sananda

ah mooey, don't get excited because I have an opinion... obviously it offends you because it could be true and if that was the case your world would come crashing down around you. By the way it was their oral orifice I was talking about... how crude!

Are you saying that I haven't carefully considered what I am saying? Here are the facts. Mass attracts mass at a rate inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Currently science describes this as the "effect" mass has on the space-time continuum. I am not suggesting that E=mc^2 change or any other formula that currently predicts what is happening to the nth degree, what I am suggesting is that the reasoning behind these formulas can teach us new things. I think science was correct to remove Ether when it did because it was only a confusion, but quantum physics have re-introduced ether under another guise and perhaps it needs to be considered at the macro level if people are serious about a grand unified theory. 100 years ago Lorentz and Einstein battled it out based on speculation and throwing constants and transforms all over the shop, it was an exciting time, but unfortunately today there is too much inertia and rigidness around and in my opinion it has slowed progress in this area. Ether exists lads, whether we like it or not and you all agree that one way or another, you can call it dark energy (quintessence), spin foam, Planck particles, quantum wave state (QWS), zero-point energy, quantum foam, vacuum energy or whatever you choose, it exists. It's only a matter of time (geddit) before quantum physics and relativity are combined.

of course it is if the rate of time experienced by that mass is also controlled by how much of this subtle stuff is available to the matter.

now that's some messed up stuff right there!

if you call it a constant or a transform you get away with it, it happened a lot more in the past when there was a lot less people's minds to change LOL

there are two kinds of people... those that don't know and those that know they don't know

it actually did come out of someone's orifice... the lads who were coming up with the stuff we take for granted today were making crap up to fit formulas. oh and this is the speculations board, surely I'm free to speculate here LOL Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged There is no ether!!! Now there's a statement, even Einstein and Newton would not say that. It merely is not in their equations (well not obviously but intrinsically) and rightly so as it was not needed... that does not mean they didn't believe it existed!!! As for the doppler effect, absolutely, but frequency can change based on the density of the medium light travels through too!!! I maintain that light speed will not be c to an observer moving away from a light source... moving towards it, probably yes because their own time reference will speed up to compensate for the addition of the their own speed + the speed of the light coming towards them.

No it doesn't, no more than sound waves are air particles. IMHO, energy in the case of light is simple propogation of energy through a very dense electromagnetic field... it was called ether 100 years ago, now it is called the Zero Point Field... there are lots of other names for it too LOL The only thing that has mass is matter. It seems to me that mass is something that has a) inertia, resistance to change in direction b) volume c) gravitational field We know mass is made up of these things called fermions, or point particles, which have no volume apparently, but the various types combined together as a system make the universe what it is. I feel that gravity is the result of how these fermions interact. I think that the nucleus of atoms draw in the energy of space as fuel, similarly to how flames use air to emit light and heat. At the micro level this drawing in of fuel gives matter its volumetric and inertial properties whereas at the macro level it results in its gravitational properties. My only other thoughts on this are that the burn rate of atoms is based on how much fuel is available to them... and this is where E=mc^2 comes in

I asked about them here and all the experiments quoted were done through counting/measuring the tick rate of clocks. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Probably because they don't think they need to. But if it does break relativity then what then??? Will they cover the cracks using bubblegum, the way Lorentz did with ether? I wonder would they have removed ether had he not changed his mind so much, but I suppose the race was on. Imagine how much simpler it will all be when light is just a wave again.

you can hear sound though it has no mass in itself because it is just energy... though you could be forgiven for thinking that sound is made up of air particles (or whatever medium it travels through) bombarding your ear drums, if you were not able to measure the particles the medium is made if.

Just a question I wanted to pose to you all. From what I can see, most if not all experiments to do with 'c' have been verified through the speeding up or slowing down of atomic clocks based on whether they are within close proximity to earth, in space, or moving relative to a stationary target on earth (no need to point out that the stationary target is not actually stationary). So is the 'c' in the equation just referring to the density of ether with specific reference to the timeframe in question, rather than the fact that a light beam will always measure 'c' to moving sensors? I think it is the former. Thinking about E=mc^2 in terms of light beams and moving observers is counter-intuitive for most, but if it refers to that medium that controls the speed of light and how traversing it affects matter (the kind with mass), it becomes very palatable indeed. The fact that nobody has really done these sorts of experiments with light is shocking... but I will make a prediction here that 'c' will change if 'c' refers the speed of a specific light beam depending on whether an observer is moving towards it, or away from it!!!

yes i was putting the infinite energy source out of the question... a supercavitation process could already be naturally happening, resulting in the reason why matter flows through space without obstruction, in the case of an electromagnetic ether.

According to E=mc^2 You need infinite energy to get something to the speed of light unfortunately. So we either invent an infinite energy source, or find a way of breaking the formula. Perhaps like supercavitation of water there is a way of doing this with space time... I personally don't buy into worm hole theories, but folding or warping space time can be demonstrated through maths...

how about room temperature superconductors so we can have cheap maglev trains. or how about an anti-gravity device... think of the applications in the construction industry and transport industries alone. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged you wouldn't think that reading some of the posts on this forum LOL (before anyone says anything about my posts, I don't claim to be a scientist LOL)

I don't think it can because you'd have to have someone on the planet or star with a (somehow) synchronised stop watch sending out a signal... I understand that relativity states that c is constant to all observers, but this has generally been used to show how clocks are altered by movement and the intensity of a gravitational field. I want to see results of an experiment of light being shone on a moving target... can it be done?

We know light speed changes when it flows through matter, when it is refracted etc. The thing is that if an observer is located in the same part of space as the light they will measure it as c because their own time reference changes based on the density of the ether in their location... Do you see the beauty and simplicity of this statement? Dense objects would certainly draw in more ether yes. Their effect on ether would dissipate at a rate inversely proportional to the distance, simply because the amount of fuel available grows geometrically... this is exactly newtons law of gravitation... the only addition I'm making to this is that the rate of time at any given point in space is dictated by how much ether is available to matter... more energy can be made available to matter the further into space it goes away from planets, stars etc. or by moving the object. That is why through experimentation we see that both movement and distance from earth affects the tick rate of atomic clocks...

Mr. Skeptic, Forgive me for answering your last point, but yes there is less and less of it. This is why people believe the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which makes little sense... it makes more sense that the light is red shifting into less dense areas of space, areas where there is more matter (of the massive kind).

I am on point, I am just stating that anything we don't understand at the moment could be described in a million different ways, including 'it's just magic' or a miracle...

touche.

interesting question though... if everything was expanding in unison, then how would we ever know...

discrete photons were proposed because of the photo-electric effect... light ticks the wave box far more often then teh particle box.

Thank you for engaging with me. I suppose you could say atoms saturate and when fission or fusion occurs some of this energy is released... i.e. they act as ether capacitors... The energy absorbed by atoms gives them their size, i.e. they would remain point particles and do nothing, probably cease to exist without ether. areas of space that has close to no ether would be around immensely dense objects... and possibly close to the nucleus of an atom also... if there were no ether then yes light would just stop,

Are you not just describing a modern version of Ether here? Newton described it as a medium subtiler than air when contemplating how gravity acted over great distances.

I think why delves further than how... It is like John Connor telling Arnie, "you just can't go around killing people" and the computer keeps saying "but why" The how I have no problem with, you need the how obviously to do stuff, but to truly be master of something you need to get to the why.

Gravity is the observable current, yes. Obviously large bodies, through the absorption of ether affect this reference frame.