Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Aether Reality

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
If there is no aether, then what does all of these waves travel upon.

How can they science talk about the fabric of space and time, and not consider that as just another interpretation of the aether.

Considering the whole force theory is little more than saying magic, for mainstream science to mock any efforts to consider aether in a more complex understanding, is an immense joke.




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
How can they science talk about the fabric of space and time, and not consider that as just another interpretation of the aether.


"they" do basically. For example:


We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether. According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.[4])


So basically, space-time is the new aether. But to avoid confusion with the old aether, which has properties which were found to not conform with reality, a new term was used.

My take on it is that people who advocate an aether theory are motivated by the fact they are against main stream science, not because it has any physical meaning.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
So basically, space-time is the new aether. But to avoid confusion with the old aether, which has properties which were found to not conform with reality, a new term was used.

Name those properties.


Originally posted by -PLB-
My take on it is that people who advocate an aether theory are motivated by the fact they are against main stream science, not because it has any physical meaning.


It does have a physical meaning, in that it's not empty; it's full of energy, which can be tapped.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Name those properties.


Already named in the post you reply to.


Originally posted by -PLB-

It does have a physical meaning, in that it's not empty; it's full of energy, which can be tapped.

Except for the "which can be tapped", which is not supported by anything real, how does your aether differ from space-time?



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RationalDespair
I think a lot of the negative comments you get arise from the use of the word aether alone. It´s a centuries old concept, claimed to be proven and disproven time and again, and generally considered to be non-existent by mainstraim scientists. Maybe you should come up with an alternative phrase and avoid attracting debunkers-by-default to your threads by using these conservative, controversial terms.

On the matter at hand, I think the wave aspect of photons, and all other particles, is real, i.e. physical and that wave-particle duality is an invented scenario to explain phenomona that they cannot explain otherwise, with current understanding. I believe there´s an underlying, undetectable "field" ("aether") that is the vehicle for all wave functions. This field is one; it is impossible to divide into smaller parts and therefore consists of nothing but itself. So instead of a "smallest building block" we have an infinitely big building block of which we observe agitations. This may explain why quantum entanglement is possible, since any agitation on a point in the field is the same as agitation of the whole field.

Excuse my non-scientific wording, I´m not a physicist, just expressing the stuff I think about and how I feel the universe functions. I have read a lot about quantum physics, string theories and what not, and my main conclusion is that "the experts" have as much as an idea about what´s going on as I do. Maybe we just have to conclude that humanity is incapable right now, and never will be, to observe, measure or predict the true underlying physics, and that we can only perceive the effects and never the causes.


I agree, the name aether seems to cause semantic arguements as well as being offensive to some. I'm going back to calling it "Dimension-n" in future.

As you say this is where wave functions exist physically. Futher research is needed down this path as more and more evidence for such is discovered in the rapidly advancing field of quantum physics.

I also am not a physicist, but on this topic, I seem to know more than the "experts", so I def believe you on that one. To me, and I'm sure others, your wording is concise and far more understandable than scientific jargon.

Even if we are not capable now (I hope we are), these seeds could bear fruit in the future.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
What do you mean by "curving vector potential"? Are you talking about the A field? Can you write it down mathematically?


By "curving vector potential" I mean a single, partly emitted photon wave packet moving sideways or radially through space, in response to the device being moved.

I am working on writing it down mathematically, but the going is slow because I am not a physicist and have not done advanced math for years. I have been assured by several proffesional quantum physicists that there is doable math for the theory and I have been seeing if anyone is interested in helping with the math and experiment.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by primalfractal
 


Thank you for the compliment.

And just where do you think home is? (Funny you should say that....)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by primalfractal
By "curving vector potential" I mean a single, partly emitted photon wave packet moving sideways or radially through space, in response to the device being moved.


Ok, but "vector potential" already has a very precise meaning in physics. It is a vector field called the A field. It is defined by B = \/ x A where \/ is the vector differential operator and B is the magnetic field. In EM field theory the A field is mainly used as a tool to calculate B and it is not an actual real field (there are exceptions).

Why did you pick a term that is in no way related to what you are trying to say and gave it an entirely different meaning, without pausing to explain it? This seems to be a counterproductive way to communicate.

As for photons moving radially through space, do you envision a photon spiraling away from a rotating emission source?

As for your experiment, what are your expected results if reality has the properties of space-time? And what are the expected results if reality has the properties of your aether?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
. . . how does your aether differ from space-time?


The part about motion: It vibrates.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Wouldn't you want this experiment in a vacuum?

Light itself is composed of an oscillating electric and magnetic field, and one very important property of electric and magnetic fields is what we call "linearity." I guess it's not called aether?

I understand you want to know how to bend light by will and generate a consistent linear wavelength.

van.physics.illinois.edu...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

I hope that helps you out.
edit on 12-1-2013 by Mello because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


reply to post by Mary Rose
 



This is not the point of the part about motion. It is hypothesized that space-time can vibrate: en.wikipedia.org... Though it is true that the evidence is not conclusive yet.

Based on what experimental data are you making the claim that your aether vibrates?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


"My aether" as you call it is not based on experimental evidence that it vibrates. It is based on the fact that I've learned from the alternative community that the traditional aether was not shown to not exist by the Michelson - Morley experiment, as alleged by the mainstream, and that free energy devices, which require an aether to convert into usable power, do exist. Additionally, shapes couple with the aether to produce effects.
edit on 01/12/13 by Mary Rose because: Spelling



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by -PLB-
 


"My aether" as you call it is not based on experimental evidence that it vibrates. It is based on the fact that I've learned from the alternative community that the traditional aether was not shown to not exist by the Michaelson - Morley experiment, as alleged by the mainstream, and that free energy devices, which require an aether to convert into usable power, do exist. Additionally, shapes couple with the aether to produce effects.


So your line of reasoning is:

Traditional aether exists because alternative community says so -> energy devices that require aether to generate useful power exist -> therefore aether vibrates

I kind of fail to see how your conclusion follows from your premises. I won't touch the shape coupling.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
IMO, what was once called aether, is now known as plasma, or at least should be.

Energy is movement of plasma. A flame is plasma, an electric arc is plasma, the planet Earth is surrounded by plasma, the Sun, as far as we know, is made of plasma.

What are the odds that plasma exist within solids, liquids, and gases? We know electricity moves through metal, isn't it more precise to say that electricity moves through the plasma inside of metal?

Odds are that space is filled with plasma.

There is no force, as current physics claims, but all is an Entanglement of electrons, protons, and neutrons, and maybe some other stuff. An electron is a long thin hair like particle that Entangles with other electrons, protons, and neutrons. These entanglements are what holds matter together, not some magical force.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

IMO, what was once called aether, is now known as plasma, or at least should be.

Energy is movement of plasma. A flame is plasma, an electric arc is plasma, the planet Earth is surrounded by plasma, the Sun, as far as we know, is made of plasma.

What are the odds that plasma exist within solids, liquids, and gases? We know electricity moves through metal, isn't it more precise to say that electricity moves through the plasma inside of metal?

Odds are that space is filled with plasma.

There is no force, as current physics claims, but all is an Entanglement of electrons, protons, and neutrons, and maybe some other stuff. An electron is a long thin hair like particle that Entangles with other electrons, protons, and neutrons. These entanglements are what holds matter together, not some magical force.



Thank you for this post. I anxiously await the response from more knowledgeable members who can give it the "attention" it truly deserves.

BTW, what do you think plasma is?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Plasma is a state of matter, the most common known state of matter. When created in a vacuum, it forms a structure eerily similar to a living cell. Other structures are similar to DNA.

Here are a few links, can't say I agree with them, but the concepts are there.

www.alloya.com...

www.west.net...

Here is a pretty decent l link

www.meru.org...



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





We know electricity moves through metal, isn't it more precise to say that electricity moves through the plasma inside of metal?


Why do you think plasma exists in metal?



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
"My aether" as you call it is not based on experimental evidence that it vibrates.


Because there is no aether, and thus it does not vibrate. However, if there were, what sort of proof of "vibration", (in an actual physics way, not woo terminology), might you have? Have you an aether-o-scope?



It is based on the fact that I've learned from the alternative community that the traditional aether was not shown to not exist by the Michelson - Morley experiment, as alleged by the mainstream,


And it does not. There you go.



and that free energy devices, which require an aether to convert into usable power, do exist. Additionally, shapes couple with the aether to produce effects


I don't know than even all the free energy cranks believe this, but I'd ask you to produce any that work. Actually work. Demonstrated, replicable, anyone-can-make-one sorts. There are none. A lot of dog-ate-my-homework stories, a lot of "I can't reveal my secrets", but pretty much only crank websites.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

IMO, what was once called aether, is now known as plasma, or at least should be.

Energy is movement of plasma. A flame is plasma, an electric arc is plasma, the planet Earth is surrounded by plasma, the Sun, as far as we know, is made of plasma.


Energy is the capacity to do work. Not motion of plasma.



What are the odds that plasma exist within solids, liquids, and gases? We know electricity moves through metal, isn't it more precise to say that electricity moves through the plasma inside of metal?


No. Electricity is the motion of electrons in a potential field.



Odds are that space is filled with plasma.


Space is filled with mostly nothing, depending on what you're calling 'space'. If you mean "interplanetary space", then it's mostly nothing. A few gas atoms, some radiation.



There is no force, as current physics claims, but all is an Entanglement of electrons, protons, and neutrons, and maybe some other stuff. An electron is a long thin hair like particle that Entangles with other electrons, protons, and neutrons. These entanglements are what holds matter together, not some magical force.


Nope.



posted on Jan, 12 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Plasma is a state of matter, the most common known state of matter. When created in a vacuum, it forms a structure eerily similar to a living cell. Other structures are similar to DNA.


Not really - do you have any non-woo links about that? Mostly plasma is just there. We use plasma cleaners occasionally, it's just sort of purple-pink in there. Never seen a cell or DNA. Do you understand DNA? What it's made of? Can't see ANY resemblance to a plasma there.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join