The Aether Reality

page: 14
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 


Essentially instead of explaining things as everything is held together my magical forces/charges/fields, consider that what holds mass together is instead and entanglement of atomic particles. Electrons and neutrinos are long thin hair like particles. Electrons are curly and wavy, they have body, shape, elasticity, and that's what creates the charge and fields. Neutrinos are on the limp side, but better at entangling with other particles. A protonis a short barb like particle, with a a great deal more elasticity, but much shorter in length. Neutrons are gummy.

These particles come in a wide variety of shapes that create the different types of elements and the different properties.

Bring to a boil, mix and stir and you have cosmic soup.


edit on 18-1-2013 by poet1b because: Typo




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 


Essentially instead of explaining things as everything is held together my magical forces/charges/fields, consider that what holds mass together is instead and entanglement of atomic particles. Electrons and neutrinos are long thin hair like particles. Electrons are curly and wavy, they have body, shape, elasticity, and that's what creates the charge and fields. Neutrinos are on the limp side, but better at entangling with other particles. A protonis a short barb like particle, with a a great deal more elasticity, but much shorter in length. Neutrons are gummy.

These particles come in a wide variety of shapes that create the different types of elements and the different properties.

Bring to a boil, mix and stir and you have cosmic soup.


edit on 18-1-2013 by poet1b because: Typo


Quoted as is for posterity.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1

See, that's where you get it all wrong. How can a "volume (of space) with no matter in it" exists?
To formulate in a way you can understand: "How can 'nothing' have limit? How can 'nothing'constitute a volume?
I'll help you: It CAN'T.
'Nothing', as defined as the abscence of ANY matter, is an absolute concept, you can't limit it to a region of space because it suits you. This is utterly stupid to think simply because you can say it, it makes it true.


SURE you can. I don't understand why this bothers you. Matter does not define space. Space is still there even if there's no matter in it. Calling it "nothing" and then trying to equate "nothing" with "non-existence" is a verbal misconception you can't really apply.



So, there cannot be even ONE unit of 'nothing' since, if there were such a thing it will be borderless, shapeless, limitless. Do you understand?

It would be like giving a limit to the infinite.


You're trying to use wordplay to do physics, that's never going to work for you.



Is that your way of saying that you think I cleverly use rhetoric and make a sophistic argument/demonstration?



No, it's where you were sort of ok, and then had a misconception, and now you're running down a false path.



I'm aware that that's (one of) the theory (not the only one since QM tends to reject the very notion of particle altogether and prefers it the one of wave. See QM 3D ‘model’ of an atom).
But I've just demonstrated it to be false. Therefore, this 'vacuum' must be filled with something that we don’t (even try to) detect… yet.


You really haven't demonstrated it to be false, you've just confused yourself with inapplicable rhetoric. But if you believe in QM, you won't need aether. So it's a bit disingenuous to invoke it and spit in its face at the same time.




Also, fields need 'something' to be propagated, a medium to allow particles (matter) to interact with each other and create them (forces/fields): This medium is the Aether.


Well, no, they don't, any more than rockets need air to push against. That's why aether was proposed in the first place, then discarded once we realized you didn't need it. BTW, still haven't figured out about polarizers, I see.

Here's a hint - what sort of wave would a pervasive medium propagate? Qualitatively, that is.



A non-charged elusive yet potentially ‘omnipresent’ particle should be first on the list: that's why I propose the neutrino. But I suspect an even smaller particle to be the answer.


How do you propose a non-charged non-interacting particle to be a propagating medium for...anything?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Good that you are able to see the basics, you fail to recognize that I am discussing one rotation within another, within another still, on and on.

A good example is gyroscopic precession. It takes a much deeper understanding that you have yet to recognize.



That's pretty easy to explain, too, but there's math. No rotations within rotations, though.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b



I can use a pump to evacuate a vessel, just like was presented here on these pages in the bell experiment. What's in that vessel now, now that air is gone? What' the volume of space that is "vacuo"? Well, the answer can be promptly found by measuring the volume that is now void.


Hardly! Do you have any idea what it takes just to get an atmosphere resembling 80,000 feet?

Obviously not.



That's about 10 Torr, so any good dry vacuum bench pump with a bell jar will do the trick. You might need some of that Apiezon bear crap to get a seal with a jar on a steel plate, though.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Please, first explain what you think happens here and what does that have to do with the existence of an Aether or the fact that a vacuum cannot exist.


A vacuum was created by removing the air. What matter replaced the air to prevent a vacuum? Although it's not a perfect vacuum there's not enough air left to produce sound waves.


Where do I start...


1. The sound of the buzzer isn't audible anymore as soon as he closes the lid. Sound do not only needs air to propagate, but for that air to not be enclosed, for the wave to travel 'in' it.
So, this buzzer experiment is pointless. The air doesn't need to be pumped out for the buzzer to not be heard by the observer.

