Luminiferous Aether Exists!

Out of all things in the universe that can be described by quantum mechanics ALL of those things are described by wave-functions. I'm sure I've told you how I came up with aether waves. I took wave-functions, which are mathematical solutions to the Schrodinger equation. However simple (wavelike) or complicated (like the hydrogen atom) the wave-function is, I say that the wave-function is describing a fundamental part of nature. Wave-functions describe the part of nature that is the aether medium.

To that, I added a characteristic to this aether wave. These aether waves have the ontological characteristic that they fundamentally obey and exist as \(c=\lambda f\). So ALL aether waves obey this relationship. Then, as you say, I made an "intuitive leap". I said that the geometry of space-time is ontologically constructed of the wavelengths (in fact a whole range of wavelengths) of those aether waves. Simultaneously, the progression of time occurs because of the range of frequencies of these waves.

So now, I have a flat space-time geometry that is made of the wavelengths of aether waves. Aether waves, in there close resemblance to wave-functions, are natural carriers of energy as either a photon and electromagnetic radiation. Particles (standard model/atoms/etc) exist as a range of aether wave frequencies. Since all material substances (molecules) can be analyzed using molecular spectroscopy, I combined that idea with my aether wave idea to arrive at the conclusion that all particles (standard model) have a distinct frequency signature in the gamma ray frequency range. All matter is a composition of EM frequencies.

The answer to your question is that everything (space-time geometry, particles, electromagnetic radiation, etc...) are all made of aether waves. Cats included.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, and that is why I said this is basic stuff. It is not rocket science. This is the most basic part of making an argument. Getting the logic right. The fact that you fail to understand does not bode well for your TOE.

That was a little hard to parse. modus ponens is one of a few valid methods used in arguments. Of course we could be having a misunderstanding of what the sentence, "the universe is made of waves" means. I take it to mean, that waves are the basic and only component of all things. I don't agree. I think many people would disagree. So Mazulu needs to attempt to prove is. Maybe the problem is the definition of thing. But that takes us to the idea of what is a thing, and is "empty space" a thing, or does it require a medium to become a full fledged thing. This brings up new problems with Mazulus argument but as I said I prefer to clear up this first point before we go on. Maybe it will clear up the later stuff too. I am actually trying to help mazulu straighten out his arguments. They do need some straightening out.

later on in his argument (I include stuff he has said previously) that time is made of waves and space (distance) is made of waves. A circular reasoning if ever there was one. The formulas for a wave includes wavelength and time. So how can a wave create distance and time. I am hoping that Mazulu if he constructs a logical argument will realize where he is making his mistakes. Maybe he can make his argument stand but I seriously doubt it.

Typical. You say we can disagree and leave it. But you can't seem to leave it. So take your own advice and say goodbye one more time. Your grasp of logic is abysmal.

I decide when I want to drop an argument. Not the infinitely wise realitycheck. Now where were we, oh yes. You were saying goodbye for the umpteenth time. You do realize you can take your own advice and drop it here. LOL

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually my question was a request. I asked you to supply the missing parts of your argument.

That quote should be your argument's conclusion not a "starting point". It is your hypothesis. So prove it. Lets pick one of those items in your list and give it a go. The first one, Spacetime geometry. Show me how that Spacetime Geometry is composed of waves. You need to do this to have a valid argument and succeed in convincing others your TOE is the one they should believe. You do want to succeed in that don't you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sort of like herpes, it never really goes away.

 

I think this thread is about to have another flare up. Quick, get out the ointment.

 

No worries, mate. I am withdrawing from internet discussions for a while, but one must do it properly, with finishing tail-end exchanges properly for the sake of completeness if nothing else. Since I have no dog in this race between you and Mazulu. I merely pointed out as an observer that QM et al theories are replete with waves of all provenance and properties and 'spectrum' (photons, plasmons, phonons/sound, plasma perturbations, vacuum perturbations both 'virtual' and 'real', exchange bosons, etc). Against that prima facie starting point based on known fact/observation, you choose to abstract the discussion into a sterile and in this case invalid application of your logical treatment which ignores the established line of logic from the start that Mazulu has observed from the accepted scientifically confirmed theory/reality. Since you fail to take that starting point logic/observation into your late-comer p&Q logic train construct, you miss the starting pieces. Hence you are on a non-sequitur track from the get go. My suggestion is go back to the reality observations involved and just show where Mazulu's hypothesis based on those reality observations does not follow from that.

Good luck (and bye....unless I am again forced to come back by posts like that which does not allow for, and effectively cuts off, my option of just agreeing to disagree

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

 

Ahh, I see. So if I wanted to keep you from finishing your TOE, then all I have to do is keep responding to your responses. Hmmmm. Interesting.

And yet there you are in the stands cheering on Mazulu. You may not have a wager, but he is your favorite to win.

Yes, yes, yes. QM, waves, particle-wave duality. All that stuff. But that is not Mazulu's argument which is the subject of this thread. The subject is Aether, how we define it, and is it necessary. Mazulu's argument is that there is this thing that he called "wave aether" or "frequency aether" or luminiferous aether. Not the same as your aether or so you hint. And that this wave aether is the fundamental constituent of all things (in his theory). By his theory, two of those things are space and time. "Wave aether creates space and time." And there is a huge problem with that because as I pointed out the wave functions he uses include time and space (distance|position) as parameters. Do you see the problem? Wave aether is made of time and space, but time and space are made of wave aether. That is not a useful proposition for an argument.

So Mazulu has some choices. One is that he can drop the "space and time is made of waves" from his argument. But that means his argument is incomplete. His whole point is that the invariability of the speed of light is due to wave aether. But the only accepted argument for that invariance are Einstein's theories. So he adds a layer to reality and defines wave aether as implementing this invariance through an undetectable medium. That layer is (I would argue) superfluous. So what is currently a property of space and time is plenty to cover that invariance. If he wants to prove his wave aether's existence, he needs a handle to it somewhere in his theory. Something to show that it is necessary. And the meaning of necessary is this. If q is necessary for p. The p=>q. Or filling in the p and q. The aether is necessary for invariance. Or in other words, invariance implies aether. But the invariance does not imply aether. At least not to the people reading his argument. Or at least that is something he needs to prove. A sub-argument maybe. But he does not do that. He just defines it that way. So what his argument is, is that "light requires aether because I say so." That is not going to cut it as a TOE. I mean it can be his theory, but nobody is going jump on the bandwagon.

The logical conclusion from all this, it that space and time cause the invariance of light speed. The wave aether adds nothing. I could maybe write the whole argument out in formal logic but I am not going to bother. Getting tired and need to eat.

But I will say again that your TOE is going to be very poor if you level of understanding of logic is really what you say here. And of course I have no idea what your TOE is since you have not written it. My supposition is based solely on your comments about my conversation with Mazulu.

See you real soon.

 

Cheezle, I'm not presenting a TOE. I'm sure you knew that. If this wasn't clear, I'll state it now. I started with the assumption that gravity field generators (gravity drives) actually exist. Assuming this is true, then the first challenge is: how are you going to curve space-time without using the stress energy tensor. In other words, a gravity drive should not be hunkered down by insanely huge amounts of mass and energy. A gravity drive is supposed to look "light weight". To answer that question, I have to figure out what space-time, as a medium or substance, actually is. Describing it as nothingness is kind of useless. So I've said this a bunch of times; the space-time continuum is made out of aether waves that obey \(c = \lambda f\). I guess this isn't intuitive. Aether is the "magical placeholder" that physically manifests the laws of physics. Without it, all you have are some physics models.

Break is over. I'll explain more later.

 

That is not exactly true. The title of this thread is Luminiferous Aether Exists. I hope that title was not just a statement and that you had no intention of backing it up. Because you seem to want to argue for it. All through the thread you scatter statements to the fact that everything is made out of wave aether. If that is not a TOE, or a least an informal attempt at one, then what is it.

But I demonstrated how that is circular reasoning. Space and time is made of wave aether. And wave aether is made of space and time (parameters of wave function). You really can't have both of those statements. Because the formula of the wave function includes space and time, if you want to keep the wave aether you have to get rid of "space and time are made of wave aether. So that puts your wave aether as a "layer" between space and time and everything in it. Usually proponents of aether claim that space is filled with aether. And that aether mediates light. Your argument is just a ... brain malfunction.

 

Surely you wouldn't be such a vandal? No, surely not! Anyhow, unlike some 'drive-by' one-liner trolls who trawl the internet and drop their 'loads' of out-of-date and rote-learned 'explanations', I can think and chew gum at the same time while also demonstrating where they are just as bad, and sometimes worse, than the supposed 'cranks' they bully but run away from when actually asked to answer an 'inconvenient' question.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not at all. Like they say, an objective mind can discuss an idea without necessarily having to agree with it before he can discuss it. And you must be getting a little forgetful in your old age; as I specifically told you that he and I differ becaue my energy-space fundamental medium is not of the higher-level differentiated sort like the 'aethers' under discussion here.

Besides, while I may not agree with someone, it doesn't prevent me from applauding and encouraging thinking and finding things out for themselves in whatever way it suits their circumstances/ideas. That is not playing favourites, as you seem to conflate these aspects as you tend to conflate much of what you read from different posters.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The topic I read as Mazulu put it essentially was about waves AS the medium (aether or whatever) which Mazulu implies is necessary for effecting the light propagating/characteristic properties; and that he wishes to experiment based on a hypothesis involving the affecting that wave-aether medium in a particular way with photonic manipulation to produce a 'warp' in that wave-medium analogous to gravity effects. That's the topic I have been reading Mazulu as discussing. What topic are you discussing?

But space and time is abstract math and geometry labels and constructs. It is mute on the objective reality underlying those convenient and useful math/geo constructs and abstraction from it. Whether Mazulu, in interaction with you and/or other interlocutors drops or not whatever parts of his hypothesis/idea is up to him. I have said I have no dog in this race, as my perspective more fundamental and arrives at all these higher order media/vacuum entities/phenomena consistently without ad hoc abstractions etc. Any comments I made regarding your responses and attitudes is just in the interests of fair play when someone has an idea they want to discuss fairly and without tactics and insults from 'the usual suspects' who sometimes are no better informed/understanding of the underlying reality than the cranks they target.

It has more than once been pointed out that 'time' is a derived concept from the real motions in real energy-space by real energy-space features arising, evolving, subsiding as part of the overall fundamental dynamics of the fundamental energy-space. All else is just abstractions for convenience and useful application of the PARTIAL knowledge in the domain of applicability of the partial theory in play in particular area under study. No more; no less. So your space and time is mere abstraction and labeling of the underlying reality I am treating within my TOE consistent and complete from go to whoa.

Some people are easily distracted by all the 'shiny' labels and 'pretty' abstractions and don't even bother to look for the obvious reality staring them in the face. Oh well, it takes all kinds. Live and let live, I say!

Same to you, if your stated aim in life is to delay me as much as possible from getting back to finishing my TOE!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It is not my goal in life but it is a fun and harmless little game to play. After all, I can't force you to post a reply. You do so because you want to.

But I think I am thinking here. And you choose to interpose yourself in the discussion between Mazulu and me. Why do not my ideas not appeal to you? Because they are counter to yours and Mazulu's in some way agrees. I suspect that disagreement is aether. You have hinted that. Yes, yes, yes, we know you have not completed you TOE yet and so we may not discuss what is your theory.

I am discussing Mazulu's theory. Your rendition of his theory is incomplete. It is the stuff you left out that I am arguing with him about.

So as you (being an aussie) go walkabout. Or at least walk down the street, or drive your car, you are traveling through space and time which is just ... wait for it ... an abstract math and geometry of labels and constructs. That must be very disconcerting for you.

You are just being obtuse here.

And there you go, referencing the subject which we may not talk about, your TOE. Why? Because you have not written it.

 

I know you weren't serious, hence the

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

But it's not harmless if it is maliciously played. Believe it or not, I care not only about Mazulu and his own explorations/attitudes to finding out for himself; I also care about you and other minds not yet inculcated into the malicious mod-troll mentality infesting internet forums masquerading as objective scientists when their WRONG 'glib explanations' and 'non-answers' and evasions an double-standards and troll/insult one liners and actions and biased reading speak volumes to the contrary.

Any trouble and time I may have taken out of my life/work schedule to help you realize that this fate is not for you will have been well spent if you do not go the same way because of elitist hubris and bias worse than can be found in the best 'crank'. We are all important. So please take it as a sign of my caring about the humanity as well as the science in everything I have said and done in regards to yourself and your discussion/attitude etc.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's not a matter of 'appeal' or not; it's a matter of discerning between arguing from observable and measurable reality and arguing from labels and abstractions from that reality. The difference is ipso facto and the very nature of the cross-purpose discourse which makes arriving at any common understanding difficult if the OP is presenting Oranges and his counterposed interlocutor is presenting apples while thinking he is 'on the same page' but isn't. Hence the usual cross-purpose exchanges and degeneration into unwarranted tension and impatient retorts etc etc which eventually the mod-troll takes advantage of as the convenient excuse to close down yet another potentially interesting discussion which may affords insights OTHER THAN those originally canvassed by the OP itself.

My observations were on that aspect, trying to bring the oranges-with-oranges exchanges instead of the interminable apples-and-oranges discordant exchanges. Like I said, other than that, I made it quite clear I had no dog in this race and my fundamental medium differs in important respects from Mazulu's. But that does not mean his ideas and experiments on his higher-level type of medium will not lead to any serendipitous insights about that and other things.

The stuff I left out was the 'labels' and 'abstractions'. Which is what Mazulu said from the beginning HE wanted to do also and concentrate only on what he has said (just now repeated by him in his last post to you).

Now, go to it! Good luck to both of you. But please both of you try to discern when one or the other is talking 'apples' and the other 'oranges'!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not at all. That is what YOU 'call' it (label/abstract conceptual/math/geom construct). That is what I have been pointing out to you and everyone. The motion is in energy-space where all the various higher-level differentiated features/phenomena/dynamics arise and subside in. All translation is with respect ultimately to that fundamental energy-space 'physical context'. The 'time' is NOT where you 'translate' through, as it is ONLY ONE WAY construct for analytical abstraction deriving positions and inter-relations over ENERGY-SPACE DISTANCES/POSITIONS in that fundamental physical reality context. Convenient and useful as 'time' is, like I said, it is still a secondary derivation of positions and motions of real things in real fundamental physical context from which we make all the abstractions and label them for our convenience/ordering etc so we can make 'predictions' as to NEXT position/state etc etc in the event/feature under study. That's as far as I have time to point out all that to you. If you still are not quite 'on the same page' with that reality view, then you will have to wait until I publish.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not at all obtuse. Precisely to the point if anything. SR/GR is a geometric/math theory/construct. However useful it is for the limited-domain purposes for which it is applied, it still remains that abstract construct and mute to the actual physical mechanisms underlying those abstractions (eelse we would already have had the consistent GRAVITY explanation to marry and unify all the forces of the partial theories, yes?). And QM, again as useful and predictive of behaviour etc, it is far from any reality explanations as to the funadamental physical context which all the STATISTICAL MODELS and perspectives treat abstractly but not explain as to fundamental mechanisms (again, Gravity is not part of it).

Hence my point. Conventional partial theories/models are abstract and domain-limited, and hence are effectively mute as to actual underlying reality and mechanisms for manifesting the phenomena set which is observed and abstractly modeled and predicted etc. That's as clear as can be to anyone who is aware of what the theories do and do NOT say/do.

I only ever reference it when it becomes necessary to point out the TWO very different approaches to theory. The conventional ones (which inevitably end in labels and abstractions that hit a brick wall when it comes to unification of the various partial theory domains and the unification of the forces/concepts (especially gravity, inertia, energy, space etc). So, if you don't want to hear about my TOE, then don't keep putting labels and abstractions to me as if they were real things.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have written it. It is complete and consistent; so requires extra care to finalize ready to publish. I am not interested in these "publish or perish" types who publish any garbage at the drop of a hat just to retain tenure/funding or make mercenary gains. I am a scientists first and foremost. And patient and thorough with it. Newton and Einstein et al took years to polish their magnum opus before finally publishing. Why should I go against such illustrious precedent to satisfy the time-line and one-line taunts internet trolls (not you, of course, else I wouldn't be spending time talking to you for your benefit as well as for the benefit of science!) with the attention span of a gnat and a malicious and wrecking mentality more suited to vandals ? Are we done, Sir? Request permission to I be excused until we meet again in a few weeks time, Sir!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Good luck. Cheers!

PS: Good night all!

 

If the experiment works, it could lead somebody else to a TOE.

Whoa! Wave-functions are solutions to the Schodinger equation and have nothing to do with space-time.

You asked me what justifies the use of wave-functions as the fabric of space-time. Anwer: quantum vacuum, virtual particles and virtual photons, QED vacuum, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

The whole motivation for this effort is the pursuit of the gravity drive (gravity field generator). Even if I came up with a TOE, what good would it be without an experiment? So I thought it would be more productive to come up with an experiment. I was talking with one of the engineers about this experiment. I told him that light blueshifts when it falls into a black hole. I simply want to perform an experiment to see if it works in reverse. It's that simple. It's not about logic and mathematics. It's about testing an innovative idea.

If you feel frustrated by my explanation, I'm trying to convey the idea aether waves have wavelengths. These wavelengths are what establishes the existence of distance in nature. Aether waves make it possible to transmit electromagnetic waves at each given frequency. I'm sorry it's not linearly logical. I wasn't looking for linear logic. I was looking for an experiment that I could perform and hopefully prove the concept.

 

Welcome to my malicious reply. Yes, I am the evil Cheezle. You on the other hand are a truly, maybe overly caring individual. I picture Crocodile Dundee in the Bronx. Hug a stranger there an lose your limbs. I think I prefer something in-between, but closer to the Bronx than you.

I really have to object to your claiming that my views are inculcation. I have explained that my Science background is pretty minimal. I do sometimes reread a science article a couple times, but that is just because one read often misses some aspects. It isn't like I am chanting orthodox formulae for hours and hours. Om mani padme om and all that crap.

Where a person draws the line between reality and abstraction is actually pretty arbitrary. For instance, Plato in his cave analogy, seems to claim that everything outside of the mind is abstracted. Perhaps on the other side of that abstraction is another reality, but the medium in-between is abstracted. I see his point. Though if you extrapolate the idea you can wind up a solipsist. And that is clearly not a useful view. But in some way, all our experience is taken from abstraction. That is why we experience space and time in a Newtonian way. We never experience objects moving at relativistic speeds, and that is a good thing. Our brains learn (inculcate) to believe that everything is euclidean and newtonian. But it isn't. Experiments tell us that.

I want to say something about your energy/space aether idea here but I can't because you have not written it yet. But I think it was a really good point.

I understand categorical logic. Apples and oranges in your common understanding. I understand the hierarchy of the categories in mazulu's theory. And I have made arguments as to why it is like a brain malfunction. Serendipity has its place. But I am not sure Science is one of those places. Not as an approach anyway. When it does happen in science it is ... well, serendipitous. Accidental, not purposeful. Trying every combination of ideas to try and get a hit, is not a productive or reasonable way to do science.

yes, I understand. You are just being a big brother to someone you feel is being picked on. I was never picked on is school so I guess I don't understand how you guys feel about it. But being odd on purpose is a way to invite the behavior. When someone tells me they have been talking to space aliens I just can't help myself. And I am pretty sure that Mazulu knew that such talk would encourage such behavior. Does that excuse my belittling of space alien contactees? No, but it is so fun I can't help myself.

Duh! That is what I have been trying to do. To get Mazulu to clarify his statements. And to help him adjust to reality. He is in transition right now. Or so we can hope.

blah, blah, blah. I believe that I have said that space and time are not abstractions. I wrote a little post on why even nothingness (not the same as empty space) is not an abstraction. The only real abstractions are the handles or references we use to talk about them with. And as I said, you can draw the line of abstraction|reality where ever you wish. You can choose to abstract everything. I don't know where you draw that line because you have not written your TOE. So your "no dog in this race" makes me wonder why you even bother here. We don't know what your position is. Only that you think that we should all embrace serendipity. And hug each other.

yada yada yada, already talked about the abstraction thing. Gravity... QM is predictive... statistical models... gravity is not part of it ... blah, blah, blah.

not much interesting there. Sorry if my posts were not really exactly on topic. I tend to just scan your writing so that I don't get inculcated by the constant droning repetition of your ... non-written TOE and perhaps disingenuous huggy attitude.

Later gator.

Oops, I thought that was the end. It isn't that I don't want to hear about your TOE. But I don't know what your TOE is. If I talked about what I think it is, then you would have to point out all the differences between my impression of your TOE and what it really is. So, without the labels and abstraction, I really don't know what you are saying. I have to fill in the blanks with something.

I called, it's to you.

 

I will say it again. This thread is about "Luminous Aether Exists", not Gravity Beam experiment proposed. While you do talk about the experiment, you also talk about stuff outside the experiment about the existence of the aether and that space and time are made of wave aether.

I said space and time not spacetime. I am not highly familiar with the Schrödinger equation. But you have been talking wave function and not that. The wave function does seem to deal with wavelengths and time. Got this from wikipedia, perhaps you can comment: "The Schrödinger equation is first order in time and second in space, which describes the time evolution of a quantum state (meaning it determines the future amplitude from the present)." In other forms it seems to involve energy which as we know has the units from space and time. Please correct me if I am wrong.

A TOE is mainly a hypothesis. It should contain an argument for the hypothesis. And is a good idea to indicate experiments that will validate the theory. But the experiment does not have to be complete when the theory is put forth. Case in point, Einstein's theories. TOEs can be informal. They can be just a hypothesis but without an argument they don't amount to much.

Then do your experiment. Why all the extra stuff about wave aether and creating time and space, (and on and on)? Why this thread?

You can't have wavelength without space. some space, any space, does not have to be our space. But if it was not our space then you need a relationship that joins the two concepts, our space to some other space. You really should not try and talk about logic. You really don't know what it is, what it is used for, or how to use it. You would really do your self a favor and take a class in it, or read a book on it. It is even useful for everyday life. Reading the newspaper or book. It is even useful in *gasp* electronics.

once again, this thread is about aether. Not about gravity beams. If your experiment should work, there may be alternate explanations to it that do not involve aether. So your experiment only renders the wave aether a possibility. <--- sheesh, I am so full of it tonight.

 

Not going out for dinner after all, so...

I didn't mean to imply you were malicious in your game playing with others here, I just wanted to cautioned that it could become malicious so easily. Careful, that's all.

Any literature and textbook (school and since), and current 'peer' and 'authority' posters you read here and elsewhere, will subconsciously inculcate you if you don't put up your 'filters' of skeptical challenge to every aspect of 'orthodoxy' and 'glib explanations' which are not explanations but parroted learned-by-rote assumptive interpretations of the phenomena according to preconclusionary orthodoxy which we all operate from subconsciously UNLES we make a conscious effort to question everything. Since you have had no obvious impulse to challenge authority or question any of your subconscious assumptions based in orthodoxy to which you have been exposed, then you are by default mired in inculcated assumptions in your every perspective. It's how open you have been to fair and polite discourse that will tell whether you remain so or not for long. Let's hope for the best!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nothing 'arbitrary' about it, mate. The conventional theories ARE constructed of labels and abstractions from the underlying reality processes/entities which they were designed to calculate/analyze and predict etc in symbolic ways that are useful but not THE reality itself.

No-one "draws a line arbitrarily" between abstraction and reality. It is either treating reality as itself, or treating it as abstractions like I explained already. The math/geom/statistical theories are abstract constructs which are MUTE as to the underlying reality. I want to bridge the gap between abstractions and the reality from which said abstractions are conveniently and usefully made. That is, a complete TOE which has not yet issued from the professional ranks because their partial/limited domain/theories are all abstractions which cannot be unified as they stand because there is no 'reality bridge' between them provided yet by the professionals after 100+ years of abstractions upon abstraction. Someone had to try something radically different from orthodoxy, don't you think?

Sarcasm between friends is ok, but it's never a substitute for actually thinking. The only reason my energy-space aspect was mentioned is to demonstrate where your own abstractions don't reach...down to the most fundamental levels of the reality. You insist on arguing from abstractions perspective and I naturally counter with reality perspective so as to give you pause to think. If you can do that for yourself, you will come to the reality perspective yourself, and will better understand all the surrounding complexity/subtle of what is being discussed in any subject area of the physically real universal phenomena. You have the intellect and I hope the willing to do it for yourself, mate; why need you wait upon me or others to do it for you? Forget me and my TOE. Go for it yourself and see what happens. More fun than playing baiting/sarcastic games on the internet (at least it is for anyone mature enough to have learned a few things in a long and full life).

Have you never heard of 'brainstorming a problem' in scientific, technical and social etc issues? It is designed to sweep away the cobwebs of inculcation and subconscious 'rut following' which stymies advances from the status quo.

Moreover, have you never heard of 'pure research' for its own sake irrespective of what may 'fall out' that could prove useful?

And have you never heard of 'undirected research/experiment/invention' which may be essentially 'solutions in search of a problem'?

You have a lot to learn about not being 'exclusionary' and 'defeatist' and 'pedantic' and (yes, sarcastic) about such other avenues for advancing the status quo and getting out of the rut formed by too long acquaintance with 'herd mentality' mileu'.

Break out of that rut, mate. Live dangerously and think and brainstorm it for yourself. Don't worry about playing games with people you don't know anything about. Just do it for yourself. Good luck.

If you've never been picked on at school then congratulations. I hope you weren't one of the bullies though! If not, don't start now, hey?

As for what people say, it's no business of mine as long as they aren't infringing on anyone's rights and freedoms. I'm sure you have said quite a few things which others may not have liked to hear. So what? Live and let live....unless the 'bully' in one gets the better of one, hey? Be careful, that's all, and be tolerant and less sarcastic and perhaps things will make more sense if you actually take note of all the subtle subtext and context.

He has again and again done exactly that. But you seem pre-occupied with sarcastic game-playing and just won't listen. Where does that put you in the game? The heedless silly game-player more interested in having his 'insensitive fun' than in science discourse. Not a good position from which to keep criticizing others, now is it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How easily I could use that "blah, bla, blah" cheap shot to characterize YOUR posts lately, but I am not into that sort of disrespect for both the poster and the post. My advice: correct that tendency before you turn into something your parents won't like about you.


And all you have offered IS still abstractions and labels from the reality which underlies all these labels and abstractions, as I already explained in an earlier paragraph above.

You make funny sounds, but no real sense there. Just because you're in 'hands over your ears' denial mode about what I explained in that post, it doesn't make the fact of it go away. Denial is not a good sign in a would-be scientist and/or objective thinker and observer.

And again, I could easily resort to "yada yada yada" right back at you, I will not do it because I am not of your present mindset to ignore and play games etc. Have fun. But leave me out of your denial and sarcasm games. Thanks.

That's the problem around here: biased reading or NOT READING at all before the buffoons pretending to be 'scientists' and 'resident experts' open there mouths to comment/deride something which they have no idea what is being said. Class acts, all of them! (now that warranted some sarcasm...and by the way, a word of advice: sarcasm is more effective if used sparingly so as not to give the impression that that's all you have left in the intellect locker 'up top').

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Que sera sera!

I never asked you or anyone to discuss my TOE. The only time it is alluded to in the conversation is when it became necessary to differentiate Mazulu's 'medium' from mine; and when it became necessary to point out the different approaches towards TOE: your ad hoc abstractions based approach and my from scratch reality based starting point approach. The rest is of your construction, not mine.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wisdom comes with the years experience and with the independent use of your noggin. Humanity comes with understanding of what empathy means. Science and knowledge comes from challenging the status quo orthodoxy, always. There are no exceptions or easy alternatives to this. Have you learned that yet?

Just as you like to play sarcastic games with Mazulu, I prefer to ply 'wise up' games with those whose future humanity and science understandings are at a critical point which could so easily be put on the wrong track by the usual mod-troll types infesting the internet. I can only do what I can to warn you and others of that danger to your own objectivity and humanity. Good night again, Cheezle.

Over and out!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand insist that space does not propagate fields, and then on the other, deny that your "solution" is knock-off of the 19th century aether.

No, you're just being slippery. You're masking the only thing that matters in "your theory": a transmission medium. Forget the rest. This is your thrust. It's flat wrong. A transmission medium requires billiard balls and springs. You need a waveguide. You need a conductor. You need a dielectric. You need a ground. You need molecules and materials. And any medium will introduce attenuation, which is defies the reality you pretend to represent. Worse, you need gain to remove the attenuation of the medium. And if you deny that, then you have to admit absorption and re-rediation by aether quanta, which requires the free space between them to radiate. So you haven't solved a single one of your imaginary issues. You've simply multiplied them. What's fatal is that your scheme would have a wind, which has been disproved. Meanwhile, back in reality, fields and waves propagate at c with loss 1/4πr². Static particles emit static fields. Moving particles emit waves. And the radiation is omnidirectional. And the potential at every point in space is the sum of all potentials from all emissions everywhere. Superposition is another intrinsic property of space.

Hah hah hah. Free space path loss is one of the best understood phenomena of nature. You would know this if you'd ever had any actual experience in the science your believe you own the secret answers to.

It's shouting at you: this is radiation. It's not mute at all, you're simply deaf. Your strategy is to turn off your hearing aid and proclaim that it (the screaming evidence) is not there.

What's "at the root" of reality is the square root of µϵ and the root of the sum of squares of displacements. Your denial of this simple fact, and your inability to work through the elementary EM problem I posed (comparing and contrasting the acoustic and EM wave propagation) are what deafen you to the screaming facts of reality. You're just lost in a make-believe world you're calling reality so you can pretend to conquer it.

The fruit you're propounding is way beyond fermentation. And the rest is just nuts.

Translated: you have no clue how to relate emission or stasis to radiation, and how radiation traverses free space unhindered by any mechanism or attenuation, subject only to the path loss 1/4πr². How do "radial vectors" produce an omnidirectional wavefront or field? You've simply invented these abstractions with no basis in reality in order to prop up your silly harebrained scheme. Any vectors I'm referring to subtend the omnidirectional field.

Hah hah there you go again. FEATURES and MECHANISMS are mere abstract labels. Space is chock full o' properties that you will never erase no matter how hard you try. Propagation works the same for static fields as it does for waves. There's no guesswork or abstraction involved. All the science is derived from actually observing nature, not just dreaming up rules to impose on nature, as you're doing.

Then it's not a vacuum. In any case, space - such as "outer space" - is also space - meaning Euclidean space. Space has direction and space has length, area and volume - without any matter occupying it. Most important, fields and waves radiate in space uniformly and omnidirectionally. Space doesn't do anything as you imagine. The field or wave influences every point in space at the maximum rate, c another intrinsic property of space (and spacetime).

You mean space is differentiable? Then that's another property, isn't it? Vacuum energy is irrelevant to field and wave propagation. Again, you're simply imposing this on nature to prop up your silly scheme.

Nope, I'm sticking to my guns, which are as real as the path loss from your screen to your retinas. Your abstractions are not only abstractions, they're wrong ones. There is no mechanism in radiation. And the properties you need to explain are the properties of charge, of mass and of the dipole. You need to explain how radiation occurs at all across any distance. You need to explain radiation whether it relates to a static field or a wave. And you need to steer clear of your putative underlying reality until you've been able to understand tangible reality.

How about solve and let solve? Can you or can you not answer the question I asked? Until you can, you're just tilting at windmills.

 

OK Cheezle, you're just not giving me enough ooh and ahh. You're supposed to be impressed with the idea that someone is developing a gravity field generator. Otherwise, what's the incentive to post here? How it works is extremely hard to explain because the laws of physics are extremely complicated. Then you tell me that you don't understand what wave-functions are, so we don't have a common reference.

I do understand logic. You're being unfair in saying that I don't. The problem is that you've never studied quantum mechanics. So when I talk about wave-functions, you get this "deer in the headlights expression". Come back to me when you've solved an infinite square well problem, and then we'll try again.

Go learn some basic quantum mechanics.

 

RealityCheck,
Cheezle already admitted his problem. He doesn't know any quantum mechanics, at all. Nothin'. Not even an infinite potential well (which is the easiest problem). Without that, he can't grasp the connection I'm making with the aether medium.

By the way, thank you for watching my back amidst the uneducated trolls.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are you really developing a gravity field generator? Or are you investigating whether it is possible? Those are two different things.You can not develop a gravity beam device if it is impossible.

The thing is, I don't have to understand QM to understand your thinking is wrong. I can substitute in the 'p's and 'q's and look at the logic. Logic is the framework for all science and maths. In my logic classes we have done proofs in mathematical subjects that I don't understand. A proof is just logic and the specifics are maths. I have composed proofs in topology (of which I know next to nothing) and number theory( a little), and group theory(nada). The proofs are correct. I just don't understand what they mean.

If you don't understand logic you are doomed to fail at understanding those subjects (physics). In fact, if you don't understand logic, you will have difficulties in understanding most everything. Economics, politics, the news, electronics, anything else you can name. Physics with out logic lets you convince yourself that you can build a gravity beam. Actually there is one thing you don't need logic for. Telepathic communication with space aliens. That is a no brainer.

No, you really don't understand logic. You have no concept of what it is, why it is needed, or how to do it. I could come back to you on the subject of QM and say, "yes I do know QM." And you would know that I don't. That is one of the things about knowledge. Those who know, know what they don't know, and those that don't know, think they know it all. But those who know, know when someone is completely ignorant.

And if we are both honest, the people here in the forums that know QM, are of the opinion that neither of us knows QM. If they had to rate us, they would say on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being knowledgeable, I am a 1 and you are maybe a 3. Some would rate you lower. Some would rate me lower. I doubt any would rate us higher than that.

I am attempting to do just that. I expect to pass you in a year. Not that that is anything to brag about.