Positive and Negative

[Michael V]

seasmith,

No attractive force, just harmonics of frequencies ...

So you have charge packets with an oscillation between on and off, ie with an amplitude or without.
If not amplitude, or presence, of charge (and it may not be), then what IS recurring to maintain a frequency ?
How can you ditch dichotomy while it is fundamental to your discreet aether unit ?

I confess that I do, on occasion (i.e. most of the time), have some difficulty in understanding your use of English - do not take offence, you may consider it my failing. I am interested in your point of view, but am unsure as to the precise meaning of your questions. With this in mind would you be so kind as to re-phrase your post please.

Michael

[seasmith]

Sure.
You have repeatedly used the word "frequency".
Do the individual units in your "electromagnetic quantum aether field" oscillate ?

[Michael V]

seasmith,

..."frequency". Do the individual units in your "electromagnetic quantum aether field" oscillate ?

No and as is well known, light has no amplitude.

You may need to use your imagination a tad, but these represent "frequency photons", built of quantum aether particles. The dots represent the particles, each particle has a kinetic energy of h:

.............................................................................................. = high frequency, e.g. x-ray, gamma

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . = medium, e.g. visible

. . . . . . . . . = low frequency, e.g. microwave, radio

Obviously, these frequencies are not to scale, as I didn't have time to type a billion trillion quantum particles.

Do you dig where I'm coming from?

Michael

[Michael V]

Oops, preview doesn't really represent submit very well

[seasmith]

MV,
Dig ya daddyo, as to the obvious 'EM/photonic/radio/etc' spectrum of frequencies,
but i'm actually trying to drill down to the OP question re positive and negative states, so my question is only pertaining to your (proposed) discreet " EM quantum aether particles".

Are you here saying that they exist in a permanent steady state ? No emissions ? No spin ? Ideal gas random motion ?
Please elaborate on the Fundamental aetheric particle.

s

[Michael V]

The "charge" particles emitted by the electron and proton that enable them to present the appearance of an action at a distance are NOT positive and negative. The charge particles are simply kinetic - mass in motion - when they collide with something a force may be produced.

The effects of positive and negative, so beloved by those so near and dear to us, are a reactive property of the particles themselves. So:

- an electron "acts" negatively (i.e. it goes one way), but it does not convey any negative-ness to other objects - its charge is not negative, its charge is simply a kinetic emission.

- a proton "acts" positively (i.e. it goes the other way), but it does not convey any positive-ness to other objects - its charge is not positive, its charge is simply a kinetic emission.

"Charge" cannot be separated. Charge emitters, i.e. electrons and protons, can be separated from each other, but they cannot be segregated - you cannot have a big cloud of electrons over here and a big cloud of protons over there. How would you achieve such a feat? - the electrons will repel each other and the protons will repel each other. If you did succeed in building diffuse electron cloud and diffuse proton clouds, held loosely together by gravity, it would still be incorrect to attribute them to be negative and positive.

Protons have a significant gravitational effect and so they attract, but only to the point of proximity that repulsive charge emission will allow. In this respect they may be considered positive.

Electrons are less massive and so, produce a much smaller gravitational effect, but their charge is still significantly repulsive. In this respect they may be considered negative.

This is not quite the full explanation, but you should try to maintain a scientific attitude and do not be taken-in by the purveyors of "electric magic". There is simply objects in motion and collision, following the laws of motion. Pushed together "attractively" by gravity and pushed apart "repulsively" by charge.

Michael

[Sparky]

ok, so esplain to me the charges of largish ions, which may have an extra electron or missing one or more? And also the "sharing" of electrons? Why would atoms share?
And why would a moving, large +ion be considered electricity? There are no free electrons to align!

[Michael V]

Sparky,

And also the "sharing" of electrons? Why would atoms share?

Do they? I'm not saying they don't, but do they?

The physics of chemistry is on my "to do list".

And why would a moving, large +ion be considered electricity?

By whom? and why?

Michael

[seasmith]

Michael V » Sun Mar 04, 2012 5:38 am

The "charge" particles emitted by the electron and proton that enable them to present the appearance of an action at a distance are NOT positive and negative. The charge particles are simply kinetic - mass in motion - when they collide with something a force may be produced.

The effects of positive and negative, so beloved by those so near and dear to us, are a reactive property of the particles themselves. So:

- an electron "acts" negatively (i.e. it goes one way), but it does not convey any negative-ness to other objects - its charge is not negative, its charge is simply a kinetic emission.

- a proton "acts" positively (i.e. it goes the other way), but it does not convey any positive-ness to other objects - its charge is not positive, its charge is simply a kinetic emission.

"Charge" cannot be separated. Charge emitters, i.e. electrons and protons, can be separated from each other, but they cannot be segregated - you cannot have a big cloud of electrons over here and a big cloud of protons over there. How would you achieve such a feat? - the electrons will repel each other and the protons will repel each other. If you did succeed in building diffuse electron cloud and diffuse proton clouds, held loosely together by gravity, it would still be incorrect to attribute them to be negative and positive.

Protons have a significant gravitational effect and so they attract, but only to the point of proximity that repulsive charge emission will allow. In this respect they may be considered positive.

Electrons are less massive and so, produce a much smaller gravitational effect, but their charge is still significantly repulsive. In this respect they may be considered negative.

This is not quite the full explanation, but you should try to maintain a scientific attitude and do not be taken-in by the purveyors of "electric magic". There is simply objects in motion and collision, following the laws of motion. Pushed together "attractively" by gravity and pushed apart "repulsively" by charge.

Michael,

Not sure who's post you were responding to there, but if it was mine, you were tap-dancing all around the question.
My request remains:

Please elaborate on [your] Fundamental aetheric particle.

Those which presumably are the basis for your " " electromagnetic quantum aether field " "

and we'll go from there
thank you,
s

[Michael V]

seasmith,

Are you here saying that they exist in a permanent steady state ? No emissions ? No spin ? Ideal gas random motion ?

permanent steady state? Yes
No emissions? No
No spin? I would assume that they do spin.
Ideal gas random motion? Utterly random!

Michael

[Goldminer]

Even Michael V is not sure how his theory works, but you better believe him, it does work! Don't be confusing him with questions!

[seasmith]

permanent steady state? Yes
No emissions? No
No spin? I would assume that they do spin.
Ideal gas random motion? Utterly random!

Michael

So you have just described discreet particles, in a 'steady' state, probably spinning and moving relative to each other in random motion.

So, moving within what medium?
Try to thinking logically; If they are spinning/spherical, and not tetrahedral, there is space between them.

What is the whole and total matrix?
Obviously there is particle and non-particle in you picture.

Hence my original comment:

How can you ditch dichotomy, while it is fundamental to your discreet aetheric unit ?

yinYangsm.jpg (5.81 KiB) Viewed 876 times

on/off x in/out

[Michael V]

seasmith,

So, moving within what medium?

Totally and completely empty space.

Try to thinking logically

Who are you talking to?

If they are spinning/spherical, and not tetrahedral, there is space between them.

The totally and completely empty space between individual quantum aether particles is likely in the order of thousands of radii.

What is the whole and total matrix?

Empty space, inside of which is:
- aether: the quantum aether particle field, with quantum aether particles that travel at c
- matter: electrons and protons (and neutrons)

The interactions between aether and matter are responsible for gravity and charge, while photons can be thought of as a "quirk" of electron operation.

Not sure where you're going with all this, but I'll play for a bit longer.

How can you ditch dichotomy, while it is fundamental to your discreet aetheric unit ?

Would you please translate/re-phrase this for me.

Michael

[seasmith]

Try to thinking logicall
-s

Who are you talking to?
- mv

I don't know, who were you talking to when you were on about some "electric magic" ?

How can you ditch dichotomy, while it is fundamental to your discreet aetheric unit ?

Would you please translate/re-phrase this for me.

Michael

How can you deny a fundamental duality that is inherent in your own thesis ?

cheers
s

[Solar]

What is the whole and total matrix?

Empty space, inside of which is:
- aether: the quantum aether particle field, with quantum aether particles that travel at c
Michael

This destroys your "Quantum Aether Particles". Space is not empty; the concept of "fields" affected to "particles" and simply loitering in "free space" is a contradiction. The notion of space as a 'void' of pure unadulterated 'emptiness' came from Democritus (460-370 B.C.) and is part of the "Atomist" theory which posits space as completely empty. This antiquated notion is what drives the entirety of your other obsession, "action-at-a-distance", owing to that doctrine, though very old indeed, still infecting the physics of the modern era. No decent Aether Theory will posit such a thing as "Totally and completely empty space" as even modern day theory replaces 'empty space' with an active "vacuum" in order to usurp the Aether that came long before them and/or to rid their notions of creation ex nihilo.

seasmith,

Are you here saying that they exist in a permanent steady state ? No emissions ? No spin ? Ideal gas random motion ?

No emissions? No
...
Ideal gas random motion? Utterly random!

Michael

This also destroys your "Quantum Aether Particles". The Aether is not undergoing 'random billiard-ball collisions'. Its motion is vortical and has sub-vortical movements as well. It is this vortical movement of the Aether that imparts 'Rotation' to celestial objects.

There are also phases of the Aether that know nothing about Einstein's self-imposed assumptive limit (its not a constant) of the supposed 'speed of light'. What is actually being 'measured is the 'reaction-time' of the material through which superluminal Aether 'excitation waves' pass and energetically infuse subsequently producing "photons" (secondaries) in their wake. A 'speed to light' was an assumption then; it is an assumption now.