The question of whether there is a medium has been put too rest in the minds of main stream science. Could that be because it does not fit in the direction main stream has taken? There is the static medium that was disproved by the MM experiments. There was the frame dragging medium that was tested and found that if the design of the test was correct than there is no frame dragging medium. There is one more medium that has not been tested for I believe. That would be the frame creating medium. That would tie Relativity too a medium rather than merely postulates.
Please neg-ers need not respond. Ideas might be right or wrong with references. An exchange of ideas are more important for triggering thought than worrying about being correct in your ideas.
To all Neg-ers this is not an attempt to stop the weekly negs I am receiving from those that fear the possibility of change.
Please give me all the negs for just bringing up the subject not the responders.
Please allow free thought without reprisals.
A frame-creating medium isn't too far off the mark, 4Dguy.
Do note however that frames do not actually exist. They have no tangible substance. And nor does the medium. It's space, vacuum, emptiness. There's nothing there. But it is still a medium. The trick to it is this: Space is a one trick pony, and the only trick is distance.
OK, now, a photon is a transverse wave. It's a ripple, and it travels through space at velocity c. So what is it?
Do note however that frames do not actually exist. They have no tangible substance. And nor does the medium. It's space, vacuum, emptiness. There's nothing there. But it is still a medium. The trick to it is this: Space is a one trick pony, and the only trick is distance.
OK, now, a photon is a transverse wave. It's a ripple, and it travels through space at velocity c. So what is it?
Farsight,
Knowing what you know about it being a ripple (I agree) which is more likely? A ripple moving across a medium of substance with the speed of lights inertia? What allows your wave too speed up and slow down through gravitational space? What allows your wave too have refractive index and not lose its momentum due to collisions? If the inertia is already in the medium those questions are automatically answered. You are missing the entropy with the change of conditions.
Knowing what you know about it being a ripple (I agree) which is more likely? A ripple moving across a medium of substance with the speed of lights inertia? What allows your wave too speed up and slow down through gravitational space? What allows your wave too have refractive index and not lose its momentum due to collisions? If the inertia is already in the medium those questions are automatically answered. You are missing the entropy with the change of conditions.
Do note however that frames do not actually exist. They have no tangible substance.
Kind of like gravity, it has no tangible substance either so gravity does not actually exist.
This is great not too be bothered by fixed thinkers. The next step might be to try and find how the medium interacts with mass. All of relativity must be consistent with a proposed medium like Latrosicarius has suggested. All have had great input.
fizzeksman
latrosicarius
latrosicarius
I think it's interesting how many people on one hand, insist on the Einsteinian model of space being a material foundation that can be bent, curved, and dragged, manifesting itself as gravity; yet on the other hand profusely deny the possibility of an aether substrate.
At first glance they are two very similar concepts, distinguished only by application.
Majkl
Latrosicarius
Latrosicarius
Aether would help to answer many questions. Unfortunately, no aether proponent can successfully answer why aether would affect objects in so many ways, but somehow not impart resistance on them.
What seems funny to me is mass has entropy but light does not seem to have that same entropy. We could be looking at this backwards. If the energy of space drives the very electrons that mass is composed than entropy of mass is just a move too a lower energy level of space. So rather than be a resistance too mass it would actually be the reason mass is able too move.
Farsite
A ripple in the medium of course.
Ivars
A ripple in the medium of course.
Ivars
If there was a medium that has laminar motion with infinite speed in all directions and in homogenous (Eculidian) vacuum, that is , far from masses?
Of course energy of space would be a type of inertial mass too small to detect. There may be micro mass, Mass and macro mass. Our detection is from the electron to the universe. Is the Universe an electron of macro mass? How slow there seconds must be. Micro mass may consider mass extremely slow. Just because we can not detect something does not mean it does not exist. There may be far more going on than we can imagine.
I am of the Tesla aether opinion... crossed electric and magnetic forces creating an centric increasing pressure towards any cosmic matter
The aether is therefore an electrodynamic medium (plasma with a specific structure) where matter is forced to move if it is able to move.
Thus the planets are driven in their orbits.... and this is quite apparent when you look at the bow shock waves, magnetopause etc created as a planet is pushed through the aether.
Thus the aether does offer resistance to matter. It is all a matter of differential pressures.... all caused by and encircling (spherical) both passive and active matter.
One must remember that only in the last several decades has electrodynamics come of age and space craft have identified the reality of ring currents, bow shocks, termination shock, heliosheaths etc
all unknown to Newton and Tesla... if Tesla was alive today his cosmic theories would be superior to even ESGT. That man is a LEGEND !!!!!!!
The aether is crystalline, with magnetic Bloch walls, slipstreams and other structures yet to be characterised
QUOTE
OK, now, a photon is a transverse wave. It's a ripple, and it travels through space at velocity c. So what is it?
Knowing what you know about it being a ripple (I agree) which is more likely? A ripple moving across a medium of substance with the speed of lights inertia? What allows your wave too speed up and slow down through gravitational space? What allows your wave too have refractive index and not lose its momentum due to collisions? If the inertia is already in the medium those questions are automatically answered. You are missing the entropy with the change of conditions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| OK, now, a photon is a transverse wave. It's a ripple, and it travels through space at velocity c. So what is it? |
Knowing what you know about it being a ripple (I agree) which is more likely? A ripple moving across a medium of substance with the speed of lights inertia? What allows your wave too speed up and slow down through gravitational space? What allows your wave too have refractive index and not lose its momentum due to collisions? If the inertia is already in the medium those questions are automatically answered. You are missing the entropy with the change of conditions.
Do note however that frames do not actually exist. They have no tangible substance.
Kind of like gravity, it has no tangible substance either so gravity does not actually exist.
Hi 4D
Space as a substance exists whether it's called space, spacetime, or ether. It is a viscous, containable, displaceable, substance, with known properties that are likely to be rejected by those who deny the role it plays as the most basic constituent element of the universe.
An acknowledgement of the non-deniable properties of space allows for acceptance of definitions of energy... as kinetic, compressible space in motion, for particles... as orbs or vortexes of space with rotational kinetic energy, for surface tension.. as a difference of relative velocity of space in motion, for magnetic fields... as space in motion, or, density of space that varies with time, for re-defining electromagnetic radiation... to consist of magnetic properties only, and to a realization that energy transference (action at a distance) can only be accomplished via contact or transference through a medium.
Gravity and inertia can also be accounted for... as background radiation inherent to, and inseparable from, space itself.
Particles are accepted to exist as a manifestation of space and energy. Convert all particles in the universe to energy and we are left with space and energy only. Energy then must be a property of space itself... as the two are inseparable. For space to function as energy, it must possess the properties of kinetic inertia, for when in motion it must remain in motion until the kinetic energy of that motion is transferred or dissipated, and the property of compressibility, which allows for the transference of that motion over time, allowing the formation of a timeline. IMO
It's really a shame that the sole purpose of many on this forum is to dismiss out of hand and try vehemently to discredit any idea not found in their textbooks. The scientific method is supposed to be all about learning by asking questions, and experimenting for observation, rather than dismissal, because the answers are assumed.
Jack
Space as a substance exists whether it's called space, spacetime, or ether. It is a viscous, containable, displaceable, substance, with known properties that are likely to be rejected by those who deny the role it plays as the most basic constituent element of the universe.
An acknowledgement of the non-deniable properties of space allows for acceptance of definitions of energy... as kinetic, compressible space in motion, for particles... as orbs or vortexes of space with rotational kinetic energy, for surface tension.. as a difference of relative velocity of space in motion, for magnetic fields... as space in motion, or, density of space that varies with time, for re-defining electromagnetic radiation... to consist of magnetic properties only, and to a realization that energy transference (action at a distance) can only be accomplished via contact or transference through a medium.
Gravity and inertia can also be accounted for... as background radiation inherent to, and inseparable from, space itself.
Particles are accepted to exist as a manifestation of space and energy. Convert all particles in the universe to energy and we are left with space and energy only. Energy then must be a property of space itself... as the two are inseparable. For space to function as energy, it must possess the properties of kinetic inertia, for when in motion it must remain in motion until the kinetic energy of that motion is transferred or dissipated, and the property of compressibility, which allows for the transference of that motion over time, allowing the formation of a timeline. IMO
It's really a shame that the sole purpose of many on this forum is to dismiss out of hand and try vehemently to discredit any idea not found in their textbooks. The scientific method is supposed to be all about learning by asking questions, and experimenting for observation, rather than dismissal, because the answers are assumed.
Jack
Aether would help to answer many questions. Unfortunately, no aether proponent can successfully answer why aether would affect objects in so many ways, but somehow not impart resistance on them.
In other words, the biggest dilemma with Aether is, why doesn't the aether put drag on the Moon, slow it down over time, and cause it to crash into the Earth? (a general example question)
In other words, the biggest dilemma with Aether is, why doesn't the aether put drag on the Moon, slow it down over time, and cause it to crash into the Earth? (a general example question)
If there was a medium that has laminar motion with infinite speed in all directions and in homogenous (Eculidian) vacuum, that is , far from masses?
Then photon would be seen as something able to propagate against that infinite speed by infinity- c, so it moves vs. it with speed c.
That is the most it can achieve as it is relatively low energy device, lazy. It wiggles hard enough to stay at c reltive to flowing medium, it does not oscillate frequently enough to catch its tail.
As it reaches frequency where it can catch its tail , positron/electron pair appears. These are particles, part of photons energy goes into their intenal energy, part in speed.
Particles would be able to slow down more - meaning they do more work to stay relatively motionless vs. that medium- but they do not succeed quite - having finite mass, so their speed is infinity - v.
As particles, they can be visualized like nuts, having Mobius dougnut (excuse me for repeating old ideas) shape, so they can use all rotation frequency trying to screw themselves (sorry again) on the incoming infinite stream. That makes them slower than ligth which is unable to reduce its speed relative to moving media below c. Particles can reduce it as their mass grows, but to STOP fully they must have either infinite rotation speed or infinite radius.
So that was a little expansion on idea that media can be infinitely fast moving laminar stream of space, and physical things kind of manage to stay behind its flow spead by a certain amount of infinity, smaller than the speed of stream, but still infinite. The difference between those infinities are the finite speeds we observe.
Of course, more likely ratios not differences are involved, so any speed being a ratio is in fact a ratio of 2 infinities- one of them being infinite speed of flow, or time, another speed of delayed physical objects relative to it, delay caused by their complexity of form compared to pure motion, or flow of time.
Then photon would be seen as something able to propagate against that infinite speed by infinity- c, so it moves vs. it with speed c.
That is the most it can achieve as it is relatively low energy device, lazy. It wiggles hard enough to stay at c reltive to flowing medium, it does not oscillate frequently enough to catch its tail.
As it reaches frequency where it can catch its tail , positron/electron pair appears. These are particles, part of photons energy goes into their intenal energy, part in speed.
Particles would be able to slow down more - meaning they do more work to stay relatively motionless vs. that medium- but they do not succeed quite - having finite mass, so their speed is infinity - v.
As particles, they can be visualized like nuts, having Mobius dougnut (excuse me for repeating old ideas) shape, so they can use all rotation frequency trying to screw themselves (sorry again) on the incoming infinite stream. That makes them slower than ligth which is unable to reduce its speed relative to moving media below c. Particles can reduce it as their mass grows, but to STOP fully they must have either infinite rotation speed or infinite radius.
So that was a little expansion on idea that media can be infinitely fast moving laminar stream of space, and physical things kind of manage to stay behind its flow spead by a certain amount of infinity, smaller than the speed of stream, but still infinite. The difference between those infinities are the finite speeds we observe.
Of course, more likely ratios not differences are involved, so any speed being a ratio is in fact a ratio of 2 infinities- one of them being infinite speed of flow, or time, another speed of delayed physical objects relative to it, delay caused by their complexity of form compared to pure motion, or flow of time.
I found the following on the net some time ago. DOnt know about credibility of the link but here it is.
Here is an excerpt:
Tesla's ether was neither the "solid" ether with the "tenuity of steel" of Maxwell and Hertz, nor the half-hearted, entrained, gaseous ether of Lorentz. Tesla's ether consisted of "carriers immersed in an insulating fluid", which filled all space. Its properties varied according to relative movement, the presence of mass, and the electric and magnetic environment.
Tesla's ether was rigidified by rapidly varying electrostatic forces, and was thereby involved in gravitational effects, inertia, and momentum, especially in the space near earth, since, as explained by Tesla, the earth is "...like a charged metal ball moving through space", which creates the enormous, rapidly varying electrostatic forces which diminish in intensity with the square of the distance from earth, just like gravity. Since the direction of propagation radiates from the earth, the so-called force of gravity is toward earth.
Here is an excerpt:
Tesla's ether was neither the "solid" ether with the "tenuity of steel" of Maxwell and Hertz, nor the half-hearted, entrained, gaseous ether of Lorentz. Tesla's ether consisted of "carriers immersed in an insulating fluid", which filled all space. Its properties varied according to relative movement, the presence of mass, and the electric and magnetic environment.
Tesla's ether was rigidified by rapidly varying electrostatic forces, and was thereby involved in gravitational effects, inertia, and momentum, especially in the space near earth, since, as explained by Tesla, the earth is "...like a charged metal ball moving through space", which creates the enormous, rapidly varying electrostatic forces which diminish in intensity with the square of the distance from earth, just like gravity. Since the direction of propagation radiates from the earth, the so-called force of gravity is toward earth.
^ You forgot to provide your source.
Just throwing this out there:
I think it's interesting how many people on one hand, insist on the Einsteinian model of space being a material foundation that can be bent, curved, and dragged, manifesting itself as gravity; yet on the other hand profusely deny the possibility of an aether substrate.
At first glance they are two very similar concepts, distinguished only by application.
Also related would be the argument for/against the existence of an absolute reference point. A material space would imply there is an absolute reference point. An immaterial space would imply there is not.
I think it's interesting how many people on one hand, insist on the Einsteinian model of space being a material foundation that can be bent, curved, and dragged, manifesting itself as gravity; yet on the other hand profusely deny the possibility of an aether substrate.
At first glance they are two very similar concepts, distinguished only by application.
Also related would be the argument for/against the existence of an absolute reference point. A material space would imply there is an absolute reference point. An immaterial space would imply there is not.
This is great not too be bothered by fixed thinkers. The next step might be to try and find how the medium interacts with mass. All of relativity must be consistent with a proposed medium like Latrosicarius has suggested. All have had great input.
fizzeksman
QUOTE
Convert all particles in the universe to energy and we are left with space and energy only. Energy then must be a property of space itself... as the two are inseparable.
latrosicarius
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Convert all particles in the universe to energy and we are left with space and energy only. Energy then must be a property of space itself... as the two are inseparable. |
latrosicarius
I think it's interesting how many people on one hand, insist on the Einsteinian model of space being a material foundation that can be bent, curved, and dragged, manifesting itself as gravity; yet on the other hand profusely deny the possibility of an aether substrate.
At first glance they are two very similar concepts, distinguished only by application.
Majkl
QUOTE
Tesla's ether was neither the "solid" ether with the "tenuity of steel" of Maxwell and Hertz, nor the half-hearted, entrained, gaseous ether of Lorentz. Tesla's ether consisted of "carriers immersed in an insulating fluid", which filled all space. Its properties varied according to relative movement, the presence of mass, and the electric and magnetic environment.
Latrosicarius
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Tesla's ether was neither the "solid" ether with the "tenuity of steel" of Maxwell and Hertz, nor the half-hearted, entrained, gaseous ether of Lorentz. Tesla's ether consisted of "carriers immersed in an insulating fluid", which filled all space. Its properties varied according to relative movement, the presence of mass, and the electric and magnetic environment. |
Latrosicarius
Aether would help to answer many questions. Unfortunately, no aether proponent can successfully answer why aether would affect objects in so many ways, but somehow not impart resistance on them.
What seems funny to me is mass has entropy but light does not seem to have that same entropy. We could be looking at this backwards. If the energy of space drives the very electrons that mass is composed than entropy of mass is just a move too a lower energy level of space. So rather than be a resistance too mass it would actually be the reason mass is able too move.
Farsite
QUOTE
Do note however that frames do not actually exist. They have no tangible substance. And nor does the medium. It's space, vacuum, emptiness. There's nothing there. But it is still a medium. The trick to it is this: Space is a one trick pony, and the only trick is distance.
OK, now, a photon is a transverse wave. It's a ripple, and it travels through space at velocity c. So what is it?
OK, now, a photon is a transverse wave. It's a ripple, and it travels through space at velocity c. So what is it?
A ripple in the medium of course.
Ivars
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do note however that frames do not actually exist. They have no tangible substance. And nor does the medium. It's space, vacuum, emptiness. There's nothing there. But it is still a medium. The trick to it is this: Space is a one trick pony, and the only trick is distance. OK, now, a photon is a transverse wave. It's a ripple, and it travels through space at velocity c. So what is it? |
A ripple in the medium of course.
Ivars
If there was a medium that has laminar motion with infinite speed in all directions and in homogenous (Eculidian) vacuum, that is , far from masses?
Of course energy of space would be a type of inertial mass too small to detect. There may be micro mass, Mass and macro mass. Our detection is from the electron to the universe. Is the Universe an electron of macro mass? How slow there seconds must be. Micro mass may consider mass extremely slow. Just because we can not detect something does not mean it does not exist. There may be far more going on than we can imagine.
QUOTE
Aether would help to answer many questions. Unfortunately, no aether proponent can successfully answer why aether would affect objects in so many ways, but somehow not impart resistance on them.
I am of the Tesla aether opinion... crossed electric and magnetic forces creating an centric increasing pressure towards any cosmic matter
The aether is therefore an electrodynamic medium (plasma with a specific structure) where matter is forced to move if it is able to move.
Thus the planets are driven in their orbits.... and this is quite apparent when you look at the bow shock waves, magnetopause etc created as a planet is pushed through the aether.
Thus the aether does offer resistance to matter. It is all a matter of differential pressures.... all caused by and encircling (spherical) both passive and active matter.
One must remember that only in the last several decades has electrodynamics come of age and space craft have identified the reality of ring currents, bow shocks, termination shock, heliosheaths etc
all unknown to Newton and Tesla... if Tesla was alive today his cosmic theories would be superior to even ESGT. That man is a LEGEND !!!!!!!
The aether is crystalline, with magnetic Bloch walls, slipstreams and other structures yet to be characterised
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 14 2008, 06:36 PM)
Aether would help to answer many questions. Unfortunately, no aether proponent can successfully answer why aether would affect objects in so many ways, but somehow not impart resistance on them.
In other words, the biggest dilemma with Aether is, why doesn't the aether put drag on the Moon, slow it down over time, and cause it to crash into the Earth? (a general example question)
An electrostatic aether wouldn't impart any resistance. It would account for all the properties we can measure which we attribute to the force we call gravity as well as some properties we haven't found and will ultimately be responsible for a revolution in technology and humankind's mastery of it environs.
In other words, the biggest dilemma with Aether is, why doesn't the aether put drag on the Moon, slow it down over time, and cause it to crash into the Earth? (a general example question)
An electrostatic aether wouldn't impart any resistance. It would account for all the properties we can measure which we attribute to the force we call gravity as well as some properties we haven't found and will ultimately be responsible for a revolution in technology and humankind's mastery of it environs.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Apr 15 2008, 12:00 AM)
What seems funny to me is mass has entropy but light does not seem to have that same entropy.
Are you sure?
Are you sure?
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 14 2008, 09:57 PM)
^ You forgot to provide your source.
http://netowne.com/technology/important/
Additional interesting thing one can read about in this link is that Tesla was not completely satisfied with Maxwell, Einstein, Hertz ideas.
Similar thing can be noticed with Carver Mead (collective electrodynamics) who is a - matter is waves - proponent. Carver Mead not completely satisfied with Maxwell ideas and if one has read an interview with Carver Mead he says that photoelectric effect is a problem of the measuring instruments of that time. Basically it was the best we could do at that time and nothing else. Both of these persons are great inventors, experimenters and have had years and years of hands on experience on things and both made revolutionary technological contributions.
http://netowne.com/technology/important/
Additional interesting thing one can read about in this link is that Tesla was not completely satisfied with Maxwell, Einstein, Hertz ideas.
Similar thing can be noticed with Carver Mead (collective electrodynamics) who is a - matter is waves - proponent. Carver Mead not completely satisfied with Maxwell ideas and if one has read an interview with Carver Mead he says that photoelectric effect is a problem of the measuring instruments of that time. Basically it was the best we could do at that time and nothing else. Both of these persons are great inventors, experimenters and have had years and years of hands on experience on things and both made revolutionary technological contributions.
QUOTE (Latrosicarius+Apr 14 2008, 06:36 PM)
Aether would help to answer many questions. Unfortunately, no aether proponent can successfully answer why aether would affect objects in so many ways, but somehow not impart resistance on them.
In other words, the biggest dilemma with Aether is, why doesn't the aether put drag on the Moon, slow it down over time, and cause it to crash into the Earth? (a general example question)
It depends on the density of the Ether.
In my opinion the Ether is just a Gravitational Field. That way the gravitational field creates a Vacuum and a frame of reference .
There is very weak gravitational field around Earth and the Vacuum is relatively less inertial. We observe that mountains on the Earth's surface rotating with Earth are driving the rotations of the Moon. That way Moon gains the potential energy because of the Earth rotations and the distance between Moon and Earth increases 4 cm each year. The rotations of the Earth decrease.
In a binary system of the compact stars (neutron stars, Black hole) there is very strong gravitational field and dense Vacuum. It causes creation of the waves in the Vacuum and the kinetic energy of the rotating stars is emitted in the space.
The stars fall down to each other.
In other words, the biggest dilemma with Aether is, why doesn't the aether put drag on the Moon, slow it down over time, and cause it to crash into the Earth? (a general example question)
It depends on the density of the Ether.
In my opinion the Ether is just a Gravitational Field. That way the gravitational field creates a Vacuum and a frame of reference .
There is very weak gravitational field around Earth and the Vacuum is relatively less inertial. We observe that mountains on the Earth's surface rotating with Earth are driving the rotations of the Moon. That way Moon gains the potential energy because of the Earth rotations and the distance between Moon and Earth increases 4 cm each year. The rotations of the Earth decrease.
In a binary system of the compact stars (neutron stars, Black hole) there is very strong gravitational field and dense Vacuum. It causes creation of the waves in the Vacuum and the kinetic energy of the rotating stars is emitted in the space.
The stars fall down to each other.
THANK YOU Majkl
Beautiful
yes I sympathise
I wonder often
should I conceal... earthlings are abysmal creatures.
You should see what earthlings did for Tesla..... and then see what he did for earthlings.
Beautiful
QUOTE
to his concealed theory, not to disclose it or promote it, but to conceal it.
yes I sympathise
I wonder often
should I conceal... earthlings are abysmal creatures.
You should see what earthlings did for Tesla..... and then see what he did for earthlings.
bm1957,
Yes, I am sure it does not have the same entropy. It is affected by some of the same issues such as gravity and can be absorbed but it always travels at "c". Even when it is red shifted it remains at "c". It can go through water refract to the speed of collisions with more mass and then return to the speed of the new frame it exits too. Can mass with its entropy do that?
bm1957, are you still ignoring my challenge too you in the steady state debate? Of course you are because you do not have a reference you can look up. Start thinking for your self. Main stream lost their logic when they began ignoring the scientific process.
QUOTE
QUOTE (4Dguy @ Apr 15 2008, 12:00 AM)
What seems funny to me is mass has entropy but light does not seem to have that same entropy. QUOTE
Are you sure?
What seems funny to me is mass has entropy but light does not seem to have that same entropy. QUOTE
Are you sure?
Yes, I am sure it does not have the same entropy. It is affected by some of the same issues such as gravity and can be absorbed but it always travels at "c". Even when it is red shifted it remains at "c". It can go through water refract to the speed of collisions with more mass and then return to the speed of the new frame it exits too. Can mass with its entropy do that?
bm1957, are you still ignoring my challenge too you in the steady state debate? Of course you are because you do not have a reference you can look up. Start thinking for your self. Main stream lost their logic when they began ignoring the scientific process.
SPACE ITSELF IS A MEDIUM
QUOTE (4Dguy+Apr 15 2008, 10:57 AM)
bm1957, are you still ignoring my challenge too you in the steady state debate? Of course you are because you do not have a reference you can look up. Start thinking for your self. Main stream lost their logic when they began ignoring the scientific process.
I have replied to your questions on the other thread out of courtesy. It's worth noting that it was never an explicit challenge to me and that you never replied to my last post in that thread, because I showed your arguments up for being without substance.
Why do you think that travelling at the speed of light affects entropy? I am obviously missing your point...
You do know that mechanical 'engines' do not violate the 2nd law because of the heat (IR radiation, photons) which they emit, don't you? Energy, in the form of photons, has quite a lot of potential to increase entropy. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.
I have replied to your questions on the other thread out of courtesy. It's worth noting that it was never an explicit challenge to me and that you never replied to my last post in that thread, because I showed your arguments up for being without substance.
QUOTE
Yes, I am sure it does not have the same entropy. It is affected by some of the same issues such as gravity and can be absorbed but it always travels at "c". Even when it is red shifted it remains at "c". It can go through water refract to the speed of collisions with more mass and then return to the speed of the new frame it exits too. Can mass with its entropy do that?
Why do you think that travelling at the speed of light affects entropy? I am obviously missing your point...
You do know that mechanical 'engines' do not violate the 2nd law because of the heat (IR radiation, photons) which they emit, don't you? Energy, in the form of photons, has quite a lot of potential to increase entropy. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Amrit,
Nice color and size. We are past realizing space is a medium in this discussion. Please catch up.
The attributes of the medium is what we are trying to determine. The medium has to follow relativity's path for acceptance. The properties have to be consistent with relativity at a minimum and be the cause of relativity at the maximum. Using the scientific method any description should agree with all observations we have for relativity. It should also answer the unknown questions we will have in the future. This is a difficult task but like any other task teamwork is of utmost importance. Logic vs. a illogical approach is a difficult path depending on ones beliefs. What seems logical to one might not seem logical to another based on their personal knowledge or experience. I would like to develop a atmosphere of teamwork to accomplish a growth towards scientific knowledge for a theory based on observations and not just based on other theories. Math is recommended but not necessary to formulate ideas. Although the end result has to agree with math. The first obstacle as I see it was to find those that believe you need tools to create relativity (a medium). We have accomplished that for a beginning. We need a minimum of two tools to understand the cause of relativity, gravity,weak force, strong force and magnetism. Our minds and a medium. The medium works perfectly fine without our understanding. Einstein used only one tool his mind. Without the other tool the pursuit is useless.
Why do I believe there is a medium? Because I believe it is the tool that will answer all of our questions. The observational reason I believe there is a medium is because electron cycle and waves are confounded in every frame. This is not just the corner stone of relativity's postulate it is by observation.
A signal sent from NY to SF at "c" includes the rotational speed of the Earth. So we have a closing speed of SF that reduces the time it takes for the signal to get there.
There is no problem with this. Having no medium could account for a closing speed very well. Having a medium would seem to interfere with the closing speed. How could a medium get around that obstacle? Two things for this to be possible with a medium are necessary. The medium has to carry the wave and the Earth has to rotate the medium (this would also agree with centrifugal force). The reduction in apparent speed of the earth matches the closing speed for the fixed "c" and they would match. So far we have a non medium and conditions on a medium to make the observations compatible with both scenarios (this is actually a good thing to understand the properties of the medium). Three Atomic clocks Synchronized to be the same in NY and SF, With one of them driven from NY to SF Will give you the same result in closing speed ( it does not matter how fast or slow you drive it there). As I see it there is no explanation with out a medium for this observation. Please correct me if I am wrong. A second corner stone for relativity is Atomic clocks and light speed are interchangeable for observations. It seems our observation confirmed another relativity issue.
Using the same scenario as above if you were to travel to the north pole from NY and then down to SF in a straight line there is no apparent closing speed issues either with a signal or atomic clocks. You can take days of rotation of the Earth to get to the pole and down to SF. With no medium this is impossible. A medium with our restrictions would be consistent with the observations.
I have many more observations that are consistent with a medium having those restrictions and not possible without a medium.
Please give me your comments on my observations being either consistent or non consistent. An explanation would be helpful.
Thank you for giving me the neg instead of the others in this discussion thread <MAX>
QUOTE
SPACE ITSELF IS A MEDIUM
Nice color and size. We are past realizing space is a medium in this discussion. Please catch up.
The attributes of the medium is what we are trying to determine. The medium has to follow relativity's path for acceptance. The properties have to be consistent with relativity at a minimum and be the cause of relativity at the maximum. Using the scientific method any description should agree with all observations we have for relativity. It should also answer the unknown questions we will have in the future. This is a difficult task but like any other task teamwork is of utmost importance. Logic vs. a illogical approach is a difficult path depending on ones beliefs. What seems logical to one might not seem logical to another based on their personal knowledge or experience. I would like to develop a atmosphere of teamwork to accomplish a growth towards scientific knowledge for a theory based on observations and not just based on other theories. Math is recommended but not necessary to formulate ideas. Although the end result has to agree with math. The first obstacle as I see it was to find those that believe you need tools to create relativity (a medium). We have accomplished that for a beginning. We need a minimum of two tools to understand the cause of relativity, gravity,weak force, strong force and magnetism. Our minds and a medium. The medium works perfectly fine without our understanding. Einstein used only one tool his mind. Without the other tool the pursuit is useless.
Why do I believe there is a medium? Because I believe it is the tool that will answer all of our questions. The observational reason I believe there is a medium is because electron cycle and waves are confounded in every frame. This is not just the corner stone of relativity's postulate it is by observation.
A signal sent from NY to SF at "c" includes the rotational speed of the Earth. So we have a closing speed of SF that reduces the time it takes for the signal to get there.
There is no problem with this. Having no medium could account for a closing speed very well. Having a medium would seem to interfere with the closing speed. How could a medium get around that obstacle? Two things for this to be possible with a medium are necessary. The medium has to carry the wave and the Earth has to rotate the medium (this would also agree with centrifugal force). The reduction in apparent speed of the earth matches the closing speed for the fixed "c" and they would match. So far we have a non medium and conditions on a medium to make the observations compatible with both scenarios (this is actually a good thing to understand the properties of the medium). Three Atomic clocks Synchronized to be the same in NY and SF, With one of them driven from NY to SF Will give you the same result in closing speed ( it does not matter how fast or slow you drive it there). As I see it there is no explanation with out a medium for this observation. Please correct me if I am wrong. A second corner stone for relativity is Atomic clocks and light speed are interchangeable for observations. It seems our observation confirmed another relativity issue.
Using the same scenario as above if you were to travel to the north pole from NY and then down to SF in a straight line there is no apparent closing speed issues either with a signal or atomic clocks. You can take days of rotation of the Earth to get to the pole and down to SF. With no medium this is impossible. A medium with our restrictions would be consistent with the observations.
I have many more observations that are consistent with a medium having those restrictions and not possible without a medium.
Please give me your comments on my observations being either consistent or non consistent. An explanation would be helpful.
Thank you for giving me the neg instead of the others in this discussion thread <MAX>
QUOTE (4Dguy+Apr 15 2008, 01:59 PM)
The observational reason I believe there is a medium is because electron cycle and waves are confounded in every frame.
Are you sure? What do you mean by this?
Are you sure? What do you mean by this?
it is perhaps appropriate to emphasize that the general opinion about Einstein discarding the ether is in some sense not absolutely groundless, since a relativistic ether - as we must theorize the physical space according to the relativistic conceptions of space and time - is quite different for instance from the Descartes's ether. This relativistic ether cannot have the same meaning, and role, of the "old" mechanical ether in a rational description of the universe: otherwise, it cannot be properly defined a "true ether". Einstein's 4-dimensional ether, if we wish to call it so, cannot provide the same natural causal explanations which, on the contrary, could be supplied by the introduction of a physical "fluid", filling up the whole 3-dimensional space. The action, and properties, of this universal medium could, in principle, rationally explain all physical phaenomena by means of a simple mechanical analogy (in which, for instance, a force can be interpreted only as a vis a tergo, a field as a perturbation of the space, etc.). Einstein's ether, instead, cannot be thought of but in four dimensions, which means that time must be included in the structure of "space" itself (which is in fact more properly called space-time). This circumstance implies that it is absolutely impossible for the human mind to make an intuitive image of it, and to give any simple meaning for instance to expressions like: "dynamical ether", which would have, vice versa, an easy interpretation with respect to a 3-dimensional fluid ether. As a matter of fact, an ether "moving" with respect to what time?
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep3-24.htm
Majkl and czeslaw,
Thank you for those two references. I had never read anything about Tesla's views before. I find myself seeing what he was saying very well. I view the medium only slightly different than what I read. I think the medium energizes mass. I do not think mass energizes the medium. Other than that the read was very exciting.
Although I knew of Einsteins changing view of an eather I did not have a source. I thank the both of you for your dedication to science and the scientific method. I am more than a little tired of main streams conversion from science to political science.
Thank you for those two references. I had never read anything about Tesla's views before. I find myself seeing what he was saying very well. I view the medium only slightly different than what I read. I think the medium energizes mass. I do not think mass energizes the medium. Other than that the read was very exciting.
Although I knew of Einsteins changing view of an eather I did not have a source. I thank the both of you for your dedication to science and the scientific method. I am more than a little tired of main streams conversion from science to political science.
bm1957,
I am not always near a computer and I was writing and missed your post. It was a challenge to anyone not just you. You think you showed my arguments up for being without substance but you did not even know what the question was. You created and answered your own question ignoring my question. What are the properties of a photon that you can judge if it expands or not? The energy received to earth is not in question.
I am not always near a computer and I was writing and missed your post. It was a challenge to anyone not just you. You think you showed my arguments up for being without substance but you did not even know what the question was. You created and answered your own question ignoring my question. What are the properties of a photon that you can judge if it expands or not? The energy received to earth is not in question.
QUOTE (4Dguy @ Apr 15 2008, 01:59 PM)
The observational reason I believe there is a medium is because electron cycle and waves are confounded in every frame.QUOTE
Are you sure? What do you mean by this?
By synchronization of atomic clocks and the speed of a signal (its a big part of relativity).
It was a answer to your question.
It was a answer to your question.
You do know that mechanical 'engines' do not violate the 2nd law because of the heat (IR radiation, photons) which they emit, don't you? Energy, in the form of photons, has quite a lot of potential to increase entropy. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Describe to me a photon. Describe energy in the form of a photon (describe the photon). I do not understand your physical photon. Describe it to me. If you can not you are just hand waving.
Look I am tired of fighting my way through main streams denial of a medium based on two proposed mediums out of how many possible? Proof that two types do not exist is not proof there is no medium.
Please leave this discussion thread to those of us who want to work as a team towards a common goal. You gave up on the scientific method the others here have not. Go look for your photon and graviton we will look for a medium that controls waves and gravity.
By the way thank you for giving me the negative instead of the others. I have no negs to give back because you are entitled to your opinion of what science is about. I thank you again for not damaging the others of this thread.
QUOTE
I have replied to your questions on the other thread out of courtesy. It's worth noting that it was never an explicit challenge to me and that you never replied to my last post in that thread, because I showed your arguments up for being without substance.
I am not always near a computer and I was writing and missed your post. It was a challenge to anyone not just you. You think you showed my arguments up for being without substance but you did not even know what the question was. You created and answered your own question ignoring my question. What are the properties of a photon that you can judge if it expands or not? The energy received to earth is not in question.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have replied to your questions on the other thread out of courtesy. It's worth noting that it was never an explicit challenge to me and that you never replied to my last post in that thread, because I showed your arguments up for being without substance. |
I am not always near a computer and I was writing and missed your post. It was a challenge to anyone not just you. You think you showed my arguments up for being without substance but you did not even know what the question was. You created and answered your own question ignoring my question. What are the properties of a photon that you can judge if it expands or not? The energy received to earth is not in question.
QUOTE (4Dguy @ Apr 15 2008, 01:59 PM)
The observational reason I believe there is a medium is because electron cycle and waves are confounded in every frame.QUOTE
Are you sure? What do you mean by this?
By synchronization of atomic clocks and the speed of a signal (its a big part of relativity).
QUOTE
Why do you think that travelling at the speed of light affects entropy? I am obviously missing your point...
It was a answer to your question.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why do you think that travelling at the speed of light affects entropy? I am obviously missing your point... |
It was a answer to your question.
You do know that mechanical 'engines' do not violate the 2nd law because of the heat (IR radiation, photons) which they emit, don't you? Energy, in the form of photons, has quite a lot of potential to increase entropy. I really don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Describe to me a photon. Describe energy in the form of a photon (describe the photon). I do not understand your physical photon. Describe it to me. If you can not you are just hand waving.
Look I am tired of fighting my way through main streams denial of a medium based on two proposed mediums out of how many possible? Proof that two types do not exist is not proof there is no medium.
Please leave this discussion thread to those of us who want to work as a team towards a common goal. You gave up on the scientific method the others here have not. Go look for your photon and graviton we will look for a medium that controls waves and gravity.
By the way thank you for giving me the negative instead of the others. I have no negs to give back because you are entitled to your opinion of what science is about. I thank you again for not damaging the others of this thread.
If anyone wants to neg me go ahead. It lets me know who the idiots are who prefer emotion over rational argument.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Apr 14 2008, 05:31 PM)
Knowing what you know about it being a ripple (I agree) which is more likely? A ripple moving across a medium of substance with the speed of lights inertia? What allows your wave too speed up and slow down through gravitational space? What allows your wave to have refractive index and not lose its momentum due to collisions? If the inertia is already in the medium those questions are automatically answered. You are missing the entropy with the change of conditions.
Space has properties. It behaves rather like ghostly transparent elastic. It can be stretched, it can be stronger, or weaker, and this affects propagation through it. You could assign inertia to this, but inertia is a property associated with varying the speed of a mass, it isn't quite apt, just as mass is not apt when talking about a photon. Especially since there's nothing actually there. The photon is merely a wave of distance variation. And photons do lose momentum due to collisions. See the Compton Effect.
Your post noted fizzeksman. Good stuff. Note that energy and space end up being the same thing.
QUOTE
Kind of like gravity, it has no tangible substance either so gravity does not actually exist.
Not at all. Jump in the air. You come back down. Gravity exists. It does things to you. It's real. Your post noted fizzeksman. Good stuff. Note that energy and space end up being the same thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Kind of like gravity, it has no tangible substance either so gravity does not actually exist. |
Not at all. Jump in the air. You come back down. Gravity exists. It does things to you. It's real.
Your post noted fizzeksman. Good stuff. Note that energy and space end up being the same thing.
The next step might be to try and find how the medium interacts with mass.
Your post noted fizzeksman. Good stuff. Note that energy and space end up being the same thing.
The next step might be to try and find how the medium interacts with mass.
I understand this absolutely 4Dguy. I can send you a whole book if you like. Mass is not something seperate from the "medium". All it involves is a ripple going round in a circle. The energy/momentum now looks like inertia. And really, the word medium isn't right. It's too loaded. Space is what it is, and everything is made of it.
Gotta go.
Gotta go.
I find it interesting that the very foundation upon which contemporary physics is built is based upon early realization by the "Pillars of Physics" that a medium is necessary to facilitate action at a distance. Denial of this foundation leaves contemporary physics without a base upon which to stand.. a "Castle in the air".
The following quotes are from books now in the "Public Domain" and do not violate any copyright laws. They are posted in Google "books".
In J.C. Maxwell's "Matter and Motion" (pp221) Maxwell has the following to say of Newton concerning gravity...
"He says nothing about the means by which bodies are made to gravitate towards each other. We know that his mind did not rest at this point.. that he felt that gravitation must be capable of being explained, and that he even suggested an explanation depending on the action of an "Etheral Medium" pervading space. But with that wise moderation which is characteristic of all his investigations, he distinguished such speculations from what he had established from observation and demonstration and excluded from his "Principia" all mention of the cause of gravitation, reserving his thoughts on this subject for the "Queries" printed at the end of his "Opticks".
In "Opticks" by Isaac Newton, Newton has the following to say about the "Aetherial Medium" and Gravity. These comments (partial) were stated in the form of questions.
(pp325) "Yet if the elastick force of this Medium be expandingly great, it may suffice to impel bodies from the denser parts of the Medium to the rarer, with all the power which we call Gravity, and that the elastick force of this medium is exceedingly great, may be gathered from the swiftness of its vibrations.
(pp327) "If this Aether (for so I shall call it) should be supposed 700000 times more elastick than our air, and above 700000 times more rare, its resistance would be 600000000 times less than that of water, and so small a resistance would scarce make any sensible alteration in the Motions of the Planets in ten thousand years.
(pp326) "And therefore the elastick density must be 700000 X 700000 (that is 490000000000) times greater than the elastick force of the air is in proportion to its density for the velocities of the pulses of elastick Mediums are in subduplicate ratio of the Elasticities and the Rarities of the Mediums taken together.
Refreshing isn't it.. to hear the opinions of these "Pillars of Physics" on space and Aether.. in their own words?
Jack
The following quotes are from books now in the "Public Domain" and do not violate any copyright laws. They are posted in Google "books".
In J.C. Maxwell's "Matter and Motion" (pp221) Maxwell has the following to say of Newton concerning gravity...
"He says nothing about the means by which bodies are made to gravitate towards each other. We know that his mind did not rest at this point.. that he felt that gravitation must be capable of being explained, and that he even suggested an explanation depending on the action of an "Etheral Medium" pervading space. But with that wise moderation which is characteristic of all his investigations, he distinguished such speculations from what he had established from observation and demonstration and excluded from his "Principia" all mention of the cause of gravitation, reserving his thoughts on this subject for the "Queries" printed at the end of his "Opticks".
In "Opticks" by Isaac Newton, Newton has the following to say about the "Aetherial Medium" and Gravity. These comments (partial) were stated in the form of questions.
(pp325) "Yet if the elastick force of this Medium be expandingly great, it may suffice to impel bodies from the denser parts of the Medium to the rarer, with all the power which we call Gravity, and that the elastick force of this medium is exceedingly great, may be gathered from the swiftness of its vibrations.
(pp327) "If this Aether (for so I shall call it) should be supposed 700000 times more elastick than our air, and above 700000 times more rare, its resistance would be 600000000 times less than that of water, and so small a resistance would scarce make any sensible alteration in the Motions of the Planets in ten thousand years.
(pp326) "And therefore the elastick density must be 700000 X 700000 (that is 490000000000) times greater than the elastick force of the air is in proportion to its density for the velocities of the pulses of elastick Mediums are in subduplicate ratio of the Elasticities and the Rarities of the Mediums taken together.
Refreshing isn't it.. to hear the opinions of these "Pillars of Physics" on space and Aether.. in their own words?
Jack
QUOTE (4Dguy+Apr 14 2008, 04:31 PM)
The question of whether there is a medium has been put too rest in the minds of main stream science. Could that be because it does not fit in the direction main stream has taken? There is the static medium that was disproved by the MM experiments. There was the frame dragging medium that was tested and found that if the design of the test was correct than there is no frame dragging medium. There is one more medium that has not been tested for I believe. That would be the frame creating medium. That would tie Relativity too a medium rather than merely postulates.
Please neg-ers need not respond. Ideas might be right or wrong with references. An exchange of ideas are more important for triggering thought than worrying about being correct in your ideas.
To all Neg-ers this is not an attempt to stop the weekly negs I am receiving from those that fear the possibility of change.
Please give me all the negs for just bringing up the subject not the responders.
Please allow free thought without reprisals.
Did the big bang happen and if so how? Is the Universe really accelerating at a moment to moment increase? Is the speed of radiation really constant in all reference frames independent of the speed of the originating source? Does relativity really happen and what is the mechanism by which acceleration/ velocity between objects can change relative time and space? Do some galaxies really spin at a fixed speed as if the galaxy is on a plate spinning around? Do black holes really evaporate? What is the mechanism by which matter attracts at a distance, (Gravity)?
The person that understands these questions is the person that can tell if there is a medium and how it relates to the universe big and small. Especially the nature and how it has remained hidden from our ability to understand.
Ponder this concept as a lifting of the veil,
The medium was initially created at the big bang as a catastrophic critical escape from potential energy to kinetic energy, an escape of the only monopole wave to exist, the foundation of space itself but it is not static. It is continuously still generated by each piece of matter/energy by a slow decay of the electromagnetic field into the monopole gravitational field, space. The entire universe is full of matter and energy creating more space as it adds to the space that initially formed as a point of origin, energy transfer into the gravitational field. There is no frame dragging medium, only a medium springing up from all matter/energy which following Newton's laws synchronizes with the existing non matter/ energy interacting medium and synchronizes with other generating medium.
This concept of gravitational wave synchronization where by each piece of matter/energy creates its own time and space ( with in its own reference frame) and synchronizes with ( is influenced by) all other matter creating its own time and space and the initial gravitational wave creation from the big bang via the potential to kinetic energy flow of matter/energy decay into the monopole gravitational wave.
Extrapolated with detail and explained, this concept answers all the questions that I proposed and a few more including explaining inflationary theory, and "Spooky action at a distance".
Fundamentally stated; time, space, and gravitational wave synchronization are three actions of a process of matter/energy slowly decaying in an orderly way from potential to kinetic energy.
And this is why we have as of yet, not understood the medium. The medium is generated from within and gravity is the path of least resistance for the synchronization of the medium generated by differing matter/energies.
Relative time and space are comparative wave functions of this process, time frequency and space wave length. Relativity is the distortion in the comparative frequencies and wavelengths due to motion.
It is actually simple and eloquent as Einstein predicted it would be. God doesn't role dice, he bakes.- insight ( gravitation@cfl.rr.com if you care to discuss more)
Please neg-ers need not respond. Ideas might be right or wrong with references. An exchange of ideas are more important for triggering thought than worrying about being correct in your ideas.
To all Neg-ers this is not an attempt to stop the weekly negs I am receiving from those that fear the possibility of change.
Please give me all the negs for just bringing up the subject not the responders.
Please allow free thought without reprisals.
Did the big bang happen and if so how? Is the Universe really accelerating at a moment to moment increase? Is the speed of radiation really constant in all reference frames independent of the speed of the originating source? Does relativity really happen and what is the mechanism by which acceleration/ velocity between objects can change relative time and space? Do some galaxies really spin at a fixed speed as if the galaxy is on a plate spinning around? Do black holes really evaporate? What is the mechanism by which matter attracts at a distance, (Gravity)?
The person that understands these questions is the person that can tell if there is a medium and how it relates to the universe big and small. Especially the nature and how it has remained hidden from our ability to understand.
Ponder this concept as a lifting of the veil,
The medium was initially created at the big bang as a catastrophic critical escape from potential energy to kinetic energy, an escape of the only monopole wave to exist, the foundation of space itself but it is not static. It is continuously still generated by each piece of matter/energy by a slow decay of the electromagnetic field into the monopole gravitational field, space. The entire universe is full of matter and energy creating more space as it adds to the space that initially formed as a point of origin, energy transfer into the gravitational field. There is no frame dragging medium, only a medium springing up from all matter/energy which following Newton's laws synchronizes with the existing non matter/ energy interacting medium and synchronizes with other generating medium.
This concept of gravitational wave synchronization where by each piece of matter/energy creates its own time and space ( with in its own reference frame) and synchronizes with ( is influenced by) all other matter creating its own time and space and the initial gravitational wave creation from the big bang via the potential to kinetic energy flow of matter/energy decay into the monopole gravitational wave.
Extrapolated with detail and explained, this concept answers all the questions that I proposed and a few more including explaining inflationary theory, and "Spooky action at a distance".
Fundamentally stated; time, space, and gravitational wave synchronization are three actions of a process of matter/energy slowly decaying in an orderly way from potential to kinetic energy.
And this is why we have as of yet, not understood the medium. The medium is generated from within and gravity is the path of least resistance for the synchronization of the medium generated by differing matter/energies.
Relative time and space are comparative wave functions of this process, time frequency and space wave length. Relativity is the distortion in the comparative frequencies and wavelengths due to motion.
It is actually simple and eloquent as Einstein predicted it would be. God doesn't role dice, he bakes.- insight ( gravitation@cfl.rr.com if you care to discuss more)
QUOTE (Zarkov+Apr 15 2008, 07:59 AM)
THANK YOU Majkl
Beautiful
yes I sympathise
I wonder often
should I conceal... earthlings are abysmal creatures.
You should see what earthlings did for Tesla..... and then see what he did for earthlings.
Tesla also argued:
“ I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view" . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Tesla didn't know Vacuum Energy (Casimir effect, Lamb shift, Black Holes, Frame dragging...)
His idea was that there is a plasma in the space and it was a good direction of searching.
We know that space in our Observable Universe is created as a plasma of the virtual particles-antiparticles and the space isn't empty. Tesla was a good thinker.
I collected what we know about the space:
http://www.blackhole.glt.pl/
http://www.charge.glt.pl/
Beautiful
yes I sympathise
I wonder often
should I conceal... earthlings are abysmal creatures.
You should see what earthlings did for Tesla..... and then see what he did for earthlings.
Tesla also argued:
“ I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view" . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Tesla didn't know Vacuum Energy (Casimir effect, Lamb shift, Black Holes, Frame dragging...)
His idea was that there is a plasma in the space and it was a good direction of searching.
We know that space in our Observable Universe is created as a plasma of the virtual particles-antiparticles and the space isn't empty. Tesla was a good thinker.
I collected what we know about the space:
http://www.blackhole.glt.pl/
http://www.charge.glt.pl/
QUOTE (fizzeksman+Apr 16 2008, 03:40 AM)
I find it interesting that the very foundation upon which contemporary physics is built is based upon early realization by the "Pillars of Physics" that a medium is necessary to facilitate action at a distance. Denial of this foundation leaves contemporary physics without a base upon which to stand.. a "Castle in the air".
The following quotes are from books now in the "Public Domain" and do not violate any copyright laws. They are posted in Google "books".
In J.C. Maxwell's "Matter and Motion" (pp221) Maxwell has the following to say of Newton concerning gravity...
"He says nothing about the means by which bodies are made to gravitate towards each other. We know that his mind did not rest at this point.. that he felt that gravitation must be capable of being explained, and that he even suggested an explanation depending on the action of an "Etheral Medium" pervading space. But with that wise moderation which is characteristic of all his investigations, he distinguished such speculations from what he had established from observation and demonstration and excluded from his "Principia" all mention of the cause of gravitation, reserving his thoughts on this subject for the "Queries" printed at the end of his "Opticks".
In "Opticks" by Isaac Newton, Newton has the following to say about the "Aetherial Medium" and Gravity. These comments (partial) were stated in the form of questions.
(pp325) "Yet if the elastick force of this Medium be expandingly great, it may suffice to impel bodies from the denser parts of the Medium to the rarer, with all the power which we call Gravity, and that the elastick force of this medium is exceedingly great, may be gathered from the swiftness of its vibrations.
(pp327) "If this Aether (for so I shall call it) should be supposed 700000 times more elastick than our air, and above 700000 times more rare, its resistance would be 600000000 times less than that of water, and so small a resistance would scarce make any sensible alteration in the Motions of the Planets in ten thousand years.
(pp326) "And therefore the elastick density must be 700000 X 700000 (that is 490000000000) times greater than the elastick force of the air is in proportion to its density for the velocities of the pulses of elastick Mediums are in subduplicate ratio of the Elasticities and the Rarities of the Mediums taken together.
Refreshing isn't it.. to hear the opinions of these "Pillars of Physics" on space and Aether.. in their own words?
Jack
You are talking my language, fizzeksman. Are you in Glasgow? Current interpretations are not in line with Dirac, Schrodinger, Einstein, Maxwell, Faraday, or Newton. Not one bit. It's quite incredible how they pretend that they are, and deliver a rewritten and corrupted history. Here's some of my references:
[37] Dirac Large Numbers Hypothesis
Paul Dirac was the founder of quantum electrodynamics, and was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, the position currently held by Stephen Hawking. See http://www. lucasianchair.org/20/dirac.html written by Robert Bruen for details such as: In 1927 Dirac united quantum mechanics and relativity by deriving a relativistically invariant form of Schrodinger's wave equation...
[38] strongly elastic, and in a word much like air in all respects
This is from a letter by Newton to Robert Boyle dated 28 February 1678. I found it on page 1 of Isaac Newton: Philosophical Writings edited by Andrew Janiak, printed by Cambridge University Press in 2004. Andrew is a professor of philosophy at Duke University North Carolina.
[39] Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another?
This is also in Andrew Janiak's book, see page 131. It's a reference to query 30, which is on page 374 of my copy of Opticks, a Cosimo paperback published in 2007. When you understand his thinking, you can understand why Newton was interested in alchemy. If you can convert light into matter, turning lead into gold must be a piece of cake...
[40] Faraday Lectures
Michael Faraday started the tradition of Christmas lectures. These are now on TV, and I think they’re wonderful. The idea was to educate and excite, and it works. Faraday’s lectures were real hands-on stuff, chock full of graphic demonstrations... See http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1859Faraday-forces.html as an example.
[41] Einstein on Faraday
This is from Einstein's paper The Fundaments of Theoretical Physics printed in Science magazine in 1940. You can see it online inside a 2002 paper by Pharis Williams entitled Energy and Entropy as the Fundaments of Theoretical Physic. It's at the Molecular Diversity Preservation International website under an entropy section. See http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/ e4040128.pdf.
[42] Maxwell's Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dynamical_T...e_Electromagnet ic_Field. Maxwell was another of the greats, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ James_Clerk_Maxwell. This is interesting: Maxwell believed that the propagation of light required a medium for the waves, dubbed the luminiferous aether. Over time, the existence of such a medium, permeating all space and yet apparently undetectable by mechanical means, proved more and more difficult to reconcile with experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. Moreover, it seemed to require an absolute frame of reference in which the equations were valid, with the distasteful result that the equations changed form for a moving observer. These difficulties inspired Albert Einstein to formulate the theory of special relativity, and in the process Einstein dispensed with the requirement of a luminiferous aether. That's what's generally accepted, but people don't know about Einstein's Leyden Address. Nor do they generally know that Oliver Heaviside recast Maxwell's equations in vector form, and totally destroyed the insight of elastic displacement.
[43] Einstein’s heroes
Einstein’s last interview, with I Bernard Cohen, was featured in Scientific American in 1955. You can read it on Professor Rob Iliffe’s Newton Papers Project website at http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php? id=OTHE00009&mode=normalized. Einstein had pictures of Faraday and Maxwell on his wall, and admired Newton greatly...
[44] Weyl Transformation
Hermann Weyl was a contemporary of Einstein's. He was a brilliant mathematician who seemed to be on to something with his precursor gauge theory that was all about scale change. Amazingly it was Einstein who stuck the boot in, and Weyl was left dead in the water for ten years until his stuff was...
The following quotes are from books now in the "Public Domain" and do not violate any copyright laws. They are posted in Google "books".
In J.C. Maxwell's "Matter and Motion" (pp221) Maxwell has the following to say of Newton concerning gravity...
"He says nothing about the means by which bodies are made to gravitate towards each other. We know that his mind did not rest at this point.. that he felt that gravitation must be capable of being explained, and that he even suggested an explanation depending on the action of an "Etheral Medium" pervading space. But with that wise moderation which is characteristic of all his investigations, he distinguished such speculations from what he had established from observation and demonstration and excluded from his "Principia" all mention of the cause of gravitation, reserving his thoughts on this subject for the "Queries" printed at the end of his "Opticks".
In "Opticks" by Isaac Newton, Newton has the following to say about the "Aetherial Medium" and Gravity. These comments (partial) were stated in the form of questions.
(pp325) "Yet if the elastick force of this Medium be expandingly great, it may suffice to impel bodies from the denser parts of the Medium to the rarer, with all the power which we call Gravity, and that the elastick force of this medium is exceedingly great, may be gathered from the swiftness of its vibrations.
(pp327) "If this Aether (for so I shall call it) should be supposed 700000 times more elastick than our air, and above 700000 times more rare, its resistance would be 600000000 times less than that of water, and so small a resistance would scarce make any sensible alteration in the Motions of the Planets in ten thousand years.
(pp326) "And therefore the elastick density must be 700000 X 700000 (that is 490000000000) times greater than the elastick force of the air is in proportion to its density for the velocities of the pulses of elastick Mediums are in subduplicate ratio of the Elasticities and the Rarities of the Mediums taken together.
Refreshing isn't it.. to hear the opinions of these "Pillars of Physics" on space and Aether.. in their own words?
Jack
You are talking my language, fizzeksman. Are you in Glasgow? Current interpretations are not in line with Dirac, Schrodinger, Einstein, Maxwell, Faraday, or Newton. Not one bit. It's quite incredible how they pretend that they are, and deliver a rewritten and corrupted history. Here's some of my references:
[37] Dirac Large Numbers Hypothesis
Paul Dirac was the founder of quantum electrodynamics, and was Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, the position currently held by Stephen Hawking. See http://www. lucasianchair.org/20/dirac.html written by Robert Bruen for details such as: In 1927 Dirac united quantum mechanics and relativity by deriving a relativistically invariant form of Schrodinger's wave equation...
[38] strongly elastic, and in a word much like air in all respects
This is from a letter by Newton to Robert Boyle dated 28 February 1678. I found it on page 1 of Isaac Newton: Philosophical Writings edited by Andrew Janiak, printed by Cambridge University Press in 2004. Andrew is a professor of philosophy at Duke University North Carolina.
[39] Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another?
This is also in Andrew Janiak's book, see page 131. It's a reference to query 30, which is on page 374 of my copy of Opticks, a Cosimo paperback published in 2007. When you understand his thinking, you can understand why Newton was interested in alchemy. If you can convert light into matter, turning lead into gold must be a piece of cake...
[40] Faraday Lectures
Michael Faraday started the tradition of Christmas lectures. These are now on TV, and I think they’re wonderful. The idea was to educate and excite, and it works. Faraday’s lectures were real hands-on stuff, chock full of graphic demonstrations... See http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1859Faraday-forces.html as an example.
[41] Einstein on Faraday
This is from Einstein's paper The Fundaments of Theoretical Physics printed in Science magazine in 1940. You can see it online inside a 2002 paper by Pharis Williams entitled Energy and Entropy as the Fundaments of Theoretical Physic. It's at the Molecular Diversity Preservation International website under an entropy section. See http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/ e4040128.pdf.
[42] Maxwell's Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dynamical_T...e_Electromagnet ic_Field. Maxwell was another of the greats, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ James_Clerk_Maxwell. This is interesting: Maxwell believed that the propagation of light required a medium for the waves, dubbed the luminiferous aether. Over time, the existence of such a medium, permeating all space and yet apparently undetectable by mechanical means, proved more and more difficult to reconcile with experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. Moreover, it seemed to require an absolute frame of reference in which the equations were valid, with the distasteful result that the equations changed form for a moving observer. These difficulties inspired Albert Einstein to formulate the theory of special relativity, and in the process Einstein dispensed with the requirement of a luminiferous aether. That's what's generally accepted, but people don't know about Einstein's Leyden Address. Nor do they generally know that Oliver Heaviside recast Maxwell's equations in vector form, and totally destroyed the insight of elastic displacement.
[43] Einstein’s heroes
Einstein’s last interview, with I Bernard Cohen, was featured in Scientific American in 1955. You can read it on Professor Rob Iliffe’s Newton Papers Project website at http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/texts/viewtext.php? id=OTHE00009&mode=normalized. Einstein had pictures of Faraday and Maxwell on his wall, and admired Newton greatly...
[44] Weyl Transformation
Hermann Weyl was a contemporary of Einstein's. He was a brilliant mathematician who seemed to be on to something with his precursor gauge theory that was all about scale change. Amazingly it was Einstein who stuck the boot in, and Weyl was left dead in the water for ten years until his stuff was...
QUOTE (insight+Apr 16 2008, 04:03 AM)
Did the big bang happen and if so how? Is the Universe really accelerating at a moment to moment increase? Is the speed of radiation really constant in all reference frames independent of the speed of the originating source? Does relativity really happen and what is the mechanism by which acceleration/ velocity between objects can change relative time and space? Do some galaxies really spin at a fixed speed as if the galaxy is on a plate spinning around? Do black holes really evaporate? What is the mechanism by which matter attracts at a distance, (Gravity)?
The person that understands these questions is the person that can tell if there is a medium and how it relates to the universe big and small. Especially the nature and how it has remained hidden from our ability to understand.
I know all the answers to all those questions. It's easy to understand. All you have to do is read it. And at the heart of it, is this:
Yes, there is a medium. But it's not substantial, it isn't a medium like air or water. It's very different, and it is unique. Its name is space. It’s a one-trick pony, and the only trick is distance. Yet just like Google, it’s pretty darn brilliant. Because everything is made from it.
Now who wants to proof read my popular science book? PM me.
The person that understands these questions is the person that can tell if there is a medium and how it relates to the universe big and small. Especially the nature and how it has remained hidden from our ability to understand.
I know all the answers to all those questions. It's easy to understand. All you have to do is read it. And at the heart of it, is this:
Yes, there is a medium. But it's not substantial, it isn't a medium like air or water. It's very different, and it is unique. Its name is space. It’s a one-trick pony, and the only trick is distance. Yet just like Google, it’s pretty darn brilliant. Because everything is made from it.
Now who wants to proof read my popular science book? PM me.
Shortsight, Insight and farsight
Just kidding the first one I made up. Each of you are looking through a different lens. That is a good thing. I want more please.
czeslaw, and fizzeksman
I can not get enough of your references. They fill me with excitement reading things that are new to me.
Latrosicarius,
Your integrity is beyond reproach with a level head and tolerant of my inability to communicate well. You get my highest true scientist respect. You seem to realize the question and the path may not always be in the same direction.
Farsight it is good to have all the answers. Thank God I have not ran out of questions because life would be sooo boring if they were all answered.
I have two questions one for farsight and one for insight.
Farsight- I have always been baffled by the atomic clock and the speed of light being the same in every frame. Einstein suggested that atomic clocks and light speed were comparable for experiments involving the speed of light.
When you send a signal east to west the signal accounts for the closing speed of an object and has traveled a shorter distance because of the Earths rotation. When you drive an atomic clock between the same starting and ending point as the signal the atomic clock drives the full distance but registers the closing distance the same as the sent signal. How can that be?
Insight- Having a medium brings into question of whether the big bang is a valid theory. This is why main stream is so opposed to the possibility. A medium for the different wave types to travel on is bound to be red shifted simply by the arc of the distance. Potential energy, mass and a medium were expelled together with some potential energy transferred to kinetic energy? Without the scientific method to test the theory the statement
How is this any different than saying God did it? There is no explanation.
A medium could create matter by fusion and remove matter through fission. Why would physical nature use two different ways for creation and destruction when one is the most simple? Is there a process that can hold a universe in a speck of non universe to create that universe? What is no universe? When you reach the end of the universe is there a wall that stops you from going any further?
We need the scientific method to contain our absolutes. You have to Question everything before you can be sure of anything. We do not have the ability to question everything. Experimental design is only as good as your knowledge. Is a photon a particle or a wave? Is it both? What percentage of each? How can we describe things in the form of photons when we do not know their composition?
Just kidding the first one I made up. Each of you are looking through a different lens. That is a good thing. I want more please.
czeslaw, and fizzeksman
I can not get enough of your references. They fill me with excitement reading things that are new to me.
Latrosicarius,
Your integrity is beyond reproach with a level head and tolerant of my inability to communicate well. You get my highest true scientist respect. You seem to realize the question and the path may not always be in the same direction.
Farsight it is good to have all the answers. Thank God I have not ran out of questions because life would be sooo boring if they were all answered.
I have two questions one for farsight and one for insight.
Farsight- I have always been baffled by the atomic clock and the speed of light being the same in every frame. Einstein suggested that atomic clocks and light speed were comparable for experiments involving the speed of light.
When you send a signal east to west the signal accounts for the closing speed of an object and has traveled a shorter distance because of the Earths rotation. When you drive an atomic clock between the same starting and ending point as the signal the atomic clock drives the full distance but registers the closing distance the same as the sent signal. How can that be?
Insight- Having a medium brings into question of whether the big bang is a valid theory. This is why main stream is so opposed to the possibility. A medium for the different wave types to travel on is bound to be red shifted simply by the arc of the distance. Potential energy, mass and a medium were expelled together with some potential energy transferred to kinetic energy? Without the scientific method to test the theory the statement
QUOTE
The medium was initially created at the big bang as a catastrophic critical escape from potential energy to kinetic energy, an escape of the only monopole wave to exist, the foundation of space itself but it is not static.
How is this any different than saying God did it? There is no explanation.
A medium could create matter by fusion and remove matter through fission. Why would physical nature use two different ways for creation and destruction when one is the most simple? Is there a process that can hold a universe in a speck of non universe to create that universe? What is no universe? When you reach the end of the universe is there a wall that stops you from going any further?
We need the scientific method to contain our absolutes. You have to Question everything before you can be sure of anything. We do not have the ability to question everything. Experimental design is only as good as your knowledge. Is a photon a particle or a wave? Is it both? What percentage of each? How can we describe things in the form of photons when we do not know their composition?
The Ether, as postulated by Sir James Jeans and discounted by Uncle Al, does indeed exist as the "substance" occupying all space and transmitting transverse lightlike waves and particles.
This medium, when coagulated, forms matter.
Space is a plenum with 'something' filling it.
Vacuum is simply a space with all of the 'air' removed but still containing ether.
As for the Big Bag theory, I have a question: If 'the earth was once a dense, cosmic egg', who laid it?
Is light a particle or a wave? It is BOTH, it must be.
We live in a world of Cause and Effect, dual in nature, so there must, in all things, be two.
Is the Universe matrix or random? It is BOTH, it must be, for the same reasons.
FARSIGHT: "Did the big bang happen and if so how? Is the Universe really accelerating at a moment to moment increase? Is the speed of radiation really constant in all reference frames independent of the speed of the originating source? Does relativity really happen and what is the mechanism by which acceleration/ velocity between objects can change relative time and space? Do some galaxies really spin at a fixed speed as if the galaxy is on a plate spinning around? Do black holes really evaporate? What is the mechanism by which matter attracts at a distance, (Gravity)?
The person that understands these questions is the person that can tell if there is a medium and how it relates to the universe big and small. Especially the nature and how it has remained hidden from our ability to understand."
The Big Bang did not happen.
The Universe is in Motion, Force being obstructed motion.
All 'speeds' are relative.
If you understand Magnetism, you understand the basic concept of the Universe: Two Forces working together in balance to keep the 'little round balls' in their particular orbits: Posi-Negativity or "cosmic glue"...
This medium, when coagulated, forms matter.
Space is a plenum with 'something' filling it.
Vacuum is simply a space with all of the 'air' removed but still containing ether.
As for the Big Bag theory, I have a question: If 'the earth was once a dense, cosmic egg', who laid it?
Is light a particle or a wave? It is BOTH, it must be.
We live in a world of Cause and Effect, dual in nature, so there must, in all things, be two.
Is the Universe matrix or random? It is BOTH, it must be, for the same reasons.
FARSIGHT: "Did the big bang happen and if so how? Is the Universe really accelerating at a moment to moment increase? Is the speed of radiation really constant in all reference frames independent of the speed of the originating source? Does relativity really happen and what is the mechanism by which acceleration/ velocity between objects can change relative time and space? Do some galaxies really spin at a fixed speed as if the galaxy is on a plate spinning around? Do black holes really evaporate? What is the mechanism by which matter attracts at a distance, (Gravity)?
The person that understands these questions is the person that can tell if there is a medium and how it relates to the universe big and small. Especially the nature and how it has remained hidden from our ability to understand."
The Big Bang did not happen.
The Universe is in Motion, Force being obstructed motion.
All 'speeds' are relative.
If you understand Magnetism, you understand the basic concept of the Universe: Two Forces working together in balance to keep the 'little round balls' in their particular orbits: Posi-Negativity or "cosmic glue"...
QUOTE (4Dguy+Apr 14 2008, 12:31 PM)
The question of whether there is a medium has been put too rest in the minds of main stream science. Could that be because it does not fit in the direction main stream has taken?
Yes.
They were wrong.
They were wrong.
There was the frame dragging medium that was tested and found that if the design of the test was correct than there is no frame dragging medium.
Wrong.
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.
There is no empty space because there is absolutely no empty space that is not either form-owned or [B]form-owning[-B].
If you consider that in an informational world there would be no place for a 1 except for the fact that a 0 exists somewhere, then... 1 is bigger than itself! So if 1 has a 0 inherent to its existence, then a zero-dimensional point that you can point at must at least have a zero-dimensional point that you can point at nonetheless a different space.
"1" means 1 plus the space that gives it its value, so 1 is bigger than itself UNLESS "0" is included in the definition of "1". 1 as an address must be different than 0 as an address.
So that 0 must be simultaneously the logical opposite of 1 and a part of it. As much as the space that is between 3 points must be simultaneously logically opposite to the idea that their substance fills -3 points, a triangle- and a part of that idea that they don't fill -that is, the empty space that holds the form "triangle" whole.
The empty space that holds the form "triangle" up to scrutiny must necessarily be a numeric part of the form "triangle" that it holds. But before a triangle is ever possible in the smallest-possible-universe, there is the existence of 2 points to consider.
What we know as "gravity" is philosophically caused by a two-ness being disturbed by a three-ness. Since everything tends to one-ness and there can only be one-ness in a two-ness --because there is no distance between two points if they are the only thing in the universe-- the sudden "appearance" of a third object is what gives the initial impulse for distance to start existing as well as position. Similarly, a suddenly-disappearing third object of a 3-object system would have an opposite effect, and what we know as "gravity" would become a repulsion.
Space newly claimed, by a new owner. What "disappearance" and "appearance" is supposed to mean is a sudden turn out of or into space that is claimed by the "event" two-ness (this turn out of space is what everyone else calls "frame-dragging", but the description of "frame-dragging" seems to exclude its opposite, as in matter appearing out of nothingness; it's supposed to be just dragged out of it, not into it).
That still means that there is only "space" and "matter" at all times.
Except some empty spaces have multiple owners, and some empty spaces only have a single owner. In this line of reasoning, "aether" would always be, and couldn't be anything else other than, space that is less claimed. Since space is a blank slate, it's properties are acquired the property of the objects that claim its ownership, **which is matter**. Then space is matter, even though space is the logical opposite of matter.
(From here on you get stuck into infinite regression... It ain't worth it!)
(edit: oh, cool, someone did mention frame-creation!!!
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.
There is no empty space because there is absolutely no empty space that is not either form-owned or [B]form-owning[-B].
If you consider that in an informational world there would be no place for a 1 except for the fact that a 0 exists somewhere, then... 1 is bigger than itself! So if 1 has a 0 inherent to its existence, then a zero-dimensional point that you can point at must at least have a zero-dimensional point that you can point at nonetheless a different space.
"1" means 1 plus the space that gives it its value, so 1 is bigger than itself UNLESS "0" is included in the definition of "1". 1 as an address must be different than 0 as an address.
So that 0 must be simultaneously the logical opposite of 1 and a part of it. As much as the space that is between 3 points must be simultaneously logically opposite to the idea that their substance fills -3 points, a triangle- and a part of that idea that they don't fill -that is, the empty space that holds the form "triangle" whole.
The empty space that holds the form "triangle" up to scrutiny must necessarily be a numeric part of the form "triangle" that it holds. But before a triangle is ever possible in the smallest-possible-universe, there is the existence of 2 points to consider.
What we know as "gravity" is philosophically caused by a two-ness being disturbed by a three-ness. Since everything tends to one-ness and there can only be one-ness in a two-ness --because there is no distance between two points if they are the only thing in the universe-- the sudden "appearance" of a third object is what gives the initial impulse for distance to start existing as well as position. Similarly, a suddenly-disappearing third object of a 3-object system would have an opposite effect, and what we know as "gravity" would become a repulsion.
Space newly claimed, by a new owner. What "disappearance" and "appearance" is supposed to mean is a sudden turn out of or into space that is claimed by the "event" two-ness (this turn out of space is what everyone else calls "frame-dragging", but the description of "frame-dragging" seems to exclude its opposite, as in matter appearing out of nothingness; it's supposed to be just dragged out of it, not into it).
That still means that there is only "space" and "matter" at all times.
Except some empty spaces have multiple owners, and some empty spaces only have a single owner. In this line of reasoning, "aether" would always be, and couldn't be anything else other than, space that is less claimed. Since space is a blank slate, it's properties are acquired the property of the objects that claim its ownership, **which is matter**. Then space is matter, even though space is the logical opposite of matter.
(From here on you get stuck into infinite regression... It ain't worth it!)
(edit: oh, cool, someone did mention frame-creation!!!
There is one more medium that has not been tested for I believe. That would be the frame creating medium. That would tie Relativity too a medium rather than merely postulates.
Beautiful N.E. Georgia, USA. Thanks for asking.
Beautiful N.E. Georgia, USA. Thanks for asking.
blackhillsgold
The Big Bang did not happen.
The Universe is in Motion, Force being obstructed motion.
All 'speeds' are relative.
If you understand Magnetism, you understand the basic concept of the Universe: Two Forces working together in balance to keep the 'little round balls' in their particular orbits: Posi-Negativity or "cosmic glue"...
I happen to share the same beliefs. Would you care to elaborate how you have arrived at these conclusions?
Do you really want to know more about the properties of the medium? or do you wish to explore and discover them for yourself?
Do you really want to know more about the properties of the medium? or do you wish to explore and discover them for yourself?
czeslaw
Tesla also argued:
“ I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view" . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Tesla also argued that EMR propagated through space, like sound waves in air, as magnetic waves only, with space behaving as a fluidic conductor medium. I have searched diligently for many years for empirical evidence that would support a stance of EMR possessing both electric and magnetic properties, and have found none. I have found evidence, however, to support a conclusion of no electro aspects associated with EMR. I believe this to be an excellent example of how assumptions can be propagated as fact by our contemporary "Physics Establishment".
4Dguy
It's inspirational to see someone asking questions.. instead of assuming indignant self-righteousness. It is a wise man who knows he doesn't know.
Jack
Tesla also argued that EMR propagated through space, like sound waves in air, as magnetic waves only, with space behaving as a fluidic conductor medium. I have searched diligently for many years for empirical evidence that would support a stance of EMR possessing both electric and magnetic properties, and have found none. I have found evidence, however, to support a conclusion of no electro aspects associated with EMR. I believe this to be an excellent example of how assumptions can be propagated as fact by our contemporary "Physics Establishment".
4Dguy
It's inspirational to see someone asking questions.. instead of assuming indignant self-righteousness. It is a wise man who knows he doesn't know.
Jack
Tesla didn't know last experiments with a space but his philosophy was correct.
EMR doesn't propagate through a perfect empty space but it propagates in the Gravitational Field.
Gravitational field distorts the space according to de Broglie oscillation and these distortions create a Vacuum which is something like a virtual plasma consisted of virtual particles-antiparticles.
That way light is propagated in a dynamical medium like sound waves in the air.
The light wave is streatched in cosmic void and contracted in strong gravity.
If an observer moves in the gravitational field he observes Unruh effect and denser Vacuum.
We have note that speed of light is constant in the inertial frame of reference. In different not inertial frame the speed of light differs. That way we observe time dilation.
My idea is that oscillations due to de Broglie wave create gravitational field (Vacuum) and curvature of the space. It is like a virtual plasma which is a dynamical medium for light.
yes a magnetic aether, with an orthogonally opposed electric spin, within bubbles spinning around in a "chaotic " liquid crystal blob ?????? = The Universe
Amrit,
I do not think we are at a stage that we can name a medium. Its a bit premature. Your naming a medium is a conclusion without a Journey. Join us in the Journey.
Ivars,
I am a little confused about some of your meanings. I am sure it is my fault.
The medium seems to have distance which would be at the very minimum three dimensions even without time as a mechanical part of that space. Can you explain in more detail?
The medium seems to have distance which would be at the very minimum three dimensions even without time as a mechanical part of that space. Can you explain in more detail?
3) Any deviation from that dimensionless medium which would cause finite ( not infinitesimal) obstacle to movement of matter is impossible = if there is such, it is matter
Unless of course the energy of space time is the cause of movement. That has not been ruled out.
This is where I am the most confused, if space energy exists dimension less we need to define dimension as it relates to energy.
This is where I am the most confused, if space energy exists dimension less we need to define dimension as it relates to energy.
5) Since it lacks spatial dimensions, it can only be related to time, but to time in it primal form, continuous imaginary flow , perhaps 4th dimension, perhaps infinitely many imaginary dimensions; where it has not yet organized enough to become
I am sure imaginary and lacks spatial dimension have different meanings to you than what I read as meaning magic to me. Can you explain this further?
Zarkov,
Could you explain "a magnetic aether, with an orthogonally opposed electric spin, within bubbles spinning around in a "chaotic " liquid crystal blob ?????? = The Universe" a little more? Magnetic to me means a specific movement of the medium that connects mass that allows the same movement. I think we are having trouble relating because of different meanings we assign to words.
czeslaw,
I am thankful for your introducing me to Tesla, he had some wonderful ideas.
fizzeksman,
There is a breaking point where things go beyond reason. It is good to see others like yourself questioning that reason.
IAMoraes,
There is a breaking point where things go beyond reason. It is good to see others like yourself questioning that reason.
IAMoraes,
What we know as "gravity" is philosophically caused by a two-ness being disturbed by a three-ness. Since everything tends to one-ness and there can only be one-ness in a two-ness --because there is no distance between two points if they are the only thing in the universe-- the sudden "appearance" of a third object is what gives the initial impulse for distance to start existing as well as position. Similarly, a suddenly-disappearing third object of a 3-object system would have an opposite effect, and what we know as "gravity" would become a repulsion.
Without a medium it would be spooky. Centrifugal force I believe is two-ness disturbed by three-ness. Two dimension space disturbed with three dimension mass intersecting Tesla's polarized straight tubes.
blackhillsgold,
Fission and fusion are the probable pathway between energy and matter. They could be interchangeable with mass being frozen energy due to fusion. We know fusion is responsible for the creation of higher elements in suns. The medium to Hydrogen might be the first step in the process.
Half the stars we see in the universe are binary. It is possible that one is smaller than the other putting pressure on the smaller sun to age quicker to a mature heavier element star and finally blow apart into planets. It is possible that the remnant of our companion is on a twenty thousand year cycle. This possibility is suggested because of our changing position to the constellations over the years that is also suggested to be sinusoidal in its movement.
Fission and fusion are the probable pathway between energy and matter. They could be interchangeable with mass being frozen energy due to fusion. We know fusion is responsible for the creation of higher elements in suns. The medium to Hydrogen might be the first step in the process.
Half the stars we see in the universe are binary. It is possible that one is smaller than the other putting pressure on the smaller sun to age quicker to a mature heavier element star and finally blow apart into planets. It is possible that the remnant of our companion is on a twenty thousand year cycle. This possibility is suggested because of our changing position to the constellations over the years that is also suggested to be sinusoidal in its movement.
Is light a particle or a wave? It is BOTH, it must be.
As a medium it could be a wave of particles with the wave like that of sound (Tesla), just the effect on the medium. This would transfer energy as a particle and explain the dual split experiment as a wave.
Thank you all I am having a wonderful time reading the posts of your thoughts. Your contributions to my education of possibilities has been exciting for me.
Yes.
QUOTE
There is the *static* medium that was disproved by the MM experiments.
They were wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is the *static* medium that was disproved by the MM experiments. |
They were wrong.
There was the frame dragging medium that was tested and found that if the design of the test was correct than there is no frame dragging medium.
Wrong.
QUOTE
There is one more medium that has not been tested for I believe. That would be the frame creating medium. That would tie Relativity too a medium rather than merely postulates.
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.
There is no empty space because there is absolutely no empty space that is not either form-owned or [B]form-owning[-B].
If you consider that in an informational world there would be no place for a 1 except for the fact that a 0 exists somewhere, then... 1 is bigger than itself! So if 1 has a 0 inherent to its existence, then a zero-dimensional point that you can point at must at least have a zero-dimensional point that you can point at nonetheless a different space.
"1" means 1 plus the space that gives it its value, so 1 is bigger than itself UNLESS "0" is included in the definition of "1". 1 as an address must be different than 0 as an address.
So that 0 must be simultaneously the logical opposite of 1 and a part of it. As much as the space that is between 3 points must be simultaneously logically opposite to the idea that their substance fills -3 points, a triangle- and a part of that idea that they don't fill -that is, the empty space that holds the form "triangle" whole.
The empty space that holds the form "triangle" up to scrutiny must necessarily be a numeric part of the form "triangle" that it holds. But before a triangle is ever possible in the smallest-possible-universe, there is the existence of 2 points to consider.
What we know as "gravity" is philosophically caused by a two-ness being disturbed by a three-ness. Since everything tends to one-ness and there can only be one-ness in a two-ness --because there is no distance between two points if they are the only thing in the universe-- the sudden "appearance" of a third object is what gives the initial impulse for distance to start existing as well as position. Similarly, a suddenly-disappearing third object of a 3-object system would have an opposite effect, and what we know as "gravity" would become a repulsion.
Space newly claimed, by a new owner. What "disappearance" and "appearance" is supposed to mean is a sudden turn out of or into space that is claimed by the "event" two-ness (this turn out of space is what everyone else calls "frame-dragging", but the description of "frame-dragging" seems to exclude its opposite, as in matter appearing out of nothingness; it's supposed to be just dragged out of it, not into it).
That still means that there is only "space" and "matter" at all times.
Except some empty spaces have multiple owners, and some empty spaces only have a single owner. In this line of reasoning, "aether" would always be, and couldn't be anything else other than, space that is less claimed. Since space is a blank slate, it's properties are acquired the property of the objects that claim its ownership, **which is matter**. Then space is matter, even though space is the logical opposite of matter.
(From here on you get stuck into infinite regression... It ain't worth it!)
(edit: oh, cool, someone did mention frame-creation!!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is one more medium that has not been tested for I believe. That would be the frame creating medium. That would tie Relativity too a medium rather than merely postulates. |
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.
There is no empty space because there is absolutely no empty space that is not either form-owned or [B]form-owning[-B].
If you consider that in an informational world there would be no place for a 1 except for the fact that a 0 exists somewhere, then... 1 is bigger than itself! So if 1 has a 0 inherent to its existence, then a zero-dimensional point that you can point at must at least have a zero-dimensional point that you can point at nonetheless a different space.
"1" means 1 plus the space that gives it its value, so 1 is bigger than itself UNLESS "0" is included in the definition of "1". 1 as an address must be different than 0 as an address.
So that 0 must be simultaneously the logical opposite of 1 and a part of it. As much as the space that is between 3 points must be simultaneously logically opposite to the idea that their substance fills -3 points, a triangle- and a part of that idea that they don't fill -that is, the empty space that holds the form "triangle" whole.
The empty space that holds the form "triangle" up to scrutiny must necessarily be a numeric part of the form "triangle" that it holds. But before a triangle is ever possible in the smallest-possible-universe, there is the existence of 2 points to consider.
What we know as "gravity" is philosophically caused by a two-ness being disturbed by a three-ness. Since everything tends to one-ness and there can only be one-ness in a two-ness --because there is no distance between two points if they are the only thing in the universe-- the sudden "appearance" of a third object is what gives the initial impulse for distance to start existing as well as position. Similarly, a suddenly-disappearing third object of a 3-object system would have an opposite effect, and what we know as "gravity" would become a repulsion.
Space newly claimed, by a new owner. What "disappearance" and "appearance" is supposed to mean is a sudden turn out of or into space that is claimed by the "event" two-ness (this turn out of space is what everyone else calls "frame-dragging", but the description of "frame-dragging" seems to exclude its opposite, as in matter appearing out of nothingness; it's supposed to be just dragged out of it, not into it).
That still means that there is only "space" and "matter" at all times.
Except some empty spaces have multiple owners, and some empty spaces only have a single owner. In this line of reasoning, "aether" would always be, and couldn't be anything else other than, space that is less claimed. Since space is a blank slate, it's properties are acquired the property of the objects that claim its ownership, **which is matter**. Then space is matter, even though space is the logical opposite of matter.
(From here on you get stuck into infinite regression... It ain't worth it!)
(edit: oh, cool, someone did mention frame-creation!!!
There is one more medium that has not been tested for I believe. That would be the frame creating medium. That would tie Relativity too a medium rather than merely postulates.
QUOTE
Farsight
You are talking my language, fizzeksman. Are you in Glasgow?
You are talking my language, fizzeksman. Are you in Glasgow?
Beautiful N.E. Georgia, USA. Thanks for asking.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Farsight You are talking my language, fizzeksman. Are you in Glasgow? |
Beautiful N.E. Georgia, USA. Thanks for asking.
blackhillsgold
The Big Bang did not happen.
The Universe is in Motion, Force being obstructed motion.
All 'speeds' are relative.
If you understand Magnetism, you understand the basic concept of the Universe: Two Forces working together in balance to keep the 'little round balls' in their particular orbits: Posi-Negativity or "cosmic glue"...
I happen to share the same beliefs. Would you care to elaborate how you have arrived at these conclusions?
QUOTE
insight
The person that understands these questions is the person that can tell if there is a medium and how it relates to the universe big and small. Especially the nature and how it has remained hidden from our ability to understand.
The person that understands these questions is the person that can tell if there is a medium and how it relates to the universe big and small. Especially the nature and how it has remained hidden from our ability to understand.
Do you really want to know more about the properties of the medium? or do you wish to explore and discover them for yourself?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| insight The person that understands these questions is the person that can tell if there is a medium and how it relates to the universe big and small. Especially the nature and how it has remained hidden from our ability to understand. |
Do you really want to know more about the properties of the medium? or do you wish to explore and discover them for yourself?
czeslaw
Tesla also argued:
“ I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view" . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla
Tesla also argued that EMR propagated through space, like sound waves in air, as magnetic waves only, with space behaving as a fluidic conductor medium. I have searched diligently for many years for empirical evidence that would support a stance of EMR possessing both electric and magnetic properties, and have found none. I have found evidence, however, to support a conclusion of no electro aspects associated with EMR. I believe this to be an excellent example of how assumptions can be propagated as fact by our contemporary "Physics Establishment".
4Dguy
It's inspirational to see someone asking questions.. instead of assuming indignant self-righteousness. It is a wise man who knows he doesn't know.
Jack
QUOTE (fizzeksman+Apr 17 2008, 05:15 AM)
Tesla also argued that EMR propagated through space, like sound waves in air, as magnetic waves only, with space behaving as a fluidic conductor medium. I have searched diligently for many years for empirical evidence that would support a stance of EMR possessing both electric and magnetic properties, and have found none. I have found evidence, however, to support a conclusion of no electro aspects associated with EMR. I believe this to be an excellent example of how assumptions can be propagated as fact by our contemporary "Physics Establishment".
4Dguy
It's inspirational to see someone asking questions.. instead of assuming indignant self-righteousness. It is a wise man who knows he doesn't know.
Jack
Tesla didn't know last experiments with a space but his philosophy was correct.
EMR doesn't propagate through a perfect empty space but it propagates in the Gravitational Field.
Gravitational field distorts the space according to de Broglie oscillation and these distortions create a Vacuum which is something like a virtual plasma consisted of virtual particles-antiparticles.
That way light is propagated in a dynamical medium like sound waves in the air.
The light wave is streatched in cosmic void and contracted in strong gravity.
If an observer moves in the gravitational field he observes Unruh effect and denser Vacuum.
We have note that speed of light is constant in the inertial frame of reference. In different not inertial frame the speed of light differs. That way we observe time dilation.
My idea is that oscillations due to de Broglie wave create gravitational field (Vacuum) and curvature of the space. It is like a virtual plasma which is a dynamical medium for light.
QUOTE
Tesla also argued that EMR propagated through space, like sound waves in air, as magnetic waves only, with space behaving as a fluidic conductor medium.
yes a magnetic aether, with an orthogonally opposed electric spin, within bubbles spinning around in a "chaotic " liquid crystal blob ?????? = The Universe
I do not think we can speak about "medium" as it implies something existing in 3D space, perhaps even material, or space itself.
However, from Einstein we know there is no space without matter and fields, including gravitational. And that seems to be true.
So the conclusion is obvious:
1) - that "medium" can not have dimensionality by itself, as it would than be material and have all the problems related to mechanics of such medium;
2) That medium can have e.g. imaginary dimensions , like time in SR, but maybe not so simple
3) Any deviation from that dimensionless medium which would cause finite ( not infinitesimal) obstacle to movement of matter is impossible = if there is such, it is matter
4) This medium must be omnipresent in space and source of motion, or energy of Universe as open spatially infinite system- there is no other place to receive any energy
5) Since it lacks spatial dimensions, it can only be related to time, but to time in it primal form, continuous imaginary flow , perhaps 4th dimension, perhaps infinitely many imaginary dimensions; where it has not yet organized enough to become
a) space , to create dimensions of space
matter in that space
c) discrete time appearing in space where we live and matter is.
6) since there are no spatial dimensions and finite inertia in that "medium", it moves in all directions with all speeds (basically infinite, and infinities of many scales are present- infinities of infinite number of scales) relative to itself- at least initially. It is a perfect chaos, and this perfect chaos DOES NOT present itself in SPACE in any way as there is NO SPACE as long as this chaos has not started to build loops and structures creating inertia and slowing down and organizing the chaotic movements of imaginary dimensions.
How the first loop occurs, remains a question, however organization of time loops itself follows from the only possible geometry of such 0 dimensional space- is such space there can not be lines as there are no directions; ring is the obvious form of choice in such space, analogue of infinite line in Euclidean space;
The difference with static geometry is that such ring should be rotating and moving - again the only reason being that it can not not rotate since the "medium" has these properties that it is absolutely relative so everything must move relative to anything, and there are no structures, no matter involved at all.
However, from Einstein we know there is no space without matter and fields, including gravitational. And that seems to be true.
So the conclusion is obvious:
1) - that "medium" can not have dimensionality by itself, as it would than be material and have all the problems related to mechanics of such medium;
2) That medium can have e.g. imaginary dimensions , like time in SR, but maybe not so simple
3) Any deviation from that dimensionless medium which would cause finite ( not infinitesimal) obstacle to movement of matter is impossible = if there is such, it is matter
4) This medium must be omnipresent in space and source of motion, or energy of Universe as open spatially infinite system- there is no other place to receive any energy
5) Since it lacks spatial dimensions, it can only be related to time, but to time in it primal form, continuous imaginary flow , perhaps 4th dimension, perhaps infinitely many imaginary dimensions; where it has not yet organized enough to become
a) space , to create dimensions of space
matter in that spacec) discrete time appearing in space where we live and matter is.
6) since there are no spatial dimensions and finite inertia in that "medium", it moves in all directions with all speeds (basically infinite, and infinities of many scales are present- infinities of infinite number of scales) relative to itself- at least initially. It is a perfect chaos, and this perfect chaos DOES NOT present itself in SPACE in any way as there is NO SPACE as long as this chaos has not started to build loops and structures creating inertia and slowing down and organizing the chaotic movements of imaginary dimensions.
How the first loop occurs, remains a question, however organization of time loops itself follows from the only possible geometry of such 0 dimensional space- is such space there can not be lines as there are no directions; ring is the obvious form of choice in such space, analogue of infinite line in Euclidean space;
The difference with static geometry is that such ring should be rotating and moving - again the only reason being that it can not not rotate since the "medium" has these properties that it is absolutely relative so everything must move relative to anything, and there are no structures, no matter involved at all.
a-temporal space = ether
ether = a-temporal space
ether = a-temporal space
Amrit,
I do not think we are at a stage that we can name a medium. Its a bit premature. Your naming a medium is a conclusion without a Journey. Join us in the Journey.
Ivars,
I am a little confused about some of your meanings. I am sure it is my fault.
QUOTE
1) - that "medium" can not have dimensionality by itself, as it would than be material and have all the problems related to mechanics of such medium;
The medium seems to have distance which would be at the very minimum three dimensions even without time as a mechanical part of that space. Can you explain in more detail?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) - that "medium" can not have dimensionality by itself, as it would than be material and have all the problems related to mechanics of such medium; |
The medium seems to have distance which would be at the very minimum three dimensions even without time as a mechanical part of that space. Can you explain in more detail?
3) Any deviation from that dimensionless medium which would cause finite ( not infinitesimal) obstacle to movement of matter is impossible = if there is such, it is matter
Unless of course the energy of space time is the cause of movement. That has not been ruled out.
QUOTE
4) This medium must be omnipresent in space and source of motion, or energy of Universe as open spatially infinite system- there is no other place to receive any energy
This is where I am the most confused, if space energy exists dimension less we need to define dimension as it relates to energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4) This medium must be omnipresent in space and source of motion, or energy of Universe as open spatially infinite system- there is no other place to receive any energy |
This is where I am the most confused, if space energy exists dimension less we need to define dimension as it relates to energy.
5) Since it lacks spatial dimensions, it can only be related to time, but to time in it primal form, continuous imaginary flow , perhaps 4th dimension, perhaps infinitely many imaginary dimensions; where it has not yet organized enough to become
I am sure imaginary and lacks spatial dimension have different meanings to you than what I read as meaning magic to me. Can you explain this further?
Zarkov,
Could you explain "a magnetic aether, with an orthogonally opposed electric spin, within bubbles spinning around in a "chaotic " liquid crystal blob ?????? = The Universe" a little more? Magnetic to me means a specific movement of the medium that connects mass that allows the same movement. I think we are having trouble relating because of different meanings we assign to words.
czeslaw,
I am thankful for your introducing me to Tesla, he had some wonderful ideas.
fizzeksman,
QUOTE
I believe this to be an excellent example of how assumptions can be propagated as fact by our contemporary "Physics Establishment".
There is a breaking point where things go beyond reason. It is good to see others like yourself questioning that reason.
IAMoraes,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I believe this to be an excellent example of how assumptions can be propagated as fact by our contemporary "Physics Establishment". |
There is a breaking point where things go beyond reason. It is good to see others like yourself questioning that reason.
IAMoraes,
What we know as "gravity" is philosophically caused by a two-ness being disturbed by a three-ness. Since everything tends to one-ness and there can only be one-ness in a two-ness --because there is no distance between two points if they are the only thing in the universe-- the sudden "appearance" of a third object is what gives the initial impulse for distance to start existing as well as position. Similarly, a suddenly-disappearing third object of a 3-object system would have an opposite effect, and what we know as "gravity" would become a repulsion.
Without a medium it would be spooky. Centrifugal force I believe is two-ness disturbed by three-ness. Two dimension space disturbed with three dimension mass intersecting Tesla's polarized straight tubes.
blackhillsgold,
QUOTE
As for the Big Bag theory, I have a question: If 'the earth was once a dense, cosmic egg', who laid it?
Fission and fusion are the probable pathway between energy and matter. They could be interchangeable with mass being frozen energy due to fusion. We know fusion is responsible for the creation of higher elements in suns. The medium to Hydrogen might be the first step in the process.
Half the stars we see in the universe are binary. It is possible that one is smaller than the other putting pressure on the smaller sun to age quicker to a mature heavier element star and finally blow apart into planets. It is possible that the remnant of our companion is on a twenty thousand year cycle. This possibility is suggested because of our changing position to the constellations over the years that is also suggested to be sinusoidal in its movement.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for the Big Bag theory, I have a question: If 'the earth was once a dense, cosmic egg', who laid it? |
Fission and fusion are the probable pathway between energy and matter. They could be interchangeable with mass being frozen energy due to fusion. We know fusion is responsible for the creation of higher elements in suns. The medium to Hydrogen might be the first step in the process.
Half the stars we see in the universe are binary. It is possible that one is smaller than the other putting pressure on the smaller sun to age quicker to a mature heavier element star and finally blow apart into planets. It is possible that the remnant of our companion is on a twenty thousand year cycle. This possibility is suggested because of our changing position to the constellations over the years that is also suggested to be sinusoidal in its movement.
Is light a particle or a wave? It is BOTH, it must be.
As a medium it could be a wave of particles with the wave like that of sound (Tesla), just the effect on the medium. This would transfer energy as a particle and explain the dual split experiment as a wave.
Thank you all I am having a wonderful time reading the posts of your thoughts. Your contributions to my education of possibilities has been exciting for me.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=18497&st=1050
Farsight:
However, the jelly universe with the ghostly wave-creatures , created by the long & short light structures ..... when you have to deal with them mathematically , may need a universal time variable + some universal reference frame to activate & deal with them , don't you think so ?
Yes, JT. You still need a t. You still measure things, and you still have a time "dimension". But you keep it firmly in its place. And you remember that you can't move through it.
amrit : do you notice this is a version of your a-temporal Universe ?
No its no ones-its Natures fault. It is the difficulty to express simplest , under laying concepts hidden by overlaying zillions of masks. Truth is there, but like from a sculpture, You have to chip slowly away tons of overlays to reveal it. So no wonder in the beginning in the work no one has clear notion what lays beneath, nor can explain it until it becomes "visible".
No its no ones-its Natures fault. It is the difficulty to express simplest , under laying concepts hidden by overlaying zillions of masks. Truth is there, but like from a sculpture, You have to chip slowly away tons of overlays to reveal it. So no wonder in the beginning in the work no one has clear notion what lays beneath, nor can explain it until it becomes "visible".
The medium seems to have distance which would be at the very minimum three dimensions even without time as a mechanical part of that space. Can you explain in more detail?
Distance is not mandatory at the very origin. That is probably the most difficult part. After that, it may become infinitesimal dimensionality, infinitesimal SPACE with fractal dimensionality as it grows, which means there is "matter" - I call it SQ matter, but not that one we perceive in physical experiments dealing with above quantum.
No, because 3D space needs energy to exist, or there is a material medium in it which , if it has finite size, causes problems we encounter when talking about Aether. The energy for 3D space has to come outside the space, or, rather, 3D space develops together with matter in it. But it is not Big bang , but in a sense a continuous phase transition which may look like big bang from our perspective. At least, it is not a big bang in 3D space, it is creation of >0 dimensional space out of 0 dimensional that has the energy in pure motion.
Also, Big bang is ONE sided, it does not account for harmony ruling the Universe, it is more like explosion in all directions, which is obviously not true nor leading to any harmonic complex structures. So before first phase transition form 0 dimensional SPACE to infinitesimal dimension space there is already both energy and harmony in the "medium".
No, because 3D space needs energy to exist, or there is a material medium in it which , if it has finite size, causes problems we encounter when talking about Aether. The energy for 3D space has to come outside the space, or, rather, 3D space develops together with matter in it. But it is not Big bang , but in a sense a continuous phase transition which may look like big bang from our perspective. At least, it is not a big bang in 3D space, it is creation of >0 dimensional space out of 0 dimensional that has the energy in pure motion.
Also, Big bang is ONE sided, it does not account for harmony ruling the Universe, it is more like explosion in all directions, which is obviously not true nor leading to any harmonic complex structures. So before first phase transition form 0 dimensional SPACE to infinitesimal dimension space there is already both energy and harmony in the "medium".
This is where I am the most confused, if space energy exists dimension less we need to define dimension as it relates to energy.
Yes, not only define, but also describe the best we can taking into account that it is eternal, infinite, undefined, energetic, harmonious, "moving or flowing". Energy without structures and SPACE , difficult to imagine, right?
Imaginary means Imaginary exactly in the same sense as physics uses imaginary unit. No need to look for further magic.
Let us say so:
1) If something lacks any spatial dimension, it is 0, it is PURELY imaginary ( mathematically) - e.g. time in SR, or continuous energy "dimension" at origin.
2) If there exists infinitesimal spatial dimension in that imaginary flow of time, or energy- e.g. a small loop of time, or vortex- that creates infinitesimal spatial dimension- such a "SPACE" has infinitesimal real component and Imaginary - infinitesimal imaginary imaginary component
As it continues, more and more matter ( still infinitesimal) is built from time substance ("medium") because of the initial " friction" created by first vortex, or loop, or knot . The Imaginary characteristic of such media becomes smaller and smaller by still infinitesimal quantities while real- bigger and bigger.
At the SQ/Quantum border case ( the reasons why it should become discrete at some stage is little beyond the scope of this answer) there is a phase transition where part of the infinitely small matter vortexes in infinite flow of time percolate- so that share of infinitesimal matter becomes bigger than share of unorganized , continuous time/energy flow- let us say 57% of total infinity becomes vortexes of time of certain complexity- at this stage we do not have anymore matter in TIME but we have TIME in MATTER. This is the major phase transition there is, and leads to appearance of qualitatively new stage - infinite lattice of time entities , above Quantum matter- particles.
Island of matter in Ocean of time become Lakes of time in Land of matter. Time gets discrete, or disconnected ( as long as we look at it from scales above).
The scale thus defined is the only reference scale there is; at this stage also c is defined as reference speed; All our measurements and sizes of matters are multiples and combinations of this scale.
At the same time, "medium" still exists, but its fragmented now, so interactions between medium and matter are now different from what they where when it was just medium organizing in loops and vortices. In some sense, at this phase transition between infinitesimal world of continuous time and finitely scaled world of above quantum the primary energy of the energy dimension has Exhausted its ability to get more complex by infinite jumps, further complexications happens by finite ratios but driven by the same potential that has been left after creation of infinitesimal dimensions.
So the result is, obviously, the spatial dimensions of space are not 3D, but fractal (close to 3D in some places, obviously) and being created at the same time as Universe gets more complex-which it does.
I have a question. We know the sun ages to higher elements, Hydrogen to Iron.
I think its hydrogen to helium.
QUOTE ( (JTsang @ Apr 17 2008+ 09:57 AM))
Farsight:
However, the jelly universe with the ghostly wave-creatures , created by the long & short light structures ..... when you have to deal with them mathematically , may need a universal time variable + some universal reference frame to activate & deal with them , don't you think so ?
QUOTE (Farsight+)
Yes, JT. You still need a t. You still measure things, and you still have a time "dimension". But you keep it firmly in its place. And you remember that you can't move through it.
amrit : do you notice this is a version of your a-temporal Universe ?
QUOTE
I am a little confused about some of your meanings. I am sure it is my fault.
No its no ones-its Natures fault. It is the difficulty to express simplest , under laying concepts hidden by overlaying zillions of masks. Truth is there, but like from a sculpture, You have to chip slowly away tons of overlays to reveal it. So no wonder in the beginning in the work no one has clear notion what lays beneath, nor can explain it until it becomes "visible".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am a little confused about some of your meanings. I am sure it is my fault. |
No its no ones-its Natures fault. It is the difficulty to express simplest , under laying concepts hidden by overlaying zillions of masks. Truth is there, but like from a sculpture, You have to chip slowly away tons of overlays to reveal it. So no wonder in the beginning in the work no one has clear notion what lays beneath, nor can explain it until it becomes "visible".
The medium seems to have distance which would be at the very minimum three dimensions even without time as a mechanical part of that space. Can you explain in more detail?
Distance is not mandatory at the very origin. That is probably the most difficult part. After that, it may become infinitesimal dimensionality, infinitesimal SPACE with fractal dimensionality as it grows, which means there is "matter" - I call it SQ matter, but not that one we perceive in physical experiments dealing with above quantum.
QUOTE
Space can be source of energy
No, because 3D space needs energy to exist, or there is a material medium in it which , if it has finite size, causes problems we encounter when talking about Aether. The energy for 3D space has to come outside the space, or, rather, 3D space develops together with matter in it. But it is not Big bang , but in a sense a continuous phase transition which may look like big bang from our perspective. At least, it is not a big bang in 3D space, it is creation of >0 dimensional space out of 0 dimensional that has the energy in pure motion.
Also, Big bang is ONE sided, it does not account for harmony ruling the Universe, it is more like explosion in all directions, which is obviously not true nor leading to any harmonic complex structures. So before first phase transition form 0 dimensional SPACE to infinitesimal dimension space there is already both energy and harmony in the "medium".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Space can be source of energy |
No, because 3D space needs energy to exist, or there is a material medium in it which , if it has finite size, causes problems we encounter when talking about Aether. The energy for 3D space has to come outside the space, or, rather, 3D space develops together with matter in it. But it is not Big bang , but in a sense a continuous phase transition which may look like big bang from our perspective. At least, it is not a big bang in 3D space, it is creation of >0 dimensional space out of 0 dimensional that has the energy in pure motion.
Also, Big bang is ONE sided, it does not account for harmony ruling the Universe, it is more like explosion in all directions, which is obviously not true nor leading to any harmonic complex structures. So before first phase transition form 0 dimensional SPACE to infinitesimal dimension space there is already both energy and harmony in the "medium".
This is where I am the most confused, if space energy exists dimension less we need to define dimension as it relates to energy.
Yes, not only define, but also describe the best we can taking into account that it is eternal, infinite, undefined, energetic, harmonious, "moving or flowing". Energy without structures and SPACE , difficult to imagine, right?
QUOTE
I am sure imaginary and lacks spatial dimension have different meanings to you than what I read as meaning magic to me. Can you explain this further?
Imaginary means Imaginary exactly in the same sense as physics uses imaginary unit. No need to look for further magic.
Let us say so:
1) If something lacks any spatial dimension, it is 0, it is PURELY imaginary ( mathematically) - e.g. time in SR, or continuous energy "dimension" at origin.
2) If there exists infinitesimal spatial dimension in that imaginary flow of time, or energy- e.g. a small loop of time, or vortex- that creates infinitesimal spatial dimension- such a "SPACE" has infinitesimal real component and Imaginary - infinitesimal imaginary imaginary component
As it continues, more and more matter ( still infinitesimal) is built from time substance ("medium") because of the initial " friction" created by first vortex, or loop, or knot . The Imaginary characteristic of such media becomes smaller and smaller by still infinitesimal quantities while real- bigger and bigger.
At the SQ/Quantum border case ( the reasons why it should become discrete at some stage is little beyond the scope of this answer) there is a phase transition where part of the infinitely small matter vortexes in infinite flow of time percolate- so that share of infinitesimal matter becomes bigger than share of unorganized , continuous time/energy flow- let us say 57% of total infinity becomes vortexes of time of certain complexity- at this stage we do not have anymore matter in TIME but we have TIME in MATTER. This is the major phase transition there is, and leads to appearance of qualitatively new stage - infinite lattice of time entities , above Quantum matter- particles.
Island of matter in Ocean of time become Lakes of time in Land of matter. Time gets discrete, or disconnected ( as long as we look at it from scales above).
The scale thus defined is the only reference scale there is; at this stage also c is defined as reference speed; All our measurements and sizes of matters are multiples and combinations of this scale.
At the same time, "medium" still exists, but its fragmented now, so interactions between medium and matter are now different from what they where when it was just medium organizing in loops and vortices. In some sense, at this phase transition between infinitesimal world of continuous time and finitely scaled world of above quantum the primary energy of the energy dimension has Exhausted its ability to get more complex by infinite jumps, further complexications happens by finite ratios but driven by the same potential that has been left after creation of infinitesimal dimensions.
So the result is, obviously, the spatial dimensions of space are not 3D, but fractal (close to 3D in some places, obviously) and being created at the same time as Universe gets more complex-which it does.
QUOTE (Ivars+Apr 18 2008, 07:27 AM)
You have to chip slowly away tons of overlays to reveal it. So no wonder in the beginning in the work no one has clear notion what lays beneath, nor can explain it until it becomes "visible".
But for example - what you reveal is even larger complexity. It seems its not like the more inward you go the more simpler things get. It seems its the opposite or maybe even - its always the same complexity. There is no way of reducing it to fundamental something. Infinity for example explains nothing. Thus everything is fundamental. That would mean you have to start with everything that is possible and how would you know what is everything that is possible if there are no real clear distinctions as to where does something end and something else starts?
But for example - what you reveal is even larger complexity. It seems its not like the more inward you go the more simpler things get. It seems its the opposite or maybe even - its always the same complexity. There is no way of reducing it to fundamental something. Infinity for example explains nothing. Thus everything is fundamental. That would mean you have to start with everything that is possible and how would you know what is everything that is possible if there are no real clear distinctions as to where does something end and something else starts?
QUOTE (Majkl+Apr 18 2008, 08:19 AM)
But for example - what you reveal is even larger complexity. It seems its not like the more inward you go the more simpler things get. It seems its the opposite or maybe even - its always the same complexity. There is no way of reducing it to fundamental something. Infinity for example explains nothing. Thus everything is fundamental. That would mean you have to start with everything that is possible and how would you know what is everything that is possible if there are no real clear distinctions as to where does something end and something else starts?
hej Majkl
There are just 2 ways:
Either You include increasing complexity in basic set of INFINITIES- which You say does not clarify anything- in fact it clarifies a lot about what needs to be left unclarified at the origin- and after that You get ONE theory that gets more complex but follows complexity of Nature, so explains it with every of its step, or
You make clear definitions , excluding infinities in the beginning- and you and up either with:
-Theory with limited application concentrating on some subspace of Universe ( which is fine for engineering purposes in most cases)
- Infinite number of theories giving infinite number of different answers ( as string theories, so I have heard).
Division between Classical and Quantum physics are just at the beginning of these multiplications of theories.
As long as we are discussing "medium" that pervades space we should not be aiming too low, for a partial theory. The aim is to explain basic things from more basic, including the source of motion, why particles has mass, why universe is harmonic etc. All in one shot:)
Also, for me, Finite things are more problematic than infinite, since they never answer the question what was before and what is after and beyond- they are definitely not in any relation to the source of complexity and life.
hej Majkl
There are just 2 ways:
Either You include increasing complexity in basic set of INFINITIES- which You say does not clarify anything- in fact it clarifies a lot about what needs to be left unclarified at the origin- and after that You get ONE theory that gets more complex but follows complexity of Nature, so explains it with every of its step, or
You make clear definitions , excluding infinities in the beginning- and you and up either with:
-Theory with limited application concentrating on some subspace of Universe ( which is fine for engineering purposes in most cases)
- Infinite number of theories giving infinite number of different answers ( as string theories, so I have heard).
Division between Classical and Quantum physics are just at the beginning of these multiplications of theories.
As long as we are discussing "medium" that pervades space we should not be aiming too low, for a partial theory. The aim is to explain basic things from more basic, including the source of motion, why particles has mass, why universe is harmonic etc. All in one shot:)
Also, for me, Finite things are more problematic than infinite, since they never answer the question what was before and what is after and beyond- they are definitely not in any relation to the source of complexity and life.
QUOTE (Ivars+Apr 18 2008, 08:48 AM)
hej Majkl
There are just 2 ways:
Either You include increasing complexity in basic set of INFINITIES- which You say does not clarify anything- in fact it clarifies a lot about what needs to be left unclarified at the origin- and after that You get ONE theory that gets more complex but follows complexity of Nature, so explains it with every of its step,
The way i see this operation is that you decide to disect infinity into lets say linear bandwidths of equal intervals thus you structure-ize it. So you try to make linear bandwidths as small as possible thus that nothing should get out of detection. And then you use some kind of progressive sizing up of these intervals and superposition them from smallest to large and you have superpositioned grids of all scales. But still there is no fine transition between your linear bandwidths of abstractly disected infinity. Even at the smallest of smallest those fine transitions escape detection of even the smallest bandwidth you are scaning with. The problem is the discrete-sizing itself. The idea is that you cannot be accurate enough since no such accuracy exists. The same problem is the idea of fundamental particle for example. Fundamental particle is impossible. If anything must be fundamental its not a particle.
The only problem of medium is that it seems it is both vacuum (almost nothing) and some kind of superfine substance (almost something). Yet another particle/wave like duality. So it all seems more like conceptual "wars" than just looking at things as they are and not trying to ignore anomalies and logic.
There are just 2 ways:
Either You include increasing complexity in basic set of INFINITIES- which You say does not clarify anything- in fact it clarifies a lot about what needs to be left unclarified at the origin- and after that You get ONE theory that gets more complex but follows complexity of Nature, so explains it with every of its step,
The way i see this operation is that you decide to disect infinity into lets say linear bandwidths of equal intervals thus you structure-ize it. So you try to make linear bandwidths as small as possible thus that nothing should get out of detection. And then you use some kind of progressive sizing up of these intervals and superposition them from smallest to large and you have superpositioned grids of all scales. But still there is no fine transition between your linear bandwidths of abstractly disected infinity. Even at the smallest of smallest those fine transitions escape detection of even the smallest bandwidth you are scaning with. The problem is the discrete-sizing itself. The idea is that you cannot be accurate enough since no such accuracy exists. The same problem is the idea of fundamental particle for example. Fundamental particle is impossible. If anything must be fundamental its not a particle.
The only problem of medium is that it seems it is both vacuum (almost nothing) and some kind of superfine substance (almost something). Yet another particle/wave like duality. So it all seems more like conceptual "wars" than just looking at things as they are and not trying to ignore anomalies and logic.
Hej Majki
QUOTE: "The problem is the discrete-sizing itself. The idea is that you cannot be accurate enough since no such accuracy exists. The same problem is the idea of fundamental particle for example. Fundamental particle is impossible. If anything must be fundamental its not a particle."
May I propose that everything is turned upwards down - that we reverse the chicken - egg.
That Universe starts - that the Origin is absolutely without any information - because all sizing starts with the biggest and then we down-size.
Origin Condition is based on the presence of the following two beings:
1) "Dimensionality" - and this is equal to infinite space - infinite space is not being created - infinite space is and has always been - space cannot be created out from something which is not a space. The dimensionality is defined out from the simplest - it is a space - it has no defined size - it is simply inifinite - and it contains nothing - it is simply just a space.
2) "A Principle" - and this principle is the binary principle - that something can be divided in two - that it is possible to say whether something belongs to one part - or to another part. When this principle is being applied on the Dimensionality - we have the UNFOLDING of universe - the very Origin og Universe. The binary principle is not only how dimensionalities are being divided - that would be a meaningless ever ongoing down-sizing - the binary system is an informational system - that can tell exactly how - where - the dimensionalities are located relative to each other. That the individual dimensionalities can be retrieved.
The most economical way of organizing is by using scales. And that is exactly what physical Universe is about. It is how such ever increasing number of dimensionalities are being organized - stored - in space, and time is the counting system - time 1 is the same as the Origin where one dimensionality (infinite space) depated in two - and time 2 is when Universe was 4 - and so on.
Time is therefore intimately related to the number of divisions since origin - and time has only one direction, and time is intimately related to the amount of difference that we are dealing with, and time is also intimately related to the scale we are dealing with, and time is intimately related to locality - because everything is percepted in-situ - there exist no such thing as G*d's eye.
So Origin is stupidly simple - but complexation and how it is being organized in increasingly deeper and deeper scales is a very very very ----huh.
Binary mathematics is our way of understanding the principles of organization, and the principles underlying when - how - and why the scalings are taking place. Nature always behave such to be most economic, and when organizing dimensions in space, there will come a point where it is more economical - from an informational point of view - to organize the placing/ the description of placement in space - in a new scale. So the simplest part of universe - containing only the first layer of information - telling how the first-generation dimensions are being organized - is the first scale - and it is organized in infinite space.
To talk about dimension is meaningless as such - what we have is ratios - and scales, there is no dimensional yardstick as long as it cannot be compared to something.
And it is where humans come into the picture. Human is part of universe - made from the same stuff as rest of universe - made of information just as the rest of universe - but with this odd capability of percepting itsself. So we are dealing with how information percepts information. In order to percept there must be an interference - and interference require a kind of equivalense in "size-scale-ratio" - call it what we like. So human is best defined out from the scale - the complexation scale of selfperception.
Complexation is an ever ongoing proces starting with least complicated - most simple - and developing scalewise into more and more complicated expressions.
An ever ongoing process - and there exist no such thing as the "smallest" being the starting conditions - it is totally the other way round.
QUOTE: "The problem is the discrete-sizing itself. The idea is that you cannot be accurate enough since no such accuracy exists. The same problem is the idea of fundamental particle for example. Fundamental particle is impossible. If anything must be fundamental its not a particle."
May I propose that everything is turned upwards down - that we reverse the chicken - egg.
That Universe starts - that the Origin is absolutely without any information - because all sizing starts with the biggest and then we down-size.
Origin Condition is based on the presence of the following two beings:
1) "Dimensionality" - and this is equal to infinite space - infinite space is not being created - infinite space is and has always been - space cannot be created out from something which is not a space. The dimensionality is defined out from the simplest - it is a space - it has no defined size - it is simply inifinite - and it contains nothing - it is simply just a space.
2) "A Principle" - and this principle is the binary principle - that something can be divided in two - that it is possible to say whether something belongs to one part - or to another part. When this principle is being applied on the Dimensionality - we have the UNFOLDING of universe - the very Origin og Universe. The binary principle is not only how dimensionalities are being divided - that would be a meaningless ever ongoing down-sizing - the binary system is an informational system - that can tell exactly how - where - the dimensionalities are located relative to each other. That the individual dimensionalities can be retrieved.
The most economical way of organizing is by using scales. And that is exactly what physical Universe is about. It is how such ever increasing number of dimensionalities are being organized - stored - in space, and time is the counting system - time 1 is the same as the Origin where one dimensionality (infinite space) depated in two - and time 2 is when Universe was 4 - and so on.
Time is therefore intimately related to the number of divisions since origin - and time has only one direction, and time is intimately related to the amount of difference that we are dealing with, and time is also intimately related to the scale we are dealing with, and time is intimately related to locality - because everything is percepted in-situ - there exist no such thing as G*d's eye.
So Origin is stupidly simple - but complexation and how it is being organized in increasingly deeper and deeper scales is a very very very ----huh.
Binary mathematics is our way of understanding the principles of organization, and the principles underlying when - how - and why the scalings are taking place. Nature always behave such to be most economic, and when organizing dimensions in space, there will come a point where it is more economical - from an informational point of view - to organize the placing/ the description of placement in space - in a new scale. So the simplest part of universe - containing only the first layer of information - telling how the first-generation dimensions are being organized - is the first scale - and it is organized in infinite space.
To talk about dimension is meaningless as such - what we have is ratios - and scales, there is no dimensional yardstick as long as it cannot be compared to something.
And it is where humans come into the picture. Human is part of universe - made from the same stuff as rest of universe - made of information just as the rest of universe - but with this odd capability of percepting itsself. So we are dealing with how information percepts information. In order to percept there must be an interference - and interference require a kind of equivalense in "size-scale-ratio" - call it what we like. So human is best defined out from the scale - the complexation scale of selfperception.
Complexation is an ever ongoing proces starting with least complicated - most simple - and developing scalewise into more and more complicated expressions.
An ever ongoing process - and there exist no such thing as the "smallest" being the starting conditions - it is totally the other way round.
Hello Bukh
We may have taken this thread a bit away from its topic - so maybe this would be discusable on a new thread?
I see where you are pointing at and i agree with some of the points. One of the ideas i got when reading your thinking is that the most simplest expression can have enormous amount of apparently incoherent information. This is what i think the implication of such division development could be. It does resemble cell divison somewhat.
We may have taken this thread a bit away from its topic - so maybe this would be discusable on a new thread?
I see where you are pointing at and i agree with some of the points. One of the ideas i got when reading your thinking is that the most simplest expression can have enormous amount of apparently incoherent information. This is what i think the implication of such division development could be. It does resemble cell divison somewhat.
QUOTE (Majkl+Apr 18 2008, 12:48 PM)
The way i see this operation is that you decide to disect infinity into lets say linear bandwidths of equal intervals thus you structure-ize it. So you try to make linear bandwidths as small as possible thus that nothing should get out of detection. And then you use some kind of progressive sizing up of these intervals and superposition them from smallest to large and you have superpositioned grids of all scales. But still there is no fine transition between your linear bandwidths of abstractly disected infinity. Even at the smallest of smallest those fine transitions escape detection of even the smallest bandwidth you are scaning with. The problem is the discrete-sizing itself. The idea is that you cannot be accurate enough since no such accuracy exists. The same problem is the idea of fundamental particle for example. Fundamental particle is impossible. If anything must be fundamental its not a particle.
The only problem of medium is that it seems it is both vacuum (almost nothing) and some kind of superfine substance (almost something). Yet another particle/wave like duality. So it all seems more like conceptual "wars" than just looking at things as they are and not trying to ignore anomalies and logic.
hej Majkl
It is not discrete. It is not linear. It is building up dimensions from infinitesimals, meaning that each added scale is discrete but continuous in a sense that it is infinitely larger ( and slower ) then previous scale.
Look at continuous math, differentiation- that is exactly reduction of scale by infinity times ( as you take dx->0, dy->0) . There are infinitely differentiable functions leading to infinite number of infinitely different sized scales.
If You know about hyperoperations, infinities of them again, You would think there could be infinity of infitely differentable fucntions, in the end kind of 3 dimensional infinities.
The only problem of medium is that it seems it is both vacuum (almost nothing) and some kind of superfine substance (almost something). Yet another particle/wave like duality. So it all seems more like conceptual "wars" than just looking at things as they are and not trying to ignore anomalies and logic.
hej Majkl
It is not discrete. It is not linear. It is building up dimensions from infinitesimals, meaning that each added scale is discrete but continuous in a sense that it is infinitely larger ( and slower ) then previous scale.
Look at continuous math, differentiation- that is exactly reduction of scale by infinity times ( as you take dx->0, dy->0) . There are infinitely differentiable functions leading to infinite number of infinitely different sized scales.
If You know about hyperoperations, infinities of them again, You would think there could be infinity of infitely differentable fucntions, in the end kind of 3 dimensional infinities.
To All,
I have a question. We know the sun ages to higher elements, Hydrogen to Iron. Is there enough Hydrogen in space to sustain the conversion? Or is it possible that the medium is the first step in the process where the sun creates Hydrogen from the medium? Any figures or ideas?
I have a question. We know the sun ages to higher elements, Hydrogen to Iron. Is there enough Hydrogen in space to sustain the conversion? Or is it possible that the medium is the first step in the process where the sun creates Hydrogen from the medium? Any figures or ideas?
QUOTE (4Dguy+Apr 19 2008, 12:01 PM)
I have a question. We know the sun ages to higher elements, Hydrogen to Iron.
I think its hydrogen to helium.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Apr 19 2008, 12:01 PM)
We know the sun ages to higher elements, Hydrogen to Iron.
Beer w/Straw
To much air getting to your head.
Trout (Dallas)
I know you want me to pay for getting you angry and kicked off as Dallas but sigh you keep coming back.
Here is the quote.
Do you see the word elements. There is a whole process before a sun becomes a red giant (mostly Iron). I have the elements memorized and classified Thank you for your help.
I am sorry if you are not experienced enough to know the difference between element and elements used for a short cut that includes all the elements in between.
Your continual childish humor is slightly irritating and each time it becomes more difficult to remove you. At least you are learning to be less Dallass than before.
To much air getting to your head.
Trout (Dallas)
I know you want me to pay for getting you angry and kicked off as Dallas but sigh you keep coming back.
Here is the quote.
QUOTE
I have a question. We know the sun ages to higher elements, Hydrogen to Iron.
Do you see the word elements. There is a whole process before a sun becomes a red giant (mostly Iron). I have the elements memorized and classified Thank you for your help.
I am sorry if you are not experienced enough to know the difference between element and elements used for a short cut that includes all the elements in between.
Your continual childish humor is slightly irritating and each time it becomes more difficult to remove you. At least you are learning to be less Dallass than before.
QUOTE (4Dguy+Apr 19 2008, 06:42 PM)