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.

 

The Aether Reality

page: 10
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


You think you got something here, but all you demonstrate is your lack of knowledge. I would be embarrassed if I were you.

Anybody who knows anything about the purity of metals would not find it strange at all to suggest plasma exists in and around copper wires conducting electricity.

A little info on the subject.

ieeexplore.ieee.org...



I think you do not possess basic reading comprehension skills. The article you link to describes how they create plasma in the lab, and then use to to clean the metal. What you said was something different, which was that metals contain plasma. They don't. Specifically, you said:


We know electricity moves through metal, isn't it more precise to say that electricity moves through the plasma inside of metal?



If you don't see the difference, it's sad and scary.




posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You don't even know what I posted, even though it has been repeated several times.

It is really pathetic.

I suggested an possibility, that apparently has you unhinged.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 07:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
You think you got something here, but all you demonstrate is your lack of knowledge. I would be embarrassed if I were you.

Anybody who knows anything about the purity of metals would not find it strange at all to suggest plasma exists in and around copper wires conducting electricity.


Um, what has "the purity of metals" got to do with plasma? And are wires in your world filled with ionized gas? They're not here.



A little info on the subject.

ieeexplore.ieee.org...


Ok, this one's about using plasma to anneal a thin wire. Annealing is done to restore dislocations in metallic structures - in this case, drawing the wire causes a lot of grain damage which makes the thin wire brittle and hard. You'd like to be able to bend it. So you anneal it, which causes molecular diffusion in the wire. The grain "repairs itself" and the wire becomes ductile.

The article doesn't say anything at all about plasma coming out of the wire. Or going into the wire. It's just a way to heat it.

When you do keyword searches on "plasma" and "wire" on Google? You ought to try reading the article. Seriously.



There are those who theorize, and those who do.

www.plasma-i.com...



And again, you went searching for something, and produced...this. It doesn't have anything to do with plasma being in wires. It's a light bulb.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Um, so now you claim an electron is not matter.

I'm done with this nonsense.



posted on Jan, 15 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Um, so now you claim an electron is not matter.

Who said electricity is electrons?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 


I think you have a solid point. All particles must have some mass.

Although I have my doubts that there could be such a thing as a photon.

My whole concept is based on structure. The idea we are taught is that some magical force holds it all together, and it just doesn't add up.

If a charge is actually a shape that leads to entanglement then it makes more sense. A neutrino would be a particle that had a little less elasticity, so a little less force, but might be more effective in entanglement.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
All this "aether" stuff belongs in skunk works, not in the science forum


You are apparently new to this forum. As idiotic as this topic is, it beats a few others. Example: orgone accumulator. There is a member here who thinks that one can collect lifeforce streaming from the Universe, in a wooden box. They also believe that the Montauk Experiment succeeded in opening portals to distant galaxies (which portals were promptly invaded by mean space aliens). They way the portals were operated is a separate story which involves a bizarre sexual fantasy. And guess what, the proton is actually a black hole. And Egyptians used "frequencies" to alter the condition of matter.

So against this background of shameful stupidity, refusal to learn and to use what's left of one's brain, a discussion of "aether" actually looks half-decent. Sad but true.


Thanks.....I think.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by HopSkipJump
All this "aether" stuff belongs in skunk works, not in the science forum


How about answering the OP if you are keen to refute this thread. This isn't the original arguement from the OP ( my theory has not been disproved ). We are continuing to discuss the aether theme as it relates to other effects such as plasma etc. Comments such as yours really dont add anything except for a negative opinion of the opinionated, an oxymoron we dont need as I said we are already discussing the mainstream scientific view of the photon/wave duality.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 


You seem to be trying to find a way to turn a photon inside out. That is nonsensical. One of your assumptions is that time is continuous. It is not. The smallest meaningful unit of time is the amount of time it takes a photon to travel Planck's length. This would define one quantum unit of time. Any transformation you attempt to make on that photon would be, for all practical purposes, instantaneous. If you change a photon's polarity, it would change instantly, without passing through the other intervening polarization states. Does this help?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


I guess the issue has more nuances indeed. The more classical definition of gravitation is the attraction of bodies due to their mass, which can be found in dictionaries and Wikipedia. I am pretty sure that this is the definition 1Agnostic1 is using, in an attempt to prove photons have mass.

In GR the definition involves the curvature of space-time, which also affects photons.

But agreed, my answer is isn't correct without adding these nuances.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by -PLB-


Are photons subject to gravitation, yes or no?


No.


Well, since they are affected by the space time metric, and influence it through the electromagnetic terms in the stress-energy tensor (though quantitatively this term is practically negligible), I'd call this one as "yes". Otherwise I agree with you 100%: photons are massless, and convey momentum and energy nonetheless thanks to relativity.


I know I may be splitting hair, but...

Looking at both history and essence of quantum mechanics, photons were introduced as a way to describe quantization of the electromagnetic field. This has little to do with relativity - electromagnetic field does carry energy and momentum according to Maxwell's equations which are not expressly relativistic.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
People please discuss the subject and not each other.

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The theory time is not continous is not a commonly accepted theory.


A chronon is a proposed quantum of time, that is, a discrete and indivisible "unit" of time as part of a theory that proposes that time is not continuous. While time is a continuous quantity in both standard quantum mechanics and general relativity

en.wikipedia.org...

So I guess before calling my theory nonsensical you would have to prove the one you are using to disprove mine has any merit, which is really beyond the scope of this thread. Maybe you could do another thread about "chronon" theory.


edit on 16-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Everything is constantly subjected to force and is constantly changing velocity.

It is a fine point that should be made.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


That is a very interesting idea, and it touches on one of my own ideas:

They say something can't come from nothing. But what is nothing, exactly? I'm willing to hear a different opinion, but as my comprehension currently stands, nothing is another word for monotony. There is nothing because you cannot perceive or register the different shades in nothingness. If a couch were to be composed of the exact same chemical compounds, in exactly the same proportions, as the air around it, would you still notice it? If your city was composed of concrete pillars and you dropped a concrete car somewhere in the midst, would you notice it right away?

My conclusion from such a "thought experiment" is that something is represented fundamentally by a break in pattern, a break in flow. You see a discrepancy, you compose a list of discrepancies, you use those discrepancies to form a general idea of what's there, and then you focus on what is there. The first step to registering "something". To further clarify that you notice a break in the pattern before you identify what the break is...you don't need to know what it is to notice it's there. A distortion in the air will reveal an invisible object before you ever realize the precise nature of what is hidden. A break in the pattern.

So "something from nothing" could be a perfect pattern that becomes broken in some way. A shift. Like air that is perfectly stagnant on a summer afternoon that stirs into a breeze because somewhere, a difference in temperature happened. The pattern broke. Or maybe a wave in a pond. A break happened in the balance of water molecules. A pebble or a breath of wind.

So my thought is that the Big Bang was actually just a shift in a perfect pattern that was so flawless, we didn't even realize it was there. How does something become so flawless as to be unnoticeable? Think 'gilly suits'. A gilly suit that is intelligent, designed to change with external stimuli. A hundred gilly suits designed in such a way could create a wave effect, the last one changing moments before it's actually needed. But what if external stimuli were not needed? What other trigger would suffice?

Maybe...time. A timed code that updates a particular plane in a wave designed to trigger all "devices" plugged into the matrix, causing a gradual evolution according to localized parameters. The medium for conveying such an "update" or "upgrade" would be the aether.

I don't know. Just an idea I have. I know we achieved a smaller scale version of such a feat. And if we can do it, who's to say the universe didn't invent it?
edit on 16-1-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


It is just another way of saying that a truly isolated system can not exist in the real world, which is a very well known fact among scientists. They also know that for all practical purposes, it is still perfectly fine to model the real world using isolated systems in many situations.
edit on 16-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by poet1b
 


It is just another way of saying that a truly isolated system can not exist in the real world, which is a very well known fact among scientists. They also know that for all practical purposes, it is still perfectly fine to model the real world using isolated systems in many situations.


I concur. When I drive, I'm not too concerned about the gravitational pull coming from Alpha Centauri, which theoretically could push my car into the ditch.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join