs from those of classical mechanics and special relativity in that it is not ‘absolute’ but determined, in its locally variable characteristics, by ponderable matter.

Today we would call it something else, but that's what he called it in 1924. If you have another survey on "luminiferous aether" which is not the kind of aether that quote is talking about, I'd have a different answer.

oh oh oh the conversation is just getting juicy now.

sound creating light/matter
time dropped as the 4th dimension

looks like u guys are on the right track. im going to dig up some of my old posts. ill be back with another contribution later

originally posted by: Jukiodone

originally posted by: ErosA433

Light on the other hand is a different beast all together and Im not going to expand on it unless you really want to.

You cannot for example get a speaker system and ramp up the frequency and produce light.... the two things are VERY different.

Well considered post.

Whatever happened to that research where they were converting high frequency acoustic waves into light ...

They're using an intermediary substance that converts the sound waves to light. Sound isn't light, or radio, or any sort of EM.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If you have another survey on "luminiferous aether" which is not the kind of aether that quote is talking about, I'd have a different answer.

Einstein's post 1924 "aether" is what he later called "space-time". It's not a luminiferous aether. But most "I can't understand how emptiness occurs" folk are hardy proponents of luminiferous aether. Because it's the same conceptual failure.

originally posted by: John333
oh oh oh the conversation is just getting juicy now.

sound creating light/matter

Not at all. Re-read the link for understanding and not for keywords.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: John333
oh oh oh the conversation is just getting juicy now.

sound creating light/matter

Not at all. Re-read the link for understanding and not for keywords.

perhaps my choice of words was too vague

sound preceding the creation of light and acting at least as an aid to fostering the environment required for light to manifest.

and let's just take a mental note here that frequency produces sound.

originally posted by: John333

and let's just take a mental note here that frequency produces sound.

On the contrary. Some action produces oscillating movement that is perceived as sound. One of the properties of this oscillation is frequency. Or a set of frequencies, for any interesting sounds.

Sound laying out the stage for creation? As in "One. Two. One two three FOUR!" and rock on?

originally posted by: Pirvonen

originally posted by: John333

and let's just take a mental note here that frequency produces sound.

On the contrary. Some action produces oscillating movement that is perceived as sound. One of the properties of this oscillation is frequency. Or a set of frequencies, for any interesting sounds.

thats because the definition of sound only caters for human audible range. i contest that all frequency produces sound. some in the human audible range. and others outside of it. we say the dog whistle produces no sound. but the dog hears it just fine.

so for purposes of where we are in this discussion. sound should be accepted as a standard accompaniment to frequency. whether the sound has a medium to travel, or is converted into radiation to travel across a vacuum and is then filtered to produce sound. it is clear, that frequency precedes sound and light and is a requirement for the production of either!

originally posted by: PirvonenSound laying out the stage for creation? As in "One. Two. One two three FOUR!" and rock on?

totally. doesnt it all make sense? empty space can be seen as matter at such a high frequency this universe cannot manifest it. ot it could be outside the human visibility frequency range. at or faster than the speed of light. this universe is designed to process frequencies lower than it's own baseline frequency. but anything that moves faster does not manifest within this physical universe. and then on top of that, humans have limits on how much of those frequencies they can process. theoretically, we could make infinite gold out of empty space if we knew the frequency required to command the wave to take that formation of an Au atom. but that frequency would be pretty powerful. much more powerful that what we currently play with but likely much less than the universe's baseline frequency.

is it that hard to imagine that there is right now and always a constant loud frequency churning in the background of our daily lives but it's outside of our audible range so we cant hear the key and sound that is produced? the sound of the central processing unit. even one from the sun during the day. and slightly muffled version at night? would you like to hear the sound of the sun?

originally posted by: John333
sound preceding the creation of light and acting at least as an aid to fostering the environment required for light to manifest.

Not at all. The experiment wasn't one of someone saying "let there be light". At all. It was stimulation of a piezoelectric film with sound. No piezoelectric film, no light. Sorry.

and let's just take a mental note here that frequency produces sound.

It does not. Frequency is an attribute. It doesn't produce something. Any more than my car being blue is produced by blueness. Sound HAS frequency. Frequency doesn't produce sound.

