# Thread: Gravity Propulsion Drive

1. Originally Posted by Mazulu
It is absolutely consistent to view, mathematically, that an anti-particle is just a particle moving backwards in time. That's how mathematics fools the physics community into believing this time symmetry nonsense.
Actually no, it isn't. This is another example of your ignorance and willingness to misrepresent science you know nothing about.

The mathematical formulation of things like quantum field theory allow us to explore similar but not identical constructs. For example, we can construct a quantum field theory where T symmetry doesn't exist. We can then see what difference this makes to predictions and then we can go do experiments which probe those differences. It's how we found out that C and P symmetries aren't obeyed by all physical phenomena via chirality in the weak force. The maths was a guide for what physics to examine and test.

But you aren't interested in that, you just want to make up your own version of things to delude yourself.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
The mathematics doesn't speak to the issue of causality. That comes from common sense and wisdom.
Actually, it does. Causal structure is something which pre-occupies a great many people working general relativity.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
There has never been an observation (a formal experiment or a layperson observation) that anything, not a particle, not a photon has ever carried causality into the past.
Where did I say that? You're just showing you don't know what quantum field theory actually says about anti-particles. This is one of your problems, you don't know the details of what physicists say so you just assume. For example, if I said "tachyons are particles which go faster than light and the Higgs mechanism is tachyonic" you might conclude I'm saying the Higgs particle goes faster than light or back in time. Nope, that isn't what the Higgs mechanism involves. This is because there's many subtleties in the model which you're unaware of and which actually conspire to prevent violation of causality.

Time and again you put your foot in your mouth. When are you going to learn to not repeatedly lie?

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Yes, I understand how entropy increases in the direction of time. And yes, I understand how it's impossible to move every particle in the universe back to it's position and momentum in 1938, which is what you have to do to facilitate a time traveling event, in order to assassinate Hitler (I'm just using Hitler as an example). But even if one positron goes whizzing by, with temporal ambiguity because it doesn't know if it's an electron traveling into the past or a positron traveling into the future, this confusion does not endow the positron with the ability to transmit causality into the past. The positron is confused because he listened to some physicist who drank the mathematical Cool-Aid.
And you're confused because you drink your own Koolaid, not bothering to find out what physicists say. You have not gotten all the information about this part of physics and you're jumping to conclusions, constructing strawmen.

Seriously, it seems like every paragraph you post contains something dishonest and ignorant. Don't you get tired of jumping to conclusions and misrepresenting people whose work you don't know anything about?

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Mathematics is a useful tool if you remember to exercise wisdom and common sense.
Speaking as a professional mathematician with a background in theoretical physics I'm completely aware of how mathematics is used in regards to the real world, much more so than you I'm sure. Furthermore, I've already given you an example of how your 'common sense' is self contradictory and thus demonstrably fails as a guide. Common sense is not logical, it is often wrong.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Since time traveling is not observed, then the mathematics is unreliable (it's lying to you) when it tells you that antiparticles are traveling into the past.
No, maths is maths, its validity has nothing to do with it's applicability to the reao world. The mathematical formulation of such things is entirely valid, what might be invalid is whether or not the abstract mathematical construct is analogous to something in the real world. For example, the mathematical formulation of Newtonian physics is valid despite the physical models which make use of it being inaccurate. English doesn't become invalid just because you can say things which don't reflect reality using it.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
It should bother you that a guy who believes in God and the mother-ship has to tell you what you should already know.
It doesn't bother me because you're either rehashing things I've already said or you're making incorrect statements. What bothers me is how consistently dishonest and ignorant you are. You don't seem to learn from your mistakes.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
If you can't glean this particular nuance, then maybe you should build a transceiver that transmits lottery numbers into the past so that you can win and become rich.
Straw man.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I already know that you are aware that such a device is impossible.
Supposition.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Yet you continue to preach the dogma of time symmetry.
Straw man.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Let me summarize my point. Mathematics is useful, but it will tell you crazy s**t too. If the mathematics doesn't agree with observation, then you're going the wrong way.
You're mistaking mathematics for it's application in physics. It's a common mistake for people who know neither to make. This is something I've now commented on a number of times.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
By the way, I have nothing against logic, I use it all the time.
Not enough.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I rely upon experience.
A naive and demonstrably flawed approach when stuck to in its entirety since it cannot allow for new experiences beyond the previous ones.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I consult my highest standards of virtue and integrity which are a reliable counselor.
You have little to no integrity.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I ask for guidance from a Higher Power which is a fairly common practice that leads to wisdom.
And yet you've made at least half a dozen mistakes in just this one post, never mind the entire thread. Your 'common sense' that all things which exist have a cause is in contradiction to your belief about a higher power. Your most fundamental views contradict one another and you seem incapable of grasping this.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I don't understand what you mean when you say that the "EM waves I gave are not Lorentz invariant". Can you please elaborate?
What about that statement don't you get? You gave an expression for an electric field and it wasn't Lorentz invariant despite you posting it for precisely that reason.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
It's entirely possible that you can't answer my question because you can't articulate it in simple words to a layperson. That could mean you're going the wrong way.
That whistling sound you're hearing is my point flying over your head.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
No, but I can detect logical inconsistencies.
Clearly you cannot given your beliefs in a Creator and the 'common sense' statement "All things which exist have a cause" are contradictory.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
One of us believes in things that have been observed to exist; one of us believes in things that don't exist, things that have never been observed. If I were you, I would not wager your sanity upon the existence of time traveling anti-particles or super-strings. If you do, you will lose.
Given we observe particles and antiparticles and the models we have of them are the most accurate models of reality ever constructed by Man and that you believe in a god and an aether, neither of which have ever been observed, I would conclude that your final comment has just backfired. Well done, another demonstration of how you have drunk your Koolaid and you lack even the most basic logic processing ability.

2. Originally Posted by brucep
It's getting old. Continuing disrespect for the scientific literature isn't funny. He's been getting spanked for two years over this same bs. He needs a time out. He's proven to be an intellectually dishonest troll.

BTW_He doesn't have a gravity drive experiment or a BS degree in physics and electrical engineering. To bonehead illiterate for that to be true. Just part of his intellectually dishonest troll.
I believe your blue statement. How come administrators leave him be then? They have a sense of humour!?

3. Originally Posted by brucep
It's getting old. Continuing disrespect for the scientific literature isn't funny. He's been getting spanked for two years over this same bs. He needs a time out. He's proven to be an intellectually dishonest troll.

BTW_He doesn't have a gravity drive experiment or a BS degree in physics and electrical engineering. To bonehead illiterate for that to be true. Just part of his intellectually dishonest troll.
People who call other people liars, are often liars themselves. For example, I've said over and over again that I have a BS in physics and another BS in Electronics Engineering Technology. I've never told anyone I has a BS in Electrical Engineering. I do not misrepresent my credentials. As for disrespect, I treat others the way they treat me.

I'm not here to troll, I'm here to voice an opinion that the physics community is going the wrong way. There are experts who can do the advanced mathematics and the details; those experts are paid well to do the heavy lifting. But abandoning the aether medium was a mistake; that's why physics is going in the wrong direction. There is a kind of medium, a kind of absolute reference frame that will reproduce observations of SR, GR and QM. But there are trolls who want to suppress any.

I applaud everyone who has asked good tough questions and has argued their position based upon physics. But those who want to suppress debate and discussion are the real trolls.

4. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
Actually no, it isn't. This is another example of your ignorance and willingness to misrepresent science you know nothing about. The mathematical formulation of things like quantum field theory allow us to explore similar but not identical constructs. For example, we can construct a quantum field theory where T symmetry doesn't exist. We can then see what difference this makes to predictions and then we can go do experiments which probe those differences. It's how we found out that C and P symmetries aren't obeyed by all physical phenomena via chirality in the weak force. The maths was a guide for what physics to examine and test. But you aren't interested in that, you just want to make up your own version of things to delude yourself. Actually, it does. Causal structure is something which pre-occupies a great many people working general relativity. Where did I say that? You're just showing you don't know what quantum field theory actually says about anti-particles. This is one of your problems, you don't know the details of what physicists say so you just assume. For example, if I said "tachyons are particles which go faster than light and the Higgs mechanism is tachyonic" you might conclude I'm saying the Higgs particle goes faster than light or back in time. Nope, that isn't what the Higgs mechanism involves. This is because there's many subtleties in the model which you're unaware of and which actually conspire to prevent violation of causality.
Time and again you put your foot in your mouth. When are you going to learn to not repeatedly lie? And you're confused because you drink your own Koolaid, not bothering to find out what physicists say. You have not gotten all the information about this part of physics and you're jumping to conclusions, constructing strawmen. Seriously, it seems like every paragraph you post contains something dishonest and ignorant. Don't you get tired of jumping to conclusions and misrepresenting people whose work you don't know anything about? Speaking as a professional mathematician with a background in theoretical physics I'm completely aware of how mathematics is used in regards to the real world, much more so than you I'm sure. Furthermore, I've already given you an example of how your 'common sense' is self contradictory and thus demonstrably fails as a guide. Common sense is not logical, it is often wrong. No, maths is maths, its validity has nothing to do with it's applicability to the reao world. The mathematical formulation of such things is entirely valid, what might be invalid is whether or not the abstract mathematical construct is analogous to something in the real world. For example, the mathematical formulation of Newtonian physics is valid despite the physical models which make use of it being inaccurate. English doesn't become invalid just because you can say things which don't reflect reality using it. It doesn't bother me because you're either rehashing things I've already said or you're making incorrect statements. What bothers me is how consistently dishonest and ignorant you are. You don't seem to learn from your mistakes. Straw man. Supposition. Straw man.
You're mistaking mathematics for it's application in physics. It's a common mistake for people who know neither to make. This is something I've now commented on a number of times. Not enough. A naive and demonstrably flawed approach when stuck to in its entirety since it cannot allow for new experiences beyond the previous ones. You have little to no integrity.
And yet you've made at least half a dozen mistakes in just this one post, never mind the entire thread. Your 'common sense' that all things which exist have a cause is in contradiction to your belief about a higher power. Your most fundamental views contradict one another and you seem incapable of grasping this. What about that statement don't you get? You gave an expression for an electric field and it wasn't Lorentz invariant despite you posting it for precisely that reason. That whistling sound you're hearing is my point flying over your head. Clearly you cannot given your beliefs in a Creator and the 'common sense' statement "All things which exist have a cause" are contradictory. Given we observe particles and antiparticles and the models we have of them are the most accurate models of reality ever constructed by Man and that you believe in a god and an aether, neither of which have ever been observed, I would conclude that your final comment has just backfired. Well done, another demonstration of how you have drunk your Koolaid and you lack even the most basic logic processing ability.
You're stonewalling.

I'm happy to defend my position that there is a medium, an aether medium and it's made out of waves. These waves facilitate the existence of the EM spectrum, and do others things.

But you don't want to discuss; you want to flout others with your 0.1% knowledge of the universe. Good luck with that.

5. I don't know which is crazier, the belief that God told you about your blinking lights, or that Aliens told you.

Both are pretty lunatic.

6. Let's talk about an actual medium. Why does visible light get transmitted through glass, or why is glass transparent, and what does it really mean to say glass is transparent to a certain range of frequencies?

Then, why is glass reflective at its surface, and why is some light reflected, some transmitted (i.e. what's the mechanism?). Why does a vacuum remain transparent and not have this reflective property (why is the vacuum's "transmissive medium" characteristically different to a material one)?

If you've read anything by Feynman or perhaps Penrose, the answer is obvious (but not trivial).

7. Originally Posted by arfa brane
Let's talk about an actual medium. Why does visible light get transmitted through glass, or why is glass transparent, and what does it really mean to say glass is transparent to a certain range of frequencies?

Then, why is glass reflective at its surface, and why is some light reflected, some transmitted (i.e. what's the mechanism?). Why does a vacuum remain transparent and not have this reflective property (why is the vacuum's "transmissive medium" characteristically different to a material one)?

If you've read anything by Feynman or perhaps Penrose, the answer is obvious (but not trivial).
arfa brane, you earned whatever degree you have. Pat on the back.

I have Feynman lectures vol 3, third printing July 1996. Chapter 3 talks abuot probability amplitudes. On page 3-3, fig 3-2 shows slits 1 and 2 are open. Under that is an equation that adds two paths together. $_{both holes open}=_{through 1}+_{through 2}$

This started giving me the idea that the paths are somehow real and that they add together to produce interference patters; others may disagree. In my interpretation, the path, described by a wave-function, is something that must exist, or else the light won't propagate. I think that the wave-function contributes the permittivity and permeability of free space for the vacuum so that light can propagate.

When the ray of light passes through glass, the medium of the glass has it's own permittivity $\epsilon_{glass},$ so you get $\epsilon_{total} =\epsilon_{glass}\epsilon_0.$

The permittivity of the medium of glass is contributed by the glass molecules. The outer shell electrons vibrate at the same frequency as the light. If there are atoms/molecules that have a band-gap equal to E=hf_gap, then photons of that frequency, f_gap, will be absorbed by the those atoms, and the glass will be opaque to that frequency.

Silvered glass has silver atoms that reverse the photon's k-vector:$\vec{p} = h\vec{k}$ becomes $\vec{p} = h(\vec{-k})=-h\vec{k}.$

I would like to hear your interpretation of the Feynman lectures.

8. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Silvered glass has silver atoms that reverse the photon's k-vector
Ordinary glass does that too. Light is both reflected and transmitted. Why?
In my interpretation, the path, described by a wave-function, is something that must exist, or else the light won't propagate. I think that the wave-function contributes the permittivity and permeability of free space for the vacuum so that light can propagate.
Why can't there be multiple paths for propagation? And why is a vacuum 'completely' transparent, unlike glass?

9. Originally Posted by arfa brane
Ordinary glass does that too. Light is both reflected and transmitted. Why?
The electric field of the incident beam of light causes the electrons to vibrate and produce a reflected beam. The harder it is to make the electrons vibrate, the less light will be reflected, and the more light will be transmitted. In a way the electrons of the material are trying to resist the incident wave by generating a reflecting wave.
Why can't there be multiple paths for propagation?
For a point source of light, the wave-function is spherical or semispherical. A large number of photons will distribute randomly as a spherical wavefront. So there are an infinite number of possible paths.

In the two slit experiment, there are two sources of of light. So the wave function, of from each source, will interfere and produce interference patterns.

And why is a vacuum 'completely' transparent, unlike glass?
Electric charges, particles, dust, asteroids, etc., all absorb light. In a "clean" vacuum with no charges, there is nothing to respond to light's electric field, nothing to draw energy out of the stream of light.

10. Originally Posted by Mazulu
In the two slit experiment, there are two sources of of light. So the wave function, of from each source, will interfere and produce interference patterns.
What about single photon sources? Isn't there only one source and two slits?
The electric field of the incident beam of light causes the electrons to vibrate and produce a reflected beam. The harder it is to make the electrons vibrate, the less light will be reflected, and the more light will be transmitted.
But some light is reflected and some is transmitted, why do the electrons vibrate for some of the incident light but not all of it? If the light is reflected from the surface, why isn't it reflected by atoms in the glass? Why don't you see a fuzzy reflection?
In a "clean" vacuum with no charges, there is nothing to respond to light's electric field, nothing to draw energy out of the stream of light.
But the vacuum is still "made out of" wavefunctions with zero energy?

11. Originally Posted by Mazulu
People who call other people liars, are often liars themselves. For example, I've said over and over again that I have a BS in physics and another BS in Electronics Engineering Technology. I've never told anyone I has a BS in Electrical Engineering. I do not misrepresent my credentials. As for disrespect, I treat others the way they treat me.

I'm not here to troll, I'm here to voice an opinion that the physics community is going the wrong way. There are experts who can do the advanced mathematics and the details; those experts are paid well to do the heavy lifting. But abandoning the aether medium was a mistake; that's why physics is going in the wrong direction. There is a kind of medium, a kind of absolute reference frame that will reproduce observations of SR, GR and QM. But there are trolls who want to suppress any.

I applaud everyone who has asked good tough questions and has argued their position based upon physics. But those who want to suppress debate and discussion are the real trolls.
Your soapbox is made of wet cardboard. You're a liar about the credentials. You said it to Alphanumeric. You're to scientifically illiterate to have a degree in anything other than BS. Like I said you're embarrassing yourself. The good thing is nobody knows who you are. Including you.

12. Originally Posted by Mazulu
You're stonewalling.
How am I stone walling when I reply to your posts line by line? I've given demonstrations that your 'common sense' is not logical, that it isn't a good guide, that it conflicts with other beliefs you hold, that you're mistaken about what physicists say and do and think, that your grasp of relativity and quantum mechanics is poor. Every step of the way I've given explanations of how you are mistaken about something.

You are the one stone walling. You won't (probably can't) respond to the points I raise.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I'm happy to defend my position that there is a medium, an aether medium and it's made out of waves. These waves facilitate the existence of the EM spectrum, and do others things.
No, you obviously aren't happy to defend your position because you never retort the criticisms and errors I highlight.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
But you don't want to discuss; you want to flout others with your 0.1% knowledge of the universe. Good luck with that.
I love how you're trying to make me out to be egotistical. You think god speaks to you! How much more egotistical can you get, that you have been picked by him to explain to scientists how the universe works.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
People who call other people liars, are often liars themselves. For example, I've said over and over again that I have a BS in physics and another BS in Electronics Engineering Technology.
I find it unbelievable that you have a degree in physics. Your complete failure to grasp the scientific method, your repeated misrepresentation of science and scientists, your flawed grasp of relevant areas of physics, all of it points to you either being a liar or having a memory so terrible you have forgotten all you learnt.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I'm not here to troll,
So stop lying about science and scientists. Here's a tip, if you're going to say "Physicists say...." just don't, you'll just be misremembering or misrepresenting them.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I'm here to voice an opinion that the physics community is going the wrong way.
And you've been shown time and again to not know which way the physics community is going.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
There are experts who can do the advanced mathematics and the details; those experts are paid well to do the heavy lifting.
Speaking as someone in that field I can assure you the pay is not terrific but money isn't the reason most of us do what we do. If I were interested in earning as much money as possible then I'd have gone into finance. We do it because we enjoy intellectual challenges and discovering and understanding things no one else has. To realise something, something you can demonstrate/justify, which no one else on the planet knows, has ever known, is made all the more sweet for the up hill struggle it takes to get there. This "I pulled it out my backside" nonsense of "God/aliens told me" you have denigrates how actual science is done.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
But abandoning the aether medium was a mistake; that's why physics is going in the wrong direction.
Yeah, because since the aether was chucked out more than 100 years ago physics has gotten us nowhere (he says typing on a computer which communicated via fibre optics, wireless signals and satellite relays to almost anywhere in the world)

Originally Posted by Mazulu
There is a kind of medium, a kind of absolute reference frame that will reproduce observations of SR, GR and QM. But there are trolls who want to suppress any.
I don't want to suppress it. If you could provide clear, justified, reproducible evidence for an aether I would do all I can to help you spread it to as many people as possible. Such a discovery would be huge. But for precisely that reason the level of evidence I or any other physicist would require is similarly huge. Saying "God told me" wouldn't be enough for you to justify bricks fall to the ground, let alone the existence of something which would sweep 100 years of physics into the bin.

If I could kill special relativity tomorrow I would. If I could kill quantum mechanics tomorrow I would. Not because I dislike them (I very much do like them) but because if they are wrong, demonstrably wrong, then people should know. Hacks have this misconceptions physicists need to cling to the mainstream lest they lose their jobs. MORE funding, MORE jobs arise when paradigms are knocked over, so if a hack things physicists are all in it for the research grants then they contradict themselves by thinking physicists wouldn't kill a mainstream theory if they had the chance.

Originally Posted by Mazulu
I applaud everyone who has asked good tough questions and has argued their position based upon physics. But those who want to suppress debate and discussion are the real trolls.
The problem is you haven't provided any physics. All you've done is provide logical fallacies and ignored inconsistencies in your own logic. The tiny tiny amount of mathematical expressions you've given are either so remedial they are in the public conciousness or they are wrong and demonstrate how little that supposed physics degree you have has remained in your mind.

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment. If I wanted to get an aether model published in a reputable journal I'd need to provide good justification. Such justification, at a bare minimum, would have to include a working model of some phenomenon. The Michelson–Morley experiment was motivated because someone constructed a model involving aether which predicted something in contradiction to alternative models. The experiment was then guided by this to measure a specific phenomenon. Similarly, when Einstein presented general relativity it was not welcomed by the scientific community but he provided several phenomena where GR didn't agree with Newtonian gravity, so the model could be tested and one of them (or both!) discarded. Someone wanting to present an aether model would have to do the same. You would need to construct a quantitative aether based model of some set of phenomena, derive it's predictions for those phenomena and then either compare with already done experiments or propose new ones. Your 'gravity drive' thing is insufficient. You need to provide a precise prediction for what should happen. What readings should be taken and what, precisely, does the current model say should happen and what does your model say.

You have already shown you don't know enough about what the mainstream says about light and gravity, so it's clear you cannot compute what the mainstream has to say about such experiments. In fact the experiment you propose is not a valid one, for reasons I've already done into. The fact you've not realised this is a testament to your lack of formalisation because formalisation would have allowed you to see it for yourself (though it's a flaw visible on the qualitative level too).

If your entire argument for listening to you is "Because I say so!" then you don't have an argument. Science funding doesn't grow on trees. Someone with the time, money, man power and equipment to do precision experiments involving gravity and light is going to want to do other experiments. You have to convince such people you've got a sound enough argument that it is worth doing your experiment. You have failed utterly in that regard. Saying "Well I have a gravity drive experiment, what do you have?" is laughably stupid. Simply pulling assertions out your backside doesn't a case make. It's easy to do that.

How about the following experiment : Place a pair of superconducting flat plates above and below a toroidal superconductor, all immersed in liquid Helium-3. Pass equal and opposite direct currents through each plate and an alternating current through the torus. It will lower the Casimir force between the plates and cause quantised vortex formation in the surrounding fluid, which can then be used as quantum computer states.

There, something I made up off the top of my head with plenty of buzzwords. If I went into a quantum computing lab tomorrow and demanded this experiment be run, claiming it could lead to working quantum computers, would anyone have any reason to listen to me? Would saying "Well I have a quantum computer design, do you?" make my claims any more valid? Of course not. Yet that is what you're trying to do now. You've jumbled together a few concepts you clearly haven't understood and concluded you have something worth listening to. It's easy to come up with BS nonsense like that when you don't have to give details. It's when you get into constructing the details you find you can't just make any conclusions you wish. This is the power of mathematics, it means that you are led by logic, not by your whims, going from assumptions to conclusions. When Einstein stated his 2 postulates of special relativity he locked the predictions of his model. He was inevitably going to reach $E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + (pc)^{2}$, a logical corollary of the postulates. He wouldn't have been able to lead the model to whatever he liked, say $E = mc^{2} + |p|c$. You, on the other hand, make up the conclusions and then try to justify them. That is classic rank mentality.

If you truly have a degree in physics then you wasted your time because you haven't gained anything from it, either because you don't remember it or it was so terrible, so awfully shockingly terrible, that you learnt pretty much nothing of any use from it.

13. Originally Posted by arfa brane
What about single photon sources? Isn't there only one source and two slits?
Certainly. There is a wave function from the one source to each slit. Those wave functions interfere as described in the Feynman lectures. All I would add is that these wave-functions describe a real wave phenomena of nature. I call this wave phenomena aether medium waves.

But some light is reflected and some is transmitted, why do the electrons vibrate for some of the incident light but not all of it? If the light is reflected from the surface, why isn't it reflected by atoms in the glass? Why don't you see a fuzzy reflection?
If the surface of the glass is rough, the reflection will be fuzzy. There were some things about the polarization that I don't understand yet. Also, the Feynman lectures say that, "when the angle between reflected and refracted is 90 degrees, there will be no reflected wave." Your questions have revealed to me that I need to learn more about waves. I tip my hat to you.

But the vacuum is still "made out of" wave-functions with zero energy?
Wave functions are not made of energy. But they obey the Schrodinger equation which comes from Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics which is is the sum of kinetic and potential energy in a system. Wave-functions describe a naturally occurring phenomena, aether medium waves, that have kinetic and potential energy built into them. Wave-functions or aether medium waves have no reason to absorb light; AM waves provide empty space with permittivity, permeability and provide the means for light to propagate, but do not interfere with propagation of light.

14. Originally Posted by Mazulu
Certainly. There is a wave function from the one source to each slit. Those wave functions interfere as described in the Feynman lectures. All I would add is that these wave-functions describe a real wave phenomena of nature. I call this wave phenomena aether medium waves.
You can call them what you want, it doesn't mean the name is justified. If I called them "Invisible fairy magic" would that mean fairies and magic exist?

Originally Posted by Mazulu
Wave functions are not made of energy. But they obey the Schrodinger equation which comes from Hamiltonian and Lagrangian mechanics which is is the sum of kinetic and potential energy in a system.
Firstly, it's the Hamiltonian which is the sum of energies, the Lagrangian is the difference. Secondly the Schrodinger equation is non-relativistic so it doesn't actually measure the energy properly. The Schrodinger equation is not Lorentz invariant.

15. Hi AlphaNumeric! Im not trying to interrupt, I am enjoying your conversation with Mazulu
But if you could find the time, Id like to see some clarification on the following issue:
Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
...The mathematical formulation of things ... allow us to explore similar but not identical constructs.

Speaking as a professional mathematician with a background in theoretical physics ... Common sense is not logical, it is often wrong.

No, maths is maths, its validity has nothing to do with it's applicability to the real world. The mathematical formulation of such things is entirely valid, what might be invalid is whether or not the abstract mathematical construct is analogous to something in the real world.
Im no mathematician but I think maths is beautiful. The proof that there are irrational numbers,
Cantors proof that the natural numbers cant be paired with the real numbers ...Sigh
Also I agree with your view of common sense.
But...Ahem... I do make an exception when it comes to my own!

And the difference between pure and applied mathematics is not awfully clear to me,
I suspect it may matter what objects we count and what we mean by "addition":
Suppose we, in free fall, are adding one drop of water to another then we get one drop of water ...
Yes it has more mass, but if what interest us only is the shape then 1+1=1.

But within mathematics the equation x+x=x only have zero as a solution
so it seems maths cant be applied in this way to water drops...
But what then are we doing when we are adding water drops this way?
Also it seems that everything added to everything remains everything,
a quick check into set theory shows addition isnt defined for everything...convenient isnt it?

16. AlphaNumeric,
OK, I'll come clean. I am frustrated that the physics community can't come up with a gravity propulsion drive. The big reason is because the only known way to manipulate gravity is to use huge amounts of mass/energy. It is very inconvenient to travel through space quickly if your spaceship is as heavy as Jupiter (just an example).

So I thought, well, if you have an aether medium, then you could manipulate it locally so that it gives you a gravity field where you need one (expansion in the back, contraction in the front) and you fall forward. But the physics community doesn't use an aether medium: which is very inconvenient.

A while back, I was thinking about dropping photons and shining lasers into black holes. It made sense that a photon gains energy as it falls in. I knew about gravitational time dilation and gravitational redshift. The fact that clocks run slower near the event horizon seemed very odd. Why would they need to? What could possibly require slower running clocks near the event horizon. But not just there. Time dilation from special relativity also causes clocks to run slower. For SR, one of Einstein's postulates states that the speed of light, c, is invariant for all observers. Time dilation happens because both inertial frames measure c to be the same for both reference frames. So what is so special about the speed of light that time dilation and length contraction occur between two reference frames? In GR, it's the invariance of the interval between two reference frames. I would have missed it except some books write $(c \Delta t)^2$, while other books drop c from the equation. So here we have the speed of light showing up again. Meanwhile, I'm looking for the right kind of aether medium to thwart Lorentz invariance.

Now look at quantum mechanics. If V=0, then solving the Schrodinger equation is easy. It's just an equation for a plane wave. Step potentials are a little harder and you get terms like $\Psi = Ce^{ik_2x}+e^{ik_2x}$. The oscillatory nature of simple wave-functions is apparent. Maybe if I could solve harder quantum systems I would have overlooked the oscillatory nature of wave-functions.

I'm searching for a medium that can facilitate the existence of quantum mechanics, SR and GR. QM gives me oscillations and waves, SR/GR gives me "speed of light, c". Speed of light and waves are two properties of EM radiation, two properties of light. It took a long time to make the connection, but if there was an aether medium, it had to support the properties of light.

I'm gonna go to bed. If you're interested, I'll tell you how I came up with the idea of frequency shifting as a means to get back gravity/acceleration fields.

17. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
You can call them what you want, it doesn't mean the name is justified. If I called them "Invisible fairy magic" would that mean fairies and magic exist?
If fairy magic showed up everywhere in physics, it would be justified. Instead, QM is called wave mechanics; there are DeBroglie waves, wave-functions. The speed of light shows up in SR and GR. It's as if the laws of physics are preoccupied with waves and properties of light. So silly me says: hey, let's make an aether medium out of EM spectrum waves!!!

If you can't see the logic of that, then I will go through the table of contents of all my physics books and count how many times I see the word "waves" or references to the properties of light.

Feel free to go through yours and count the number of times you see "invisible fairy magic".

18. I'll tell you how I came up with the idea of frequency shifting as a means to get back gravity/acceleration fields.
We know. The Aliens told you.

19. Originally Posted by AlexG
We know. The Aliens told you.
It's simpler than that. The common theme to the laws of physics is: support infrastructure for light. That leads to aether medium waves.

What happens when light falls into a black holes? It blue shifts. Why do clocks slow down near the event horizon? Because GR says they do. Why do we observe GR? Because waves facilitate the existence of space and time itself. Light is a wave. Light blue shifts as it falls into the black hole. The vacuum of space is made of waves, the whole EM frequency band. Gravity and gravitational time dilation are caused by frequency shifting of the whole EM frequency band.

It's just a series of logical steps that follow from the assumption that the properties of the vacuum come from the existence of AM waves.

20. In conclusion, gravity drives are possible. But your aether-less physics models obscure this simple fact.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•