The Aether Reality

reply to post by primalfractal


Well, I hope you keep on keeping on!

In my opinion, the ether is already established - it's just called "zero point energy" - but since the mainstream doesn't seem to be doing anything with it, maybe another experiment will be a catalyst.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Thanks, I appreciate the support. I think "curving light wave theory" and this experiment could provide unambiguous results proving the existance of aether. Hopefully this could be a catalyst for change.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by primalfractal

 

Well, I hope you keep on keeping on!

In my opinion, the ether is already established - it's just called "zero point energy" - but since the mainstream doesn't seem to be doing anything with it, maybe another experiment will be a catalyst.

What is zero point energy actually? How might it differ from the old concept of the aether?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


I think the reference to "vacuum fluctuations" in the dictionary definition of zero point energy:

The zero point energy of a vacuum is not zero due to vacuum fluctuations.

does not differ from the aether/ether.

Some interesting research confirming aether in so called "empty" space. The article seems to say aether is even admitted by science to be real in this case.

The concept that what we ordinarily perceive as empty space is in fact a complicated medium is a profound and pervasive theme in modern physics. This invisible inescapable medium alters the behavior of the matter that we do see. Just as Earth's gravitational field allows us to select a unique direction as up, and thereby locally reduces the symmetry of the underlying equations of physics, so cosmic fields in "empty" space lower the symmetry of these fundamental equations everywhere. Or so theory has it. For although this concept of a symmetry-breaking aether has been extremely fruitful (and has been demonstrated indirectly in many ways), the ultimate demonstration of its validity --cleaning out the medium and restoring the pristine symmetry of the equations -- has never been achieved: that is, perhaps, until now.

scienceweek.com...

Originally posted by primalfractal
Some interesting research confirming aether in so called "empty" space. The article seems to say aether is even admitted by science to be real in this case.

There is fundamental gap in your attempt to comprehend this material. There is a striking difference between Vacuum Energy and the mechanistic medium that you insist is needed for the fields to propagate. The science has the notion of the former while it does not have a notion of the latter, because it's not needed. Again, there are a few different kinds of FIELDS that exist, which sometimes exhibit certain behavior which is termed in various contexts as vacuum energy etc. I know it's annoying for you, but these are FIELDS, not your magic jelly, without which you can't grasp the concept of a wave. Sorry, you can't have that crutch. Will need to learn how to walk without it.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is fundamental gap in your attempt to comprehend this material. There is a striking difference between Vacuum Energy and the mechanistic medium that you insist is needed for the fields to propagate.

What is the difference between:

. . . underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe.

and aether/ether?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Like quantum white noise?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is fundamental gap in your attempt to comprehend this material. There is a striking difference between Vacuum Energy and the mechanistic medium that you insist is needed for the fields to propagate.

What is the difference between:

. . . underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe.

and aether/ether?

Just "thinking out loud here". The aether was thought to be a substance. I usually see substance as being that which has mass and occupies space; matter. That's why I'm opposed to that term to describe what is there. That doesn't mean that I believe empty space is nothing, just that a volume of space can be empty.

For a few months now I've had the idea that Space itself IS energy. I don't really know what the Higgs Field is proposed to be, maybe they tie together, maybe not. Dark Energy, Background Cosmological Constant and Zero-Point Energy may all be the same thing by a different name. IDK, but curious about it all.

I found this very interesting amasci.com...

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
Just "thinking out loud here".

I appreciate that and I welcome it.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
The aether was thought to be a substance. I usually see substance as being that which has mass and occupies space; matter. That's why I'm opposed to that term to describe what is there. That doesn't mean that I believe empty space is nothing, just that a volume of space can be empty.

I see what you're saying.

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
For a few months now I've had the idea that Space itself IS energy.

I can agree with you on that because I just word it differently. I think of space as not being empty but full of energy.

The rest of it is of no concern to me because all I care about is the basic concept that there is a oneness in the universe, which I think of as infinite, teeming with energy, which, in my opinion can be tapped, and that's what I care about: The technology that we can have using it.

reply to post by Mary Rose


It means a little more to me because that energy you're talking about is energy that can be found in not just space, but all of matter. And that is the energy that unites all of matter on a level we are just beginning to detect. That energy has so much potential, but I respect it most for what it can teach us about how our intentions - thoughts, actions, emotions - can affect everything around us. Literally, everything. The potential is staggering. It would change everything about the way we live.

That's why I'm so interested in the aether.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Maybe the appreciation for what you're describing is the key to changing attitudes which will, in turn, make my dream of free energy technology for all of humankind come true. Eventually.

Or, am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
There is fundamental gap in your attempt to comprehend this material. There is a striking difference between Vacuum Energy and the mechanistic medium that you insist is needed for the fields to propagate.

What is the difference between:

. . . underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe.

and aether/ether?

Note that the answer is contained the the piece of my post you just quoted. All you need is to read.

reply to post by buddhasystem


So, you refuse to admit that there is no difference. Correct? You don't want to say it clearly yourself.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

So, you refuse to admit that there is no difference.

So, you refuse to read my posts which clearly state there is a difference. Man...

reply to post by buddhasystem


So, you're talking about the lack of "mechanics" in how waves propagate in the ether, (if that's what they're doing) - correct?

There's no difference between the "field" and the ether, either, is there?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Not misunderstanding, so much as redirecting. I don't really appreciate the technological potential of such a discovery, because honestly, that path will only lead to more materialism. That's something we could definitely do without. Before we further our mastery of the material world, we need to plumb the depths of understanding. We need to understand exactly how the ethereal qualities of our thoughts and emotions connect to the physical world, before we continue to blindly feed our passion without regard.

reply to post by buddhasystem

FACEPALM.

Considering that single phrase composed the entirety of that particular post, I believe that breaks the guidelines provided to ensure, to the best of the staff's capability, that all discussions would remain somewhat productive. As such, I would like to remind you of said guidelines and ask that you constructively elaborate on the point you so rudely attempted to convey...leaving your callous and uncaring demeanor at the door, of course.

Thank you.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

FACEPALM.

Considering that single phrase composed the entirety of that particular post, I believe that breaks the guidelines provided to ensure, to the best of the staff's capability, that all discussions would remain somewhat productive.

I think a reasonable guideline is to actually read something written in fairly plain English. Absent that, you can forget about discussions being productive. My post was clear enough. It's lack of effort on the reader's part that you should be concerned about.