It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Aether Reality

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


1. I didn't admit any error. I was being saccarstic. But, somehow, I thing you know that but decided to twist it.

2. There cannot be a particle with mass that doesn't interact with matter (and space surrounding it) it encounters.
The interaction maybe so weak that we don't detect it but it exists.
The opposite is also true, if there is interaction between a particle and matter it means that particle has a mass!
Hence neutrinos, and contrary to dominant theory's claim, have a MASS.
In fact ALL particles have MASS. Get it?
MASS is in fact the cause of this interaction. Everything that exists has a mass.

Or just tell me you believe in ghosts and be done with it.

3.


Now, did you say "Energy is movement of plasma"?


No. You're mistaken... again.

Now, if your only contribution is lies, personal attacks or parroting QM claims. Don't bother talking to me. Find someone else to play with. I'm not interrested.




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
The opposite is also true, if there is interaction between a particle and matter it means that particle has a mass!


I would suggest to ponder a bit longer on how a microwave works. Or on how you are able to see. Photons both interact with matter and are massless.
edit on 13-1-2013 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


You don't say? Ok, show you know something. In what state of matter does an electrostatic discharge exist?

What are its components?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



You think providing a link to a reputable site that backs up ones claims is wrong

You didn't do that.



but just making idiotic statements attacking others is somehow demonstrating some level of intelligence?

Now that, you do.

Have you measured the "plasma voltage" at your outlets yet? Feel free to explain that one anytime.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Oxford dictionary isn't reputable?

Voltage isn't plasma. It seems everything I have posted has gone straight over your head.

Again, in what state of matter does an electric arc exist?

What happens to that state of matter when the arc is gone?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Oxford dictionary isn't reputable?

Sure it is but you're not. It doesn't support your view. Follow the trail back to this Post where you asked


You don't think electricity is plasma?


Buddhasystem stated


Using your OWN link to the dictionary, anyone can check the meaning of the words "electricity" and "plasma" and see for themselves just how idiotic your assertion is.

To which you replied with

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Let me me get this straight.

You think providing a link to a reputable site that backs up ones claims is wrong, but just making idiotic statements attacking others is somehow demonstrating some level of intelligence? That is how idiotic your assertion is.


You provided no such link to back up your assertion that electricity is plasma.

Moving on


Voltage isn't plasma.

Well no #.



It seems everything I have posted has gone straight over your head.

I have enough sense to duck when your bullspit starts flying.

The question at hand is about current through a wire conductor. Open air arcing is not evidence of plasma in a wire conductor.

This is your question


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

Support your notion of electricity moving through plasma in the metal or just admit it was a stupid mistake. Remember you have also insinuated that electricity IS plasma. Can you not keep track of your contradictory assertions?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1

Read up on wave/particle duality and quantum state superposition.


Got a masters in physics. Work in a very science related field, where we diddle with EM all the live long day. No aether required yet.




Where did I say that neutrinos were EM? However, they have a mass (logical deduction since they exist and interact with matter. YES, they can and they even can be collected.). As for plasma, I'll admit I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject. But it seems a possibility for it to be the Aether of old. Neutrinos may even FORM the plasma (like photons the light).


Rereading - I thought you said the neutrinos propagated in it. You actually said it was possible (I think) that neutrinos WERE aether. You also said plasma was both electromagnetic and a field, both incorrect. Neutrinos cannot form a plasma, as they are not charged. Also, in order to fulfill the requirements of "Aether" in terms of being the medium through which longitudinal EM passes, as air for sound, you are up against the rather pesky lack of interaction between neutrinos, which makes them a poor medium for propagating EM waves in.



Weak interaction not compromising the functioning of 'LCD screens' can still occur. The fact that LCD monitors function doesn't prove the absence of Aether.


Oh, but it does. Because LCD displays require polarizers. And polarizing EM waves is something you can do quite easily. Can prove it's happening too. And that LCD stands as a mute indictment of the Aether theory, because it won't work without polarizers. And yet, it does.


Light in vacuo doesn't change speed based on energy.


There is no such thing as 'Vacuum'/void/nothingness...the speed of light changes base on the energy of the photon, its wavelength then.


No, the speed of light does not. The wavelength is not the speed. The wavelength does change with energy but not the speed. Unless you're in a dispersive medium. But not in a vacuum.



The inconsistency of redshift values between two galaxies (of different type) or a galaxy and a quasar linked by a bridge of matter, as well as the tunnel effect PROVE just that.


None of these things have diddly to do with the energy of a photon altering its speed. Photons only have one speed, c.



Denying evidence and results of experiences doesn't change anything to this fact.
THE SPEED OF LIGHT (photons) ISN'T CONSTANT. Period.


I see it in action at work all the time. And what I see matches physics, which is how I come up with neat things like radar and comm gear. Also the occasional laser project. And you know what? Other than the occasional dispersion issue coming up, I've never seen any reason to believe that photons travel at different rates based on their energy.



You, yourself, is saying than the speed of light isn’t constant. You just have to get rid of the stupid idea that a vacuum exists. And, ‘light’ takes different forms (the light spectrum) that are not of the same energy nor speed.
And check the observations and experiments I talk about. PROOF is there for those who want to ‘see‘.


It depends on the medium you're in. And the magnitude of effect in that medium is dependent on the density of the medium. If you've got a couple of gas atoms per cubic meter in a vacuum, it doesn't really matter that they are slowing c in the immediate vicinity of the gas atom. The effect is not measurable.



By the way, when and how has it been proven that the speed of light is indeed constant??
This is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim.
It also never has been proven that NOTHING (no other particle) could go faster.
Simply another unsubstantiated claim.


I see it every day. If it were varying, lots of electronics wouldn't work. Including the thing in your lap you're typing on. And you can exceed c - but not in vacuo. That pretty blue glow in water moderated reactors is living proof. See also Cerenkov radiation. The other part, you're asking for proof of a negative. It's never been proven that my dog isn't a space alien, either. Nor that monkeys don't fly out of Madonna's butt. Asking to prove something doesn't happen is gauche.



It's the mesure of a photon energy and the nature we give it (infrared, ultraviolet...). I postulate it is also a(n indirect) mesure of its speed.


Energy yes, speed, no.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1

Beside Sophism and non-sense, you've got an answer?


The definition of vacuum is that. I understand you don't like it philosophically.



Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
It's against logic. How could a particle go through 'nothing' (through a complete void) and come out?



Originally posted by Bedlam
Newton's first law of motion?


What does that have to do with anything?
Here it is for readers:



First law: If an object experiences no net force, then its velocity is constant: the object is either at rest (if its velocity is zero), or it moves in a straight line with constant speed (if its velocity is nonzero).


No Newton's law, nor ANY law for that matter, explain how a particle can go through a void/vaccuum.



I just did. You don't like it, so you're dodging. If a particle is moving, it will keep moving unless acted on by other forces. That's first law. So, if it's moving in a vacuum, it'll keep moving. Better than normal, since it's not interacting with anything except the occasional gas atom.



I don't even ask for a law of physics but for a valid and sound logical demonstration with a premise, arguments and a conclusion.


I gave you both, and succinctly, too, which is unusual for me. You're welcome.
edit on 13-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Try this link for a definition of energy.

oxforddictionaries.com...


Yes. Note definition 3:


3 Physics the property of matter and radiation which is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules): a collision in which no energy is transferred


In which it says - energy is the capacity to do work. Which is exactly what I said. Since we're discussing physics, that's the right one. And also, you can go to any physics site that defines it, and that's what you'll get, because that's how energy is defined.



You don't think electricity is plasma?


It is not.



A spark, and a lighting bolt are both plasma and electricity, why would anyone assume that electricity moving through a wire would be a different state of matter?


Sparks and lightning are both examples of dielectric breakdown of air, wherein the air does form plasma, but the plasma is created by the electricity flowing through it. It is not electricity in itself. You're confusing the conductor of the electricity with the thing it's conducting.

Plasma is ionized gas. If you don't have ionized gas you don't have plasma. Wires are notoriously free of ionized gas.



How about you explain what you think is happening when electricity runs a motor.


That's a big question that has nothing to do with plasma anyway. I call this sort of thing the "tasks of Hercules" challenge, it's common on ATS. "Read this entire 10000 page series before you can discuss this!" "Watch this 15 hour youtube or you can't comment!" "Explain energy conversion to me or you can't talk about plasma!"

You tell me exactly how you think plasma relates to "electricity running a motor" and I'll comment. Otherwise, no.



There is a heck of a lot more wandering around in space than you recognize. Didn't you read about the problems of shielding astronauts in a trip to Mars? Do you know that the Earth has a Jupiter sized plasma sphere surrounding it?


Did you realize bees smell fear, and the human head weighs about eight pounds?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

And the real truth is that all objects are constantly accelerating or de-accelerating. There is no such thing as a body at rest.


Do tell. Why?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


I do not claim that space is plasma.

What we see is that where there is energy, there is plasma.



If someone tosses a rock at your head, where is the plasma? If you're standing at the top of a cliff, where is the plasma?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


Electricity is plasma, just as water is liquid, and I have proven this with links. True link you point to is the definition of energy, which is from a completely different post.

No wonder you are confused.

Typical, the debunkers come in here, tell everyone they disagree with that their posts are idiotic, and never ever back up their own idiotic claims.

Again, answer the question, what state of matter is an electric arc?

And admit you are are the one who has made a mistake.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



Electricity is plasma

Is this the same electricity that flows through the plasma inside the metal? LOL. I'm still PMSL over Bedlam's comment about wires being notoriously free of plasma. Did you read that? You really should as his posts could benefit you greatly.

We can chat some more after you learn to use words according to their meanings.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Plasma is a state of matter, when you succeed in wrapping your brain around that reality, then you might be able to have a discussion on the matter. I have provided plenty of links on the matter, and you can look up plenty more.

I'm sorry, but "the property of matter and radiation which is manifest as a capacity to perform work (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules): a collision in which no energy is transferred" is a heck of a lot more realistic than your simple explanation.

Consider this part " (such as causing motion or the interaction of molecules): a collision in which no energy is transferred". Could you consider what state of matter this typically occurs?

What did they do to you, that you are so afraid to step outside of the box.

If electricity does not exist as plasma, then what state of matter is an electric arc?

Prove yourself and admit the truth.

An electric arc is plasma in the same way that rock is solid, water is liquid, and nitrogen is gas.

How freakin hard is it to cop to one basic fact of physics.

How an electric motor works is easy enough to explain, except for the massive holes in mainstream sciences explanation. Hardly a Herculean task.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 




So, why don't you name something that is not constantly accelerating and de-accelerating.

Take the island of Hawaii, does it daily go through a pattern of just that?


edit on 13-1-2013 by poet1b because: Typos



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


What drives the muscles that throw the rock?

What creates the gravity?

Please do toss out the force theory, gravitrons, right?





top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join