The Aether Reality

reply to post by buddhasystem


That away, good to see you rub those two brain cells together and generate some thoughts.

Can't say I disagree with your last two posts at all.

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

Which brings us back to my point about Newton's 1st. All physical systems exist within a state of energy, or better stated, a state of excitation. Tesla knew this. A body in a state of consistent energy tends to stay in that state of energy. Sure it ain't Newton, but I only got two brain cells and rum for an electrolyte.

Maybe a photon isn't anything but a wave across the plasma matrix that entangles space.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


At least neutrinos.

reply to post by buddhasystem

Originally posted by buddhasystem


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.

1. Abscence of proof isn't proof of abscence.
Meaning: The fact that we don't detect its mass doesn't mean it doesn't have any.
It's just that our intruments of measure are not precise enough.
And do we really look for it? I don't think so. It would be like asking for trouble?
So, the "we look at it carefully" is meaningless.

2. I have already demonstrated, using (formal) logic, that a photon has a mass.
The fact that it is submitted to the force called 'gravitation' is proof enough (since that's the very definition of mass), yet I gave more.

If you say that your liver is in fact just a liver, well, that's never been proven. It's a baseless claim.

Not sure what you're trying to say here... Are you?
But I CAN prove my liver is mine.

P1: One needs a liver to live.
P2: I am alive.
C1: Therefore I have a liver.

P1b: I have a liver
P2b: This particular liver is not shared with anyone else.
C2: This liver is mine.

See, easy.

Or do you speak of the existence (nature maybe?) of the (my) organ that is called 'liver"?
If so, this has nothing to do with my stance on the mass of the photon.
I don't dispute the nature of the photon (nor its existence), I challenge the idea that it's massless.
I attribute a PROPERTY (mass) to it that is denied by QT.

Originally posted by -PLB-
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.

Out of the blue? Really?
I made several points, one being that photons are subjected to gravitation. It should be logical proof enough... Well, since it's the very DEFINITION of mass. But, as I am, altruistic and generous I gave others.
And the observations you talk about don't prove photons to have no mass. They simply don't detect it.

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.

Beside the definition of mass itself you mean?
I'll go even further, the simple fact that a photon is matter is enough to conclude it has mass.

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

YOU: Photons can not decelerate. In a medium they are absorbed and re-emitted.

How do you define being 'absorbed' please?

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.

Er... What?
They don't slow down, yet they accelerate? And if they accelerate doesn't that mean their speed isn't constant?

So looking at F=ma, there would be an unlimited force. I never got pushed over by a photon though.

What about photons making a hole in your body? Ever heard of laser?
Sure, it won't push you, it'll just do a through and through like if you were not even there. Powerful enough?

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

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

Are photons subject to gravitation, yes or no?
And space-time... What a concept...

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

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

I concede that an equivalence is not equal. Bad shortcut from my part.
Still, at least when there is movement, there is no energy without mass nor there is mass without energy.
Photons have energy, therefore they (also) have a mass.

Anyway why do you avoid speking about the tunnel effect and the redshift discrapencies I mentioned when talking about the speed of photons?

There you go, I quote it for reminder:

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…
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.

These are the best proof of the FACT that the speed of light isn't constant. Too difficult to debunk, I guess.

Originally posted by poet1b
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.

And yes, every one you find - each and every legitimate one - will tell you that plasma is an ionized gas. Because that's what it is. Sort of like you trying to quibble about the definition of energy, you're going to find that this is a truth.

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.

What your cite says: the property of matter and radiation which is manifest as a capacity to perform work
What I said: Energy is the capacity to do work.

It's the same words, pretty much. What's there that is meaningfully different in the one you like?

I can find you a couple dozen definitions of energy as used in physics, they're all "Energy is the capacity to do work."

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?

It typically occurs in elastic collisions, because that's pretty much the definition.

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?

Taught me the truth, instead of wild unsupported conjecture? You know, the sort of thing you can build real working stuff using?

Here's another one of those pesky definitions - electricity is the motion of charge carriers in a potential field. Plasma, on the other hand, is an ionized gas. That's pretty different. Plasma can conduct electricity, but it is not itself electricity. Oh, by the way, wires aren't filled with sparks, which seems to be where you're trying to go.

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

You know, where I come from there's a saying that goes something like "Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then". An electric arc IS plasma. And it's conducting electricity that flows through it. But it's not electricity - it's what you get when you have dielectric breakdown of air. Plasma is a conductor of electricity, depending on a lot of variables. Sometimes it's a pretty good one - atmospheric pressure air that's broken down, for example - sometimes it's a crap one - plasma in space. You're constantly confusing the conductor with what's being conducted. Pipes are not water, for example. Wires are not electricity.

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

Are you KIDDING? Have you ever had an energy conversion class? Oh, wait, no, no you've never had fields.

Rotating machine/energy conversion theory goes on for several semesters, it's chock full of field theory, and it's part of an engineering specialization. You don't get the full dose of motor theory unless you go power distribution.

Now, you want "the wheels on the bus go round and round" no math K-12 thing, sure I can sling it all day long. You want "why does a shunt wound DC motor try to reach infinite RPMs if you interrupt the rotor current", that's a lot of math, if you want an exact reason.

Note that electric motors are plasma-free.

Originally posted by poet1b
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?

Not as far as I know.

Acceleration requires energy. It doesn't just happen.

Originally posted by poet1b

What drives the muscles that throw the rock?

