Matter is made of only waves?

[Plasmatic]

David Talbott on Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:46 am

Just a thought for you folks before this thread grows more heated.

Well Dave ...Do you want me to respond publicly or privately? While My respect and admiration for you and your efforts are undiminished, I must respectfully disagree !

[Tzunamii]

TZU may I humbly point you to the person who has taught me that lesson so well. I double dog dare you to read
INTRODUCTION TO OBJECTIVIST EPISTEMOLOGY by Ayn Rand

Ill check it out and get back to ya .

[StefanR]

Plasmatic, does the wikipage on Ayn Rand give a good impression of her, or is it grossly distorted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

[Plasmatic]

Well i happen to scroll down and read the the section on her books and they failed to mention that ATLAS SHRUGGED has sold more copies than any other book in HISTORY save 1 ...The bible.. So Ill read the rest in a while but its not looking good..

[JoeTB]

I was excited for a minute when I saw there was 4 pages that people might be discussing the wave theory.

There is another definition of the word 'spin' and I see a lot of it going on here. I don't see the point of dishonest communications.

[Solar]

You know what is ironically amusing? Most individuals interested in Electric Universe theory are interested because of 'natural objectivism' and don't realize it. Each has made an individual contrast of the 'standard model' and it's conceptual interpretive nomenclature with regard to certain celestial and terrestrial events and found them seriously lacking with regard to objectivity. Each has considered what has been offered via EU and have, to a greater or lesser degree, recognized that a stream or flow of electrons, as relates those celestial events, constitutes the electrical force at work as an operative aspect of the universe. The ever mounting evidence, let alone past verifications, supports and demands such a conclusion.

This also points to the poignancy of Electric Universe theory as opposed to the 'standard model'. The later doesn't rationally call a thing; what it is, whereas the former does. I submit that it has been each individual's naturally occurring 'objectivist' tendencies all along that has drawn, and continues to draw, those interested in critical thinking who intuitively and rationally understand that A does equal A. To me, that is precisely why we're all here, as opposed to basking in the subjective and delusional glory of the 'mainstream model'.

That being said I do agree with several of D. Thompson's ideas from a cursory reading of his discussion with a scientist on his website. But that agreement comes from contrasting ideas put forth by H. Aspden, the Correas, 'stress' concepts as interpreted from Maxwell, Dr. Scott, D. Talbott, Dollard, Tesla, Thornhill etc. However member Junglelord made a point some while ago which, I think, is vital to an approach to these matters. It is probably beneficial that much be dealt with 'conceptually'. That allows one the freedom of 'movement' in understanding from one expression to another through contrast, comparison and a conceptual 'synthesis' of ideas.

Other than that; do you people ever stop being interesting?

[webolife]

Reply to Blue Crab on Young's double-slit "interference" experiment:
Elsewhere [moderators, do you know where this is? I can't find it since the accidental demolition of the previous forum], I explained a model for so-called "interference" and "diffraction" in which we see these patterns as a light field pressure gradient.
The image you referenced is a contortion of Young's actual finding in at least these ways:
1. The image's arrows are set up linearly, but in an accurate moire diagram of intersecting wavefronts, you will notice the "nodal" lines are actually hyperbolic [some might say hypercycloidal]. This was ignored by Young but anyone with a home-made double slit apparatus will be able to see clearly that these lines are in fact rectilinear, defying Young's wave explanation.
2. The alleged wavelengths of light are so close together that their interaction with the slit widths in the experiment would not match the diagramatic version.
3. Young's idea of interference was that the pattern was manifest only in the presence of a beam splitter. Moreover, the diagramatic explanation of wave interference requires the beamsplitter be coplanar with the slit edges, but the actual experiment, and many more you can try yourself, can be done with the beamsplitter in many planes or multiple planes, still yielding the same redundant spectral pattern. "Diffraction" has the same redundant spectra without a beamsplitter, although using a "correct" slit width is required to demonstrate this. Young undoubtedly must have seen this but concluded "interference" anyway.
4. The pattern is demonstrable using ONLY the beamsplitter! Take a long hair and place it in front of your pupil to observe any small light filament, such as the kind they put on Christmas strings, and voila there's your pattern.
5. The pattern [at least half of it!] will show up along a single edge! This is also responsible for much of the light streaks you see through squinted eyelids, if you hadn't already noticed this, but a more distinct pattern is available with a little care in producing good light contrasted conditions.
6. Redundant spectra defy conventional EM explanation, whether in spectrographic settings or in rainbows and haloes. Mie theory or other mathematical attempts to describe "supernumeraries" are simply that, mathematical attempts to describe... offering little in the way of actual demonstration that light is physically waving anywhere.

In other posts of mine, you will see that I do not subscribe to a wave [nor a particle] theory of light, but to an understanding of light as a field pressure gradient phenomenon, acting instananeously across space, akin to voltage. I'll try to post more details later... as it is I do all this stuff while I'm trying to get work done.............................

[bboyer]

<snip>
In other posts of mine, you will see that I do not subscribe to a wave [nor a particle] theory of light, but to an understanding of light as a field pressure gradient phenomenon, acting instananeously across space, akin to voltage. I'll try to post more details later... as it is I do all this stuff while I'm trying to get work done.............................

Ran across this 2-3 weeks ago. The title grabbed my attention. Can't say I agree with it all but I think he does make a few salient points. It touches upon another interpretation of the double-slit experiment, amongst others.

Does Light Exist Between Events? by Jim Walker

[junglelord]

<snip>
In other posts of mine, you will see that I do not subscribe to a wave [nor a particle] theory of light, but to an understanding of light as a field pressure gradient phenomenon, acting instananeously across space, akin to voltage. I'll try to post more details later... as it is I do all this stuff while I'm trying to get work done.............................

Its also another point of agreement with the Wilbert Smith model which I refer to so much.

[David Talbott]

David Talbott on Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:46 am

Just a thought for you folks before this thread grows more heated.

Well Dave ...Do you want me to respond publicly or privately? While My respect and admiration for you and your efforts are undiminished, I must respectfully disagree !

Not to worry Plasmatic, whatever seems best. I may be a little slow in responding either way, due to other responsibilities, but won't ignore your comments, I promise. Two quickies for you.

1. In a past life (okay, college) I read all of Ayn Rand. But I don't think she has anything to say that is relevant to the heart of David Thomson's work. Thomson's work focuses on measurable quantum forces and their mathematical relationships, not philosophy. Whether one can follow the work and ultimately avoid philosophical and metaphysical issues is highly doubtful, however, and Dave does inject just a bit of a metaphysical tone at times. To me, the tone may not work well in a few places, but I've always believed that science would ultimately have to admit metaphysics into its domain. The defined geometric relationships between quantum forces, however, are simply testable values for scientific investigation, and that is where the heart of his work lies.

2. Perhaps you could initiate a private conversation with Dave Smith and teammates as to the wisdom of starting a new Forum Section titled "Electric Universe--Philosopher's Corner." It seems to me that we should do everything in our power to contain discussion in the present electric universe threads to observation, measurements, and testable explanations. But in the end, philosophical perspectives will need a place to be aired.

And please don't get the wrong idea here. Your enthusiasm is infectious and is not a problem. We only have to be careful that you don't compromise your moderator's role.

David Talbott

[bboyer]

If said object is spinning, I could only be led to the question," what caused it to spin?". That there is action at all can only lead to seeking its cause, right?

If said spin is an object, it could only lead to the question, "what caused it to be an object?" That there are objects at all can only lead to seeking their cause, right?

I'm on a roll.

It makes no sense to turn an action into an object.
Its like saying Dancing is an object, or Flying is an object.
Now I'm sure, from some bizarre perspective, you can turn anything into anything, and we have!
Today they are called Black holes, and Dark matter, and strings, and if these are any indicator as to how far nonsensical ideas like turning "Spin into an object" will take us out of our way from a better grasp of reality, I'll gladly seek wisdom from those that have learned that lesson.
And yes That there are objects at all can only lead to seeking their cause.

It isn't like that at all in the sense that you have chosen mismatched verb-and-noun to illustrate the illogic. Those sentences, of course, make no sense. But they do not illustrate the point. By whatever instrument we choose to examine the structure of a thing - whether microscopes, ultrasound devices, telescopes, whatever - when we zoom in on an object we find we cannot completely discriminate the thing's function, or what it is doing, from the structural pattern that the motions exhibit i.e. the thing itself. Things, as objects, wiggle, squirm, rotate, oscillate, spin the more you zoom in on and try to analyze what it is made of. When you zoom out to whatever range, you lose the wiggle, squirm, rotation, oscillation, spinning and the thing appears to be solid. Like when you board an aircraft and while it's sitting on the tarmac you notice all the bits and various objects zooming around this way and that. But once the aircraft lifts off and you watch out the port as you gain increasing distance from the ground of all that activity, the activity seems to blur into a solidity of landscape beneath you. The inherent motion to what is going on the ground is lost to your perception of the reality of the ground; the reality of the ground has been "transformed" into a more or less solid "stuff." Going out further it appears as a more or less uniformly smooth, colored ball or sphere.

Any world, as best as we can perceive it at any given common gradient of perception and spectrum, then is a marriage of object-and-motion. So it isn't a matter of saying something nonsensical and out of context like "dancing is an object" but that objects (nouns) and motions (verb) are inextricably intertwined and manifest as ... to use Plasmatic's (or Ayn Rand's) terminology ... existents. Why would we want to bias ourselves towards favoring one aspect to the exclusion of the other, except perhaps for some intended engineering project?

[bboyer]

<snip>

2. Perhaps you could initiate a private conversation with Dave Smith and teammates as to the wisdom of starting a new Forum Section titled "Electric Universe--Philosopher's Corner." It seems to me that we should do everything in our power to contain discussion in the present electric universe threads to observation, measurements, and testable explanations. But in the end, philosophical perspectives will need a place to be aired.

And please don't get the wrong idea here. Your enthusiasm is infectious and is not a problem. We only have to be careful that you don't compromise your moderator's role.

David Talbott

Oops. Also guilty as charged.

[upriver]

<snip>
In other posts of mine, you will see that I do not subscribe to a wave [nor a particle] theory of light, but to an understanding of light as a field pressure gradient phenomenon, acting instananeously across space, akin to voltage. I'll try to post more details later... as it is I do all this stuff while I'm trying to get work done.............................

Ran across this 2-3 weeks ago. The title grabbed my attention. Can't say I agree with it all but I think he does make a few salient points. It touches upon another interpretation of the double-slit experiment, amongst others.

Does Light Exist Between Events? by Jim Walker

Longitudinal waves are what are in between "events".

Basic differences between the conventional and aetherometric conceptions of the photon

1. On the nature of photons
1.1. Currently, it is held that solar radiation consists of photons. Implied in this is the notion that photons travel through space, like fibers of light, with analogy to ballistic models for the projection of material particles - as if the photons were hurled across space.

It is the view of aetherometric theory that solar radiation does not consist of photons, but of the massfree electrical charges that compose the ‘solar electrical field [http://aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v2B.html#abstractAS2-17A]. Moreover, it is also the view of aetherometric theory that photons are 'punctual' and local productions, that they do not travel through space but rather occupy a globular space where they are created and extinguished.

1.2. If photons do not travel through space, what is it that travels through space and is the cause of the transmission of the light stimulus, and ultimately of any local production of photons?

Aetherometry contends that what travels through space and transmits the light impulse is electrical radiation composed of massfree charges and their associated longitudinal waves (the true phase waves), not electromagnetic radiation composed of photons and their transverse waves. The wave transmission of all electromagnetic signals depends on the transmission of nonelectromagnetic energy, specifically the transmission of electric massfree charges (the propagation of “the field”).

1.3. There are two types of photons: ionizing and nonionizing (blackbody). Aetherometry recognizes this accepted distinction, but suggests that it is a distinction still more profound than accepted physics itself holds, in that the two spectra are different as to the very conditions necessary for the production of one or the other type of photons. Specifically, Aetherometry claims that nonionizing or blackbody photons are locally generated whenever material particles that act as charge-carriers decelerate. Thus photons mark the trail of deceleration of massbound particles. This punctual generation of photons that marks the trails of decelerating massbound charges, combined with the decay in the kinetic energy of these charges, their release and scattered reabsorption by other adjacent massbound charges (thus causing so called conversion of electromagnetic energy into longer wavelength radiation), is what accounts for (1) the dispersion of energy through conversion into electromagnetic radiation (and Tesla's persistent claim that his power transmitters were not transmitters of electromagnetic radiation) and for (2) the approximate suitability of the stochastic model for the dispersion of a ray and the scatter of light.

Conversely, material particles or massbound charges accelerate when an electrical, magnetic, or electrical-cum-magnetic field is applied to them. Aetherometry contends that, in nature, an applied field is composed of massfree electric radiation, the effect of the radiation of massfree charges being the acquisition of their energy by the massbound charges they encounter (ergo the addition of a kinetic energy term to the energy associated with the rest mass of a material particle), and thus the acceleration of these massbound charges [http://aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v2B.html#abstractAS2-16]. In summary, Aetherometry claims that 'radiation' of massfree charges is responsible for the acceleration of massbound charges, whereas it is the deceleration of the latter which converts the lost kinetic energy into a local generation of blackbody photons.

<snip>

Photons are the particles constituted by the structure c2, not elements of matter or electrons. The latter are only perceived as having an equivalent wave structure c2 when they are seized in their rest frame or their electromagnetic frame, or transformed into ionizing photons. But the structure of elements of matter while they remain such is electrical, described by the wave-product (Wk Wv), rather than c2. Hence, Aetherometry contends, the finite geometry of photons is globular, forming a quasi-sphere, and composed of two identical waves, whereas the finite geometry of electrons is toroidal and composed of two different waves, one truly electrical and the other truly magnetic. Accordingly, the waves of photons are only geometric product equivalents of the real electric and magnetic waves which compose either the rest mass of a material particle, or its kinetic energy. Therefore Aetherometry argues that photons do indeed possess two transverse fields, but the two fields or their vectors are organized such as to describe a local globularizing vortex, each relating a sine wave, and each wave being described by c in the fundamental derived or resultant relationship (E = m0 c2 = hυ).

Accordingly, Aetherometry explicitly argues that photons do not really have electrical or magnetic fields; this is in accordance with the fact that photons do not present electrical charge and that thus one does not mistake them for electrons! What possesses electrical and magnetic fields are charges, whether massfree or massbound. The latter, furthermore, possess such fields as are associated with their rest energy and also with the energy of their motion.

http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/bin ... try/Photon

[StevenO]

<snip>
In other posts of mine, you will see that I do not subscribe to a wave [nor a particle] theory of light, but to an understanding of light as a field pressure gradient phenomenon, acting instananeously across space, akin to voltage. I'll try to post more details later... as it is I do all this stuff while I'm trying to get work done.............................

Ran across this 2-3 weeks ago. The title grabbed my attention. Can't say I agree with it all but I think he does make a few salient points. It touches upon another interpretation of the double-slit experiment, amongst others.

Does Light Exist Between Events? by Jim Walker

I'll quote one of the first explanations of the effect by Lorentz. This description can be proven by working out the Maxwell equations for two quantum resonators (e.g. a current loop in a superconducting wire) and studying the effect of a perturbation that matches a lowert value energy state on one with a higher energy state on the other:

It is perhaps more satisfactory to suppose that on the occasion of a quantum jump the atom itself is transformed into a vibrator. This would imply that the jump is by no means instantaneous, but that the atom passes from the first stationary state to the state of a vibrator, and acquires the second stationary state only at the moment at which, radiating as a vibrator, it has reached the energy of a second stationary state, and then passed into that state and ceases to radiate."

So, atoms shed their energy like a struck bell, where the amount of radiated EM energy can only be equal to the energy difference of one of their eigenstates. That explains why light is EM radiation and why the amount of energy transmitted has a discrete value.

Steven

[junglelord]

Indeed, that is correct.

Number 860 #1, April 10, 2008 by Phil Schewe
Optical Clocks Get Better.

Two separate experiments in Colorado compare the frequency of emissions from atoms or ions to an uncertainty of 10^-16 or better. Earlier atomic clocks operated by reading out the movements of internal transitions from one quantum state to another in cesium atoms; the light emitted was in the microwave range. With frequency comb techniques (http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/853-1.html) measurement of optical-range frequencies can also be made with high accuracy.

In the 28 March 2008 issue of Science two groups reported new superb levels of precision. One experiment, carried out by a JILA/Colorado/ NIST-Boulder team (Ludlow et al.), gauges the uncertainty of a clock based on neutral strontium atoms to a level of 10^-16 by comparing it to a clock using calcium atoms and located a kilometer away. The other experiment, carried out at NIST-Boulder (Rosenband et al), looks at two clocks 100 meters apart.

The clocks contain respectively a single aluminum and a single mercury ion. The fractional uncertainty in the ratio of the frequency outputs for the clocks was determined to be 5.2 x 10^-17. (NIST information at http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/rele ... clock.html and http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/clock/clock.html )

http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/860-1.html