What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you cannot and will not answer the questions there is no need to respond to the post.

With such basic questions you're asking as these,

So you not able to answer basic questions. Check.

a reply to: neutronflux

In physics, a unified field theory (UFT) is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a pair of physical and virtual fields. According to the modern discoveries in physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects, but instead are described and interrupted by intermediary entities called fields. en.m.wikipedia.org...

You had just posted it yourself. Holy oblivion!

a reply to: neutronflux

Uniform field theory is not making a claim the observable universe is saturated with this always present uniform field independent of objects.

Yes it is.

forces are not transmitted directly

a reply to: AntonGonist

So you do post blatant falsehoods.

You

Still oblivious. I did not say anything about Uniform Field Theory......
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The your own cited source..,

Unified field theory

In physics, a unified field theory (UFT) is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a pair of physical and virtual fields. According to the modern discoveries in physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects, but instead are described and interrupted by intermediary entities called fields.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Again. The uniform field theory that you are butchering the context of says nothing about a constant existing all universe saturating field. The context are fields from the interaction of objects. The uniform field theory that you invoked does not infer these intermediate fields exists independently of objects, always existing in the absence of objects, and populate every part of the universe despite the distribution of objects.

It is referring to fields like when AC current flows through a conductor to create a field around the conductor, and that field is gone when the current flow stops.

The field you are looking for is Gravity itself. It does not just have "Force" effects, but has its own substance . Read up on Tesla. (Man this is the longest thread, formed in the shortest period of time, ever on this site!)a reply to: AntonGonist

a reply to: AntonGonist

My friend,
You'd get a much better response if you stay cool even if others get heated.

To all,
I can relate to AntonGonist when discussing this topic. Some of you answer with absolute certainty when clearly no certainty exists yet. This can be frustrating, and it makes it difficult to stay calm. It doesn't help that a discussion forum is a difficult medium for this discussion as well. Its hard to convey thoughts and ideas about a specific thing, when very few words exists for said thing. Let us not push the buttons of a frustrated member, that also doesn't help the situation.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Wise words indeed.

Though, in defense of the "All", there has been many, many attempts in this thread by well-meaning members to engage the OP in respectful discussion, even after overlooking repeated insults and an attitude of "absolute certainty when clearly no certainty exists yet".

I would say people are in this thread because they are interested in the possibility of an aether, too bad the OP is unwilling or unable to engage with people without demeaning their contributions and ideas.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

And ignoring the long history which Aether has had, and the many failures of proving an Aether.

All made up things by humans. The truth is nobody knows or will never know. It's beyond our understanding - only thing we can do is to observe it's outcome.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

I am completely calm and have been the whole time. You havent seen me mad. I am not here to ease people into things. I am just telling it like it is and they simply have no response. I dont need a better response, all I need is them to keep failing at formulating one........

www.researchgate.net...

Does spacetime possess the properties of a "relativistic aether"?

Einstein is generally credited with eliminating the need for the aether. However, as documented in the book “Einstein and the Ether”, from 1916 until his death he believed in the aether in some form. In these years, he used the terms “relativistic ether” and “physical space” to convey this idea.

For example, in 1934 he wrote “Physical space and the ether are different terms for the same thing; fields are physical states of space.”

Seems he wasnt a complete tool after all.....

a reply to: AntonGonist

That’s no proof. That’s a belief. Do you have physical or a derivative proof of an “Aether”?

Or just more random out of context quotes.

Funny people want proof of a physical aspect and you post opinions.

a reply to: neutronflux

The unbelievable daftness continues.......

The your own cited source..,

What does it say?

a reply to: neutronflux

That’s no proof.

The proof was already discussed.

This is just showing you that the idea is widespread and even supported by Einstein himself.

Stupid Einstein for believing in a stupid "magical field", as you put it.

a reply to: neutronflux

The context are fields from the interaction of objects. The uniform field theory that you invoked does not infer these intermediate fields exists independently of objects, always existing in the absence of objects, and populate every part of the universe despite the distribution of objects.

So you are again claiming that the space between the Sun and the Earth for instance has no underlying structure. Again, not anyone anywhere agrees with you.

Instead you post drivel like this

But those fields caused by electromagnetic radiation interacting with objects are gone when the electromagnetic wave is gone for whatever reason.

Which again is not supported by anything or anyone, anywhere.

What does this rambling even mean?

a reply to: AntonGonist

The idea may be widespread, and Einstein may even have refereed to an "aether" colloquially in later years, but his math never definitively showed an aether from what people are saying, (unless you consider said fields to be the aether itself... though the maths doesn't show that either, from my understanding... though I can't verify that myself as I can't read the math, so I have to take it on the words of more learned minds in these areas... I can and do keep asking questions though).


[SNIPPED]

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: neutronflux

That’s no proof.

The proof was already discussed.

This is just showing you that the idea is widespread and even supported by Einstein himself.

Stupid Einstein for believing in a stupid "magical field", as you put it.

What proof? I don’t think you understand proof. Name the experiment that proves a Aether type field? Backed by peer reviewed papers? Or published research?

The only thing you have misquoted so far is Wikipedia?

originally posted by: AntonGonist
What is a wave?

In physics, mathematics, and related fields, a wave is a disturbance of a field in which a physical attribute oscillates repeatedly at each point or propagates from each point to neighboring points, or seems to move through space.

What field is this in the case of EM waves?



What is spacetime?

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.

Spacetime is a mathematical concept. Not a physical field.



What is gravity? Well it isnt a force.

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

Gravity is a fictitious force and the consequence of the curvature of the mathematical, non physical concept.......





So, back to the initial question, what field is propagating a disturbance, in the case of EM waves?


Mainstream science itself claims that EM waves are the disturbance of some sort of medium, why is mainstream science also acting like there are particles being emitted by a source of EM radiation? Thats like claiming we are emitting sound particles when we talk.

You can also wonder why scientists are looking for gravitons if gravity is not a force but the bending of the "fabric" of spacetime?


Let me give you your intellectually honest options.


You agree that there is a universal field with physical properties that propagates vibrations which we observe as EM radiation. You agree there is an Aether like field. You accept the consequences of the existence of such a field.




Thanks for your attention. Good talk.

Hey, good talk...

I think the point is to try and figure out what the medium for wave propogation is, in the universe.

So I'm game...

Centrifugal force is considered a fictititious force because you believe you are not accelerating but you actually are.

Living on a spinning earth, shouldn't you be moved and locked by this centrifugal force?

Strangely, gravity appears opposite to the centrifugal force of a spinning earth and forces you toward the ground.

The earth generates the wave when it is struck by gravity. It's like a battery.

Just look at waves in the ocean... Or feel the wind... These air and water must be moving as a result of being accelerated... Perhaps imagine it as the earth is an object inside a tokomak kind of structure...

The sun then sucks up the wave generated from earth.

So there's the 1 medium earth and sun.

The moon and sun also appear to be in a medium with each other like positive and negative ends of a diode.

I'm not very good with electric terminology. I'm just going for basics to try and give a zap to the thread...

a reply to: AntonGonist

Now, this is interesting...

The Four Biggest Mistakes Of Einstein's Scientific Life

www.forbes.com...

Einstein rejected the indeterminate, quantum nature of the Universe. This one is still controversial, likely primarily due to Einstein’s stubbornness on the subject. In classical physics, like Newtonian gravity, Maxwell’s electromagnetism and even General Relativity, the theories really are deterministic. If you tell me the initial positions and momenta of all the particles in the Universe, I can — with enough computational power — tell you how every one of them will evolve, move, and where they will be located at any point in time. But in quantum mechanics, there are not only quantities that can’t be known in advance, there is a fundamental indeterminism inherent to the theory.

The better you measure and know the position of a particle, the less well-known its momentum is. The shorter a particle’s lifetime, the more inherently uncertain its rest energy (i.e., its mass) is. And if you measure its spin in one direction (x, y, or z), you inherently destroy information about it in the other two. But rather than accept these self-evident facts and try and reinterpret how we fundamentally view the quanta making up our Universe, Einstein insisted on viewing them in a deterministic sense, claiming that there must be hidden variables afoot. It’s arguable that the reason physicists still bicker over preferred “interpretations” of quantum mechanics is rooted in Einstein’s ill-motivated thinking, rather than simply changing our preconceptions of what a quantum of energy actually is. SMBC has a good comic illustrating this.

Einstein held onto his wrongheaded approach to unification until his death, despite the overwhelming evidence that it was futile. Unification in science is an idea that goes back well before Einstein. The idea that all of nature could be explained by as few simple rules or parameters as possible speaks to the power of a theory, and simplicity is as strong an allure as science ever had. Coulomb’s law, Gauss’ law, Faraday’s law and permanent magnets can all be explained in a single framework: Maxwell’s electromagnetism. The motion of terrestrial and heavenly bodies was first explained by Newton’s gravitation and then even better by Einstein’s General Relativity. But Einstein wanted to go even farther, and attempted to unify gravitation and electromagnetism. In the 1920s, much headway was made, and Einstein would pursue this for the next 30 years.

But experiments had revealed some significant new rules, which Einstein summarily ignored in his stubborn pursuit to unify these two forces. The weak and strong nuclear forces obeyed similar quantum rules to electromagnetism, and the application of group theory to these quantum forces led to the unification we know in the Standard Model. Yet Einstein never pursued these paths or even attempted to incorporate the nuclear forces; he remained stuck on gravity and electromagnetism, even as clear relationships were emerging between the others. The evidence was not enough to cause Einstein to change his path. Today, the electroweak force picture has been confirmed, with Grand Unification Theories (GUTs) theoretically adding the strong force to the works, and string theory finally, at the highest energy scales, as the leading candidate for bringing gravity into the fold. As Oppenheimer said of Einstein,

During all the end of his life, Einstein did no good. He turned his back on experiments… to realise the unity of knowledge.

Even geniuses get it wrong more often than not. It would serve us all well to remember that making mistakes is okay; it’s failing to learn from them that should shame us.

Ever find a record of an experiment that shows proof of a magical all existing, all encompassing, ever present Aether type field?