Femto camera experiment says space is the medium for light

[trevorjohnson83]

So there are two types of pressure, that caused by the flow of heat energy like a boiler, and the other caused by weight bearing down. The first type of pressure is from 'electron shell' repulsion. The second type of pressure is from the gravity field of the nuclei creating an overall area of dense/hot aether. I bet the energy of the static field created by pressure extends out into space and that its strength and area is equivalent to the number of atom's in the earth.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So there are two types of pressure, that caused by the flow of heat energy like a boiler, and the other caused by weight bearing down. The first type of pressure is from 'electron shell' repulsion. The second type of pressure is from the gravity field of the nuclei creating an overall area of dense/hot aether. I bet the energy of the static field created by pressure extends out into space and that its strength and area is equivalent to the number of atom's in the earth.

I'll pass for now on confirming or denying any of that and just get back to
"Do you think the aether is effected by the nuclei? how?".. a bit.

Of course I think the Aether is effected by atomic nuclei. How? As I've repeatedly stated, the Aether forces itself between everything possessing mass which directly causes gravity. But let's back up and recall that counterspace is just as big a factor as space. That is, the dielectric part plays as big a role as the magnetic part of the Aether. There's always a give and a take. Flow is a double edged sword so to speak.

When the magnetic portion of the Aether pushes its way in between nuclei, the dielectric pushes its way out. Or, looking at it the other way, the dielectric (energy) pulls the magnetic (spatial) in, forcing the nuclei apart to some degree, allowing them to slip or keep moving relative to each other.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

I'll pass for now on confirming or denying any of that and just get back to
"Do you think the aether is effected by the nuclei? how?".. a bit.

Of course I think the Aether is effected by atomic nuclei. How? As I've repeatedly stated, the Aether forces itself between everything possessing mass which directly causes gravity. But let's back up and recall that counterspace is just as big a factor as space. That is, the dielectric part plays as big a role as the magnetic part of the Aether. There's always a give and a take. Flow is a double edged sword so to speak.

When the magnetic portion of the Aether pushes its way in between nuclei, the dielectric pushes its way out. Or, looking at it the other way, the dielectric (energy) pulls the magnetic (spatial) in, forcing the nuclei apart to some degree, allowing them to slip or keep moving relative to each other.

I think I'm as confused about your posts as you are about mine. Let's start with this a dielectric: 'a medium or substance that transmits electric force without conduction; an insulator.'
So are you saying the aether is an insulator? All insulators conduct energy if enough voltage is applied. What does transmits electric force without conduction mean?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I think I'm as confused about your posts as you are about mine. Let's start with this a dielectric: 'a medium or substance that transmits electric force without conduction; an insulator.'
So are you saying the aether is an insulator? All insulators conduct energy if enough voltage is applied. What does transmits electric force without conduction mean?

I've clearly never said "the aether is an insulator" -- How you could arrive there at this late stage is disappointing to say the least.
Eric Dollard quoting Steinmetz:

Capacitance Inadequately Explained

The perception of capacitance as used today is wholly inadequate for the proper understanding of this effect. Steinmetz mentions this in his introductory book Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses. To quote, "Unfortunately, to large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electrostatic charge (electron) on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and the dielectric, and makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated."

All insulators conduct energy if enough voltage is applied.

No. What we've been taught to call "insulators" are really energy "conductors" and vice versa. What you're talking about is forcing a "short circuit" which just destroys the "insulator" and wastes energy, producing sparks and heat instead of accomplishing the useful work capacitors are intended and designed to perform.

dielectric: 'a medium or substance that transmits electric force without conduction; an insulator.'

What that's trying to say is, given an AC current source such as a coal fired power plant, then transmitting "electric force" or "electricity" down some wires toward your house requires a special "medium or substance" beyond metal "conductors." The power actually travels (gets conducted) between and outside of the wires. Suffice it to say that without high voltage "insulators" galore, no grid power could successfully be transferred down grid power lines at all.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

I have little reason to doubt there's a black hole in the center of every medium to large galaxy

Why? does a black hole spin in your opinion? I've heard them described as drain. What do you think a black hole even is?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why?

Because it makes sense and we've seen plenty enough examples now.

does a black hole spin in your opinion?

Perhaps. Not much or galaxies would just blow apart.

What do you think a black hole even is?

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Of course. The Aether supplies both the medium and means to transfer light energy. What else could possibly be responsible?

So my layman observation is that light and energy expand into colder regions of the aether, and the temperature and density of the aether determine its speed.

Perhaps. Not much or galaxies would just blow apart.

So black holes have enough mass to trap light do you agree? So when two galaxies collide that would put two super powerful gravity fields pretty close together. They would start orbiting each other at a pretty could clip. That doesn't happen when two galaxies collide. It looks like a very slow process.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So my layman observation is that light and energy expand into colder regions of the aether, and the temperature and density of the aether determine its speed.

Whatever.

So black holes have enough mass to trap light do you agree?

More or less. I wouldn't say trap. Like mass, they draw light energy in and we can't see any result because it's all being sucked away faster than any light energy can be reflected back toward us.

So when two galaxies collide that would put two super powerful gravity fields pretty close together.

Yes.

They would start orbiting each other at a pretty could clip.

Perhaps. Or collide head on. Or orbit each other slowly. All depends.

That doesn't happen when two galaxies collide. It looks like a very slow process.

Yeah, both things happen.

Binary black hole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Whatever.

Dr. Nuts what do you think of my Michelson and Morley game I invented. It's a large plus sign with a little light that moves horizontally and a little light that moves vertically, and one player moves his light then the other until it gets boring because you can't win.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Dr. Nuts what do you think of my Michelson and Morley game I invented. It's a large plus sign with a little light that moves horizontally and a little light that moves vertically, and one player moves his light then the other until it gets boring because you can't win.

Sorry, as I've said before, phrases like "colder regions of the aether" make zero sense to me. I responded with more than "whatever" to the rest of your post. You're welcome. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Perhaps. Or collide head on. Or orbit each other slowly. All depends.

Look here at these two galaxy's which look far into the process of merging. The original shape of each galaxy is lost. Nothing holds it together other then the way mass was distributed when it formed.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Look here at these two galaxy's which look far into the process of merging. The original shape of each galaxy is lost. Nothing holds it together other then the way mass was distributed when it formed.

View attachment 766472

Loss of inertia.. or is it Gain of inertia..?

Ken Wheeler version -- always overcomplicating everything while annoyingly describing it all as "simplex."
Anti-Ken Wheeler version -- taking simplicity to its logical extreme.

The former -- nice use of a toy.
The latter -- very well done -- units are key to better understanding!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Fractal Woman is mature and wise compared to Ken Wheeler. She works at not allowing her ego to distract her. Logical baby steps get the job done, slowly but surely. I recall being disturbed by her saying "And god said...let there be space" thinking she was ascribing some sort of property to space, but in hindsight, she simply wasn't. She was just introducing space as a component of the magnetic realm of the Aether.

{Presuming there was a beginning}
In the beginning, there was one field -- the Aether
And the Aether was unbalanced
It lacked inertia
It was all dielectric -or- counterspatial Aether modality
With no magnetic -or- spatial Aether modality to match
Potential devoid of location
No substance, movement, momentum, firmament
And god said...let there be light
Then blam, the magnetic came to be
There was.. inertia!
And still.. lack of inertia!

 

[trevorjohnson83]

{Presuming there was a beginning}
In the beginning, there was one field -- the Aether
And the Aether was unbalanced
It lacked inertia
It was all dielectric -or- counterspatial Aether modality
With no magnetic -or- spatial Aether modality to match
Potential devoid of location
No substance, movement, momentum, firmament
And god said...let there be light
Then blam, the magnetic came to be
There was.. inertia!
And still.. lack of inertia!

So no static field created by a nucleus to the universe? It does appear I am the first to be there. So I name the element of our universe the trevor seven element after myself having been its discoverer.

Density on the aether creating gravity is old news. Do you still subscribe to it Nuts?

 

[Grumblenuts]

So no static field created by a nucleus to the universe? It does appear I am the first to be there. So I name the element of our universe the trevor seven element after myself having been its discoverer.

What are you talking about? I mention ego and yours goes hog wild?

Density on the aether creating gravity is old news. Do you still subscribe to it Nuts?

No, I do not speak of "Density on the aether." I recall attempting to analogize gravity with Aether being made more dense in the vicinity of mass, but that just strikes me as sloppy in retrospect. I no longer go there. Fields exert pressures but can possess no density since they possess no mass.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Aether density analogy was something Aaron Murakami suggested in his book "The Quantum Key." In fact, he mentions density twenty-six times while discussing the Aether's gravitational effects. But, again, it's just an analogy. A shortcut for expressing relative numbers of force lines interacting within a given region of space. Pressure differentials.

For example, when you said:

Look here at these two galaxy's which look far into the process of merging. The original shape of each galaxy is lost. Nothing holds it together other then the way mass was distributed when it formed.

I did not agree with your description, but rather than be smug or dismissive, I decided to suggest a different approach.. which hasn't worked out any better, but such is life.

Those two galaxies appear to be "holding together" as well as is to be expected while tearing each other apart or "merging." Sawing each other to bits. This is just a multi-body problem to solve in classical (Newtonian) physics. Each galaxy being comprised of possibly millions of masses, each with its own orbit, tilt, and spin making for a zillion equations to solve for a zillion unknowns.

But we can greatly simplify by asking practical questions instead of demanding an equation telling us everything possible at once. How fast are the two galaxies revolving around each other? How fast are they approaching one another? What's the apparent mass of each galaxy? Combined? And so forth.. With a few such answers we can predict how the picture will likely change well enough for our near term purposes.. with no discussion of the Aether at all.

What Ken Wheeler bangs on about is the fact that multiples of such bodies or masses (whether they be stars, galaxies, black holes, or whatever) are not attracted to each other as Newton's famous equation has commonly led us to believe. All individual masses are actually attracted toward their instantaneous collective center of mass. So even when considering only two masses of equal weight, their gravitational force vectors will point toward some spot between them, but not necessarily toward each other's center of gravity.

Say they're egg shaped and spinning..

 

[trevorjohnson83]

I did not agree with your description, but rather than be smug or dismissive, I decided to suggest a different approach.. which hasn't worked out any better, but such is life.

Haha You're right I was just pulling whatever out of the bag to prove colliding galaxy's... actually the center of the two galaxy's in that picture don't appear to be revolving OR colliding. In any case black holes would whip around anything that orbit's them without falling in. I think another explanation for galaxy's is they start off as nebula, then the spinning creates the galactic shape as well as a center of the spinning which is dense with stars.

The Aether density analogy was something Aaron Murakami suggested in his book "The Quantum Key." In fact, he mentions density twenty-six times while discussing the Aether's gravitational effects. But, again, it's just an analogy. A shortcut for expressing relative numbers of force lines interacting within a given region of space. Pressure differentials.

No one has said the density of the aether is created by a static field of heat? Even though clearly the earth is hotter and denser in its core? Then I'm first again and being as such hold steady to my beliefs.

Heat through a substance decreases its magnetic strength. If the temperature of the aether increases, the magnetic field retreats back into the electric shell and increases the repulsion strength and temperature of the shell. Pressure from flowing heat is not the same as the heat created by weight pressure. do you agree on that?

 

[trevorjohnson83]

Heat on the aether would have to be as dense as the sun to be equal to the heat of the shell. So on earth the heat of the aether is normally not close to the heat of the electric shell, so the shell doesn't absorb energy but rather lights up because the density of the aether retracts the magnetic field back into the shell.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No one has said the density of the aether is created by a static field of heat?

Only you, far as I know.

Heat through a substance decreases its magnetic strength. If the temperature of the aether increases, the magnetic field retreats back into the electric shell and increases the repulsion strength and temperature of the shell. Pressure from flowing heat is not the same as the heat created by weight pressure. do you agree on that?

No. Heating what we commonly call a "permanent magnet" allows the "permanent" crystallized bonds locked within to relax to an unpolarized state akin to before they were cooled in the presence of an external polarizing field. Heating with no external field applied then frees the molecules to again align randomly, destroying the "magnet's" field strength.

Heating an "electromagnet" would also reduce its field strength because the resultant increased molecular activity within the iron core would fight the polarizing effect being applied by the energized surrounding coil.

Heat on the aether would have to be as dense as the sun to be equal to the heat of the shell. So on earth the heat of the aether is normally not close to the heat of the electric shell, so the shell doesn't absorb energy but rather lights up because the density of the aether retracts the magnetic field back into the shell.

Does not compute. Heat and temperature logically have no direct affect upon the Aether. What we commonly call "heat" literally occupies only a portion (the infrared part) of the electromagnetic spectrum, aka "light." "Light" actually being light energy, an Aether manifestation or set of Aether manifestations. All of light energy then being but a portion of the magnetic (spatial)(inductive) Aether realm (or manifestation) as opposed to the dielectric (counterspatial)(invisible)(capacitive) Aether realm.

Outer space is very cold to us, yet light energy traverses it easily "at the speed of light." Stars are hot to us, yet light energy bends around them same as it does around galaxies and black holes -- as a function of mass, not temperature.

 

[trevorjohnson83]

No. Heating what we commonly call a "permanent magnet" allows the "permanent" crystallized bonds locked within to relax to an unpolarized state akin to before they were cooled in the presence of an external polarizing field. Heating with no external field applied then frees the molecules to again align randomly, destroying the "magnet's" field strength.

Heating an "electromagnet" would also reduce its field strength because the resultant increased molecular activity within the iron core would fight the polarizing effect being applied by the energized surrounding coil.

A magnet subjected to heat experiences a reduction in its magnetic field as the particles within the magnet are moving at an increasingly faster and more sporadic rate. This jumbling confuses and misaligns the magnetic domains, causing the magnetism to decrease.

Do you agree with this?

One question that comes to my mind, does a magnet lose strength proportionality to the heat of the surrounding aether? Or does it lose strength all at once when it reaches a certain temperature. Because why would it gradually lose strength if the loss of the field strength is due to rearranging the atoms that require a specific temperature.

I think my answer is pretty similar, the electric shell creates the magnetic field, and the density/temperature of the aether determines how much the magnetic field retracts, and at a certain temperature for a magnet the shell's become stronger in repulsion and overcome there structural bonds.

Do you think a magnetic field originates from the electric shell? (by the way thought of any good names other then electron shell? I say electric shell but it sounds kind off stupid)