Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Correct. The medium itself (the Aether) gets alternately compressed then rarified compared to its uninterrupted norm. Of course lens, holes, tubes, lasers, etc. may be used to prevent the spreading.All waves are a density spreading out through a medium, and they are made up of that medium.
Nope. The Aether is a ubiquitous field.The aether would imply some sort of gas or solid lining space which would slow down objects' travelling through space.
And again, "space" or "void" is incompressible and "rarified" to the max by definition.So I don't believe in an aether, just that space can be condensed or squeezed like that in the property of a wave.
Correct. The medium itself (the Aether) gets alternately compressed then rarified compared to its uninterrupted norm. Of course lens, holes, tubes, lasers, etc. may be used to prevent the spreading.All waves are a density spreading out through a medium, and they are made up of that medium.
Nope. The Aether is a ubiquitous field.The aether would imply some sort of gas or solid lining space which would slow down objects' travelling through space.
And again, "space" or "void" is incompressible and "rarified" to the max by definition.So I don't believe in an aether, just that space can be condensed or squeezed like that in the property of a wave.
Aether? Quintessence? The fundament of all things? What enables space, counterspace, and everything in between? {Hint: Walks like a field? -- Must be a field!}So what do you imagine the 'aether' is made of?
Not a gas. He was right though to distrust the hard core "atomists." While the Aether clearly can't have mass, neither can "electrons." We assign them a mass, but just try to grab one and weigh it. Electrons, again by definition, are "probability clouds" not "particles." Clouds of potential with apparent mass only. Ethereal.After developing his periodic system Mendeleev moved into gas physics in search of ether and its composition. Ether was the holy grail of the physical sciences in the second half of the 19th century, and almost all scientists accepted its existence. Since ether was assumed to have mass, Mendeleev was determined to find it and place it in his periodic table among the noble gases. Not only would ether have a place at his table, he also could use it to ensure that the atom remained unbroken—no need for radioactivity or pesky electrons. Any supposed breakdown of atoms could be explained away by the emission of ether, which Mendeleev calculated to be a million times lighter than hydrogen. Some of Mendeleev’s published tables left space for ether and marked that spot with an X. He called element X Newtonium.
Aether? Quintessence? The fundament of all things? What enables space, counterspace, and everything in between? {Hint: Walks like a field? -- Must be a field!}
Not a gas. He was right though to distrust the hard core "atomists." While the Aether clearly can't have mass, neither can "electrons." We assign them a mass, but just try to grab one and weigh it. Electrons, again by definition, are "probability clouds" not "particles." Clouds of potential with apparent mass only. Ethereal.
I see the Aether as a field. In other words, a matrix of polygons, their nodes connected in such a way as to allow for infinite expansion and compression. Geometry following the Golden Ratio is the only way to enable such infinite stretching and squashing. That same geometry being responsible for all QM observations. But I digress. Further, I see the Aether as having a preferred (or average, unperturbed) density because thinking so just makes me feel more comfortable, but I dunno. Seems logical to me, though perturbations of the Aether are probably as ubiquitous as the Aether itself.
Should everything finally be reduced to its lowest energy state we just might have to wait for the next Bang! Perhaps "order" increases in counterspace in direct proportion to disorder in space.
To be honest I grew up reading about QM in my Astronomy magazine, esp, photons. I now believe light is strictly a wave and the fact that it doesn't dissipate when in a particle form, is just a unique quality of space being unbreakable.I'd agree that much of Relativity and QM theory is hooey, but recall no issues with thermodynamic black box radiation, and I do believe much has been fairly and accurately described as quantized, though no thanks to the bulk of modern physicists. I did respond to your other thread, by the way, and thanks.
Electrons having never been captured by a single shot camera leaves no reason to believe a glorified motion picture camera could do any better. Heisenberg was a man who knew his limitations.They should use the femto camera to observe those microscopic picture of atoms and see the true functioning nature of the electron.
There he was basically stating that quantum mechanics, the very thing he was awarded the Nobel Prize for "creating" according to Einstein, wasn't "real." Heisenberg would flatly state that one can't observe an electron with a camera, the physical attempt being bound to interfere with the objective. Even more simply, I can tell you electrons are not material objects like protons and neutrons. They are just fields ("probability clouds"). Try photographing a field.Science no longer confronts nature as an objective observer, but sees itself as an actor in this interplay between man and nature. The scientific method of analysing, explaining and classifying has become conscious of its limitations, which arise out of the fact that by its intervention science alters and refashions the object of investigation. In other words, method and object can no longer be separated.
electrons are just slices of energy which is a wave, they're then stuffed into shape by the atomic nucleus. Right where the density of the wave that makes the electron matches the density of an atom's gravity field is where the electron shell sits.Electrons having never been captured by a single shot camera leaves no reason to believe a glorified motion picture camera could do any better. Heisenberg was a man who knew his limitations.
There he was basically stating that quantum mechanics, the very thing he was awarded the Nobel Prize for "creating" according to Einstein, wasn't "real." Heisenberg would flatly state that one can't observe an electron with a camera, the physical attempt being bound to interfere with the objective. Even more simply, I can tell you electrons are not material objects like protons and neutrons. They are just fields ("probability clouds"). Try photographing a field.
You appear to be shooting completely from the hip now. Got anyone you can quote for backup?electrons are just slices of energy which is a wave, they're then stuffed into shape by the atomic nucleus. Right where the density of the wave that makes the electron matches the density of an atom's gravity field is where the electron shell sits.
Dr. Nuts,You appear to be shooting completely from the hip now. Got anyone you can quote for backup?
For example, what's a beta particle? How's one differ from a photon?
Is space-time the medium for light waves? Does the video prove a stationairy universe and relativity wrong?
The Aether is stationary right? Do you believe that Aether at a dense level makes up the atomic nucleus? Either way the atomic nucleus is dense wouldn't you agree? So when it loses density during fusion, the density spreads out in wave form at the speed of light. It activates electron shells to give us a diagram of what matter is around but light originates from density loss to the atomic nucleus. If the Aether is stationary then it wouldn't be broken down to constituent parts like a gas, it almost doesn't resemble a gas at all, It's a whole other type of medium then a gas aether.No, spacetime is just silliness. Time is our primary space coordinate or method of measurement in lightyears. Space has no properties so can only be "warped" in crazy people's minds. The Aether is light's medium. Mass causes The Aether to become denser around it which bends light coming from behind massive bodies like stars or black holes. What's a stationary universe? Flat is a popular term, but the video I posted above doesn't discuss any kind.
I'd say it has an average density which can vary tremendously depending upon location. Distant from mass it's apt to vary little, but everything's relative.The Aether is stationary right?
Yeah, I picture it being attracted there but then adjusting as needed for the atom or molecule to maintain as low an energy state as possible.Do you believe that Aether at a dense level makes up the atomic nucleus?
No idea really, but that doesn't sound right. I've never depicted the Aether as a gas. It's a field with attributes that we observe as magneto-electrical, massive, particulate, etc.So when it loses density during fusion, the density spreads out in wave form at the speed of light. It activates electron shells to give us a diagram of what matter is around but light originates from density loss to the atomic nucleus. If the Aether is stationary then it wouldn't be broken down to constituent parts like a gas, it almost doesn't resemble a gas at all, It's a whole other type of medium then a gas aether.
You're entitled!But anyways who's to say that the universe isn't part of a multiverse? What then lies between those universe's? I say the Aether makes up an outside universe at far less density. That outside universe is just a repeat of the law and nature of our universe.
Not what the scientists say. Better publish your work.Again, by definition, "space" cannot be light's "medium."
