The Aether Reality

reply to post by primalfractal

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

You will note my use of the phrase "shortest meaningful unit of time." I am not proposing that there are particles of time, only that the concept of continuous time breaks own at the quantum level.

reply to post by mbkennel

None of the above is a true statement in physics. "logical" doesn't matter, experiment does. Extensive experimentation shows consistently: photons behave in the manner which shows that they interact with charged particles, they carry momentum and energy, are subjected to gravitational influences, and do not have mass.

They interact with charged particles, they carry momentum and energy, are subjected to gravitational influences... And yet they have no mass? Really? And that makes sense to you?

Oh yeah, I forgot:

"logical" doesn't matter.

And again, there is NO demonstration (using logic and/or mathematics) that have proven that photons don't have mass.
As for experiments, they only show that we don't detect it. NOT that there is none.

reply to post by -PLB-


If you are talking about my point that everything is constantly in a state of acceleration, then no, it has nothing to do with a truly isolated system.

There are enormous changing forces all around us, that mainstream science primarily ignores. Mostly we are unaffected by these forces, balanced and stabilized over time. Most people are oblivious to the concept of localized gravity, but if you are doing precision calibration, local gravity has to be taken into account, and static electicity also comes into play.

reply to post by -PLB-

Except for the simple fact that photons are not matter.

There are particles of non-matter then I guess...

Photons don't accelerate or decelerate. This however would become a serious problem if you believe that photons have mass. How else could an object with mass change direction instantaneously by 180 degrees except for unlimited acceleration?

Another one:

There is no such thing as 'instantaneous'... well... anything. But YOU don't mind using this term since you don't believe in causality, right? The magical world of Quantum Theory makes a lot more 'sense' to you.
But if you consider causality as a necessary/intrinsic property of Reality itself as I do, then there is no such thing as instantaneous phenomenon, interaction, change (of direction)... NOTHING.

How do you explain away inertia, a property of matter?

Inertia is an abstract concept that has no reality. Particles/matter are ALWAYS subjected to a force, therefore they can only accelerate or decelerate.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Add to that, most of the world is extremely different from the miniscule slice we live in.

Our perspective comes from a tiny sliver of the world we live in, which is very, very different from the rest of the world.

The interesting thing about plasma and aether is that it suggest higher dimensions, to which we are obivious.

Originally posted by poet1b
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.

Develop a bit please; What 'structure'? Which force are you talking about? Is it related, in your mind to string theory?
Do you speak of the concept entaglement like the one proposed by some to explain the behavior of split photons for example?

And why would the Aether's reality imply the existence of several dimensions?

I'm genuinely interested.

Originally posted by DJW001
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?

I agree with you on the first part of your post… If one considers Time as a meaningful concept that is.
But not on the instantaneous part, obviously.

Edit to add: I agree with the idea that time isn't continuous since it is 'composed' by a chain of causes and effects (successing events). We don't perceive it as such because the events creating it occur at a quantum level (away from our perception).
To illustrate it, just imagine how we perceive a movie. For us, it is a continuous event, yet it"s not. It's the succession of independant and individual images.
Time is nothing more than the 'Reality's movie' playing in front of our eyes. A movie for which we are both spectators and actors.

[Off topic]
As time has a limit, distance sure has one too. This is the true/hidden/indirect meaning of Zeno’s paradoxes.
Can you see the solution to these paradoxes now? Can you see now why mathematics have to be kept in check and OMPLY with reality/experience? They do NOT reveal anything.
[/Off topic]

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.

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

Sounds partly right, thats what I said before about such a system not existing in space time but possibly existing elsewhere, because such a system is theoretically possible, but not here in 3D space/time.

No motion or vibration, acceleration or deceleration.

reply to post by 1Agnostic1


Cool idea, bit like Bruce Cathies harmonic theory.

Matter and antimatter are formed by the same wave-motions in space. The waves travel through space in a spiralling motion, and alternately pass through positive and negative stages. Matter is

formed through the positive stage, or pulse, and antimatter through the negative pulse. Each spiral of 360° forms a single pulse. The circular motion of an electron about the nucleus of an atom is therefore an illusion. The relative motion of the nucleus and electrons through space gives the illusion of circular motion. The period during the formation of antimatter is completely undetectable, since obviously all physical matter is manifesting at the same pulse rate, including any instruments or detectors used to probe atomic structures. The period or frequency rate between each pulse of physical matter creates the measurement that we call time, as well as the speed of light, at the particular position in space of which we are aware at any given moment.