2. How many definitions of vacuum do you people have?
Is there, for you, one at the 'molecule level', one at the atomic level and one at the quantum level???
No MATTER is no matter, at ANY level, period.

So, to create a vacuum, one would have to eliminate all and any particle in a volume of space!
Good luck trying to simply prevent neutrinos to pass through.


Wherever you are on the earth, even deeply underground, you receive per second about 400.000 billions neutrinos from the sun, but also 50 billions neutrinos (but this number is not well known!) from the natural radioactivity of the earth, and 10 to 100 billions neutrinos from nuclear plants all over the world.


And neutrinos are not even the smallest particles out there.

3. What about the photons that go through this 'vacuum', they don't count as matter??
Because if you still can see inside this jar, it means that photons go through it too.

4. And, finally, what about the 'dark matter' that is said to compose 90% of the mass of the universe??
If no one can detect them but are there, who do you propose there can be such a thing as a true vacuum??

5. But you're right on one point though, this sure is not a perfect vacuum.

Seriously though, are you (more or less rhetorical) braindead?
edit on 18-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Are you saying the solar system doesnt rotate, the galaxy doesn't rotate?

Your grasp of the basics is seriously lacking.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Are you saying the solar system doesnt rotate, the galaxy doesn't rotate?

Your grasp of the basics is seriously lacking.



Hop up there, big boy, and show me with math how uniform rotary motion involves any acceleration other than centripetal. I'll wait. Show me your stuff.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
reply to post by buddhasystem



What you explained in your post is your lack of comfort with things that are not palpable, or do not suite your preconceived notions. You don't like the idea of void, and that's that. Some people don't like blue cheese.


It's not about any preconceived idea, it's about the FACT that the existence of a vacuum has never been proven.
I also happen to demonstrate, using a formal demonstration, that a vaccum cannot exist.
If only you could do the same to PROVE it to exist, we could really talk... But you're incapable of that.


There was no logic and no demonstration
.

There, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, so I post it again.




Originally posted by 1Agnostic1



A vacuum is defined as "a (region of) space that is empty of matter".

A space "empty of matter" is a space where there is nothing (no thing).
If a vacuum exists then 'nothing' exists.
If nothing exists, the universe doesn't exist (either).

The universe exists.
Therefore a vacuum cannot exist.

If a vacuum doesn't exist, then ALL of space (the whole universe) must be filled with matter. Therefore the Aether exists.


And the explanation that goes with it since you and your friend can't understand it as it is presented there:



Originally posted by 1Agnostic1




'Nothing', as defined as the abscence of ANY matter, is an absolute concept, you can't limit it to a region of space because it suits you. This is utterly stupid to think simply because you can say it, it makes it true.
So, there cannot be even ONE unit of 'nothing' since, if there were such a thing it will be borderless, shapeless, limitless. Do you understand?
[...]
a vacuum (a 'unit of nothingness') would be borderless, shapeless and limitless.
Therefore, if we would consider any quantity of 'nothing' to exist, then it would encompass all and, literally, nothing could exist at all.
As something (our universe is something, right?) exists, then a vacuum ('nothing') CANNOT.
[...]
Also, fields need 'something' to be propagated, a medium to allow particles (matter) to interact with each other and create them (forces/fields): This medium is the Aether.




Originally posted by BuddhaSystem



I can use a pump to evacuate a vessel, just like was presented here on these pages in the bell experiment. What's in that vessel now, now that air is gone? What' the volume of space that is "vacuo"? Well, the answer can be promptly found by measuring the volume that is now void.




Seriously, you simply can't believe what you're actually saying...
Getting rid of the air in a container creates a void with NO particle inside?? No photon, no neutrino, no nothing??

.


Read my previous answer @ DenyObfuscation for more.
edit on 18-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 



1. The sound of the buzzer isn't audible anymore as soon as he closes the lid. Sound do not only needs air to propagate, but for that air to not be enclosed, for the wave to travel 'in' it.

Prove that and you'll have a Nobel Prize coming your way. Airtight containers are soundproof, who knew?
You are kidding, aren't you?



No MATTER is no matter, at ANY level, period.

That's what we've been trying to get you to see. You don't seem to have a problem with a vacuum existing, it's more about the volume of the vacuum that you can't accept.



What about the photons that go through this 'vacuum', they don't count as matter??

No, they don't count.



Because if you still can see inside this jar, it means that photons go through it too.

I'll see your photons in a jar and raise you a lightswitch.



But you're right on one point though, this sure is not a perfect vacuum.

It doesn't need to be to make the point. If there's a volume of [vacuum in] space the size of one molecule then your argument is shot.



Seriously though, are you (more or less rhetorical) braindead?

Really?
edit on 18-1-2013 by DenyObfuscation because: strike and brackets



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 


Uhhh...PHOTONS are Quantum Particle/Wave Forms of ENERGY.

Photons are NOT MATTER.

Space/Time is simply Universal Geometry of Dimensionality.

If you have say a 10 foot by 10 foot by 10 foot room that is a vacuum...meaning their is absolutely no matter within the walls and ceiling and floor...and then you placed a wind up alarm clock set to go off in a minute once the alarm goes off...no sound can be heard either in or outside of the room as their exists no air or any other matter to allow the transpher of kinetic energy that is sound waves.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam


Originally posted by 1Agnostic1




Matter does not define space. Space is still there even if there's no matter in it. Calling it "nothing" and then trying to equate "nothing" with "non-existence" is a verbal misconception you can't really apply.


Yes I'm calling an empty (of all matter/particle) space, 'nothing'.
The fact that you still can name it 'space' is baffling.
Just consider void and vacuo/vacuum as fancy words for 'nothing' or a space of nothing, if you prefer.

It doesn't change the fact that NOTHING CANNOT BE SOMETHING. Not be a space, nor have a volume... is that so freaking difficult to understand?

I know... The problem is that you're so used to nonsensical concepts that your brain/mind has simply entered a reality distortion field where nothing can be something, where a phenomenon can both be X AND - X at the same time, where trajectories don't exist, where causality means nothing...



You're trying to use wordplay to do physics, that's never going to work for you.


You mean you THINK I use rhetoric (or sophism) but I assure you I don't.
It may appear to you that way but it's because you WANT to reject my arguments. You're biased.
So, you perceive them as 'wordplay'/rhetoric. But, if you take the time to analyze what I wrote and be open-minded/objective about it, you'll see it actually makes perfect sense.
It may seem too simple to be true, but that's the way it is (and always should be).

I'm still waiting for a demonstration or an argument to prove the existence of a void by the way.
Stating that it does and deflecting the discussion won't help you.



You really haven't demonstrated it to be false, you've just confused yourself with inapplicable rhetoric. But if you believe in QM, you won't need Aether. So it's a bit disingenuous to invoke it and spit in its face at the same time.

I think there's a confusion (because of my poor wording in this case/sentence) on what the 'it' refers to.
It was intended to refer to the existence of a vacuum (from my previous paragraph).
I've demonstrated that atoms cannot be surrounded by, or hold in their structure, a vacuum since a vacuum cannot be.
Also, I merely specify that QM doesn't even believe in an atom as a causal (solar system-like) phenomenon in passing. I don't try to make a point out of it. It's just a precision.





Rockets [don't] need air to push against. That's why Aether was proposed in the first place then discarded once we realized you didn't need it.


Space (surrounding the rocket) is still filled with matter. Not as dense as air (an atmosphere), obviously, but matter.


Here's a hint - what sort of wave would a pervasive medium propagate? Qualitatively, that is.


Electromagnetic waves. That's one of the reasons physicists, until Einstein's GR, postulated the existence of an Ether. It was intended to connect the Newtonian mechanistic wave theory with Maxwell's field theory.
But GR doesn't explain everything satisfactorily and it has enough problems (speed of light, for one, the curvature of space-time, the very concept of space-time as a fourth dimension...) for it to don't be considered as a definitive proof of the non-necessity of the Ether.

And, btw, I'll admit that my knowledge of polarizers ('s physics) is so low that I couldn't even make a meaningful/educated guess. So, I abstain.



ME: A non-charged elusive yet potentially ‘omnipresent’ particle should be first on the list: that's why I propose the neutrino. But I suspect an even smaller particle to be the answer.



YOU: How do you propose a non-charged non-interacting particle to be a propagating medium for...anything?


Where did I state it to be non-interacting?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 


Uhhh...PHOTONS are Quantum Particle/Wave Forms of ENERGY.

Photons are NOT MATTER.

Space/Time is simply Universal Geometry of Dimensionality.

If you have say a 10 foot by 10 foot by 10 foot room that is a vacuum...meaning their is absolutely no matter within the walls and ceiling and floor...and then you placed a wind up alarm clock set to go off in a minute once the alarm goes off...no sound can be heard either in or outside of the room as their exists no air or any other matter to allow the transpher of kinetic energy that is sound waves.

Split Infinity



1. Photons ARE NOT waves. This is bull. They are particles (QT can accept that much) that CREATE a wave travelling through the Ether (space). There is a causal effect at play here.
Yet, QT makes the absurd claim that a photon is a particle AND a wave.
If you don't know, those states are mutually exclusive. THAT is the reason why the claim is so ridiculous.

2. You just implied that any wave needs a medium to propagate into... That's my point. That's why of the reason the Ether must exist.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 


LOL! You are too funny!

If Photons did not exist as both Particle and Wave then there would be no Frequency of Light and thus NO COLOR! LOL!

You can't have COLOR without Photons acting as both Particle and Wave!

Don't even TRY to get out of this blunder! Just say you were wrong and call it a day.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
1. Photons ARE NOT waves. This is bull. They are particles (QT can accept that much) that CREATE a wave travelling through the Ether (space). There is a causal effect at play here.


You are wrong as usual. I'm posting this for other people's benefit.

Particles or waves, either way are models to describe the phenomena we observe in this world. If we find a better way to model it, rest assured we'll use it. Photons DO NOT CREATE a wave or anything, that's bullcrap of biblical proportions. Photons are a way to describe quantization of the field. We don't know why the field behaves this way. It does. Armchair scientists will claim they have a simple explanation, but this will be yet another dumb schtick. This is how nature works and we are trying to get more of the info out of it.

A field does not need a medium to propagate through. That's a stupid notion taken up by a few simpletons.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1

It doesn't change the fact that NOTHING CANNOT BE SOMETHING. Not be a space, nor have a volume... is that so freaking difficult to understand?

I know... The problem is that you're so used to nonsensical concepts that your brain/mind has simply entered a reality distortion field where nothing can be something, where a phenomenon can both be X AND - X at the same time, where trajectories don't exist, where causality means nothing...


Where matter does not define space, where a volume can simply be free of matter. Where containers still exist when empty. Where "free of matter" does not equate to "non existence".




But, if you take the time to analyze what I wrote and be open-minded/objective about it, you'll see it actually makes perfect sense.
It may seem too simple to be true, but that's the way it is (and always should be).


Lots of folks without a background in math or science feel the same way you do. Things make perfect sense to them that aren't reality based. Like aether. Or matter defining space. Or needing some substance to "propagate a field".



Also, I merely specify that QM doesn't even believe in an atom as a causal (solar system-like) phenomenon in passing. I don't try to make a point out of it. It's just a precision.


If QM doesn't require aether, then you can't use it in an argument. So there. Therefore, you're stuck with Newtonian views of atoms. In that view, an atom is mostly vacuum.





Electromagnetic waves.


And what sort of electromagnetic waves would they have to be, propagated in aether, like sound in air?





Where did I state it to be non-interacting?


Show me how neutrinos interact strongly with each other to provide for propagating a wave.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


WOW!

There seem to be some people on this topic with some very ill concieved ideas about Physics of both the Macro Universe and the Quantum.

Who ever wrote the statement that was attempting to associate an Atomic Nucleus and it's orbiting Electrons with a Solar System really had me surprised as I did not think anyone still would make such a mistake given the entire perplexing issue that is why the Quantum Universe does not act anything like the Macro Universe is a well known problem at the heart of understanding Quantum Mechanics.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
There is no "aether". No one's had any use for it since the early 1900's. No one's ever found any. It's an idea whose time has gone, quite some time back.


Evgeny Podkletnov has reintroduced this concept
with his claimed experimental successes



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by Bedlam
There is no "aether". No one's had any use for it since the early 1900's. No one's ever found any. It's an idea whose time has gone, quite some time back.


Evgeny Podkletnov has reintroduced this concept
with his claimed experimental successes


Dr Podkletnov's discovery doesn't require aether to explain.


He ought to talk more with Dr Li, they did at first. Oh, yeah, she's in China now.

Oh, and same question. What sort of wave would EM have to be to propagate in a luminiferous aether? Qualitatively.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


He may actually have a point here, though I doubt he realizes it. Although it is not "enormous changing forces all around us, that mainstream science primarily ignores".

Lets assume the orbit of the earth around the sun has a radius of 150 million km and it takes exactly 365 days for one orbit (you may step in where you think I make a mistake).

Then the angular speed is (150*10^6*2*pi)/(365*24*60*60)=29.8858 km/s

This is the angular speed at the center of the earth. But when we are on the surface closest to the sun, the orbit we make has a radius of 150*10^6 - 6,378 with the last number being the radius of the earth at the equator. On the other side of the earth this number is added instead. So you get a difference in angular speed (of the orbit around the sun) of:

v1 = ((150*10^6-6,378)*2*pi)/(365*24*60*60)=29.8845 km/s
v2 = ((150*10^6+6,378)*2*pi)/(365*24*60*60)=29.8870 km/s

vd = v1 - v2 = 3.5m/s

When you are on a fixed point on the equator this difference takes 12 hours to take place, so:

a = 3.5m/s / (12*60*60) = 0,000081m/s^2

I would say that for any practical situation this can be ignored.
edit on 19-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join