# Luminiferous Aether Exists!

I will let you off the hook because you are not capable of understanding that mathematics is a description of the real world, but it's not a substitute of common sense, ingentuity, or even basic relationships between objects.

Mazulu basis his imaginings on what he can see from his living room window.

We could have gravity propulsion generators by now if the physics community would treat the laws of physics as a physical system with a medium, and secondarily as a math system.

Failure to acknowledge the existence of the medium is the biggest blunder the physics community has ever made.

The medium of the quantum vacuum is really very simple. In the x-direction, the medium supports electromagnetic radiation propagation, which looks like this. For light at this frequency to propagate, there must be a standing wave available to transmit the photon(s)at that frequency. There must be a standing wave there to provide the permittivity and permeability of free space. Since there is a whole frequency spectrum, then you need one available wave for each frequency. Each cycle of each frequency has a wavelength which establishes a standard of distance and time for the vacuum. It doesn't matter how fast matter (and its corresponding inertial frame) are moving in the field, the speed of light will always be the same. What will change is the frequency and wavelength.

Time dilation fools physicists into thinking that frequency shift is an effect, not a cause of time dilation. Since the vacuum of space has a medium, a support system for light, with all of the frequencies of the bandwidth (10^27 of them), then time dilation occurs when every one of those frequencies is frequency shifted by the same amount.

You should have thought of this!

Shouldn't this thread be moved to Pseudoscience?

You're right. How can I expect you to have common sense about the real world when you live in a mathematical world.
Newton, Dirac, Maxwell, Stokes, all of those world famous physicists did maths degrees. Hell, I went to the same university college as Newton and Maxwell (and Dirac went next door), doing the same degree.

Classical dynamics, Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, principles of quantum mechanics, applications of quantum mechanics, statistical physics, statistical field theory, special relativity, general relativity, general relativity II, black holes, quantum field theory, advanced quantum field theory, Standard Model, supersymmetry, string theory. All courses I did during my maths degree and masters, all of them about physical models.

The whole "Oh you just do maths, you don't understand physics" thing only ever gets wheeled out by people who know neither. If you know one you know the relative position of the other when it comes to science. Hilbert, possibly the greatest mathematician ever, worked with Einstein on general relativity, he helped formalise the mathematics of it and once said "Physics is to important to be left to physicists". Without mathematics there is no formal language to describe the structure we observe in reality. There's a reason physics degrees require maths qualifications from high school and then have significant numbers of maths modules.

But you wouldn't know, as you haven't got any actual experience with either maths or physics at any real educational level. Instead you have just enough superficial grasp to think you understand a lot. It's the standard thing, the more people learn the more they realise how little they know. I've spent the last decade doing university level maths and physics and I don't know even 0.1% of what is known in those areas. I will never know 0.1%. And yet there are people here who say I think I know everything. No, just enough to run circles around chumps like you.

You want to go head to head on some university level physics? I'll even be nice and not consider university level courses I've been involved in the teaching of.

I will let you off the hook because you are not capable of understanding that mathematics is a description of the real world,
I just explained that mathematics, in the context of physics, is a logical construct within which we attempt to emulate the structures we see in nature. If you're doing to misrepresent someone don't do it to their face. It makes you look both stupid and dishonest.

but it's not a substitute of common sense, ingentuity, or even basic relationships between objects.
Speaking as someone with actual experience doing physics I can categorically state common sense is NOT a good guide in all things. Firstly, different people have different notions of common sense. Motor Daddy thinks common sense shows relativity is wrong. Others would disagree. Delayed quantum eraser experiments are highly counter intuitive.

Common sense and intuition work in every day life because they have developed to deal with everyday life. Humans are O(1) metre in size, always moving at speeds much much less than 1% the speed of light (relative to the Sun), unable to manipulate giga-ton or pico-gram objects easily. As such we do not have experience of things moving at 99% the speed of light on scales of pico-metres at temperatures of trillions of Kelvin. Using common sense is saying "I expect this new system to behave like previous ones I've seen". That's obviously a stupid way to work because not all systems behave in similar ways. We understood electromagnetism before we understood quantum mechanics. The results of quantum mechanics went so against the 'common sense' developed looking at electromagnetism even the Father of Quantum Mechanics, Max Planck, thought he was wrong in his conclusions about quantisation, that there must be some other explanation.

Guiding yourself by common sense is a flawed approach. People can disagree about what is or isn't common sense (it isn't very common) but two people cannot disagree with logical deductions given axioms/postulates. Hence why mathematics is so powerful, it isn't a matter of opinion whether 2+2 is 3, 4 or 5.

By refusing to consider you might need to leave your common sense at the door you're effectively closing off your mind to new concepts, since they will clash with your common sense. I always find it funny when hacks do this, given you're always accusing others of not being open minded enough. If someone can provide compelling evidence for something I don't have a choice in accepting it, it's a matter of rational conclusions. As such despite being an ardent agnostic atheist (they are different things, agnostic means I don't know god exists and atheist means I don't believe god exists) with a decade of mainstream science between his ears I'm willing to put any part of my religious or scientific views in the bin provided a justified, reasonable, logical case can be presented (physical evidence not necessary but preferred, scenario dependent). This is a view a great many scientists have, it is something which stems from rational scepticism. So the question becomes; have you made your case? No.

The other question is whether you have a similar world view, that you'll change your mind on something if sufficient reason and evidence is provided. Again, the answer is a no. As you have demonstrated in this thread (and others), you'll ignore counter examples to your claims and demonstrations your views are sometimes logically inconsistent, never mind unjustified.

If you're unwilling to consider that your common sense might not always be valid then you're committing precisely the mistake you accuse scientists of making. You complain we might miss out on some massive break through if we don't do a particular experiment.

I can tell an engineer what I've told you, and ....:
Looks like you not only don't hold mathematicians or physicists in a high regard but you also have a pretty low view of engineers. If you think what you've presented would convince engineers you're poorly mistaken. Engineers want physical evidence and justification even more than theoretical physicists. There are engineers on this forum, perhaps we should ask them?

and they grasp that the laws of physics are a physical system that might act like mathematics
And again you show how you don't understand, despite me having explained it.

Physics doesn't 'act like mathematics'. We observe reality and see structures, patterns, connections and inter-dependencies. We wish to be able to describe these structures so that we can use physical phenomena to our advantage (ie technology). The role of mathematics in physics (not vice versa) is to allow us to develop abstract constructs with said structures or at least a good approximation. Once we have built the abstract construct we assign labels to the components of the construct, labels which are also for structures we see in reality (mass of an object, it's speed, etc). We then investigate the mathematical construction, seeing what new structures follow from the old (solve equations of motion, organise dependency networks etc). These new structures can then be associated to things in reality and which we can now go out and look for.

Since I'm in little doubt that abstract overview is beyond your capability to grasp I'll give an example. We observe things thrown into the air fall in a rather consistent manner. We therefore can infer there is some kind of relationship between an objects mass, the initial velocity, the height it gets to, the time it takes to come back down etc. We can collect data about how these are related by throwing a ball into the air and measuring the behaviour. Once the data is collected we can start trying to construct an abstract system which has similar behaviour between it's internal components. If we associate the internal components with the physically measurable quantities then by analysing the abstract construct we can try to say things about the motion of the ball we haven't done an experiment on yet.

This is different from your comment "the laws of physics are a physical system that might act like mathematics". Physical phenomena appear to behave in consistent manners. These consistent manners can be (approximately) formalised using mathematics but physics isn't behaving like mathematics any more than Nature behaves a bit like English. English can describe, approximately, parts of Nature, just like maths can describe parts of Nature via the association of abstract concepts (ie words or equations) to observable phenomena.

This might seem like I'm beating a dead horse, going over very basic things, but you aren't showing you understand how physics and maths relate to one another.

I never said the equations had mistakes in them. I asked how does nature continually meet those "perfect standards"?
......
The technology that we use isn't perfect, so errors creep in. How does nature overcome imperfections that might creep in?
......
but it's still a physical system that has to keep errors out and has to make gravity work across light years.
This whole "has to keep errors out" thing is very poor understanding on your part. Saying "This is an error" means there's some 'true' value/result and that hasn't been obtained.

With respect to the earth maintaining an elliptical orbit. With respect to acting like your space-time continuum model says it should.
Wow, you really don't understand, do you? The model is an approximation to the underlying truth, reality. Whatever nature does is the truth and all models have their accuracy measured with respect to that. If Nature does something not in line with the model then the model is broken. There's no errors from Nature's point of view.

If gravity suddenly changed right now and went from $$9.8m/s^{2}$$ to say $$98 m/s^{2}$$ would that be an 'error'? Reality is what reality is so it wouldn't be an error. If our physical models weren't updated to reflect this then we'd have an error. WE would have an error in our attempt to describe something else. How would you spot when Nature makes an error? You cannot since the truth is whatever Nature does.

What you actually should be saying is 'consistent', seems physical Nature is consistent. As a result we built logical structures which have such consistency via mathematics and use them as our description of Nature. A physicist building a model is trying to find a mathematical system which emulates Nature, not the other way around.

We could have gravity propulsion generators by now if the physics community would treat the laws of physics as a physical system with a medium,

and secondarily as a math system.
I've already told you, some of us actually do maths and physics day in, day out as a job so your continued misrepresentation of what we do is flat out lying. You clearly do not know what the scientific method is, what physicists and mathematicians do, how they relate to one another or how they build and use models.

The medium of the quantum vacuum is really very simple. In the x-direction, the medium supports electromagnetic radiation propagation, which looks like this.
Except the quantum vacuum is not an aether. You have already been told this. If all you're going to do is lift results from non-aether models and claim an aether model required to produce them then you're again being dishonest.

Quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate model ever devised by Man. It doesn't involve an aether. Thus it is proof that an aether is not a necessary requirement to accurately model light related phenomena.

Since there is a whole frequency spectrum, then you need one available wave for each frequency.
Except the spectrum is continuous. There are infinitely many different frequencies. Just another example of a very basic gap in your knowledge, one which undermines all the attempts at mathematics you've done so far.

Since the vacuum of space has a medium, a support system for light, with all of the frequencies of the bandwidth (10^27 of them)
How did you arrive at $$10^{27}$$? A photon can have any frequency in principle, if you have the right amount of energy and an appropriate photon generator.

You should have thought of this!
Thought of what? A series of unjustified, error riddled misconceptions which deliberately ignore experimental evidence, logic and rationality? Sorry, I'm required to actually produce results when I do my thinking about mathematics and physics, I don't have the luxury of being able to delude myself and avoid presenting reason and evidence. That would get me fired.

That is where your ability to conceptualize falls apart. Why should Pluto, 6 trillion km away, have an elliptical orbit? Why should Pluto be influenced by the sun at all? If there is no medium, they why should the gravity of the sun have any way at all of influencing the orbit of Pluto? No medium means no long range forces like gravity.
Argument from incredulity/ignorance again. You can't think of any other way therefore you must be right. General relativity has no problem modelling Pluto's orbit yet it has no aether. To answer your question yourself you just need to learn some science. Quantum field theory and GR both lack an aether yet both give working and accurate models of things you claim an aether is needed to describe.

Oh and Pluto's orbit isn't elliptical, no orbit is. Due to perturbations from other planets and secondary effects such as frame dragging (as GR would say) planetary orbits precess. Mercury doesn't follow an ellipse and it's excessively large precession was precisely one of the motivations for developing a replacement for Newtonian gravity (which could only explain part of the precession). Does the fact Mercury doesn't go in an exactly elliptical orbit mean Nature is wrong? No. A mismatch between reality and model means the model is flawed or in the measurements, not in reality.

All of this is an attempt to dodge the issue.
No, it isn't. Does it look like I'm dodging issues given the size of this post? The god question is relevant as you've asserted that since you view "All things which exist has a cause" is common sense and I'm giving you an example of how your own views are self contradictory. I'm showing how your common sense is wrong.

There is no reason to believe that universal constants like G, c, h, permitivity of free space, permeability of free space just exist for no reason. There is no reason why the speed of light should be the same for all observers; but you can't quite grasp that nature is doing something odd.
Questions like "Why are the universal constants constant at the values they have?" come up all the time in physics. You aren't putting forth something I nor anyone else have failed to consider. But no matter what answer can be provided it's always possible to say "But why?".

And asking "What is the cause of the universe being as it is?" is a long way from making assertions about what it is and how it works. You're doing the latter and it isn't science.

You can't grasp that nature is an organized physical system.
How in the hell did you reach that conclusion? Of course Nature is an organised physical system. That's almost a tautology. Like I said before, it's pretty damn stupid to misrepresent someone to their face.

If there were no organized system that stretched across the whole universe, there would be chaos and none of your equations would predict anything. Instead, we observe order. But all you can see is empty space filled with nothing.
I'm wondering if you're really serious. Do you believe what you just said? Or are you just saying it in the hopes you'll convince yourself it's okay to ignore my criticisms and corrections before all I see is 'empty space filled with nothing'?

I view space-time as an extremely interesting and complicated system and that's before you even start putting quantum fields in it. My PhD work was on types of structures extra dimensions of space might take in string theory. I also looked at how the structure of space can encode quantum field theories directly into itself.

In one of his books Feynman recalls how one day he and an artist friend of his were outside and the artist points at a flower and says "I see all the beauty of the flower, the colours of the petals, the aroma of its pollen but to you its just a collection of atoms jittering about". Feynman replied that yes, he could view the flower in terms of component particles but he could also see the colours and smell the aroma. He could see it on more levels than the artist, not less. A similar thing is happening here. You have at your disposal no tool or information which makes your position unique or justified. All of your musings about space are just things you made up or failed to grasp from other people's explanations. I can imagine things about space too. I have listened to other people's ideas. But unlike you I've also come up with working, viable, precise ideas about space which other people have evaluated and found useful and interesting.

In the context of my PhD I would view space not as 'empty space filled with nothing' but an extremely intricate arena within which a flurry of activity in terms of sub-atomic particles occurs, space affecting particles and particles affecting space in an unbelievable elaborate dance of mutual feedback. And the fact I have helped science to understand that in some small way is thanks to both my mathematical capabilities and my imagination. Some of the work even involved consider 'spaces' where the very notions of distance, angles and position are meaningless! How can a string have dynamics in a 'space' devoid of locations? An extremely counter intuitive concept but one which is extremely interesting and explored thanks to mathematical formalisms.

I think your comment says more about you than it does me. Hacks often try to paint their detractors as unimaginative, it's a defence mechanism to convince yourself that it's okay you suck at the details and are functionally innumerate, you're got more imagination. As your inability to think beyond your 'common sense' shows, the one with the least imaginative and most restricted imagination is you.

Mazulu's theory consists of an infinite number of infinitely resiliant rubber bands.

If he can't see something out his window, it can't be.

Newton, Dirac, Maxwell, Stokes, all of those world famous physicists did maths degrees. Hell, I went to the same university college as Newton and Maxwell (and Dirac went next door), doing the same degree.

Classical dynamics, Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, principles of quantum mechanics, applications of quantum mechanics, statistical physics, statistical field theory, special relativity, general relativity, general relativity II, black holes, quantum field theory, advanced quantum field theory, Standard Model, supersymmetry, string theory. All courses I did during my maths degree and masters, all of them about physical models.

The whole "Oh you just do maths, you don't understand physics" thing only ever gets wheeled out by people who know neither. If you know one you know the relative position of the other when it comes to science. Hilbert, possibly the greatest mathematician ever, worked with Einstein on general relativity, he helped formalise the mathematics of it and once said "Physics is to important to be left to physicists". Without mathematics there is no formal language to describe the structure we observe in reality. There's a reason physics degrees require maths qualifications from high school and then have significant numbers of maths modules.

But you wouldn't know, as you haven't got any actual experience with either maths or physics at any real educational level. Instead you have just enough superficial grasp to think you understand a lot. It's the standard thing, the more people learn the more they realise how little they know. I've spent the last decade doing university level maths and physics and I don't know even 0.1% of what is known in those areas. I will never know 0.1%. And yet there are people here who say I think I know everything. No, just enough to run circles around chumps like you.

You want to go head to head on some university level physics? I'll even be nice and not consider university level courses I've been involved in the teaching of.

I just explained that mathematics, in the context of physics, is a logical construct within which we attempt to emulate the structures we see in nature. If you're doing to misrepresent someone don't do it to their face. It makes you look both stupid and dishonest.
I don't want to misrepresent you, I don't want you to misrepresent me either.
Speaking as someone with actual experience doing physics I can categorically state common sense is NOT a good guide in all things. Firstly, different people have different notions of common sense. Motor Daddy thinks common sense shows relativity is wrong. Others would disagree. Delayed quantum eraser experiments are highly counter intuitive.

Common sense and intuition work in every day life because they have developed to deal with everyday life. Humans are O(1) metre in size, always moving at speeds much much less than 1% the speed of light (relative to the Sun), unable to manipulate giga-ton or pico-gram objects easily. As such we do not have experience of things moving at 99% the speed of light on scales of pico-metres at temperatures of trillions of Kelvin. Using common sense is saying "I expect this new system to behave like previous ones I've seen". That's obviously a stupid way to work because not all systems behave in similar ways. We understood electromagnetism before we understood quantum mechanics. The results of quantum mechanics went so against the 'common sense' developed looking at electromagnetism even the Father of Quantum Mechanics, Max Planck, thought he was wrong in his conclusions about quantisation, that there must be some other explanation.

Guiding yourself by common sense is a flawed approach. People can disagree about what is or isn't common sense (it isn't very common) but two people cannot disagree with logical deductions given axioms/postulates. Hence why mathematics is so powerful, it isn't a matter of opinion whether 2+2 is 3, 4 or 5.

By refusing to consider you might need to leave your common sense at the door you're effectively closing off your mind to new concepts, since they will clash with your common sense. I always find it funny when hacks do this, given you're always accusing others of not being open minded enough. If someone can provide compelling evidence for something I don't have a choice in accepting it, it's a matter of rational conclusions. As such despite being an ardent agnostic atheist (they are different things, agnostic means I don't know god exists and atheist means I don't believe god exists) with a decade of mainstream science between his ears I'm willing to put any part of my religious or scientific views in the bin provided a justified, reasonable, logical case can be presented (physical evidence not necessary but preferred, scenario dependent). This is a view a great many scientists have, it is something which stems from rational scepticism. So the question becomes; have you made your case? No.
I thought I wasn't allowed to discuss my feelings and beliefs about God. But you keep bringing it up. If the rules that forbid me from discussing God in this thread will be waived, I will go into that.
The other question is whether you have a similar world view, that you'll change your mind on something if sufficient reason and evidence is provided. Again, the answer is a no.
If LIGO performs frequency shift measurements in a fair and honest attempt to to measure a corresponding acceleration field, then I will accept whatever the experimental results tell us. But until that experiment happens, I will believe that it is possible to synthesize a frequency shift in such a way as to induce a gravity field.
As you have demonstrated in this thread (and others), you'll ignore counter examples to your claims and demonstrations your views are sometimes logically inconsistent, never mind unjustified.
Counter examples? Are you trying to argue that FM broadcasts that don't open wormholes are a counter example?
If you're unwilling to consider that your common sense might not always be valid then you're committing precisely the mistake you accuse scientists of making. You complain we might miss out on some massive break through if we don't do a particular experiment.
You're darn right I believe that. You haven't done the experiment. I have tried to explain why the experiment is justified. But all you tell me is that you are so very smart, and your ego is so big, that I should believe what you say. But that argument is not convincing. If I were engaging in a business transaction, I would never ever ever believe what someone told me on the grounds that they were smart and had a big ego; I would want to see the test results. I would want to hear a compelling argument.
Looks like you not only don't hold mathematicians or physicists in a high regard but you also have a pretty low view of engineers. If you think what you've presented would convince engineers you're poorly mistaken. Engineers want physical evidence and justification even more than theoretical physicists. There are engineers on this forum, perhaps we should ask them?
I will happily explain how to perform the experiment, and justify why it should be performed. I will only believe the experimental results. If they're available, then yes, I would like to make my case to them.
And again you show how you don't understand, despite me having explained it.
Physics doesn't 'act like mathematics'. We observe reality and see structures, patterns, connections and inter-dependencies. We wish to be able to describe these structures so that we can use physical phenomena to our advantage (ie technology). The role of mathematics in physics (not vice versa) is to allow us to develop abstract constructs with said structures or at least a good approximation. Once we have built the abstract construct we assign labels to the components of the construct, labels which are also for structures we see in reality (mass of an object, it's speed, etc). We then investigate the mathematical construction, seeing what new structures follow from the old (solve equations of motion, organise dependency networks etc). These new structures can then be associated to things in reality and which we can now go out and look for.
Yes, I agree that all of what you said is necessary. But the experiment that I propose should still be performed.
Since I'm in little doubt that abstract overview is beyond your capability to grasp I'll give an example. We observe things thrown into the air fall in a rather consistent manner. We therefore can infer there is some kind of relationship between an objects mass, the initial velocity, the height it gets to, the time it takes to come back down etc. We can collect data about how these are related by throwing a ball into the air and measuring the behaviour. Once the data is collected we can start trying to construct an abstract system which has similar behaviour between it's internal components. If we associate the internal components with the physically measurable quantities then by analysing the abstract construct we can try to say things about the motion of the ball we haven't done an experiment on yet.

This is different from your comment "the laws of physics are a physical system that might act like mathematics". Physical phenomena appear to behave in consistent manners.
It is this consistent behavior that catches my attention. It has a system like quality that obeys rules. In the absence of rules, there is chaos and randomness. Something is causing this orderliness, can you see that?.
These consistent manners can be (approximately) formalised using mathematics but physics isn't behaving like mathematics any more than Nature behaves a bit like English. English can describe, approximately, parts of Nature, just like maths can describe parts of Nature via the association of abstract concepts (ie words or equations) to observable phenomena.

This might seem like I'm beating a dead horse, going over very basic things, but you aren't showing you understand how physics and maths relate to one another.

This whole "has to keep errors out" thing is very poor understanding on your part. Saying "This is an error" means there's some 'true' value/result and that hasn't been obtained.
This is where I disagree with you. Keeping errors out is how you maintain orderliness. Nature's ability to keep its laws immutable over 13.7 billion years is remarkable. There is an orderliness to the universe that is not an accident.
Wow, you really don't understand, do you? The model is an approximation to the underlying truth, reality. Whatever nature does is the truth and all models have their accuracy measured with respect to that. If Nature does something not in line with the model then the model is broken. There's no errors from Nature's point of view.
I agree with you that nature, experimental results, tell physicists how to create their model. But the fact that nature is orderly tells me there is a physical system in place, even if we can't detect it.
If gravity suddenly changed right now and went from $$9.8m/s^{2}$$ to say $$98 m/s^{2}$$ would that be an 'error'? Reality is what reality is so it wouldn't be an error. If our physical models weren't updated to reflect this then we'd have an error. WE would have an error in our attempt to describe something else. How would you spot when Nature makes an error? You cannot since the truth is whatever Nature does.
But can you see what I'm saying? Yes, of course, nature is always right. But can you see that nature has a habit of being extremely predictable. There is a definite reason why. Maybe it's because of how space and time are put together.
What you actually should be saying is 'consistent', seems physical Nature is consistent. As a result we built logical structures which have such consistency via mathematics and use them as our description of Nature. A physicist building a model is trying to find a mathematical system which emulates Nature, not the other way around.

I've already told you, some of us actually do maths and physics day in, day out as a job so your continued misrepresentation of what we do is flat out lying. You clearly do not know what the scientific method is, what physicists and mathematicians do, how they relate to one another or how they build and use models.

Except the quantum vacuum is not an aether. You have already been told this. If all you're going to do is lift results from non-aether models and claim an aether model required to produce them then you're again being dishonest.

Quantum electrodynamics is the most accurate model ever devised by Man. It doesn't involve an aether. Thus it is proof that an aether is not a necessary requirement to accurately model light related phenomena.

Except the spectrum is continuous. There are infinitely many different frequencies. Just another example of a very basic gap in your knowledge, one which undermines all the attempts at mathematics you've done so far.

How did you arrive at $$10^{27}$$? A photon can have any frequency in principle, if you have the right amount of energy and an appropriate photon generator.
Yes, you're right. If I said, (f_min,f_max:EM), would you understand that I am talking about the range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum, from the lowest frequency to the highest, and everything in between?
Thought of what? A series of unjustified, error riddled misconceptions which deliberately ignore experimental evidence, logic and rationality? Sorry, I'm required to actually produce results when I do my thinking about mathematics and physics, I don't have the luxury of being able to delude myself and avoid presenting reason and evidence. That would get me fired.

Argument from incredulity/ignorance again. You can't think of any other way therefore you must be right. General relativity has no problem modelling Pluto's orbit yet it has no aether. To answer your question yourself you just need to learn some science. Quantum field theory and GR both lack an aether yet both give working and accurate models of things you claim an aether is needed to describe.
Will you please tell me what you mean by an aether medium? I get a sens that our definitions are different.
Oh and Pluto's orbit isn't elliptical, no orbit is. Due to perturbations from other planets and secondary effects such as frame dragging (as GR would say) planetary orbits precess. Mercury doesn't follow an ellipse and it's excessively large precession was precisely one of the motivations for developing a replacement for Newtonian gravity (which could only explain part of the precession). Does the fact Mercury doesn't go in an exactly elliptical orbit mean Nature is wrong? No. A mismatch between reality and model means the model is flawed or in the measurements, not in reality.
They all obey general relativity which is an organized set of equations that are very reliable. A physicist might program those equations into a mainframe down at NASA. How does nature do it? What is nature's mainframe? What is nature's equivalent to a mainframe that models GR?
No, it isn't. Does it look like I'm dodging issues given the size of this post? The god question is relevant as you've asserted that since you view "All things which exist has a cause" is common sense and I'm giving you an example of how your own views are self contradictory. I'm showing how your common sense is wrong.

Questions like "Why are the universal constants constant at the values they have?" come up all the time in physics. You aren't putting forth something I nor anyone else have failed to consider. But no matter what answer can be provided it's always possible to say "But why?".

And asking "What is the cause of the universe being as it is?" is a long way from making assertions about what it is and how it works. You're doing the latter and it isn't science.

How in the hell did you reach that conclusion? Of course Nature is an organised physical system. That's almost a tautology. Like I said before, it's pretty damn stupid to misrepresent someone to their face.

I'm wondering if you're really serious. Do you believe what you just said? Or are you just saying it in the hopes you'll convince yourself it's okay to ignore my criticisms and corrections before all I see is 'empty space filled with nothing'?

I view space-time as an extremely interesting and complicated system and that's before you even start putting quantum fields in it. My PhD work was on types of structures extra dimensions of space might take in string theory. I also looked at how the structure of space can encode quantum field theories directly into itself.

In one of his books Feynman recalls how one day he and an artist friend of his were outside and the artist points at a flower and says "I see all the beauty of the flower, the colours of the petals, the aroma of its pollen but to you its just a collection of atoms jittering about". Feynman replied that yes, he could view the flower in terms of component particles but he could also see the colours and smell the aroma. He could see it on more levels than the artist, not less. A similar thing is happening here. You have at your disposal no tool or information which makes your position unique or justified. All of your musings about space are just things you made up or failed to grasp from other people's explanations. I can imagine things about space too. I have listened to other people's ideas. But unlike you I've also come up with working, viable, precise ideas about space which other people have evaluated and found useful and interesting.
OK then, how do you reproduce gravitational time dilation using only light?
In the context of my PhD I would view space not as 'empty space filled with nothing' but an extremely intricate arena within which a flurry of activity in terms of sub-atomic particles occurs, space affecting particles and particles affecting space in an unbelievable elaborate dance of mutual feedback. And the fact I have helped science to understand that in some small way is thanks to both my mathematical capabilities and my imagination. Some of the work even involved consider 'spaces' where the very notions of distance, angles and position are meaningless! How can a string have dynamics in a 'space' devoid of locations? An extremely counter intuitive concept but one which is extremely interesting and explored thanks to mathematical formalisms.
I think your comment says more about you than it does me. Hacks often try to paint their detractors as unimaginative, it's a defence mechanism to convince yourself that it's okay you suck at the details and are functionally innumerate, you're got more imagination. As your inability to think beyond your 'common sense' shows, the one with the least imaginative and most restricted imagination is you.
If you say so, but I have an experiment for a gravity drive. Do you?

Last edited:
How in the hell did you reach that conclusion? Of course Nature is an organised physical system. That's almost a tautology. Like I said before, it's pretty damn stupid to misrepresent someone to their face.
In all fairness, it gets confusing that this organized physical system is implemented by machinery that is undetectable. Machinery is an awkward word. All I see is the EM frequency band (f_min, f_max:E&M) without energy. It's like the first layer or first prerequisite for a quantum vacuum. It establishes time, distance and the infrastructure for light propagation. Light needs permittivity, permeability, speed c, and some defined relationship to energy via E=hf. The Planck constant connect frequency to energy. This first prerequisite layer, for a quantum vacuum, tries to conserve energy. As a physical system, you can find a vulnerability in it; at which time new energy can be created. New energy will cause new curvature as the medium produces the appropriate amount of gravity. But what do we care if we produce new energy/new gravity, so long as we can use it to travel to Mars.

This point is a bit confusing. You create new energy by, for example, lifting your spaceship into orbit. It looks like you're manipulating gravity. But the fact that you manipulated the medium into moving your ship into space caused new energy to exist. Then, in turn, the medium has to compensate for new energy by creating new gravity. New gravity is the price you pay for getting new energy; it's not what you use for propulsion. Sorry if this seems like a silly subtle point.

I am glad that we agree that nature is an organised physical system.

I don't want to misrepresent you, I don't want you to misrepresent me either.
Then I suggest you stop telling me what I think about space or how scientists work.

I thought I wasn't allowed to discuss my feelings and beliefs about God. But you keep bringing it up. If the rules that forbid me from discussing God in this thread will be waived, I will go into that.
Your particular religious views are not relevant and I'm not asking you about them. I'm giving an example of how your own common sense fails. I'm doing this because you claim common sense should be the guide in science. How are you failing to understand this, I've explained it several time!

You have said the following three things :
1. Common sense should be our guide
2. God exists
3. It is common sense that all things which exist have a cause.

Putting 2 and 3 together we have that god exists and has a cause. If this is the case what caused god? Another god? If god has no cause then you've contradicted 3 so your common sense has failed and thus you've contradicted 1.

So if you believe god is the 'primary cause', the entity with no cause, then you have contradicted 3 and thus proven 1 to be false.

If LIGO performs frequency shift measurements in a fair and honest attempt to to measure a corresponding acceleration field, then I will accept whatever the experimental results tell us. But until that experiment happens, I will believe that it is possible to synthesize a frequency shift in such a way as to induce a gravity field.
You need to look up what LIGO actually measures.

Counter examples? Are you trying to argue that FM broadcasts that don't open wormholes are a counter example?
Where did you pull that one from? Seriously, are you now just trolling? Counter examples I'm referring to are things like the whole "Common sense is the guide" claim I just explained (again!) or how it's possible to model to extreme precision the behaviour of light without needing to invoke an aether.

You're darn right I believe that. You haven't done the experiment. I have tried to explain why the experiment is justified.
You haven't justified anything, you've just asserted.

But all you tell me is that you are so very smart, and your ego is so big, that I should believe what you say.
Wow, where to start. I just openly admitted to knowing only a tiny tiny fraction of physics. You claim GOD speaks to you and you want to call me egotistical?! You're asserting you know how reality works! And I explicitly said that I am not all knowing, just sufficiently capable to run rings about people like you. For example, consider quantum mechanics. The attempts you've made to talk about wave functions here are laughable. Undergraduates doing their first course in quantum mechanics know more than you. Thus anyone who has attended a single lecture series on quantum mechanics so far outstrips you in quantum mechanics knowledge that you might believe they think they know everything when in fact they know almost nothing. The fact you know so little means that anyone who has any real knowledge in the subject appears all knowing to you.

I will happily admit that compared to most quantum mechanics academics I'm not very knowledgeable. 10 years of university level learning is nothing compared to 40 or 50 years some of them have, to say nothing of how many of them are much smarter than I. However, 10 years is thousands of times more than you have. I don't think I'm oh so smart, I just think I'm oh so much smarter than you at this stuff. It might be considered impolite in usual conversation for such things to be said but never-the-less, it's demonstrable.

But that argument is not convincing.

If I were engaging in a business transaction, I would never ever ever believe what someone told me on the grounds that they were smart and had a big ego; I would want to see the test results. I would want to hear a compelling argument.
Except I haven't been saying "I'm smart, I have qualifications, accept what I say". I have stated my background because on a number of occasions you have said things like "I don't think you know any maths, do you even know how to do Latex?" or "You just did maths, you don't know physics" etc.

I presented arguments against your claims, explaining things about quantum fields or space-time, and you tried to ignore me by spewing out such comments. By showing I'm not just a layperson passing on someone else's understanding I'm showing you cannot use the "You're not sufficiently familiar with this stuff" dodge method.

And it's funny how you say you wouldn't accept someone saying "I'm smart, listen to me" yet you expect people to listen to your "I'm talking with god, listen to me"!

I will happily explain how to perform the experiment, and justify why it should be performed. I will only believe the experimental results. If they're available, then yes, I would like to make my case to them.
You think you know how to do the experiment but I've already explained to you how your experiments don't do as you claim.

It is this consistent behavior that catches my attention. It has a system like quality that obeys rules. In the absence of rules, there is chaos and randomness. Something is causing this orderliness, can you see that?.
Asking "What is the origin of existence? Why is it as it is?" is fine. But then just making up an answer isn't. It's intellectually honest to say "I don't know" when you don't know. Making up some bull answer is dishonest.

This is where I disagree with you. Keeping errors out is how you maintain orderliness. Nature's ability to keep its laws immutable over 13.7 billion years is remarkable. There is an orderliness to the universe that is not an accident.
You make it sound like there's something fighting against the laws of nature, that if left unchecked they stop working. You're anthropomorphising things with intent.

I agree with you that nature, experimental results, tell physicists how to create their model. But the fact that nature is orderly tells me there is a physical system in place, even if we can't detect it.
The fact there's order in the universe doesn't mean there's an aether. You're making complete non-sequitors.

Maybe it's because of how space and time are put together.
But then you can ask "But why are time and space put together like that?" and if you find the answer you can then ask "But why did it do that to time and space?", on and on. You can always ask "But why is it like that?" for anything, it's an infinite sequence.

It's precisely this which the ontological argument tries to cheat. Everything needs an explanation. God explains the universe. But then what explains God? Oh he doesn't need an explanation? Why not cut out a step and just say the universe doesn't need one then.

Much of your arguments boil down to wanting to provide an explanation for things. What explains your explanation? Then what explains that? And that? And that? And that? Seriously, what explains your god.

Yes, you're right. If I said, (f_min,f_max:EM), would you understand that I am talking about the range of frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum, from the lowest frequency to the highest, and everything in between?
There is no finite frequency range.

Will you please tell me what you mean by an aether medium? I get a sens that our definitions are different.
You've been using it to refer to some medium which supposes light, just as air supports sound waves. I'm referring to that sort of aether.

They all obey general relativity which is an organized set of equations that are very reliable. A physicist might program those equations into a mainframe down at NASA. How does nature do it? What is nature's mainframe? What is nature's equivalent to a mainframe that models GR?
When you jump into the air do you have to compute the forces your muscles exert, the moments exerts about your knees and hips, the energy conservation which determines how high you jump? No, things just do as they do. Particles bouncing around could be much like that. Nature doesn't solve equations any more than you calculate gravitational field equations when jumping into the air.

OK then, how do you reproduce gravitational time dilation using only light?
Why do you think your question is a valid one? Your understanding of gravity and light is demonstrably very poor so simply making up some leading question doesn't make your assertions correct. It's possible to make gravitational fields using light due to the fact light contributes to the $$T_{\mu\nu}$$ part of the field equations. Producing a sequence of photons with different frequencies doesn't imply you'll produce a gravitational field of the sort you've been talking about.

I've already been over this with you. A gravitational field can alter a single photon's frequency in a smooth manner. One photon's frequency changes as it moves through the field. Your 'experiment' involves firing lots of different frequency photons. Each individual photon keeps it's frequency the same as it moves. Since electromagnetic effects are quantised you have to have the frequency change in discrete steps. These are two entirely different physical set ups so your demand they be compared and your claim the latter will produce the former's gravitational field is clearly false, we don't even have to do the experiment.

I don't think you'd understand. Sorry, I know you won't understand. Besides, I don't think I'm going to feed your self delusions by having a proper discussion about actual research. You want to play physicist, despite the fact you know nothing of it.

If you say so, but I have an experiment for a gravity drive. Do you?
No, I have actual published research and a research job. I have something to show for my musings about physics.

Besides, you think you have an experiment, which I've already explained is flawed. Simply making up something nonsensical doesn't elevate you. The fact I don't have an experiment idea for a gravity drive doesn't elevate you. You keep doing this, assuming that if no one else puts forth something then your random uninformed guessing is somehow more valid. It isn't. It stands or falls on it's own merits, other people's work is entirely separate. And your claim fall flat on their face.

Then I suggest you stop telling me what I think about space or how scientists work.

Your particular religious views are not relevant and I'm not asking you about them. I'm giving an example of how your own common sense fails. I'm doing this because you claim common sense should be the guide in science. How are you failing to understand this, I've explained it several time!

You have said the following three things :
1. Common sense should be our guide
2. God exists
3. It is common sense that all things which exist have a cause.

Putting 2 and 3 together we have that god exists and has a cause. If this is the case what caused god? Another god? If god has no cause then you've contradicted 3 so your common sense has failed and thus you've contradicted 1.
So if you believe god is the 'primary cause', the entity with no cause, then you have contradicted 3 and thus proven 1 to be false.

You need to look up what LIGO actually measures.
Where did you pull that one from? Seriously, are you now just trolling? Counter examples I'm referring to are things like the whole "Common sense is the guide" claim I just explained (again!) or how it's possible to model to extreme precision the behaviour of light without needing to invoke an aether.
You haven't justified anything, you've just asserted.

Wow, where to start. I just openly admitted to knowing only a tiny tiny fraction of physics. You claim GOD speaks to you and you want to call me egotistical?! You're asserting you know how reality works! And I explicitly said that I am not all knowing, just sufficiently capable to run rings about people like you. For example, consider quantum mechanics. The attempts you've made to talk about wave functions here are laughable. Undergraduates doing their first course in quantum mechanics know more than you. Thus anyone who has attended a single lecture series on quantum mechanics so far outstrips you in quantum mechanics knowledge that you might believe they think they know everything when in fact they know almost nothing. The fact you know so little means that anyone who has any real knowledge in the subject appears all knowing to you.

I will happily admit that compared to most quantum mechanics academics I'm not very knowledgeable. 10 years of university level learning is nothing compared to 40 or 50 years some of them have, to say nothing of how many of them are much smarter than I. However, 10 years is thousands of times more than you have. I don't think I'm oh so smart, I just think I'm oh so much smarter than you at this stuff. It might be considered impolite in usual conversation for such things to be said but never-the-less, it's demonstrable.
Except I haven't been saying "I'm smart, I have qualifications, accept what I say". I have stated my background because on a number of occasions you have said things like "I don't think you know any maths, do you even know how to do Latex?" or "You just did maths, you don't know physics" etc.
I presented arguments against your claims, explaining things about quantum fields or space-time, and you tried to ignore me by spewing out such comments. By showing I'm not just a layperson passing on someone else's understanding I'm showing you cannot use the "You're not sufficiently familiar with this stuff" dodge method.
And it's funny how you say you wouldn't accept someone saying "I'm smart, listen to me" yet you expect people to listen to your "I'm talking with god, listen to me"!
You think you know how to do the experiment but I've already explained to you how your experiments don't do as you claim.
You'll have to refresh my memory. All I have from you are pages and pages of you dancing around the issue. If there was a kill shot, I would have remembered it.
Asking "What is the origin of existence? Why is it as it is?" is fine. But then just making up an answer isn't. It's intellectually honest to say "I don't know" when you don't know. Making up some bull answer is dishonest.

You make it sound like there's something fighting against the laws of nature, that if left unchecked they stop working. You're anthropomorphising things with intent.

The fact there's order in the universe doesn't mean there's an aether. You're making complete non-sequitors.

But then you can ask "But why are time and space put together like that?" and if you find the answer you can then ask "But why did it do that to time and space?", on and on. You can always ask "But why is it like that?" for anything, it's an infinite sequence.

It's precisely this which the ontological argument tries to cheat. Everything needs an explanation. God explains the universe. But then what explains God? Oh he doesn't need an explanation? Why not cut out a step and just say the universe doesn't need one then.

Much of your arguments boil down to wanting to provide an explanation for things. What explains your explanation? Then what explains that? And that? And that? And that? Seriously, what explains your god.
I've also said that aliens told me. Maybe I should add to that, that a little birdy whispered it into my ear. I also said that I had a hunch. But you've made a career out of getting hung up on the wrapping material and the box. Hint! Hint! Look inside the box! Do you have a gravity drive experiment? No! I do. Use mine!

There is no finite frequency range.
Time dilation frequency shifts the whole EM frequency band. But the only thing we have to work with is the EM frequency band.

You've been using it to refer to some medium which supposes light, just as air supports sound waves. I'm referring to that sort of aether.

When you jump into the air do you have to compute the forces your muscles exert, the moments exerts about your knees and hips, the energy conservation which determines how high you jump? No, things just do as they do. Particles bouncing around could be much like that. Nature doesn't solve equations any more than you calculate gravitational field equations when jumping into the air.

Why do you think your question is a valid one? Your understanding of gravity and light is demonstrably very poor so simply making up some leading question doesn't make your assertions correct. It's possible to make gravitational fields using light due to the fact light contributes to the $$T_{\mu\nu}$$ part of the field equations. Producing a sequence of photons with different frequencies doesn't imply you'll produce a gravitational field of the sort you've been talking about.

I've already been over this with you. A gravitational field can alter a single photon's frequency in a smooth manner. One photon's frequency changes as it moves through the field. Your 'experiment' involves firing lots of different frequency photons. Each individual photon keeps it's frequency the same as it moves. Since electromagnetic effects are quantised you have to have the frequency change in discrete steps. These are two entirely different physical set ups so your demand they be compared and your claim the latter will produce the former's gravitational field is clearly false, we don't even have to do the experiment.

I don't think you'd understand. Sorry, I know you won't understand. Besides, I don't think I'm going to feed your self delusions by having a proper discussion about actual research. You want to play physicist, despite the fact you know nothing of it.

No, I have actual published research and a research job. I have something to show for my musings about physics.

Besides, you think you have an experiment, which I've already explained is flawed.
No, you've argued a contradiction. You say that photons are free to fly throughout the cosmos, free of a medium, fee of anything that could impose a restriction on them. But then you say that, somehow a non-magical magic imposes conservation of energy on them, time dilation, length contraction, invariance of c, and all of these other dependencies. You trip over the giant invisible elephant (the ether), in the middle of the room. You make all the jokes about how it's a pink giant invisible elephant and say how 500 years of developed logic prevents nature from acting that way. But the joke is on you. Nature was defying logic 13.7 billion years before the dawn of reason.
Simply making up something nonsensical doesn't elevate you. The fact I don't have an experiment idea for a gravity drive doesn't elevate you. You keep doing this, assuming that if no one else puts forth something then your random uninformed guessing is somehow more valid. It isn't. It stands or falls on it's own merits, other people's work is entirely separate. And your claim fall flat on their face.
I gotta go to work. I'll blow holes in your argument during my breaks.

You'll have to refresh my memory. All I have from you are pages and pages of you dancing around the issue. If there was a kill shot, I would have remembered it.
I've shown your claim "Common sense should be the guide" to be false. I've shown you don't know quantum mechanics. I've shown you don't know what Lorentz invariance is. I've shown that your representations of physicists is false. I've shown how your own experiment doesn't do what you think it does.

It'd be much easier if I just listed those claims of yours which have stood up to scrutiny

....

....

I've also said that aliens told me. Maybe I should add to that, that a little birdy whispered it into my ear. I also said that I had a hunch.
Have you had a psych evaluation recently? If you're hearing a god and aliens speaking to you you're potentially a danger to yourself and others.

But you've made a career out of getting hung up on the wrapping material and the box.
no, my career is in mathematical physics research.
I could tell you the details but I'd violate confidentiality agreements, plus you wouldn't understand.

Hint! Hint! Look inside the box! Do you have a gravity drive experiment? No! I do. Use mine!
Still doing the "If I assert it enough then it'll become true!" method.

Time dilation frequency shifts the whole EM frequency band. But the only thing we have to work with is the EM frequency band.
And yet your own experiment doesn't do as you think it does. I've explained several times, you just don't get it.

No, you've argued a contradiction. You say that photons are free to fly throughout the cosmos, free of a medium, fee of anything that could impose a restriction on them. But then you say that, somehow a non-magical magic imposes conservation of energy on them, time dilation, length contraction, invariance of c, and all of these other dependencies.
So your argument is "There's structure in nature. Therefore an aether". Utterly unjustified.

You trip over the giant invisible elephant (the ether), in the middle of the room. You make all the jokes about how it's a pink giant invisible elephant and say how 500 years of developed logic prevents nature from acting that way.
Remember how you said you don't like people misrepresenting you and I said how you misrepresented me. You're doing it again, hypocrite!

I gotta go to work. I'll blow holes in your argument during my breaks.
I don't think you'd be able to blow holes in a paper bag. If you hear god then you've lost a grip on reality and given your frankly laughable attempts to assert things rather than provide evidence you clearly don't possess the faculties to do proper physics or maths. You don't even grasp the scientific method. Whatever job it is you do clearly you aren't the 'skilled' science employee, someone else does the actual science.

The luminiferous aether is a medium that propagates light (through a vacuum). The carrier for electromagnetism is the virtual photon. A virtual photon is a photon that only exists for a short time because it doesn't have enough energy. If you add energy, then virtual photons become real photons.

The scientific community claims that the aether does not exist. Can someone explain to me why virtual photons, which fill the vacuum of space everywhere in the universe, are not the luminiferous aether?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/compton.html#c1

Note that Compton scattering recoil angles are never unstable, and no hindrance to that angle is ever encountered in experiment. This should preclude a confidence in the extreme "sterile vacuum" of space (at least where particles as large as photons and electrons are concerned).

Virtual objects emanate of much smaller dynamical regions then large particles of photon complexity.

Further study topics: QUARK, GLUON, PLANK-REALM, ZERO-POINT.

Mazulu, et al,

First, let me say, I read all 52 entries. I'll be honest, I don't understand it all. Yet, I really don't see an answer to this, which I think is rather obvious.

The luminiferous aether is a medium that propagates light (through a vacuum). The carrier for electromagnetism is the virtual photon. A virtual photon is a photon that only exists for a short time because it doesn't have enough energy. If you add energy, then virtual photons become real photons.

The scientific community claims that the aether does not exist. Can someone explain to me why virtual photons, which fill the vacuum of space everywhere in the universe, are not the luminiferous aether?
(COMMENT)

Well, a virtual photon is something mentioned in numerous experiences. They are often mentioned being bounced off mirrors.

Example

So, it would seem to me, that one could make a cube of mirrors, evacuate the center (vacuum) and then bounce the virtual protons off the outside, yet shoot an RF signal right through the mirror cage. The RF signal will propagate through the cage, where the virtual proton will not.

I'm confused. Whatever it is that is necessary to allow the RF signal to propagate through the vacuum inside the mirror cube, it does not appear to be the "virtual proton."

Most Respectfully,
R

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/compton.html#c1

Note that Compton scattering recoil angles are never unstable, and no hindrance to that angle is ever encountered in experiment. This should preclude a confidence in the extreme "sterile vacuum" of space (at least where particles as large as photons and electrons are concerned).

Virtual objects emanate of much smaller dynamical regions then large particles of photon complexity.

Further study topics: QUARK, GLUON, PLANK-REALM, ZERO-POINT.

Keith,
Thank you fir bringing up a good point. They discovered quarks while bombarding protons with electrons (I believe). They described a kind of lumpiness which they pursued, and found quarks.

The kind of medium I'm talking about is not lumpy, nor is it made of smaller parts. I'm talking about some kind of infrastructure that supports the supports electromagnetism, permitivity, permeability, the electromagnetic frequency spectrum, angles, positions and directions, conservation of energy, and gravity over long distances. Like I've said before, it's something that is subtle, but it has to keep the constants the same value all over the universe. This kind of medium has to reach everywhere in the universe. If not, then why wouldn't those value drift?

The speed of light is an invariant for all inertial frames. That is a clever trick of nature. How does nature do that? The only way I can that nature could do that is if nature employs something with waves, E&M waves, that obey $$c=\lambda f$$ that performs all of the length and time measurements. But it can't be the photon because photons are localized; but it could be a support system for the photon.

Virtual objects emanate of much smaller dynamical regions then large particles of photon complexity.

Further study topics: QUARK, GLUON, PLANK-REALM, ZERO-POINT
Virtual particles are not particles which lack energy (as Mazulu claimed, thus showing another example of his ignorance). Rather they are particles which do not obey the Einstein SR relationship $$E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}$$. A particle which obeys that is known as 'on-shell' while a particle which doesn't obey it is 'off-shell' or 'virtual'. The equation is actually a statement about 4-momenta and causality. However, despite not obeying the equation it isn't possible to get virtual particles to violate causality. Effect still follows cause etc. Off-shell particles only occur in scattering fluctuations, they are not directly observable.

You mention quarks and gluons but they are no more virtual than anything else. ALL particles can come in on-shell and off-shell varieties. For example, if a photon splits into a matter-antimatter charged pair (say positron-electron or quark-antiquark or $$W^{+}$$-$$W^{-}$$ etc), which then recombine back into the original photon then the pair can be off-shell.

These off-shell fluctuations allow quantum field theory to describe processes a non-relativistic quantum mechanics model couldn't. Things like the uncertainty principle and off-shell internal loops in scattering processes give rise to phenomena non-relativistic quantum mechanics cannot describe. It's such corrections in QED which led to the prediction of the g-2 value of the electron accurate to parts per trillion, the most accurate quantitative non-trivial prediction in all of science, ever.

Unfortunately Mazulu doesn't want to listen to that, he wants to continue asserting an aether is essential. And I've already tried explaining to him why the quantum vacuum is not an aether, he didn't listen. There are things in the subatomic world which behave differently from anything in our everyday experience. As a result the common sense and intuition of a layperson not only aren't a help, they are a hindrance! Despite being given explicit examples of such failures of common sense Mazulu continues to assert his claim. Why let honesty and rationality get in the way of a good delusion?

Like I've said before, it's something that is subtle, but it has to keep the constants the same value all over the universe. This kind of medium has to reach everywhere in the universe. If not, then why wouldn't those value drift?
Why would they drift? You've asserted that without a medium all the properties of the universe would start drifting. Why must it be an aether? Why can't it be a quantum field or space-time itself? Or just God's will, holding all the constants constant? After all, if god made everything, he sets the rules. Why can't he just decree things like the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames?

The speed of light is an invariant for all inertial frames. That is a clever trick of nature. How does nature do that? The only way I can that nature could do that is if nature employs something with waves, E&M waves,
The only way you can think of. You aren't the measuring stick by which reality is evaluated. Your lack of imagination doesn't constraint other people's imagination nor the universe itself. You can't think of any way to describe light but via a medium but I can think of alternatives. Or rather I can tell you alternatives other people thought up, like quantum field theory.

Your arguments boil down to "I can't think of anything else so my random ignorant guess must be true!". It's a logical fallacy parade!

that obey $$c=\lambda f$$
ALL waves obey such a relationship, $$v = \lambda f$$. It's a trivial relationship between the properties of a wave.

that performs all of the length and time measurements.
You're anthropomorphising nature. As my example about how you don't need to calculate field equations to jump up in the air illustrated, things don't 'measure' and 'calculate', they can just do.

But it can't be the photon because photons are localized; but it could be a support system for the photon.
Could be, you said it yourself.

At any point do you plan to present a new argument or are you just going to keep asserting the same debunked things again and again? Can't you think on your feet and come up with something new? Can't you provide evidence? Can't you provide an aether based working model of some observed light related phenomena? Can't you grasp basic logic and see your assertions are not tautologically true?

Correct alpha.

It's an aether field, aether in the sense of being aetherial. It has a ghost like quality to it. The aether medium is made of aetherial E&M waves; they provide the infrastructure for light to operate (c, permitivity, permeability, conservation of energy, etc.); and they provide the long range reach that gravity needs to keep Pluto in her orbit (and everything else). The medium cannot be proven to exist, but you can sort of tell that it must be there. It's easy to overlook. On behalf of the laws of physics, I offer an apology to anyone who doesn't understand.

You can tell that the aether(ial) medium is made of waves because energy is transmitted through the medium as EM waves. The speed of light is invariant because, if an RF station broadcasts a signal, the only way the energy can travel is through the medium as a wave. As a wave, it is unavoidably subject to $$c = \lambda f$$. If you're in a rocket traveling really really fast (wrt the broadcast tower), you might bump into signal being broadcast. That energy is going to reach your spaceship at the speed of light. But the broadcast traveling through the aether is going to be blueshifted and will reach the inertial frame of the rocket as a wave, a blueshifted wave. The energy is in the wave(s) of the aether medium; how could it go any faster than c?

Why would they drift? You've asserted that without a medium all the properties of the universe would start drifting. Why must it be an aether? Why can't it be a quantum field or space-time itself? Or just God's will, holding all the constants constant? After all, if god made everything, he sets the rules. Why can't he just decree things like the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames?
I work in manufacturing as an electronics technician. If it doesn't work, it comes to me. I stay very busy. It's something that you learn from experience. 99% of the cars you buy, at a used car lot, are broken. If given enough time, anything and everything won't work right and has to be fixed or replaced. Sure, maybe God did decree it, but someone or something has to implement it. That's where errors, conflicts and problems creep in. It's just a fact of life. Good question.
The only way you can think of. You aren't the measuring stick by which reality is evaluated. Your lack of imagination doesn't constraint other people's imagination nor the universe itself. You can't think of any way to describe light but via a medium but I can think of alternatives. Or rather I can tell you alternatives other people thought up, like quantum field theory.
It's the misconception about implementation rearing its ugly head. There are lots of smart and creative people with great ideas in their head. But getting an idea out of one's head and creating it physically are two completely different things. When you have to physically implement something, then you discover all of the little problems that kill most great ideas.
Your arguments boil down to "I can't think of anything else so my random ignorant guess must be true!". It's a logical fallacy parade!

ALL waves obey such a relationship, $$v = \lambda f$$. It's a trivial relationship between the properties of a wave.
Oh, not trivial! Very very reliable and easy to grasp. Easy to use. Easy to implement. Simple things are usually the most reliable. If it can go wrong, it will. If it's complicated, it will have lots of ways to go wrong.
You're anthropomorphising nature. As my example about how you don't need to calculate field equations to jump up in the air illustrated, things don't 'measure' and 'calculate', they can just do.

Could be, you said it yourself.

At any point do you plan to present a new argument or are you just going to keep asserting the same debunked things again and again? Can't you think on your feet and come up with something new? Can't you provide evidence? Can't you provide an aether based working model of some observed light related phenomena? Can't you grasp basic logic and see your assertions are not tautologically true?
The aetherial medium is made of waves. Energy propagates throught the waves as electromagnetic energy. It doesn't matter how fast you're traveling relative to something else, or how strong the gravity is here or there, two things that are created from the waves will transmit and receive E&M waves at the speed of light, at the speed of the wave. All that changes is $$\omega$$ and $$\vec k$$. But the speed of light remains invariant.

Last edited: