Luminiferous Aether Exists!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Mazulu, Jun 19, 2012.

  1. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    You are the TOE Chef, I am only a customer that said your food tasted bad. Now you (the Chef) exclaim, "you don't like my cooking, then let's see how skilled you are in the kitchen." Being the despicable person that I am, I accept your challenge because anybody can cook better than you.

    Nothingness does not create a gravitational field. Where ever there is gravity we see mass. Accepted theory says energy can also create gravity but the effect is more pronounced for matter because matter is very dense energy. The geometry of the nothingness of space obviously plays a part. Its all right there in the recipe for gravity. That is about as far as I am going to go. I serve my pasta dish al dente with a side of uncooked veggies on a paper plate. Bon appetit.

    But let's look at your theory. Or as I understand it, since you never quite get around to explicitly explaining it. Mass (such as a star) shifts the frequency of photons through the magic of "aether frequency waves". I love how you specify these waves as being 'frequency waves'. Anyway, the shifting of the photons generates the gravity effect through the magic of aether frequency waves. Your experiment just cuts out the middleman, actually the source, and shifts (a simulated shift) the photons directly. Because your photons are in a beam, the gravity itself will be in a beam. I try to imagine what this beam is like. If we consider gravity to be like a topological map, it raises some questions. Because the beam is narrow and long, the gradient would have to be steepest through the narrow direction. Like a 'V' or more likely a 'U' groove. You don't explain it so I assume the bottom of the trench through the long direction is steadily growing deeper so that the deepest point is at the far end. Perhaps it has a discontinuity that ripples through the beam where the flyback effect occurs. You never say. I assume the beam comes to an end where you detect the gravity, where the beam hits your postal scale. So it is at the end of the beam that the gravity should be strongest. I have no idea what would be the explanation if the beam direction was into "empty space". Now I fully expect you to say that is not how it works. You might go for the graviton explanation of gravity since that could be more beam-like when drawn on paper. A beam of gravitons. But knowing you all bets are off and there will be some magical "non-linear logic" involved. I had to take a stab at a description, you never have. You have never explained any of this and I would expect it to be pretty damn important to both your theory and your experiment. I suspect that you have never even considered any of this. The space alien probably didn't think it was that important to mention.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Cheezle posts associated with the Mazulu gravity beam are really entertaining.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Yup, we make a great comedy team. I am the straight man, Mazulu (whether he realizes it or not) is the funny man. The team is less like a Crosby and Hope and more like an Laurel and Hardy. Both are nitwits in relation to the audience.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    I can reheat pizza.
    Time dilation is the result of the frequency of these aether waves. The geometry of space-time would be created by the wavelengths of these aether waves.

    Gravity beams would be possible.
    I'm not sure I follow, but let me answer what I think is your question. There could be a cylindrical or conic gravity beam. Somewhere between the outer edge of the beam and outside of the beam, the gravity field has to drop to zero. It is the repetitive chirp that is inducing the acceleration field. I assume that space-time will try to alleviate this induced gravity field.

    There is some question as to how much energy it takes to induce a curvature in space-time. According to the stress-energy tensor, a significant amount of mass-energy is going to create a curvature in space-time that could occupy a volume of many cubic light years through \(U = -\frac{GM}{R}\). I invite experts in GR to vehemently disagree with me (in an articulate way), but I anticipate that the curvature around a spacecraft the size of a battleship to be significantly less. There is a subtle difference between planet/star/black hole quantities of energy that curve space-time versus gravity field generators. Planet/star/blackholes sit in the medium of space-time with +E energy; the medium has to come up with a sufficient curvature to create a -E energy to balance the +E. It's a gravitaitonal image. In the case of a gravity field generator, the natural processes of gravity are hijacked. The frequency chirp is directed to the aether wave wavelengths that establish the geometry of space-time. Likewise, the frequency chirps are directed at the aether wave frequencies and induce time dilation.