And no invisobeing made light by saying "let there be light", cause I see you want to go that way. Sound doesn't propagate in a vacuum. Even if God says it.

originally posted by: John333
thats because the definition of sound only caters for human audible range. i contest that all frequency produces sound. some in the human audible range. and others outside of it. we say the dog whistle produces no sound. but the dog hears it just fine.

Sound is the compression/rarefaction of a compressible media. Like air. Sound can HAVE frequency. I can't use "frequency" to do squat, as "frequency" doesn't exist except as the attribute of something else. So frequency NEVER produces anything, much less sound, as the "frequency" doesn't exist by itself. This is really quite straightforward.

so for purposes of where we are in this discussion. sound should be accepted as a standard accompaniment to frequency.

Not at all.

whether the sound has a medium to travel, or is converted into radiation to travel across a vacuum and is then filtered to produce sound. it is clear, that frequency precedes sound and light and is a requirement for the production of either!

Again, totally incorrect.

totally. doesnt it all make sense? empty space can be seen as matter at such a high frequency...

Going from wrong to gibberish. *sigh*

a reply to: Bedlam

ur so stuck in this reality.

yes, the process used required additional materials. from the very start we need to use physical materials to build the technology to generate a frequency. but theres nothing strange there. everything we achieve technologically is a mimic of something observed in nature. nature/the universe already does this. which is why it is possible for us to emulate it. but our version is a significantly inferior conception to the naturally occurring phenomenon.

science doesnt invent anything just so you know. it simply uncovers ways to achieve the same goal as nature using largely inferior technology when compared to nature itself.

so im sorry im going to have to stop u in your tracks when you come at me pitching the POV that the experiment didnt do exactly the same thing as is seen in nature. you cant try that one, because i already know.. none of our technology does. yet, science regularly uses it's discoveries and inventions as a "Metaphor" for what it sees in nature.

there's that word again.. metaphor. as this universe is designed, what occurs on the macro also occurs in the micro. when you substitute the elements being used to their relative places. the equation is always the same. this again why creating a concoction of molecules using specific atoms can be seen metaphorically the same as creating a concoction of atoms utilizing specific frequencies. the frequencies generate a field. and the field defines the internal and external formations. i understand this stuff thoroughly.


does nature need to build a speaker system to generate sound? what brand is it? bose? sony? harmon kardon? u need to think. sound occurs naturally and without the use of a piezo everywhere naturally. what about amplification of sound? or sound effects like an echo? all occurs naturally in nature. yet, i dont see any effects pedals and mixing boards occuring naturally in the universe or anywhere on earth. the only things of such that exist are the ones we built. and we built them to mimic what we observe occurring naturally in nature.

using your logic.. i could argue that an echo effect pedal used on a guitar doesnt really create an echo because it's not making sound bounce off any walls or mountains.
Are you Serious?

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Bedlam
everything we achieve technologically is a mimic of something observed in nature. nature/the universe already does this. which is why it is possible for us to emulate it. but our version is a significantly inferior conception to the naturally occurring phenomenon.
Are you Serious?

Cool, so where can i get a nice transistor tree, or a LED display bush?

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Bedlam
everything we achieve technologically is a mimic of something observed in nature. nature/the universe already does this. which is why it is possible for us to emulate it. but our version is a significantly inferior conception to the naturally occurring phenomenon.
Are you Serious?

Cool, so where can i get a nice transistor tree, or a LED display bush?

there are loads of bioluminescent creatures. creatures that generate their own light including bacteria and jellyfish. could u point out the transistors in their circuit?

theres many ways to solve a problem. which solution is the most efficient is another question. i can generate light by heating an iron rod till it gets red hot. i can generate light using a lightbulb. or i can generate light using a battery and an LED circuit. each of these methods will generate light. but they are just simply nowhere near as efficient as light that occurs naturally from bio-luminescence or the heavenly bodies. you wont find a transistor made at silicon valley in a jellyfish or luminous bacteria. but you will find organic structures which perform the same tasks as our manmade circuits from start to finish. the creatures didnt copy us.. we copied them.

so we observe things in nature and then compound technologies to achieve solutions to problems in a similar way that nature does. but just so u know. there are light emitting trees. one was genetically created not too long ago by splicing genes from glow in the dark bacteria. no transistors needed. at least not the ones we get from silicon valley. no AA or AAA batteries either.

