Matter is made of only waves?

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by webolife » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:26 am

It's still a language problem for me. I ignore "waves" whenever I see it and replace it with force field vectors, then it makes sense.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by StefanR » Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:45 am

arc-us wrote: {....}Well, to speak of plenum WAVES that are of but not in a waving medium of some sort sure sounds oxymoronic to me. Like he wants his quantum cake and to eat it, too. Assuming both are physicists, I would expect they would be aware of what a standing wave is and would have used that terminology had that been what they were alluding to.


Well that seems to be the problem, I think too, if one is insisting on particles. It feels a little like the contrived supposition of the gravitons to explain gravity. Whereby there is an exchange in gravitons between two particles. If light is electromagnetic in nature and so is the radiowave we might be able to deduce something, maybe.

If I have an antenna and want to pick up some nice Hertzian FM-radio, I will not have to transmit any particles or waves myself it seems. As long as my antenna is tuned to the right frequency of the transmitter (and you are possible to be a little of the right tuning, it only only makes the reception a little unclear because of the static interference (white noise)). The transmitter will never know the fact that I'm listening in on the broadcast (nice word for that broad-cast.), in fact everybody will be able to listen to the transmission and pick up the music. As long as the transmitter has enough power to radiate far enough or as long as the reciever is sensitive enough, reception is there. The wave will always attenuate into lesser and lesser power and the reciever has to be increasingly more sensistive. It's maybe like a fountain spilling amounts of water
from the central source and as long as the water pressure of the groundwater-pump is there, the water flows. Also the amount of water can be regulated and the when one is close to the fountain one is able to drown in it, but the further one goes form the fountain the amount of water will be less and less. Till one has to take of ones shoes to still be able to feel the water and even further away the water will vaporize and dry up and only with very special care one is able to measure the humidity in the ground, but to far away and I will only detect groundwater.

Waves are real and measured and proven. The mathematical description holds valid for many, many experiments, but a description ,just like vectors, is always a description and not the wave itself.

Now there is another interaction possible between transmitter. One whereby the transmitter surely does know that the reciever is there. By taking special care in transmitting, the transmitter can tune into the reciever, but only when the reciever plays by the rule of the transmitter. Like two people tossing over a ball filled with water, both have to pay attention to each other and be correctly positioned to each other, only then the other will be able to catch the ball filled with water and even toss it back again.
This relationship of agreement could be called resonance and the wave between them has special characteristics, it seems to be more structured or packeted or could be called standing/longitudonal wave.
By adding two springs to the ball and transmitter and reciever are both holding on to one spring, no matter how far they are
the ball will cross the distance, because the compressed spring will push the ball and the elongated spring will pull at the ball. Now everybody nows that a small ball has less friction then a big ball, with the air. So a small ball is less likely to loose it's speed than a big ball. But if the same amount of water has to be transmitted in the small ball as in the big ball the water inside will have a bigger pressure, hence will be more energetic.
Not only that but as the fountain can give water with a certain taste/colour, so the balls can be filled with water of colour/taste, but the balls can also be given a effect like spin/curve.
Also the springs attached to the ball has to have the right tension on them on both sides, so that when the ball arrives at reciever, the reciever is able to catch the ball and not that the ball flies to fast to pierce the reciever and flies through him or the tension is to slack and the ball of water is falling on the ground and starts bouncing and burts and releasing the water inside it.

Now the question is, when we have a transmitter that wants to play the ball to the reciever, he picks up the ball of his liking,big or small, fills it with water and takes hold of one spring and ask the other player to be so kind to pick up the the other spring and pull the spring to just the right amount of tension on the spring. Now, does the transmitter or the reciever have the ball? To me the transmitter will pass the ball first as he has it in his hands and the reciever will know that the ball will be played as he is in special relation with the transmitter and the transmitter will know by the right amount of tension that the ball will make it to the reciever. And the reciever is able to pass the ball just as quickly back as he recieved it but maybe with a differnt colour/taste or spin.
Now when I stand with my feet in the water of a fountain will I be able to put all the water back in the fountain? I don't think so, all the water in the end will flow back into the ground and only the groundwater-pump at the fountain will be able to suck up the water again. But as long as the springs have the right tension and the balls don't loose too much to friction the ball of water will go back and forth and the reciever or the transmitter will only have to give a tiny amount of push or pull to compensate for the energy loss inherent in every energetic system, because in our cosmos the tendency is to equilibrium and rest.


:? Ok, I think that is a lot of dough and I'm not sure if one is able to make cookies out of it and I doubt if they will taste good. :? INFP-stuff from my side.

arc-us wrote: Scalar waves would probably be unacceptable terminology in an orthodox academic setting. Besides, even postulated scalar waves sound just as "ghost-like" as do Little's elementary waves despite claims of these writings to the contrary. They come across to me, both he and his interpreter, as probably frustrated would-be Taoists trying to speak what cannot be spoken. I mean, a certain religious icon was said to be in the world but not of the world and I can appreciate that - but here we have waves that are of the media but not in the media. That one eludes me.
Prickles & Goo: Alan Watts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by webolife » Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:16 pm

Galileo had the same view (and harsh criticism) of Kepler's "occult agent" of gravity acting invisibly to hold the planets in orbit. Galileo himself held surprisingly to the Aristotelian view of crystalline shells in space dedicated to their respective orbs, planets, moon, sun, stars...
Both Kepler's and later Newton's view of gravitation was aetherial. I'm sure most of you folks think my instantaneous force across distance is "ghost-like" in a similar way that I see the aether as "ghost-like"... frankly I'm heavily into spectral phenomena of all sorts, and it may or may not be surprising to y'all that "spectrum" means ghost! This is ever encouraging to me that I must look past the "words" to the concepts being presented. Until only the last couple of years, I would never have imagined using the word "crystalline" to describe field properties of space! Great Caesar's ghost! :lol: :lol:
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by webolife » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:08 pm

StefanR, your analogies are simple and clear when visualizing light/radio signals as stuff that moves across space. But take the word "resonates" back to where you were seeing the sender and receiver as being tuned to each other. No "motion" is necessary, only quantity and direction, hence my use of the word vector for my concept. Our eyes are tuned to receive and transmit energy from the "visible" light spectrum only, while other parts of our body tune well to radio. Melanocytes in our skin are tuned to UV, but we don't tune well to x-rays. In plants, chloroplasts are tuned to certain colors, and not others. Some flying insects tune to UV better than visible. All light is invisible, unless the receiver is tuned to the source. When I wake up and open my eyes in the morning the light was already there, but now the "radio" of my already tuned retinas and occipital lobe is turned on for me to decode the message! The uni-directionality of light is obvious as you look at another person's (or in the mirror your own) eyes, you see the blackest hole in the universe, your own pupil. A radio signal or light beam cannot be "sent" back on the same line it "came" in on because vector cancellation occurs. The centroids of both systems (receiver and sender) vie for equal polity of the field. No signal, no action. The fact that reflected signals must occur on different paths necessitates a time/spatial component to the light action in a dynamic universe. Hard to diagram this on a two-dimensional piece of paper, I've tried numerous ways... it is 3-d spatial and dynamic, but no movement, other than the exigent motion of the receiver and source, is required to understand the action. The significance of the angle of incidence/reflection increases with distance, augmenting the perception of delay. Check out Ralph Sansbury's analysis of Pioneer 10/11 Doppler data for another view of this. A pulsating signal, while it suggests a measurement of frequency, requires no waving through the medium, no reciprocality of frequency/wavelength. Young's interference theory, built upon his presumption of an accoustical model of light, neither demonstrated nor proved it, yet this theory forms the primary, and in most cases the sole, actual basis for light waving. So how is it that vastly different systems at widely differing scales seem so well attuned? Ask me if you dare! :lol:
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
bboyer
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by bboyer » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:38 pm

StefanR wrote: Prickles & Goo: Alan Watts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXi_ldNRNtM
Ahh, ma-a-n-n-n. Now you're calling me out at my own game! :lol: Alan Watts is at the top of my list. Prolly safe to say he is to me as Ayn Rand is to Plasmatic. :P His prickles & goo lecture is tops. And I would censure myself for going off-topic but the lecture to which you refer is exactly about matter and waves.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by StefanR » Wed Apr 23, 2008 3:35 pm

Yes, I got the lecture of Alan too, the Tao of Philosophy. Surely one can hear it somewhere on the web . And it is very :lol: humorful :lol: , which is for me essential ;) in those kind of things.
Also the makers of the added cartoon are :idea: in my view, but that is getting very of topic indeed.
Well to be on topic, laughter comes in waves too, but it also makes me shake :P

Cheers,

Stefan
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

User avatar
StefanR
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:31 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by StefanR » Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:59 am

webolife wrote:StefanR, your analogies are simple and clear when visualizing light/radio signals as stuff that moves across space. But take the word "resonates" back to where you were seeing the sender and receiver as being tuned to each other.
yes, maybe too simple, especially the resonance stuff, is not satisfying to me. Something is not right in the analogy, it misses some things that make the story a bit awkward.
The illusion from which we are seeking to extricate ourselves is not that constituted by the realm of space and time, but that which comes from failing to know that realm from the standpoint of a higher vision. -L.H.

lizzie
Guest

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by lizzie » Sun Apr 27, 2008 9:21 am

Boyd Bushman is all I need to discredit the Standard Model...(there are no theories where I am)

There is truth out there. As Tom Bearden clearly points out over and over, you must look around you, its there, just not accepted. There are scientific peer reviewed papers gathering dust that the Correa's used to find the Aether. All Aether people found it from Tesla technology.

Boyd Bushman and the Aether models along with the EU have in them everything that is needed to be known. Structure and Function. APM (Aether models in general) is the Structure Theory, QM is the Function Theory. The dual opposite spiral vortex is the archetype form. Nature is telling us this at every level.
And once again it all points back to Tesla.

Gravity Control and Antigravity
http://www.gravitycontrol.org/gravitycontrol.html

Summation of Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity An excerpt from: Occult Ether Physics
http://www.netowne.com/technology/important/

In the video on Boyd Bushman, he talks about some “new ideas” that interested him. The clip we see him viewing is on the “Hutchison effect.” And Hutchison is developing Tesla anti-gravity machines. Who else is participating in this effort? Tom Bearden, of course.

John Hutchison – Tesla’s Anti gravity machines
http://www.nottaughtinschools.com/John- ... avity.html

The Hutchison Effect
http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html

New Energy Series 2: John Hutchison Part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3LhvpC2lsCs&feature=related

Beyond Invention- New Energy- Anti-Gravity
http://youtube.com/watch?v=c_QrSTlNnek&feature=related

Nikola Tesla's Flying Saucer - EM Field Lift Experiments
http://newilluminati.blog-city.com/niko ... iments.htm

The Kidd Machine
http://newilluminati.blog-city.com/anti ... achine.htm

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by Solar » Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:24 pm

StevenO wrote: His model for the nucleus falls apart though, the best suggestion for that I have seen sofar for that comes from Xavier Borg: http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-magic.asp

Steven
This paper is very good and comes to some interesting conclusions that can be conceptually correlated with other approaches seen here. The "hypertetrahedral stacking" as a result of increases in phase angle sounds like a "change of phase of matter" via 'superimposition'. The "missing mass" effect (more properly result) of this "stacking", as opposed to the complications brought about from the '"bunch of grapes" -"point particles"' approach is very well put.

I also enjoyed the refutation of Bohr's orbiting electron model and the Heisenberg random uncertainty principle via the author citing Nature's own counter argument i.e. - crystal lattices. Which, as Borg puts it:

"... do not build up in random shapes, but in very specific shapes..."

In particular, when considering "dipole distortion" the relation that:
"In this model, the phase of the nucleus varies between the various phases of matter according to the angle of projection of the hyper dimensional nuclear entity."

- would seem to be a very appropriate.
"Aetherometry proposes that when units of nonelectric aether superimpose and condense to form matter particles (mass-energy)..."
Thanks SteveO
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by junglelord » Sun May 04, 2008 7:05 am

Point Particles can have pictures taken but so can Waves.
The image of a electron was recently published. I would not submit it as final proof, but what we see is not a particle. We see a wave pattern.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 095358.htm
The image is for all appearances a wave pattern of concentric circles, not a particle.
:D

I think its clear it is not a point particle. I also think it is clear that without an Aether, your a lame duck in the water with a wave model. You may not agree but that is my opinion.

Since both waves (vortex) and particles can spin and since spin is not understood, I have made a thread devoted to just that. Anyone who claims to be the final authority on spin is fooling themself. We may come to personal conclusions but no one can say for certain they cannot be wrong.
http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... ?f=8&t=499

We can work out waves vs particles here.
We can work out spin there.
8-)

In the end the burden of proof lies in the person with the personal conclusion if they wish to be public about it. Anologies and english jargon and personal glory aside please. The position one takes in public needs links with sources to be valid.

I have found mine. I have cited my sources. I have dedicated many threads to specific subjects. That is not to say I am right or wrong or anyone else for that matter. I have however come to a conclusion. I also make detailed threads with my links. I do not just offer my own rebuttal based on my own personal opinion. You need one peer review to make a case. Just one, but without that, its personal belief. Now you may be the first and only person to make that new discovery. In that case you must become that first peer review. Since QM is wrapped up in Wave models and that has been questioned, it would be nice to see members dedicate some effort into their own threads if they have fundamental beliefs they think would clear the air for us. I try to do that. I hope others do the same. Just jumping in on threads that go forth from basic groundwork and to harp on the groundwork is sabotage.

If you feel QM is not valid, please make a thread. If you feel spin is not valid please jump in on the thread I made for that discussion. This is the EU. If QM is not valid and you sit back and state that but never gather the evidence in a thread but instead only jump in on other threads to except that to discredit them in one lump sum sentence, well that is not scientific or a rebuttal. If your a EU proponent and have a valid reason and can bring the burden of proof then make the thread. Do not make blanket statments. That brings nothing to the discussion and totally sidetracks threads with goals. Since these items are seperate and since they can be questioned, it must be done in individual threads. Especially since so much is at stake and because they are complex subjects. I am still waiting for a thread on how the EU works without QM, dispite many comments, I have seen no proof or threads to enlighten us. I am here to learn and hopefully teach as I learn, I would hope others do the same. Blanket Statments with no threads are just that, blanket statements.


Lets never allow this forum to be a place where members can refute what ever they want but never make a thread to back up their positions.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by webolife » Mon May 05, 2008 1:34 pm

Remember folks... the electron picture/video comes to us by way of light, so how you view light action determines what you think you see as an "electron". Newton's rings, well known from the earliest of true light theories, are interpretable by means other than waves... they are a "diffraction" pattern of sorts, yes, but what causes the diffraction, and it's alternate form, the alleged "interference" pattern of 2-slit fame, is not known to be, but rather is presumed to be waves. As I have explained elsewhere, the pattern that should be seen if light is waving through the slits, or around the beamsplitter (as in the case of the electron Newton's rings), is not the pattern that is actually observed in these cases. Thomas Young's geometry doesn't work right. All light wave explanations since Young's have presumed his idea is correct, in the same way that Hubble's Doppler redshift has been assumed by mainliners since its inception. Newtons rings are a spectral manifestation of the pressure gradient of light around the central optical line of sight, which is a light vector. The repetitious nature of these concentric rings has been taken as a wave/frequency phenomena because of Young's theory, which is demonstrably incorrect. Photographers think of this phenomenon as an aberration of light due to being out of focus, when actually they manifest when the light field itself is in focus rather than the object being imaged. The spectrum of light in a spectroscope, or the rainbow manifested through raindrops or atmospheric halos from ice crystals, are all examples of this light field pressure gradient. In short, the Newton's Ring images seen in the electron video are seen in any/every situation where light is focused through a narrow "window", such as the reflection off of a "point"-particle, and are the image of the light-pressure field itself. The field vectors manifest according to a redundant geometric principle, which turns out to be related to a series of imbedded/circumscribed hexagons. In other models, this pattern may be described as a "standing wave", though I don't view it as such. The electron video shows an oscillating out-of-focus "point"-particle or particle-pair, reflecting an in-focus light field. Electrons themselves are invisible, only the reflected light field is seen in this picture. The light field itself is invisible except to the detector/receiver which is tuned to the field geometry others would say "frequency" but that implies that the light is waving, so I avoid that terminology, although if the signal being imaged is transmitted and recorded as a pulse, then that pulsing will obviously have its own frequency.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by junglelord » Mon May 05, 2008 3:15 pm

I understood your entire premise. I think I finally get the picture you have been trying to help us to see. You make a lot of sense. Well ordered train of logic. I like it, especially the gradient aspect seems to be haunting me, which is always a sign.
:?
Thanks for the clarification. I think I am now almost complete in your interpertation of light. It is very close to Wilbert Smiths, really not any different. You just pointed it out in a better way maybe this time. Or I finally had a enough lessons the big bright light came on because of the way you related it to the "electron" picture tied everything together.
:mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by webolife » Mon May 05, 2008 3:49 pm

Junglelord said: I understood your entire premise.

WOW :o ... you may be the first person to have said such a thing to me in at least 15 years! :D

This whole unified field theory thing can be a very lonely enterprise! ;)
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by junglelord » Mon May 05, 2008 4:07 pm

Yes and my new forum structure based on linear reduction threads and non linear wholistic TOE threads has occured as a logical consequence and your reply is perfect proof of our combined statements and how this forum would benefit from such an approach is clear by what you said.

You can take a life time to learn a TOE, or you can learn it in a day. I happen to have had a huge synesthesia experinece yesterday down by the river watching waves. I had a huge non linear leap in understanding. That is the nature of wholistic thought and models. Either way they stand alone and should be posted as non interrupt threads except to add to the same picture as it is a non linear wholistic constructs and to accept them is normally non linear because it is a new paradigm as it constructs a new fabric of reality. We rarely adopt a flat to round earth view in linear mode, rather that tends to be a non linear process.
;)

The threads that weave that fabric are open for debate and examination. That is the linear reductionism force, the things we get hung up on. This should be seperate and knowledge and myth seperated and eliminated in that thread only. That is where the flat earth gets left behind and we sail not over the edge but into tomorrow.
8-)

Everyone learns different. Knowledge and the way we process gathered information is not the same for any two people I believe. I apprciate your continued effort to helps others "see the instant gradient light" and your vision of the Unified Field.
:ugeek:
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

User avatar
bboyer
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Matter is made of only waves?

Unread post by bboyer » Mon May 05, 2008 5:08 pm

webolife wrote:<snip>

The spectrum of light in a spectroscope, or the rainbow manifested through raindrops or atmospheric halos from ice crystals, are all examples of this light field pressure gradient. In short, the Newton's Ring images seen in the electron video are seen in any/every situation where light is focused through a narrow "window", such as the reflection off of a "point"-particle, and are the image of the light-pressure field itself. The field vectors manifest according to a redundant geometric principle, which turns out to be related to a series of imbedded/circumscribed hexagons. In other models, this pattern may be described as a "standing wave", though I don't view it as such. The electron video shows an oscillating out-of-focus "point"-particle or particle-pair, reflecting an in-focus light field. Electrons themselves are invisible, only the reflected light field is seen in this picture. The light field itself is invisible except to the detector/receiver which is tuned to the field geometry others would say "frequency" but that implies that the light is waving, so I avoid that terminology, although if the signal being imaged is transmitted and recorded as a pulse, then that pulsing will obviously have its own frequency.
Just curious, Gordon. What definitions are you using for these individual terms? Just attempting to reconcile a few thoughts of my own about your model in which a medium of continuity such as an aether is not necessary.

1) field
2) pressure
3) gradient
4) vector

Thanks,
bryan
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests