What Do We Know For Certain?

[tayga]

what if that line has not only been crossed but scuffed, trampled upon, and buried?....

I'm surprised you could still see it after I'd fallen over it.... sideways.

[phyllotaxis]

On the other hand, "particles" such as electrons and protons have characteristics of being standing waves, known as solitons.

Sooo . . . the case can be made opposite mjv1121's: That particles do not exist; and everything is made of waves! (link:) The material Universe is solely made out of Aether

What a juicy link-- thank you for that. It's going to keep me reading for hours

[phyllotaxis]

One thing that stands out to me that is potentially erroneous about the man's otherwise coherent and compelling framework is this passage on his page titled "Gravity":

The list is not exhaustive. Many more phenomena appear rather strange and need to be more carefully explained. However, there is no need to calculating gravity in a totally new way. Newton's equation works to a first approximation, and then one must make some adjustments for special cases if needed.

The light is not affected by gravity. However, electrons are capable of regenerating some new light, for example inside air, water or optical glass. So one can explain similar deviations by the presence of particles, especially close to the Sun or stars. Because of the variable solar wind, this deviation should not be constant, albeit the particle speed may compensate for variable density. This was demonstrated by the Fizeau experiment. A gaseous cloud around or inside a galaxy may also produce a lens effect. And finally, a black hole cannot emit any light simply because its plasma cannot. It is a well known fact that matter inside a quasar or pulsar is highly compressed into a very dense plasma. Such matter surely cannot emit normal light because of its severely modified structure, albeit external gaseous rings or layers still can.

There is no General Relativity because gravity rarely involves "relativistic" speed. Gravity is just a regular force, quite similar to all other forces. Surely, gravity cannot "bend space". It is geometrically impossible. This hypothesis is totally absurd, actually an insult to our intelligence. What's more, it does not mechanically explain anything.

Frankly, did you really believe that?

It is much better to simply admit Newton's law.

Aside from this, which might be attributed to the author's simple ignorance of the EU work that nullifies these entities rather convincingly, I think this fellow has quite a deck of organized research and development to display on his site.
It is worthy of a dedicated thread, methinks.

Read the last page, which is his conclusion: http://glafreniere.com/sa_conclusion.htm

Here's an excerpt-

In conclusion.

It is obviously a major discovery. We could have feared a resulting Apocalypse, for example some kind of "gravity bomb". But not at all. Fire will still burn the same way it always did.

Anyone knowledgeable in standing waves could rapidly reach the same conclusions. The wave forming the electron turned out to be surprisingly simple. Starting from there, everything falls into place. Everything can be explained. There are never any anomalies. Never any exceptions. Complex equations are not necessary, and Euclid's geometry is sufficient. We are very far from the decidedly weird ideas of General Relativity.

It is possible that I am mistaken. On your part, if your intelligence allows you to doubt all this, it also demands you verify it. I would challenge you to firstly examine my Time Scanner, which is certainly the best tool in order to understand well the Doppler effect, then the Lorentz transformations, and finally, Relativity. If you still do not admit that this device is fantastic, forget about all the rest.

You cannot rightfully reject this hypothesis without having first studied it. You cannot rightfully pontificate on the unknown from the height of your university studies or overly vast experience.

Let me remind you that most phenomena mentioned here are as yet unexplained. So you should look for plausible hypotheses, and in my judgment this one is especially interesting because it is simple.

Imagine: just electrons!

The denizens of EU theory should reach out to this man, as he may have a useful component of the toolkit to explain the whole.

[Sparky]

this one is especially interesting because it is simple.

simple?!...i'm overwhelmed....


Michael, mjv, in the " What is Electricity" thread summed it up with,

what does a wave look like after it has been chopped into lots of tiny little pieces?

Conclusion being, we have particle waves as the aether, interacting with electron waves riding on them.



I have read through several papers and have learned some things.
He explains things so that i can understand them.
I don't get anything from the graphics, except the one showing the colliding balls.

the site says,

""The law of conservation of mass and energy always holds true.-- --This additional mass is pure condensed kinetic energy. --- This produces "gluons" or gluonic fields. They are plane cylindrical standing wave systems which are also amplified by aether waves making their energy much more intense than that of one electron alone.--"

If energy is transfered from the aether to a mass, does that not indicate that there is an excess of energy in the universe, which can be transferred without taking energy away from some other source?

If that is true, isn't the Law of Conservation of mass and energy falsified. ?

[Goldminer]

this one is especially interesting because it is simple.

simple?!...i'm overwhelmed....


[quote="Michael, mjv, in the " What is Electricity" thread"]what does a wave look like after it has been chopped into lots of tiny little pieces?

Conclusion being, we have particle waves as the aether, interacting with electron waves riding on them.[/quote]

Photons, IMHO, are artifacts. Mjv and Einsteinians have put the particle idea in your thoughts. They exist only where EMR interacts with matter, i.e. at emission and reception. See: No photons

Go out to a calm lake early in the morning; it is glassy smooth. Come back late in the afternoon, after the water skiers have had their fun; it is choppy as can be. This is what waves chopped up look like. Look at a hologram. It looks all chopped up. Apply the reference laser to the hologram; the original 3D scene reappears. As I answered on the What is electricity thread, the aether is not waves; it is what waves.

I have read through several papers and have learned some things. He [glafrenier?] explains things so that I can understand them. I don't get anything from the graphics, except the one showing the colliding balls.

the site "The law of conservation of mass and energy always holds true.-- --This additional mass is pure condensed kinetic energy. --- This produces "gluons" or gluonic fields. They are plane cylindrical standing wave systems which are also amplified by aether waves making their energy much more intense than that of one electron alone.--"

If energy is transferred from the aether to a mass, does that not indicate that there is an excess of energy in the universe, which can be transferred without taking energy away from some other source?

If that is true, isn't the Law of Conservation of mass and energy falsified. ?

In isolation; yes, over all; no. If energy is transferred from the aether to a mass, the energy was transferred from somewhere else, at an earlier time, to the aether. In this respect, the aether is the medium, not the actor.

.

[phyllotaxis]

I made a dedicated thread for LaFreniere's Wave Theory in the Future Science thread

HERE

Might as well focus this discussion a little.

[mjv1121]

Goldminer, Sparky,

Photons, IMHO, are artifacts. Mjv and Einsteinians have put the particle idea in your thoughts.

I think you find that Newton, and no doubt others, got there first. Personally, I reasoned it through from first principles, without recourse to a belief agenda.

Waves that interfere to present as particles - the degree of convolution is ridiculous in the extreme. Waves that interfere in such a very specific way as to manufacture the appearance of particles - waves or particles?

Photons, no matter the frequency are always quantised by precisely h and they are always measured to travel at c - very regular, discrete, electron emitted, predictable - "artefacts" or particles?

Whatever, explanations you choose to advocate, just be sure that they do not violate the laws of mechanical motion.

1) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause. This also serves as proof that action at a distance is not possible.
2) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision. This is firmly proved by the certainty that force at a distance is not possible.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical.

Michael

[Goldminer]

4) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision. This is firmly proved by the certainty that force at a distance is not possible.
Michael

Your cite for this "immutable" law?

OK, everybody, mjv has the perfect proof for any imagined theory: just recite these five words in your proof: "Firmly proved by the certainty." Better yet, just use this acronym: FPBTC

Easy peasy!

.

[mjv1121]

Goldminer,

Your cite for this "immutable" law?

: "A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause. This also serves as proof that action at a distance is not possible."


You may laugh all you wish, however, by advocating for action at a distance, you have in a stroke removed all your logical and scientific credibility. The joke is on you, since it is you that has chosen to wear the hat of absurdity.

Michael

[tayga]

"A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. This might also be summarised as all effects must have a cause. This also serves as proof that action at a distance is not possible."

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Who are you quoting here?

The third statement is NOT a consequence of the first two.This is a non sequitur which you insist on repeating. It is a logical fallacy that undermines your credibility in this argument.

[mjv1121]

What we firmly know with absolute, complete and immutable certainty:

1) All effects must have a cause.

2) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical.
6) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision. This is may also be summarised as momentum can only be transferred by physical contact.
7) Action, or force, at a distance is not possible.

All the above are of course self-evident. 2 thru 7 are really just a logical outcome of 1.

Michael

[Goldminer]

What we firmly know with absolute, complete and immutable certainty:

1) All effects must have a cause.

2) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
3) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred. This might also be summarised as the conservation of momentum and by extension, the conservation of energy.
4) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
5) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical.
6) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision. This is may also be summarised as momentum can only be transferred by physical contact.
7) Action, or force, at a distance is not possible.

All the above are of course self-evident. 2 thru 7 are really just a logical outcome of 1.

Michael

The above statements are subject to FPBTC*, Micheal"s special dispensation used to avoid his logical fallacies, using the (well known by mjv) principle of "firmly known with absolute, complete and immutable certainty."

Light exhibits certain behaviors that are characteristic of any wave and would be difficult to explain with a purely particle-view. Light reflects in the same manner that any wave would reflect. Light refracts in the same manner that any wave would refract. Light diffracts in the same manner that any wave would diffract. Light undergoes interference in the same manner that any wave would interfere. And light exhibits the Doppler effect just as any wave would exhibit the Doppler effect. Light behaves in a way that is consistent with our conceptual and mathematical understanding of waves. Since light behaves like a wave, one would have good reason to believe that it might be a wave . . . Light behaves as a wave - it undergoes reflection, refraction, and diffraction just like any wave would. Yet there is still more reason to believe in the wavelike nature of light. Continue with Lesson 1 to learn about more behaviors that could never be explained by a strictly particle-view of light. Link

Of course, Michael can FPBTC* all these wave properties of light.

*"Firmly proven by the certainty."

.

[Aardwolf]

7) Action, or force, at a distance is not possible.

Can you just confirm which action at a distance you are referring to? Are you talking about two objects effecting each other at a distance when there is no possible interaction (magnetism, gravity etc.), or are you talking about when two objects are effecting each other over a distance greater than allowable by c?

[Sparky]

7) Action, or force, at a distance is not possible.

Can you just confirm which action at a distance you are referring to? Are you talking about two objects effecting each other at a distance when there is no possible interaction (magnetism, gravity etc.), or are you talking about when two objects are effecting each other over a distance greater than allowable by c?

That phrase had me confused, as i took it literally, though i can see how, "at a distance", could mean no connecting medium.

I guess it is a phrase that was used by Einstein or somebody, in a scientific jargon way, to refer to two objects effecting each other at a distance when there is no possible mechanical interaction. I still have to stop and think what is being meant by mjv and others who use it.

Could we change it to, Action, or force, at a distance, without a *mechanical medium, is not possible."



*we hate waves of and through nothingness....

[mjv1121]

Aardwolf,

I am referring to action without some form of physical contact. The implication, both unavoidable and intended, is that gravity and magnetism are caused by the physical contact of something : an agent. I am in effect, postulating that force, that is to say momentum transfer, requires direct physical contact at some level.
(I may posit what that agent is, although my ideas and opinions about the nature and operation of that agent may change over time and no specifics are intended at this juncture, merely the principle.)

Obviously, force fields are invisible other than by their affect. So it would seem that there are three possible positions to take with regard to force fields:
- action at a distance is impossible, so even though we cannot see anything, there must be an agent acting
- action at a distance is possible, we cannot see anything, because there is nothing there
- action at a distance may be possible, since we have no observational proof one way or the other

The third option may at first glance appear to be the safe and reasonable option. However, I consider that the first option is utterly obvious and that actually it is the only safe and reasonable stance to take. I dismiss the second option as absurd and the third option to be a failed cop-out because no "proof" is required, since the premise is logically self-evident.

Perhaps there are some who may choose to construct an argument that I am stating an unjustified belief, and by that value judgement basis they may be correct. However, since the premise ACTION AT A DISTANCE IS IMPOSSIBLE is obvious and logically self-evident, any argument against is tantamount to at best the third option, which although not as openly preposterous and the second option it is equally absurd by implication.....so there!.

Michael