Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
trevor borocz johnson

Theory of Space-time,gravity,energy,magnetism

192 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Why are light waves not required to be in a medium? How does the heat from the sun transfer through the void of space? It would make more sense if they just said that space contained some sort of medium of which waves can transfer through. The better question is, if space is an empty void in which things (planets moons etc) exist within, what is it exactly that is being warped? They always show this mythical fabric of space/time being warped by the mass of objects, yet this seems impossible. The equations are very likely accurate and useful, however the cause I believe is wrong. How can something warp nothing? This makes no sense whatsoever and Nikola Tesla even got into it back in the day regarding this issue. Basic particles such as protons/electrons have yet to be proven actually exist physically, they simply detect certain characteristics such as an electric charge or radiation, and they assume it must be carried by a particle. The reality is, that matter is held together by electric and magnetic forces that oscillate in the form of waves, which is what carries the energy. Everything is a wave, and is provably so. The particle-wave duality is a cop out to try and retain the particle theory despite all the evidence that wave theory is the only provable reality. Space is like a shadow, which is the absence of something. You can warp a shadow but only if its on a surface, space has no surface and even if it did, you could not warp it in any way. Space has yet to be defined as something that can be acted upon, and until otherwise proven to be warpable I will continue to advocate for aether theory. There must be some kind of universal medium even within a vacuum, even NASA says the so called vacuum of space contains dark energy and other things that can effect it...just call it what it is, aether.

Edited by ArcherSage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
15 hours ago, ArcherSage said:

Why are light waves not required to be in a medium?

Why is a medium required?  Don't invent things without having some logic behind it.  My logic would be that I see stars and the Sun, and feel heat from the latter.. so I observe light/heat travelling through space, and space certainly, according to all our understandings and measurements to date, is essentially empty of anything.  Explain to me why you need a media.  Is it just because you are used to living in an atmosphere and can't escape that medium?  That's unscientific.... :D 

15 hours ago, ArcherSage said:

How does the heat from the sun transfer through the void of space?

By radiation.  I presume you are OK with protons and other HEP's not needing a medium, yet light/EMF needs one?  Hmm.  Makes that particle/wave duality into an interesting topic...

15 hours ago, ArcherSage said:

It would make more sense

Making sense, surely, goes out the window as soon as you hit relativity.  Do you deny that too, because it doesn't make sense or seem to be possible?  How about quantum entanglement?  Common sense is not always a good guide to what is actually true..

 

So until an observation/experiment shows that an aether exists, I'm pretty happy with science's current rejection of it.  Most of those studying this stuff are heaps smarter than me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Why is a medium required?  Don't invent things without having some logic behind it.  My logic would be that I see stars and the Sun, and feel heat from the latter.. so I observe light/heat travelling through space, and space certainly, according to all our understandings and measurements to date, is essentially empty of anything.  Explain to me why you need a media.  Is it just because you are used to living in an atmosphere and can't escape that medium?  That's unscientific.... :D 

By radiation.  I presume you are OK with protons and other HEP's not needing a medium, yet light/EMF needs one?  Hmm.  Makes that particle/wave duality into an interesting topic...

Making sense, surely, goes out the window as soon as you hit relativity.  Do you deny that too, because it doesn't make sense or seem to be possible?  How about quantum entanglement?  Common sense is not always a good guide to what is actually true..

 

So until an observation/experiment shows that an aether exists, I'm pretty happy with science's current rejection of it.  Most of those studying this stuff are heaps smarter than me.

Yet NASA has invented imaginary nonsense to try and explain how space is NOT a void but is full of dark matter/energy and other things that would create a medium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ArcherSage said:

Yet NASA has invented imaginary nonsense to try and explain how space is NOT a void but is full of dark matter/energy and other things that would create a medium.

False.  Although I should note we were earlier talking about an aether, now it has changed subtly to a medium...  While I too, carelessly, used that term, they have quite different meanings..

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are different things altogether, and what *has* been found in an 'empty' vacuum does not at all create an aether.  You need to do a bit more reading.  Don't make claims without citing them - NASA links..?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The literal definition here.

 

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.

It has not been proven to exist, and if it did it would resemble aether. If it permeates ALL of space, surely this energy would act as a medium, how could it be in our physical existence and NOT be a medium if it permeates all of space. What is the energy made of ? How can this energy force the expansion of the universe (space which is made of nothing????).

Edited by ArcherSage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, ArcherSage said:

The literal definition here.

 

In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe.

It has not been proven to exist, and if it did it would resemble aether. If it permeates ALL of space, surely this energy would act as a medium, how could it be in our physical existence and NOT be a medium if it permeates all of space. What is the energy made of ? How can this energy force the expansion of the universe (space which is made of nothing????).

I don't like the idea of dark energy either, but I try not to confuse terms.

I think it is fair to claim dark energy is a medium, but it is significantly different than the ``luminiferous aether'' which was previously postulated as the mechanism for light propagation.[1]

Furthermore, an omnipresent energy is not really a new thing. Gravitational fields permeate all of space, and there is an energy density associated with that field (of course in most of space the gravitational field is negligible, but it is still there). The cosmic microwave background is a form of electromagnetic energy that permeates all of space. You can call these media as well.

Dark energy would be a form of energy that does not interact with electromagnetic fields (hence is ``dark'').

This energy forces the expansion of the universe because the curvature/stretching of space is related to the mass-energy density in that space; this is expressed in the Einstein field equations.

On a super-galactic scale, every point in the Universe appears to be moving away from every other point - something that can only be described as ``expansion''. This expansion requires more energy than is observed in the galaxies; consequently this new unknown form of energy is postulated to make up the difference.

*******

[1] To be clear: When speaking of ``aether'' people want a medium that supports light in the same way that water supports water waves. Can't have water waves without water, can you? But referring to dark energy as a medium would be more like referring to the consequences of throwing a ball in water as opposed to air - more friction in water than in air. For that matter, a ball moving through the cosmic microwave background will behave slightly differently than if there were no CMB - the CMB exerts a small radiation pressure on the ball, creating friction. Of course this friction is negligibly small so everyone ignores it, but it is there. Dark energy may have similar effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We live inside a growing organism, our planets and moons are simply cells within a body. BOOM

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ArcherSage said:

We live inside a growing organism, our planets and moons are simply cells within a body. BOOM

Wow, my mind is blown. Oh wait... no it isn't, it was just my nose.

I can't argue with your statement since it is clear you have stretched the definition of ``growing organism'' and ``cell'' so far.

And it fits nicely with my theory of everything: Everything is pumpkins. (For a suitably broad definition of ``pumpkin''.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

48 minutes ago, sepulchrave said:

Wow, my mind is blown. Oh wait... no it isn't, it was just my nose.

I can't argue with your statement since it is clear you have stretched the definition of ``growing organism'' and ``cell'' so far.

And it fits nicely with my theory of everything: Everything is pumpkins. (For a suitably broad definition of ``pumpkin''.)

I've always liked theories like his: that we are part of something larger and living, but perhaps not as we currently define an organism, or perhaps on a scale so grand that we can't begin to properly comprehend it. And it is sort of like Russian dolls, where we're a universe inside a universe inside a universe. Of course this isn't science but really just a though experiment. Cool to think about though. 

I'm surprised that you mocked his comment so quickly, since it contains the type of use of imagination that usually inspires people to enter into your field of science. Ideas like this are the reason I nearly pursued a career in physics.

Edit to add that I hadn't followed the conversation but after reading a few of the back and forth between you I understand your reply a bit better. 

 

 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How did I stretch the definition of a cell ? We can't even fully see what is inside a cell. However we are made of the same things as the planets, stars, etc. You have a hard time believing a planet or star can be a living thing yet we are alive and made of the same elementary substances. We contain the exact same things at different scales.

Edited by ArcherSage
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2017 at 9:45 AM, sepulchrave said:

So does your concept of aether allow any means of actually measuring its existence?

So what's your argument on using the femto camera experiment?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I'm surprised that you mocked his comment so quickly, since it contains the type of use of imagination that usually inspires people to enter into your field of science. Ideas like this are the reason I nearly pursued a career in physics.

Maybe I was a bit quick to mock it, but the ``BOOM'' at the end riled up my fighting blood a bit. The idea of galaxy-within-an-atom was discussed in Animal House after all, so presenting it as a solid closing argument seems a bit silly to me.

4 hours ago, ArcherSage said:

How did I stretch the definition of a cell ? We can't even fully see what is inside a cell. However we are made of the same things as the planets, stars, etc. You have a hard time believing a planet or star can be a living thing yet we are alive and made of the same elementary substances. We contain the exact same things at different scales.

We can see inside cells. We can directly image down to the scale of an atom (albeit the atoms are very fuzzy). We can use indirect imaging methods (i.e. diffraction) to study the structure of subatomic particles.

The differences between stars/planets, cells, atoms, and subatomic particles are significant enough that the study of these items are each considered separate disciplines (astronomy, biology, physical chemistry or chemical/atomic physics, subatomic physics).

This is not because academics are stuffy and fussy but because the structure and behaviour of things at these different length scales is completely different.

Atoms form molecules due to very strong interactions between neighbouring atoms. There is negligible interaction between our solar system and Alpha Centauri, let alone other systems further away. You'd have an easier time claiming that a rock is alive than that a galaxy is, or makes up, a supermassive organism. You can do it, but you really have to stretch the definition of "alive".

4 hours ago, trevorhbj said:

So what's your argument on using the femto camera experiment?

I admit I am not sure how your femto camera experiment works. You split a light beam and take pictures of it?

My own personal laboratory experience, along with everyone else I know or have read about, all support the notion that interferometry is much more accurate in measuring distances than any other technique.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone want to hear my theory? I mean, I don't believe it myself, but I do have a "theory". I came up with it when I was stoned as a teenager. The universe IS alive in the sense it is made up of various states of consciousness. But, it's best to view it as a self-operating repository. There is an endless number of parallel universes. Oftentimes, the only difference between universes may be an electron in some far off corner of the universe or something.

Consciousness is "fractaled" throughout the parallels. Everything that is conscious is part of one and the same consciousness, existing simultaneously at once, as well as all of the past and future. Space-time, as we see it, is part of a much larger gravitational warp. The universe, being in a state of advanced consciousness, has already figured itself out. We, being conscious, never die. We see people die all the time, but their facet of consciousness has split paths with our own. Consciousness traverses the parallels, being inherent in both the microcosm and the macrocosm. To the individual, a close call in traffic was just a close call, but to another set of eyes in a previous parallel, the person died. Consciousness leaps to the nearest parallel in which the person is still alive in the situation.

At some point, the universe manufactures ways to bring it around full circle and all the infinite yous and mes come full circle somewhere, still alive, and something much greater happens individually. It might feel like an extraterrestrial invasion and look like a seizure, but somehow, everything merges. Being apart from space-time, this is both the end and beginning of everything there ever was.

As a well-greased machine, the universe has figured out ways for stars and planets and evetything else to exist. This neccesitates things like electrons and quarks, although we can't roll back the curtains in our present disposition. At least, not until it adds up for the greater logic of the universe. Huge scientific breakthroughs happen when they neccesitate your present state of living. Or something like that.

That's my "theory" and I'm sticking to it! (Even if I don't believe it)

 

Apologies for typos in advancve. I'mn not editing this crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 11/2/2017 at 0:26 PM, Skulduggery said:

Does anyone want to hear my theory? I mean, I don't believe it myself, but I do have a "theory". I came up with it when I was stoned as a teenager. The universe IS alive in the sense it is made up of various states of consciousness. But, it's best to view it as a self-operating repository. There is an endless number of parallel universes. Oftentimes, the only difference between universes may be an electron in some far off corner of the universe or something.

Consciousness is "fractaled" throughout the parallels. Everything that is conscious is part of one and the same consciousness, existing simultaneously at once, as well as all of the past and future. Space-time, as we see it, is part of a much larger gravitational warp. The universe, being in a state of advanced consciousness, has already figured itself out. We, being conscious, never die. We see people die all the time, but their facet of consciousness has split paths with our own. Consciousness traverses the parallels, being inherent in both the microcosm and the macrocosm. To the individual, a close call in traffic was just a close call, but to another set of eyes in a previous parallel, the person died. Consciousness leaps to the nearest parallel in which the person is still alive in the situation.

At some point, the universe manufactures ways to bring it around full circle and all the infinite yous and mes come full circle somewhere, still alive, and something much greater happens individually. It might feel like an extraterrestrial invasion and look like a seizure, but somehow, everything merges. Being apart from space-time, this is both the end and beginning of everything there ever was.

As a well-greased machine, the universe has figured out ways for stars and planets and evetything else to exist. This neccesitates things like electrons and quarks, although we can't roll back the curtains in our present disposition. At least, not until it adds up for the greater logic of the universe. Huge scientific breakthroughs happen when they neccesitate your present state of living. Or something like that.

That's my "theory" and I'm sticking to it! (Even if I don't believe it)

 

Apologies for typos in advancve. I'mn not editing this crap.

I think the idea of other universe is so far into the sci fi realm and actually undermines the SIMPLICITY and beauty of the reality of our existence. The universal medium that traverses everything according to great minds like Tesla is a sort of electrical field of vibrating waves much like the ocean, but of electricity/plasma. Life itself is electricity, perception is possible through electricity, nothing that is alive exists without it, including stars/planets/comets. I am a huge advocate for the Electric Universe Theory and the simplicity of it. We do not need random collisions of rocks and debris and warped space time fabrics to explain reality.

 

You should check out the Thunderbolts forum and read the stuff we discuss over there, you will enjoy it

https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php

Edited by ArcherSage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about; energy dilates space and applies dimensions allowing perspective?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Frank_Hoenedge said:

How about; energy dilates space and applies dimensions allowing perspective?

how about energy fills space as a squeezing and if you are in the area of squeezing then your molecules become illuminated.

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2017 at 7:48 AM, Frank_Hoenedge said:

Now if it was me seeking discourse, I'd propose a starship capable of 0.2c speed, that was lined with meta-materials that provide static-cling to photons, the meta-materials are bent round the back of a wedge into a ball with a design to promote resonance pickup and coherence. The ball has two holes like photon slits.

I'd put forward that the ball can provide an s-curvature of acceleration by lowering the wavelength of incoming solar radiation (i.e. from 1.2mm to 0.9mm) due to the rate of transit on the meta-materials being slower than the velocity through space. You could then use the holes in the ball to focus incoming solar radiation into ejected matter to initiate an explosive force to provide thrust.

*Cough* Found the preceeding concept for this;

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0803/0803.3636.pdf

Pure Nuclear Fusion Bomb Propulsion

F.Winterberg University of Nevada, Reno March 2008

 

 

On 11/8/2017 at 3:20 AM, trevor borocz johnson said:

how about energy fills space as a squeezing and if you are in the area of squeezing then your molecules become illuminated.

 

Worthy of lateral reasoning is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics as there may be a variation in the form of photogravitics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.