| Author |
Message
|
| HeebieJeebies |
 Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: The vacuum, longitudinal waves and magnecules |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 27
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| HeebieJeebies |
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: Ask a Scientist |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 27
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject: Re: Ask a Scientist |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1301
|
| HeebieJeebies wrote: |
From Ask a Scientist
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99104.htm
| Quote: |
Question: Did the theory of relativity require dropping the concept
of Aether, or was Aether simply dismissed as irrelevant because
relativity principles do not need an Aether to work? I ask the
question because it appears to me that some authors are
attempting to re-introduce some kind of Aether concept to
explain Quantum "non-local" effects. Is this consistent or
compatible with either special or general relativity?
------------------------------------------------
Answer: Well, the "Aether" that may be reintroduced to explain quantum
non-locality is not at all the same "Aether" as that used
to explain the propagation of light. The reason the original
"Aether" was introduced was because of the wave nature of light,
which suggested it was vibrating in some medium (just as sound
cannot travel in a vacuum, it was assumed that light could not
and would require some medium to travel in). That turned out to
be simply wrong - light does not behave like sound, and the
vacuum already contains the possibilities of electric and
magnetic fields required to propagate light. In fact, the vacuum
of quantum mechanics is very far from empty, since anything
described by a "field" has constant zero-point fluctuations going
on everywhere, including in a vacuum. But quantum mechanics
and general relativity have not been completely reconciled, so
this "aether-like" nature of the vacuum (even without non-locality)
is somewhat hard to reconcile with GR. Basically, general
relativity is not that important on the length-scales and energy-scales
of interest, and so can be and is being ignored in this kind
of theory-making. So, no, the original ether was not compatible
with relativity, and nor is the new ether, and nor is quantum
mechanics as normally developed...
Arthur Smith
|
the new ether reffered to is still the angular/momentum workaround as proposed by http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/.
There has been little to no science communication done about Super Relativity as to this date. |
What do you think space is made of?
It is made of light gases. This was never disputed.
Where have you seen light without a medium?
Your eye is a medium. It converts electrical impulses to nerve stimulation that we perceive as light.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:21 pm Post subject: Re: The vacuum, longitudinal waves and magnecules |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1301
|
| HeebieJeebies wrote: |
Super Einstein & Tesla
Superrelativity as the answer?
For those who aren't familiar with M. Fiorentino's all reconciling theory, please visit http://physcom.awardspace.com
He's been a IBM-software engineer and an awarded trouble-shooter. He's been working on the theory for the last 20 years.
Any other explanation for this is welcome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2czE_HNWl3Q
The Joe cell
Have Fun,
Heebiejeebies
Listen.to/Einstein |
They make natural gas from water and carbon dioxide, or at least they used to. Now if you can make natural gas, you can then crack that as they call it and make gasoline.
Natural gas in cars seems dangerous to me.
But why not just use electrical perpetual motion, with a weak physical link, to shut it down in case of failure? We have all the electricity I can imagine. I was taught matter was electricity.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dishmaster |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 5:03 am Post subject: Re: Ask a Scientist |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 313
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
| William McCormick wrote: |
Where have you seen light without a medium? |
The idea that light needs a medium to advance was already ruled out by Michelson's experiment in 1887. Michelson was awarded the Nobel prize in 1907.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
Light is just modified by a medium.
By the way. Space is not continuously filled with matter. The typical value is less than one particle per cubic centimetre. There is lots of empty space between them that photons would have to cross in order use them as a medium. How do they get there, if they need a medium? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: Re: Ask a Scientist |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1301
|
| Dishmaster wrote: |
| William McCormick wrote: |
Where have you seen light without a medium? |
The idea that light needs a medium to advance was already ruled out by Michelson's experiment in 1887. Michelson was awarded the Nobel prize in 1907.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment
Light is just modified by a medium.
By the way. Space is not continuously filled with matter. The typical value is less than one particle per cubic centimetre. There is lots of empty space between them that photons would have to cross in order use them as a medium. How do they get there, if they need a medium? |
The ether rays cannot travel without a medium. Neither can radio, or anything else.
I know it may not be easy if you were not raised like me. However if you look at that experiment in the link you provided, it is obvious that there is air in the partial vacuum they created. That is not science. That is not even a good grade school experiment. It is certainly not applying the scientific method.
These guys were quacks fighting what Benjamin Franklin kicked off. Benjamin Franklin kicked English physics where the medium of light rarely carries light.
In deep space the samples came back and showed atoms of hydrogen.
So this is just a case of either a quack scientist, or a very poor writer.
Our science has only a few links to the real Universal Scientist left. After that Bozakian particle science will prevail.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (Q) |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:25 am Post subject: Re: Ask a Scientist |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 1594
|
| William McCormick wrote: |
The ether rays cannot travel without a medium. Neither can radio, or anything else.
In deep space the samples came back and showed atoms of hydrogen. |
Were the atoms of hydrogen separated by empty space? If so, how does electromagnetic radiation travel between them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: Re: Ask a Scientist |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1301
|
| (Q) wrote: |
| William McCormick wrote: |
The ether rays cannot travel without a medium. Neither can radio, or anything else.
In deep space the samples came back and showed atoms of hydrogen. |
Were the atoms of hydrogen separated by empty space? If so, how does electromagnetic radiation travel between them? |
Tungsten is 90 percent space. Air might be 95 percent space. Deep space might be 98 percent space. But that is still a lot of matter. I am of the understanding that the air in space, although a bit more scattered is not really that expanded. Because of the high speed radiation whistling past it.
Each electron of ambient radiation passes each atom in a slightly arced pattern and actually accelerates, as it moves through the very light gas. In a very large spiral pattern. Up close a short distance of its path would look totally straight. Further back a very large, diameter spiral path could be observed.
This was the good teaching they did not want you to know.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (Q) |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:55 am Post subject: Re: Ask a Scientist |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 1594
|
| William McCormick wrote: |
Tungsten is 90 percent space. Air might be 95 percent space. Deep space might be 98 percent space. But that is still a lot of matter. I am of the understanding that the air in space, although a bit more scattered is not really that expanded. Because of the high speed radiation whistling past it.
Each electron of ambient radiation passes each atom in a slightly arced pattern and actually accelerates, as it moves through the very light gas. In a very large spiral pattern. Up close a short distance of its path would look totally straight. Further back a very large, diameter spiral path could be observed.
This was the good teaching they did not want you to know.
Sincerely,
William McCormick |
A simple, "I dunno" would have been honest, at the very least. But, as we all know, Billy, when it comes to intellectual honesty, you try to do the very least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: Re: Ask a Scientist |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1301
|
| (Q) wrote: |
| A simple, "I dunno" would have been honest, at the very least. But, as we all know, Billy, when it comes to intellectual honesty, you try to do the very least. |
What is honest to you? You cannot even agree upon your own information. You claim that after all this time the basics are still unknown. Heck they come up with a new particle just about every month.
Now particles collide, with one another in your honest world. They change into other particles in your world. They have mass, they also don't have mass. They spin, they leap. They alter time in your world. Whatever it takes to make me dishonest it appears.
This comedy video makes more sense then your science.
http://www.Rockwelder.com/WMV/Quantas/Quantas.html
And it is fun.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Dishmaster |
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 3:25 am Post subject: Re: Ask a Scientist |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 313
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
|
| William McCormick wrote: |
The ether rays cannot travel without a medium. Neither can radio, or anything else. |
Have you at all understood, what this experiment tells us? If there was a medium that light needs for travelling, we would notice a Doppler shift between two orthogonal directions of the travelling light. This is either because the ether itself has its own velocity or the earth is travelling with a velocity relative to this ether. And the direction changes completely during a whole year. There was no indication for such a thing.
Have you heard about the optical interferometer telescope at the VLT in Chile? They use the same principle to produce interference. If light needed ether, this telescope would have to be retuned all the time because of the wavelength shift. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| (Q) |
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:26 am Post subject: Re: Ask a Scientist |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 12 May 2005
Posts: 1594
|
| William McCormick wrote: |
What is honest to you? You cannot even agree upon your own information. You claim that after all this time the basics are still unknown. Heck they come up with a new particle just about every month. |
Ah Billy, you're so deranged, you can't remember what people say from one post to the next. Heck, you come up with a new fantasy just about every post.
| Quote: |
| Now particles collide, with one another in your honest world. They change into other particles in your world. They have mass, they also don't have mass. They spin, they leap. They alter time in your world. Whatever it takes to make me dishonest it appears. |
Your intellectual dishonesty does not preclude nature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| SuperNatendo |
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 7:38 am Post subject: Re: Ask a Scientist |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 518
Location: Nashville, TN USA
|
| William McCormick wrote: |
What do you think space is made of?
It is made of light gases. This was never disputed.
Where have you seen light without a medium?
Your eye is a medium. It converts electrical impulses to nerve stimulation that we perceive as light.
Sincerely,
William McCormick |
Once again William, light is not an electrical impulse before it hits your eyes, your eyes convert the photons into electro-chemical signals our brain can interpret! In the human eye, photons enter the pupil and are focused on the retina by the lens. Light-sensitive nerve cells called rods (for brightness) and cones (for color) react to the photons. The rods and cones interact with each other and send electrical signals to the brain that indicate brightness, color, and contour.
Darkness is not a state of light, it is the absence of light. Just as cold is not a state of heat, it is the absence of heat.
_________________
“It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.” - Mark Twain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| HeebieJeebies |
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 06 May 2008
Posts: 27
|
| Dishmaster wrote: |
Have you at all understood, what this experiment tells us? If there was a medium that light needs for travelling, we would notice a Doppler shift between two orthogonal directions of the travelling light. This is either because the ether itself has its own velocity or the earth is travelling with a velocity relative to this ether. And the direction changes completely during a whole year. There was no indication for such a thing.
Have you heard about the optical interferometer telescope at the VLT in Chile? They use the same principle to produce interference. If light needed ether, this telescope would have to be retuned all the time because of the wavelength shift. |
As i see it both William, Dishmaster and SuperNatendo bring up some different issues. One of them is the status of light or photons, the other one being the many kinks in the standard model. I do follow SuperNatendo's view on the matter of light. This however does not recuse the standard model of it's faults. I must advise everybody to go check http://physcom.awardspace.com/ for a superrelativistic view on photons, and why they sometimes do and sometimes don't appear to have mass.
There cannot be moving gaseous aether;
On the Michelson-Morley experiment. Whatever the faults with the design of the experiment I do believe the ideas have been repeated in other experiments and the results do conflict with any moving aether
On the solidity of an electromechanistical dimension:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2275&st=1035
William I do believe you're messing up the notion of a vacuum, this is where there are no atoms and even radiation may be shielded of. Everything that is left over makes up "super relativity", i.e dark matter, dark energy, "longitudinal waves" as in
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040712.html
You should really check the websites for answers because this goes beyond relativity, hence super relativity
Greetings,
HeebieJeebies
http://Listen.to/Einstein
What is a Photon?
http://searchwarp.com/swa95331.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Sun May 11, 2008 8:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 1301
|
| HeebieJeebies wrote: |
| Dishmaster wrote: |
Have you at all understood, what this experiment tells us? If there was a medium that light needs for travelling, we would notice a Doppler shift between two orthogonal directions of the travelling light. This is either because the ether itself has its own velocity or the earth is travelling with a velocity relative to this ether. And the direction changes completely during a whole year. There was no indication for such a thing.
Have you heard about the optical interferometer telescope at the VLT in Chile? They use the same principle to produce interference. If light needed ether, this telescope would have to be retuned all the time because of the wavelength shift. |
As i see it both William, Dishmaster and SuperNatendo bring up some different issues. One of them is the status of light or photons, the other one being the many kinks in the standard model. I do follow SuperNatendo's view on the matter of light. This however does not recuse the standard model of it's faults. I must advise everybody to go check http://physcom.awardspace.com/ for a superrelativistic view on photons, and why they sometimes do and sometimes don't appear to have mass.
There cannot be moving gaseous aether;
On the Michelson-Morley experiment. Whatever the faults with the design of the experiment I do believe the ideas have been repeated in other experiments and the results do conflict with any moving aether
On the solidity of an electromechanistical dimension:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2275&st=1035
William I do believe you're messing up the notion of a vacuum, this is where there are no atoms and even radiation may be shielded of. Everything that is left over makes up "super relativity", i.e dark matter, dark energy, "longitudinal waves" as in
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040712.html
You should really check the websites for answers because this goes beyond relativity, hence super relativity
Greetings,
HeebieJeebies
http://Listen.to/Einstein
What is a Photon?
http://searchwarp.com/swa95331.htm |
What is gaseous ether? Not the anesthetic ether. Ha-ha.
Either is ambient radiation pure electrons. Ambient radiation moves through all matter. Air, liquids, and solids. Even plasma rays are abundant with ambient radiation racing through the plasma ray.
Ambient radiation is not much effected by other ambient radiation. It is effected by slowed ambient radiation. Ambient radiation is slowed by diodes. Created by matter.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
Warning: Any information contained in this post could be part of a conspiracy to make you stupid. So only use it if you understand it. Use at your own risk.
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
