Action at a Distance = Fiction

[sjw40364]

My biggest problem is with the conception of a field. A magnetic field implies an emitted thing, while I do not believe that what composes a magnetic field is emitted at all, or an electric field for that matter. I agree that the aether MUST interact constantly, not once in awhile. IMO moving charges polarize the aether, its effect only determined by the total charge flowing in the vicinity. Each particle (as we define them - which are composed of an undefined number of charges each) polarizes the aether near its vicinity. Two particles in proximity interact through this polarized aether, the larger particle (with more internal charges) polarizes more surrounding aether and the smaller particle (less internal charges) with it's polarized bubble, is swept up in the aether polarized from the larger particle. It is EM radiation that applies a slight outward pressure as well as the current flow direction, not only of the interconnecting Birkeland Currents, but of the particles themselves that determine distance, as well as the overall charge of the particle or object. Not only does the aether polarize, but it (I hate to use the word - condenses) or becomes more dense near particles, hence the force of gravity is always strongest at the surface. Barring of course anomalies where extreme electrical events have occurred and changed the alignment of molecules increasing the surrounding polarization in specific areas. To be continued

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,

"Photons" are supposedly particles of light. If the aether were made up of particles of light, it would appear to be a bunch of diffused light. It does not, therefore the aether is not "made of photons."

Your reasoning is incorrect on several levels. Whether the "light signal" is a particle stream, a waving aethereal medium or ????, it makes little difference, since the light cannot be "seen", inspected, or in any way, examined, while in flight. At a basic definitional level the light does not exist as "light" per se, until it is intercepted, whereupon it ceases to be a "light signal" (whether wave or particle or centroidal pressure thingy or ????) and it becomes a facet of electron motion. It is the electron motion and NOT the "light signal" itself, that we have access to.

The "photon" particles, as traditionally referred to, fail logically as a single discrete particle, since the single discrete particle is only diagnosable via electron motion - this is the case for all detection methods. It is also the case for all "light signal" models; both wave and particle models collapse at the electron interface.

Michael

Really? (I said: "Supposed.") I am being lectured by someone whose own theory is just a mishmash of nonsense! How many times have I pointed out that the photon is an artifact? You are reciting stuff that I have pointed out many times before. Are you now trying to claim that these ideas are entirely your new insight? Get real!

"Photons" are supposedly particles of light. If the aether were made up of particles of light, it would appear to be a bunch of diffused light. It does not, therefore the aether is not "made of photons."

is obvious. Your post seems inane to me.

[Goldminer]

Sparky,

To me that is matter. Or is matter delineated at the level of electrons and protons and above?

A fair point. It could be said, and indeed I have at times myself said, that any interactive substance could legitimately be referred to as matter: "ponderable" matter (i.e. electrons and protons) and aethereal matter.
To clarify, in all recent posts, I refer to matter as only electrons and protons. Aethereal substance I refer to as the aethereal field or aethereal field particles or simply, the field.

I thought that you had assigned mass and size to the aether quantum?

This is some several months out of date. My more recent considered opinion is that, the "quantum", as the smallest measurable amount of energy, is a single wavelength worth of motion of electron and protons. All supposed "quanta" are a measurement of the motion of electrons and protons (i.e. matter particles). Planck's constant, h, is the amount of energy per cycle of electron and proton inherent helical "wave" motion.

The mass of individual aethereal field particles cannot be determined.

Michael

The following is my humble opinion (unlike Michael V, who insists that he is all knowing; but keeps changing his mind about what he "knows.") Listen, folks, the aether is not matter and it is not energy. Matter (in all its forms, solid, liquid, gas, plasma) acts as a medium for various kinds of waves. The waves in matter are pure energy, leaving one place and arriving in others, or just vibrating in one place, as in solitons. The energy travels, the matter does not. (Matter, in this case, just vibrates; passing the vibrations on to the next matter.)

Sound waves and light waves have much in common. EM radiation is pure energy too. However, sound does not travel through a vacuum, even a partial vacuum. Light waves do travel through a very pure vacuum. This is probably the main difference between sound energy and EM radiation.Waves propagating through matter are affected by the motion of the matter (along with temperature and pressure, among others). This was the impetus for the MM interferometer experiment. The purpose was to find the aether drift of EM radiation. It found that the aether does not have the property of affecting the propagation of EM radiation. Trying to give the aether properties of matter are all failures. It does not have those properties. We know this by experiment.

The aether does have impedance. We know this by experiment, too. Another characteristic of the aether is that it has many more degrees of freedom than matter does. We know this because light rays are not affected by intersecting light rays. In my opinion, it is the aether that allows light to radiate from any source at the measured one foot per nanosecond, regardless of that source's relative motion to any other source.

I believe EM radiation is a misnomer, since the only thing EM about it is when it is created or absorbed. When the "EM" radiation is "in transit" nothing moves from place to place except the vibration of the energy wave itself. Nothing in the aether moves from place to place with the wave, just as no matter moves from place to place with the sound wave. But don't let my reasoning affect any of your fantasies.

[Michael V]

Gumpminer.


"Matter in all its forms, solid, liquid, gas, plasma....", hilarious!!!

"Trying to give the aether properties of matter are all failures. It does not have those properties. We know this by experiment.", Newsflash: direct experiments on aether give disappointing results.

"The aether does have impedance. We know this by experiment, too." Newsflash: direct experiments on aether - results improving.

"Another characteristic of the aether is that it has many more degrees of freedom than matter does."

"Sound waves and light waves have much in common. EM radiation is pure energy too. However, sound does not travel through a vacuum, even a partial vacuum. Light waves do travel through a very pure vacuum. This is probably the main difference between sound energy and EM radiation."


"But don't let my reasoning affect any of your fantasies.", you are very funny, I can't wait for the next installment to find out what your "reasoning" is.

"aether is not matter and it is not energy", perhaps aethereal would be a good description then. By the way, you didn't tell us what "pure energy" is. Would you.....please.

This is especially good:
- "It found that the aether does not have the property of affecting the propagation of EM radiation."
- "When the "EM" radiation is "in transit" nothing moves from place to place except the vibration of the energy wave itself."
- "In my opinion, it is the aether that allows light to radiate from any source at the measured one foot per nanosecond, regardless of that source's relative motion to any other source."

A vibrating energy wave in an aether medium that doesn't affect the propagation of radiation, but that "vibrates" and "allows" a constant speed of light relative to relative sources. Priceless I shall certainly be more wary of your "opinion" in future, you old joker, you.
Also, by imbedding these sentences at different points of the story, it creates a sort of wave of contradictory nonsense through the text.


"I believe EM radiation is a misnomer, since the only thing EM about it is when it is created or absorbed." You even found the time for a hat-tip to what I have been saying. Thanks Bro.

Thanks for that. I bit of light relief in a serious discussion can often be quite welcome. You are very whimsical.

BTW, I read this to my dog and he laughed too.


Michael

[Goldminer]

Gumpminer.

(note to moderator: Please leave MJV's ad hominem in this post. Let him sink in his own egotism!)

"Matter in all its forms, solid, liquid, gas, plasma....", hilarious!!!

Yeah, minor point: should have written: "Matter in all its states." Feel free to add any states that I left out . . .

"Trying to give the aether properties of matter are all failures. It does not have those properties. We know this by experiment.", Newsflash: direct experiments on aether give disappointing results.

News flash to MJV: What we know about the aether has been learned from experiments with antenna technology, among others such as the MM interferometer experiments.

"The aether does have impedance. We know this by experiment, too." Newsflash: direct experiments on aether - results improving.

"Another characteristic of the aether is that it has many more degrees of freedom than matter does."

"Sound waves and light waves have much in common. EM radiation is pure energy too. However, sound does not travel through a vacuum, even a partial vacuum. Light waves do travel through a very pure vacuum. This is probably the main difference between sound energy and EM radiation."


"But don't let my reasoning affect any of your fantasies.", you are very funny, I can't wait for the next installment to find out what your "reasoning" is.

"aether is not matter and it is not energy", perhaps aethereal would be a good description then. By the way, you didn't tell us what "pure energy" is. Would you.....please.

Pure energy is a new drink , obviously you have drunk too much of it!

This is especially good:
- "It found that the aether does not have the property of affecting the propagation of EM radiation."
- "When the "EM" radiation is "in transit" nothing moves from place to place except the vibration of the energy wave itself."
- "In my opinion, it is the aether that allows light to radiate from any source at the measured one foot per nanosecond, regardless of that source's relative motion to any other source."

A vibrating energy wave in an aether medium that doesn't affect the propagation of radiation, but that "vibrates" and "allows" a constant speed of light relative to relative sources. Priceless I shall certainly be more wary of your "opinion" in future, you old joker, you.
Also, by imbedding these sentences at different points of the story, it creates a sort of wave of contradictory nonsense through the text.

Your interpretation of what I wrote is completely off base. Someday you will eat your own words. You are quite consistent, criticizing what you think other people wrote, rather than what they actually wrote!

"I believe EM radiation is a misnomer, since the only thing EM about it is when it is created or absorbed." You even found the time for a hat-tip to what I have been saying. Thanks Bro.

Thanks for that. I bit of light relief in a serious discussion can often be quite welcome. You are very whimsical.

BTW, I read this to my dog and he laughed too.


Michael

Yeah, Spud, my dog read your post, and he thinks you are quite clueless.

The hat tip belongs to me, pal. A glance through the posts reveals that I taught you. Very typical of ego maniacs such as you to claim other's ideas as their own. But I'm happy that you are learning. Very clever of you to change your byline to Michael V from MJV. That way your previous silliness is lost upon recent readers.

The idea about the "photon" being an artifact actually belongs to Bill Beaty: here and Eric Reiter: here, at least that's where I connected the dots a number of years ago.

[sjw40364]

So EM radiation is what between creation and absorption? It is created as an EM phenomenon and absorbed as an EM phenomenon, but travels as something different between the two events?

[Goldminer]

So EM radiation is what between creation and absorption? It is created as an EM phenomenon and absorbed as an EM phenomenon, but travels as something different between the two events?

Yes! You have the right question. All I have for an answer is speculation, unlike MJV, who already "knows." I suspect that going back to the writings of Gauss, Weber, and Ampere, we might be able to figure this out. Bill Beaty is a good resource. Ray Tomes is another. Forrest Bishop has mentioned some alternate ideas, too. Xavier Borg's site has a number of insights. In short, there are many resources available on this subject.

Some speculate that it is zero point energy that vibrates the aether. There are longitudinal forces involved. Vibration in resonance cause a number of reactions. The electron seems to be a monopole electric field generator, and concurrently a dipole magnet, or conversely perhaps the field is the electron. Likewise the proton.

Pointing out the shortfall in someone's ideas is beneficial, but to have some short sighted character and his dog laugh at them just sidelines that person (one such as MJV).

[webolife]

Hey,
I have persistently pointed out the practical [at least to me ] view that the field does indeed originate both charge and mass, not the reverse, but I understand Mr. Goldminer that you are here on the thread to dispute my views [on AAAD]. It's always interesting to me to find both you and MV agreeing with my view at several levels yet thinking we are so different!! It challenges me to find even more points of common understanding and maybe try to be a peacemaker... any chance you two can kiss and make-up? No?

[Goldminer]

Hey,
I have persistently pointed out the practical [at least to me ] view that the field does indeed originate both charge and mass, not the reverse, but I understand Mr. Goldminer that you are here on the thread to dispute my views [on AAAD]. It's always interesting to me to find both you and MV agreeing with my view at several levels yet thinking we are so different!! It challenges me to find even more points of common understanding and maybe try to be a peacemaker... any chance you two can kiss and make-up? No?

As far as kissing, neither one of you is my type! It's not a matter of gender, it's a matter of sex. You are just not the opposite.

Webo, my brother, your research is remarkable on other topics and you make very good points on those subjects, but until you explain your logic and evidence concerning the latency of light under your theory, I cannot entertain it.

MJV, on the other hand, keeps reciting his beliefs without logic and or evidence, apparently under the assumption that the repetition will win him fame and fortune. To make matters worse for him, he assumes that the things he learned here are suddenly his own first insights, of which none of the rest of us are aware.

As far as this thread is concerned, the subject of the aether came up, as it has on several of other threads. I refuse to comment every time someone commits some illogical fallacy. I wait to see if anyone else sees what I see. After a while these problems add up to where I just can't resist a comment.

In my humble opinion, if all who wish to understand electric and magnetic fields were to study the original writings and experiments of Gauss, Ampere, and Weber; we could end up on the same page. Ampere thought of the electron (before it was named "electron") as a magnetic molecule. It has, inherently, both the electric "field" and the magnetic "field." However, Ampere did not seem to respect the idea of "fields." Furthermore, he and Weber found a longitude force inherent in the mix of the molecule's "forces." This longitude action is completely glossed over in the Maxwell theory.

Another peeve I have is that people are giving the "photon" all sorts of fantastic powers. "Photons" are supposed to be particles of light, or EMF. As such, they travel in rectilinear fashion, unless you believe in Einstein's latex aether. They cannot "make up" the aether, since either the aether does not exist, or the aether is the medium in which they propagate. "Photons" cannot propagate on a medium of "photons." How silly is that idea?

Of course my opinion is that "photons" are artifacts, which sets MJV and his dog into uproarious laughter, I suppose; since, if he were to admit I have a point, his theory goes down in flames. Burn, baby, burn! (I hate the smell of burning fur, my sympathy for his dog.)

[Sparky]

Au

Of course my opinion is that "photons" are artifacts

It just struck me, what isn't an artifact? The aether is the only thing I can think of, but then, maybe it is too.

http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/f/photon.htm

photons--have zero mass and rest energy.----carry energy and momentum

how can something with no mass carry energy?

but Compton effect shows that energy is transferred?

This is all very strange!

[webolife]

"Artifact" is perhaps not a helpful word here, but I appreciate the question, and see it something like this:
ENERGY is conceivably a Force Acting Across A Distance, or E=FD... I can conceive a physics where if objects in space are geometrical members of a common field, no carrier is needed for "energy"... likewise mass is only conceivable in terms of its occupied volume, so perhaps there is only density... if mass is a function of Centropic Force, then mass might be conceived of as Force Density, or better; Vector Density with respect to a center. Mass in this conception is not "carried" by something, it is a geometrical attribute of the field of an object. Is it possible in this framework to see both mass and energy as geometrical vector field attributes? I would suggest "charge" be also categorized together with them. This particular conception is somewhat "static", representing Potential Energy. But objects are in motion under these same conditions of Centropic Force, hence we a see a conservation of both Kinetic Energy and PE. Objects are moved by this unrelentless centropy, so there is really no "escape" velocity, hence Centropy = Entropy. All thermodynamics are included in this framework.

[sjw40364]

So EM radiation is what between creation and absorption? It is created as an EM phenomenon and absorbed as an EM phenomenon, but travels as something different between the two events?

Yes! You have the right question. All I have for an answer is speculation, unlike MJV, who already "knows." I suspect that going back to the writings of Gauss, Weber, and Ampere, we might be able to figure this out. Bill Beaty is a good resource. Ray Tomes is another. Forrest Bishop has mentioned some alternate ideas, too. Xavier Borg's site has a number of insights. In short, there are many resources available on this subject.

Some speculate that it is zero point energy that vibrates the aether. There are longitudinal forces involved. Vibration in resonance cause a number of reactions. The electron seems to be a monopole electric field generator, and concurrently a dipole magnet, or conversely perhaps the field is the electron. Likewise the proton.

Pointing out the shortfall in someone's ideas is beneficial, but to have some short sighted character and his dog laugh at them just sidelines that person (one such as MJV).

I am conflicted about our definitions of fields. Gauss, Weber, and Ampere never mentioned magnetic fields or implied them in any of their writings or correspondences. To me they seem to be implying as you said dipole magnetic action from charge interaction. Only after was a field concept applied to the magnetic force mainly by Maxwell and solidified by Eisenstein because he thought Electrodynamics needed correcting.

Hence his first paragraph in his paper “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.”

“It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. . . .”

To which no more mention is made until the last paragraph:

“Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the ‘seat’ of electrodynamic electromotive forces now have no point.”

So Maxwell took away the cause of the asymmetry and Eisenstein made sure no one bothered to research further, after all, there was no longer any point, it was all relative and due only to moving frames, not an inherent phenomena. God said do not look for the source, where it comes from has no point any longer, and all bowed and turned away from electrodynamics and the search for its source.

[Michael V]

webolife, Goldminer,

I'm not keen on cyber-kissing either, but to cut out the pointless cross-talk and facetious comments would be very agreeable.

They cannot "make up" the aether, since either the aether does not exist, or the aether is the medium in which they propagate. "Photons" cannot propagate on a medium of "photons." How silly is that idea?

This is quite revealing as it demonstrates a presupposition of the nature of the aethereal field, which is fine if you want to take that stance, but by no means a proof or proven.

The "aether", as I understand it, was historically, at least for the 19th century, a medium for the propagation of "light" - hinted at by Goldminer's quote above. This is a "waving" aether, whereby the light signal is a wave directly in the aethereal medium. (In order to accommodate action as well, this aether model has been expanded to form the basis of matter as standing-waves/solitons.)

Standard Model thinking appears to reject an "aethereal" field in favour of a "virtual quantum vacuum", whereby no physical or theoretical explanation is given to pretty much anything at all. This approach seems to abhor the notion of physical models or any real attempt at understanding, based on a false scientific scepticism that says we can't really know anything fundamental really, we can only calculate the resulting effects. (Indeed, the theory is developed to utilise elitist mathematics - a shrewd political manoeuvre by 20's/30's "scientists" - maintain power by creating a priesthood that requires many years of study and personal commitment which means that those "on the inside" are unwilling to rock the boat, and those that do are ostracised.) Anyhow, in this model, force is transmitted by discrete particles with either mass or energy, which are conveniently and mathematically freely convertible. Light waves come courtesy of a mathematical "wave-function" supplied by quantum spookiness.

My suggestion is that the aethereal field is a momentum field (you may think of this an energy or action field if you prefer - however, it must be fully understood that "energy" is merely a calculated property based on the motion of a physical object), such that the interaction of field particles and matter gives matter motion. The wave is then with the matter rather than the signal. Clearly a signal is sent and received, so we may refer to that particle stream or wave or collimated pressure as a "photon". I have come to the conclusion , by a method of rigorous logical analysis, that the actual "photon" of which we have access to, belongs to electrons rather than the signal per se. The quantum of energy/motion, as defined by h, must by definition belong to matter, and I suggest that it is due to an inherent and constant 3-dimensional wave motion (i.e. helix) of matter rather than to a delivery, to matter, in quantum packets. The photon is the quantum times frequency, or, a single electron wavelength times frequency. That said, it might be as well to describe the "photon" as the signal and the electron interception of the signal.

Of course my opinion is that "photons" are artifacts, which sets MJV and his dog into uproarious laughter, I suppose; since, if he were to admit I have a point, his theory goes down in flames.

In my recent paper, On the Motion of Matter, I refer to the aethereal signal as photons in order to define a mechanical relationship between sending electron, aethereal field and receiving electron, although, as I say, it is only the electron motion that we have any direct access to. The notion of a single discrete particle delivering a photon's worth of energy is indeed a decidedly dubious model, but the equations have been written and the funding is in place, even if some of us see it as untenable. Suffice it to say, the "photon" as a single discrete particle delivery system fails in several respects, so the actual definition of the term, beyond its presently accepted use, remains available for interpretation. However, Goldminer's comment that "...since either the aether does not exist, or the aether is the medium in which they propagate." is seemingly presupposed on only a waving aether. (Such an aether can only be a particle field where the individual particles and their motion are related by a complex set of inter-particle forces, similar to the forces which we are assigning to the aethereal field itself. Thus a waving aether requires its own sub-aethereal field to provide the forces by which it may wave. That said, it may be enough to consider that it waves - after all, we don't need to know what water is made of to observe a wave motion in water.) But a particle field of non-related particles, i.e. a randomly moving particle field, can have a stream of particles that propagate within the field through empty space, rather than as a function of a "fluid" medium. So, though I would agree that "photons cannot propagate on a medium of photons", a particle signal can travel through, or within, a particle field as long as the particle size and field density allow it.

As far as I can understand, webolife's pressure signal must be a highly collimated inter-galactic one way Newton's cradle of sorts. The difficulties of random or waving particle fields pales into insignificance compared to this model. In particular, it is difficult to see how motion can be included in this model. In effect every single particle of matter in the universe needs to have available to it a potential direct connection to every other particle, although some connections can be blocked.
Just read webolife's latest post, which quite frankly doesn't seem to make coherent sense. I think I can see what you're getting at, but it seems to me that to make it work there is a need to an outside coordinating influence. You are talking about a coordinated universe, where all events are precisely choreographed and coordinated on a vast intergalactic scale.
The waving aether universe suffers from a similar shortcoming. Three dimensional standing waves would require a constant input from all directions. How then do electrons and protons maintain cohesiveness at all distances of separation?. I can't help but feel that this harmonic universe model is a cop out to explain "light waves". Oscillation is just cause and effect across distance, I don't see that it implies or proves a waving fabric of space.
By contrast, my picture of the universe is one of separation and locally defined operation based on local conditions, where the term "local" can be applied at all scales. Perhaps we should be discussing the philosophical rather than mechanical basis for our universal views. It might lead to a better appreciation of differing view points.


Michael

[Michael V]

Sparky,

how can something with no mass carry energy?

but Compton effect shows that energy is transferred?

Questions:
- how is the exact direction of the photon(s) established before, during and after the interaction?
- how is the position, direction and velocity of the electron established before, during and after the interaction?
- on what basis is the "pool table physics" nature of the interaction confirmed or even demonstrated?

Apparently the "photon" is massless, so has no momentum, but does have energy. This does not seem to reconcile with our everyday experience. However, despite being an object or signal without mass or matter construction, it is required to act mechanically as though it were a pool ball - surely this is a conceptual contradiction, but we happily accept the premise as an implied fact.

Since the only way we can ever have any knowledge of "photons" is by their interaction with electrons, we effectively do not know about the "photons" at all beyond their existence as some sort of signal. All we can really claim to know about is the change of behaviour of the electron. Yes we can deduce that a signal exists and that a signal exists after the interaction, but the nature of the signal and the "pool table physics" nature of the interaction is entirely presumed, despite the massless and matterless nature of the "photon" signal.

The Compton effect, and all such "quantum mechanical" interactions are built from conceptually contradictory models. Spooky quantum particles with weird counter-intuitive properties, said to interact in a simplistic collisional manner. In my opinion there is no (significant) energy transmitted or transferred. Instead the signal (i.e. "photon") affected a change in behaviour of the electron and all the energy and force demonstrated by the electron comes directly from its constant interaction with the aethereal field. All attempts to model a transmission and transfer of energy fail by a combination of conceptual and logical contradictions.


Michael

[Sparky]

crompton experiment ireallydonno