Why an ether/aether?

[altonhare]

webolife,

With regards to your UFT. You state that the effect "light" is truly instantaneous, but that it takes a little while for us to detect the electron expansion (or whatever we detect) which results in the measurement of a finite speed. Roughly correct?

Why do we measure identical speeds whether source and target are 1 cm away or 1 km? If the action at the source is instantly felt and responded to at the target, we should measure a velocity at a separation of 1 km that is far higher than at a separation of 1 cm.

Does your theory explain this?

P.S. If you don't subscribe to his "ropes and chain" theory, then it's "whips and chains" for you.

No way, the whips and chains are only for the truly special in my life.

[kevin]

Lizzie,
I think I can see some of what see saw, and right now I can sense some of that see saw effect as the moon is very close.
the result will be harmonically felt as each spiral signal is interfered with as the moon plucks at them, the consequence will be seen as light.
This will be due to the outflowing spiral resonant signals created by this sphere been interfered with in the circulating layers about this sphere.
The resultant alteration in angles of the two opposing spirals will release light , not as much as the suns emitting spirals do, but enough to create a blue sky at night.
The secret of light will be geometric, and will be how many deep sea creatures create light, so that they can see in the sea.

the geometry will be about angles and how they meet , the sea of aether will be aligned in space so that no light is created, but if anything alters about it the circulating field to specific geometry, then light will be created, there is no need for any such thing as nuclear powered or fusion powered stars, all of that is merely assumptions by those that cannot see.

The light about the sun will be local to the sun and will be all around the sphere of the sun due to it been in the centre point of a sink in the geometry of space, the planets are within the circulations radiating out from the sun, and will fit precisely the geometry of the pathways out from the sun just as the moon is in a circulation about this sphere Earth, the geometry of which will alter relative to the geometry of the suns circulations interfering with the earths circulations, not gravity, that will be a local consequence relative to each sphere, and again will be geometrically created, hence alter the geometry of field about anything, and you will alter the angles and direction of the resultant attraction of negative to positive flows resulting in push on anything , differeing shades of light will be seen, until the object will apparently dissappear , it won't but the pathways between observer and target will be deflected to give the appearance of vanishing.
This is because we see via the aether , not in linear pathways as assumed, the signals from our eyes will be sent out on spirals and will return on spirals, the linear line percieved between objects will be where those two spiral pathways meet, this gives us 3D depth and movement, do You see?
kevin

[soulsurvivor]

I recall it as being in tune with nature. It happened on a sunny day outside on my back patio as I did my exercises. Standing with my arms and hands extended toward the sun, I heard nature singing. Orchestra quality, ethereal singing of everything that was outside, from the trees to the flowers to the grass, all blended into one symphony of sound. And then the waves came in at an angle, I'm guessing about a 45 degree angle, mirage-like wave radiation from my perspective, and encompassing my entire being in the comfort of light that came in and then radiated from within me and my heart area.

gosh, I can hardly wait for another to experience this and share their perspective.

[lizzie]

Kevin said: The secret of light will be geometric, and will be how many deep sea creatures create light, so that they can see in the sea.

Yes, I believe you are right.

http://www.seasky.org/deep-sea/biolumiscence.html

This effect is very similar to that in green light sticks. When the seal in the stick is broken, the two chemicals mix together and give off a soft, green glow

http://www.ps.missouri.edu/rickspage/re ... ction.html

This optical effect is due to refraction. As light passes from one transparent medium to another, it changes speed, and bends. How much this happens depends on the refractive index of the mediums and the angle between the light ray and the line perpendicular (normal) to the surface separating the two mediums (medium/medium interface)

Kevin said: the geometry will be about angles and how they meet, the sea of aether will be aligned in space so that no light is created, but if anything alters about it the circulating field to specific geometry, then light will be created, there is no need for any such thing as nuclear powered or fusion powered stars, all of that is merely assumptions by those that cannot see.

Rather like a klaidescope effect? If you don’t align the angles properly, you can’t the light?

Kevin said: The light about the sun will be local to the sun and will be all around the sphere of the sun due to it been in the centre point of a sink in the geometry of space, the planets are within the circulations radiating out from the sun

Like a spider's web with the sun in the center?

[altonhare]

Are “ropes and chains” the same as “musical chords of influence” operating through a vibrating resonant cavity filled with aether?

FASTER THAN A SPEEDING LIGHT
http://home.gwi.net/~erichard/fastlit.htm

The characteristics of an all embracing aether provided the framework for See's calculation of the 'Wave Theory of Gravity'. By building on Newton's image of the aether as a "Vibrating medium that diffused over the universe and penetrated all matter", he was able to calculate many physical constants, such as its energy, stress, rigidity, and pressure. See's elastic pressure of aether envisioned a universe filled with invisible Fourier waves of all possible lengths and traveling in every direction under balanced symmetry of stress about a vibrating body, such as a planet.

Each cosmic body---a planet, a moon, or a star---utilizes the spherical shape as its energy containment. The sphere is an ideal shape for a resonant cavity. The very nature of the sphere means that it resonates over vast spectrums of frequency. For example, if we start by considering the earth circumference of approximately 7.5 Hz, as a fundamental, we may calculate and detect many higher harmonically-related frequencies. In addition, there are radius frequencies with higher harmonics present. Harmonic waves in a spherical solid set up a periodic distribution within the inner and outer spherical cavities. The Van Allen energy belts surrounding the earth also present a multitude of resonant harmonics at lower frequencies than the circumference 7.5 Hz.

The numerous energy belts about the earth act as spherical capacitors, one within another. These energy field capacitors create highly fluctuating potential gradients, vertically arrayed at right angles to the earth surface. These large spherical capacitors longitudinally couple a continuous supply of vibrations from the outer magnetosphere to the earth surface and within the earth. The many surrounding energy belts act as sensitive detecting membranes to couple the solar system and galactic information vibrations to the inner earth fields which we inhabit.

It should not take a great stretch of your imagination to see how our solar system's ever-changing longitudinal chords of influence resonate and interact by coupling all bodies of the system to all other bodies, instantaneously!

The Universe must communicate with itself in real-time, nearly instantaneously, through out all levels, from the micro-subatomic to the macro-intergalactic

P.S. If you don't subscribe to his "ropes and chain" theory, then it's "whips and chains" for you.

This article was pretty good.

But, the universe is "filled with Fourier waves"? At best a Fourier wave is a mathematical concept or a graph. Obviously there are not a bunch of equations out there pulling the planets together, nor are there drawings of graphs doing the same.

Each celestial body utilizes a sphere to "contain energy"? Where is this energy? Where is this sphere? Again these are concepts, not objects. There is no entity called "energy" out there tugging bodies around. The author's ample use of the word "energy" indicates he does not know exactly what he's talking about. Energy is essentially a "do it all" word that we invoke when we don't understand how something actually works.

I was in a class last year and the prof asked some question along the lines of "Why this instead of that" and I couldn't think of a good reason, finally I just shrugged and said it was because "this" was at lower energy. He told me that's an argument scientists/engineers invoke when they don't really know anything, of course I chuckled and conceded that I didn't really know the answer.

The most specific statements made were not in your quote:

See envisioned a spider-web of wave structure extending along all the radii vectors at all distances, filling all space, from star to star. Figure(2), shows one of See's many attempts to present visually this unseen mechanism of celestial influence. See's classical mathematics calculations and drawings show a constant bidirectional gravitational wave-stress. Its interlocked, cork screw tension in the aether connects all bodies in pairs.

Here it is stated explicitly that "all bodies are connected". Unfortunately it is not stated exactly how. The author mentions "wave structure" but a wave is an action, not an object itself. What is the actual physical intermediary between bodies, and what does it look like? How does it justify rectilinear propagation of light, why light "arrives/leaves as a particle but travels as a wave", the structure of the atom, etc. I see wavy lines on one of the images but the interconnection does not look like a two stand anti-parallel rope structure, which is a structure that can justify the observed nature of light. These wavy lines certainly cannot.

In short, the author has stated that all bodies are connected, but has not proposed a structure for this connection (other than that it is "wave like"). The author has, at best, justified why objects attract each other, and that's granting the benefit of the doubt. The rope hypothesis does this in addition to proposing a specific structure for the connection that also justifies all the observed behaviors of light and the structure of the atom. The rope hypothesis encapsulates all the basic phenomena of nature in a single structure and theory. It is specific and explicit.

[keeha]

In this 'Push' scenario based on Tesla's thoughts, the aether is particulate, the particles being neutral and an order of size smaller than gross matter at the sub-atomic level, which is merely formations of energetic vortex swirls in the aether medium. It is also dynamic, with the aether particles vibrating, producing a constant state of aether flux. Normally this is expressed as a Brownian movement of random chaotic motion,

I confess I have not read the entire thread. But I offer this as attempt to scale things up with some low harmonics:

Descartes said single procession in the plemuim, void filled, push pull (vaccum) becomes circular. The Copernican Revolution
Condense it enough - Bam!
Otherwise it settles out:

PysOrg.com, Jan23,09: Scientists have used Brownian motion to model how individuals form swarms through escape and pursuit interactions.

The phenomenon, called collective motion, is common in nature, exhibited by groups that fly, run, and swim, such as swarms of insects and colonies of bacteria. In collective motion, groups move together to form patterns as an organized (but not necessarily cooperative) single body. Scientists aren’t sure exactly what mechanisms cause the emergence of collective motion. However, the natural phenomenon has attracted the interest of researchers in diverse fields such as physics and computer science.

In a recent study, researchers have modeled collective motion using Brownian particles, and they observed as individual particles interact via escape and pursuit movements. Motivated by a previous study that observed cannibalistic interactions in locust and cricket swarms, the scientists found that both escape and pursuit movements can cause collective motion, but escape movements dominated the particular case of insect swarming. Pawel Romanczuk and Lutz Schimansky-Geier of Humboldt University Berlin, and Iain D. Couzin of Princeton University, have published their study in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.

“Our work can be considered as a link between the simplest models of collective motion with a general (not further specified) velocity alignment interaction and more complicated models from biology based on behavioral rules,” Romanczuk told PhysOrg.com. “By assuming that the escape and pursuit are the actual behavioral responses of individuals underlying collective motion in nature, it is possible to determine which one of these responses dominates the individual behavior by simply looking at the global migration patterns.”

In their study, the researchers modeled an individual as a Brownian particle that possesses internal energy so that it can move at various speeds in reaction to external stimuli. In Brownian motion, a solitary individual explores its environment by a continuous random walk. If approached from behind by another individual, the individual in question escapes by increasing its velocity in the forward direction to prevent getting attacked from behind. If the individual senses another individual in front moving away, it pursues that individual, increasing its velocity toward the escapee. In short, an individual has two movements: escape and pursuit.

youtube:"Love and Marriage"

[keeha]

This is from one of MGmirkin's great links. Pure poetry! This is only part of the article.

WHAT IS "ELECTRIC CHARGE?"

What is electric charge? Well, there's an easy answer and a hard answer. Here is the easy answer:
Charge is...

...the stuff that flows during an electric current.
...the stuff that appears on a balloon when you rub it on your hair.
...the stuff that comes in two kinds: positive and negative.
...the Plus and Minus electric poles (as opposed to North and South magnetic poles.)
...the stuff that causes electrical forces.
...charge is the "glue" that connects all of the flux-lines of electrostatic fields to protons and electrons.
...charge is the positive and negative stuff that forms atoms.
...charge is the stuff that is carried by electrons, protons, positrons, and other particles.
...charge is the medium that energy flows through (like sound flows through air.)
...charge is the stuff that, when it wiggles fast, creates light.
...charge is the stuff that, when it wiggles slower, creates radio waves.
...charge is the stuff that, when it wiggles very slowly, creates energy in electric circuits.
...charge is the stuff that, when it flows or spins, creates magnetism.
...charge is the stuff that reflects light and makes objects visible.
...charge is the stuff that makes metals look metallic or "silvery."
...charge is the stuff that causes electrical attraction and holds everyday objects together.
...charge is the stuff inside of wires that is movable, almost fluid.
...charge is the stuff inside of nonconductors that is immobile and "frozen" in place.
...charge is the stuff that is measured in units called Coulombs.
...charge is the stuff that scientists once called "quantity of electricity" and "particles of electricity."

THE LESS-EASY ANSWER

If we look up "electric charge" in a dictionary, we encounter a problem. The definition of "charge" is circular. What is charge? It's the stuff that causes electrical phenomena. What are electrical phenomena? Those are the things caused by charge! Simple, no?
(grin!)
There is a good reason why the definition of "charge" is circular. Like mass, length, and time, Electric Charge is a "fundamental." Many dictionaries say this: "Electric charge: a fundamental property of matter." The word "Charge" is used to define other things, and therefore the definition of the word "charge" becomes a serious problem! What is an electric current? It is a flow of charge. What is electric charge? It is the stuff that flows during an electric current! The circular definition is hard to avoid because normal definitions are based upon deeper concepts, and when we finally arrive at the deepest concepts of all, we cannot "take them apart" into their fundamental pieces. What is charge? What is mass? What is time? This is like asking "what is 'WHAT'?" or "what is 'IS'?" Very hard to answer. Yet there is a way to do it: look at the context in which we use the word. In other words we can work backwards and define Charge in terms of more complicated concepts. Yes, the definitions still will be circular. However, the definitions point at each other in a certain special pattern. We can understand "charge" by becoming familiar with this pattern.

To find the special pattern, go look at the list at the top of this page. THAT'S where the words "electric charge" are explained.

[junglelord]

If we look up "electric charge" in a dictionary, we encounter a problem. The definition of "charge" is circular. What is charge? It's the stuff that causes electrical phenomena. What are electrical phenomena? Those are the things caused by charge! Simple, no?
(grin!)
There is a good reason why the definition of "charge" is circular. Like mass, length, and time, Electric Charge is a "fundamental." Many dictionaries say this: "Electric charge: a fundamental property of matter." The word "Charge" is used to define other things, and therefore the definition of the word "charge" becomes a serious problem! What is an electric current? It is a flow of charge. What is electric charge? It is the stuff that flows during an electric current! The circular definition is hard to avoid because normal definitions are based upon deeper concepts, and when we finally arrive at the deepest concepts of all, we cannot "take them apart" into their fundamental pieces. What is charge? What is mass? What is time?

Conditioning has created several generations of robots.
When I was chided for saying that no one understands charge, I was not being mean spirited.
I watched the MIT EM Lecture series for 24 lectures....all on ES. Yet dispite my education as an Electronic Engineering Technologist with 10 years experience and my knowledge of APM, I was having no real synesthesia....I still did not get it with words being used as Alton says with no real foundation.


You know the above quote and that web page was the journey out.
I was in the world of Alton, with APM on my mind.
The public definitions were not giving me any synesthesia.
I watched Professor Leuin and got shades of flashes...
APM in the background...ES coming out in spades.
But the public clementure...kept my synesthesia from occuring.

The web page on the circular definitions of electric phenomenon was the bolt of lightning that struck me after reading almost all the material on the link (its well worth reading all his material). Then I saw the entire MIT lecture series come together with APM...incredible images of the Voltage Hill appeared, like PHI for a savant and the Current passed away as APM said...leaving behind it Distributed Charge which surrounded me, phase locked, with resonate nodes of platonic solids occuring on the distributed charge.

Professor Leuin introduced the idea of charge in a bucket.
The empty bucket of charge....zero point at the center...not on the outside.

Buckets do hold charge, and you can put much more charge in a bucket, much more, then around a bucket.
Volume in the bucket (not height) allows space-resonance with a zero point.
ES is freaking amazing and no one thinks about it....

The entire geometric relationships came together with the clementure to an incredible series of insights.
Indeed it was then that I saw Quantum Confinment (my rotators and stators, with angular momentum and 2-d materials.)
Each being actually the leading edge of technology and science....

You may have a image of the aether, you may be able to see what I see.
The thing known as charge cannot exist of itself. This is where the aether comes together with angular momentum to create atoms of distributed charge. Remember the fundamentals create the object. That is why mass, frequency, charge, length, spherical geometry create the five dimensions which is the source of all four dimensional objects.

With Solars insights on TT below, I can see from Aether RMF with a sea of Angular Momentum, being encapsulated to form the objects known as atoms. I realize now that the idea that things are fundamental on their own is wrong. One must have two....remember Unity is plural and at minimum two. Zero is two. There must always be an inside and an outside, the 720 of the mirror mind. We are frozen light.

The "particulate" aspect of "atoms" would then be a centralized resonant "capture" location of aggregate electron frequencies characterized by its own "phase shift". That is what would provide the appearance of a point-like "particle". Its just the location where the resonant "phase shifting" of aggregate electron wave frequencies occurs. As such, the "atomic object" can appear independent and totally different (discontinuous) than the continuos electron wave frequencies that produced it. As a central resonant location of electron wave frequencies the resulting object "carries" that 'self-organized wave phase' with it where ever it is relocated.

As to whether or not the "capture locations" (objects/atoms) form from "scalar" potentials appears to be unavoidable. The formation of every "atom" would be the result of the resonant location of particular "amplitudes" of electron wave frequencies. Ideally, the different "types" of atoms would actually be the same everywhere and as such would form a resonant "phase locked" continuum of those particular combined electron wave frequencies for each type of atom. This dynamic would form an entire "atomic dimension" orders of magnitude greater fractal "phase" of additive electron wave frequencies with accompanying "radiation pressure" ("strong force") unique to it.

That fractal "domain" would be dominated and occupied by the formation of those "atomic" objects which would no longer have the frequency of the electron(s) from which they are composed. "Ambient" waves of the now almost invisible electron wave frequencies would then form the "background" within which the "atoms" would reside.

The electric-magnetic "threads" of TT would be regions of amplitude wherein "Intermediate on-axis waves cancel, but the rest add constructively beyond both electrons. The external radiation pressure produces an attraction effect." The nil amplitude regions are locations wherein attractive "radiation pressure" is the dominant "force". In other words "electric currents" and "magnetic lines of force". One may pick their particular nomenclature but probably will have essentially uttered nothing different.

Particularly fascinating is this idea in relation to objects in motion that emit Light. "Motion", the ability to "move" an object from one location to another, is to "carry", transport, or relocate the relatively stable resonant "capture" location of that amalgamation of electron wave frequencies. In this conjecture the amalgamation of aggregate electron wave frequencies resulting in the formation of "particles" ("atoms" for example) is totally amenable to positional rearrangement because the object ("phase state") is "phase locked" ("self-organized waves") in relation to its surrounding environment.

I humbly submit via conjecture that the 'moment' depicted in the TT vid is in actuality a "phase shift" resulting from an amalgamation of electron wave frequencies and respective "radiation pressure" having reached some critical resonant value.

Any thoughts on that greatly appreciated.

Scalar it is and I have made that clear.

I especially love your description of how the domains shift...excellent verbal description.
This gave me a synesthesia of moving through the layers or domains....wonderful moment of knowing...thanks so much.

I agree with your conclusions about movement in the vid and that is a phase shift.

First and best concise verbal description of TT with nice scientific clementure, logical comparisons, with proper use of phyiscs and semantics applied to TT.
CHEERS FOR YOU.[/quote]

[lizzie]

Ultimately people will make their own decisions as to what "aether theory" they like best.

CRANK Dot Net – the Aether
http://www.crank.net/aether.html

Crank Dot Net has gone through another facelift. The Crank Dot Net has been more finely divided into over 100 sections. Each section contains a list of all related sections (by hierarchy and by topic) on the left, and each entry in each section contains a list of related sections directly below the title.

Entries are listed in reverse order of their inclusion, so that the most recently added entires are listed at the top.

Sites featured on Crank Dot Net are rated in terms of their crankitude. There's a simple scale:

fringe - Going above and beyond the normal call of scientific duty; fringe science. Not necessarily cranky, but delving into areas traditionally associated with crankdom.

bizarre - One has to suppose it's not cranky, but it sure defies sensibility.

CRANKY - No doubt about it -- beyond the ordinary. Downright strange.

CRANKIER - In a realm where few have ventured and returned safely.

CRANKIEST - Above and beyond the normal call of the crank.

ILLUCID - Something so beyond understanding that it defies classification.

funny - They're almost certainly not serious, but it still boggles the mind.

parody - A parody, but a particularly amusing one. With crankism, sometimes it can be tricky telling who's serious and who's joking.

anticrank - A site devoted to fighting crankism, debunking bad science, and promoting logic.

links - A link farm leading to more cranks.

newsgroup - A Usenet newsgroup devoted to cranks or a crank subject.

chat - A resource where you can discuss cranks or crankism.

[Lloyd]

* String or rope theory doesn't seem to get any closer to understanding reality than does aether theory etc. It starts with an assumption that things exist separate from consciousness and that those external things explain consciousness. People more often say that the behavior of external objects explain "observations", but observations are actually consciousness, i.e. the type of consciousness called perception.
* But I contend that it's not certain, and it may be entirely unprovable, that anything other than consciousness exists.
* What would happen to your theories, if you used consciousness as your starting point? It's easy to question the existence of aether, strings etc, but can you question the existence of consciousness? If you start with the fact, not theory, that consciousness exists, then maybe you can determine what and how reality is.
* Observation depends on, or IS, perception, so you can start by determining what are the features of perception. Do you think perceptions can tell you anything about reality? What do they tell you about "space", "time", "motion", "sound", "force", "heat" etc?
* Visual perception seems to tell us the most about space, time, motion, light etc. Tactile perception tells us about force & heat and also about space & motion & a little about time. Audio perception tells about sound & a little about space & time. Going a little more into detail, vision shows us length, area, volume & I think proportion etc. It tells about color and light intensity.
* These are all things that we know exist, because they're features of perception, which is one of the forms of consciousness. Logic, which is another aspect of consciousness, can also help us go beyond direct perception to understand more details of reality. It can also help us determine what are assumptions and what are facts.
* It makes sense to start with facts (and making sense means using the scientific method).
* Observations are facts. Your observations are not my facts. I have to test your statements about your observations to see if I can experience such observations, before they can become my facts. Scientists have provided lots of their observations, but many of them apparently have been inaccurately reported. We need to determine which are accurate and inaccurate. This forum has been working on that, but not in an organized way, that I can see.
* Since consciousness obviously exists, the first question is, does everything consist of consciousness, or does existence consist of consciousness and non-consciousness. And is it possible to determine if non-consciousness exists, since the only way to know of it seems to be via consciousness? Is it possible for everything we perceive to be consciousness? It seems very possible to me. If non-consciousness exists, why does it exist? Consciousness can have a reason to exist, since it has will. But non-consciousness would not seem to have will.
* Can our environments and our bodies and minds consist of consciousness only? Can rocks, chemicals, atoms, space, time, aether units, ropes etc consist of consciousness? If so, are there basic units of consciousness? Would it consist of morphic fields and things like that, similar to what Rupert Sheldrake has theorized? Could consciousness consist of happiness, or love? What else besides happiness and love could give anything the will to exist? If infinite love is basic reality, then the will to understand reality would seem to have a useful purpose. Otherwise, when we find out what basic reality is, and it's not infinite love, finding out the truth would seem necessarily to be a big letdown, or at least confusing. Like it was to the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything.

[Plasmatic]

LK I think you might be better off starting a thread on the insane philosophy of solipsism rather than discussing this in this thread.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Lloyd,
Personally, I thought your post was excellent.

[junglelord]

A rotating magnetic field is very easy to prove....
the field between a magnet is the aether.


The field is independent of the matter.
It is NOT a creation of matter.
Therefore it is simple, aether is the magnetic field.

I believe that each atom is a conscious unit.
Seth first taught me that.


I believe that there is a conscious field.
Three fields, angular momentum, magnetic, conscious.
Just a thought.

[Lloyd]

* Grey Cloud, it's nice to see that we seem to agree at least somewhat on an issue that's pretty basic.
* Plasmatic said:

you might be better off starting a thread on the insane philosophy of solipsism rather than discussing this in this thread

* Wikipedia says,

Solipsism is not a single concept but instead refers to several world views whose common element is some form of denial of the existence of a universe independent from the mind of the agent.

* It seems rather unfriendly to contend that what you think is my philosophy is insane.
* I'm not a solipsist, since I don't deny "the existence of a universe independent from (my) mind". The rational, conscious mind should be able to realize that there's much more to existence than one's own consciousness.
* My point in bringing up consciousness is that science may have largely overlooked a foundational element of knowledge and by examining that element, greater progress may be made. It has been an unacknowledged assumption that the universe consists of non-conscious material. The aether theory was developed over 300 years ago. The rope theory may be new, but it's based on the same assumption of non-consciousness.
* If everything consists of consciousness, instead of non-consciousness, we might be able to make progress by examining the implications.

[StevenO]

* If everything consists of consciousness, instead of non-consciousness, we might be able to make progress by examining the implications.

Please define 'conscious' very clearly then. When does a thing acquire consciousness? When it can assess and influence it's own state? Does a stone possess consciousness? And a match? Or a photon?