Luminiferous Aether Exists!

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

  1. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Nothingness

    Since a few people seem to actually think I might have something to say, I would like to say something about nothingness. I believe that all this discussion of the subject is like many disagreements a failure to agree on what words mean. As I pointed out to Mazulu, English language explanations depend on words which have inexact meanings and so each person who listens must interpret the meanings based on their own contexts. I have been in many “discussions” where this has been a problem later resolved by comparing definitions of some term.

    When I use the term empty space, I am referring to space that has no (or virtually no) matter in it. I recognize that it is not truly empty. As I understand it there is energy there. I would say something about why there is energy there but I would probably get it wrong. So it is not truly empty or nothingness. But we sometimes use the two terms interchangeably to mean space vacant of objects.

    Having read some Eastern Philosophy, nothingness has a distinct meaning there. I think it is superior to western ideas. Nothingness is similar to the idea in set theory of the empty set. Believe it or not some people have a big problem getting their head around the empty set. As an example of what that means I will use an analogy from a book by a famous discredited Anthropologist describing some probably non-existent Native American belief system.

    Image your self in a cafe sitting at a table. The universe is represented by the table. Everything you can name is sitting on the table. You are the salt shaker, the fork is the Earth, the spoon is Mathematics, the speed of light is the napkin. There is a box of toothpicks that represent everything else you can think of. And “empty” space is the table cloth. And Mazulu, if Gods existed they would be in the rack of various pancake syrups left over from the morning breakfast rush. Nothingness is not on the table.

    The concept of nothingness has no dimension. It doesn’t have any qualities. Size and shape etc are things on the table. And surprisingly it has no quantity. You see numbers are things on the table. So in that respect the empty set which has zero elements does not work as nothingness. Another interesting thing is that any reference to nothingness is also on the table. It is an odd, confusing and inconsistent concept.

    The reason I bring this up is because it can be a useful idea. As I told Mazulu, nothingness is useful. According to wise guys in the far east, you can’t have anything without nothingness.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    While I agree with most of what you say, how do you explain processes like quantization, requantization and normalisation etc., which involve division by zero and ignoring infinities by bringing them back to zero. Would you say that this was any clearer or more inexact than the meanings of words? Should it be allowed, in any sense of the word ? I think not, what about the 276 dimensions needed by Schrodinger's wave function to explain the Uranium atom. In fact any atom other than hydrogen requires an escalating number of dimensions. Most people have enough of a problem trying to go with the three dimensions that we have or the 4 dimensions of GR. So the problem here is that people start throwing rocks, without realising the glass houses that they themselves are sheltering in.


    A nice metaphor, but as you yourself point out is the table cloth empty or is it made up of something ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    745
    Those are definitely problems. I saw a lecture by Richard Feynman where he talked about this. He indicated that it was a problem. The end result was useful for calculations but he was not comfortable with it.

    I can't really speak to 276 dimensions. It is a little out of my range. But I was under the impression that string theory is not universally accepted (if that is what you are talking about). 4 dimensions for space time is definitely non-intuitive, but it seems to be necessary and sufficient for spacetime. I have followed several famous scientists that have been called cranks. Penrose for his ideas on quantum consciousness, and now his cycling universe. A mathematician I follow has some ideas in number theory that many find unpopular. And as I said, Susskind's recent video lecture on Higg's to me did not sound that much more far fetched than your theory. Watch it if you haven't. But you should definitely not hold anything I say as gospel.

    Everything on the table is something. Though space is there it does not address what space is other than it is not nothingness. Space (or subsets) of it can have shape and number. It has properties. I believe it has energy.

    Not everything on the table is physical. So the metaphor might not work for your theory. For instance, the taste of cold coffee which I just sipped in on the table. Quantization is on the table. Divide by zero is on the table. Infinity is on the table but maybe just a reference to our concept of it (will have to think about that). If it has a name then it is on the table. The word nothingness is something and so on the table. The concept of nothingness that you have in your mind is on the table. The idea is that if you can name it or think of it, then it is not nothingness. It is a recursive concept. Nothing is a concept we can't really talk about or think about except in a false indirect way. Perhaps even that statement is a problem.

    As I said before, I thought your theory was interesting. I need to reread it a few more times. I am not really the person to give that kind of theory a thumbs up or down.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    If we're talking about gravity, then we're also talking about gravitaitonal time dilation. The whole idea of reducing the space-time continuum to a bunch of waves is so that curvature can be explained with wave wavelengths and time dilation can be explained with wave frequencies.
    It's just like lifting a blanket on your bed with your hand. The blanket represents the space-time medium. Your hand lifting the blanket represents the frequency chirp that induces the gravity field. While your hand lifts the blanket, the threads of the blanket between your fingers pull on the rest of the blanket. I hope you understand what I'm talking about. You wanted me to discuss. Do you understand what I'm discussing?
    The transition from beam to flat space-time will be whatever nature says it should be. I don't understand why you're worried about it. The frequency chirps are inducing the gravity field (curvature). Just as quickly, the curvature is being relieved as the chirp spreads out and travels away at the speed of light.
    Can you explain what you mean by topologically impossible?
    Inside the transmission line, it's just a voltage. I need it to be an electromagnetic field. Aether waves become electromagnetic fields when they are energized. Aether waves are the weave of space-time itself. I need to use electromagnetic waves.

    The beam is 1 to 2GHz. It should pass right through the scale. As it does so, it will contribute a very slight (but hopefully measurable) acceleration field.

    I'm not qualified to work with delicate spring mechanisms.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    This stuff is extremely complicated. I try to articulate it as best I can. It's hard to find the right words. For a medium made of waves, I'm trying to force the medium to conform to the same shape as a linear frequency chirp. If the repetition rate is fast enough, then the repeated chirp curvature will be exerted faster than space-time can alleviate the curvature.
     
  8. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    No.

    Evidently not.
     
  9. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Another application for your beam just occurred to me. Food storage. Just throw your food in the time dilation beam and it will keep for a lot longer. And it does not have to be inside a box like a refrigerator. Just an area on the kitchen counter with a gravity beam bathing the food with RF chirps. Since your beam is perfectly safe, you should be able to just reach right into the time dilation field and grab that sandwich you made last year. Yum. No need to turn it off and expose the rest of your food to the effects of time. No freezing, no plastic bags, no tupperware. No need to eat cold pizza, just throw the hot pizza under the beam and it will stay hot until you want to eat it next month. Cold stuff stays cold too. Store your ice cream right next to the steaming chicken soup. No problem.

    And, if you need to dry the glue on that broken vase, just reverse the polarity of the beam. Paint dries in milliseconds. Ladies, no need to wave your hands in the air to dry your nails. Just put your hands under the beam. Age that bottle of scotch or wine years in a few days. Grow beans sprouts ultra-fast.

    The time dilation effect is much more practical than the gravity. Mazulu, you are a fricking genius. Put me down for one. And I will take one of the optional infinite energy attachments too. That way I can power the beam for free!
     
  10. quant Registered Member

    Messages:
    49
    Thanks for taking the time to go through the theory. I think everyone, especially you and I, who care about concepts, should be, not only interested, but passionate about theories of light and so on. Because this is how we perceive the world, the solar system, the Universe and everything around us. I for one, am not going to sit around while some mathematicians put forward totally preposterous esoteric theories, and this is especially so, IF alternate more reasonable explanations are available. The fact that these mathematical abstractions contain many dubious calculations that any kindergartner would recognise as 'unfair' and as 'cheating' is beside the point. The fact that using precisely these methods these physicists have browbeaten the majority of us into submitting to their ideas and giving up trying to understand what it is all about, is sad. Take the wave particle duality of light as an example. Everyone knows that this theory must be right, because numerous experiments have been conducted illustrating both aspects of light. Yet when QM introduced the LAW of complementarity stating that light possesses both wave and particle properties but can never possess both properties simultaneously it posed ridiculous complications, compounded by the fact that it has been made one of the pillars of QM. It also effectively banned anyone from investigating further into this definition of light. By questioning this premise, and forwarding the theory that light is indeed both wave and particle but that it possesses both properties simultaneously, my theory avoids all of the highly suspect mathematics of QM, it also avoids multiple dimensions and yet at the same time gives valid explanations and results for most phenomena. (At least this is my opinion, which I have to say does not count for much unless it gains at least some support.) P.S. The 276 dimensions have nothing to do with string theory, they are from Schrodinger's wave function explanation for the Uranium atom).
     
  11. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Billiard balls and springs is a reference to your belief that waves will not propagate across a void without a mystery medium (or mousetrap) to convey them. It's a metaphor for aether, for the out-of-the-closet aether mongers.

    That would entirely depend on their relative velocities, and the meaning of "where" under gravitational influence.

    You mean a directional force acting mutually and oppositely upon them.

    Even when it's not detected the force is acting on them.

    Nature provides it, not me.

    You're not concerned about small distances? You should be. That's where crunch time comes in, like stellar fusion. Besides, how do you suppose the actual gravity you experience every day confers your own body weight to you? The nearest mass is as close as the ground. How does spatial distance enter into the real world experience? And how then does gravity get conveyed in very dense materials, such as the core of a collapsing star? What can you infer about the distortion of space under such conditions? My real point here is, "great distances" is a subjective term.

    I think calling a field an effect is absurd. A particle is attended by a field. Space (as in Gauss's Law) is everywhere a differential surface subtended by a field. How is that related to cause and effect, and by what rule do you not say the field causes the particle?

    If by orthodox you mean right teaching, then you're momentarily on the right track, if only as a tangent to the curve. As for abstraction, you haven't explained how all statements except yours fall under that category. Nothing is more abstract than any number of things you've said, including, but not limited to:

    Next you said:
    I didn't leave it at that. I actually said
    You did not respond to the content of this. The field attends the particle. The particle exists and the field subtends space. There can be no Aristotelian conveyance of billiard balls and springs to effectuate the attendant field. It emanates; it radiates. It doesn't collide with the mystery medium and set up a chain reaction. You're simply trying to divorce the particle from the field by demanding that this must be so. All along you're ignoring the intrinsic impedance of space which is no mystery as far as its magnitude. Go find out what gives free space its 376.73Ω and you'll be back on track with what the medium is. I already gave you the answer. You're just sloughed it off.

    Good confidence is preceded by requisite information and skill. Part of that includes distinguishing fact from myth and superstition. Otherwise you end up with false confidence—spelled naïveté.

    It was a prosaic expression for a field: matter (mass, charge or dipole) [times a constant, to correct for the arbitrary choice of units] subtending space [the differential surface 1/4πr²]. As you see, no medium and no cause is relevant to the meaning of "subtend".

    That would be the mythical and superstitious reversal of what I said.

    No more than I would accept the superstition that requires a cause for the subtending of space by a field.

    I think I've quite clearly said that space is the absence of matter. I've further clarified that it's all differentiable surfaces subtended by any particle, charge or dipole. Do you need an explanation of what a surface is? As for clues, I've given you several, but you haven't picked them up, which leads me to believe you don't understand why they are significant. I gave you an opportunity to compare and contrast the nature of phononic energy transmission vs radiation simply starting with the intrinsic impedance of free space. I asked you to relate this to the density and stiffness of air in the Aristotelian chain reaction of rock-throwers (billiard balls and springs) of acoustic waves vs EM waves. I've given you the bonus clue that the intrinsic impedance of free space is 376.73Ω. That not only says what space "is" but also "why". You just haven't caught on yet.

    No, you simply haven't understood that I'm trying to get you to think. I'm still waiting for your analysis of the acoustic vs EM wave question. As for force, as long as we limit this to gravitation and the EM force, I think you should be able to abstract that the force attends the field just as the field attends the particle. Your concern over path loss (note: not attenuation) can be addressed by going back to the difference between the terms attend and subtend. One of the advantages of abstraction is that it marries language and ideas, in direct opposition to your troubled divorce of the two.

    Unlike you, I've advanced actual facts and principles, and I've posed an elementary problem leading to a derivation of ideas. I've also established a couple of definitions. I've now quantified the free space impedance I had only qualified earlier to give you a nudge. I've also brought cited a couple of experts, one of whom was the child prodigy James Clerk Maxwell.

    Word salad on the other hand is the random assemblage of snips and shreds of verbiage which fails to produce any of that. Abstract or not, if the text is nonsense, it collapses under its own "nothingness". When you get around to visiting my table, you'll notice there's some hearty fare to be had. Bon appetit.

    How is intrinsic impedance a rote label? It's just a fact. You shouldn't fear facts. If you hear a lot of scientists repeating the same facts, does it say something about rote or does it say something about truth? Repeating truth over and over again can't be reduced to being "of no real consequence " or without "the slightest clue or understanding of that whereof you speak". That's just cynicism. It frequently accompanies superstition whenever science disproves a belief. Aether had an Aristotelian orgin in cause and effect based on the (false) assumption that EM waves might require a medium simply because acoustic waves do. Disproof of that superstition by the scientific method first attempted by Michelson-Morley has left us with a handful of cynics. You're just howling at the moon in sympathetic vibration with them. There isn't an actual tangible rationale for doing so. It’s just a vibe.

    So far you haven't engaged me in the science I put forward. You've just demanded that the subtending of space by the fields attending particles has to follow Aristotle's Prime Mover abstraction. I guess that was science in 300 BCE, but how it hardly counts as a serious answer to my posts.

    If you like, I'll reformulate my science question to further stake my claim about delivering the goods. The acoustic impedance of air at 25°C is about 409 N•s/m³. The intrinsic impedance of free space is 376.73Ω. Consider an acoustic wave traveling at the velocity of sound, 346 m/s, vs the velocity of the EM wave in free space at 2.99E8 m/s. Explain the relationship between impedance and velocity for each. Resolve the impedance of each to their duals for inductance (L) and capacitance (C), and explain by comparison and contrast the following law for each:

    \(c\quad =\quad \frac { 1 }{ \sqrt { LC } } \)​

    where c here is the generalized velocity for either type of wave. Explain how L and C arise in air and in free space, relating the physical or "ethereal" constitution of each medium to the establishment of its corresponding fixed* impedance.

    (constant. Obviously in air this at a given temp and pressure.)
     
  12. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    Attention Mazulu!

    I think I have solved your experiment problem. Not a joke. <-- (well maybe a little, don't want to be accused of being a liar)

    It all has to do with this quote:
    You see, you have two related phenomena that are available to test your aether frequency wave theory. Gravity and time dilation. If one works then the evidence for the other mounts. You just chose the wrong test. The easy test is time dilation. I mean if I was a space alien and I wanted someone to test time dilation, I would contact a CLOCK CALIBRATION TECHNICIAN. If you want to get religious about it, think of it as some type of providence.

    You do not need a fancy antenna for the time dilation experiment. The wifi antenna will do. You have access to very accurate clocks and counter/timer devices. Build a clock circuit using some very accurate clock device. There are some available that are quite inexpensive. Your clock is probably shielded in a can but if the shield is in the time dilation field anything inside it will likewise be effected. ...

    Actually, I will stop here. You are a clock calibration technician and know all about the metrology of such devices.

    Write up your findings. If you detect time dilation you might be able to convince someone to do the gravity beam test for you. <-- wow, did I just say that?
     
  13. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Wait a minute.

    If gravity causes light to shift frequency, and therefore flashing lights can create a gravity field, and gravity causes time to slow, then you should be able to create a gravity field by making your clock run fast.

    Try it Mazulu.
     
  14. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Are you sure? Don't clocks run slow in a gravitational field? Which would mean you need to slow the clock down, to increase gravity.., no?
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Come to think of it, my good Cheezle, you may have explained tanning and wrinkles. The sun is a wide spectrum noise generator, containing every frequency needed to re-tension any clock spring, particularly the ones that run off of the piezoelectric effect, which any sniveling pro-science nut would immediately recognize, is completely running on ether. Duh! And this is obviously why aliens come here, to re-tension their springs the way some sun worshippers prefer Rio or Greece to, say, the beaches of New Jersey. The wideband spectral tensioners are no doubt enhanced by our Nitrogen-Oxygen atmosphere with just enough average humidity - plus the way these particles come apart in the ionoshpere - forming a natural passband filter that amplifies the spectral-mechanical coupling effect. Hence wrinkles.

    What's really ingenious Herr Cheezle, is that you've started on the road to a true TOE - one that marries reptilians of space to those hanging around by the pool in places like Palm Beach and (for the hard core Burning Man types) the Mojave or salt flats.

    And did I say ether? How else do all those freqs make it clear across our chunk of the solar system? OK so there is a solar wind. But hey, that basically disproves Michelson-Morley, too, since they didn't detect it. I mean, it's like you pulled on a thread that starts the whole mess unraveling. I've been wanting to use that word all week since I heard it in a Joni Mitchell song 40 years ago. I saw a recent picture of her and it was scary, but then I saw myself in a mirror (we can get into impedance effects on a mirror later when I've had a few beers to deal with it) and it just sent me into a panic. Suddenly I realized Joni was talking to me, the way other people get visited by reptilians. She was telling me I needed to stop being a rambler and a gambler and a sweet talking ladies' man, and get back to the ether. Back to our roots man. Like the one in the denominator of that equation she conjured up in me. Because our time is nearly up, they paved paradise and put up a parking lot. And it was more nothingness than somethingness, especially concrete, which has a lot of visible voids beside all the space inside every lattice in every grain of sand. And then there's gravel and slaked lime, the whole nine yards. Which is barely one parking space. And you see even the abstract has to face the reality of the concrete. And it's heavy, man. I'm telling you, man, Joni's talkin and I'm in the groove and my needle is wiggling that transducer and setting up all kinds of cross-correlated realities which prominent scientists have already predicted. As long as you ignore the 3 x 92 dimensions needed just to explain the orbitals of Uranium, which, as clear as the nose on your face (as with Zappa's, Cher's or Tiny Tim's) simply can't happen by the classical model. Can you dig it, man?

    Where was I? Oh yeah, unraveling. Because if you can unravel reality so matter-of-factly like you do with your multispectral temporal detensioner, then it must've been pretty simply raveled to begin with. The sheep of science not only to listen to bubble gum music (not you, you got down to the earthy version of jam up and jelly tight) but all that bubble gum in the wool makes the gathering stupidly problematic. As you see, I'm coming around thanks to your thoughtful explanations which a lot of top scientists have set out in their leading edge theories. Had I not been so ignorant and dismissive of Joni's multispectral detensioner (a dulcimer BTW) - and don't get me started about the other string theory, the one that makes unplugged sound so much more earthy (ahem gravity) than FX tone shapers and all that plastic people bling - I could have been down this road decades ago, and it would be me sitting in that chair instead of Stephen Hawking because fate is like that, it reveals every detail of cause and effect, and it balances the bottom line so there's conservation of matter which also explains why I can't fit into my first pair of bell bottom jeans.

    Sorry if I got a little carried away but my own TOE is bubbling to the surface and I really just need to get it out. I think it's like an exorcism, like the little girl with no cervical bones who could projectile vomit in full sweep of azimuth. Talk about subtending space. Gawd if only it weren't too late to hang out with Alistair Crowley and really develop the knack of automatic writing. I mean chicks dug this cat in a robe in very lascivious ways. But did he chew gum? Gawd, he was into the Egyptian Book of the Dead, on one hell of Ra-fueled trip to nothingness without a proverbial paddle. And waifs and minions were popping peeled grapes into his mouth while he just droned on and on about ultimate reality, and worshiping the sun, which is explainable under your TOE- I mean he was always white as a sheet - but his incantations always took him back before the moment the photon traversed the aether, right when it was about to nuke him, and all that vacuum energy, and all that gravity, it all went to work for him and the little mamas just drew ever closer.

    But see, he didn't have an oscilloscope. No, man, I mean Maxwell and Crowley are dead but I'm pretty sure in met them in 1973 at a Joni Mitchell concert. No wait. It was Frank Zappa and he was doing string theory by the numbers. Lots of poly-rhythms and atonal scales and superimposed keys. He would play a riff, something cosmic that worked like the one in Close Encounters except is was way out there - like in E♯ minor or something unwieldy like that - and then he'd do a back flip over the Fender Rhodes, to conserve momentum, and set up a mutispectral paradiddle sympathetic vibration on the congas followed by some really cheesy lyrical trash, only because the phonemes opened the Star Gate he came through, and all while looking a little like Cher in a mustache and an Afro. No, Tiny Tim looked like Cher. No wait Zappa and Cher and Tiny Tim are incarnations of reptilians, giving them a certain family resemblance but only Zappa had the right energy level. With Joni, it was all about frequency. With Tiny Tim it was all about neutral charge.

    Sound is like that. It takes you out into the ether where you find light, which is really just fast sound, and it helps if there's a good strobe or mirrored balls around, plus those gel dishes that put pink and purple amoebas all over the crowd just to remind us of where we really came from. Sound is heavy like that. It has mass which is of course attended by inertia which is of course how we tear down the walls of scientific bureaucracy and red tape and plumb rote recitation of formulaic knockoffs of the Book of the Dead. And math? It's all hieroglyphs without any soul. That's why I'm actually glad you weren't so much a Tommy Roe fan since he was straight bubble gum and that just ravels the wool into an impossible mass, by which I mean balled up, not so much heavy like the concrete used to pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

    Sorry if I seem a little out of sorts, but other folks here are lettin it all hang out, so what about me? I mean do I get some air time too or is this all an illuminati dominated field now? Did my folks get me $179 dulcimer when I was a kid so I could experiment with overtones and multispectral temporal string re-tensioners? Hell no. They just told me to get a haircut. So here I am, and OK I've got issues. But who doesn't? But geez, those scientists are really needy. Hell, I have needs, too.

    I never really got around to plugging my own TOE so here it is in a nutshell. First, time is a standing wave. It sends a pulse from the quasi-infinite past to the quasi-infinite future and that's every now spanning every moment that ever was and ever will be. "Quasi" must mean this big temporal dulcimer string converges at two nodes. Except it's a cosmic dulcimer so it's really one node in curved space where the dulcimer string wraps around a kind of circle. Ok now here's the gem of my TOE: the same thing is happening in reverse. There's a forward wave and a reverse wave. So when the forward and reverse timelines collide, virtuality instantiates reality and that's where particles exist. I could try to develop it some more but I don't want to be too overbearing with the abstractions. Beside I would have to get into consciousness and a bunch more blending that button-down geeks just won't have. So I have to be on my P's and Q's all the time, mindful that these invoke sterile and highly orthodox abstractions of, say momentum and charge, which goes to show how closed-loop reality really is.

    Which is why everything is oscillating in the first place. Duh. You don't have to know how to use a scope to figure that out. And this, you see is why the sun is such a good wideband generator for reptilians and other hippies to surf. I do think I need to spend more time in front of the mirror, especially when surrounded, Crowley-like, by a seductive harem, while reciting from rote the Egyptian Book of the Dead, matching the hieroglyphs to Maxwell's equations and Hermitian matrix formulations for the world line trajectory of the avocado on my veggie burger, an avacado flung from a bilateral collision of counter-traveling standing waves on the cosmic dulcimer, and this, while playing Zappa in the left ear and Joni in the right. Or is it Zappa to the right and Joni to the left? Hell, only Maxwell knows. Spin the tumbler so many clicks one way, so many the other and pretty soon my TOE jailbreaks chirality itself and the little girl is spewing and nobody will listen to me except a priest. So spin the tumbler, we've got the formula and now the universe in going to pay.

    So say I. And who am I? Man, I'm a fully feedback driven adaptive recursive pattern recognition system with a terabit action potential field excitation spacetime modulator synchronized to the cosmic dulcimer, skimming deep nothingness for virtual particles to feed my hungy wavefronts before they all collapse into another bad idea.

    I mean there's more going on here (there always is) but that's pretty much a sample of my TOE which I'd need the library of Babel to contain and even to get started writing if I ever could leave these threads alone and get back to the business of conquering the world which by the way I came here to learn how to do. Cause I'm a rambler and a gambler and a sweet talkin ladies' man and I love my ether like I love my avocados like I love my TOE.

    It's very radical.

    Thanks for your time. Hope I didn't take you away from the practicalities of science, whether it involved cleaning your septic line by reverse osmosis or scaring away the ring tailed visitors to your attic by painful levels of broadband ultrasonic cavity resonating wave deterrence.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    Good morning (here), Aqueous Id.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So you take the liberty of 'framing' as 'billiard balls and springs' the alternative consideration of a medium underlying the phenomenological space? That's your construction on it, not mine. So keep it, as it's no use to either of us. Thanks anyway, but no thanks.

    And I have no 'beliefs' where science and the real universal phenomena is concerned. Unlike you et al who 'believe' in the mathematical/geometrical abstract constructs therefrom. I follow the logic from reality perspective. Anything else leads to the same stagnant situation regarding unification of abstractions into one TOE complete (which the abstraction-based efforts have failed to accomplish to this day, even after a hundred years and more of piling abstractions upon abstractions. Someone somewhere has to try something different (maybe the reality-based approach. Too radical?).

    Also, using your metaphor argument, the "propagation without medium" view is based on an abstract mathematical metaphor which does not explain but merely 'label' within abstract mathematical equations/terms. They are mute as to underlying reality mechanisms which exist by inference even before any "mathematical stories" metaphors (equations) about it are created.

    Hence, while I attempt to follow the reality as well as the abstractions therefrom (both are needed if we are to complete the TOE consistent), you are satisfied to present rote-learned abstract labeling systems as 'explanations'. They explain very little, else we would already have the unified and complete TOE from the professional mathematical-physicist efforts after the last century or so they have had to do it in.


    You missed the point. The masses are at the centre of a vast/extensive volume of the space which you call "nothingness". You however fail to provide the mechanism that projects the gravity effect associated with that central mass across vast gulfs of (according to you) "nothingness".

    You may have pretty abstract stories about electromagnetic radiation propagating across "nothingness", but have you equally pretty stories about how gravity effects extends far from the central mass and across YOUR alleged vast "nothingness" distances?

    That is your reality challenge, glasshopper.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    No, the context is the central mass and its own gravity effect on surrounding space (YOUR "nothingness"). It is the gravity effect from a single source and in what way that effect is propagated/supported/manifest in YOUR surrounding "nothingness" that you are being asked to 'explain', not gravitational interactions between bodies.


    That is the point. We CAN detect the central body's gravity effect across space (your "nothingness"). The question you need to answer is how is that effect so far from the central body effected upon YOUR "nothingness"? Get that now, glasshopper?


    Are you saying that you KNOW what that underlying mechanism is in reality?

    Or is that just an evasive answer to the challenge for you to back up your parroted learned-by-rote abstractions with real explanation of the nature and mechanism of the underlying reality from which the abstractions are made so far?

    Don't be shy. If you know the mechanism (not the mere maths/geometry 'label' for it), then please share!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Why the sophistry and strawman? The gravity effect can be observed to extend to great distances. Your mission, glasshopper, is and always has been in this discussion, for you to explain how YOUR learned-by-rote view of space as "nothingness" can support/effect/manifest such a gravity effect over ANY distance at all, let alone vast reaches of YOUR "nothingness".

    So go to it!....if you actually DO 'believe' those abstract-math stories you repeat without substantiation which is NOT merely MORE abstract stories.


    What 'particle' are you on about?

    And "field' is a mere abstraction from a collection of entities from which that mathematical abstraction has been made for convenience of staistical and other analysis treatments. Please don't conflate the abstraction/label with the physical thing/underlyingreality/mechanisms. Thanks

    Anyhow, were talking ONLY of the gravity effect created by and extending from a central mass (any mass), and how that gravity effect can be effected across YOUR "nothingness" even to vast astronomical distances. No more. No less.

    Please stick to the point and don't confuse yourself and everyone else with your own constructions/conflations on what is being questioned about YOUR 'beliefs' and YOUR space as "nothingness".


    "Right teaching?" Have no textbooks ever been updated to be more "right"? If they have, and the currently accepted theory is not yet complete, then the textbooks will be made MORE "RIGHT" once we advance from the abstractions upon abstractions which have hit a brick wall in the area of consistent unification.

    Don't be so trusting of 'orthodoxy'; by its very nature that is a fluid state at present, else professional TOE would be IN those "right teaching" textbooks right now. Your naive acceptance of orthodoxy rules you out of being an 'explorer' in the unknown. Sorry about that. Never mind, there are some of us who are not so trusting, and want to test/find all the "right" stuff for ourselves, via a more 'complete' and reality-oriented TOE.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I made no 'abstractions'. You keep doing that. I depend on observable realities, matter, energy, space etc. I have not presented my complete TOE, hence whatever impression you may have got by confusing my straightforward challenges with others' perspectives is your construction, not mine. Please disabuse yourself of that misunderstanding.

    No-one questioned the observable that gravity effect diminishes as the space distance increases away from the central body. So that is a non-issue.

    I am not trying to separate anything from anything.

    YOU claim that space IS "nothingness". Period.

    You were then asked to provide the underlying mechanism (not just your learned-by-rote labels and abstractions) for gravity effect extending from a central body across that "nothingness" which YOU say is space. So, go to it; and please don't introduce non-issues and stawmen to distract from that. Thanks.


    That is precisely what I am asking you to do. Distinguish between abstractions and labels from the realities from whence these abstractions and labels are derived for the sake of convenience but not as actual explanations of the underlying mechanisms themselves which manifest the reality so abstracted/labeled. Get that? However USEFUL they may be, it is you that is effectively repeating myths (abstractions and labels); while I and others question YOUR views based on such 'stories' (like YOUR claim that space is "nothingness", but you won't explain HOW and WHAT manifests gravity effect across vast gulfs of that "nothingness"). See your challenge to distinguish YOUR stated 'myths' there from the reality, glasshopper?


    All that is mathematical/geometrical etc analytical abstraction/construct. All well and good; all very useful; but where are the underlying mechanisms/entities IDENTIFIED and explained in reality terms not labels/symbols?

    It's like you saying, "Maths is". Which is in effect what yu have been doing by merely repeating the learned-by-rote 'explanations' based on abstraction upon abstraction where gravity effect across YOUR "nothingness" space is concerned. You are 'projecting' your propensity to 'believe' abstractions' in lieu of actually exploring to find the underlying reality from whence all the abstractions are made. No more. No less.


    Can you see the flaws in your example/argument there? I'll point them out for you....

    IF as YOU claim that space is "nothingness", and since "field' is a convenient analytical/mathematical abstraction from physical observables/behaviour to begin with, then all you are doing there is arguing from "nothingness" which you have NOT explained how it supports gravity effect. And to make it worse, you seem to think that YOUR "field' and "nothingness" are not mere abstract 'myths' which you still have not distinguished from the underlying real phenomena.

    You seem not to have an open mind on this aspect because you 'believe' implicitly (I may say naively) in abstract 'myths' and 'labels' and will NOT for a moment countenance the exploration efforts for identifying the reality underlying those myths/labels. Not a very 'searching' attitude, to be content with (convenient and useful, yes) labels and myths when the whole of the reality is out there to be discovered by open and objective minds which do not accept herd mentality as a reason NOT to LOOK for themselves. You don't have to come along for the ride. If you are OK with the status quo, then please don't let me or any other explorer disturb your contentment. And good luck to you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    I bolded that bit.

    No, not quite correct. It is the 'vacuum' that is in scientific convention defined as 'an absence of matter'. There is energy 'flux/dynamics' both real and 'virtual'. Space is according to YOU "nothingness".

    The rest of your mathematical arguments are irrelevant to the issue of a mass which affects space (YOUR "nothingness") to great distances, but YOU have NOT YET provided the actual mechanism in reality which effects such gravity effect in "nothingness" at vast reaches. Concentrate on the issue and your need to explain what was asked in the context of YOUR earlier claim that 'space is nothingness'. Until you can do that, all your learned-by-rote abstractions 'explanations' are just that, labels and abstractions, and not real explanations. Thanks.


    None of that addresses or removes the fact that 'field' is a MATHEMATICAL abstract/construct, and NOT the real thing it has been abstracted to purportedly 'explain' but doesn't in reality. That is what you miss still. All the rest of that is a non-issue and is beside the point and still your 'abstractions'. OK?

    All that does not treat what is the underlying reality/entities which your 'treatments' derive 'abstractly'. Can you please see that and stop inundating with 'facts' which are in the end 'abstraction' derived, not the reality itself? Thanks.


    OK. Your 'hearty fare' is of the like of YOUR space "nothingness' that purports to support/manifest gravity effects far removed from the central mass across vast gulfs of "nothingness". How hearty is the fact that you have provided nothing but non-issues, abstractions and abstraction-derived 'facts' which do not identify or even acknowledge the entities/mechanisms of the underlying reality from which all the convenient/useful mathematical etc abstractions/constructs are themselves made?

    I'll leave you to digest your hearty fare while I and others get on with the exploration of the underlying reality which WILL explain all the abstractions while explaining that reality itself. Hard work, but someone had to do it if we are to get on in making a complete and consistent TOE based on reality not 'myths' and labels/symbols.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Not at issue. However, while we're at it, how is your "nothingness" consistent with that "inherent impedance" etc etc of space if it is as you claimed, "nothingness"? Can you have (in your stories) inherent impedance, permittivity etc for "nothingness"?

    While the 'vacuum', which is replete with energy both real and virtual may have intrinsic collective properties/behaviour/dynamics, can you explain where that 'inherent property' you mentioned came from and how it can manifest (like gravity effect) across a space which you say is "nothingness"?



    I've engaged on the relevant issues, and ignored the non-issues and strawmen which do not absolve you from explaining the actual question put to you when you claim that there is no medium because space is "nothingness". The expectation of a universal medium was there long before your 'learned-by-rote' abstraction-based 'explanations' did away with that original reality-based expectation. That 'doing away' was a mathematical convenience which has NOT YET answered what it is which is being so conveniently abstracted and so expediently 'done away with' without putting actual real explanations in its place as to the entities/mechanisms which manifest those REAL effects (gravity etc) across YOUR supposedly "nothingness" space.



    Again I ask for a consistent logical answer to the question: IF space (in my TOE reality perspective, energy-space) is just "nothingness" as YOU say, then how can it have ANY "intrinsic properties" at all?

    See? You can't have it both ways. EITHER you admit that there IS a fundamental (not the ordinary kind of higher order differentiation of that fundamental one) 'medium' which HAS such intrinsic properties....OR.....you have YOUR "nothingness" which CANNOT logically be argued to HAVE ANY 'inherent' properties at all. You have to pick which one makes most sense as reality and not 'myth'. Choose.

    I choose my TOE's objectively arrived at energy-space UNIVERSAL MEDIUM which manifests all the higher order features/properties/effects etc which YOU and your "nothingness" and other abstractions have not even begun to identify and explain where and how they arise and manifest across space.

    I'll let you read all about it when it's published. Until then, I am sorry but I cannot spend any more time on non-issues and straw men and abstractions masquerading as 'explanations' for underlying reality entities/mechanisms like gravity etc across a supposed "nothingness" as claimed by your 'myth/math understandings'.


    So goodbye and good luck!

    RealityCheck.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  17. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    Realitycheck,
    To be honest, I'm not even sure it makes sense to try explaining anything to people on this forum. At least I don't personally feel the need. Yes, I said I would defend my ideas. I just find it hard to explain anything to people like cheezle and alexg. Every time I read what they say, the word "douche-bag" just pops into my mind. I've been telling alexg for last 2 years that it's not flashing lights, it's frequency shifting light (more recently described as a linear frequency chirp. But the guy is a moron. And cheezle comes across like such a classroom clown. This stuff is hard to describe; I just don't want to waste my time explaining it to a couple of douche-bags.

    Unfortunately, if the experiment works, then the world will read my words and know that cheezle and alexg are a couple of douchebags. And if this leads to First Contact with alien intelligences, then the whole universe will know that alexg and cheezle are a couple of douche-bags. That would truly be a shame.
     
  18. RealityCheck Banned Banned

    Messages:
    800
    That was my last post here also. It's difficult to get through preconceived mindsets to discuss things which do not fit their 'learned-by-rote' inculcations which disable their ability to just read and discuss new ideas (irrespective of provenance) with open minds.

    Anyhow, whatever your aim/motivation for your own experiments/explorations into the universal phenomena, as long as it is not for evil intent then I wish you the best of luck. But be prepared BOTH for disappointment AND possible serendipitous insights/results whichever way it goes! More than once we have found something while looking for something else entirely!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Enjoy your science endeavours, Mazulu. Good luck and good thinking to you!

    I'm outta here. Bye!
     
  19. Mazulu Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,090
    I'm sorry to see you go. I wish the douche-bags would leave instead.
     
  20. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745

    I like a good sermon. I like that rather than preaching a bland parable, you went for the cryptic stroll through the past. Every reference attached by strings to a big TOE, lest we forget our way back to the subject at hand while listening to the piper playing a mean strat the distance.

    We all have our TOEs. Even Joe down at the garage dabbles in theory of how a life unfolds. Myself? I am polydactyl. I have a dozen TOEs but unfortunately they all point in different directions, and so I keeps them hidden away in my Keds so as not to scare the children.

    Musically, I am not an aficionado, but I think I caught all the connections on the trip down memory lane. I was not a big fan of Zappa at first, but because you have to listen to whats on your friends turntable, I listened him many times. And I have come to the conclusion that the best music is hard to listen to. At times Zappa hops around on the scale in patterns that are hard to anticipate and so you become a participant in the recorded performance. Not music you can just zone out too. But we have to zone out occasionally and so the gods created Joni with her big eyes and voice clear as a high mountain lake.

    Now days, I am more of an eclectic connoisseur. In my youth I went through phases of music style. But now my phase lock is broken and I drift around from Floyd to Debussy. Dub to Scruggs. Miles to Moodys. There is a deadmau5 in there someplace too. But like a broken clock sometimes I am in phase.

    I have to disagree with you on Pop. Esp the lowest common denominator of it. It can be like a worm hole by which Pop sucks you into a different dimension. Of course you have to squeeze yourself so that you are very thin or you will not fit through. Spaghetti size. But you "Pop" out on the other side and it is all different there. Kind of like Sgt. Peppers imitating a town band in the generations long past. It works to a degree, and its all interesting at least for a short time. But I have to admit that ultimately it is just Cheap Thrills. But Cheap Thrills is good.

    So thanks for the unravelling. Joni to reptilians to Illuminti. Maxwell to Crowley? Good stuff! Like you I like to lie on the banks of the stream of consciousness, a hook on a string dangling from my TOE into the slow meandering water there. Occasionally something will tug and I will pull it out and give it a gander. Yours was a keeper. Pure genius.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  21. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,086
    So do we my young fellow, so do we....
     
  22. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,086
    If you had ever taken a college level physics course you would know that things are not 'learned-by-rote' in those classes. Of course that also means you might not post so much meaningless gibberish too.

    Well, that should help the thread to be at least a little bit less silly.
     
  23. Cheezle Hab SoSlI' Quch! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    745
    It is interesting that you feel that others are the problem.

    On the physforum you were made fun of because your ideas were illogical and unrealistic. You were banned there a couple times for "failure to connect with reality". Now you come here and are picked on again because of your odd ideas. And you believe that it is others that are the problem. I suggest you be aware of this situation in the future and if pattern continues, and the effect follows you, then maybe you are the problem. Maybe its you that brings out the "douchebag" in people. Just saying.

    You seem to get along much better at gravitycontrol. People there seem to think like you and like what you say. Crop circles, UFOs, New Age spirituality, and of course gravity control are all things you have in common. Perhaps … no, I won't bother to say it.
     

Share This Page