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Bedlam

ur so stuck in this reality.

Most of my employers prefer their designs to work.

so im sorry im going to have to stop u in your tracks when you come at me pitching the POV that the experiment didnt do exactly the same thing as is seen in nature. you cant try that one, because i already know.. none of our technology does. yet, science regularly uses it's discoveries and inventions as a "Metaphor" for what it sees in nature.

there's that word again.. metaphor. as this universe is designed, what occurs on the macro also occurs in the micro. when you substitute the elements being used to their relative places. the equation is always the same.

The experiment used a piezoelectric film to convert the mechanical motion of the sound into an electrical field. It's not a metaphor for anything. But what DIDN'T happen was sound->light by desire, prayer, or godly power. Because sound isn't EM.

this again why creating a concoction of molecules using specific atoms can be seen metaphorically the same as creating a concoction of atoms utilizing specific frequencies. the frequencies generate a field. and the field defines the internal and external formations. i understand this stuff thoroughly.

No, no you don't. Frequencies of what, again? Remember, there isn't a thing you can hold in your hand called frequency. Frequency describes the rate at which something repetitive occurs. That's it. It's not a mystic ylem from which things emerge. If you think it is, you are very very confused. And frequencies don't generate fields, any more than the color blue does.

does nature need to build a speaker system to generate sound? what brand is it? bose? sony? harmon kardon? u need to think. sound occurs naturally and without the use of a piezo everywhere naturally. what about amplification of sound? or sound effects like an echo? all occurs naturally in nature. yet, i dont see any effects pedals and mixing boards occuring naturally in the universe or anywhere on earth. the only things of such that exist are the ones we built. and we built them to mimic what we observe occurring naturally in nature.

What you won't see in nature is sound becoming light, as in that experiment. Which you so totally are confused by.

a reply to: Bedlam

ur drawing ur own thing from what ive said. i said the sound creating light statement was too vague and corrected it. sound doesnt create light. but it sets the stage for light to manifest. frequency decides what we get to see and what we dont get to see.

i understand frequency is not something u can hold in your hand. but neither is gravity. so where are we now?

either way. ur so wrong about frequency. have you ever heard of sound cymatics?

a reply to: Bedlam

Yrs sound needs something to convert it to light. For example a crystals if you apply force will cause flashes of light. This is a known effect the Greeks first discovered piezoelectric effects. Here's one everyone can try in there own home go buy winter green lifesavers go into your bathroom then out the lights and chew. I. Your mirror you will see flashes of light.

originally posted by: John333
sound doesnt create light. but it sets the stage for light to manifest.

Astronauts on the moon can see light from the sun but there's no significant sound traveling through the vacuum of space from the sun to the moon, so I don't see how you can claim "sound sets the stage for light to manifest". The light an astronaut sees on the moon has nothing to do with sound.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: John333
sound doesnt create light. but it sets the stage for light to manifest.

Astronauts on the moon can see light from the sun but there's no significant sound traveling through the vacuum of space from the sun to the moon, so I don't see how you can claim "sound sets the stage for light to manifest". The light an astronaut sees on the moon has nothing to do with sound.

referenced in an earlier post

certain frequencies can generate radiation. radiation can travel across the vacuum of space. and then can be filtered by various fields including earth's magnetosphere. this breaks down the radiation into light and sound. though some particles will still pass through radiated. as a scientist. i can use this observation to perhaps devise inter-planetary and inter-galactic communications using charged particles.

secondly, as i pointed out. all frequencies generate a sound. some in the human audible range but the others outside of that range. as well as the sound generated in a vacuum may not be heard by an external observer. in such case the sound is localized, trapped in a barrier of "no medium". much like we are trapped on earth because we are trapped in a barrier/sea of.. no oxygen outside earth's atmosphere. so we are experiencing the local effect of the earth's frequency. or rather plethora of powerful frequencies which do things like generate gravity, and other fields such as the magnetosphere and foster an environment that traps oxygen and other gases.

finally, if the light is already generated then no, the light will travel through the vacuum no problem. the sun in this case is generating it's own plethora of frequencies which churn gases into light.