    Antenna design is something I need to read up on. I was going to try the first experiment with a WiFi 2.4GHz. I was going to put the antenna close to the scale and try to induce some change in the measured weight. Realistically, that energy is going out omni-directionally. If I could magically have the ideal directional antenna I needed, that could transmit from 1 to 2GHz, the energy of the emitted signal would still spread out over several meters. I am open to ideas for antenna design.

    The frequency chirp has to transition from the lowest frequency back to the highest frequency as a discontinuity. This discontinuity will not induce any back field because it's quality is to poor for space-time to respond to it. However, the linear frequency chirp has a high \(\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}\) that is very good quality, sufficient for space-time to curve.
     
  8. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Don't make me spank you again.:spank:
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You're definitely not a nitwit. Based on your reference to Crosby and Hope and Laurel and Hardy we might come from the same generation.
     
  10. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Wow! We were not talking about time dilation but thanks for that incredible explanation.


    What I was referring to with the topological map is the fact that gravity is a field. It is the steepness or grade of the field that gives the gravity its umph. Consider the beam as a two dimensional beam. Then slice it across the beam and look at the field strength through the cross section. Outside the beam we see what is essentially flat or no grade. In side the field I assume you want it to also be flat at least crosswise through the beam. So that means that the grade is very steep where the transition from beam to flat space is. And hence it would seem that your beam would be like a 'U' shape. The sides of the 'U' are steep and that is where the umph is. As I understand it, gravity fields have some of the same properties as a topological map. Rubber sheets and all that. You seem to think you can deform the rubber sheet in a way that is topologically impossible. I guess some types of fields can be circular (not sure). But if gravity circulated then you could have a perpetual motion machine, where a ball rolled around in a circle always going downhill. Oh never mind. I don't want to have you add circular gravity fields to your theory.

    I gave you some advice on the subject and you didn't like it. Since you ask again, I will repeat it. You don't really need an antenna. Your signal is strongest and purest inside the transmission line with termination. If beam power has any effect then the effect there will be stronger. IF you are creative you could make a clear jello transmission line and use a newton ring effect (or something) to view the stress in the jello. <--(brainstorm type idea, who says I am not creative). If you don't like the idea of your signal being inside a solid transmission line where the speed of light is slower. Then try a wave guide. Its almost exactly the same as an antenna except the signal is confined. You could get your engineering model shop to construct it to your specification. You have not specified how your 'target' is supposed to react to the beam. Is it supposed to absorb it or reflect it or transmit it, partially or wholly? Does it matter? A very sensitive mechanical sensor can be made using a mirrored surface and some delicate spring mechanism. Shine a laser on the mirror and measure the deflection on the wall. The farther away the better. A piece of glitter on a human hair might work. The mirror deflection angle is amplified through trigonometry and can be way more sensitive than a postal scale. <--(some of this may not be practical, but don't say I am not helpful)

    I always enjoy reading your replies. They are seldom on topic and wander about like a drunkard's walk. What you lack in focus you make up for in steadfast belief in space aliens. When challenged your response can be "TROLL!", or humble admission of your skill level, but most often absolute certitude that aether frequency waves are the source of all phenomena.
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Translated: I took you to task.

    A transmission medium (plural transmission media) is a material substance (solid, liquid, gas, or plasma) that can propagate energy waves. For example, the transmission medium for sound received by the ears is usually air, but solids and liquids may also act as transmission media for sound.


    Translated: There was substance in my post, you simply don't know how to make a technical response.

    The absence of a material medium in vacuum may also constitute a transmission medium for electromagnetic waves such as light and radio waves.

    Translated: When all else fails, shred some word salad.

    The term transmission medium also refers to a technical device that employs the material substance to transmit or guide waves. Thus, an optical fiber or a copper cable is a transmission medium.

    Translated: See Creationist websites for further examples of pseudoscience.

    A transmission medium can be classified as a:
    • Linear medium, if different waves at any particular point in the medium can be superposed;
    • Bounded medium, if it is finite in extent, otherwise unbounded medium;
    • Uniform medium or homogeneous medium, if its physical properties are unchanged at different points;
    • Isotropic medium, if its physical properties are the same in different directions.


    Translated: Your lack of substance is somebody else's fault.

    Historically, science incorporated various aether theories to explain the transmission medium. However, it is now known that electromagnetic waves do not require a physical transmission medium, and so can travel through the "vacuum" of free space.

    Translated: Your book is blank.

    In electromagnetism, the electric displacement field D represents how an electric field E influences the organization of electrical charges in a given medium, including charge migration and electric dipole reorientation. Its relation to permittivity in the very simple case of linear, homogeneous, isotropic materials with "instantaneous" response to changes in electric field is D = ϵE.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    http://books.google.com/books?id=QtIP_Lr3gngC&pg=PA27
     
  12. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Not so fast, glasshopper! (another retro reference

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ).

    I read Mazulu to mean "how does abstract 'nothingness' (mathematical spacetime construct) 'manifest' or 'support' or 'propagate' etc etc such a thing as gravity and gravity gradients."

    And your (my bolded) comment above is not strictly scientifically logically true, now is it?

    What we see is that wherever we detect gravity effects, somewhere in the vicinity in space there is a mass about which that gravity effect is centred (including 'collective' common centre where more than one mass-body is involved).


    So the question remains valid. How does 'nothingness' at such distances from these mass/bodies get affected by those mass/bodies in order to produce the gravity effect centered upon them?


    Now, if one again resorts to the theoretical 'abstraction' to 'explain' it as, for example, "It 'just does because it does', even if there is 'nothingness' there...so there!"

    That does not remove the onus on the scientist to look for what that 'nothingness' IS in reality which underlies your 'abstraction' about the phenomena. Now does it?



    What we need is a TOE that also explains the abstractions by also providing the nature and mechanisms of the underlying reality from which these abstractions have been made. Now I wonder where there could be such a TOE to be found?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    From one old timer to another old timer....Cheers!
     
  13. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    I am a child of the 1960s. Rainy Saturdays were always B&W movie matinee time. Bowery Boys, Stooges, all that. I still watch lots of old movies of that variety.

    As far as being a nitwit yes, I was speaking relatively. Lots of you guys here are brainiacs. I know where my skill level is in comparison. And like an unexperienced gladiator, I choose the weakest opponent I can find.
     
  14. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Well, you got me. You know your stuff. It does explain one thing though. I was wondering why I had to remain tethered to the ground during the day. Night time was not a problem but during the day I have a tendency to float up into the air. Your post explains it all. I am moving toward the center of gravity for our solar system, which must be somewhere in the vicinity of the Sun. Good thing I had that rope handy.
     
  15. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800

    If you could actually find out what it is that is doing all these funny things to you across an abstract mathematical 'spacetime' construct, you might be able to do more than just describe the effect and actually explain the way that effect is effected. Or are you just happy with sarcasm as a means to avoid thinking about it properly. If you really are an engineer, I would have expected you to be more open to explanation of nature and mechanism on top of just the convenient/useful abstraction descriptions of what occurs rather than what makes it occur. Even if Mazulu is mistaken, he at least has a better attitude to scientific discovery than someone who is merely content with entertaining himself and his friends with abstract stories rather than actually exploring the underlying reality on which these abstract stories are based.

    Good luck with your career in stand-up, and don't let that nasty 'gravity-in-nothingness' fairy get you!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Whoa there partner. I never said I was an engineer. I am an electronics hobbyist. Just a dabbler. My profession is really not pertinent here. Not related to maths or physics. Not even a little.

    As far as exploring the nature of the world we live in, I am doing just that. I think I mentioned that was was taking some classes. It feels like I have learned more in the last few weeks than in my whole time at University way back when. The reason I blew you off is that you ask others to be open and yet your mind is completely locked into the aether. I don't like that. You would never consider that the aether is not real, so why should waste my time. You made up your mind long before I ever heard of you. And you have me at a disadvantage. As you have pointed out you have not published your theory. How can I argue with something that I have no info on?

    You whole thing about being open to other ideas is very nuanced. It is mostly just talk if you ask me. If you could explain to me how the aether is able to account for Einstein's theories, I would listen. But you have not published yet. Your theory is just a carrot dangling from a stick. I am not interested.
     
  17. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    I bolded that bit in your post. What ever gave you that impression?

    I merely discuss others' takes on space etc (be they 'aether' or other type conceptual constructs, including 'spacetime' constructs....I treat and question both as appropriate) with an open mind without necessarily accepting any particular argument except as another 'take' on the fundamental reality which underlies the current mathematical abstraction labeled 'spacetime'.

    Note that I and Mazulu differ on the nature/structure/properties of the underlying reality 'medium' as described from our respective perspectives. No harm in considering all possibilities as a sounding board for one's own take on things, is there?

    Human intellect can entertain a concept without being necessarily 'locked into" it, yes? My TOE is not based on any ad hoc 'aether' or abstract 'math' concept, so I beg you do not conflate my perspective with any others you may encounter. Thanks.


    My apologies for getting the impression you were an engineer. But really, your hobby is being 'an engineer' in kind if not in expertise level, is it not? Anyway, you seem to know enough about some of the photonic/generators etc subject matter to discuss with Mazulu. Kudos to you (although your sarcasm tends to spoil it somewhat, especially as you admit that you don't have a real handle on things yourself...yet?....but hey, it takes all kinds, what!).



    Actually, my TOE is not 'on show' here; only the occasional 'snippets' and 'hints' of it that come up in conversations where I question others' takes, including the conventional orthodox take, on the reality. You may be confusing me with others and their perspectives/explanations etc. I am to publish mine 'full blown and complete' so that no further comment from me will be necessary. It will stand on its own and it will explain all the current theories (GR/SR, Quantum Theory) and more. That is the point of a TOE expanding from the abstractions to the reality underlying these abstractions.


    Never stop exploring, mate....but look out for other explorers who may be on a different path, you never know what interaction with their point of view will do for your own explorations!

    Cheers!...and goodnight.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Where do you get the idea of nothingness? And by that I mean any fundamental scientific definition that leads one to understand any aspect of current theory in physics to include the concept of nothingness, the way you seem to be projecting it.

    GR certainly does not define any aspect of spacetime or the materieal objects within it as being characterized as nothingness. QM again, certainly doesn't not suggest that "nothingness" exists.

    There remains some difficulty in fitting the two together, GR and QM, but together they represent our best understandings of their respective areas.., and neither one includes "nothingness".

    The idea of "utterly empty" space or "nothingness" as far as I can tell, is a mischaracterization of space, which seems to emerge from, archaic and/or lay oriented interpretations of the use of phrases like, "the vacuum of space". The vacuum of space does not lead to any real understanding of space as devoid of anything other than matter associated with charged particles and complex higher order matter, composed of charged particles.

    The vacuum is only defined as the abscence of matter, not as equivalent to "nothingness".., except in popular lay oriented media and science fiction.
     
  19. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Not by aether, but by force, which is not dependent upon any billiard balls or springs, but upon matter and spacetime.

    No, there are masses there. There is spacetime separating them. Therefore, there is force between them.

    Mass is not nothingness. Space is. Gravitational force is reduced as the amount of nothingness increases between the somethingness of mass.

    In the composter, where all the wilted word salad was mulched, to fertilize the buried failed abstractions.
     
  20. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Just in time! I was about to log out for the day.


    If you read the post correctly, I was paraphrasing what Mazulu asked Cheezle. That was the context of the "nothingness'. I made no such claim that "nothingness" existed. In fact, neither does Mazulu if I read him correctly.

    As for GR/SR, relativity is a GEOMETRICAL/MATHEMATICAL construct called 'spacetime. It treats spacetime. It is mute as to the underlying nature/structures and mechanisms which are abstracted into the theoretical construct (else we would all know what gravity was in real mechanism terms rather than mere abstract descriptive labels only' terms, and the unification of forces would have been complete long ago).

    As for QM, it treats objects and statistical extrapolations of their motions/effects etc in a 'background' of vacuum having energy potentials etc. It at NO POINT pretends to treat space as a medium in itself, but merely sticks to the particles/energy features and their interactions/effects in a 'sea of energy' dynamics background. It certainly does not explain the nature and mechanisms whence the 'objects' come, or that 'sea of energy'; only treating them based on potential for effectiveness and extrapolating their actions once that effectiveness is measurable/treatable in the statistical construct.

    Until the underlying nature and mechanisms which manifest both the Relativity and QM phenomena under study, then these are all abstractions from an underlying reality which neither yet explains as such, but merely assumes and abstracts therefrom without any further explanation.

    Thanks for your interest. I trust that clarifies that I do NOT suggest that "nothing" exists. Cheers.
     
  21. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Isn't it true that every theory must at its lowest level be abstract? Or are you a turtles all the way down kind of guy?
     
  22. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    And who said anything about billiard balls or springs in the context of my post to Cheezle? I didn't. Thanks.

    The masses are where? That was the point made to Cheezle. The masses are somewhere and the gravity effect is centered upon them, but the effect itself is detectable at a distance from them across the space. Unless you can provide the mechanism which can effect that extended gravitational effect to great distance from the nearest mass/bodies, then you are just 'describing' the effect there but not providing the mechanism to effect that in space at that distance. That is what Mazulu asked about.


    I suspect that was a misexpression/misreading. That is why I posted about how I 'read' Mazulu's question there. Please re-read my post. I also pointed out why that question remains unanswered by Cheezle's and now your orthodox 'abstract' perspective which we all know is NOT 'complete' and doesn't pretend to be. Also please read my post above in reply to OnlyMe. Thanks.


    You say "Space is." ...and leave it at that. Is that supposed to inspire confidence in the questioner? Is it supposed to 'explain' anything at all by just saying "space is". If you want to take that route/logic, then Mazulu can just as easily say that "God is" and leave it at that. You wouldn't accept that for a moment, would you? So please don't be disingenuous. Say "I don't know what space is" if you don't have a clue what space is. That would be the honest thing to say, not just "Space is".


    We all can measure gravity 'force' diminution across distance. The question was, exactly what IS that gravity 'force' and what mechanism is involved in its production and extension across space removed from its central body associated with that effect across space distance (at whatever strength/gradient)? You missed that question and went straight back to assumptive labeling of the effect without any real explanation of what causes it and how is it effected across that space which you think of as "just is".

    When looking for 'abstract' word/label salad, one can't go past your posts, mate! What you may consider word salad is of no real consequence when faced with the fact that you just repeat the rote-labels and then say "space is" because you haven't the slightest clue or understanding of that whereof you speak. So before insulting another's intelligence, look to getting some real intelligence of your own above and beyond your snide evasions like that "Space is" to hide your ignorance of what is actually being said by the 'other guy' and discussed in context which you seem to have no clue about.

    Thanks for your opinionated "just is" based 'arguments' and personal disparagements, but no thanks; they are less than worthless in serious scientific discussion.

    G'night.
     
  23. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    You are framing an assumption and then questioning that assumption of YOURS.

    It's neither. The abstractions stop at the starting independent physical objectively identifiable real concept which is the starting point for the TOE evolution from there.

    My TOE is not your usual piecemeal, ad hoc, partial domain of applicability, patchwork, theoretical construct of abstractions upon abstractions. That is the whole point of this TOE, else it would just hit the wall like all other abstractions-only piecemeal theories which are still NOT unifiable AS mere abstract theories even after a hundred years of the best efforts of innumerable abstraction-minded mathematical-physicists toiling away with their constructs and dimensional contortions which only seem to be like (to paraphrase your use of that phrase) "Turtles all the way UP".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Cheers. I really have to go. G'night.
     

Share This Page