The Michelson-Morley experiment and its consequences

[Anonymous No.14555197]

Wake up /sci/, new Michelson-Morley paper just dropped....

Enjoy.

[Anonymous No.14555222]

>>14555197
Quick run down synopsis i ain't clicking that ish, was the experiment done again, is it just analyzed differently, how many papers have been written on it the last 20 years, why is this paper better than those, has the ISS done any such experiments?

[Anonymous No.14555226]

>vixra
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.14555229]

>>14555197
>No Tooker
binned

[Anonymous No.14555230]

Before I click on that please tell me how many pages. I have ADHD and can't concentrate for more than 5 minutes.

[Anonymous No.14555256]

It's absurd how much physicists got wrecked by wave mechanics at the beginning of the last century.

De Broglie waves were dismissed as unphysical due to their superluminal phase velocity. Now we have repeated superluminal phase velocities in common media and we consider them unremarkable, yet we never went and revisited De Broglie's ideas that were discarded because of that.

I found it hard to believe at first that the Michelson-Morley experiment could just be physicists overlooking the correct calculation for the classical transverse Doppler effect. But now that I know that the same thing happened in reverse with de Broglie waves, I can see how it could happen.

Your earlier paper had some parts that felt like sleights of hand, around the discussion of the Doppler shift on the phase. The paragraph about the energy of light was convincing enough, but it's much better now with the explicit phase calculation, which I had seen from Wesley anyway.

[Anonymous No.14555321]

>>14555197
bump, nice on OP

Got a patch notes from the previous paper?

[Anonymous No.14555390]

>>14555197
Are you claiming light moves faster than 300km? Literally all modern physics disagree with you

[Anonymous No.14555482]

>>14555256
>I found it hard to believe at first that the Michelson-Morley experiment could just be physicists overlooking the correct calculation for the classical transverse Doppler effect. But now that I know that the same thing happened in reverse with de Broglie waves, I can see how it could happen.
The Doppler pill is a tough one to swallow; it's surprising to me as well, but I trust what the math says over what humans say.

>De Broglie waves were dismissed as unphysical due to their superluminal phase velocity. Now we have repeated superluminal phase velocities in common media and we consider them unremarkable, yet we never went and revisited De Broglie's ideas that were discarded because of that.
I hadn't heard of superluminal de Broglie waves before, that's very interesting.

>Your earlier paper had some parts that felt like sleights of hand, around the discussion of the Doppler shift on the phase. The paragraph about the energy of light was convincing enough, but it's much better now with the explicit phase calculation, which I had seen from Wesley anyway.
Thank you, I tried making everything as clear and explicit as possible in this version, and I think the phase shift calculation definitely improves it.

[Anonymous No.14555494]

>>14555390
>Are you claiming light moves faster than 300km?
I claim that the speed you will observe depends on your velocity related to the stationary aether frame.

>Literally all modern physics disagree with you
I don't care.

[Anonymous No.14555500]

>>14555222
Picrel is a one-page synopsis. If you don't understand what it's getting at, I recommend reading the paper.

[Anonymous No.14555635]

>>14555321
Thanks. I added some new analysis (eg for phase, and for variations of the MM experiment) plus some more exposition, added new diagrams, and reorganized the paper.

[Anonymous No.14555680]

>>14555494
>>Literally all modern physics disagree with you
>I don't care.
epic
"modern physics" has been going nowhere for over half a century, only a midwit could uses "modern physics" as anything other than a slur.
"modern physics" has literally infinite research funding and they can't do anything with it, the large institutions which house "modern physics" are compost heaps made of rotting brains, wasted resources and missed opportunities.

[Anonymous No.14555700]

"New pseud post just dropped"

[Anonymous No.14556163]

>>14555197
https://mctoon.net/mmredux/

Tons of replications of Michelson Morley. Writing an ad hoc excuse for one and ignoring the ridiculous number of replications from various methods is just a waste of everyone's time.

> By taking the speed of light to be the same along both optical paths, Michelson and Morley assumed their conclusion (technically speaking, Einstein’s conclusion), which is that the speed of light is constant. This is a logical fallacy known as “begging the question”. Simply put, equation (9) is meaningless; it does not compute the phase shift.

Speculating a magical shift in speed is responsible instead of calculating changes in distance that are so reliable we measure topography with it. The author is clearly a moron taking too much meth. Whole industries rely on this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_scanning_interferometry so a magical interposition varying speed instead of distance simply makes no sense. The variance in speed would then have to be identical to expected variance in distance in ALL CASES. Ever wonder when to use Occam's Razor? In this case.

Otherwise I could argue invisible leprechauns did it and it's indistinguishable therefore you have to disprove my magical leprechauns. Fuck right off pal.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26859498_Laboratory_test_of_the_isotropy_of_light_propagation_at_the_10-17_level

But I don't even have to use Occam's Razor because someone already fucking wasted the time doing it. Who cares about Michaelson-Morley.

[Anonymous No.14556180]

oh it's nathan. did you learn dimensional analysis yet? not wasting any more time reading your trash.

[Anonymous No.14556185]

>>14556180
It's a guilty pleasure of mine because it's hilariously stupid. Like arguing you would need to do the measurement in a vacuum... which the one I linked, one he knows about, was done in. Weird how he keeps repeating that mantra when it was already done, and he has long since been informed of it multiple times. Very odd, that.

[Anonymous No.14556186]

>>14555390
>Literally all modern physics disagree with you
>>14555494
>I don't care.
As someone who still believes in the aether theory, I find OP based just for saying: "I don't care". I'll read your paper, OP, because of that.

[Anonymous No.14556190]

>>14556186
>As someone who still believes in the aether theory
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26859498_Laboratory_test_of_the_isotropy_of_light_propagation_at_the_10-17_level

but y tho

[Anonymous No.14556433]

>>14556185
>arguing you would need to do the measurement in a vacuum
Does a man made vacuum remove the presence of the EM field and Gravity field? And the quantum vacuumn fluctuation field?

[Anonymous No.14556441]

>>14555390
>Are you claiming light moves faster than 300km
yes. because that's a distance, retard. Lights average round trip speed is 300Mm/s

[Anonymous No.14556445]

>>14555197
GPS

[Anonymous No.14556451]

>>14555500
This is something I wondered tell me what you think:

The Gravity field exists everywhere in space.

The EM field exists everywhere in space.

The Earth is traveling through space.

The EM field and Gravity field may be relatively still in space before Earth arrives at a location on the trajectory of its travel.

(Though it may not be so relatively still as it may be rotating like a carosel around the super massive black hole center, the stars both and at once moving this space field swirl and being moved by it.)

The Earth is rotating X mph.
The Earth is orbiting the Sun Y mph.
The Earth is linearly traveling (around galactic center) Z mph.

Could these various directions and velocities of Earth's travel, possibly effect the nature of lights travel when it is created and detected on Earth?

Like we are traveling 100 mph down a highway with out hand out the window trying to measure the objective qualities of the air?

[Anonymous No.14556460]

>>14556451
>Gravity field
>EM field
There are no fields, its just sointists coping, gravity wouldn't work with gravity fields, fields must be in absolute reference frame and that would literally break gravity, blackholes and so on.
It were ping pong balls all along, except that pseuds lack the imagination to accept such complex structures can evolve from such simple rules.

[Anonymous No.14556469]

>>14556460
>gravity wouldn't work with gravity fields
gravity works damn well with Newtons laws and fields.

[Anonymous No.14556479]

>>14556460
Have you ever been at the ocean and felt sucked toward sea by the current?

If you know the small ocean field can have this effect, why do you not think the big gravity field can have a similar but larger effect?

[Anonymous No.14556482]

>>14556460
Also read the rest of my post and respond, I'm proposing an argument on your side

[Anonymous No.14556497]

>>14556163
>Tons of replications of Michelson Morley. Writing an ad hoc excuse for one and ignoring the ridiculous number of replications from various methods is just a waste of everyone's time.
I'm not disputing the result of the experiment; I'm saying that the result of the experiment is predicted by classical mechanics. The fact that the experiment has been replicated, and performed in a vacuum, etc, is irrelevant because I'm not disputing the result. My analysis applies to all of the replications, as well as Kennedy-Thorndike type variations.

>Otherwise I could argue invisible leprechauns did it and it's indistinguishable therefore you have to disprove my magical leprechauns.
I'm not arguing that it's impossible in general to detect variations in the one-way speed of light. In fact, the De Witte experiment convincingly detected them (picrel). What I'm claiming is that the design of the Michelson-Morley experiment is not adequate for the task because it is only measuring a difference in phase, not propagation. There's no magic involved, just basic geometry.

[Anonymous No.14556504]

>>14556186
Thanks senpai.

[Anonymous No.14556539]

>>14556451
What you're wondering sounds very similar to the aether "frame-dragging" argument, which holds that the reason that no aethereal motion was detected is because the aether is being dragged along with the Earth. While this is a possibility, it's not a necessary assumption (and for the reasons described in my paper, I don't believe it's the resolution to the experiment).

Another possible interpretation of the experiment is that the Earth is simply at rest with respect to the aether, perhaps by coincidence, or perhaps by cosmic design (e.g., we are special and we occupy a privileged position in the universe). This also explains the result, but I don't believe it's a satisfactory (or necessary) explanation.

[Anonymous No.14556630]

>I'm not disputing the result of the experiment; I'm saying that the result of the experiment is predicted by classical mechanics. The fact that the experiment has been replicated, and performed in a vacuum, etc, is irrelevant because I'm not disputing the result. My analysis applies to all of the replications, as well as Kennedy-Thorndike type variations.

You are repeating what I said with the example of leprechauns in more words. It does not in fact work using classical mechanics because it requires postulating a thing contradicted by observation. Namely, that the cause is a drastic variability in the speed of light. Hence the importance of measurement of consistency in a vacuum in refuting that necessity.

>By taking the speed of light to be the same along both optical paths, Michelson and Morley assumed their conclusion (technically speaking, Einstein’s conclusion), which is that the speed of light is constant. This is a logical fallacy known as “begging the question”. Simply put, equation (9) is meaningless; it does not compute the phase shift.

So you are either not the author, or you are a liar, or the author forgot his own fucking words. You declare this "assumption" to be fallacious, when in fact it reliably allows transit time to be calculated from the phase shift. Meaning no, you cannot explain it with classical mechanics, because to do so you'd have to contradict observable reality. The implication is a proof by negation, or modus tollens, granting me warrant to reject that claim.

>What I'm claiming is that the design of the Michelson-Morley experiment is not adequate for the task because it is only measuring a difference in phase, not propagation. There's no magic involved, just basic geometry.

It is perfectly adequate to the task because we know the speed of light does not go willy-wonka whoville bonkers in a way that conveniently aligns to the ability to calculate time or distance based on how light behaves. That was the whole point.

[Anonymous No.14556662]

>>14556451
>Could these various directions and velocities of Earth's travel, possibly effect the nature of lights travel when it is created and detected on Earth?

Gravity does because it changes the space light travels through. The distance in space light travels necessarily changes the wavelength due to the inverse square law as well. Magnetism doesn't because light does not have a charge.

We've observed, tested, re-tested, re-observed, accounted for quite a lot of these phenomena. Given these effects are reliable you can work backward to undo them, their effects, to some degree in some cases. Hence discovering that light is red shifted means you can accurately work backward accounting for red shift to measure distance more accurately. Same for blue shift. This also lets you know if an object is moving toward or away from you, and by how much.

[Anonymous No.14556667]

>>14556539
>aether
you don't even need an aether. space is never empty. EM waves(light) propagates in the sparse charged particles that comprise a partial vacuum.

[Anonymous No.14556713]

>>14556667
If there's no aether at all, the issue is that there wouldn't be any mechanism to "anchor" the speed of light to an absolute reference frame. In order for the speed of light to be anchored to the "aether frame" the way the speed of sound is anchored to the frame of the Earth's surface, there has to be some interaction between light and the aether (even if light is just traveling through the aether, and not a wave within the aether).

Otherwise, the emission model of light would be ballistic (eg, Ritzian), which is at odds with Bradley stellar aberration, the Sagnac experiment, and other observations.

[Anonymous No.14556764]

>>14556630
Find a specific, mathematical flaw in my argument (and no, just crying "modus tollens" isn't sufficient) or concede defeat.

[Anonymous No.14556771]

This is the third time I have seen this and all that changes is the date on the first page.

[Anonymous No.14556776]

>>14556771
I added eight more pages of analysis and expanded the paper by about 50% from the previous version.

[Anonymous No.14556780]

>>14556776
proof?

[Anonymous No.14556782]

>>14556764
You gotta learn to grammar m8. Your parenthetical statement belongs AFTER the subclause following the or. I mean, I know you graduated with a 3.0 just barely scraping by. But did you get a C in English or something? Or is it just the schizophrenia destroying your ability to communicate? Whatever. Not my problem, Nathan.

By the way, digging how you updated your profile pic to an older one with you having hair. Wise choice, bald faggot. Too bad everyone who knows you knows you're actually bald kek

[Anonymous No.14556784]

>>14556780
You can see the version history here: https://vixra.org/abs/2103.0149

[Anonymous No.14556786]

>>14556782
man he's already dead. did you really have to go for the kill shot with the bald comment? come on man, you know you're also exposing him as a sub 5'8" manlet as bald people are. natdog, my bro, im sorry bro, he did u dirty

[Anonymous No.14556799]

>>14555197
>new
lol, no, it's the same shit you've been spamming here for years, Nathan.

[Anonymous No.14556804]

>Here we review Michelson-Morley’s original analysis of their interferometer experiment
Did you just assume Michelson and Morley's pronouns? What the fuck is your problem? Get deported back to Mexico you fucking piece of spic

[Anonymous No.14557031]

>>14555482
>I hadn't heard of superluminal de Broglie waves before, that's very interesting.
I found out by reading PDF related by a certain Luis Dias Ferreia.

He gives mathematical justification for what I talk about here >>14551804 that antimatter is the result of converting a tachyonic frame of reference converted to a subluminal one.
Because he's interested in tachyonic matter, he's also interested in this "tachyonic wave" of de Broglie. He has a nice historical overview in the paper.

Sadly he's a relativist, so his analyses make no sense without proper interpretation (he believes he has found four aspects of matter rather than an apparent effect due to observation, usual relativist schizobabble), but what he finds is interesting nonetheless.
Moreover, it's good to know how the classical picture maps to the relativistic viewpoint and viceversa, so that it's gonna be easier to interpret the standard model's results: antimatter is a spook, what else is?


In the same vein, Schroedinger's wave mechanics was a classical theory of waves in the aether (https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.211600/page/n137/mode/2up?q=ether&view=theater)), starting from the very classical consideration that the "straight rays of light" approximation breaks down at very small scales (https://archive.org/details/fourlecturesonwa00schr/page/6/mode/1up?view=theater).). De Broglie's matter wave idea was that a moving body produces a wave in the aether.
It seems that we use a lot of aether mathematics, that is conceived to describe the aether, and just interpret it wrong for the sake of it.

[Anonymous No.14557421]

>>14557031
>It seems that we use a lot of aether mathematics, that is conceived to describe the aether, and just interpret it wrong for the sake of it.
It's because a class if sheltered "scientets" don't like to be weirded out too much by nature, also pride hurten, that there is an aether all around that they cannot see, so they dismiss and deny it. To get back at it and try to take the reigns of the oddity they willfully lose their minds and try to outcompete in strangeness to prove some manliness oh yeah will I can tolerate insanity craziness and delusion better than you watch this; Nothing exists untill conciousness looks at a wave function and makes it stop

[Anonymous No.14557428]

>>14557421
No..no. more accurately it is that they are literal autistics who are bothered by this Ae Aether spelling, that it's too European, or afraid that they will be called out for biasedly liking it too much as it reminds of a word that could come from lord of the rings.

A combination of all these is likely the case
As well as I heard the theory mentioned up and coming scientests wanted to make a name and splash for themselves so they said; no no that theory is wrong;

Changed the name of it, and presented it as their own, albeit with a new and improved lack of subtlety and understanding

A combination of all these is likely the culprit

Including the possibility of fear it may spark certain religious conclusions or dreams of utopian abundant energy access,

Some combination of all of these

[Anonymous No.14557429]

Nice schizo containment thread. Reminder for all of you to take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14557549]

>>14556764
I don't have to. You have an epistemological flaw. Your idea requires light behave contrary to how we know it behaves. That is all anyone needs to dismiss it. Grow up.

[Anonymous No.14557553]

>>14557549
>>14556764
By the way dismissing logic and then demanding logic but with symbols is fucking hilarious

[Anonymous No.14557563]

>>14557549
>>14557553
The argument is easy to follow.

A: The Doppler effect is a classical wave phenomenon.
B: Light is taken not to be a classical wave due to relativity.
C: Relativity is taken to be true due to the Michelson-Morley result.
D: The Michelson-Morley can be explained by the Doppler effect.

Therefore, light is taken not to be a classical wave due to relativity, which is taken to be true due to the Michelson-Morley result, which can be explained by the Doppler effect, which is a classical wave phenomenon. Contradiction.
Therefore light is a classical wave.

[Anonymous No.14557566]

>>14557563
1. Leprechauns exist
2. Leprechauns arbitrarily play with the speed of light to magically match phase shift distances to annoy us
3. Therefore Leprechauns explain it

I don't care about your fart huffing. Light does not behave in the way you describe to the extremes required. Your reasoning does not work. "Validity" and "Soundness" are two different things. Somehow you have a bachelors in maths and you skipped that class?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26859498_Laboratory_test_of_the_isotropy_of_light_propagation_at_the_10-17_level

[Anonymous No.14557587]

Reminder that John S. Bell had a soft spot for aether theories
Source is The Ghost in the Atom by P. C. W. Davies

[Anonymous No.14557588]

>>14557587

[Anonymous No.14557591]

>>14557588

[Anonymous No.14557618]

>>14555197
>Its name comes from arXiv spelled backwards.[4][5]
>It accepts submissions without requiring authors to have an academic affiliation and without any threshold for quality.[4]
>the site has a reputation among physicists for hosting "material of no interest".[7]
This is the site where OP uploaded his children paper lmao, you will never be a real physicist.

[Anonymous No.14557675]

>>14557566
1. I'm not treating light waves any different than sound waves. Feist replicated the MM result with sound waves, btw.
2. My treatment is completely consistent with experiment, which also found the phase shift to be zero.
3. You keep posting this replication as if you think it somehow doesn't strengthen my argument. Curious.

[Anonymous No.14557704]

>>14557675
>>14556497
>I'm not disputing the result of the experiment; I'm saying that the result of the experiment is predicted by classical mechanics.
>What I'm claiming is that the design of the Michelson-Morley experiment is not adequate for the task because it is only measuring a difference in phase, not propagation.
>The fatal flaw in the Michelson-Morley experiment was the expectation that a difference in the travel times of the two beams of light would create an interference pattern. However, an interferometer does not measure differences in propagation times; rather, it measures differences in phase, and a difference in propagation time does not necessarily correspond to a difference in phase if the wavelength of light cannot be assumed to remain constant throughout.
>I'm not disputing the result of the experiment
>However, an interferometer does not measure differences in propagation times
>I'm not disputing the result of the experiment
>The fatal flaw in the Michelson-Morley experiment
>and a difference in propagation time does not necessarily correspond to a difference in phase if the wavelength of light cannot be assumed to remain constant throughout.
>I'm not disputing the result of the experiment
Yes you are.
Difference in phase, because the speed of light is a constant, can be used to calculate time within a margin of error. Want to tell me that margin of error? Funny your paper didn't mention it.

[Anonymous No.14557743]

>>14557704
>Difference in phase, because the speed of light is a constant
The Michelson-Morley experiment isn't measuring whether the speed of light is constant. It's measuring whether there is any round-trip interference. I'm not disputing the fact that they didn't detect any round-trip interference.

There are observations mentioned in the paper (eclipses of Io, Bradley stellar aberration) that did measure the speed of light and determined that it varied depending on the velocity of the observer.

