1. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by NNet
Send water to the sun, through pipes. The gravity of the sun pulls the water forward, and the water spins a turbine, which generates electricity. It's like free energy.
You are forgetting that you need to get that water up from earth into those pipes first, which would require huge amounts of energy in the first place. Likewise, you would need to find a way to get the electricity back to earth without loosing pretty much all of it through natural resistance of a long wire.
Yeah, it wouldn't be a very practical power source.

2. there is an energy through convection(?)

with part of the pipe in extreme cold (assumeing anti-freeze) and part in extreme hot..and i would think some one way valves and when the water boils it would push the rest.

we wouldn't need to get it all the way to earth..just to a station at the lagrange point (gravity nuetral position), that can serve as a launch point for space exploration and capitalization.

3. Originally Posted by NMSquirrel
with part of the pipe in extreme cold (assumeing anti-freeze) and part in extreme hot..and i would think some one way valves and when the water boils it would push the rest.
It boils when it close to the sun, not on earth, and there is no "push" either, certainly not enough to get a couple of hundred thousand tons of water out of the gravity well.
And have you thought of the sheer engineering challenge of constructing roughly 100 million miles of pipe from the Earth-moon Lagrange point to the sun, never mind the fact that the earth is moving ?

we wouldn't need to get it all the way to earth..just to a station at the lagrange point (gravity nuetral position), that can serve as a launch point for space exploration and capitalization.
Are you aware of the distance from the earth-moon Lagrange point to the sun ?

4. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Are you aware of the distance from the earth-moon Lagrange point to the sun ?
of course not..

but...

we have the tech to construct a sytem to tap the power of the sun in solar arrays attached to a spacestation..its not that much of a stretch to suggest to use that solar power to heat water on board a space station..so just scale it up to be productive..the question becomes how large/long can a system like that be built to be beneficial to a planet..

5. Originally Posted by NMSquirrel
..the question becomes how large/long can a system like that be built to be beneficial to a planet..
Yeah, that's the big question. I just don't think it is very practical, or even very feasible engineering-wise. It would make a lot more sense to optimize the energy ratios of the solar panels, build an "orbital solar farm", and thus capture the sun's radiation directly. Anything involving mechanics on a large scale is notoriously difficult in space.

6. hehe..i love it when i realize what i am talking about..

why would we need to build a system like that in orbit?

we got plenty of room on this planet to take advantage of solar energy..

so anything built in space would be self substaining..

it was fun anyway..

uf..
in reference to what my daughter was just talking about...

Does it count as stoping if my tires are not moving as i go through the intersection?
(keep in mind its winter here..)

7.

8. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Neverfly
AH? I'd never have guessed that...
Are you serious ? I'd have thought my style of writing, and the way I structure my sentences would immediately give it away.
Your English is quite excellent, Markus -- better, in fact, than that of a great many native speakers.

9. If you believe that other dimensions exist which are only different by time and the size and effect of the big bang, then surely it is all the same universe that is only limited by our minds currently not really understanding that limits don't exist so time could of been created in the future of this universe because the same happens in every other universe because that's just how it happens and that's how incredibly powerful our technology gets along with the understanding of life and being able to bend time so to speak in our own minds.

10. I am married to my pet.

I cook for him. I wash his, (clothes, you with dirty minds).

I clean up after him.

I hug him, and sometimes scold him.

I make him take a bath and dress him up from time to time.

I change his bed and make sure it is comfortable.

I exercise him by walking with him and sometimes swimming with him.

I sometimes drive him around.

I pat his head, when he is a good boy.

I make his appointments.

He barks at me, and I "bark" back.

I love my pet and he loves me.

My theory is that if you make your pet happy, they also make you happy.

(sorry it was just too tempting)

11. First I will post the essence my pet theory, and then I will elucidate some of it:

"Genetic modification of certain plants in order to make them fluorescent will result into a decrease of electricity usage."

There are three things that I want to stress:
1. The plants must be tolerant of different types of soil and environment and must be non-edible.
2. The fluorescent protein must be natural (i.e. without artificial modifications) and must be non-toxic.
3. The fluorescent protein may not interfere with the basic metabolism of the plant, must be produced consecutively and must be broken down at a constant rate in order to avoid cell death by overproduction.
The purpose of this idea is that a significant number of fluorescent plants might reduce the electricity bills because people would use less artificial lighting in their house and garden. Furthermore, it would produce oxygen, resulting into a healthier environment.

Yet, this is just a pet theory due to the fact that, even if this idea was viable, fluorescent plants cannot compete with the benefits of modern lighting.

12. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
First I will post the essence my pet theory, and then I will elucidate some of it:

"Genetic modification of certain plants in order to make them fluorescent will result into a decrease of electricity usage."

There are three things that I want to stress:
1. The plants must be tolerant of different types of soil and environment and must be non-edible.
2. The fluorescent protein must be natural (i.e. without artificial modifications) and must be non-toxic.
3. The fluorescent protein may not interfere with the basic metabolism of the plant, must be produced consecutively and must be broken down at a constant rate in order to avoid cell death by overproduction.
The purpose of this idea is that a significant number of fluorescent plants might reduce the electricity bills because people would use less artificial lighting in their house and garden. Furthermore, it would produce oxygen, resulting into a healthier environment.

Yet, this is just a pet theory due to the fact that, even if this idea was viable, fluorescent plants cannot compete with the benefits of modern lighting.
Glowing Plant Kickstarter video - YouTube

Glowing Plants: Natural Lighting with no Electricity by Antony Evans » Updates &mdash; Kickstarter

13. The more I see of "daily life" (and some posts on this forum) the more I'm inclined to my "social theory" - the institution of involuntary euthenasia for selected people.
Possibly based on IQ 1.

1 On a good day I'd set the minimum requirement at about 2,000.
Let's just wipe the board and start again...

14. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
The more I see of "daily life" (and some posts on this forum) the more I'm inclined to my "social theory" - the institution of involuntary euthenasia for selected people.
Possibly based on IQ 1.

1 On a good day I'd set the minimum requirement at about 2,000.
Let's just wipe the board and start again...
Double "like" that and I'll bet you a cheesecake that SeaGypsy clicks "like" on that one, too.

15. I am not sure how to react.
Should I be happy because it is not a pet theory or should I be embarrassed that my idea is already postulated by other people?

16. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
I am not sure how to react.
However you may choose to do so, I request that it is a non-violent reaction or, at the very least, does not involve touching me in any way, tears, maniacal laughter or propositions my grandmother would blush at.

17. Originally Posted by cogito ergo sum

i am not sure how to react.
Should i be happy because it is not a pet theory or should i be embarrassed that my idea is already postulated by other people?
it is about pet theory, is it not?

18. Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by cogito ergo sum

i am not sure how to react.
Should i be happy because it is not a pet theory or should i be embarrassed that my idea is already postulated by other people?
it is about pet theory, is it not?

Yes, it is.

Unfortunately, I was ignorant about the fact that other people are doing efforts to realize this idea.
Some might accuse me of setting up a straw man, to ridicule this idea by pointing out the reason why it is just a pet theory, whilst others could claim that I am guilty of 'idea theft'.

19. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Originally Posted by babe

it is about pet theory, is it not?

Yes, it is.

Unfortunately, I was ignorant about the fact that other people are doing efforts to realize this idea.
Some might accuse me of setting up a straw man, to ridicule this idea by pointing out the reason why it is just a pet theory, whilst others could claim that I am guilty of 'idea theft'.
Bah.
There are no original ideas left. It's why Hollywood never really puts out any 'new' movies.

Look at the bright side- in discussing it here, you may provide a prospective that those three guys hadn't thought of on their project.

20. Originally Posted by Neverfly
Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Originally Posted by babe

it is about pet theory, is it not?

Yes, it is.

Unfortunately, I was ignorant about the fact that other people are doing efforts to realize this idea.
Some might accuse me of setting up a straw man, to ridicule this idea by pointing out the reason why it is just a pet theory, whilst others could claim that I am guilty of 'idea theft'.
Bah.
There are no original ideas left. It's why Hollywood never really puts out any 'new' movies.

Look at the bright side- in discussing it here, you may provide a prospective that those three guys hadn't thought of on their project.

That is indeed true.

21. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by cogito ergo sum

i am not sure how to react.
Should i be happy because it is not a pet theory or should i be embarrassed that my idea is already postulated by other people?
it is about pet theory, is it not?

Yes, it is.

Unfortunately, I was ignorant about the fact that other people are doing efforts to realize this idea.
Some might accuse me of setting up a straw man, to ridicule this idea by pointing out the reason why it is just a pet theory, whilst others could claim that I am guilty of 'idea theft'.
I have not seen anything but kind honesty from you. I would not ever think that!

There are original ideas out there! *L* We just haven't found them yet!

22. Hey! I posted my "pet theory" ...may not have been in the line of thought that was meant, but is IS my "pet theory"......he's sleeping right now! *L*

23. My pet theories..

1. Beon-Void Conjecture (BVC) .. (where "Beons" are granuals of aether defined as single-state systems)

The Universe consists of Beon & the Void;
Every other Thing is an Emergent Process.

2. Hierarchy of Emergent Processes (HEP) --
(where "B-space" is the "aether" formed of all 'Beons and Void';
and "pulsons" are the harmonic oscillators explicit and implicit in Huygens' Treatise on Light.)

a. The first Process that is Emergent from B-space is the Pulson,
[The Pulson is proposed to be the mechanical basis for the "quantum of Action".]

b. For each level of the HEP, the Emergent Processes of a given level
serve as the underlying medium for any next higher level(s) of Emergent Processes.

my two cents

donnie

Beons are not "matter".. they are "prematter" (and not Preons, et al.)
There is never any "action at a distance" between Beons.

There is only one possible direction of -- "mundane arrow of time" --
This is established by the simple motion of Beons (or any moving system).

Gravity is the byproduct effect of the Pulson process and advance fields each one 'produces'.
The range of all Gravity fields is finite.

Pulsons are/have unit values of "mass" -- rest, inertial and gravitational.
Pulson process is irreversible; this establishes the second "Process" arrow of time.

Matter is any persistent dynamic structure consisting of Pulsons.
Energy is the the action underlying a persistent dynamic structure.

All sub-atomic particles (SAPs) are dynamic clusters of Pulsons with unique stable geometric configurations.
(Photons, neutrinos and "quantum vacuum" all have 'mass'.)
All SAPs are persistent wave patterns in B-space (DeBroglie)
The 'locale' in which a SAP occur has 'particle-like' or 'phonon-like' characteristics.

The MOST primitive type of 'force' is simple Beon Motion.
The other four "Fundamental" forces are all different levels of wave effects of
material bodies upon other material bodies, as mediated by the appropriate medium (level in HEP)

The variance of the motion of a Pulson or Pulson cluster from its Least Action Path is its "temperature".
The Entropy arrow of time is the result of Resonance between interacting wave phenomena (like Pulsons).

Antimatter is the same Process as Matter, except occuring in reverse sequence.
("sub-atomic particles" -- Pulson Clusters -- are reversible processes.)
The Least Action Path of any Matter process is always less than that of its Antimatter counterprocess.

There is no exact time symmetry, and no exact "process" symmetry over time.
Antimatter is inherently symmetry-breaking.
The positive charge of protons is not exactly symmetric to the negative charge of electron.

Charge is due to the asymmetry of the wave-forms produced by positive and negative charged particles.
Magnetism is a by-product of the charge field.

Dark Matter consists of all the free individual Pulsons (esp in "quantum vacuum",
and all of the Pulson Clusters that are not yet described in the Standard Model.

Dark Energy is the drift in B-space generated by the decay of all advance waveforms produced in the Matter/Energy Process...

24. Originally Posted by drom9090
My pet theories..

1. Beon-Void Conjecture (BVC) .. (where "Beons" are granuals of aether defined as single-state systems)

The Universe consists of Beon & the Void;
Every other Thing is an Emergent Process.

2. Hierarchy of Emergent Processes (HEP) --
(where "B-space" is the "aether" formed of all 'Beons and Void';
and "pulsons" are the harmonic oscillators explicit and implicit in Huygens' Treatise on Light.)

a. The first Process that is Emergent from B-space is the Pulson,
[The Pulson is proposed to be the mechanical basis for the "quantum of Action".]

b. For each level of the HEP, the Emergent Processes of a given level
serve as the underlying medium for any next higher level(s) of Emergent Processes.

I apologize for my ignorance, but I do not comprehend your pet theory.

25. My toy theory is that the laws of mathematics are independent of the physical laws of nature/the Universe, as the laws of mathematics will be constant for any permutation of reality. (From what I understand, it's currently believed that our mathematical laws are a result of our Universe's own laws?) There will never and can never be a Universe where 2+2=3.5 because whichever Universe you're in, the laws of mathematics just wont allow that option to exist in any reality.

Further, not only are the laws of mathematics independent from our Universe's laws of physics, the physical laws of the Universe are wholly dependent on the completely consistent-across-all-realities nature of mathematics. As such, there aren't a virtually infinite number of possible Universes out there (where each physical constant is a potential variable) but a very limited number of possible realities, with a limited number of possible options for each physical constant, which is a result of (trans-Universal? Omniversal?) Mathematical laws.

Unfortuately my knowledge of mathematics is inadequate to even begin to imagine how such a hypothesis could ever be falsified.

Oh, and that M-theory is Fractal.

26. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Originally Posted by drom9090
My pet theories..

1. Beon-Void Conjecture (BVC) .. (where "Beons" are granuals of aether defined as single-state systems)

The Universe consists of Beon & the Void;
Every other Thing is an Emergent Process.

2. Hierarchy of Emergent Processes (HEP) --
(where "B-space" is the "aether" formed of all 'Beons and Void';
and "pulsons" are the harmonic oscillators explicit and implicit in Huygens' Treatise on Light.)

a. The first Process that is Emergent from B-space is the Pulson,
[The Pulson is proposed to be the mechanical basis for the "quantum of Action".]

b. For each level of the HEP, the Emergent Processes of a given level
serve as the underlying medium for any next higher level(s) of Emergent Processes.

I apologize for my ignorance, but I do not comprehend your pet theory.

Yeah, I get that a lot.
It's probably not your ignorance, but my poor writing and communication skills.
Plus this is just a blirp.. missing many many details.

Everybody seems to understand "aether" and understand "quanta of Action",
but draw a blank when I say QAs are emergent from a particle aether.

Maybe the problem is the novel vocabulary..

Or maybe its that the concepts of 'aether',
or of a mechanical description of quanta, or "emergent processes" (Prigogine, e.g.)
are so far afield from the standard model
its difficult to get the standard model Physicist's mind/brain to absorb them.

I dunno.. different for different ppl I suppose.. but when nobody is asking specific questions
so it's hard to discern the exact comprehension problem.

I have to laugh tho, because it reminds me of both Bohr's 'crazy' test and
Feynman's famous line about how few people understood GR and QM.

Unfortunately and of course, incomprehensibility is neither necessary or sufficient to establish
the correctness of a theory of "quantum gravitation" or a TOE.

donnie

27. Originally Posted by Daecon
There will never and can never be a Universe where 2+2=3.5
Perhaps not.
But...
Colin Kapp wrote a short science fiction story much along that line (in the collection The Unorthodox Engineers).
Unfortunately I last read it some 35-40 years ago and have failed to find a cheap enough (to justify me buying it) copy since (currently over £100), so I can't remember any details.

28. Originally Posted by drom9090

Yeah, I get that a lot.
It's probably not your ignorance, but my poor writing and communication skills.
Plus this is just a blirp.. missing many many details.

Everybody seems to understand "aether" and understand "quanta of Action",
but draw a blank when I say QAs are emergent from a particle aether.

And why does this surprise you?

Maybe the problem is the novel vocabulary..
That's part of it. If I started speaking to you in a mixture of Farsi, Cantonese, Finnish and Urdu, you'd likely be confused, too.

Or maybe its that the concepts of 'aether',
or of a mechanical description of quanta, or "emergent processes" (Prigogine, e.g.)
are so far afield from the standard model
its difficult to get the standard model Physicist's mind/brain to absorb them.
No, it's not a matter of difficulty (physicists are very good at handling exceptionally complex things, in case you haven't been paying attention). It's a matter of nonsense vs. sense.

I dunno.. different for different ppl I suppose.. but when nobody is asking specific questions
so it's hard to discern the exact comprehension problem.
Allow me to help. No one is asking specific questions because there is nothing specific to discuss. Care to present something scientific? Then there will be a discussion.

I have to laugh tho, because it reminds me of both Bohr's 'crazy' test and
Feynman's famous line about how few people understood GR and QM.
You're treading dangerously close to the dreaded crackpot boundary. Drawing any sort of comparison between your ideas and those of other seemingly counterintuitive ones is a classic crackpot maneuver. In the case of GR and QM, there is a mountain of scientific evidence to support those theories. Einstein had two pieces in short order: The bending of starlight, and an explanation for the perihelion advance of Mercury. QM had a resolution to the UV catastrophe, as well as an explanation of the photoelectric effect.

Now let's compare that to the aether. Hmmm, the aether has....nothing.

Unfortunately and of course, incomprehensibility is neither necessary or sufficient to establish
the correctness of a theory of "quantum gravitation" or a TOE.
Incomprehensibility is not a virtue. It might be inevitable, but it's not a virtue. My advice: Don't allude to the incomprehensibility of an aether non-theory as a positive sign.

ETA: If you could point readers to, say, a paper or glossary or some other source that defines such aether-theory terms for the uninitiated, you'd be doing a great service.

29. i would like the record to show that i am neither clever enough nor nutty enough to have my own pet theory.

30. Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan
i would like the record to show that i am neither clever enough nor nutty enough to have my own pet theory.
But do you have a theory about pets, like babe does?

31. Originally Posted by drom9090
My pet theories..

1. Beon-Void Conjecture (BVC) .. (where "Beons" are granuals of aether defined as single-state systems)

The Universe consists of Beon & the Void;
Every other Thing is an Emergent Process.

2. Hierarchy of Emergent Processes (HEP) --
(where "B-space" is the "aether" formed of all 'Beons and Void';
and "pulsons" are the harmonic oscillators explicit and implicit in Huygens' Treatise on Light.)

a. The first Process that is Emergent from B-space is the Pulson,
[The Pulson is proposed to be the mechanical basis for the "quantum of Action".]

b. For each level of the HEP, the Emergent Processes of a given level
serve as the underlying medium for any next higher level(s) of Emergent Processes.

my two cents

donnie

Beons are not "matter".. they are "prematter" (and not Preons, et al.)
There is never any "action at a distance" between Beons.

There is only one possible direction of -- "mundane arrow of time" --
This is established by the simple motion of Beons (or any moving system).

Gravity is the byproduct effect of the Pulson process and advance fields each one 'produces'.
The range of all Gravity fields is finite.

Pulsons are/have unit values of "mass" -- rest, inertial and gravitational.
Pulson process is irreversible; this establishes the second "Process" arrow of time.

Matter is any persistent dynamic structure consisting of Pulsons.
Energy is the the action underlying a persistent dynamic structure.

All sub-atomic particles (SAPs) are dynamic clusters of Pulsons with unique stable geometric configurations.
(Photons, neutrinos and "quantum vacuum" all have 'mass'.)
All SAPs are persistent wave patterns in B-space (DeBroglie)
The 'locale' in which a SAP occur has 'particle-like' or 'phonon-like' characteristics.

The MOST primitive type of 'force' is simple Beon Motion.
The other four "Fundamental" forces are all different levels of wave effects of
material bodies upon other material bodies, as mediated by the appropriate medium (level in HEP)

The variance of the motion of a Pulson or Pulson cluster from its Least Action Path is its "temperature".
The Entropy arrow of time is the result of Resonance between interacting wave phenomena (like Pulsons).

Antimatter is the same Process as Matter, except occuring in reverse sequence.
("sub-atomic particles" -- Pulson Clusters -- are reversible processes.)
The Least Action Path of any Matter process is always less than that of its Antimatter counterprocess.

There is no exact time symmetry, and no exact "process" symmetry over time.
Antimatter is inherently symmetry-breaking.
The positive charge of protons is not exactly symmetric to the negative charge of electron.

Charge is due to the asymmetry of the wave-forms produced by positive and negative charged particles.
Magnetism is a by-product of the charge field.

Dark Matter consists of all the free individual Pulsons (esp in "quantum vacuum",
and all of the Pulson Clusters that are not yet described in the Standard Model.

Dark Energy is the drift in B-space generated by the decay of all advance waveforms produced in the Matter/Energy Process...
No offense intended, but I don't understand your pet theory at all!

I think I prefer mine!

32. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan
i would like the record to show that i am neither clever enough nor nutty enough to have my own pet theory.
But do you have a theory about pets, like babe does?
*buffing nails*

33. I would of said puffing chest...but if it freaking puffs any more it's going to go be a pet theory!

34. Originally Posted by tk421
ETA: If you could point readers to, say, a paper or glossary or some other source that defines such aether-theory terms for the uninitiated, you'd be doing a great service.

I second that.
A few members have a thorough understanding of modern physics, but the majority is incapable of grasping the mathematical constructs behind these scientific theories and/or are unaware of the details and repeated experiments that were (and will be) set up to validate them.

As such, many members (including me) cannot comment on these 'theories' and cannot even state with certainty that the other is right or wrong.

Originally Posted by drom9090
Unfortunately and of course, incomprehensibility is neither necessary or sufficient to establish
the correctness of a theory of "quantum gravitation" or a TOE.

Before one can accuse me of being reluctant to accept your ideas, it is necessary to say that I do not reject nor accept your pet theory.
When member tk421 posted that incomprehensibility is not a virtue, I could not but agree with him.

I do not have issues with people who want to elucidate their ideas about the mechanisms and structure of the universe and the fundamental particles in it, but it might backfire on you if you are not able (or not willing) to explain what your ideas contain and imply.

Allow me to give you an example:
In post #111, I raised my idea about genetically altering certain plants which would result in fluorescent organisms and I stated the implications.
Rather than talking about plasmids, viral/eukaryotic promotors, chromophores or GFP,
I reduced my idea to simple statements, in the hope that novices and laymen could understand, comment, praise, develop or reject my general idea.

Please consider to express your ideas in such a manner that the majority can understand them,
since not everyone knows what you know and not everyone comprehends what you grasp.

35. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
First I will post the essence my pet theory, and then I will elucidate some of it:

"Genetic modification of certain plants in order to make them fluorescent will result into a decrease of electricity usage."

There are three things that I want to stress:
1. The plants must be tolerant of different types of soil and environment and must be non-edible.
2. The fluorescent protein must be natural (i.e. without artificial modifications) and must be non-toxic.
3. The fluorescent protein may not interfere with the basic metabolism of the plant, must be produced consecutively and must be broken down at a constant rate in order to avoid cell death by overproduction.

The purpose of this idea is that a significant number of fluorescent plants might reduce the electricity bills because people would use less artificial lighting in their house and garden. Furthermore, it would produce oxygen, resulting into a healthier environment.

Yet, this is just a pet theory due to the fact that, even if this idea was viable, fluorescent plants cannot compete with the benefits of modern lighting.
So if we could, for example, insert certain jellyfish genes into, say, a rubber-tree plant we could have a glow-in-the-dark jelly-tree plant?

I want one!

36. Originally Posted by Daecon
Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
First I will post the essence my pet theory, and then I will elucidate some of it:

"Genetic modification of certain plants in order to make them fluorescent will result into a decrease of electricity usage."

There are three things that I want to stress:
1. The plants must be tolerant of different types of soil and environment and must be non-edible.
2. The fluorescent protein must be natural (i.e. without artificial modifications) and must be non-toxic.
3. The fluorescent protein may not interfere with the basic metabolism of the plant, must be produced consecutively and must be broken down at a constant rate in order to avoid cell death by overproduction.
The purpose of this idea is that a significant number of fluorescent plants might reduce the electricity bills because people would use less artificial lighting in their house and garden. Furthermore, it would produce oxygen, resulting into a healthier environment.

Yet, this is just a pet theory due to the fact that, even if this idea was viable, fluorescent plants cannot compete with the benefits of modern lighting.
So if we could, for example, insert certain jellyfish genes into, say, a rubber-tree plant we could have a glow-in-the-dark jelly-tree plant?

I want one!

That is, more or less, my idea in a nutshell.
However, I would not modify the genes of the Hevea brasiliensis.

37. Oh yeah, that's called a rubber-tree plant too. I meant the houseplant, Ficus elastica.

38. Originally Posted by Daecon
Oh yeah, that's called a rubber-tree plant too. I meant the houseplant, Ficus elastica.

At first glance, that houseplant seems useful.
And since Wikipedia mentions that there are hybrid forms with interesting benefits, I think that this can be placed on the list of candidate plants.

39. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Originally Posted by tk421
ETA: If you could point readers to, say, a paper or glossary or some other source that defines such aether-theory terms for the uninitiated, you'd be doing a great service.

I second that.
A few members have a thorough understanding of modern physics, but the majority is incapable of grasping the mathematical constructs behind these scientific theories and/or are unaware of the details and repeated experiments that were (and will be) set up to validate them.

As such, many members (including me) cannot comment on these 'theories' and cannot even state with certainty that the other is right or wrong.

Originally Posted by drom9090
Unfortunately and of course, incomprehensibility is neither necessary or sufficient to establish
the correctness of a theory of "quantum gravitation" or a TOE.

Before one can accuse me of being reluctant to accept your ideas, it is necessary to say that I do not reject nor accept your pet theory.
When member tk421 posted that incomprehensibility is not a virtue, I could not but agree with him.

I do not have issues with people who want to elucidate their ideas about the mechanisms and structure of the universe and the fundamental particles in it, but it might backfire on you if you are not able (or not willing) to explain what your ideas contain and imply.

Allow me to give you an example:
In post #111, I raised my idea about genetically altering certain plants which would result in fluorescent organisms and I stated the implications.
Rather than talking about plasmids, viral/eukaryotic promotors, chromophores or GFP,
I reduced my idea to simple statements, in the hope that novices and laymen could understand, comment, praise, develop or reject my general idea.

Please consider to express your ideas in such a manner that the majority can understand them,
since not everyone knows what you know and not everyone comprehends what you grasp.
Geeze, Drom, ya really know how to to make me feel dumb....

so how did you know that song was in a B flat?

Not all people are knowledgeable in all things......so cut us some slack.....I do for people who don't know what the hell I am talking about, in my area of expertise, but please, don't regard us as ignorant. We aren't. Our passions just lie in other places, although that doesn't mean we are nog cognizant of things we can learn something about. Tolerance for those not in your field, brings a form of educationi and understanding and makes us all BETTER people!!

40. Originally Posted by Daecon
Oh yeah, that's called a rubber-tree plant too. I meant the houseplant, Ficus elastica.
I really think you might enjoy this you tube.....and oops there goes another rubber tree plant and this actually rather applies to this topic!

â™¥ "High Hopes" â™« Frank Sinatra - YouTube

41. Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by Daecon
Oh yeah, that's called a rubber-tree plant too. I meant the houseplant, Ficus elastica.
I really think you might enjoy this you tube.....and oops there goes another rubber tree plant and this actually rather applies to this topic!

â™¥ "High Hopes" â™« Frank Sinatra - YouTube

42. Originally Posted by Daecon
Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by Daecon
Oh yeah, that's called a rubber-tree plant too. I meant the houseplant, Ficus elastica.
I really think you might enjoy this you tube.....and oops there goes another rubber tree plant and this actually rather applies to this topic!

â™¥ "High Hopes" â™« Frank Sinatra - YouTube
I did not know that as I am not well versed in osmosis, however it is the first thing that hit my head..that is me though...I have a song for just about anything!

44. Originally Posted by babe
Not all people are knowledgeable in all things......so cut us some slack.....I do for people who don't know what the hell I am talking about, in my area of expertise, but please, don't regard us as ignorant. We aren't. Our passions just lie in other places, although that doesn't mean we are nog cognizant of things we can learn something about. Tolerance for those not in your field, brings a form of educationi and understanding and makes us all BETTER people!!

Are you suggesting that I should not have simplified my ideas or are you suggesting that it is recommendable to simplify my ideas?

45. Originally Posted by babe

Psychokinesis through mental training of mind and body.

An overunity device to harness energy from a perpetual motion device, as this would put efficiency out of the equation when you could just take all the energy no matter how much from a device that never runs out. Not to mention all this to be man made.

That humanity is actually a race of biological weapons developed by a race similar to us who are themselves called angels(less efficient humans). This is because they are waging a war against an advanced species and are on the verge of defeat, repopulate 4 different planets at 4 parts of the galaxy to wait till the time is right to launch a counter attack. Humanity is one of the species that is developed with a special instinct for survival of the fittest.

A weapon system that uses a universal handle that can identify the chromosome of a person to determine the physical human and have the universal handle magnetically attract weapon parts that fit the wielder in terms of physics and genetically to further emphasize advantage on the battlefield. The weapons fire solid light projectiles to prevent damaging of magnetic parts.

Hard light to finally have a possibility to create free matter (which i could learn more of it)

Shape memory polymers with a special catalyst that would allow for simple friction to generate enough heat for the object to forever be in its healing state, therefore reducing most damage which would act as an armor.

Genetic coded universal wield weapons above too to prevent unauthorized acquiring of weapons by allowing certain genetic codes to yield weapons. Disassembles before firing if the wielder is an unauthorized person as the magnetic induction is shut off to prevent usage of weapons on friendlies and potentially innocent people. If this can be developed further, uses a long range genetic target finder to also disassemble the weapon upon acquiring a human target.

Using nano organic compounds to heal all forms of scars in a suit that will retrieve the persons stem cell and once an injury happens, the suit would kick in making copies which would be inserted and which replaces all damaged cells to maximize recovery.

Using hard-light as a projectile to have curved firing to be able to acquire targets and destroy them behind cover. Also by having hard-light artillery. It is like a meter bar that can determine the mass and speed drop of the object balancing the 2 factors.

Using resonance frequency to create a bomb of mass destruction. (destroying planets)

That if we were to re-create the big bang on a smaller scale, we have a mini-verse. Inside will have giants thanks to bacteria becoming its inhabitants. Viruses are special made devices meant to destroy us giants and when we see it in a miniverse perspective, we see a giant robot of doom!

Using a possible storage system to house players in a virtual dome to reduce lag from the main server for full-dive gaming only. Therefore it is like moving a virtual computer to a another place and fills it with all necessary information for gaming once finish the computer would return to the human all the way probably across the ocean.

How does smell occur on the atomic level?

46. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by drom9090
Everybody seems to understand "aether" and understand "quanta of Action",
but draw a blank when I say QAs are emergent from a particle aether.

Maybe the problem is the novel vocabulary..

Or maybe its that the concepts of 'aether',
Oh no, not another "aether theorist"

THERE IS NO AETHER. It has been looked for and NEVER detected it is counter-factual nonsense.
Some who are performing experiments on "quantum vacuum" are taking baby steps towards begging to differ.

Isn't the experimental premise in testing for aether that "matter" moves through space by a different means that light waves move through space?
E.g., moving "ponderous matter" ==> aether winds? drag?

What if the motion of matter (of any quantity, barring black holes) and the motion of photons is
exactly the same mechanism? What are the detection alternatives?

How complete can physics ever be if it is entirely based upon what the half-blind can see?
Thank goodness Einstein wasn't too afraid to perform a few thought experiments, eh?

MY thought experiments say that MMX and any experiments along that line (such as detecting motion through a stationary aether) MUST fail.
And that tossing the idea of "aether" rather than tossing the idea of "ponderous bodies" was a dreadful mistake.

donnie

47. Another crank stringing together buzz words at random.

48. Originally Posted by drom9090
How complete can physics ever be if it is entirely based upon what the half-blind can see?
Given the lack of knowledge you've displayed so far it's rather amusing (and erroneously arrogant) for you to claim "half blindness" on anyone else's part.

49. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by drom9090

Yeah, I get that a lot.
It's probably not your ignorance, but my poor writing and communication skills.
Plus this is just a blirp.. missing many many details.

Everybody seems to understand "aether" and understand "quanta of Action",
but draw a blank when I say QAs are emergent from a particle aether.
And why does this surprise you?
Not agreeing doesn't surprise me.
Not taking but a few seconds to dismiss the idea doesn't surprise me.

But not 'understanding' surprises me. I realized physics isn't biology, but
concepts like solitons, oscillons, phonons, emergent (dissipative) structures, etc (even the dreaded Ae-word)
all show up in the physics literature from time to time.

Maybe the problem is the novel vocabulary..
That's part of it. If I started speaking to you in a mixture of Farsi, Cantonese, Finnish and Urdu, you'd likely be confused, too.
Basically there's only two novel terms here..

Beon =~ Atomos = Aether particle
Pulson =~ Huygens pulse =~ the mechanical "quantum"

Or maybe its that the concepts of 'aether',
or of a mechanical description of quanta, or "emergent processes" (Prigogine, e.g.)
are so far afield from the standard model
its difficult to get the standard model Physicist's mind/brain to absorb them.
No, it's not a matter of difficulty (physicists are very good at handling exceptionally complex things,
in case you haven't been paying attention). It's a matter of nonsense vs. sense.
Per my point above.. Understanding and disagreeing are two different things. So why say you don't understand?
Of course NOT understanding but still disagreeing is a whole different issue.

I dunno.. different for different ppl I suppose.. but when nobody is asking specific questions
so it's hard to discern the exact comprehension problem.
Allow me to help. No one is asking specific questions because there is nothing specific to discuss.
Care to present something scientific? Then there will be a discussion.
So you are saying the ground rules for addressing the foundational issues in physics are that
no ideas beyond or not included within the current standard model may be discussed?

No thinking allowed outside THE pre-determined box??

I have to laugh tho, because it reminds me of both Bohr's 'crazy' test and
Feynman's famous line about how few people understood GR and QM.
Drawing any sort of comparison between your ideas and those of other
seemingly counter-intuitive ones is a classic crackpot maneuver.
Really? I was amused because it's an amusing juxtaposition.
Like tossing a wad of paper in a waste basket from across the room and
thinking I'm Aaron Rodgers tossing the winning the superbowl TD.

In the case of GR and QM, there is a mountain of scientific evidence to support those theories. Einstein had two pieces in short order: The bending of starlight, and an explanation for the perihelion advance of Mercury. QM had a resolution to the UV catastrophe, as well as an explanation of the photoelectric effect.
There's also a ton of evidence that GR and QM formalisms aren't compatible.
How CAN that be? How can the math be so demonstrably TRUE and MUTUALLY in the same Universe?
The problem can't be Nature itself! At least that is not my idea at the moment.
Gotta be something in the two maths.

My best guess is that the whole classical concept of 'continuity' will have to go.
PERHAPS replaced by a discrete space which at proper distance gives all the appearance of being "continuous",
(esp when you view it from a best resolution of 10^-21 meters.)
but nevertheless a discretely populated space.. aka what some people call "quantum vacuum"
and some call 'aether' -- and some refer to using both terms.

Now let's compare that to the aether. Hmmm, the aether has....nothing.
Which "aether"? ALL of the classical aether concepts are pre-quantum almost by definition.
And apart from the kooks, the only post-MMX aether theory of consequence is that
which Einstein proposed GR didn't make sense without.

Almost everything since has been "inherent randomness" and magical "action at a distance".

Unfortunately and of course, incomprehensibility is neither necessary or sufficient to establish
the correctness of a theory
of "quantum gravitation" or a TOE.
Incomprehensibility is not a virtue. It might be inevitable, but it's not a virtue. My advice:
Don't allude to the incomprehensibility of an aether non-theory as a positive sign.
I thought that's what I said. ??

ETA: If you could point readers to, say, a paper or glossary or some other source that defines
such aether-theory terms for the uninitiated, you'd be doing a great service.
There are bits and pieces of BVC here..

BV Conjecture -Main

Its in bits and pieces because it is in continual state of rewrite trying somehow to make things "simpler"...
I really don't know how to make BVC any simpler.. But its getting clearer that "understanding" isn't the real issue.

I thought the idea of THIS thread was to "blurt out your favorite pet theory"..

Disagree. Agree. I don't care.
Complete disinterest, that's okay too. We'll both just move on.

By all means, some, any further interest from others is completely welcome.

I'm still going over and over the details of the premise myself..
trying to find out if and where my ideas collapse into contradiction.
So any fresh set of eyes is more than okay with me.

But how can I take seriously criticisms based on premises that (most likely) I'm not making and
that BVC does not require in order to describe known observable physical phenomena?

donnie

50. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by drom9090
How complete can physics ever be if it is entirely based upon what the half-blind can see?
Given the lack of knowledge you've displayed so far it's rather amusing (and erroneously arrogant) for you to claim "half blindness" on anyone else's part.
Guess I could have made that a lot clearer. Sorry.

By the "half-blind" I was referring to the current limits of empirical observation and observability.

Was NOT referring to anybody in particular.. except perhaps the theoretical genuinely strict empiricist.

donnie

51. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by drom9090
Everybody seems to understand "aether" and understand "quanta of Action",
but draw a blank when I say QAs are emergent from a particle aether.

Maybe the problem is the novel vocabulary..

Or maybe its that the concepts of 'aether',
Oh no, not another "aether theorist"

THERE IS NO AETHER. It has been looked for and NEVER detected it is counter-factual nonsense.
Certainly not quoting the pet theory above, but you have mentioned a very common misconception involving aether theory. It is actually known there exists a quantum aether. You can refute the aether theory based on the lumiferous aether, but there are in fact several types of aether theories. One of them is the quantum aether which as far as physicists are aware, has every aspect of it related to the non-Newtonian aether of an all-filling space of virtual particles

''It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.''

Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics

52. Given the definition of what a quantum aether is, only a crank scientist would state it doesn't exist with any experimental evidence. If anything, all experimental evidence points to a quantum interpretation of a relativistic aether.

Keep in mind, the word ''aether'' is something of a taboo, but it does exist within the quantum interpretation of the vacuum. In fact, I know of a number of scientists who have made this clear.

So forgive me when I say, it is unwise to just ''throw it out of the window.'' Only a lack of understanding quantum physics can you get away with that and with a personal dislike of the use of the name ''aether.''

53. How about I just quote the last century of particle field theory leading up to the experimental confirmation of the quantum aether in particle accelerators?

What would that statement mean to you?

54. See, here is the problem. You need to first understand what the quantum aether is: It is factually, everything we have been made aware of in modern theoretical and experimental physics. The existence of a grainy structure interwoven as a fabric of the universe is very well known now. The definition of an aether is a medium. We must therefore abandon the Newtonian empty space system of belief, not because it archaic or antiquated but because we know from experiment that it is no longer true. We don't say a quantum aether exists, because it sounds cool. It is because there is no other definition of an aether, but we don't use the word aether because, as the Nobel winner Laughlin said above, the terminology has become taboo... but that is all it really is. Is an aether... albeit, a complicated one.

55. There are already some lovely quotations in the wiki article which support this... Dirac's most notable

Paul Dirac wrote in 1951:[5] "Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of Aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the Aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an Aether. . . . . . . .We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an Aether".

56. Originally Posted by PhDemon
If it is true post a reference showing the experimental evidence of the existence of an aether. If it is as accepted as you say there must be loads of them. One will do to convince me.
There are no articles which out-rightly say we have an aether. This is because the name ''aether'' has been replaced with ''all-filling fields'' and quantum electrodynamics.

When you begin to understand this, you might learn something.

57. The quotation above, Dirac says we are pretty much forced having an aether. This is based on the quantum mechanical field picture of the vacuum. Polyakov however, says the quantum field picture has very strong aspects of the aether.

Alexander Markovich Polyakov in 1987:[13] “Elementary particles existing in nature resemble very much excitations of some complicated medium (Aether). We do not know the detailed structure of the Aether but we have learned a lot about effective Lagrangians for its low energy excitations. It is as if we knew nothing about the molecular structure of some liquid but did know the Navier-Stokes equation and could thus predict many exciting things. Clearly, there are lots of different possibilities at the molecular level leading to the same low energy picture.”

58. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by PhDemon
If it is true post a reference showing the experimental evidence of the existence of an aether. If it is as accepted as you say there must be loads of them. One will do to convince me.
There are no articles which out-rightly say we have an aether. This is because the name ''aether'' has been replaced with ''all-filling fields'' and quantum electrodynamics.

When you begin to understand this, you might learn something.

So you can't provide evidence. I've learned you're a crank whose going on ignore.

I'm on ignore?

