0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
..................Matter can be convert into light and light into Matter. There is a working wave model for particles in Quantum theory. Light is a very simple electromagnetic wave. It seems evident that light is the basic building block of everything. For those who would say that the electromagnetic force is not fundamental, i would reply that how can it be if a photon may have an infinitesimal energy? ..........
...............Logical Deduction If one presumes that light can only traverse a certain amount of space -time substrate in a certain amount of time , then logically , gravitational compression of S.T. would result in longer traverse times for a given distance . The alternative concept is that of ST as a virtual river . This would explain light being unable to overcome a "river" moving "faster" than it can . Alright , time will tell ! P.M.
Quote from: opportunity on 12/11/2018 07:15:50I have alluded to the fact that the idea of the ancients re. aether is another way of regarding time and space as one.The luminiferous ether ( to give it the full name) is not that ancient an idea.It wasn't "needed" until someone proposed the wave nature of light.
I have alluded to the fact that the idea of the ancients re. aether is another way of regarding time and space as one.
Wind waves are generated by the force of the wind.Tidal waves are generated by "tidal forces."What force forms the Rossby, Kelvin, and Soliton waves?
The Space/Time fabric, Gravity, was the first fundamental force, it is distinct from EM light and its products, the strong and weak nuclear forces. As gravity was the first force, it's influence and boundaries exist beyond those of EM Light., meaning S/T extends beyond the furthest reaches of EM light. Gravity's force/energy level is thought be less than 10^-39th. EM Light's energy level is the speed of light. Instantaneous action exist when Gravity at it's lowest level 10^-39th and does not interact with EM LIght to create kinetic energy. Light has a spin of 1, Gravity has a spin of 2, when interacting with Light, Gravity is forced to spin twice to intertwine with Light's single spin. This intertwining create a forward kinetic energy. This forward kinetic energy is the speed of Light. Light cannot be measured without a Gravity component, any attempt to do so is restricted by the uncertainty principle. Due to Gravity, either position or velocity can be approximated but not both, the speed of light will always be bound by Gravity, making it true velocity unknownable. S/T on the other hand is is not bound by LIght. Without Light, S/T exist as a very low negative energy field. This field does fluctuate at a tremendous rate, that is capable of popping in and out of existence/time. A possible "20 billion c" rate, maybe, can be thought of as being so fluid as to make instantaneous action possible at distance. So S/T that exist beyond the furthest reaches of LIght, and having it's fluctuations not slowed by an intertwining with Light, can have instantaneous actions across the Universe. The path of these instantaneous actions, however, do not cut across the Light populated Universe but circumvent Universe at it's edges where Light as yet to populate Gravity. lolI suppose there are areas in Universe that are conducive to instantaneous actions but these are the exceptions and must be deviod of Light. lol
Quote from: mad aetherist on 06/11/2018 01:30:10Re the shape of nuclei i havent looked into it -- i would be ok with a model having no nucleus (with no silly orbiting electrons) the atom being made up of alpha particles -- & i would be happy with a nucleus but with the nucleus made up of alpha particles making a peculiar shape. But all of that is well outside my limited comprehension & memory -- & it doesnt concern much my core interests, aether & gravity & the photon & photaenos & centrifuging aether -- photaenos & centrifuging of aether being my 2 pet areas (at present).Then please try to do the required prerequisite research before making the empty claim that thousands physicists and chemists with access to multi-million dollar experimental equipment have gotten the structure of the atom wrong for many decades.
Re the shape of nuclei i havent looked into it -- i would be ok with a model having no nucleus (with no silly orbiting electrons) the atom being made up of alpha particles -- & i would be happy with a nucleus but with the nucleus made up of alpha particles making a peculiar shape. But all of that is well outside my limited comprehension & memory -- & it doesnt concern much my core interests, aether & gravity & the photon & photaenos & centrifuging aether -- photaenos & centrifuging of aether being my 2 pet areas (at present).
Hopefully we can come to an agreement. There is a matter of semantics I wish to first address. It is not true that the photon has no charge. In fact the photon is completely and entirely filled with charge. Just because the sum total quantity is equal to zero does not mean that the photon has no charge which to me implies the absence of charge. The number zero in this case means a balance. We should agree that it just means that the photon is neutral and it does possess charge. With this in mind your second example using the implication of no charge and neutrality are both negated. The photon is a moving charge that has an associated a magnetic field. The fact that it is neutral does not mean that it has no charge.In both your examples you mention that the particles are neutral. Therefore, I think that you maybe trying to imply that since the neutron is neutrally charged that it has no charge. I disagree as the neutron is not really a fundamental particle but is in fact composed of 3 quarks. It has 1 up and 2 down quarks. The neutron once again is filled with a balanced amount of charge. Those quarks according to my calculations are moving at about 99% the speed of light. In this case we once again have a moving charge with its associated magnetic field.You can go through the entire standard model and there is no example that will work as all particles have charge and all particles are moving. In no case that I am aware of does a magnetic field ever manifest itself without and associated moving charge.Physics now has a bit of a conundrum it has a asymmetry that has not been addressed or explained. Static electrostatic fields exist. They are constant fields, which do not change in intensity or direction over time. Hence, static electric fields have a frequency of 0 Hz. They are not moving and in this case the magnetic field is absent. The only reasonable explanation for this is that the magnetic field is a torsional response in space to the motion of the electrostatic field. Moving charges create the magnetic field.
Just an update;...Three months ago the Editor in Chief agreed to publish the paper. The hold up is on how. As you can imagine, there is a lot of controversy. Bangers are having a hard time with concepts in time.....There are now 2 individuals supporting it and 2 not.......the 2 not did not provide demonstrable reasons why it does not work. It went back, I understand, to them, and perhaps to more, to see if anyone could find a demonstrable way to disprove it.As I say, it has now been 3 months since then......I am encouraged in that 3 months have now passed, regardless of the number of reviewers.....I would remind readers of the current online version to just replace MECOs for black holes (https://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1748) and understand that I also specify in the final, journal, version that the forces at the center of a spherical dilation pit translate the kinetic energy created by dilation into thermal energy.The link, again, is: http://vixra.org/abs/1804.0109This version now has 99 downloads.Thanks again for being patient.
I told him that........Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 05/12/2018 03:54:40I told him that........Mightbe that em fields dont always travel at the same speed as light, in which case some BHs might have an external magnetic field.The speed water waves travel isn't dependent on whether they are caused by a duck or a swan. In the same way, the speed of electromagnetic radiation through space is defined by (and can be calculated from) the properties of a vacuum.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation