'Spooky action at a distance.'

The point is that the aether model WAS mainstream and was discarded because it was unable to correctly account for observations and experimental results.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh yeah, now I remember. You have this crazy fantasy about breaking the code of Nazi aliens or something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Could we not say the same for the standard model.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would not give out secrets of it in a context like this, particularly since there would be nothing in it for me. -I believe uncovering aetheric forces technologically would be a potentially major finding. -I'd say more about it, but it's unfeasible here.

 

Well yes, that is my point exactly. The fact that general relativity and quantum field theory cannot be unified is a very strong indication for this in my opinion.

 

Do you have any idea how that sounds to us? Anyway, In that case I strongly advise you to not say anything here or anywhere else about this because it serves no purpose. In particular not to you or your credibility.

Besides that I believe that selfishness is the root cause for many (if not all) of the problems of the world, I believe that these kinds of problems cannot be solved without collaborating with others.

Understatement! That would be spectacular because at the moment the smartest people of our time (think it is safe to say, smarter than you and me) are convinced the non-existence of etheric forces has been proven technologically.

 

Harry T.

You make the point that the current scientific consensus is that the ether does not exist, and has been technogically disproven. -I have discussed this subject in a previous Thread (Using a Contiguous Ether...) which is now on Page 2 of Alternative Theories. -In February, in that Thread, Danshaween raised the exact same point about my aether model. -I replied by going over the well known Michelson Morley experiment (MMX) of 1887, which, together with several subsequent slightly modified versions of it, are still put forth by science, as showing an aether "could not exist."

The key operating concept of the MMX was that any aether would necessarily have a "wind-drag" effect as Earth moves through it, which should be measurable using optical refractive techniques.

That concept however assumed that any type of aether would have to have inertial properties with respect to Earth. -My model of the aether is non-inertial. In my aether model, the aether acts via energically-contiguous resonations between elemental aether units. Thus, in my model, the aether would be energic, but non-inertial, so that the key MMX criterion for dismissing an aether would not hold.

The idea of my aether is that although the elemental aether units are not physically contiguous in space, they resonate with each other by the effect of their vibrations interconnecting, an effect analogous to their having "nodes" that touch.

The "smart" scientifists you are falling back on agree among themselves that our available data based on quantum energy systems (which act differently from my vibratory aether, i.e., by energy processes involving spin, vectors, and so on) and which "work" in our earthly world, also is applicable to forces in space. -I submit that those celestial forces arose from, and involve, the aether, and we'll never understand them unless we go back to the old ("pre MMX") approach to energy theory.

 

No that is not necessary all that is need is that there is a relative motion of the earth to the aether. None was detected - no aether.

No that is not the problem. It is really very simple. IF there is a medium (aether) in which light propagates, then by measuring the speed of light at different seasons the movement of the earth should be able to be detected as it moves through the aether. There is no difference in the speed of light EVER - therefore there is no aether.

 

What if his aether were an electric field, it could not be detected by any means because it would encompass the entire Universe. If we think about when the electrons and protons first condensed after the BB their electric fields started expanding at c and are still expanding at c, maybe those fields are what we call space.

 

So you are now saying that the medium that photons propagate through is an electric field? You realize that an electric field is a vector quantity so the field has direction, that means it would be easy to detect by measuring the force that the field would exert on a charged mass.
If it were somehow possible that photons propagate through an electric field (which is really not possible), does that mean that the strength of the electric field would affect the speed or frequency of the photon? That would be very easy to test.

Did your confidential source say that the aether is an electric field or is that your idea?

 

origin:

Your point of objection, that Earth's motion "relative to an aether" should have been detected in the MMX would not apply to a kind of aether proposed in my Model. In my model, the aether is universal, and elemental aether units constantly resonate throughout the aether, both in space and in solid bodies. -In my model, Earth itself has an aetheric aura, primarily composed of elemental aether units, the same kind of units as compose the aether of space, and in my model, a process of resonance, like all aetheric processes, would be primarily mediated at the level of elemental aether units, be resonational, and thus be energically-contiguous from bodies into space, without inertial effects such as a relative motion-differential between the aether of space and the aether of earth itself. (A new aether-resonance model of gravity is possible with this framework; the auras of two solid bodies are composed of the same elemental aether units as the space between them). -Your objection is basically the same my aether model always encounters from quantum empiricists - they cite data from our observed quantum-forces world, apply familiar inertial-world concepts to it, and say they "are disproving" a non-inertial aether.

 

Did the electron and proton have an electric field when it was created? If so then those fields started expanding at c and are still expanding at c every time one of them gets moved. You do know that every time a charged particle is accelerated it creates a photon. BTW, what confidential source are you referring to, I didn't mention a confidential source? What's the problem Ori, I just mention a new line of thought and you have a heart attack?

 

So the aether is not an electric field after all.

I have some questions.

OK

What do you mean by resonates?

