Femto camera experiment says space is the medium for light

[ding]

^(said the insufferable troll.)

I am a trolls worst nightmare.

 

[Grumblenuts]

^Too boring for any nightmare, but fine admission otherwise.

I believe the proton has galaxies and matter inside of it, and the protons that make that universe have matter inside them etc.. Thusly the Aether is squeezed upon infinitely at the point of a proton.

The Aether (inertia) can never be "squeezed upon." It does all the squeezing between its two primary components or natural dipoles, the magnetic vs. the dielectric (space vs. counter-space). Mass, being spatial, (eventually) gets both sucked in by counter-space and pushed in by the spatial or magnetic component. But the opposite can occur as well. Mass is both accreted radially from the dielectric planes of galaxies and radiated axially. Where mass is most concentrated -- protons, black holes, the middle of atoms, stars, planets, galaxies, and "magnets" -- is where the dielectric appears most prominent.

Anyways, speaking of "magnets" -- somewhere here you mentioned something about electrons being lined up in magnets. That's not a thing. What we call a (permanent) "magnet" is a crystallized solid. Without ever being exposed to a magnetic field that's all it remains. But exposed to a magnetic field, presumably while cooling or crystallizing, fixes the molecules into a magnetically polarized array unless pounded upon, reheated, or otherwise caused to lose their alignment. Nothing to do with electrons.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

^Too boring for any nightmare, but fine admission otherwise.


The Aether (inertia) can never be "squeezed upon." It does all the squeezing between its two primary components or natural dipoles, the magnetic vs. the dielectric (space vs. counter-space). Mass, being spatial, (eventually) gets both sucked in by counter-space and pushed in by the spatial or magnetic component. But the opposite can occur as well. Mass is both accreted radially from the dielectric planes of galaxies and radiated axially. Where mass is most concentrated -- protons, black holes, the middle of atoms, stars, planets, galaxies, and "magnets" -- is where the dielectric appears most prominent.

Anyways, speaking of "magnets" -- somewhere here you mentioned something about electrons being lined up in magnets. That's not a thing. What we call a (permanent) "magnet" is a crystallized solid. Without ever being exposed to a magnetic field that's all it remains. But exposed to a magnetic field, presumably while cooling or crystallizing, fixes the molecules into a magnetically polarized array unless pounded upon, reheated, or otherwise caused to lose their alignment. Nothing to do with electrons.

Moving electrons create a magnetic field, that's layman. A magnetic field is just a density/heat on space. In the magnet fan analogy the 'wind' of the magnet is heat and it circles around and comes back in the south end 100% because the medium of space is unbreakable.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

"Exposing a magnet to colder temperatures will increase its magnetism." Are Magnets Affected by Temperature?
could this explain time dilation? That the colder it is the stronger the effect of the electron. The hotter it is the more time dilation you will experience, moving through the universe will eventually burn you up because of the small amount of heat it has in its background temperature and that causes time dilation. I guess electricity flows slower when its in a hot/dense medium.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Moving electrons create a magnetic field, that's layman. A magnetic field is just a density/heat on space. In the magnet fan analogy the 'wind' of the magnet is heat and it circles around and comes back in the south end 100% because the medium of space is unbreakable.

I'll be sure to check with a layman first from now on, but given "A magnetic field is just a density/heat on space" then I must suppose your hand gets warm whenever you're holding onto a magnet. Funny, don't recall ever experiencing that myself? Tons of electromagnetic energy traversing space. It would kill ya quick were it not so damn cold and air free.

"Exposing a magnet to colder temperatures will increase its magnetism." Are Magnets Affected by Temperature?
could this explain time dilation? That the colder it is the stronger the effect of the electron.

What?

Heat​

Heat will reduce the magnetic force of a magnet. Heat speeds up the rate at which the particles within the magnet move. When they move faster, they move more sporadically and misalign. In order for a magnetic to be a magnetic most of the magnetic molecules must be facing the same direction, so that each end of the magnet has opposite charges. When the particles begin moving faster the polar molecules move around as well and not as many of them will end up facing the same direction. This results in a decrease in the magnetism of the magnet.

Notice how the entire paragraph coherently advances the point? By "particles" moving they mean vibrations within the (solid) crystalline, molecular structure. I have a degree in chemistry. You can take my word for it. Notice also, no mention of "electrons."

 

[trevorjohnson83]

By "particles" moving they mean vibrations within the (solid) crystalline, molecular structure. I have a degree in chemistry. You can take my word for it. Notice also, no mention of "electrons.

Do you think electrons flowing through a wire creating a magnetic field is just more space, counterspace example? and they are actually crystals? Do particles of crystals explain how couterspace pushes two magnets apart? or do you think they pull not otherways round? the henri pauxgerbel effect?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Do you think electrons flowing through a wire creating a magnetic field is just more space, counterspace example? and they are actually crystals? Do particles of crystals explain how couterspace pushes two magnets apart? or do you think they pull not otherways round? the henri pauxgerbel effect?

I still see no compelling evidence to believe so-called wave/particle "electrons" exist, so they don't "flow" anywhere, imo. Wires both guide and impede the flow of dielectomagnetic energy ("electricity") along them by providing electrical "resistance." The core of a wire is counterspatial to electrical energy, providing a source for the "electron" spaghetti analogy, which "flows" by constantly (re)appearing along the core and instantly "breaking off" at or outside of the "skin," same as occurs in atoms only they (the spaghetti) break off somewhere within their probability clouds instead and don't "flow" anywhere because their counterspatial source remains relatively fixed rather than linear.

Yes, crystals are crystals. They are, however, not "particles" which explain nothing, though die hard QM atomists shall seemingly never cease trying. Magnetic fields repel or attract one another depending on their orientation.

Merry Xmas, Happy Solstice!

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Welp, its been a year, in that year or a little prior I realized you don't need a fancy femto camera you can just use circles in photographs to measure with the same experiment in the OP. This means this experiment could have dated to 1839 the invention of the camera!

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I have an exciting new experiment to test for space being the medium for light waves. It is similar to the famous Michelson and Morley experiment.

The experiment utilizes a Femto camera. A Femto camera takes a trillion frames per second and is capable of capturing light in slow motion as it leaves its source. The link below is a video of just that. By pausing the video where light has expanded into s sphere, one can then measure for space 'moving past' just as they did in the M&M experiment. If space is in fact the medium for light one would expect to be able to measure for the slight difference in speed along different directions in a paused image of the Femto camera.

When I measured with a ruler on the screen I did in fact find that light was travelling faster by a few mm per 25 cm in one direction over the other depending on how you want to look at it.

All waves are a denser part of a medium spreading out to a less dense part of that medium, so light is just that and its medium is space.

Looking for Answers, Nobody Asks Questions Afterwards

Space is a substance. Its friction slows light down to c. Also, 186,000 miles a second must be the answer to some formula. But no one asks what that number is a result of.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So what do you imagine the 'aether' is made of?

All Is Lava

It's made up of the original matter that escaped from another universe and created this one. That matter broke up into light, mass, energy, and ether.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What do you mean the Aether is displaced by the nucleus? I think since the nucleus IS dense Aether that there is nothing preventing the two from 'mixing' together. In other words the Aether is unbreakable, and 'filters' through the nucleus while not affecting the density of the nucleus in doing this. Otherwise the Aether of the universe would absorb momentum energy of the nucleus and object's travelling through space would slow down and stop. I still think gravity waves are what is supposed to result from moving objects like a ship on water leaving a wake behind it. Is that incorrect? I don't really believe in them either way.

One Step Beyond

It may be a force from hyperspace that fixes the Ether in place, making it seem like an electron, proton, or neutron in that position.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Looking for Answers, Nobody Asks Questions Afterwards

Space is a substance. Its friction slows light down to c. Also, 186,000 miles a second must be the answer to some formula. But no one asks what that number is a result of.

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. 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."
Nikola Tesla
New York Herald Tribune (11 September 1932)

 

[trevorjohnson83]

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. 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."
Nikola Tesla
New York Herald Tribune (11 September 1932)

To say something has no temperature is to say it doesn't exist. Therefore existence is dependent on heat whether Tesla knew it or not.

 

[Grumblenuts]

To say something has no temperature is to

posit a non sequitur. To go on and conclude things from a posited non sequitur is to publicly delude oneself. Something I notice you engaging in time and again here. Freebie related factoid: Our inability to either sense or achieve "absolute zero" (-273.15° Kelvin) provides only further evidence of the Ether's ubiquitous and infinitely compressible nature. "Absolute zero" would logically be found in counterspace (beyond our ability to sense) if anywhere, not within space.

 

[Clyde 154]

True. Don't know who said it was one, but whatever.

Albert Einstein and everyone that attempts to measure distance dependenant upon the speed of LIGHT based upon his theory of realativity and the way light is refracted or manipulated by other forces in the universe, some still unkown. In fact the Big Bang theory is based upon Einstein's theories.......even knowing that the speed of light is effected by gravity and now Dark Matter, i.e., light can bend and even be consumed by a black hole. How many "unknown" space bodies have existed between the earth and the supposed light deriving from the BIG BANG? Its unkown, but this does not stop the Theorethical Pseudo Scientists from teaching their theories as TRUTHS/FACTS of science.

As stated previously, the age of the earth magically gained 1 billion years over the past 50 earth years. It is taught as truth that the age of the earth is over 4 billion years old.......50 years ago our children we taught that the age of the earth was about 3 billion years old. Who lied or is lying to our children......this generation or the previous generation? Both cannot be based upon truths. Its called the law of the excluded middle. A basic law of logic and reason.

Again its simple. If naturalism....i.e., natural evolution is a fact of science.........there must be a LAW OF EVOLUTION based upon the laws of physics....and applied science. Show me this law.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ignoring the desperate attribution of everything to QM and political silliness, this guy provides an excellent update on the Webb telescope:

 

[Clyde 154]

Ignoring the desperate attribution of everything to QM and political silliness, this guy provides an excellent update on the Webb telescope:

More pseduo THEORIES........and still no LAW OF EVOLUTION? Present the law of evolution and prove it through the laws of physics by applying the scientific method of observable, reproducible, consistency of conclusion based upon the facts in evidence. Anyone? A theory is simply a type of ABSTRACT THINGKING. Abstract: Existing only in the mind. What is philosophy?

Theory: Theory - Wikipedia

Philosophy: Philosophy - Wikipedia

 

[Grumblenuts]

To say something has no temperature is to say it doesn't exist. Therefore existence is dependent on heat whether Tesla knew it or not.

Mea culpa. Reading that again in a more charitable light, it sort of follows. You're suggesting that space having non-zero temperature (aka "heat") means it (space) has a property "whether Tesla knew it or not." Tesla would know that, but what is the "heat" or "temperature" of "space"? Depends where you place your thermometer, no? The "space" next to you is likely a different temperature than that next to me. So temperature is not a "property" of space any more than your bed's position is "a property" of housing, capiche?

Definition of property​

1a: a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing

So Tesla did and would not say "space has no temperature." Further, conflating temperature and heat is not smart. They are distinct things. Lastly, heat may soon be killing more people than cold, providing little to support your pet theory of "existence" being "dependent on heat."

Heat-related deaths are expected to rise after 1.7 million people died in 2019 due to extreme temperatures: study

While cold weather is linked to more deaths, two new studies find that extreme heat can be more harmful in areas where it’s already hot.

www.marketwatch.com

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Mea culpa. Reading that again in a more charitable light, it sort of follows. You're suggesting that space having non-zero temperature (aka "heat") means it (space) has a property "whether Tesla knew it or not." Tesla would know that, but what is the "heat" or "temperature" of "space"? Depends where you place your thermometer, no? The "space" next to you is likely a different temperature than that next to me. So temperature is not a "property" of space any more than your bed's position is "a property" of housing, capiche?

Tooth of the horse is space could always be colder then any set temperature. did you read my last post on time dilation? It goes as such "On second thought the moving object does get hotter but not because it absorbs energy. Because each point that that it moves through is like splashing into new colder water, and because the background of the universe is infinite and unbreakable the gravity field of the moving object shrinks in gradually as you move faster and becomes dense and hotter nearer the atom just as a gravity field puts pressure on atom's."

Your thoughts DR.?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Your thoughts DR.?

space could always be colder then any set temperature

"any set temperature" has no meaning without first defining what "space" you're talking about. For example, all of space could be "colder" than what? You and your magic thermometer measuring space's temperature from some hypothetical place outside of space? "Set temperature" relative to what exactly? The same logical argument exists for why "absolute zero" remains much the same as originally defined. Why mess with clear, uncontroversial success?

did you read my last post on time dilation? It goes as such "On second thought the moving object does get hotter but not because it absorbs energy. Because each point that that it moves through is like splashing into new colder water, and because the background of the universe is infinite and unbreakable the gravity field of the moving object shrinks in gradually as you move faster and becomes dense and hotter nearer the atom just as a gravity field puts pressure on atom's."

I'm sure I read it. Does not compute. What do you find controversial about "time dilation" theory?