The Aether Reality

page: 18
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


No, I'm not going to click on your link because my experience has taught me what it is likely to be, and it is likely to be a hit piece from a front group or some other entity hell bent on discrediting him for personal, self-interested reasons that have nothing to do with the pursuit of science and technology for the good of regular people like myself.




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Did you know that Newton was heavily into reading everything he could on alchemy, mysticism, and magic. Which means, if Newton was posting on the thread, you would be calling him a simpleton as well.

Demonstrate that you know something, explain how you think light move through the vacuum of space.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:34 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.


sorry i disagree, eather is a term for something we haven't found a way of measuring or knowing like we know electricity for example.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 



Quantum field theory, and in particular the theory of quantum optics, makes claims about the physics of electromagnetic fields. These claims have been validated by extraordinary experiments.


Can you name these experiments you are referring to? Can you provide some links that back up your claims.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Did you know that Newton was heavily into reading everything he could on alchemy, mysticism, and magic. Which means, if Newton was posting on the thread, you would be calling him a simpleton as well.


Umm, no. Newton had a variety of interests but he also did employ scientific manner becoming of a genius that he was. And he would laugh his @ss off when looking at all this nonsense like "force of momentum" and other such stupid crap, as in "electrons and neutrinos are long thin hair like particles"



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


No, I'm not going to click on your link because my experience has taught me what it is likely to be


What a stellar example of open-mindedness and willingness to consider facts and expert opinion! Wow! When offered knowledge (there is some actual science explained there), you RUN in the opposite direction, every time, without fail.

I was amused when I discovered that Flanagan has obtained his "PhD" from the same Sri Lankan diploma mill as other charlatans have used.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I was amused when I discovered that Flanagan has obtained his "PhD" from the same Sri Lankan diploma mill as other charlatans have used.


I, on the other hand, am quite amused at how little you know from your education.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Um, yes, as an alchemist, he would probably have read these alternative viewpoints with a degree of curiousity as well as as humor, probably enjoyed kicking around the ideas, as opposed to posting like some punk mama's boy.

So where is you perspective on how light travels through the vacuum of space?



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I was amused when I discovered that Flanagan has obtained his "PhD" from the same Sri Lankan diploma mill as other charlatans have used.


I, on the other hand, am quite amused at how little you know from your education.


Really? Really Mary? What's lacking, pray tell? Blind faith and willful ignorance? I admit I'm not good at these two disciplines.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Don't worry, BS, we're not going to take the thread off-topic.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Its crazy how people can get these FAKE diplomas off the internet... and then they use them to mislead people and milk money out of the deluded.

Its a shame that so many have been sucked into this mans lies. Of course this is what they WANT to be true so they are willfully decived and happy about it.

Thank you Buddasystem for being much more patient than me.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 


You don't know what you're talking about.

Flanagan is a genius who is largely self-taught and an inventor.

He is also not the primary subject of this thread. And focusing on a degree is a cheap diversion to make up for the lack of something constructive to contribute to the thread.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Well, when it gets much past basic mechanics, no one really understands how it all works. Mainly through the works of engineers and inventors we have succeeded in harnessing technology, but the theoreticians aren't any closer to understanding how it all works than they were back in Newton's day, which is why those who worship at the alter of mainstream science are so angry about people exploring other perspectives.

BS thinks his elfin magic theory is absolutely the reality, while he makes fun of my tangled hair theory, and your efforts to cast a wider web.

And you got someone here posting about people wasting their money on someone's con game, as if they aren't just buying into a different con, and have spent a whole lot more money, and gotten nothing more back in return.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Ok, I've had enough with this nonsense.
The load of bull I can read on this thead is frightening, truly.
So far, only OP and Poet1b at least try to make sense and keep an open mind...
The rest is a mix between wannabe mystics with ideas I'm reluctant to even call hypotheses and brainwashed scientists that can't even put 2 and 2 together (and I'm pretty sure they, themselves, don't believe/understand a word they're saying).

For the first mentioned, particles are magical vortexes in between dilensions, for the others they don't even exist... Well... Until we ACTUALLY DETECT THEM that is... of course. Kind of difficult to deny their existence then, right?

Let's focus on our quantum physicists friends.
So, a void can be defined as a space empty of matter whereas WE KNOW there are at least neutrinos in it (even photons in the "buzzer in the jar" experiment). Yet, they see nothing wrong with this picture.

Then, particles don't exist since they are truly waves.
So, you would think that, at the very least, the existence of waves should be proof enough that there is an Aether, a medium for them to travel through.
But, no, the existence of an Aether is so taboo, that they have to immediately say: "But, you know, waves don't exist either, they are simply abstract mathematical concepts. In fact, they are a representation of fields'interactions (and existence)."
So waves don't exist either then...

Ok... but even so, fields do require an Ether to, well, be fields (to exist), don't they?
And at this point they just say: "NO. Quantum mechanics doesn't require the existence of an Aether to be validated. We don't detect it, nor its supposed influence, therefore it's not there. Period."

This is the appeal to ignorance fallacy (argumentum ad ignorantiam).


It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa).This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. [...] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.


How waves, fields come to travel and be then? "Not our problem, it just works."

And THAT is called science my friends...

More, QM is as 'predictive' as game's theory is (which is really not much), here's why:
It can only use ON AVERAGE figures! It's like saying on a 1000 throws of a coin, you'l have close to 500 heads... But it can NEVER be known before hand, what throw will produce what result!
And they have the audacity to call that PREDICTIVE! Those who didn't know, look it up, it's true.

Fortunately, at a quantum level, we're dealing with numbers so huge that it doesn't make a difference... For now.
But:
1. It's because we're so low on the 'knowledge scale' that it's good enough for us.
The precision required for our experiments/machines to work is so low that we don't need to be more accurate. Therefore, we don't see/detect discrapencies. Effects that exist (and could be detected) are simply ignored and, worse, denied the possibility to even exist.

2. They attribute their own shortcomings to Reality ITSELF!
They don't say that they use probabilities and stats as a substitute for accurate and precise equations because they don't have the capacity (for know) to do so, no...
With the (convenient) uncertainty principle, they make Reality itself PROBABILISTIC.
Not even freaking trajectories are said to exist at a quantum level!
Well who needs trajectories when particles (and waves) don't exist anyway...


Everything is causal and fine at a macro level (galaxies, stars, planets and us) at a micro level (bacteries microbes...) and even at a nano level (molecules), but it ALL goes down the rabbit's hole at the quantum level!
And for no apparent, nor explained reason...

It's fantasctic, really. I don't know if normal (not brainwashed or lying through their teeth) folks realise what it means.

3. The limit QM imposes on us, PREVENT us from improving our maths and science, therefore our scientific knowledge and advancement. QM doesn't allow improvement!


And to the 'clever guy' (@Split Infinity) who asked "how could there be colors (a spectrum) if photons were not waves?":
Maybe you should understand the difference between wavelength and actual waves.
A wavelength reflects the energy and nature of the PHOTON (as PARTICLE).
The (actual/physical) wave behavior that we detect in experiments like the double slit has a completely different meaning ad nature.
edit on 20-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit
edit on 20-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 



Everything is causal and fine at a macro level (galaxies, stars, planets and us) at a micro level (bacteries microbes...) and even at a nano level (molecules), but it ALL goes down the rabbit's hole at the quantum level!


Can you predict whether a batter will hit a ball or not? And if he does, precisely what the path will be? That the universe is a clockwork mechanism that can be described and understood fully is an 18th Century conceit. In fact, there is a great deal that cannot be predicted with a great deal of certainty, but race horse touts, stock market traders and marketing consultants continue to ply their trades with uniformly disappointing results. It can be argued that, at the macroscopic level, the interwoven, vastly complicated fields of probability create the illusion of causality, and it's related concept of locality. Technically, this is metaphysics, but it is a logical conclusion.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 



Everything is causal and fine at a macro level (galaxies, stars, planets and us) at a micro level (bacteries microbes...) and even at a nano level (molecules), but it ALL goes down the rabbit's hole at the quantum level!


1. Can you predict whether a batter will hit a ball or not? And if he does, precisely what the path will be?

That the universe is a clockwork mechanism that can be described and understood fully is an 18th Century conceit.

2. In fact, there is a great deal that cannot be predicted with a great deal of certainty, but race horse touts, stock market traders and marketing consultants continue to ply their trades with uniformly disappointing results.

3. It can be argued that, at the macroscopic level, the interwoven, vastly complicated fields of probability create the illusion of causality, and it's related concept of locality. Technically, this is metaphysics, but it is a logical conclusion.



1. First, at least WE KNOW the ball has a trajectory! So, we should conclude that we CAN calculate it.
The fact that we aren't able to (FOR NOW) take into account and calculate all the variables doesn't prove that it can't be done!
This is beyond stupid.

2. It COULD BE predicted if we had all the relevant data to do so. This is unlikely to happen anytime soon because it would require for someone (or a computer) to have ACCESS to ALL this data.
Yet we COULD.
Even for the stock market, we don't have it (the data, knowledge or access to all the factors in play) for various reasons (there are irrational human-beings at play, we obviously don't have an exact knowledge of all the actions taking place at an instant T...) BUT THIS DATA EXIST. Again, it could be gathered and analysed.

The simple fact that the data exist DICTATES that predicition is POSSIBLE. Out of our reach and limited knowledge/capacity, perhaps but that's it. That's the ONLY reason probabilty are used and useful, still.
But reality is in no way probabilistic. OUR limited knowledge doesn't allow us to do better, for now.

But modern (quantum) physics declare ANY EXACT prediction to be impossible and UNKNOWABLE, not too complex to be known by US and for now.
They transformed something difficult (or out of our actual capacity) in something impossible, thereby changing the very nature of reality in a swift swoop.
By doing that, they declare Reality to be a-causal. This is a SCAM!
And they created ALL of QM concepts using this idea. Logic, determinism, causality, rationality are dead. Welcome to duality, nonlocality, virtual particles, void...

3.

How can you make a logical conclusion using an a-causal stance???
You don't realize it but,anchored deep in you, the knowledge that causality, therefore Logic (which cannot exist if causality and determinism don't), is the first most important principle of reality is there.
Let it out.

Also, if you think causality is an illusion, you missed your vocation and I don't know what you do in the science field. The scientific method itself is based on causality.
ALL theories would be unfalsifiable if causality wasn't used.
There wouldn't be any meaningful reasoning nor scientific theory otherwise.
Plus, Science is (well, should be) nothing more than the study of phenomena's causes and effects.

Ironic, isn't it? Scientists use a causal/deterministic approach in its very nature to try and push the idea that reality isn't. Ironic, maybe, but also prepostorus and insane.
edit on 20-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
So, a void can be defined as a space empty of matter whereas WE KNOW there are at least neutrinos in it


You are mixing a concept of void with a sample you are likely to obtain if you delineate a volume in the world around you. Sure, you'll get a few neutrinos in that 4-gallon canister even if you pump out all the air. Doesn't change anything. What you are saying is this:

"Don't believe mainstream science when they tell you there is water in the ocean, because oftentimes when you cast a net, you extract fish out of it. Therefore, the essence of the oceans is fish".

Duh.


(even photons in the "buzzer in the jar" experiment.


What photons in the "buzzer in the jar"? If you mean the experiment where the sound vanished when the volume was evacuated, it had nothing to do with photons. Try to think straight next time, do you mind?


So, you would think that, at the very least, the existence of waves should be proof enough that there is an Aether, a medium for them to travel through.


Why should it be a proof? It's not.


But, no, the existence of an Aether is so taboo, that they have to immediately say: "But, you know, waves don't exist either, they are simply abstract mathematical concepts. In fact, they are a representation of fields'interactions (and existence)."


That's what we OBSERVE in nature. Fields.


Ok, but even so, fields do require an Ether to, well, be fields (to exist).


Patently false. There is no "aether" term in Maxwell equations, and they describe static, variable and propagating fields. Period. "Aether" is not a part of this theory, and if it's too crazy, and if you feel uncomfortable, move to another Universe, where the rules are simpler, more philosophically pleasing.




"If you don't like it, that's too bad"

-- Richard Feynman
edit on 20-1-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by 1Agnostic1



You are mixing a concept of void with a sample you are likely to obtain if you delineate a volume in the world around you. Sure, you'll get a few neutrinos in that 4-gallon canister even if you pump out all the air. Doesn't change anything.


1. So, when did scientists experiment on an actual (and true) void, then?
2. What about the dark matter that is supposed to compose at least 90% of the volume and matter of the universe? Couldn't that be your 'void'?


What photons in the "buzzer in the jar"? If you mean the experiment where the sound vanished when the volume was evacuated, it had nothing to do with photons. Try to think straight next time, do you mind?




You ask me to think straight when you're to thick to realise that if you can see throught he jar, it means there are photons passing through it. And if photons are filling this jar, it means this is NOT a void!

You see how it indeed has (also) to do with photons.
I just add the neutrinow as a bonus (a heck of a bonus).



ME: So, you would think that, at the very least, the existence of waves should be proof enough that there is an Aether, a medium for them to travel through.



1. Why should it be a proof?
2. It's not.


1. Because waves need a medium to travel through maybe? Just saying.
2. Thanks for your enlightened and enlightening answer. Keep up the good job.


Patently false. There is no "aether" term in Maxwell equations, and they describe static, variable and propagating fields. Period. "Aether" is not a part of this theory.


Yeah, if it's not part of the theory (Maxwell's equation), then it surely doesn't exist. Why didn't I think of that before?
Occam's razor and all.

It seems you're running out if valid (never sound though) points to counter my points, though...



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
1. Because waves need a medium to travel through maybe? Just saying.


And I'm saying that this is bullsh!t. Sound does need a medium, certain types of field do not. The model we have now (which works remarkably well) does not require a medium for electromagnetism, but you have a hangup on a mechanical view of the world, and that's that. As I said before, in a similar fashion, people thought that heat was an invisible fluid that would flow from hot objects to cold ones. I'm sure they had the same backward argument that heat "can't just flow, it needs a special aether to flow".




Patently false. There is no "aether" term in Maxwell equations, and they describe static, variable and propagating fields. Period. "Aether" is not a part of this theory.


Yeah, if it's not part of the theory (Maxwell's equation), then it surely doesn't exist. Why didn't I think of that before?


Beats me! But for some people it just takes a longer time to arrive to the proper conclusion. There is no hurry.

We have a model that works. The model doesn't care if it appears weird to you. Nature certainly doesn't care. If you can't fit a concept or two in your head, well, as Feynman said, "it's too bad, OK?"



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by primalfractal

Modern mainstream science says that the wave portion of a photon wave packet duality is purely a mathematical abstraction with no real physical existence.

Aether theories, including my own, say the wave portion of the wave packet polar duality is real and exists in another dimension physically underlying our own, the same place where the electrons disappear to.

With my theory there is no reason for a "mathematical" wave to move sideways or radially through space or respond to the movement of the device, only a wave that existed physically would exhibit such qualities and show such effects.

So, if I can do the experiment and prove the theory I can show the Aether is real.

The experiment I have designed to show it involves spinning a fluorescent molecule with lasers at over 6 billion revolutions per second.


I would like to return to my question, which no one has addressed. What would it take to do this experiment?


The right people, equipment and the math has to be done first.

For equipment we would need the molecule spinning laser setup as well as detectors. Dont know exactly yet how much it would all cost but I think possibly fairly expensive because of the laser setup.

The people would be scientists, mathematicians or engineers. This seems to be coming together now and I am hoping to have some help with the maths soon.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join