Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Aether Reality

page: 21
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


What are vacuum fluctuations?




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by mbkennel
 


What are vacuum fluctuations?


Google has ready answers.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Some people have the ability to put things in their own words. People who have concepts that they haven't memorized out of a textbook. You wouldn't understand.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.



1. So, if a concept (here the medium, the fundamental substance of the universe we call Aether) is not necessary to obtain satisfactory results, then it doesn't exist, right?
That's what quantum scientists say: "We don't need an Aether for our equations to work, therefore it proves Aether doesn't exist."
Er, what?
If I calculate the trajectory of an arrow, I don't need to enter the concepts (here forces) gravity or electromagnetism as variables for my equations to work, they are unnecessary variables. Then it proves that gravity and electromagnetism doesn't exist... NOT!
This is a completely fallacious reasoning of course.

The fact that Aether wouldn't be needed as a variable, in no way would prove its non existence, nor does the fact say they don't detect any (already adressed in previous posts).
Moreover, it's a lie.

2. Proof is that they have to create concepts like 'vacuum energy' and 'virtual particles'. Anything will do as long as they don't call it Aether.
Vacuum energy theory

considers vacuum to implicitly have the same properties as a particle, such as spin or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on.

But hey, it’s NOT matter, get it?!

First they prove a point I made earlier: To keep on hiding the fact that their theories are full of holes and don't withstand objective (and rational) scrutiny, they have to create more and more nonsensical concepts.

Vacuum energy:

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

Where does energy come from if not matter?! Can energy be independent and not attached to matter, now?
Yes, they say, it comes from VIRTUAL matter (particles).
So, a virtual Aether (because these virtual particles are said to pop up literally out of nothing and do so "through out the entire universe") is an ok concept but not an actual, physical Aether???

Second, they've just explained to you that "spontaneous creation" is a scientific concept now.
No, they say, we will never be the proponents of such stupid religious ideas/concepts... We rename them first. (Emphasis added)

Really? Let’s check:

Vacuum (NOTHING) energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum (NOTHING).


Emphasis added based on their own definition of the concept vacuum:

According to the theory, most of these properties cancel out on average leaving the vacuum empty in the literal sense of the word.

Meaning a vacuum is comprised of NOTHING.
What is a ‘volume’ (of space) composed by NOTHING? Well, it’s simply NOTHING.

So, virtual (meaning NON-EXISTING, NOT REAL or NOT PHYSICAL) particles are created from… NOTHING. These virtual particles create (are the equivalent of) vacuum energy (the ‘energy of nothing’) which explains well, EVERYTHING (from the big bang, to electromagnetic fields).
Phenomenal!

And yes, virtual particles and vacuum energy are used to explain how the big bang could have happened.
It didn't appear out of nowhere and was created from nothing, no (we wouldn’t want to break the law of conservation of energy now, would we)… It was created from vacuum energy and virtual particles!
And they say that with a straight face...

Where the hell am I living? It's like being part of an episode of the twilight zone, literally.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Some people have the ability to put things in their own words. People who have concepts that they haven't memorized out of a textbook. You wouldn't understand.

Lo thats a nice one



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1

Vacuum energy:

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

Where does energy come from if not matter?! Can energy be independent and not attached to matter, now?
Yes, they say, it comes from VIRTUAL matter (particles).
So, a virtual Aether (because these virtual particles are said to pop up literally out of nothing and do so "through out the entire universe") is an ok concept but not an actual, physical Aether???


What do you mean by "OK concept"?

What physical properties does an "actual physical Aether" imbue which result in experimentally observable effects? Please be specific. If you want to call the vacuum of field theories "Aether" if it makes you happy but you will have trouble understanding terminology because that's not what physicists mean by it.

If you want to say "physical vacuum has some structure with observable consequences" then yes, that's true. If you want to say "it's Aether" then scientists say "no, Aether meant something else which is not true, and we didn't re-use the word to mean something different, we chose new words."




So, virtual (meaning NON-EXISTING, NOT REAL or NOT PHYSICAL) particles are created from… NOTHING

These virtual particles create (are the equivalent of) vacuum energy (the ‘energy of nothing’) which explains well, EVERYTHING (from the big bang, to electromagnetic fields).
Phenomenal!


No, 'virtual particles' don't create 'vacuum energy' and this doesn't explain EVERYTHING.

However, the theory of quantum fields, which does use 'virtual particles' in its calculations does explain certain electromagnetic quantum mechanical phenomena which have been measured to high numerical precision and confirmed with theory. Doing computations without including virtual particles gets the wrong answer.

It's strange, but it appears to be true.

Don't confuse linguistic terms of "nothing" and naively unexamined implications of linguistic analogies with the exotic majesty of what Nature can do with physics.

You seem to be emotionally bothered with the notion that quantum field theory is unintuitive and strange.

Well, Chinese language is also unintuitive and strange to me but the experimental evidence shows that more than a billion people think it's completely normal.
edit on 22-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Indeed.

lmgtfy.com...
edit on 22-1-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Some people have the ability to put things in their own words. People who have concepts that they haven't memorized out of a textbook. You wouldn't understand.


I do understand! You couldn't possibly have concepts memorized out of a textbook, because you are doing your darnedest to avoid these, and other sources of knowledge. As a result, these "concepts" have no relation to reality.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Your mainstream physics is not holding up under scrutiny and the alternative community is pointing this out to you but you're going to resist - kicking and screaming - until a new paradigm wins in the end.

But carry on.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
So, if a concept (here the medium, the fundamental substance of the universe we call Aether) is not necessary to obtain satisfactory results, then it doesn't exist, right? That's what quantum scientists say: "We don't need an Aether for our equations to work, therefore it proves Aether doesn't exist." Er, what?


Er, that:

Scientific Method


The scientific method (or simply scientific method) is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.


There is no measurable evidence of "Aether".


If I calculate the trajectory of an arrow, I don't need to enter the concepts (here forces) gravity or electromagnetism as variables for my equations to work, they are unnecessary variables. Then it proves that gravity and electromagnetism doesn't exist... NOT!


What a p!ss poor example... First of all, unless you are in free fall or far away from concentrations of mass, I can hardly imagine that your arrow would be free of the force of gravity. Did you ever shoot an arrow? They usually fall down eventually, you know... Shooting an AK-47 with tracer bullets is a more dramatic example, because you can clearly see how the trajectory bends. You need to try it some time. But I digress.

The body of experiments we are conducting in science is rather encompassing. These are not limited to an arrow, or a solenoid (which will involve electromagnetism, of course, which you somehow managed to miss). There is no evidence of aether. If you don't like that situation, well tough.


Proof is that they have to create concepts like 'vacuum energy' and 'virtual particles'. Anything will do as long as they don't call it Aether.


Nobody "had" to create these concepts. They are integral part of the theory that appears, at this level of knowledge and experience, to be valid.

And again you failed to see what I expressed - the vacuum energy or other phenomena inherent in quantum view of the world have NOTHING to do with the soup you insist is needed for waves to propagate. Oh well.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Your mainstream physics is not holding up under scrutiny


What scrutiny? Where?

You can't scrutinize something that you trying to avoid touching, like you avoid touching physics. How can you possibly "scrutinize" anything???

There is no scrutiny. There is ongoing episode of that Feynman video clip.

"Science is too weird, I'm not going to accept it". It is so obvious in this thread in particular that some people have trouble relating to hard concepts, and that they need a crutch, like the aether soup, to make them comfortable with the wave phenomena. All of this would not be an issue if you took care to learn how the model was developed and tested. Some people can't be bothered, you see. Half of pseudo-science fans here practice it as a way to AVOID THE ACTUAL EFFORT. And so I call them for what they are, lazy people.


edit on 22-1-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

However, the theory of quantum fields, which does use 'virtual particles' in its calculations does explain certain electromagnetic quantum mechanical phenomena which have been measured to high numerical precision and confirmed with theory. Doing computations without including virtual particles gets the wrong answer.

It's strange, but it appears to be true.


A made up object to make the math work is not using math to assist in a task it's fantasizing reality.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 





A made up object to make the math work is not using math to assist in a task it's fantasizing reality.


But....but

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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.



You had no problem with it before you had any idea what it meant.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


My understanding is that "virtual particles" are not imaginary, but real things, yet mainstream physics is claiming they don't really exist. They're claiming the ether/aether doesn't exist. They're not using it in our technology. They're satisfying themselves with the trinkets we can engineer without the ether/aether.

Now, I am not a physicist so I may be over-simplifying but I think I have the gist of it right.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by mbkennel

However, the theory of quantum fields, which does use 'virtual particles' in its calculations does explain certain electromagnetic quantum mechanical phenomena which have been measured to high numerical precision and confirmed with theory. Doing computations without including virtual particles gets the wrong answer.

It's strange, but it appears to be true.


A made up object to make the math work is not using math to assist in a task it's fantasizing reality.


Well Mary, since you have never done computations in the field of quantum electrodynamics, and never will, I'll allow myself to comment, as a person who has actually done that:

mbkennel's description is right on the money. Almost. Virtual particle is a way to correctly account for various kinds of rather complex integrals that together describe the field in a particular configuration. Conceptually it's not different than mathematical constructions used in other areas of physics. For example Fourier transform in and by itself does not exist in nature as a phenomenon, but we often use "harmonics" as a way to look at things, and it works really well.

The field itself is described by a Lagrangian. The Lagrangian does not "contain" virtual particles. These are akin to using Fourier transform to solve problems. They serve as a way to conceptualize the field and calculate it. It's not "fantasizing reality", it's facing it. The computer you are typing your anti-science rant at, is the evidence. It's built based on the results of these calculation. On the other hand, the "aether" is fantasizing reality, because frankly, you can't point to it in the first place, much less calculate.




edit on 22-1-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


BS is not going to do this because he insists that Col. Tom Bearden is a "charlatan," but others should check out his website and read his thorough research into the history of what's been going on with the mathematics associated with electromagnetism.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


BS is not going to do this because he insists that Col. Tom Bearden is a "charlatan," but others should check out his website and read his thorough research into the history of what's been going on with the mathematics associated with electromagnetism.


Oh, THAT Bearden. The one who built a small perpetual motion machine on his desktop, which magically vanished. The usual... I actually had a dinosaur in my possession, that is until the space aliens took it. And I swear it's true, despite what the mainstream science has to say about that.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


All the crap you post to obfuscate the verifiable, documented history of electromagnetism and the science of it is not going to change anything for people who have discernment.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


All the crap you post to obfuscate the verifiable, documented history of electromagnetism and the science of it is not going to change anything for people who have discernment.


Since you don't know math from a serving of mac and cheese, you can't possibly have "discernment" when it comes to merits of a physics theory. And since you said I posted crap, I'd appreciate the exact reference to that piece. Did I get math wrong? Did I claim the proton is actually a black hole? that a plastic donut and a length of copper wire will allow me to cross the Galaxy? No. It's you who's pushing THAT sort of "material".



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


BS you're off-topic. You're absolutely desperate.


You're thrashing about. Kinda pathetic, actually.






top topics



 
7
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join