The Krebs cycle, oxidative phosphorylation, and sometimes glycolysis.

What creates the gravity?

Mass.

reply to post by Bedlam


Acceleration is a result of momentum.

Again, name something that is not constantly accelerating and de-accelerating.

These are easy questions you avoid?

Originally posted by 1Agnostic1
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.

Neutrinos can't carry charge, don't carry charge, are not charged, do not form a plasma. They don't produce photons, they don't interact via the strong force.

BUT, LOGICALLY, a vacuum CANNOT exist. This is a stupid concept. "NOTHING" cannot exist by definition.

I understand this is necessary to your delusion. However, vacuum does exist. Both at the micro and macro levels.

That's why the concept of Ether was invented in the first place. Simple logical deduction.

No, "aether" was invented to explain how EM propagated. And it's wrong.

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.

It would depend on the neutrino flux where you are. I do not agree that space is seething with neutrinos. Remnant neutrinos are about 100 per cubic centimeter. As they're "passing through", you will statistically have periods where no neutrinos are present. Still not sure why you're all freaked out about neutrinos, other than you think they're "aether". Which, by definition, they are not.

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.

Well, they COULD be. There are reasons this probably isn't true, but it's fringey cosmology. Not my specialty.

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).

What if there is no "aether"? Why do you think you need it, other than that the concept of vacuum offends you?

BTW, the polarizer thing - got it figured out yet? If you had "aether", then what sort of wave would EM have to be? And why is that totally at odds with polarization?

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

Calling what you want to be true "logic" doesn't make one either.

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.

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??

The bridge may not actually link the two - it could be that they're just in line with each other and it appears that they're linked. Discordant redshifts are a hot topic in cosmology.

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.

And yet, all photons, however emitted, seem to have the same speed here. As do the ones coming in from space. You realize you can measure this, right?

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!

What has the tunnel effect got to do with aether? You're still just barfing up random stuff you've run across on the web and screaming in large type "PROOOOOOOF!!!" But you still can't explain how the tunnel effect requires aether.

BTW: Math is involved.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Acceleration is a result of momentum.

Again, name something that is not constantly accelerating and de-accelerating.

These are easy questions you avoid?

No. Momentum is mass times velocity. It's not acceleration, which is dV/dt. Two totally different things.

Any mass that has no force applied is not accelerating. You only get acceleration with application of force. Which is why we like to say - A = F/M.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

That away, good to see you rub those two brain cells together and generate some thoughts

Instead of wasting the precious mental energy on expressing your condescending attitude to people who actually know something, crack open a book or two and try to read, no matter how hard it will be.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Acceleration is a result of momentum.

Acceleration is NOT a "result of momentum". Even in pseudo-science threads, it's rare to see anything at this astonishing level of ignorance.

I think photons may well have a tiny mass.

One of the most interesting predictions of Einstein’s new theory of relativity was that gravity would cause light to bend. Imagine you are looking at a distant source of light, for example a star, or a faraway galaxy, or a quasar at the edge of the Universe. And let’s assume that, along the line-of-sight to the distant source there’s a massive object, for example the Sun, or a black hole, or a galaxy, or a cluster of galaxies. The gravity from the massive object will “pull” on the photons as they pass, shifting their paths, and thereby affecting the image that we see in our telescopes.

Gravity + Light

Some maths in support of the idea.

mit.edu...

That of course brings us to a favourite topic here, Nibiru. Not the sundog, the theoretical dark star that is said to bend light newtonianly.

Dark Star

Photons are also effected by EM in a way that involves mass. If the photon disintergrates into an electron/positron pair that has mass, where did that mass come from?

Actually, electromagnetic waves can bend light through an indirect, quantum effect—but to such a tiny degree that we cannot measure it. This quantum effect (called Delbrück scattering) "is a process where, for a short time, the photon disintegrates into an electron and positron pair," says Norbert Dragon, physicist at the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Hanover, Germany. The charged pair interacts with an EM wave and then recombines into the photon with a changed direction. Thus, the EM wave bends the light.

www.physicsforums.com...

This seems to say the photon has momentum.

These electrons of negative energy should be capable of producing coherent-elastic photon scattering because the recoil momentum during absorption and emission of the photon is transferred to the total atom while the electrons remain in their state of negative energy

Delbruck scattering

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Acceleration is a result of momentum.

Again, name something that is not constantly accelerating and de-accelerating.

These are easy questions you avoid?

Interesting question. I heard that such an object would no longer be in this dimension.

This sub-absolute zero gas experiment seems like it is headed in that direction with matter displaying "odd properties".

www.wired.com...

reply to post by Bedlam


That is how you calculate the force of momentum, not what momentum is.

Is there anything that does not have force constantly acting upon it?

Again, is the big island of Hawaii constantly accelerating and de-accelerating?

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bedlam

 

That is how you calculate the force of momentum, not what momentum is.

There is no such thing as "force of momentum".

*yawn*

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Bedlam

 

That is how you calculate the force of momentum, not what momentum is.

There is no such thing as "force of momentum".

*yawn*

Perhaps there is a force of lack of momentum, such as in his ideas, that forced you to yawn?

reply to post by buddhasystem


So now you have resorted to debating semantics. What's a matter, ran out of electrolyte?

I suggest you look up precession.

It clearly demonstrates how desperate are you all are to avoid the question.

Again, is the Island of Hawaii constantly accelerating and de-accelerating?

Click here for more information.