Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MichaelMD on 21/11/2014 18:01:09
-
I posted a thread last month ("Is there an aether model that can explain gravitational...") It presented a new theory of an aether based on the idea that a universal aether originated in space, when oscillating contiguous points in original space (space before the first appearance of forces) transitioned to a vibrating energic aether, and that the world's gravitational forces ultimately come down to a simple process in which elemental aether units comprising both the ultimate structure of solid bodies, and the ultimate medium of the space between bodies, produces gravitational attraction through a common vibrational property, which produces a resonance between two bodies via the contiguity of aether units. This could be briefly stated as "aether-gravity's simple contiguity-mechanism."
I would like to describe how that same aether model could account for Time, in addition to Gravity.
This aether model would relate the rate Time passes to the vibratory rate of the elemental units that make up the aether. This rate could vary, depending on the local energy-setting. For example, a clock at earth's surface would measure the rate time passes in our familiar earthbound setting. Then, if one places an atomic clock in an orbiting satellite in space, the time rate changes. In my aether model, the energy ambience of space is less quantized (less magnetically energized) than on earth's surface. The more-etheric setting of space would slow the vibratory rate of the aether units that make up the clock's elemental structure, because, via mutual resonance, the lower energy level in space slows the vibrations of its elemental aether units. (A second factor to slow the clock as it moves through space is the velocity of the satellite, which increases the rate of resonance between the aether units of the clock and the aether in space, which slows down the vibrations of the elemental aether units in the clock, and the clock's time rate slows also.)
-
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the physical state of the aether in which it exists.
The faster an atomic clock moves relative to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the clock the greater the pressure exerted by the displaced aether toward and throughout the clock the slower the clock ticks.
Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists including the rate at which the clocks tick which are used to determine the speed of light. This is why the speed of light is always determined to be c.
-
liquidspacetime: As a fellow aetherist, I have to argue somewhat with your model of how transmissions take place in a universal aether.
According to my model of the aether (for the basic model, you can refer to my October Thread discussing how an aether would account for gravitation), the way energy transmissions occur in the aether (including transmission of light) is by conduction of a vibrating energic impulse from aetheric unit-to-unit, contiguously. There also occur simultaneous resonances "to the sides" which affect other aether units, larger "aetheroidal" units, and quantum-scale units such as the photons that we see with the naked eye. All these occur virtually instantaneously in space, via the contiguity of the aether.
-
There is evidence of aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of stuff anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether.
The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.l
What is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.
Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
-
liquidspacetime,
I guess we are facing off as rival aether-theorists. I would submit that your aether model is not as fully coherent as mine. Your idea of an aether that gets "displaced" by solid celestial bodies is at variance with my concept of the aether, which is that the aether consists of individual energic units which act by vibration and vibratory resonance, a unit-based aether that exists contiguously, both within and between solid bodies. -"Waves" in my model are merely quantum-scale (thus observable by us at our quantum level) effects caused by the movement of larger (aether-aggregative) units, like photons or electrons, moving through a "sea" of smaller (etheroidal and elemental aetheric) units. (This model would yield a different interpretation of the double-slit experiment than either your aether-displacement or quantum mechanics.) All these units of energy, of various size-scales are in constant interaction, or resonance. The primary resonance between them is at the level of vibration of the elemental aether units, although energic effects other than vibration, like the ones we see at our quantum level of observation, can superimpose themselves upon the elemental level of vibration. The larger-scale energic processes, which are the kinds we observe, involve "superimposed" factors (superimposed on the primary elemental vibrations), such as unit-spin, various kinds of space-vectors, and so on, as in quantum mechanics.
The "aether displacement" model you advance is the kind of aether model Michelson and Morley proposed over a century ago. They claimed their famous experiment (Michelson-Morley Experiment, 1887) disproved such an aether can possibly exist. That was when physicists like Einstein started coming up with models for how the world could work without any kind of medium to transmit forces.
-
The MMX looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth the moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.
'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html
"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University.
Honey has mass and so does the aether. The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"
The electromagnetic field is a state of the aether. Aether has mass. Particles of matter are condensations of aether.
'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.
When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."
if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
-
liquidspacetime:
In this Post, you refer to the standard model of physics as the reference-point for your own aether theory, and you haven't really debated any of my points in my Aether Model. You cite recent empirical observations by NASA as the standard point of reference, and you try to show how their observations might conform to your Model of a "displaceable" aether, as the kind of aether that would fit as an alternative to QM/GR.
I don't see anything in your Post to debate, vis-a-vis our different aether-models, because you haven't really addressed any of the theoretic points I make in my Thread. Rather, you just cite the standard views of physics, and tell how your "displaceable" theory of the aether would compare to standard quantum/relativity theory.
I still believe that my "Aether, Origins" model makes the most sense.
-
Dark matter is now known to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.
'Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids'
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/cosmologists-penn-weigh-cosmic-filaments-and-voids
"Dark matter ... permeate all the way to the center of the voids."
'No Empty Space in the Universe --Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/no-empty-space-in-the-universe-dark-matter-discovered-to-fill-intergalactic-space-.html
"A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter."
Dark matter has mass and fills what would otherwise be described as empty space; otherwise known as the aether.
NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE
"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space"."
'Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy'
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912
"The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments."
A "subquantic medium" which is every present in what we call "empty space" is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it and is what waves in a double slit experiment.
This is your thread so I will stop responding. Take care.
-
MichaelMD,
I haven't read your gravitation post yet (next on my list after seeing this one) but your aether theory is along the lines of my own and others I've heard. My thinking is that the aether isn't separate but that everything is a manifestation (in the form of vibrations, essentially) of the aether. The Earth doesn't move through the aether -- it's more like an eddy of the aether. I'm not quite sold on your interpretation of time in the aether: I'll think on it. I'll take a look at your gravitation post...
Lymond01
-
lymond01:
I could mention that I have a potential field test to produce solid evidence for an aether. I got the test-design from an obscure source. The idea would be to generate a selectively-aetheric force-field, and to demonstrate a predicted decrease in density of materials in the test system. No known form of energy is known to produce such an effect. -I just need a financial backer. The test would be costly to do. -Finding a new form of energy, possibly having new properties, would be worth doing..
-
liquidspacetime: As a fellow aetherist, I have to argue somewhat with your model of how transmissions take place in a universal aether.
According to my model of the aether (for the basic model, you can refer to my October Thread discussing how an aether would account for gravitation), the way energy transmissions occur in the aether (including transmission of light) is by conduction of a vibrating energic impulse from aetheric unit-to-unit, contiguously. There also occur simultaneous resonances "to the sides" which affect other aether units, larger "aetheroidal" units, and quantum-scale units such as the photons that we see with the naked eye. All these occur virtually instantaneously in space, via the contiguity of the aether.
In my model for the ether, elemental ether units vibrate, and resonate with each other via their vibrations (the vibrations forming loose connections (not fixed connections) with each other, linearly, from unit-to-elemental-unit, the vibrational connections being somewhat analogous to their having "nodes" that interconnect. -Near earth, time passes fatser than in space (this has been verified using atomic clocks in satellites). -The way this would agree with my ether model of Time, is that on or near earth, the planet's magnetic field induuces the elemental ether units to vibrate faster, increasing the time rate. As part of the same process, the magnetic energy near earth induces the elemental ether units to form linear alignments or entrainments (along with the increase in vibratory rate), increasing their rate of resonance with each other, which increases the rate at which larger energy units form, such as quantum scale units. Thus, the earth becaomes "quantized" relative to space, besides having a faster rate of time than in space.
-
What if time is the aether?
-
PetM1:
I see that you are a "Jr. Member." asking what I mean by "aether" and "time." -PetM1, the basic idea of my Thread is that present-day mainstream-scientists who adhere to quantum mechanics as the basis for how to understand cosmic processes, like time (as well as their beliefs about the nature of forces in the Cosmos, like gravity) is to use the quantum-forces data we obtain here on earth, and that this approach is wrong. -I maintain that cosmic processes, including Time, involve a very-finely rarified underlying aether-medium, or aether-matrix, that arose in Space. I also believe that our earthly observations give us data that are not appropriate for the Cosmos, because where we live, on a planet, our world is "quantized" compared to space, which is more aetherized.
My aether model is basically very different from the present "purely-quantum" concept of forces, which we got from using just our quantum data. -I propose that cosmic forces first arose in Original Space, a kind of space that existed before the first appearance of forces. I believe that Original Space consisted of oscillating, tiny but finite, "point-localities" and that this eventually led to a pair of these "points" becoming oscillationally fatigued, and joining into a "Yin and Yang" pairing. This produced a "disturbance" of the hitherto-perfect-symmetry of space, which was then copied exactly, and propagated, through all of space, producing a universal aether. This aether is "unit-based" and uniform throughout, which represents a logical basis for how we came to have our present world, where atoms and so on are all basically uniformly structured, everywhere in space.
So the model we arrive at iinvolves a basic underlying universal matrix of vibratory (as derived from the oscillatory) aether units. The way forces are transmitted through this aether is by vibration only, linearly, from one elemental unit to another elemental aether unit. (Our familiar earthly quantum forces, on the other hand, involve larger energy units, and processes like spin, vectors of space, perhaps non-linearity, and so on. However, these quantum energy processes have been superimposed upon a true, underlying, elemental, aether energy process of vibration-with-resonation, where one elemental aether unit resonates with another aether unit, analogous to their having "nodes" that connect to each other by curving and connecting. -These aether connections are not "fixed," but rather "loose," which allows elemental aether units to form larger energy units, such as quantum units, and then revert back down in size scale, to aether-size units
So to understand Time, we need to understand how the basic underlying aether vibrational matrix works. -In my aether model, the rate of time depends on the rate of vibration of the elemental aether units. This time-rate then filters through to larger units (which are made up of the aether units) such as quantum units, and to our world of time here on earth. -In my model, the fact that atomic clocks are slower in space is because space is less energized than on earth. -Earth has a magnetic energy field, which makes the aether units vibrate faster than they do in space, so time passes faster on earth than in space.
-
In my model, the fact that atomic clocks are slower in space is because space is less energized than on earth. -Earth has a magnetic energy field, which makes the aether units vibrate faster than they do in space, so time passes faster on earth than in space.
I thought clocks ran faster in space. Out of interest, how do these vibrations you talk of affect the speed of light? (Your theory needs to be able to account for a light clock running slow too.) When standing on the surface of a planet, is the speed of light passing you faster downwards or upwards, and if so, what are your proposed mechanisms for this? And the same questions again if you're at the event horizon of a black hole. (Bear in mind that if the speed of light is the same inwards and outwards at the event horizon, nothing can enter the black hole.)
-
David,
Clocks do run slower in an airplane or a space vehicle (www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_special.html.) -In terms of my aether model, this becomes even more complex than if you use relativity theory, because when a vehicle with a clock is moving very fast, the aether units making up the clock's infra-atomic structure are whizzing past more aether units in space per unit time, which means that the clock resonates more intensesly with the aether of space, just due to the motion of the vehicle. But besides that, as I said in my last post, there is relatively more aether in space for the clock's aether units to resonate with, per unit of space volume. -Both of these factors will make the clock run slower in space. (Of course, a plane and even an orbiting satellite are not really in "outer" space, so that earth's magnetic field is still operating on the clock to lessen the slowing-effect on the clock by the aether of space.)
As to how observed light travels with respect to the aether, and about the speed of light. - The way my aether model would look at the path, and speed, of light as we observe it would be this: The speed of light reflects the basic speed of aetheric electronic energy units, which began when the universe began. The first, and the fastest energy units were the aetheric electron/photon units, which still are the smallest in size, that is what made them fastest. (Protonic and neutronic aetheric units, and quantum protons and neutrons, formed later, and, being larger, they "bunched together" as in atomic nuclei.) -As aetheric light units traverse space, they undergo resonance with ambient aetheric units in space. Part of this resonational process leads to induction of quantum-size-scale energy units, which are what we "see" with our eyes and our earth instruments: quantal "photons." The quantum-scale light beam is generated naturally by the aether units during the passage of an aether light beam through space. -In my aether model, also, as a light energy unit leaves a distant star, it is highly energized, then it loses some of that energy going through space on the way to our solar system. (Our sun is a "focus for resonation" in space that a light beam can sense through the aether of space as it begins "traveling" toward earth. -The light beam is "aiming" at the sun, and earth, due to the high light-energy concentrated there. -The light beam "moves" through space basically by means of transmission of an energy impulse from elemental aether unit in space-to-elemental aether unit, vibrationally. -My aether model explains the bending of light from a distant star, when it reaches our Sun, by the fact that the aether light beam is once again approaching a high-light-energy star (the Sun), which re-energizes the light beam, increasing its resonation with other light energy units near the Sun, which in turn "curves" the light beam (an effect physics now refers to as "gravitational lensing.") -My model for this kind of bending of light has nothing to do with "curvature of space."
David, I'd rather not go into how my aether model views black holes. -I believe they represent purposeful "creational" uses of aether forces to optimize the universe for existential entities. Thus a black hole is not a "random" feature and can't be fit into a "very first cause" aether model like mine, which just tries to explain how original space randomly led to an aether, and how the aether accounts for how we have atomic structures, and the like.
-
David,
Clocks do run slower in an airplane or a space vehicle (www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_special.html.)
Are you sure you can trust your information source? Here is the relevant paragraph from it:-
A couple of real-life examples may help to make the effects of special relativity clearer. Experiments have been carried out where two identical super-accurate atomic clocks were synchronized, and then one was flown around the world on an airplane while the other stayed at home. The clock which travelled recorded marginally less passage of time than the other (as predicted by the theory), although the difference was of course minimal due to the relatively slow speeds involved. Our fastest military airplanes can only travel at about 1/300,000 of the of the speed of light, so the time dilation effect γ is only about a ten-thousandth of 1%.
If they did that experiment with a plane flying near to sea level, it could be true, but usually when they do the experiment they fly at high altitude and the clock in the plane runs faster than the one on the ground because it is further out of the Earth's gravity well, so what they then do is adjust for the gravitational effect and claim that the clock in the plane ran slow due to the higher speed of travel, even though it actually ran faster. You are then taking the simplified claim as evidence for clocks running slower further out of a gravity well. The result is that you've gone to a lot of trouble making up a theory to explain something that is not reality. Clocks in fast moving planes and rockets will run slower than clocks in slow moving planes and rockets at the same altitude. Clocks will run faster at higher altitude than clocks at lower altitude if they are moving at the same speed. Your theory must not contradict the results of experiments.
-
Are you sure you can trust your information source?
The whole report is greatly simplified for general consumption. As you suggest the OP needs to go to the original sources to ensure consistency with the actual results.
-
Even if we stay with standard physics theory, how can time pass faster in space, if a hypothetical outer-space-traveler ages less after a lengthy space voyage, than the people he had left, back on earth? -This is a familiar and generally-accepted hypothetical example in science.
-
Even if we stay with standard physics theory, how can time pass faster in space, if a hypothetical outer-space-traveler ages less after a lengthy space voyage, than the people he had left, back on earth? -This is a familiar and generally-accepted hypothetical example in science.
You need to go back and reread what David Cooper wrote. There are 2 effects at work here, this is standard physics.
Just a point of terminology, it is better to talk of time measured by clocks than time itself passing at different rates, the latter assumes a something else to measure the rate of time passing.
-
With the twins paradox (it isn't actually a paradox, but it can look like one if you ignore the accelerations), the travelling twin has to move fast in order to age less. If the travelling twin just went into space and stayed still for a long time, that twin would age more than the one who stays down on the Earth. If you want to understand this (and I'm going to give you the Lorentz Ether Theory account rather than SR/GR because it's closer to what you're trying to do), just picture a light clock which sends a pulse of light between two mirrors and counts each circuit as a tick. If you move the clock fast, the light has further to go to complete each circuit within the clock, and the clock will tick slow as a result. All clocks are affected in the same way because everything they do is ultimately performed through forces which act at the speed of light, even within a mechanical mechanism with cogs and springs. Your cells are affected the same way too because chemical reactions take time to happen, and so you yourself are a clock which can be slowed by rapid movement, thereby aging less. However, if a clock just sits still in space (or is moving at the same speed as the Earth), it will tick more quickly than a clock on the Earth, and the reason for that is another factor - gravity slows the speed of light, so it takes longer for light to complete each tick in the clock. Take a clock out of a gravity well and it will speed up, but if you move it faster it will slow down, so you have to take account of both of these factors when trying to predict how it will behave. Lorentz Ether Theory and Einstein's Relativity both take these factors into account and fit the actual facts of experiments, but your theory conflicts with the facts and is therefore wrong. You need to modify it radically if it isn't to be a dead duck.
-
With the twins paradox (it isn't actually a paradox, ...
I'd be careful when you say things like this since the twin paradox is an honest to goodness paradox, i.e. a "paradox" in the strictest sense of the term. Perhaps a refresher on what the term paradox would help clarify this point. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true (or wrong at the same time).
So a paradox may indeed be true. In this case the paradox is a set of twins, obviously two people born on the same day, one of which sets off on a journey and comes back and is younger than the one who stayed home. This on the face of it seems contradictory. That's why it's called a paradox. But as we all know, it's exactly what we expect to happen should it be attempted.
-
I see now that I got myself into a cross-theory quagmire when I carelessly referred to "even if we use standard physics..." -I should have known better than to mention any kind of reference to theory and hypothesis, for cosmologic forces, based on our present quantum empirical data. -The only way I can rebut the posts against my model for time, with, is to return to my ether model and use it to confront the points made against my claim that Time slows down in outer space. -The key word here is "outer."
The point has been made that although time slows as measured with atomic clocks inside a moving vehicle in "near space" regions, it again speeds up when measured at higher levels, sometimes referred to as "GPS," or satellite-orbit, levels. -Using my model of the ether (and not subscribing at all to the quantum/relativity models) I would offer this as a counter theory for those findings.
I stay with my claim that a higher level of non-quantized, elemental, ether in OUTER space slows the rate of time there, because earth's magnetic field is not quantizing the ether, once you get beyond the energizing and quantizing influence of the magnetic field.. -The fact that time passes faster in the middle-space regions traversed by orbiting satellites, than in near-space regions closer to the ground, is due to the amplifying effect of the ground on the strength of ether-influenced phenomena, including time. -Because there is a higher level of ether coming from the ground, that is what slows the rate of time in "near earth space." -Passing a little farther out into "middle space," the effect of ground ether is lost, while the quantizing effect of earth;' magnetic field is still quite strong, which accounts for the rate of time speeding up again when you enter "middle space regions."
At this point, I must insert my belief that below ground regions are used occultly to tap ether energy. The properties of this non-random effect on measurements of time at various levels above the surface would be impossible to determine with our present quantum technologies. -I believe that when we are able to carefully measure and compare the rate of time in truly - outer space, we will see that time really does pass more slowly there than on earth.
-
It would be really good if we could find a way that you can prove your theory experimentally. A few questions to help us devise a method.
Can you explain more about what you mean by quantised. Do you mean energised in discrete energy levels? What calculations have you done to show the change of magnetic field strength and it's effect on clock running rates. Can you share your calculations please.
You say the magnetic field strength is an important factor in explaining clock rates at GPS altitudes. As the earth's field strength is not homogeneous, we should see differing rates for satellites in different field strengths. What do your calculations show and do you have any evidence that this effect is observed.
Overall, the earths magnetic field is quite weak. We should therefore be able to influence the aether by using the powerful magnets available to us and this effect would be many times greater than that due to earth's field.
- Have you noticed any time dilation effects close to strong magnets?
- In powerful magneto electric systems eg power generators, we should see time dilation effects on the electrons circulating in the system. Have you observed these or can you account for the expected magnitude in your calculations?
- magnetoaether interactions should also be seen in CRT and other types of equipment, can you account for these or have you observed them?
What do you think David, you've studied these topics more than I have.
-
Colin2B,
Your questions about my aether model show that you haven't gone through my earlier post which gave a general model for how the aether would have arisen from Original Space, leading to a universal unit-based background energy matrix that transmits energic impulses via vibration, and resonance between elemental aether units, linearly, from elemental aether unit-to-elemental unit. (Then other energy systems may became superimposed such as quantum energy systems.)
By "quantization," I am refering to how the underlying elemental-unit aether-matrix produces larger-scale energy systems, like our quantum energy (which of course works via spin, vectors, perhaps non linearity, and so on.) -The basic idea is that in macrocosmic neighborhoods like ours on earth, the influence of the magnetic field induces the elemental aether units to "close-up," and align into entrainments, which increases the degree of resonance between the aether units, which in turn produces larger scale energy units like quantum units. (The quantum units have their own energy properties like spin etc., but also retain the ability to resonate vibrationally with the underlying aether because they are made up of the elemental aether units.) (This leads to a more rational model for action-at-a-distance, which physics is now calling "quantum entanglement.")
Your statement "the erath's magnetic field is weak" is only true using our quantum technology to measure it. With the aether model, the concept of the earth's magnetic field is much different, and the field is conceived as much stronger and more aetheric.
Colin2B, you inserted a quantum mechanics/relativity hypothesis, when you mention the concept of time dilation. - As an aether theorist, that would represent just one of numerous erroneous hypotheses, based on erroneously applying our earthbound quantum empirical data to cosmic forces like gravity, magnetic fields, Time, action-at-a-distance, and others.
To answer your question about "a test for the aether," I do have a test design, which I got from an obscure independent source, to look for an aether property in a field test. -It would be based on generating a selectively-aetheric force-field, then measuring materials inside the test system for a predicted decrease in density. Such an effect is not found with known forms of energy. -The test would be costly to do, however.
-
With the twins paradox (it isn't actually a paradox, ...
I'd be careful when you say things like this since the twin paradox is an honest to goodness paradox, i.e. a "paradox" in the strictest sense of the term. Perhaps a refresher on what the term paradox would help clarify this point. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true (or wrong at the same time).
So a paradox may indeed be true. In this case the paradox is a set of twins, obviously two people born on the same day, one of which sets off on a journey and comes back and is younger than the one who stayed home. This on the face of it seems contradictory. That's why it's called a paradox. But as we all know, it's exactly what we expect to happen should it be attempted.
A naive understanding of something which fails to match up with reality does not result in a paradox. The reason the twins paradox was called a paradox may in origin have been because if you consider twin A to be stationary throughout the experiment, twin B should be younger than A afterwards, while if you consider twin B to be stationary throughout the experiment, twin A should be younger than B afterwards. However, when you consider the role of the accelerations, you then realise that one of the twins cannot reasonably be considered to be stationary throughout the experiment, so at that point it ceases to be a paradox.
-
Time slows down in outer space. -The key word here is "outer."
Do you realise that this would also require the speed of light to slow in outer space to match? (Light is the moving mechanism of a light clock.) A slowing in the speed of light in outer space would mean that around galaxies there should be a lensing effect opposite to the gravitational lensing that we can see in the real universe, so this would either partially cancel out existing gravitational lensing effects or would create extra distorted images of other background galaxies not from in behind the foreground galaxies, but from further out to the side than the distorted images of them. Such a lensing effect has never been seen anywhere in the universe, so it would have to be a weaker effect than the existing gravitational lensing. I can't see that being a way out for you though, because as soon as you have clocks starting to run slower in outer space than it is running closer in towards a galaxy, it will have to outgun the normal strength of gravitational lensing and start to cause lensing in the opposite direction.
A particular case to consider would be where there are two foreground galaxies and a much more distant one seen between them - your theory would either spread the background one out into a line between the two foreground galaxies or two distorted versions of it would appear between them - there should be thousands of pictures of such cases in Hubble photos, but I don't know of the existence of any.
-
Many aether theories use the term time dilation as a synonym for clocks run slower. The debate is usually around the cause rather than the effect.
I say many, because there are a large number of aether theories, you've met one in this thread, and they are generally far better developed than yours. In order to stand out from the crowd you will need to show some rigorous proofs to back up your claims.
The point David raises is not a trivial one. You will need to demonstrate how your ideas work taking account of observable phenomena.
Even more difficult is the magnitude of the task you have set yourself. Most aether theories are trying to offer an alternative to relativity. You have set the additional and non trivial task of an alternative to QM. Even more difficult, you are setting out to challenge classical physics, and I know of no other aether theory which attempts this.
The earth's magnetic field was measured well before QM and the measurement is not dependant on quantum technology. The magnetosphere has been mapped well into space.
Which of the laws and theories developed by Faraday, Gauss, Tesla, Oersted, etc does your analysis show need modification in order to account for an increase in earth's magnetic field strength? Can you please be specific and show the exact modifications you expect.
If you are unable to develop your ideas into a rigorous set of proofs, and we have not yet seen any, you ideas will be viewed by most as little more than armchair musings.
-
David,
These two models for Time are certainly at odds.
I carelessly omitted one detail in my aether-model for Time, in connection with the part of my model claiming that an aether ambience slows time, by eschewing the influence of magnetization/quantization that occurs in the neighborhood of bodies like the earth.
It's interesting to continue that line of aether theory in closer detail. -I mentioned that the "near space" region above earth slows the rate of time as measured by an atomic clock in an airplane, and my belief that there are occult aether technology entities tapping aether energy which increases the ambient aether in that "near space" region. (I also mentioned that I attribute the speed-up of time in "middle space," the region traversed by an orbiting satellite. to the drop-off in near-surface aether, plus the effect of magnetization/quantization from earth's magnetic field,at this "middle-space" level.) -What is interesting is to continue this line of theory to the idea that outer space, which has not been similarly measured using clocks, would "re-slow" the rate of time once you get above the influence of the mmagnetic field.
In my model, once you are above the magnetic field, and into truly-outer space, the ambience becomes highly aetheric and much less magnetized and quantized. -This would mean that the aether which is slowing Time in "near space" would have to resonate with the aether of outer space, which would be an over-riding vast, macrocosmic, "controller," for the rate of Time for any other similarly aetherized region, such as near-earth space-space. -The idea here is that the vanishingly-rarified scale of the units of the aether (compared to quantum scale units) means that any aetheric vibratory resonance process would "connect" any two aether space regions, such as near-earth space and outer space. -The middle-space region where time speeds up is quantrized, and the size-scale of the energy units there would not resonate as much with the other two space regions.
While the near-earth space region is quantized, like the middle space region, but (applying my aether-technology hypothesis) it is also more highly aetherized "artifically"/technologically, so its time rate eschews the speed-up effect of quantization, because of the very powerful effect of the un magnetized outer space aether, which is comparatively immense in magnitude. -That is why there are not just two different time rates in space, but, if we were able to measure it, three space-time regions, with the inner and outer at the slower time rate and the middle at the fastest time rate.
David, you may not be willing to accept the hypothesis about an occult aether technology affecting the near-earth time rate. -Perhaps, as a quantum/relativity adherent, you would be willing to entertain at least some of my aether model as correlating with the consensus concept of "Dark Energy?"
-
to Colin2B:
I would disagree with each critical point you made in your last post. -I believe you probably haven't read an earlier Thread of mine, which describes my aether model more fully, starting with a new concept of original space, and continuing to how it could have led to a universal unit-based vibrational/resonational aether. - If you read that Thread, and contrast its aether model with others, you would be in a better position as to your observation that "there are many aether theories, and they are generally much better developed" than mine. -This earlier Thread is titled "Is there an aether model suitable as an alternative to BBT/inflation?" -Dec. 4, 2014, currently at page 5 of "New Theories."
Colin2B, you also state that I have "set up an alternative to QM." -Again, I feel that you have either not read through my full aether theory, or else have not really thought it through. -My model of the aether is not describable as an "alternative to quantum mechanics (QM)." -In no part does it ever deny the reality of QM. It merely rlelgates it to a more limited area, in that it denies that QM is appropriate for understanding the true nature of cosmological forces, which originated in space - not in our earthly environment. -QM does "work" in our environment (although I would submit that even here it fails to yield a complete understanding of the basic forces involved.) - My objection is to the effort of physics to extend QM to the theory of cosmic forces.
You also state that "earth's magnetic field has been measured" and "the magnetosphere has been mapped." -Here again, you are overlooking what I actually claim in my aether model. -I never state that the map of the magnetoisphere is inaccurate, only that (due to our present inability to detect the aether) the true strength of the magnetic field is not being detected.
-
David, you may not be willing to accept the hypothesis about an occult aether technology affecting the near-earth time rate. -Perhaps, as a quantum/relativity adherent, you would be willing to entertain at least some of my aether model as correlating with the consensus concept of "Dark Energy?"
I lean towards Lorentz Aether Theory more than anything else, but I'm still open to any other theories that look as if they stack up. My worry with yours was that you might be creating a beautiful theory that contradicts the evidence, so I just wanted to be sure that you understand the implications of time slowing in deep space as it requires light to be slowed, and that will likely lead to optical effects which we don't see. So long as you're aware of that and can keep things within sufficiently tight bounds for those optical effects to stay small enough not to show up (or if you can find evidence for them in the actual sky), you might not be wasting your time.
-
No, I had read your earlier posts, but to be honest there still isn't enough hard theory to hang anything on. At the moment it is too wordy and not enough real analysis to attract serious attention.
If you can achieve that rigorous analysis, you will attract lots of backers. Anyone who can offer a sound alternative to relativity is in line for major accolades, Nobel prizes, book deals, lecture tours, and TV adoration at a level only achieved by film stars.
If you really have faith in your theory you will have to do a lot of work. Take a leaf out of David's book. You misjudged him, he is a relativity skeptic, but he has done his homework and he understands relativity better than most people I know. You need to achieve that same level of knowledge if you are to provide an alternative.
Good luck, but I'm not convinced you'll do it.
-
I've mentioned, in a couple earlier posts in the present Thread, that I claim to have derived a design for a field test for a property of aether, which I derived from an obscure independent source. The test would be costly. -From my point of view, my aether model just needs enough acceptance to get the test done. I don't see any other way to resolve the issue.
-
Why not start with less expensive tests? What percentage of slowing of time do you imagine you should get in "outer" space and how far out do you have to go from a star or galaxy before you get that much slowing? It should be very inexpensive to calculate the optical effects that should show up and then to look for them in the sky.
-
David,
As for "testing for the aether," if you choose to be guided by the kind of approach usually taken by "zero point energy" innovative-tech people, the usual approach uses some sort of tech gear in some sort of relatively small-scale set-up, such as in a laboratory, and then one would proceed to larger scale technological setup, if the initial investigation warrants it.
However, my type of investigation would be different in that it would use more naturally-occurring materials, and would be based on (I claim) new information on how to replicate an occultified (for us) energy technology. As it happens, the only possible investigatory setup would necessarily have to be at a fairly large scale. (One advantage, however, if it ever gets done, would be that the test setup could also serve in utilizing any new properties such a new form of energy could provide.)
-
If your theory says time runs slow in outer space and experiments show that to be wrong, why would anyone put vast amounts of money into testing your theory if it is already broken?
-
David Cooper:
You're restating the same argument we went over before, and this time, you are phrasing it in a way that sounds like the data "disproves" my theory of aether/time.
Again, our existing data shows that time passes slower in "near space," as in a clock in a moving airplane, and time passes faster in what I say is "middle space," where a moving GPS satellite travels. -As I've covered already, I claim that "true outer" space would be where the earth's magnetic field would not exert its influence on the clocks in a moving vehicle, and that although no experiments have been done with clocks that far out as yet, time would run slower there, due to the absence of the magnetic field.
(In my aether model, there is one more influence at work here, however, which is the motion of the clock in the moving vehicle, which in my model means that the clock is moving at a faster rate through the aether of space, increasing its resonance with the ambient aether, making the infra-atomic structure of the clock more aetherized, while of course a clock at the surface is stationary. -So the clock-measuring/position RE magnetic field/change-in-rate-of-time analysis actually becomes still more complicated, than just the influence of the magnetic forces.
-
You're restating the same argument we went over before, and this time, you are phrasing it in a way that sounds like the data "disproves" my theory of aether/time.
I'm simply trying to get you to provide a rough figure on how much a clock will slow in deep space compared with one that's running faster in "middle space". What I want to see if whether it's worth trying to understand your theory in depth or if it is already disproven by the lack of optical effects in the sky of the kind that would show up if you require a significant slowing.
Again, our existing data shows that time passes slower in "near space," as in a clock in a moving airplane, ...
Clocks run slower when moved fast at the same altitude regardless of which altitude you choose.
...and time passes faster in what I say is "middle space," where a moving GPS satellite travels.
Time passes faster as you go to higher altitude, and this effect is stronger than the one that causes slowing due to speed of travel. You still don't appear to be separating out the two effects.
-As I've covered already, I claim that "true outer" space would be where the earth's magnetic field would not exert its influence on the clocks in a moving vehicle, and that although no experiments have been done with clocks that far out as yet, time would run slower there, due to the absence of the magnetic field.
Are you aware that there are other planets and moons in the solar system with different strengths of magnetic field which have had atomic clocks taken to them and which have not showed the magnetic field to have any impact on the passage of time? Are you aware of magnetars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar)):-
"These magnetic fields are hundreds of millions of times stronger than any man-made magnet, and quadrillions of times more powerful than the field surrounding Earth."
Do we see weird optical effects around them because of their extreme magnetic fields? If your idea of time being slowed doesn't involve light being slowed too, you aren't describing a slowing of time but a slowing of some kinds of clock while other clocks (light clocks) in the same locations would not be slowed with them. If you really are trying to say that time is slowed, then you have to have it slow light down as well, and if you do that you should get optical effects if this slowing is anything other than trivial. That's why I'd like to hear a few figures on how much slowing you predict there to be, because that slowing will be directly proportional to a slowing in the speed of light. If you can't provide such basic information, no one will ever invest a penny into testing your theory.
-
A naive understanding of something which fails to match up with reality does not result in a paradox.
You're missing the point. Didn't you read the Wiki article that I posted? I posted it for a good reason. The current case is an example of what's called a veridical paradox[/b] defined as follows
Veridical Paradox: A veridical paradox produces a result that appears absurd but is demonstrated to be true nevertheless.
This is precisely what the twin paradox scenario is and that's why its called the Twin Paradox.
If you'd like to read more about the definition of the various types of paradox then you can read the following article
What, Exactly, is a Paradox? by William G. Lycan, University of North Carolina
http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/Paradox.pdf
-
Reply to D. Cooper's last post,
Regarding my hypothesis that time would slow if measured in an outer space region free of magnetic fields, you offer a criterion concerning the observation of the speed of light, i.e., that it should be found to slow down if time was passing more slowly in a given region of space. -This would not qualify as a criterion using my model of the aether. In my model, light is basically transmitted by elemental aether energy units resonating vibrationally and contiguously. The speed of light (in my model) was determined at the onset of the universe, when electronic/photonic elemental units were the smallest units, and therefore the fastest. -Subsequently, other larger units were formed via linear resonances of the elemental units - such as photons, protons, neutrons, etc. The photons retain the fastest speed by being generated along the path of an elemental aether light beam, but it is the elemental light units that are the basic actors here. (Units such as neutrons and protons were formed by aether units also, but are slower and larger than electron/photons, and so they became located in atomic nuclei.) -Therefore, observing the speed of light as a constant would not have anything to do with a change in the rate of time, in my aether model.
You note that "clocks run slower at any altitude when moving faster." -In my aether model, moving the clock faster means that the aetheric components of the clock's infra-structure are encountering a greater number of other, ambient, aether units in space, and resonating with them, than if the clock is stationary, which should slow the time rate -Your observation, then, actually agrees with my aether model.
Your two theoretic points, (1) as to whether the speed of travel or the altitude has a greater effect on time, and (2) that the rate of time in clocks sent to strongly magnetic bodies in space has been measured, I don't see as bearing on the question of what the rate would be in an outer space region where magnetic fields aren't strong.
Finally, I would insert my opinion that my aether model should not have to hinge on the question of assessing how it affects the rate of time in space, in the face of these other, possibly-complicating, factors. The measurements and observations that you cited were all guided by quantum/relativity hypotheses. My aether model should have different judgment tests using very different theoretic criteria. My aether model does not have to hinge on this aspect of theory, in any case. I have described a wide ranging theoretic model with persuasive correlations in other areas. -Just one example is the phenomenon of action-at-a-distance, which my model addresses more rationally than does the hypothesis of "quantum entanglement."
-
A naive understanding of something which fails to match up with reality does not result in a paradox.
You're missing the point. Didn't you read the Wiki article that I posted? I posted it for a good reason. The current case is an example of what's called a veridical paradox[/b] defined as follows
Veridical Paradox: A veridical paradox produces a result that appears absurd but is demonstrated to be true nevertheless.
This is precisely what the twin paradox scenario is and that's why its called the Twin Paradox.
I didn't trust Wikipedia enough to consider its opinion on a definition to be correct, but having checked other sources it is clear that the word "paradox" can be used in such sloppy ways that there is no easy way of describing a real paradox (because the expression "real paradox" has its meaning contaminated by the slackness of the "paradox" part). The consequence is that there appears to be no way of describing the thing that I have always thought of as a paradox without using a paragraph to explain what you're referring to [edit: I now see that "intractable paradox" is used in your more recent link for this, so I will use that from now on]. However, it is possible too use the word "paradox" with the meaning I apply to it [intractable paradox] as a completely distinct word from the word "paradox" with the meaning "veridical paradox", which means that a veridical paradox is a paradox, and a veridical paradox is not a paradox. Now, there's a veridical paradox for you!
With the veridical paradox, whether something is classed as one or not depends on how "obvious" the resolution is, and that rests on shifting sands. In the case of the Twins Paradox, the solution was always so obvious to me that I was never able to see it as being anything resembling a paradox at all because it is plain obvious that something moving more quickly through the fabric of space will have its functionality slowed down. For me then, I still don't see it as a veridical paradox. Other people who approached it from a different direction may disagree. What we have then is a case of sloppy categorisation where something is a paradox or not a paradox depending on the degree to which different people find something obvious.
-
Regarding my hypothesis that time would slow if measured in an outer space region free of magnetic fields, you offer a criterion concerning the observation of the speed of light, i.e., that it should be found to slow down if time was passing more slowly in a given region of space. -This would not qualify as a criterion using my model of the aether. ... Therefore, observing the speed of light as a constant would not have anything to do with a change in the rate of time, in my aether model.
If that means you aren't predicting any reduction in the speed of light in "outer" space, then a light clock in "outer" space will not be slowed while other designs of clocks are slowed. That is not a slowing of time, but a slowing of some clocks. So long as your theory recognises that time is not being slowed in this situation though, that need not be a problem, but you should make your language clear and not state that time is slowed when it isn't.
Your two theoretic points, (1) as to whether the speed of travel or the altitude has a greater effect on time, and (2) that the rate of time in clocks sent to strongly magnetic bodies in space has been measured, I don't see as bearing on the question of what the rate would be in an outer space region where magnetic fields aren't strong.
If your theory predicts a slowing of light, away from magnetic fields, I would expect substantial optical effects around a magnetar and those could be looked for very easily. However, since it now appears that you don't think light is slowed in this way, that problem is resolved - you just don't have a slowing of time in deep space.
Finally, I would insert my opinion that my aether model should not have to hinge on the question of assessing how it affects the rate of time in space, in the face of these other, possibly-complicating, factors.
It most certainly should hinge on that when you're making such a claim about time being slowed in deep space - if that is required by a theory and does not show up in the real universe, the theory is in need of major surgery to fix it.
-
Mr. Cooper,
You continue to cite observational data made using earthbound quantum-mediated tools, the human eye being one such tool. You then seem to be asking for a perfect "fit" with certain such data for entertaining my aether model in any way.
Theoretic perfection may not be attainable in the arena of quantum versus aether theory. Quantists tend to pile on hypotheses and agree by consensus to support each other. -I believe there are also a number of non-random (extraterrestrial) celestial factors that can affect this "arena," and muddy the waters. -I'm not going to comment on your point about "light clocks" having settled any issues.
-
MichaelMD - Can you please post the logical reasoning behind your conclusions about time running slower at higher points about the ground?
-
Quantists tend to pile on hypotheses and agree by consensus to support each other.
Good Lord! Where on Earth did you ever get such an wild idea from? Do you actually think that we physicists have a voting booth to determine what the group thinks upon which an edict is issued tell us how to think? That's how you're making it sound.
-
Mr. Cooper,
You continue to cite observational data made using earthbound quantum-mediated tools, the human eye being one such tool. You then seem to be asking for a perfect "fit" with certain such data for entertaining my aether model in any way.
Well, if you're satisfied with an imperfect fit where what the theory describes is wildly in conflict with reality, why does your theory need to be tested at all? Why throw money into a test that isn't needed, because however badly it might fit your predictions, it'll do just fine.
I'm not going to comment on your point about "light clocks" having settled any issues.
I can't say I'm surprised. Who's going to take you seriously if you ignore something that shows time manifestly running faster for a light clock than for a different kind of clock that is slowed at the same location? If you attribute slowed time to the slowed clock while ignoring the unaffected light clock, you are making a monumental error.
-
To D. Cooper's last Post:
OK, I will answer your "light clock" question from the perspective of my aether model.
A light clock runs faster when in motion because the technological presence of light-energy has "queered" the natural setting from the magnetic-energy-level standpoint. -The infra-atomic, or aetheric, energy units of the clock's structure have been "artificially" energized to a higher magnetic energy setting. -Light is a high-energy application, from the aetheric energy standpoint. It has a relatively high amount of "pure" electron/photon aetheric elemental energy units acting linearly. -This makes the magnetic energy level in the clock much higher than in another type of clock.
In my aether model, one would not have magnetic energy as one form of energy, light energy as a separate form of energy, and the like. (Even gravity falls into the model as a basically-related form of energy.)
-
PmbPhy:
In my aether model, time runs slower above the ground (as in an atomic clock in an airplane), because of two factors. -One, the motion of the clock inside the plane means the infra-structure of the clock - the aetheric elemental energy units making up the clock's ultimate structure - are encountering an increase in the amount of ambient aether units in the regional space, than if the clock were stationary. This means the clock is resonating with the aether of space at a higher level, which slows the clock, because the magnetization state of the clock is lower.
This question gets more complicated if continued in more detail. -One complicating factor in my model is that there is an artificially higher level of aether, close to the ground, because there are extraterrestrial groups tapping aether energy occultly, that we are not aware of. -This would further explain why the rate of time speeds up again when measured by atomic clocks at a somewhat higher level, as in an orbiting satellite. -In the latter case, my model would explain the faster rate of time at the orbiting level as due to Earth's magnetic field, which is active at that level. -In my model, if one were to measure the rate of time in pure outer space, away from the influence of magnetic fields, the rate of time would be slower, as it is in the space region nearer the ground. -The slowing of time near the ground would be due to the fact that (due to occult aether technology) there is an increased aether there, which acquires its slower time setting by resonating with the aether of outer space, which is the over riding controlling time setting for any other (microcosmic) aether setting. -The two predominantly-aetheric regions resonate with each other because they share the same composition of extremely-rarified energy units.
-
A light clock runs faster when in motion...
Wrong way round. Try to get the basics right before you waste your time trying to build a theory on top of them.
-
D. Cooper:
I agree that that portion of my answer to your question was wrongly worded. I had answered your question the way I understood your meaning initially. -However, I believe you are now wrong by dismissing my entire answer on the basis of my misinterpreting what you had stated as the conditions of the setting for comparing light clocks and other clocks with respect to their time rates.
The basic question you had posed was "why would a light clock run faster than another type of clock," and my basic answer stands. The idea of my aether model is that light energy is closely resonant with magnetic energy (that at the elemental aether unit level, photonic aether units are resonating dynamically with electronic aether units, and that these two energy manifestations are very similar and both are very linear.) -So citing the time rate difference between a light clock and another type of clock should include realizing that, due to its makeup, the light clock is intrinsically magnetically energized itself. Therefore, a light clock's comparative rate of time relative to other clocks would not be a function of the ambient magnetism setting, which is the answer to your basic question.
-
Well, my aim has been to make sure you have taken these things into account, and I will now assume that you have. I wish you luck with developing your theory further and hope what I have said will help you to present it better so that other people don't just stop reading when they spot what look like basic errors. Anything that could easily be mistaken for such an error needs to have a note attached to it to explain it.
-
D. Cooper:
As far as my "need to develop my theory further," or to "describe it better," I don't see where any great improvement should be needed.
I will admit, though, that your request for how my theory would relate to "light clocks and rates of time" was a pertinent case to use as an example of how my theory works.
Again, maybe in a clearer way, my aether model is extended to the light clock/time question like this: the clock's intrinsic high level of light energy would heighten the magnetism level around the clock, because the light energy, mediated by photonic aether energy units, and electromagnetic energy, mediated by electronic aether energy units, are very similar at the aether level. The aetheric light- and electromagnetic- units both are highly linear. Their energic vibratory "arms" would extend beyond the borders of the larger quantum units (quantum photons and electrons.) These aetheric extensions, or "arms," are what heighten the local magnetic field around the light clock. At the vibratory, aetheric, level of resonance, an aetheric unit or "photonic" would be most likely to resonate with another aether photonic unit, but might also resonate with an aetheric electromagnetic unit, as a "secondary option." -The basic resonances are at the aetheric level, with the "photonics" and "electronics" having vibrational properties that are similar, but just different enough, extended to our quantum level, to produce their different physical manifestations (one, visible light, the other, electronic phenomena.)