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.
originally posted by: ErosA433
Light on the other hand is a different beast all together and Im not going to expand on it unless you really want to.
You cannot for example get a speaker system and ramp up the frequency and produce light.... the two things are VERY different.
originally posted by: Jukiodone
originally posted by: ErosA433
Light on the other hand is a different beast all together and Im not going to expand on it unless you really want to.
You cannot for example get a speaker system and ramp up the frequency and produce light.... the two things are VERY different.
Well considered post.
Whatever happened to that research where they were converting high frequency acoustic waves into light (albeit it Terrahertz frequency light via layered Pizo-Electric nano films): 2009 link .
I'm sure I read something recently about plasmonics and acoustic conversions but now cant find anything on google post 2009....
That depends on how you define aether. Guess who said this in 1924:
originally posted by: Bedlam
survey: You believe in aether (y)/(n)
1924: Because it was no longer possible to speak, in any absolute sense, of simultaneous states at different locations in the aether, the aether became, as it were, four-dimensional, since there was no objective way of ordering its states by time alone. According to special relativity too, the aether was absolute, since its influence on inertia and the propagation of light was thought of as being itself independent of physical influence....The theory of relativity resolved this problem by establishing the behaviour of the electrically neutral point-mass by the law of the geodetic line, according to which inertial and gravitational effects are no longer considered as separate. In doing so, it attached characteristics to the aether which vary from point to point, determining the metric and the dynamic behaviour of material points, and determined, in their turn, by physical factors, namely the distribution of mass/energy. Thus the aether of general relativity differs from those of classical mechanics and special relativity in that it is not ‘absolute’ but determined, in its locally variable characteristics, by ponderable matter.
originally posted by: Jukiodone
originally posted by: ErosA433
Light on the other hand is a different beast all together and Im not going to expand on it unless you really want to.
You cannot for example get a speaker system and ramp up the frequency and produce light.... the two things are VERY different.
Well considered post.
Whatever happened to that research where they were converting high frequency acoustic waves into light ...
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If you have another survey on "luminiferous aether" which is not the kind of aether that quote is talking about, I'd have a different answer.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: John333
oh oh oh the conversation is just getting juicy now.
sound creating light/matter
Not at all. Re-read the link for understanding and not for keywords.
originally posted by: John333
and let's just take a mental note here that frequency produces sound.
originally posted by: Pirvonen
originally posted by: John333
and let's just take a mental note here that frequency produces sound.
On the contrary. Some action produces oscillating movement that is perceived as sound. One of the properties of this oscillation is frequency. Or a set of frequencies, for any interesting sounds.
originally posted by: PirvonenSound laying out the stage for creation? As in "One. Two. One two three FOUR!" and rock on?
originally posted by: John333
sound preceding the creation of light and acting at least as an aid to fostering the environment required for light to manifest.
and let's just take a mental note here that frequency produces sound.
originally posted by: John333
thats because the definition of sound only caters for human audible range. i contest that all frequency produces sound. some in the human audible range. and others outside of it. we say the dog whistle produces no sound. but the dog hears it just fine.
so for purposes of where we are in this discussion. sound should be accepted as a standard accompaniment to frequency.
whether the sound has a medium to travel, or is converted into radiation to travel across a vacuum and is then filtered to produce sound. it is clear, that frequency precedes sound and light and is a requirement for the production of either!
totally. doesnt it all make sense? empty space can be seen as matter at such a high frequency...
originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Bedlam
everything we achieve technologically is a mimic of something observed in nature. nature/the universe already does this. which is why it is possible for us to emulate it. but our version is a significantly inferior conception to the naturally occurring phenomenon.
Are you Serious?
originally posted by: ErosA433
originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Bedlam
everything we achieve technologically is a mimic of something observed in nature. nature/the universe already does this. which is why it is possible for us to emulate it. but our version is a significantly inferior conception to the naturally occurring phenomenon.
Are you Serious?
Cool, so where can i get a nice transistor tree, or a LED display bush?
originally posted by: John333
a reply to: Bedlam
ur so stuck in this reality.
so im sorry im going to have to stop u in your tracks when you come at me pitching the POV that the experiment didnt do exactly the same thing as is seen in nature. you cant try that one, because i already know.. none of our technology does. yet, science regularly uses it's discoveries and inventions as a "Metaphor" for what it sees in nature.
there's that word again.. metaphor. as this universe is designed, what occurs on the macro also occurs in the micro. when you substitute the elements being used to their relative places. the equation is always the same.
this again why creating a concoction of molecules using specific atoms can be seen metaphorically the same as creating a concoction of atoms utilizing specific frequencies. the frequencies generate a field. and the field defines the internal and external formations. i understand this stuff thoroughly.
does nature need to build a speaker system to generate sound? what brand is it? bose? sony? harmon kardon? u need to think. sound occurs naturally and without the use of a piezo everywhere naturally. what about amplification of sound? or sound effects like an echo? all occurs naturally in nature. yet, i dont see any effects pedals and mixing boards occuring naturally in the universe or anywhere on earth. the only things of such that exist are the ones we built. and we built them to mimic what we observe occurring naturally in nature.
Astronauts on the moon can see light from the sun but there's no significant sound traveling through the vacuum of space from the sun to the moon, so I don't see how you can claim "sound sets the stage for light to manifest". The light an astronaut sees on the moon has nothing to do with sound.
originally posted by: John333
sound doesnt create light. but it sets the stage for light to manifest.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Astronauts on the moon can see light from the sun but there's no significant sound traveling through the vacuum of space from the sun to the moon, so I don't see how you can claim "sound sets the stage for light to manifest". The light an astronaut sees on the moon has nothing to do with sound.
originally posted by: John333
sound doesnt create light. but it sets the stage for light to manifest.