Grow up. You don't know what you are talking about. I have shown if not appealed to three authorities all telling you the same as I have. If your butt hurts, maybe you should stay out of quantum theoretical debates and stick with your chemistry.

59. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
There are already some lovely quotations in the wiki article which support this... Dirac's most notable

Paul Dirac wrote in 1951:[5] "Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of Aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the Aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an Aether. . . . . . . .We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an Aether".

From the very same page: "However, Dirac's aether hypothesis was motivated by his dissatisfaction with quantum electrodynamics, and it never gained support by the mainstream scientific community.[6]"

You wouldn't be dishonestly cherry picking quotes would you?
No not at all.

Diracs first picture of the aether came in the form of the Dirac Sea. In that respect yes, it never took off. We now have other models which are completely supported by mainstream. The same picture emerges, we have a non-Newtonian particle filling field which plays the role of a quantum aether.

60. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Not that you need directions

But turn left it's about three-quarters of a mile. *Edits ignore list*

It's a common thing for idiotic posters to call the crank card when they clearly have been called out on a technicality they don't like, then threatens ignoring me and then doesn't.

You're acting like a silly little child.

61. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
There are already some lovely quotations in the wiki article which support this... Dirac's most notable

Paul Dirac wrote in 1951:[5] "Physical knowledge has advanced much since 1905, notably by the arrival of quantum mechanics, and the situation [about the scientific plausibility of Aether] has again changed. If one examines the question in the light of present-day knowledge, one finds that the Aether is no longer ruled out by relativity, and good reasons can now be advanced for postulating an Aether. . . . . . . .We have now the velocity at all points of space-time, playing a fundamental part in electrodynamics. It is natural to regard it as the velocity of some real physical thing. Thus with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an Aether".

From the very same page: "However, Dirac's aether hypothesis was motivated by his dissatisfaction with quantum electrodynamics, and it never gained support by the mainstream scientific community.[6]"

You wouldn't be dishonestly cherry picking quotes would you?
No not at all.

Diracs first picture of the aether came in the form of the Dirac Sea. In that respect yes, it never took off. We now have other models which are completed supported by mainstream. The same picture emerges, we have a non-Newtonian particle filling field which plays the role of a quantum aether.
I'd also like to add, believe it or not, the transition from the Dirac Sea into modern quantum field theory is actually very simple. The picture - that quantum fields do fill space and time remains true. We just have new identities in our equations, such as creation and annihilation operators.

62. Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum
Originally Posted by babe
Not all people are knowledgeable in all things......so cut us some slack.....I do for people who don't know what the hell I am talking about, in my area of expertise, but please, don't regard us as ignorant. We aren't. Our passions just lie in other places, although that doesn't mean we are nog cognizant of things we can learn something about. Tolerance for those not in your field, brings a form of educationi and understanding and makes us all BETTER people!!

Are you suggesting that I should not have simplified my ideas or are you suggesting that it is recommendable to simplify my ideas?
My apologies for not being clear.

The latter. THANK YOU for simplifying them!

63. The only "aether" I'm familiar with is what you drink to restore your magic points when playing computer games.

64. Originally Posted by Daecon
The only "aether" I'm familiar with is what you drink to restore your magic points when playing computer games.
Is that your pet theory? *chuckle*

65. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
It's a common thing for idiotic posters to call the crank card when they clearly have been called out on a technicality they don't like, then threatens ignoring me and then doesn't.

You're acting like a silly little child.
Moderator Warning: The world is most definitely not a fair place. For example, in my role as a moderator I lean towards favouring well-established members who have a record of helpful posts, useful insights and incisive comments, over those who are using the forum for the single purpose of promoting their own, questionable, non-main stream idea.

To avoid suffering the consequences of this lamentable bias on my part please avoid personal remarks about other members, even when provoked. Stick to your arguments. (And in this particular instance could you please cite, for the record, the three authorities you say you have referenced.)

66. Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by Daecon
The only "aether" I'm familiar with is what you drink to restore your magic points when playing computer games.
Is that your pet theory? *chuckle*
Oh yes, I'm sorry. You asked me about my pet theory a while back and I got distracted and forgot to reply.

My theory isn't as fun as your "pets" theory, it's more of a disagreement with another theory.

I disagree with the hypothesis that there are an infinite number of parallel Universes out there, each with a different value for any specific Universal constant.

My idea is that there can only be very few specific values for each particular physical constant because the Universal constants are intrinsically tied to the laws of mathematics, and the laws of mathematics are themselves constant regardless of any other parallel Universe. (So Pi never can and never will be anything other than 3.14159... or the "golden ratio" never can and never be anything other than 1.6180... and so on, no matter what the physical laws of any specific Universe are.)

So because of my idea that each Universal constant is directly related to and dependent upon these omni-existential mathematical laws, the possible variable values for each Universal constant are very limited, and so the idea of an infinite number of parallel Universes with any arbitrary value for X constant just can't work.

Unfortunately finding out what the correlation *is* between the laws of mathematics and the Universal constants is beyond my comprehension.

67. Originally Posted by Daecon
Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by Daecon
The only "aether" I'm familiar with is what you drink to restore your magic points when playing computer games.
Is that your pet theory? *chuckle*
Oh yes, I'm sorry. You asked me about my pet theory a while back and I got distracted and forgot to reply.

My theory isn't as fun as your "pets" theory, it's more of a disagreement with another theory.

I disagree with the hypothesis that there are an infinite number of parallel Universes out there, each with a different value for any specific Universal constant.

My idea is that there can only be very few specific values for each particular physical constant because the Universa; constants are intrinsically tied to the laws of mathematics, and the laws of mathematics are themselves constant regardless of any other parallel Universe. (So Pi never can and never will be anything other than 3.14159... or the "golden ratio" never can and never be anything other than 1.6180... and so on, no matter what the physical laws of any specific Universe are.)

So because of my idea that each Universal constant is directly related to and dependent upon these omni-existential mathematical laws, the possible variable values for each Universal constant are very limited, and so the idea of an infinite number of parallel Universes with any arbitrary value for X constant just can't work.

Unfortunately finding out what the correlation *is* between the laws of mathematics and the Universal constants is beyond my comprehension.

Mahalo for your reply. It is interesting! Even if not humorous. *S*....I did like reading it! Thank you!

Always wonderful to read different ideas and theories, even if I just barely know the some of the basics, everyone is kind to explain!

68. I think cats are the best pets.

69. Originally Posted by shlunka
I think cats are the best pets.
Until they die.
One of mine went on Friday, my other cat is still looking for her...

70. I'm very sorry to hear that Duck. I've lost three cats in my life, and I still miss them all.

71. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
It's a common thing for idiotic posters to call the crank card when they clearly have been called out on a technicality they don't like, then threatens ignoring me and then doesn't.

You're acting like a silly little child.
Moderator Warning: The world is most definitely not a fair place. For example, in my role as a moderator I lean towards favouring well-established members who have a record of helpful posts, useful insights and incisive comments, over those who are using the forum for the single purpose of promoting their own, questionable, non-main stream idea.

To avoid suffering the consequences of this lamentable bias on my part please avoid personal remarks about other members, even when provoked. Stick to your arguments. (And in this particular instance could you please cite, for the record, the three authorities you say you have referenced.)

Thanks JG, it's interesting to be called a "crank" a "stupid child" and that I "should stick to chemistry", by a person "using the forum for the single purpose of promoting their own, questionable, non-main stream idea" this is very close to my definition of crackpot so a definite pot/kettle thing going on here . I asked for peer-reviewed research supporting his interpretation and got insults and wiki quotes, laughable really. Mea culpa for responding in kind but the guy irritated me. He's now on ignore so there'll be no more "discussion" or insults from me in his direction.

Be careful. Using green as your font color could backfire on you:
Green ink - RationalWiki

72. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Originally Posted by John Galt
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
It's a common thing for idiotic posters to call the crank card when they clearly have been called out on a technicality they don't like, then threatens ignoring me and then doesn't.

You're acting like a silly little child.
Moderator Warning: The world is most definitely not a fair place. For example, in my role as a moderator I lean towards favouring well-established members who have a record of helpful posts, useful insights and incisive comments, over those who are using the forum for the single purpose of promoting their own, questionable, non-main stream idea.

To avoid suffering the consequences of this lamentable bias on my part please avoid personal remarks about other members, even when provoked. Stick to your arguments. (And in this particular instance could you please cite, for the record, the three authorities you say you have referenced.)

Thanks JG, it's interesting to be called a "crank" a "stupid child" and that I "should stick to chemistry", by a person "using the forum for the single purpose of promoting their own, questionable, non-main stream idea" this is very close to my definition of crackpot so a definite pot/kettle thing going on here . I asked for peer-reviewed research supporting his interpretation and got insults and wiki quotes, laughable really. Mea culpa for responding in kind but the guy irritated me. He's now on ignore so there'll be no more "discussion" or insults from me in his direction.
The three sources which speak about aether as the quantum vacuum are

Dirac, Paul: "Is there an Aether?", Nature 168 (1951), p. 906.

Laughlin, Robert B. (2005). A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down.

A. M. Polyakov, Gauge Fields and Strings, Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur (1987), Sec. 12

While the first two citations speak about the aether being the quantum vacuum in modern theory, the third citation actually has a part which says the quantum vacuum and the idea of aether have a lot of strong relationships.

And just to set the record straight, what I have said is very much mainstream... at least to any scientist who isn't biased against the use of the word aether... and to one who understands what Dirac, Polykov and Laughlin where talking about. To deny that the aether exists as a modern theory of our vacuum is to pretty much deny

1) the definition of the aether

2) the experimental results we have obtained from accelerators concerning the quantum properties of the vacuum

73. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Crankier and crankier...

Crackpot index

1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 1 -- existence of 'isolated systems' (Beons)
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 0
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 0
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 0
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 0
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 0
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". Does mention of SR and GR count as mention of Einstein? 5, then.
9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 0 ... fundamentally correct as far as it goes.
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 0 ... (very little college, none in physics)
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. 0
12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 0
13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. 0 ... too poor.
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it. 0 ... beon, void, pulson, b-space, h-space all strictly defined.
15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations", 0 ... am not mathematician, but equations are mine (mostly simple algebra-trig level stuff, atm)
16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. 0
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".10 ... 'quanta of action' not physically defined, wave function "collapse" not well understood.
18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).0
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".0
20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.) 0
21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 0
22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).0 ... SR, GR, UV catastrophe, QM, TD, incompatibility between classical "continuity" and QM (et al) would be the evidence(s).
23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.0
24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.0
25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)0
26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. maybe 10 for "not explaining very well"
27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".0
28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".0
29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.) 0
30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. 0
31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). 0 (define 'good evidence')
32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory. 0
33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.0
34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.0
35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.0
36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) 0
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. 0 ... BVC makes testable and some already tested predictions (e.g. MMX Null result must occur)

???

74. Originally Posted by PhDemon
Yep fibbing...
You dunno BVC..

donnie

75. I wonder if the density of cranks will fall off once school starts back up.

They can't ALL be dropouts.

76. Originally Posted by AlexG
They can't ALL be dropouts.

77. Originally Posted by drom9090
Originally Posted by PhDemon
Crankier and crankier...

Crackpot index

1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 1 -- existence of 'isolated systems' (Beons)
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 0
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 0
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 0
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 0
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 0
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". Does mention of SR and GR count as mention of Einstein? 5, then.
9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). 0 ... fundamentally correct as far as it goes.
10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity. 0 ... (very little college, none in physics)
11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. 0
12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen. 0
13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory. 0 ... too poor.
14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it. 0 ... beon, void, pulson, b-space, h-space all strictly defined.
15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations", 0 ... am not mathematician, but equations are mine (mostly simple algebra-trig level stuff, atm)
16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. 0
17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".10 ... 'quanta of action' not physically defined, wave function "collapse" not well understood.
18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).0
19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".0
20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.) 0
21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. 0
22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).0 ... SR, GR, UV catastrophe, QM, TD, incompatibility between classical "continuity" and QM (et al) would be the evidence(s).
23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.0
24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.0
25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)0
26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it. maybe 10 for "not explaining very well"
27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".0
28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".0
29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.) 0
30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate. 0
31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence). 0 (define 'good evidence')
32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory. 0
33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.0
34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.0
35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.0
36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.) 0
37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. 0 ... BVC makes testable and some already tested predictions (e.g. MMX Null result must occur)

???

There are more effective and accurate ways of knowing who talks crank and who doesn't.

The first start is having an idea of what you are talking about. A non-scientist cannot distinguish a crank easily from someone who is actually talking science. Just like, in my most recent confrontation with the chemist, he doesn't realize that the aether is a medium and in physics that medium appears to be the quantum fields that permeate all of space and time.

But he doesn't understand this because he has been trained by erroneous online sites to believe any mention of aether automatical warrants a crank card.

78. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by AlexG
They can't ALL be dropouts.
Yes alex, I thought that was a bit narrow - perhaps borderline stereotypical.

79. Originally Posted by PhDemon
There's a lot of crank bullshit I don't waste my time on...

Personally I wouldn't hold much on your faith of understanding physics either. Best probably not to waste your time on that either.

80. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by AlexG
They can't ALL be dropouts.
Yes alex, I thought that was a bit narrow - perhaps borderline stereotypical.
So you're saying they can all be dropouts.
Are you are a dropout?

81. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
But he doesn't understand this because he has been trained by erroneous online sites to believe any mention of aether automatical warrants a crank card.
I thought that a bit narrow - perhaps borderline wrong.
(And you apparently misinterpreted my previous comment about AlexG's post).

82. Originally Posted by AlexG
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by AlexG
They can't ALL be dropouts.
Yes alex, I thought that was a bit narrow - perhaps borderline stereotypical.
So you're saying they can all be dropouts.
Can?

Can't*

... they surely can't all be dropouts. As for me, I am too old for school.

83. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
But he doesn't understand this because he has been trained by erroneous online sites to believe any mention of aether automatical warrants a crank card.
I thought that a bit narrow - perhaps borderline wrong.
(And you apparently misinterpreted my previous comment about AlexG's post).
My powers of deduction bring me to this conclusion.

A common thing I see from people is getting what the aether means, completely wrong. I don't mean those who integrate it into their ''pet theories'' only, but those who have read online articles (mostly by people in other professions), reading that the aether died with the Michelson Morley experiment. A totally erroneous statement in itself. The luminiferous aether died with that experiment, the [mainstream] quantum aether lived on. Lived on simply, because we have proven it pretty much exists. The only difference is that we call it by another name... but a spade is still a spade.

84. Originally Posted by PhDemon
I'm guessing the quote refers to me (he's on my ignore list so I haven't read the post) - it's more borderline trolling IMO
Before you took your hissy fit yesterday and flashing the red crank card, you might have known what it says.

85. I've lost three cats in my life,...
"To lose one cat may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose three looks like carelessness." oscar wilde.

86. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
But he doesn't understand this because he has been trained by erroneous online sites to believe any mention of aether automatical warrants a crank card.
I thought that a bit narrow - perhaps borderline wrong.
(And you apparently misinterpreted my previous comment about AlexG's post).
My powers of deduction bring me to this conclusion.

A common thing I see from people is getting what the aether means, completely wrong. I don't mean those who integrate it into their ''pet theories'' only, but those who have read online articles (mostly by people in other professions), reading that the aether died with the Michelson Morley experiment. A totally erroneous statement in itself. The luminiferous aether died with that experiment, the [mainstream] quantum aether lived on. Lived on simply, because we have proven it pretty much exists. The only difference is that we call it by another name... but a spade is still a spade.
That may be true, however remember that the word "theory" has a different meaning depending on whether you're talking to a scientist or a non-scientist (or *shudder* a creationist).

In the same way, the word "aether" has a widely accepted meaning in the scientific community, and that meaning is why scientists are unwilling to accept the term "aether" in a serious scientific discussion.

Use the word aether and people will automatically assume you mean the term to refer to an idea which has no scientific basis, to save yourself from misunderstanding it may be better to use more specific terms such as "quantum foam" or whichever.

"A spade may be a spade, but what about diamonds, hearts and clubs?" This is why it's important to use words that are as unambiguous as possible.

87. Originally Posted by Daecon
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
But he doesn't understand this because he has been trained by erroneous online sites to believe any mention of aether automatical warrants a crank card.
I thought that a bit narrow - perhaps borderline wrong.
(And you apparently misinterpreted my previous comment about AlexG's post).
My powers of deduction bring me to this conclusion.

A common thing I see from people is getting what the aether means, completely wrong. I don't mean those who integrate it into their ''pet theories'' only, but those who have read online articles (mostly by people in other professions), reading that the aether died with the Michelson Morley experiment. A totally erroneous statement in itself. The luminiferous aether died with that experiment, the [mainstream] quantum aether lived on. Lived on simply, because we have proven it pretty much exists. The only difference is that we call it by another name... but a spade is still a spade.

In the same way, the word "aether" has a widely accepted meaning in the scientific community, and that meaning is why scientists are unwilling to accept the term "aether" in a serious scientific discussion.

When I was taught the definition of aether, I took it literally to mean a medium in which physical objects move through.

If that is not the definition a physical scientist uses, I'd ask what propaganda they have been reading.

88. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by Daecon
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
But he doesn't understand this because he has been trained by erroneous online sites to believe any mention of aether automatical warrants a crank card.
I thought that a bit narrow - perhaps borderline wrong.
(And you apparently misinterpreted my previous comment about AlexG's post).
My powers of deduction bring me to this conclusion.

A common thing I see from people is getting what the aether means, completely wrong. I don't mean those who integrate it into their ''pet theories'' only, but those who have read online articles (mostly by people in other professions), reading that the aether died with the Michelson Morley experiment. A totally erroneous statement in itself. The luminiferous aether died with that experiment, the [mainstream] quantum aether lived on. Lived on simply, because we have proven it pretty much exists. The only difference is that we call it by another name... but a spade is still a spade.

In the same way, the word "aether" has a widely accepted meaning in the scientific community, and that meaning is why scientists are unwilling to accept the term "aether" in a serious scientific discussion.

When I was taught the definition of aether, I took it literally to mean a medium in which physical objects move through.

If that is not the definition a physical scientist uses, I'd ask what propaganda they have been reading.
How many threads do you plan on spamming this across. Why not just stick to the one you've started?

If that is not the definition a physical scientist uses, I'd ask what propaganda they have been reading.
So anyone who disagrees with you is the victim of propaganda, and has no knowledge of physics.

You are a quintessential crank.

89. It was considered useless. Not wrong.

But there is some use to it after all since quoting the thread which now exists in the trash can is totally suitable to the debate

http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash...er-theory.html

90. Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
When I was taught the definition of aether, I took it literally to mean a medium in which physical objects move through.

If that is not the definition a physical scientist uses, I'd ask what propaganda they have been reading.
"Medium" is a very vague term. Have you considered the possibility that the person who taught you about aether was just incorrect, or that they themselves misunderstood the issue based on information that they themselves didn't know at the time?

91. Originally Posted by PhDemon
It's in the trash in case you're looking...
Oh you beat me to it.

92. Originally Posted by Daecon
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
When I was taught the definition of aether, I took it literally to mean a medium in which physical objects move through.

If that is not the definition a physical scientist uses, I'd ask what propaganda they have been reading.
"Medium" is a very vague term. Have you considered the possibility that the person who taught you about aether was just incorrect, or that they themselves misunderstood the issue based on information that they themselves didn't know at the time?

Vague, but it's application was correct. I don't take anything said to me at face value, I find out if there is confirmation to a claim, so no, I don't believe the person who taught me that was incorrect as such. A material which fills the universe, is a medium itself, since the vacuum is a medium, you cannot separate the two.

93. Originally Posted by AlexG
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by Daecon
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis
But he doesn't understand this because he has been trained by erroneous online sites to believe any mention of aether automatical warrants a crank card.
I thought that a bit narrow - perhaps borderline wrong.
(And you apparently misinterpreted my previous comment about AlexG's post).
My powers of deduction bring me to this conclusion.

A common thing I see from people is getting what the aether means, completely wrong. I don't mean those who integrate it into their ''pet theories'' only, but those who have read online articles (mostly by people in other professions), reading that the aether died with the Michelson Morley experiment. A totally erroneous statement in itself. The luminiferous aether died with that experiment, the [mainstream] quantum aether lived on. Lived on simply, because we have proven it pretty much exists. The only difference is that we call it by another name... but a spade is still a spade.

In the same way, the word "aether" has a widely accepted meaning in the scientific community, and that meaning is why scientists are unwilling to accept the term "aether" in a serious scientific discussion.

When I was taught the definition of aether, I took it literally to mean a medium in which physical objects move through.

If that is not the definition a physical scientist uses, I'd ask what propaganda they have been reading.

So anyone who disagrees with you is the victim of propaganda, and has no knowledge of physics.

What??

Where did I ever say that?? You have some quintessential problems reading.

94. Originally Posted by drom9090
Originally Posted by PhDemon
Crankier and crankier...

Crackpot index

1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 1 -- existence of 'isolated systems' (Beons)
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 0
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 0
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 0
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 0
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 0
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". Does mention of SR and GR count as mention of Einstein? 5, then.

{snip}

Just to be fair, Baez was very careful to spell the names as Einstien, Hawkins and Feynmann. Cranks are notoriously sloppy in spelling as in thinking, and often render those three names erroneously. So, invoking Einstein is fine, but Einstien will get you some points on the CI.

95. Originally Posted by tk421
Originally Posted by drom9090
Originally Posted by PhDemon
Crankier and crankier...

Crackpot index

1. A -5 point starting credit.
2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false. 1 -- existence of 'isolated systems' (Beons)
3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. 0
4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent. 0
5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction. 0
6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. 0
7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards). 0
8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann". Does mention of SR and GR count as mention of Einstein? 5, then.
{snip}

???
Just to be fair, Baez was very careful to spell the names Einstien, Hawkins and Feynmann incorrectly. Cranks are notoriously sloppy in spelling as in thinking, and often render those three names erroneously. So, invoking Einstein is fine, but Einstien will get you some points on the CI.

It was partially a joke as well. I don't know how many threads I have fallen upon where people call Hawking, Hawkings or Hawkins. It's quite amazing.

96. (I'm not very good at analogies, but bear with me.)

Imagine the Universe to be like a sheet of tracing paper, and underneath this tracing paper you have a sheet of graph paper that you follow when drawing things onto the tracing paper (in the same way you would copy anything onto a sheet of such paper) as a "template" for the Universe to follow to to describe every physical interaction.

Now, imagine in this tracing-paper Universe you have a particle emitter pointing to a wall that shoots one particle at a time. Without anything inbetween the emitter and the wall you'd eventually have a circular area showing you the distribution of all the particles emitted over that period of time, the graph paper shows you that the particles should emit in the shape of a cone and so the particles follow the pattern on the graph paper, resulting in a circle on the wall. (Bear in mind that in your tracing paper Universe you have no way of know that such a graph paper template even exists.)

Now (you can probably guess where I'm going with this) if you have a partition with two slits in it inbetween the emitter and the wall, the graph paper template rightly shows you that particles emitted in this scenario will produce the classic interference pattern that is expected. Even when we shoot particles one at a time, they still follow this interference pattern even though the particles have absolutely nothing to physically interact with to cause such interference. This is because they're just following the template of the graph paper to show them how they're supposed to trace their movement along, in your tracing paper Universe.

The very act of placing the double-slit partition inbetween the emitter and the wall changes what's "drawn" on the underlying graph paper, and the drawing on the tracing paper just copies what's drawn underneath it.

The graph paper underneath the tracing paper Universe is a template to show what interaction between the physical objects is supposed to look like whenever anything happens, even though the graph paper is completely separate from the tracing paper Universe and undetectable for anyone living in the tracing paper Universe.

Does that make sense?

So yeah, in order to explain wave-particle duality I've invented a whole 'nother level of reality. Go me!

97. Does that make sense?
No.

98. Originally Posted by shlunka
I think cats are the best pets.
I am ALLERGIC!! and I love them *sigh*

That is why I have my pet, husband. I am not allergic to him.....well.....yet.

99. SIR DUCK!! UNTIL THEY DIE? Oh heaven's....I think I am taking 8 feathers for that comment.....my pillow is coming along quite nicely!

100. Originally Posted by babe
Originally Posted by shlunka
I think cats are the best pets.
I am ALLERGIC!! and I love them *sigh*
So am I.
But one tablet per day fixes it completely.
The cost is negligible compared to the benefits.

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement