What makes 'waves' interact and have effect?

[Heftruck]

Why should 'waves' interact and have effects as if they were particles? It seems absurd and boggles my mind. Every article about waves has those cute pictures of lines running through each other and making funky patterns. They usually conclude with something along the lines of 'these patterns align up nicely and because of that they make up matter'.

Particles are easy to understand. If you put an egg inside a boiling pan, the water level rises, since the particles that makes up the egg and the particles that make up the water can't be in the same location at once, so they push each other out of the way through the path of least resistance, which is up.

But wave theory -always- has those lines simply crossing each other, as if I could just drop the egg through the lid of the boiling pan. Why then, if waves do that, should they have physical effect as if they do the contrary? It seems absurd to me.

Or is this why 'the aether' is required? Are waves just a way to describe the motion, relative to one another, of the particles that make up the aether? And if so; why then has the aether model been so widely discredited in recent scientific times?

[StevenO]

Why should 'waves' interact and have effects as if they were particles? It seems absurd and boggles my mind. Every article about waves has those cute pictures of lines running through each other and making funky patterns. They usually conclude with something along the lines of 'these patterns align up nicely and because of that they make up matter'.

Particles are easy to understand. If you put an egg inside a boiling pan, the water level rises, since the particles that makes up the egg and the particles that make up the water can't be in the same location at once, so they push each other out of the way through the path of least resistance, which is up.

But wave theory -always- has those lines simply crossing each other, as if I could just drop the egg through the lid of the boiling pan. Why then, if waves do that, should they have physical effect as if they do the contrary? It seems absurd to me.

Or is this why 'the aether' is required? Are waves just a way to describe the motion, relative to one another, of the particles that make up the aether? And if so; why then has the aether model been so widely discredited in recent scientific times?

To propagate a wave you need an elastic medium. This medium will propagate the wave with a certain speed outward from where the wave started. Now, if you have multiple waves the medium will create interference between the waveforms since the up and down motions of the wave can be aligned at a certain place and time or not. If two waves have their up and down motions aligned you get a so-called 'standing wave', a place where the wave gets more energetic. This could be interpreted as something material if is is energetic enough.
The 'aether' was the supposed medium for EM waves (light, radio, heat and such), however the Michaelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of a 'material' ether. In Einstein's theories the 'vacuum' still has the same role as the 'aether' though: the propagation of EM waves. The photon particles that make up EM waves are really special: the photon particle itself takes no space (or space smaller than an electron) but the particle propagates as a wave into ALL directions while still being able to be absorbed as a single particle at another atom or electron.

[quasiplanar]

Why should 'waves' interact and have effects as if they were particles? It seems absurd and boggles my mind. Every article about waves has those cute pictures of lines running through each other and making funky patterns. They usually conclude with something along the lines of 'these patterns align up nicely and because of that they make up matter'.

Particles are easy to understand. If you put an egg inside a boiling pan, the water level rises, since the particles that makes up the egg and the particles that make up the water can't be in the same location at once, so they push each other out of the way through the path of least resistance, which is up.

But wave theory -always- has those lines simply crossing each other, as if I could just drop the egg through the lid of the boiling pan. Why then, if waves do that, should they have physical effect as if they do the contrary? It seems absurd to me.

Or is this why 'the aether' is required? Are waves just a way to describe the motion, relative to one another, of the particles that make up the aether? And if so; why then has the aether model been so widely discredited in recent scientific times?

Mainly, it's due to the stabilization of the orbiting electrons. Matter will resist change. Inertial consequences when an energetic wave interacts and disrupts; this causes movement, in order that you don't end with an ion. The electrons become either free, or begin to move with the main mass, typically in the direction of the wave.

A good analogy is a sail boat. Although the wind is present, it's force vector is applied to the sail. Causing the boats keel to give resistance and direction in the water. Travel then occurs.

Think of it as mainly energy, which if allowed infinite penetration, would alter matter, and hence reality, all together.

[Solar]

To propagate a wave you need an elastic medium. This medium will propagate the wave with a certain speed outward from where the wave started. Now, if you have multiple waves the medium will create interference between the waveforms since the up and down motions of the wave can be aligned at a certain place and time or not. If two waves have their up and down motions aligned you get a so-called 'standing wave', a place where the wave gets more energetic. This could be interpreted as something material if is is energetic enough.

Agreed. However, the Michaelson-Morley experiment did not disprove the existence of the Aether. It disproved the existence of the Aether as stationary, 'static', or rigid. This was the consideration during those times. That the Aether was rigid. It is not. It is dynamical.

The assumption was that *IF* the Aether were stationary that there should be a 'slip' or 'drag' as the Earth moved through it. The 'slip' was never found. Meaning that the Aether was not stationary as expected. They never looked for, or reasoned toward - a dynamical Aether. Aetherometry did. Successfully.

Functionalism is, in general, taken to mean the principle that form or structure (conceptual, aesthetic, scientific, etc) follow, or should follow, function. A major part of the problem of functionalism resides in the determination of what is meant by function or functions. - Notes on MicroFunctionalism: orgonomic, molecular and aetherometric functionalism

Yes, you've heard that expressed differently before eh? It is a disjunction to consider the 'particle' as being separate from it's accompanying wave function.

...wave and particle are the fundamental physical properties of energy...

...wave and particle properties are strict energy functions...

...we can no longer admit to disembodied waves devoid of energy functions - like the electromagnetic phase waves of Cerenkov's model. No particle or momentum can part company with its waves, whether intrinsic to that particle or associated with it (extrinsic). Cerenkov's phase wave can only be the wave function of some other particle, a true pilot or guiding wave...

...energy and its superimposition of particle and wave properties is the common functioning principle of all energy manifestations ...

So that, the particle/wave 'duality' are a synthesis of at least two other functions.

In light of the particle/wave example ...

...we may indistinctly say that energy is a physical function that produces itself by synthesizing irreducibly different manifolds, or by coupling particles, whether massbound or massfree, to their waves, or, still, by the primary superimposition of waves...

Hence the very first microfunction - that of energy in the most abstract or general case - is a biheaded function, one that superimposes waves to create

I had to have a good sit down with the above article. It uses some unfamiliar terms but it relays, to me, a clear understanding of this relationship. The coupling of "waves" is one of the ways the quantum world 'branches' resulting in the formation of form and structure. The other function is to synthesize via superimposition (sharing the same space) resulting in the formation of a third component. For example, two 'particles' and their accompanying 'waves' may couple resulting in the synthesis of a third object (form of energy) distinct from the original two. A synthesis even though the original two energy functions may be different.

...they [quantum objects] pursue the logic of the order of energy (the autonomous logic of a process, its cyclicity, wave behaviour, its order or regime of syntheses, its repetition, etc...

...it is an element that leads from the variations to their CFP [common functioning principle] (what Reich called "the natural history" of a process), a conjunction, a synthesis of the different that describes a transformation, a becoming. The relation between terms is already a third term, the term of a differentiation between them, and a fourth or nth term, the term of their conjunction, the natural history of their synthetic constructs...)

[my italics]

I'd recommend giving that doc a good read. I think it will help with your question. You could start with section 2.2 but I think it may loose something with the terminology.

[junglelord]

The stuff we call matter is made up of five dimensions.
Length-Area-Volume(quantum resonance) which is distributed frequency, space-time (linear frequency)
Charge both EM and ES both which are distributed....it is here that the particle idea dies.

Mass which is the linear aspect of EM charge, and it is here that mass takes on meaning.


Aether is a rotating magnetic field with a quantum spin of 2
e-, p+ are the two fundamental distributed charges.
Neutrons only exist for 14 minutes on their own.
They are not fundamental.


The wave/particle duality exists due to the distributed charge having nodes of harmonic resonance.
The identification of a node looks like a particle. Identification of the distributed charge looks like a wave.
It is neither, which it has to be, to look like both.


Distributed charge is the surface of a sphere or a toroid. Its geometry is represented in Tesla Coils, especially the Magnifying Transmitter, three coil system, of Longitudinal EM transmission. That is Scalar Technology.


The identification of pi in many quantum constants reveals that spherical geometry is also a dimension.
The relationship of a 2 quantum spin rmf (aether) which encapsulates 1/2 spin interger matter, creates the relationship of PHI on the second cycle. PHI, pi, e, are the numeral generators of matter.

The fact that the north and south poles ARE NOT EQUAL, reveals the harmonic differential equation. This is the zero point harmonic. The fact that music, magnets, have a point symmetry break, is the zero point harmonic.

Nine is the upper zero....the work of buckminsterfuller, tensegrity, the aether physics model, blazelabs, treeincarnation, all show the same geometry of relationship, sacred geometry of the most importance. Spin domains are relevant and very real....check your hands and determine why the EM rules of thumb apply by hand directions...study the gyroscope to learn why the right hand rule of thumb exists....explain the rule, do not just name it...then you understand the reasons for these spins domains.

Think of a spirograph. Think of the outer wheel as the 2 spin rmf of aether, think of the inner wheel as the 1/2 spin interger of angular momentum...over time it draws the flower. This is what goes on at the quantum level. Aether encapsulates angular momentum, and in so doing donates ES charge. The circular string of mass aquires EM charge in proportion to that mass as it scans the aether. The volume created by this scan, is the place where quantum resonance begins. The result of PHI over time is no big deal once you take the ratios of a 2 spin rmf, encapsulate a 1/2 spin and let it run. Mathcad will do this nicely.

[altonhare]

Why should 'waves' interact and have effects as if they were particles?

The question is, at once, ill-conceived. "Wave" is an interaction/motion itself, rather than a thing. Your question is like asking why jumpings can interact. The question is how do the things which are doing the jumping interact? How does the thing which is waving interact?

It seems absurd and boggles my mind.

As it should, since discussing interaction without the thing which is actually doing the interacting makes no sense at all. Your confusion is not an indication of stupidity or inability on your part, but rather a resistance to concede the illogical.

Every article about waves has those cute pictures of lines running through each other and making funky patterns. They usually conclude with something along the lines of 'these patterns align up nicely and because of that they make up matter'.

Right, the description "waving" is just that, a description. A description doesn't tell you what IS there. A description just tells you what it (whatever it is) does.

Pictures are deceptive in that they lure you into thinking that waves are actual things, and that what they are proposing is an actual explanation involving a fundamental understanding. Rather, all that you are being presented with is a description.

Particles are easy to understand. If you put an egg inside a boiling pan, the water level rises, since the particles that makes up the egg and the particles that make up the water can't be in the same location at once, so they push each other out of the way through the path of least resistance, which is up.

I agree, particles are easy to visualize and illustrate/explain repulsion (push) very well. What's impossible to explain with discrete particles is attraction (pull). How does one discrete, separate entity physically pull another?

But wave theory -always- has those lines simply crossing each other, as if I could just drop the egg through the lid of the boiling pan. Why then, if waves do that, should they have physical effect as if they do the contrary? It seems absurd to me.

Or is this why 'the aether' is required? Are waves just a way to describe the motion, relative to one another, of the particles that make up the aether? And if so; why then has the aether model been so widely discredited in recent scientific times?

Those lines are there to make you think that the proponent's explanation involves an actual physical object (a shape). They are not claiming that something like these lines exists in reality and interact with each other. They will insist against this.

The only "aether model" that has been discredited is as Solar said, the stationary aether. As far as relativity and TSM are concerned, there is definitely "something" we don't directly observe (through sight) that is between the entities we do observe directly through sight. Space-time, higgs fields, virutal particles, etc.

[junglelord]

The only "aether model" that has been discredited is as Solar said, the stationary aether.

Oh really?
How in the hell can a 2 spin rmf be stationary?
Man your stuck in threads of your own design and refuse to learn anything I submit.

[StevenO]

<..snip..> there is definitely "something" we don't directly observe (through sight) that is between the entities we do observe directly through sight. Space-time, higgs fields, virutal particles, etc.

There is more in the world than just photons But indeed, some call it 'dark energy', some call it 'aether', some call it 'active vacuum', 'virtual particles' or 'big bang', some call it 'space-time progression'. There must be some counterforce at play that hides in the "vacuum". Would be interesting to compare the assumed properties of these different background fields or counter-forces.

[altonhare]

The only "aether model" that has been discredited is as Solar said, the stationary aether.

Oh really?
How in the hell can a 2 spin rmf be stationary?
Man your stuck in threads of your own design and refuse to learn anything I submit.

Do you disagree with what Solar said about the stationary aether being discredited?

What does that have to do with "learning anything you submit"?

[junglelord]

Everyone by now should be aware that the "field" b/t two magnets is the Aether.
It is a perfect liquid, perfect solid, perfect gas, perfect plasma...and functions like each one all at the same time.
It is not stationary, it is a rotating magnetic field with a quantum spin of 2.

[StevenO]

Everyone by now should be aware that the "field" b/t two magnets is the Aether.
It is a perfect liquid, perfect solid, perfect gas, perfect plasma...and functions like each one all at the same time.
It is not stationary, it is a rotating magnetic field with a quantum spin of 2.

The field between two magnets is called a "magnetic field" It is not "aether", permanents magnets have a "magnetic charge", the two dimensional equivalent of an electric charge.

If the "aether magnetic field" would be rotating we could tap electricity from it. Tesla showed the world how to do that...can you tell me where to put the plug?

[junglelord]

No plug needed, triple coil system of induction.
DC Pulse, high frequency, high voltage.

[seasmith]

No plug needed, triple coil system of induction.
DC Pulse, high frequency, high voltage.

JL,

Are you applying the DC pulse, or tapping it ?

s