What do you mean by aura? I thought that an aura was a paranormal thing about something emanating from life.

What is an aether unit? How big are they? How do they transmit light?

That sentence makes no sense to me.
Please define resonance, energically-contiguous and relative motion-differential.
How is the resonance mediated by the elemental aether units?

I don't think I am a quantum empiricist. What exactly is a quantum empiricist?

I do not really know what you even mean by "our quantum-forces world". I simply think that Relativity and Maxwell's equations do an excellent job of explaining the peculiarities of light and that does not require a medium. Light propagates through a vacuum.
You need much more than conjecture (and inconsistent conjecture at that) to resurrect the aether.[/QUOTE]

 

I certainly would assume so.

The fields will continue to expand at c even if the charged particles are not moved. A magnetic field requires the charged particle to move but an electric field does not.

I do not think that is correct. I believe that is only true if the charged particle is accelerated by an electric or magnetic field.

Oops my error, I mixed you up with Michael Anteski, you both are saying essentially the same thing about aether.

It is against the rules of the forum to deliberate alter a member’s name.
My heart is fine. I am simply asking questions about your new line of thought. I think it is clear that I think you are wrong on your conjecture - but there is no need to get upset, this is your opportunity to convince me and everyone else that your idea has merit.

 

Mmm, sounds to me like your aetheric aura is basically identical to what I would call a gravity field. As I said before: I can see how an ether model could work very well as a model, but I am convinced that no ether actually exists. Yes, that may make things a bit more spooky, but luckily I don’t believe in ghosts.

 

Reply to questions for me in origin's last post-

1) "Resonate" in my aether model refers to the way elemental energic aether units connect with each other resonationally. -As each unit vibrates, the width of their vibrations is wide enough so that they connect with other vibrating elemental units. The process can be conceptualized as analogous to the units having "nodes" that contact each other. These resonations are "loose," not fixed, so that a dynamic aetheric matrix can change. depending on local conditions, potentially producing larger energy units such as quantum units, by magnetically forming entrainment-linkages.

2) "Aura." -Inasmuch as aetheric forces are universal, they exist inside solid bodies, and are constantly interacting with other aether units, both inside a body, and in the space near the body. The latter is referred to as the aura. Inasmuch as a solid body contains a higher concentration of energy units (especially including aether units, which are the basis for the atomic and quantum units) than plain space does, it builds-up, in the space next to a body, a higher amount of aetheric forces, compared to the space farther away from the body. At present, we are not able to detect the aether or the aura (except indirectly, as in Kirlian photography of such phenomena as the auric phantom-leaf effect).

3)What are aether units? How do they transmit light? -In my aether model, the units of the aether originated from space which initially comprised oscillations of spatial point-localities. This transitioned from oscillating elemental spatial localities to vibrational elemental units, which, being vibratory rather than oscillatory, are energic. -I have presented a more detailed model in a previous thread which you can find on page 2 of Alternative Theories.
In my model, light is fundamentally transmitted as a vibratory impulse conducted from elemental aether unit-to-unit in the aether. Light beams are transmitted from star system to star system in the aether, with larger energy units, quantal photons, being generated along the path of the aetheric units. The aether transmissions consist of packets of aether units having a particular vibratory pattern, characteristic of light transmissions). -Although we on earth are able to see only the quantal photons, from the energy-theory standpoint, quantal photons are really only "incidental" by products of the basic aether transmissions.

4)I don't know how to clarify the word "contiguity" in the process of elemental aether units resonating with each other. "Contiguity," to me, means they touch, or contact, each other, as they vibrate in space close-by each other. As they connect with each other, they are able to induce energic processes of impulse-transmission, or magnetically- entrained linkages.

5)"Quantum empiricist" was used to refer to scientific theorists who use only data coming from observations of phenomena mediated by quantum energies in our earth environment. -I maintain that this approach is keeping us from understanding the true nature of the forces in the cosmos, which originated from the aether.

 

OK. Good luck.

 

I type with one finger so it is easier to shorten names.

I could have sworn that is what I said.

If you move an electron you had to accelerate it by some means. If there is another means of creating photons I am unaware of the process. As far as I know accelerating a charged particle is the only way.

I am simply offering a fact that the field of charged particles has existed since just after the BB and as such could be construed as the space that photons propagate through.

 

You said, "You do know that every time a charged particle is accelerated it creates a photon."
I said that is only true if the electron is accelerated by a magnetic or electric field. So I was disputing your claim that a photon is created every time a charged particle is accelerate , call it nit-picking if you want.

Another way to create photons is through fusion reactions.

But if the charged particles are not physically touching then the photons must propagate through a vacuum between particles, no?

 

Fusion reactions accelerate electrons and protons so violently that gamma photons are created.

When a charged particle is moved(accelerated) it's field starts expanding from the charged particles new position. That change from one position to the next IS the photon. If you can't see that Origin then there is no reason to continue our discussion.