If the frequency rate of positive and negative pulses is either increased or decreased, then time and the speed of light vary in direct proportion. This concept would explain time as a geometric, as Einstein theorised it to be.

A rough analogy of physical existence can be made by reference to a strip of motion-picture film. Each frame, or static picture, on the film strip may be likened to a single pulse of physical existence. The division between one frame and the next represents a pulse of antimatter. When viewed as a complete strip, each frame would be seen as a static picture (say, one at either end of the strip), then the past and the future can be viewed simultaneously. However, when the film is fed through a projector, we obtain the illusion of motion and the passage of time. The divisions between the static pictures are not detected by our senses because of the frequency or speed of each projection on the movie screen. But by speeding up or slowing down the projector, we can alter the apparent time-rate of the actions shown by the film.

"Antimatter" would be similar to "aether" in this case.

www.whale.to...

reply to post by DJW001

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?

What do you mean by turned inside out? That seems nonsensical because it has absolutely nothing to do with the experiment.

Its good and quite interesting about planck length and time etc. but my theory and experiment is based on recording photon wave packets over the range of their emission length, up to around 8m has been recorded I think.

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1

There are particles of non-matter then I guess...

If you open op and read some books about the subject, you no longer have guess about such things.

Another one:

There is no such thing as 'instantaneous'... well... anything. But YOU don't mind using this term since you don't believe in causality, right? The magical world of Quantum Theory makes a lot more 'sense' to you.
But if you consider causality as a necessary/intrinsic property of Reality itself as I do, then there is no such thing as instantaneous phenomenon, interaction, change (of direction)... NOTHING.

I will be awaiting your experimental data showing photons slowing down, staying at complete rest for some moment, and then accelerate to c again in a different direction. You will probably understand that I won't hold my breath. I won't go into your misunderstanding of what instantanious means.

Inertia is an abstract concept that has no reality. Particles/matter are ALWAYS subjected to a force, therefore they can only accelerate or decelerate.

It kind of puzzles me how you are not wrong about some things, but are wrong about literally everything. Saying that inertia is not real is a direct denial of reality, but not only that, it is something we can directly experience with our senses.

Originally posted by poet1b


If you are talking about my point that everything is constantly in a state of acceleration, then no, it has nothing to do with a truly isolated system.

There are enormous changing forces all around us, that mainstream science primarily ignores. Mostly we are unaffected by these forces, balanced and stabilized over time. Most people are oblivious to the concept of localized gravity, but if you are doing precision calibration, local gravity has to be taken into account, and static electicity also comes into play.

If you want to convice anyone that these forces are real you should share the measurement data. By the way, if the forces are balanced they are not acting on anything. By the way, scientist are fully aware that there are enourmous forces, completely dwarfing gravity, all around us, that we just don't experience because these forces are balanced. Its called electromagnetic forces.

Originally posted by poet1b
There are enormous changing forces all around us, that mainstream science primarily ignores.

This is profoundly false to the point of bizarre. Science can't afford to "ignore" forces. Airplanes fly, and nuclear subs go around the globe. There is no room for ignorance. The latter if the province of armchair scientists who can't be bothered to actually learn something.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Mankind was employing electricity and magnetism long before we understood the exact nature of electrons. And we're still learning about them. Just because we use something, doesn't mean we know everything about it.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Ah, the if you don't know everything about it, you know nothing about it, therefore magic argument?

I can tell you plasma isn't electricity. May conduct it, but isn't it.

reply to post by Bedlam


Clearly, you didn't understand my message, so you used your confusion as an opportunity to mock my post. Mankind doesn't know everything, so it should stop pretending it does. There's no reason to fake it.

Is that clear enough for you? Should be the clearest thing in this whole thread, really. It's a useless premise.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


In my world, not many people pretend we know everything. That's why we have science. It helps find out the stuff we don't know.

However, lots of people work really hard to make sure what we know is tested, can be replicated, and not just by the ones making the discovery. And you can sorta trust the things we know are ok. Still using Newtonian physics when you're not relativistic, for example.

So, the "don't know everything, therefore anything could be true" argument is a bit...stale. It's a specialty on ATS though.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.

Click here for more information.