# Luminiferous Aether Exists!

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by Mazulu, Jun 19, 2012.

1. ### RealityCheckBannedBanned

Messages:
800
That IS a super power, mate! Have you applied for membership to the Marvel Comics superhero club? Have you used that superpower for truth, justice and the American way lately?

Anyhow mate, the whole point of patiently and thoroughly developing and releasing a complete/consistent TOE is that I won't HAVE to do/say anything afterwards.

The TOE will stand or fall on its own merits. No more; no less.

G'night!

3. ### MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
Cheezle would not qualify as a superhero.

5. ### quantRegistered Member

Messages:
49
I agree with this statement, sometimes we get so fixated on our own ideas, that we can hardly spare the time to look at anyone else's interpretation. The saying : "Throwing the baby out with the bath water' might apply here. Let's face it there are a lot of things to disagree with in QM, for instance the 276 dimensions required by Schrodinger's wave function to describe the Uranium atom is absolutely unacceptable to any sane person but seems to make sense to mathematicians. One has to ask oneself, which is more insane to think of solutions in terms of 276 dimensions or to talk about an 'aether', the existence of which would do away with the need for 276 dimensions and the reason that it was introduced in the first place. Schrodinger's wave function was originally introduced because Larmor's theory of classical radiation predicted that an electron should radiate away all its energy and fall into the nucleus. Schrodinger's solution to this was to attribute wave properties to the electron so that in Origin's words it is 'smeared' across its orbit. Since the electron is travelling around the atom at well below relativistic speeds the only way this 'smearing' is possible (according to Schrodinger )is if the electron possessed wave properties. A far better explanation and one that does not include 276 dimension is explained by Lamb's shift, which shows ( through experiment) that all electrons undergo self interaction by constantly emitting and absorbing (what to us, because of our physical limitations) are virtual photons. This emission and absorption of virtual photons, explains in a most satisfactory manner how electrons are able to maintain themselves in orbit around the nucleus. Further if we take the smeared electron as a 'true' model, how does this smeared electron absorb and emit photons, surely it becomes hugely complicated ? As far as I am concerned it is far better to go with a 'virtual photon' field theory (i.e., an aether type of theory) than to accept the idea that 276 dimensions can exist ( even if they are theoretical and don't really exist anywhere, if that makes sense.) Science should simplify concepts and experiences , not make them hugely complicated without any adequate basis. It should also allow for change as new information comes to light and not hold on to old , discredited theories.

7. ### Guest254Valued Senior Member

Messages:
1,056
That sounds stupendously impressive! You should publish immediately, and leave the animations. Scientists won't be interested in them, they'll be interested in the mathematical model you used to create them.

Publish, publish, publish!

8. ### Aqueous Idflat Earth skepticValued Senior Member

Messages:
6,152
And then you go straight to the concretization of the intangible:

That's the defect in reasoning you just gave above. Now let's look at the fallacy in this from a strictly physical point of view. Suppose the material in question is not copper but glass. Waves of certain frequencies will readily pass through the glass - RF, light, heat . . . - while others, such as the 20 kV high voltage at 60 Hz will not, and thus the glass is a useful material as an insulating arm to support power lines. Furthemore, when drawn into small fibers, the glass will send light in the manner that copper will send the electric field when surrounded by a dielectric and a shield (coax), i.e., TEM mode. Then again, if we consider propagation at the phonon level, down at the level of particle excitations of the crystal lattices (copper and various forms of silica) we see the excitation of the medium you seek, and we can now force the square quantum world peg into our round-hole sensible-world POV, by the abstraction which gives the crystal lattice a mechanical dual of a line of billiard balls being hit by a cue stick. The problem with your belief that free space contains billiard balls is that the sensible medium really does and free space really doesn't. The lack of billiard balls is what gives space its excellent insulating properties against conduction. For the same reason only conduction allows DC. And now we get to the huge difference between conduction and radiation. Therein lies the rub. They never were the same thing to begin with. One occurs in a medium, and the other occurs in a vacuum. It was simply a flawed abstraction, the same flaw Michelson and Morley discovered when they disproved the aether wind.

Perhaps I've settled a little of that for you now. Phononic transmission, or transmission in a conductor, or conduction, is completely different than radiation. The crystal lattice (and a few other configurations of various materials) is what we mean by a medium in terms of reality, whereas the reality of free space is that no such medium exists. Thus the conduction reality is phenomenally different than the radiation reality, which is what makes the abstraction you're using a false one. Hence the term pseudoscience. Confusing conduction and radiation and forcing square pegs into round holes is fine as an abstraction, but never as good science, which can only marry the abstraction to reality via phenomena (confirmed reality). The absence of phenomena is the criteria for rejection, (i.e. even by affirming the null hypothesis) by which scientists are not only brainstormers, but also gatekeepers, constantly winnowing the wheat from the chaff. Part of trying to discover what nature is doing involves a process of elimination--rejecting what it's not doing. No wind, ergo no aether.

That's ludicrous. Nature doesn't care if you put the Humpty Dumpty together again or not. Dreams of a TOE have nothing to do with reality, only with self-glorification (and said what a good boy am I!) which speaks to Origin's remark about arrogance, or Cheezle's comments about pandering to it.

Before you jump to the big TOE you have to grapple with the more modest Maxwell's equations which care not one whit for any aether. It's all about the vacuum. It's all about the intrinsic impedance of free space in which charge induces field, transverse field induces transverse field, and there is an electric current and a dipole. None of this has anything to do with the colliding billiard balls of aether. And without the aether wind, the abstraction is trapped in the abyss of denial.

Perhaps "my" says it all. I've only been speaking about the science of nature. I'm not sure if you know what that means, given that you consider science a subjective vs collective experience. From your comments it sounds like you've had no practical experience in the field, or you wouldn't refer to systematics and processes as fashion, or theory as endless abstraction, nor would you mix the sense of dreams and pipedreams.

I think you completely missed the point of my earlier post relating the velocity of light in terms of the inverse geometric mean of the permittivity and permeability of free space. This is a perfect dual for the aether mongers who want to analogize the acoustic wave phenomenon, since the formula is identical--just insert air density and reluctance and you're home.

The point is this: the nature of spacetime is to propagate fields at a fixed rate. No billiard balls, no pipedreams, no fashion and no me. It's all about it. You seem to have completely sidestepped my remark that free space impedance and lightspeed are essentially one and the same. This is hugely different than establishing the speed of sound from air (a medium) density and acoustic compliance. I think if you were to seriously confront this observation you'd come around to what I'm saying in a heartbeat. I'm just not sure if your . . . (what? anti-science bias?) . . . precludes that.

9. ### CheezleHab SoSlI' Quch!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
745
Prediction number two: when someone points out a problem with the theory, you will defend it. You will not be able to help yourself.

Prediction number three: major problems with your theory will glaringly obvious.

10. ### CheezleHab SoSlI' Quch!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
745
You are wasting your time here. As AlexG says, 'arguing with cranks is pointless.' RealityCheck can not hear your reasoning. He is too caught up in his theory. Like Mazulu he "knows" his theory is correct. Same with every other crank out there.

11. ### CheezleHab SoSlI' Quch!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
745
Is that really supposed to insult me? Superheroes, tooth fairies, easter bunnies, spectral entities from other dimensions, etc do not exist. So yes, I would not qualify as a superhero.

12. ### MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
You don't strike me as someone interested in "truth, justice, etc...". When the conversation turns to honor, integrity and common decency, you get bored. That's who you are.

13. ### MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
Cheezle,
To put it another way, you're just not one of the good guys. At least that's what my character judging instincts say about you.

14. ### CheezleHab SoSlI' Quch!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
745
Honor: You on the other hand often claim to be honest. I agree with Ralph Waldo Emmerson on this. He said, "The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." Meaning that people who claim to be honorable seldom are. That is true of most of the positive attributes a person can have. See integrity below.

Truth: Another quote I like is from Mark Twain. "A man is never more truthful than when he acknowledges himself as a liar." Its not just funny, its true. I have been known to stretch the truth a time or two. Often I do it to simplify an argument because of time constraints or laziness. Often I modify the names and dates so that I don't have nut cases pestering me in real life. Sometimes I go for the humor. As far as principles go, what I say here I mean. I may slip up from time to time.

Justice. I don't even know what that is. The subject is so complex no one does. I recently read The Republic which is about Justice (among other things). I didn't agree with Plato but know he was more likely to be correct than me. I need to reread it again and think about it.

Common decency: Yeah, I lack that for people that don't deserve it. Maybe I should say I am uncommonly decent.

Integrity: Better known as consistency, adherence to a some moral / ethical codes. OK, I admit to lacking absolute integrity. My exact integrity % is probably average IMHO. I would rate you fairly low on the consistency aspect too. Your statements here are all over the place. As I have stated before, you plan to turn on a gravity beam device that will have unknown levels of gravity. It could (not really) cause a large amount of destruction. You don't know but plan to turn it on anyway. A person with integrity would be more cautious.

Do I sound bored.

Its what I do. Its how ... I roll.

Last edited: Sep 29, 2012
15. ### MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
I have been up front and straightforward with all of you in all of my dealings to the best of my ability.
You attacked my character judgement. So I pointed out the low quality of yours.
Your honesty is lower than average; the bottom 5%. You very consistently make accusations without a shred of evidence. I wouldn't trust your opinion about another person. Bear false witness comes to mind.
More cautious how? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The military routinely uses frequency chirping technology. But nobody has actually measured for tiny changes in the acceleration field. I would not have expected you to make a dumb mistake like that.
It's why I don't like you or trust you.

16. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,147
Funny it looks to me like you don't like him because he points out the glaring fallacies in your ideas.

17. ### MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
No I like to discuss those. My experiment flies in the face of conservation of energy. But there isn't much discussion of that. What pisses me off is that Cheezle accused me of having poor judgement (of character). Yet his own character reeks of insincerity. His insincerity and habit of bearing false witness are more noticeable than anyone else on this blog.

Feel free to attack the experiment or the existence of an aether medium of some kind. Maybe you can explain how gravity is the curvature of space-time, but space-time is itself: nothingness.

18. ### CheezleHab SoSlI' Quch!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
745
And I stand by that. I think everybody but you, thinks that believing in the telepathic impressions from space aliens is (what I call) poor judgement. What others here have called bat-shit crazy. The fact that you can't see that is also an indicator.

Finally you admit that your experiment is unlikely to have any effect. Unlikely to do any of the things you claim. Yes, I know, you will have to refine the process and then you can use it for space travel and all that other stuff. Your reply is predictable. All cranks are in denial. It comes with the territory I guess.

I had a shred. I had more than a shred. I stand by every accusation I have ever made. The only one I can think of that might be iffy is that your delusion is self induced, voluntary. There is a very real possibility that your delusion is organic. I really don't know. Sometimes what you say leads me to believe that you know your space alien friends are a lie. Other times not. But I am 100% sure you are delusional. And there is more than a shred of evidence there. Some other accusations I have made might be wrong, but they were honest, or exaggerations, or jokes, or sarcasm, or ...

I never really asked for your trust. So I am not disappointed.

I was actually expecting to to read my last line "That's how I roll" and see how much I roll looks like "Troll". I am disappointed in you Mazulu. You missed an excellent opportunity. I guess it is not too late. Go on, you know you want to.

19. ### CheezleHab SoSlI' Quch!Registered Senior Member

Messages:
745
Denial is not discussion. In order to discuss a subject you have to consider the other's argument. You are incapable of that.

Your experiment has not even been performed yet. I doubt it will fly. Your theory denies the conservation of energy. And you consider that a feature.

Of course it reeks of insincerity. I have pointed out that I am often sarcastic, a mode of humor that is insincere by definition. As far as "bearing false witness" goes, isn't that a little melodramatic? You make it sound like we are in a court of law.

Yes, origin, feel free to attack the existence of aether medium. Nobody has approached the subject from that angle yet. Mazulu will be forced to think about that aspect. <--- oops, I lied again.

20. ### MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
Everyone:
I am arguing with someone who knowingly bears falls witness; who knowingly lies and misrepresents the truth. If Cheezle disparages someone, it's highly likely to be a lie.

Cheezle: What part of "sensitive measurements for changes in the acceleration field" did you not understand?
In your defense, I think you are more likely to make friends and have friends. You are amiable and likeable (like a drunk that says he likes you).

So many times have I wanted to say that the aliens were going to say this or that,... or do this or that. But they have not said any such. Out of a sense of personal integrity, I have not made up anything. The simple truth is that I asked for help. I asked for understanding of how a hyper-drive would work. The answer could be described as psychic impressions. I received insights. Certain features about space-time were emphasized; such as how space-time is lit up by electromagnetic energy. It's hard to find the right metaphor. The tungsten filament is space-time; when energy passes through it, the radiating tungsten represents the electromagnetic field. The best way I can describe it is that the dark vacuum of space-time is a zero energy EM field, which exists as an aether medium. The wave function $\psi = e^{i\omega t}$, for each available frequency, is the closest way I have to describing it. I had a choice to try to understand why it worked. But I knew that it would be a waste to understand how it worked. So I chose to pursue an experiment.

Cheezle, you throw the word "delusional" around carelessly. In your defense, you're just a human being trying to make sense of it all. As an electronics technician yourself, I'm sure you know about signal to noise ratio. To me, psychic impressions are just a naturally occurring variation of transmitter-receiver technology. If the impression grows weak, then it's hard to glean the message. But these impressions I got about electromagnetic radiation lighting up the space-time continuum, as if space-time were weaved with tungsten wires, was very strong and lasted for months. Anyway, ....

21. ### MazuluBannedBanned

Messages:
3,090
Which is?
In my view, the energy of the big bang was balanced by the negative energy of gravity. But you don't notice that it's there because space-time was both flat and very negative (negative potential energy) for millions of years. Technically, the net energy of the universe is zero. What is really happening is that the stress energy tensor (positive energy) causes space-time to curve (negative energy). I'm not denying conservation of energy. I'm saying there is a loophole to conversation of energy that could allow us to create new energy or remove energy. That loophole, that spigot would be repetitious frequency chirps.

Am I being too hard on you? I don't want to be unjust. I am simply defending my personal integrity. I don't want to be unjustly harsh.

22. ### RealityCheckBannedBanned

Messages:
800

You're over-thinking the analogies. You are also misrepresenting what medium means in the context of energy-space.

For example, when a 'current' goes down a wire, the ENERGY is what comes out at the other end immediately because the electron at the near end is pushing and the push gets PROPAGATED as ENERGY EXCHANGES along the electro-magnetic field connecting all the electrons along the wire.

So according to your abstractions-only perspective, back in ancient times when we knew nothing of electrons, let alone observe them, we could blithely ignore the need to EXPLAIN the EXISTENCE of the electrons if we couldn't detect them, and just CONCLUDE that the reality was the abstract concept of ENERGY and never bother to look for the underlying electron and the electro-magnetic field?

Again, in a superconductor/superfluid context, we have energy moving as a 'fluid' in a non-resistive/frictionless 'background' which is the effective 'field' or 'medium' underlying the energy/perturbation features/solitons. If we did not KNOW about that 'background' medium, we would just be abstracting 'reality' down to what we see as the features/solitons we can see and treat the rest as a mathematical 'field' which has no bearing on the source/properties and dynamics OVERALL...and so never bother to look for the actual underlying superconductor/superfluid REALITY 'context'?

See what I was getting at which you seem to have 'overshot'? Just because we have an ABSTRACT perspective, it does not automatically remove the onus upon science to find the UNDERLYING reality from whence the abstractions are made.

BY the way, please distinguish between my TOE energy-space fundamental background source and substance of all physical reality, and all the other 'fields', aethers and media you seem to have conflated when answering different posters. My medium is fundamental and it is where all other features/phenomena arise and subside and are made up of. It is not the 'ordinary' media type which you seem determined to keep generalizing about. The fundamental medium is not 'particles', since in my TOE perspective these 'particles' ARISE and subside just like any other features as I said. Thanks.

Anyhow, the point is that ABSTRACTIONS are NO SUBSTITUTE for the REALITY overall. And it is that both are needed to eventually COMPLETE the TOE in a CONSISTENT way that explains BOTH the abstractions AND the underlying nature/mechanisms, and frees us from all the partial theories and domain-gaps contortions we currently have to deal with.

Thanks for your interest and your posts, mate. Unfortunately that's all I have time for. The TOE awaits my attention.

Cheers.

23. ### quantRegistered Member

Messages:
49
Of all the scheming, conniving, misleading, devious, ambiguous, deceptive , calculating , wily, underhanded posts that I have read, the above probably takes the cake. Why ? No, it is not because you are foul mouthed, or that you have used unacceptable language or terminology. It is because you have made your theory sound as sweet and innocent as a baby’s a…e, while you know as well as anyone, that in reality it is full of contradictions, deception and self delusionments that would not for a minute be countenanced or tolerated anywhere. Yes, I am talking about quantization, and re-quantization and normalization and re-normalisation and division by zero and setting of infinities to zero ! This is the theory that is full and complete and should be accepted by everyone everywhere as gospel. No opposition to this idea people, or you will have me to deal with ! What a laugh, come on any theory that can just roll back not millions but infinities to make their theory work, has no place in my book. Come on man give yourself a break……………………………………..