The Aether Reality

page: 22
7
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.


The true potential is within




posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
"I think it is safe to say that no one
understands Quantum Mechanics."

---- Richard Feynman


For example, the founder of quantum field theory, Paul Dirac, stated in 1951 in an article in Nature, titled "Is there an Aether?" that "we are rather forced to have an aether".


en.wikipedia.org...-dirac-65



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 




There is no measurable evidence of "Aether".


I think the more correct statement would be, "If there are currently existing devices, or developments for making devices, capable of measuring aether, it is not yet known to the public."

Honestly, if aether were real, it would be a far more useful tool if no one knew it existed. If we had no idea guns existed, it would be hard to find someone with a gun, yeah? Because we wouldn't be looking for it. And oh gee, guess what! We're not really looking that hard for aether, are we?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
"I think it is safe to say that no one
understands Quantum Mechanics."

---- Richard Feynman


For example, the founder of quantum field theory, Paul Dirac, stated in 1951 in an article in Nature, titled "Is there an Aether?" that "we are rather forced to have an aether".


en.wikipedia.org...-dirac-65



However, Dirac never formulated a complete theory, and so his speculations found no acceptance by the scientific community.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


And your point is?

The mainstream is right because it's mainstream?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


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


There is no reason for me to be desperate, actually, and second, I'm on topic for the following reason:

a) you elected to bring Bearden into discussion, not I
b) since Bearden's theory has been looked at and discarded by scientists, and his apparatus is a dud, you can't claim any merit to it except that you personally have "discernment"
c) I pointed out that you can't possibly have any "discernment" because forming a judgement on a piece of math requires good knowledge of math, which you don't possess to any measurable degree. So this argument is completely in line with the sub-thread you originated.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
 




There is no measurable evidence of "Aether".


I think the more correct statement would be, "If there are currently existing devices, or developments for making devices, capable of measuring aether, it is not yet known to the public."


If you liver is controlled, on a subspace frequency, by the Supreme Being Zmorrg, who resides in the center of a neutron star, it is not yet known to public. Likewise, the existence of real dinosaurs in the woods of Long Island, New York, is not a part of public knowledge.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



If you liver is controlled, on a subspace frequency, by the Supreme Being Zmorrg, who resides in the center of a neutron star, it is not yet known to public. Likewise, the existence of real dinosaurs in the woods of Long Island, New York, is not a part of public knowledge.


I didn't say either of those are real. I do think, however, that there is a field on a level we are as yet unaware of, related to electromagnetics. We'll see someday, won't we?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



If you liver is controlled, on a subspace frequency, by the Supreme Being Zmorrg, who resides in the center of a neutron star, it is not yet known to public. Likewise, the existence of real dinosaurs in the woods of Long Island, New York, is not a part of public knowledge.


I didn't say either of those are real. I do think, however, that there is a field on a level we are as yet unaware of, related to electromagnetics. We'll see someday, won't we?


Precisely. Until then, that field belongs with Zmorrg, dinosaurs etc. But I promise the day I see dinosaur tracks in my back yard, I will reconsider.

But seriously, you are missing the point. It's not the "field" which may or may not be detected (and it looks like that we did detect the Higgs field), it's the preposterous notion that some sort of medium is needed for various types of fields to propagate. I've said it a couple of times already. By the way the Higgs is a field in and by itself. And no, it doesn't need a medium.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
So the photon/wave duality has been detected but half of it is purely mathematical?

Aether isn't a new unidentified field, it's a missing part of an only partly rational theory.

To spell it out - Aether is the physical wave portion of the EM field that is currently considered to exist only as a mathematical abstraction,



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
If this physical wave existed purely in this dimension it would be detectable so this gives ideas like Bohms etc. As an added bonus gravity can make sense too.


Sheldrake, Rupert (2009-09-09). Morphic Resonance: The Nature of Formative Causation (pp. 255-257). Inner Traditions Bear & Company. Kindle Edition.

Bohm: . . . One of the early interpretations of the quantum theory I developed was in terms of a particle moving in a field.

Sheldrake: The quantum potential.

Bohm: Yes. Now the quantum potential had many of the properties you ascribe to morphogenetic fields and chreodes; that is, it guided the particle in some way, and there are often deep valleys and plateaus, and particles may start to accumulate in plateaus and produce interference fringes. Now the interesting thing is that the quantum potential energy had the same effect regardless of its intensity, so that even far away it may produce a tremendous effect; this effect does not follow an inverse square law. Only the form of the potential has an effect, and not its amplitude or its magnitude. So we compared this to a ship being guided by radar; the radar is carrying form or information from all around. It doesn’t, within its limits, depend on how strong the radio wave is. So we could say that in that sense the quantum potential is acting as a formative field on the movement of the electrons. The formative field could not be put in three-dimensional [or local] space, it would have to be in a three-n dimensional space, so that there would be non-local connections, or subtle connections of distant particles (which we see in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment). So there would be a wholeness about the system such that the formative field could not be attributed to that particle alone; it can be attributed only to the whole, and something happening to faraway particles can affect the formative field of other particles. There could thus be a [non-local] transformation of the formative field of a certain group to another group. So I think that if you attempt to understand what quantum mechanics means by such a model, you get quite a strong analogy to a formative field.

Sheldrake: Yes, it may even be a homology; it may be a different way of talking about the same thing.

Bohm: The major difference is that quantum mechanics doesn’t treat time, and therefore it hasn’t any way to account for the cumulative effect of past forms. To do so would require an extension of the way physics treats time, you see.

Sheldrake: But don’t you get time in physics when you have a collapse of the wave function?

Bohm: Yes, but that’s outside the framework of quantum physics today. That collapse is not treated by any law at all, which means that the past is, as it were, wiped out altogether. [Editor’s note: This is the point where, as earlier mentioned, Bohm discusses some of the inadequacies of present-day quantum mechanics—in particular, its incapacity to explain process, or the influence of the past on the present. He then suggests his re-formulations—injection, projection, the implicate order, etc.—that might remedy these inadequacies. And these re-formulations, apparently, are rather similar to Sheldrake’s theories.] You see, the present quantum mechanics does not have any concept of movement or process or continuity in time; it really deals with one moment only, one observation, and the probability that one observation will be followed by another one. But there is obviously process in the physical world. Now I want to say that that process can be understood from the implicate order as this activity of re-projection and re-injection. So, the theory of the implicate order, carried this far, goes quite beyond present quantum mechanics. It actually deals with process, which quantum mechanics does not, except by reference to an observing apparatus that in turn has to be referred to something else. . . .


Its still the missing part of the EM field though, the yin to its yang you could say.

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



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
To spell it out - Aether is the physical wave portion of the EM field that is currently considered to exist only as a mathematical abstraction


What about weak interaction? What about gluons?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by primalfractal
To spell it out - Aether is the physical wave portion of the EM field that is currently considered to exist only as a mathematical abstraction


What about weak interaction? What about gluons?


Is that it eh? I'm not actually sure besides light waves (which is a biggie really) but I figured it would be most of the wave portion of EM thats considered to be made of a "math"
edit on 22-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
. . . check out his website and read his thorough research into the history of what's been going on with the mathematics associated with electromagnetism.


From "COMMENTS ON THE NEW TESLA ELECTROMAGNETICS" - Part I: Discrepancies in Present EM Theory - © T. E. Bearden 1982":


There are at least twenty-two major discrepancies presently existing in conventional electromagnetics theory. . . .

(1) In present electromagnetics theory, charge and charged mass are falsely made identical. . . .

(2) Electrostatic potential is regarded as a purely 3-dimensional spatial stress. . . .

. . . (4) The charge of vacuum spacetime is assumed to be zero, when in fact it is a very high value. . . .

. . . (9) Energy is considered fundamental and equivalent to work. In fact, energy arises from vector processes, and it can be disassembled into more fundamental (anenergy) scalar components, since the vectors can. . . .

. . . to understand the new electromagnetic reality, one requires a new, expanded logic which contains the old Aristotlean logic as a subset. . . .

. . . The present electromagnetics is just a special case of a much more fundamental electromagnetics discovered by Nikola Tesla, just as Newtonian physics is a special case of relativistic physics. But in the electromagnetics case, the differences between the old and the new are far more drastic and profound.
edit on 01/22/13 by Mary Rose because: Puncutation



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by primalfractal
To spell it out - Aether is the physical wave portion of the EM field that is currently considered to exist only as a mathematical abstraction


What about weak interaction? What about gluons?


Is that it eh? I'm not actually sure besides light waves (which is a biggie really) but I figured it would be most of the wave portion of EM thats considered to be made of a "math"


"Wave portions of EM"? Maybe it's about time you stopped posting nonsense. Wave is a particular configuration of the electromagnetic field. "Wave portion of EM" makes no more sense than "wind portion of gas".

And it's not "biggie really" when it comes to other types of force. You are obviously clueless with regards to what I asked.

Just astonishing ignorance.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
So mainstream science believes tha wave portion of the photon/wave duality is physically real and light photons arn't EM. Thanks. Cool you agree about the aether but this EM thing, wow man errr, and you are pretending to be a physicist.


VisVisible light

Main article: Light

Natural sources produce EM radiation across the spectrum. EM radiation with a wavelength between approximately 400 nm and 700 nm is directly detected by the human eye and perceived as visible light. Other wavelengths, especially nearby infrared (longer than 700 nm) and ultraviolet (shorter than 400 nm) are also sometimes referred to as light, especially when visibility to humans is not relevant.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Wave–particle duality

The modern theory that explains the nature of light includes the notion of wave–particle duality. More generally, the theory states that everything has both a particle nature and a wave nature, and various experiments can be done to bring out one or the other. The particle nature is more easily discerned if an object has a large mass, and it was not until a bold proposition by Louis de Broglie in 1924 that the scientific community realised that electrons also exhibited wave–particle duality.

en.wikipedia.org... E2.80.93particle_duality

The wave nature of light is considered to not exist physically. If it did, it would be connected to EM because a light photon is a part of EM.

Your just moving words with no actual arguement. Your what? what was that about the OP?Just trying to confuse because your premise is so ridiculous, glad you agree about the wave being real physically though, maybe you could help instead of being so um behind.
edit on 22-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-1-2013 by primalfractal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
So mainstream science believes tha wave portion of the photon/wave duality is physically real and light photons arn't EM. Thanks. Cool you agree about the aether but this EM thing, wow man errr, and you are pretending to be a physicist.


You really seem to be bent on ignoring matters at hand, and not paying attention. You keep making things up as you go, both semantically and in terms of what science does and what it does not. "Light photons aren't EM" is a prime example of a rather disgusting case of word soup. "Aristotle was not Belgian" comes to mind.

And I'm not agreeing with you on anything at all, and much less that "aether" hang-up. I'm glad you looked up the definition of light on the Web. It's a meek beginning of your education.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
The wave nature of light is considered to not exist physically. If it did, it would be connected to EM because a light photon is a part of EM.


What sort of nonsense is that? Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, and photons are used to describe it. I'm glad you are finally reading Wikipedia, please do more of it daily and call me in a month from now.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   
So now you dont agree with this "glad you agree about the wave being real physically". Wow your just trying to be confusing.





top topics
 
7
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join