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: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Gravity is an expression of Space/Time Geometry. To be more specific it is the connected effect of all Universal Dimensional states to One Dimensionality.

Split Infinity




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 


This is too easy.



Plug a couple of wires into a socket and hold on tight. You will discover the plasma.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
Plug a couple of wires into a socket and hold on tight. You will discover the plasma.


Thank you so much for the concise summary of your intellectual capacity.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You thought that was concise?

The thing is, you have to repeat the wires in the socket experiment several times before you start to get the whole plasma experience.

You will know when you are getting there.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Here is a good quote. It's from "INTRODUCTION TO ADVANCED ETHER (DARK ENERGY) THEORY
Copyright (C) 2002 by Lew Paxton Price"
:


In case you have not noticed, our physicists of late have been experiencing more and more problems with their theories. The universe is not conforming to Einstein's concept of curvature, there appears to be something called "dark energy" which is the name given to the dynamic ether so that the physics community can save face after telling us emphatically that space is empty, there is suddenly an acceleration of the expansion of the universe which upsets everything, there is "dark matter" which is a way to attempt to explain an effect caused by the accelerated expansion and which really does not conform to any "logic" for there being "dark matter", and the list goes on and on. Each time a discrepancy in accepted theory is noted a band-aid is applied and sometimes some chewing gum in an attempt to prevent anyone from discovering that the whole accepted paradigm is incorrect.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is a good quote. It's from "INTRODUCTION TO ADVANCED ETHER (DARK ENERGY) THEORY Copyright (C) 2002 by Lew Paxton Price":



. . . XIV. James Clerk Maxwell showed that magnetic and electrical phenomena appear to be parts of the same phenomenon, which led to a theory of electromagnetic energy requiring an ether of some kind. Hendrik Antoon Lorentz developed Maxwell's theory further and began the work on electron theory. This theory indicated very strongly that light moved through a medium which was then known as ether. A particle carrying electromagnetic energy was a rather ludricrous concept considering the complexity involved and the fact the light could move at one speed through air, slow down in a lens of glass, and then speed up again.

This was the stage that was set at the time of the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887. The experiment was designed to prove the existence of an ether. Its results were positive in one sense, but failed to conform to the expected qualities of the ether. This failure was not explained and the positive aspects of the experiment were subsequently ignored by the proponents of the corpuscular theory for light. The new textbooks, written by the particle physicists, stated that the experiment proved that ether did not exist. Actually, the experiment proved only that relative ether velocity appeared to be lower than anticipated. This state of affairs contined while other such experiments were performed showing the same low relative ether velocities but with seasonal variations. In 1913 or 1914 (I have seen two dates for this) a man called Sagnac used a spinning device to prove the existence of an ether. The information was not allowed to be properly published, the textbooks were never changed to fit the data, a name was given to Sagnac's discovery (the "Sagnac effect"), and it was set aside and ignored.

Then came the unwanted information of electron spin and we appear to have found the point where the full magnitude of the deviation from the truth began. The electron is the first known entity in history to be promoted as something that can seemingly violate the law of conservation of momentum and the law of conservation of energy. Of course, this was glossed over without any proper explanation. Textbooks were changed to make it all seem to be correct. However, anyone who is not compelled by his own agenda and who can actually think critically can discover precisely why it was so necessary to prevent anyone from discovering the truth about electron spin.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

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)


Again, my (logical, causal and demonstrable) stance challenges the commonly accepted theories on physics.
So, by keeping on repeating the claims of Quantum Physics, you had nothing to the debate.
The supposed massless nature of photons has NEVER been proven. It just a baseless claim.

What is more logical is to consider than ANY particle interacting with its environment MUST have a mass.
Also, the simple fact that photons can decelerate, be reflected and stopped IS proof they have a mass.
More, even considering the standard definition of mass, photons are subject to gravitational effects, therefore they have a mass!
Finally, Energie = Mass. ALL particles have/are energy, therefore they all have mass.

edit on 14-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit

edit on 14-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam
Neutrinos cannot form a plasma, as they are not charged.


Interactions between neutrinos and their charge have yet to be demonstrated/discovered. That's all. It doesn't mean both claims are false. Though they are just hypotheses for now, I'll admit that.

BUT, LOGICALLY, a vacuum CANNOT exist. This is a stupid concept. "NOTHING" cannot exist by definition.
That's why the concept of Ether was invented in the first place. Simple logical deduction.
Now, knowing that neutrinos are EVERYWHERE and difficult (to put it midly) to detect and interact with, how can you state that you create a 'vacuum' where there is NO neutrino?
I postulate that your 'vaccuum' is filled with particles, one for sure being neutrinos.
They could be the dark matter that is said to compose 90% of the mass of the universe.
How ridiculous it is that we have a good candidate to explain this 'dark matter' but we dismiss it without a second thought.
To conclude on this point, I don't know the NATURE of (what composes) the Ether but what I KNOW is that it MUST exist. And that data transmitted through could be faster than light (it's not the ultimate speed for matter/energy).



Oh, but it does. Because LCD displays require polarizers.


Again, neutrinos could very well be charged at levels so low WE can't detect them... for now.


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.


1. Again, there is no such thing as a vacuum (above all on earth), so your point is worthless.

2.The wavelength is an indirect indicator of speed... Since it's not constant and depending on the energy of the emitting object, the one of the photon itself (acquired from the emitting object), the space traveled through, « gravitation » …

3. Simply saying no, over and over, doesn’t make a (valid) argument.



ME: 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.



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


Yes, it does but, obviously you don’t see it. Don’t blame me for your lack of understanding.

Redshift is also used as an indirect measure of DISTANCE between two celestial bodies. So, how can you explain that two objects situated at the SAME distance from us (we know that since they are linked by a bridge of matter, so no possible optical illusion involved) have DIFFERENT redshift??

I’ll tell you how: By admitting that the NATURE (type of galaxy, type of star…) of the object emitting the light influences directly the speed at which photons are emitted AND their wavelength (their energy).
That’s why their redshift isn’t identical.

As for the tunnel effect… Are you kidding me?!
Photons traveling through the mirror attain speed WAY superior to the considered speed of light.
The consequence is NOT that laws of physics are broken (this induces so much fear that they deny the result of their own experiments or come up with ludicrous explanations using wave packets nonsense.), but simply that the postulate of the constant of the speed of light is demonstrated as FALSE by EXPERIENCE.

THERE ARE YOUR PROOFS!

To be continued in next post...

edit on 14-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 




ME: 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.



YOU: I see it every day. If it were varying, lots of electronics wouldn't work. And you can exceed c - but not in vacuo.
The other part, you're asking for proof of a negative.


So, you admit that the constancy of the speed of light has NEVER been proven then. Good.
And:

1. The distances traveled (obviously inside electronic devices) are so small that it makes no difference at OUR level.
Our technological level is so low and un-complex that it doesn’t require the precision that would make discrepancies apparent.
On the other hand, if we were not so stupid, we could use the tunnel effect (for example) to make our devices (computers) much faster. So, you see, QM dogmas do limit us, our progress, evolution.

2. It’s not about exceeding ‘C’, it’s about admitting that ‘C’ isn’t ‘c’ (that the speed of light isn’t constant in the first place).
And even in what you call a vacuum (what you think is empty but truly is not), you could find different values for the speed of light. Not depending on the density of this ‘space’ (obviously) but on the EMITTING object and the energy (wavelength, nature of the photon) it ‘transfers’ to the photon which, ultimately, determines its speed.

3. So, no proof (beside anecdotal and mistaken evidence) that C is indeed constant, then.

4. You can prove a negative using the laws of logic (like the law of excluded middle or the law of no contradiction) . It’s more difficult but possible. But I guess (formal) logic is forbidden to use by/for quantum physicists.
This could explain that…

But I can formulate it another way if you prefer: « When has it been proven that photons were indeed the fastest particles? » See, easy, and still no proof, just a claim.



ME: The wavelength is the measure of a photon energy and the nature we give it (infrared, ultraviolet...). I postulate it is also a(n indirect) measure of its speed.




YOU: Energy yes, speed, no.

Again, simply saying 'no' isn't so much of a compelling argument.

I hope, even if you still disagree with me, that I made my points clear and valid/sound.



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.


Again, no vacuum and.. Your point?
This does NOT explain how a vacuum (NOTHING) can exist and how could a particle/matter/energy, anything in fact, could go through ‘it’.

edit on 14-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit

edit on 14-1-2013 by 1Agnostic1 because: edit



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 





This does NOT explain how a vacuum (NOTHING) can exist and how could a particle/matter/energy, anything in fact, could go through ‘it’.


You believe there is no space in the Universe whatsoever unoccupied by matter?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 





This does NOT explain how a vacuum (NOTHING) can exist and how could a particle/matter/energy, anything in fact, could go through ‘it’.


You believe there is no space in the Universe whatsoever unoccupied by matter?


Yes. Depending on what you consider as "matter though". But yes.
It can't be any other way.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
 


Vacuum insulated Thermos? What matter do you propose fills that vacuum?



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1

Originally posted by -PLB-

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)


Again, my (logical, causal and demonstrable) stance challenges the commonly accepted theories on physics.
So, by keeping on repeating the claims of Quantum Physics, you had nothing to the debate.
The supposed massless nature of photons has NEVER been proven. It just a baseless claim.


Every single experiment we do, does not reveal non-zero mass of the photon. We observe it, we look at it carefully, it's zero. Your idea of "proof" is apparently too bizarre to be useful. If one continues along same idiotic lines, GWB was never proven to NOT be an alien from Zeta Reticuli. Equally, it was never proven that your liver is NOT a clone of the Eternal Being Zmorrg, who controls you on a subspace frequency from a center of a neutron star. If you say that your liver is in fact just a liver, well, that's never been proven. It's a baseless claim.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
Again, my (logical, causal and demonstrable) stance challenges the commonly accepted theories on physics.
So, by keeping on repeating the claims of Quantum Physics, you had nothing to the debate.
The supposed massless nature of photons has NEVER been proven. It just a baseless claim.


There is indeed no proof, except for the countless experiments and observations all supporting the theory. But lets just throw that all away and assert out of the blue that photons do have mass.


What is more logical is to consider than ANY particle interacting with its environment MUST have a mass.


That is not more logical. It is a baseless assertion. There is no logical line of reasoning that goes from "Interaction with environment" to "all particles have mass". You just assert this without anything to back it up.


Also, the simple fact that photons can decelerate, be reflected and stopped IS proof they have a mass.


Photons can not decelerate. In a medium they are absorbed and re-emitted. Photons that reflect never slow down either. They go from c in one direction to c in another other direction. In other words, infinite acceleration. So looking at F=ma, there would be an unlimited force. I never got pushed over by a photon though.


More, even considering the standard definition of mass, photons are subject to gravitational effects, therefore they have a mass!


No. Space-time is affected by mass. Photons happen to travel through space-time.


Finally, Energie = Mass. ALL particles have/are energy, therefore they all have mass.


No, energy is not mass. They are two different things. There is mass-energy equivalence. Equivalence is not the same as equal.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


What is space time?

Does mass travel through space/time?

If mass travels through space time, then what makes photons or energy any different?



edit on 14-1-2013 by poet1b because: Change matter to mass



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
If mass travels through space time, then what makes photons or energy any different?


For instance, photons always travel at c, mass does not. In fact, mass can't possibly be accelerated to c as it requires an infinite amount of energy. We are able to get close though with the LHC. That is what we need to accelerate mass to a speed that is close to light the speed of light.

So to summarize:
Photons: instant and always c
Mass: massively huge energy consuming machine and still no c.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by poet1b
If mass travels through space time, then what makes photons or energy any different?


For instance, photons always travel at c, mass does not. In fact, mass can't possibly be accelerated to c as it requires an infinite amount of energy. We are able to get close though with the LHC.


Not to make too fine a point, but in terms of the gamma factor and hence speed we went a lot higher than that at LEP (electron-positron machine) - years ago.

Link

I've been lucky to do some work for both.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
If mass travels through space time, then what makes photons or energy any different?


Energy is a property of a physical system. It cannot travel by itself.

For example, I paint a baseball green and pitch it. What we observe then is a moving green ball. However, you can't throw "color green" over distance all by itself.

Field can propagate in space and it goes carry energy with it.



posted on Jan, 14 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
De ja vu, I think they changed something in the matrix.

edit on 14-1-2013 by poet1b because: Ddl post



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join