You keep quoting me. Any plans to actually read what I wrote?

[Anonymous No.14557752]

>>14557743
Speed of light isn't changing. Your reference frame is. "Apparent" motion is not actual motion jackass.
>You keep quoting me. Any plans to actually read what I wrote?
Any plans to stop and think about what you wrote?

[Anonymous No.14557766]

>>14557752
>"Apparent" motion is not actual motion jackass.
You understand the theory of relativity denies that we can observe apparent motion in light though, right?

[Anonymous No.14557779]

>>14557766
>You understand the theory of relativity denies that we can observe apparent motion in light though, right?
You understand speed of light is a constant, right?

https://myslu.stlawu.edu/~jmil/physics/labs/151_lab/inactive/michelson.shtml

The fact is, as I already explained, your claiming a fault in Michelson-Morley (as if it matters) due to supposedly not being able to determine transit time is asinine. Yes it can, yes it does, and your head is shoved thoroughly up your ass.

[Anonymous No.14557782]

>>14557031
Super interesting, thanks for these sources.

[Anonymous No.14557785]

>>14557766
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_%28astronomy%29#Relativistic_explanation

Might as well link this but nobody fucking reads so I'm not sure why I bother

[Anonymous No.14557786]

>>14557766
I do, but also I'm not a doubtfag nini.

[Anonymous No.14557790]

>>14555500
What happens if the source velocity [math]v>c[/math]

[Anonymous No.14557805]

>>14557790
Then the formula won't hold, since the final emission will reach the observer before the first emission.

[Anonymous No.14557840]

>>14557587
Einstein whether he knew it or not was more concerned with pragmatically describing a tool for humans vantage point; more than trying to describe the way objective reality noumenally exists as itself beyond all human perspective

[Anonymous No.14557847]

>>14557563
What does this theory achieve that field theory does not? As far as I see they are the same;

Humans cannot measure the aether or the field inbetween particles; so field theorists just dont like talking about that;

Aether people say there are particles eveywhere in space we can't detect right now.

Field theory folks say if we can't measure them, we can't think about them.

Can all variables and known laws be plugged into computer simulation to trial and error, brute force, figure out the candidates for the size and density of the aether particle/or graviton?

[Physics, for 400 Alex No.14557868]

>>14557847
>field theorists
What are virtual particles?

[Anonymous No.14557914]

>>14557591
The Sun is traveling in some direction around the galactic center:

Sun------------------------------->

The Earth is traveling with the Sun in this direction.

Whether Aether and/or Gravity;

Would a spacecraft not be able to detect difference traveling -----------> this way
Or. < ------------------- that way or this way
^
|
|
|
|

Could it theoretically detect the stream/wind of the gravity field/aether being dragged by the sun?

Alot of times EM is used to detect, but if EM just travels intimately with Gravity field/aether , what other techniques and mechanisms could be used to detect?
Particle trap, sensitivity scale, momentum sensor?

[Anonymous No.14557918]

>>14557847
>What does this theory achieve that field theory does not? As far as I see they are the same;
You don't see very far then, if you only care about superficial equivalence. What sustains the theory gives guidance for further investigation.
Geometry and mathematics give you string theory, aether and mechanics give you magnetohydrodynamics.

Aether theory predicts and explains why increasingly more common classical analogues of "spacetime" and "quantum behaviors" exist, let alone useful in understanding "relativistic" and "quantum" phenomena, by cutting the Gordian knot and affirming that they are fundamentally classical. It's not surprising that the Maxwell equations and Navier-Stokes equations turn out to be similar. It's not surprising that the Schroedinger's equation can be split into hydrodynamic equations. Macroscopic droplets mimicking pilot waves are not surprising. These equations were made for a waving aether, so they're analogous to anything like it.
It's also not surprising that there exist acoustic blackholes, even though general relativity was not made with aether in mind (although it did make Einstein admit that it was basically an aether https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether/).).

Aether theory explains why decay rates have been found to be variable and correlated with solar activity, because they are not inherently random. It explains why there is more matter than antimatter, because antimatter is an observational effect. It explains what relativistic mass is, it's a hydrodynamic phenomenon called added mass. It explains magnetic field quantization, And so on.

And what do you pay for a clear mechanical picture of physics? You have to abandon the paradoxes of relativity and quantum mechanics. What IS there to lose?

[Anonymous No.14557930]

>>14557918
You're just cherrypicking and ignoring all evidence of relativity. Pathological science.

[Anonymous No.14557946]

>>14557743
>that did measure the speed of light and determined that it varied depending on the velocity of the observer.
How can the speed of light itself be measured if 2 observers are traveling at different velocities and vectors in relation to it?

You and I are floating in space 3 miles apart with a drone spaceship equip with high power light beam turned off in between us; we each are holding detectors in front of us.

At the same exact time: we turn on our jet pack thrusters, you start to travel towards me at 300 mph, I travel away from you at 300mph, the drone spacecraft with light emitter travels towards you at 300 mph;

At the same exact time it emits some light toward you and towards me; when it does so it (for thought experiment sake magically signals to our headset that it emitted; or better yet, we look at our watch and know light in both directions is emitted when our watches strike 9:00 on the dot)

You detect the light before I do. We started at the same distance from the light source, it emits at same time. I geuss this is all about needing to be in the same reference frame to consistently meausre a consistent reading.

Red shift and blue shift is due to not being in those frames. Also we don't know the objective speed of light out there because we only measure it in our frame on earth moving with sins gravity well in reference to EM field/aether

[Anonymous No.14557950]

>>14555197
ya'll niggas need plasma physics. Solves all this shit

[Anonymous No.14557954]

>>14557918
Any sources on that solar activity point or is it in the paper?

[Anonymous No.14557966]

>>14556451
>The Gravity field exists everywhere in space.
No it doesn't
>The EM field exists everywhere in space.
No it doesn't

[Anonymous No.14557984]

>>14557954
https://phys.org/news/2010-08-radioactive-vary-sun-rotation.html

If decay rates are not constant and vary with solar activity then there is no reason to believe that there isn't a mechanism behind decay, and that the nondeterminism of quantum mechanics should be fundamental.

[bodhi No.14557997]

>>14556782
what a vile little manlet creature you are. no question in my mind you are the biggest loser on this board. You probably work at del taco dont you little sumbag?

[Anonymous No.14558004]

>>14557984
We don't know the direction of causation yet, it's not relevant to argue any given theory. Radioactivity isn't the only quantum effect, it's just "accessible" because it's passive. I'm not doubting anything, just taking cautious measures.

[bodhi No.14558013]

>>14555197
are you familiar with silvertooth 86? Some navy team whose conclusion MM equipment wasnt sensitive enough. Did this figure into your work? I havent read your paper yet but I will in a bit, this is working hours for me and I am watching charts atm

[bodhi No.14558015]

btw if you want to make a grip short audjpy to 95.09 then long the bounce there for a nice 100% return by tomorrow evening

[Anonymous No.14558032]

>>14558004
Do you suggest that variable decay rates cause solar activity? As in, because the decay rates (spontaneously?) change, solar activity also changes due to an unknown mechanism in the Sun?
If so, why should you (generic you) get to postulate a (spontaneous or otherwise) cause for the variability of the decay rates AND an unknown solar mechanism responding to it, but I don't get to postulate a mechanism by which decay rates vary due to solar activity?
And if it is to lend credence to the currently accepted theory, why did aether theory not enjoy such priority when relativity was the new theory? Note that Lorentz formulated contraction hypothesis (whose redundancy is disputed ITT by OP anyway) is both equivalent and prior to the theory of special relativity.

[Anonymous No.14558050]

>>14558032
>why did aether theory not enjoy such priority
Because I hadn't achieved human form by that point. I'm working constantly to overcome epistemic damage to our history, and I both fully appreciate the question and don't due to the "wait what work" effect.

[Anonymous No.14558054]

>>14558032
You may find this talk relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T07j1PVe16s&t=1460s

We have a tendency of thinking that if we are observing two correlated variables A and B, then either A --> B or B --> A, but there is a third possibility: We have another variable C, where C --> A and C --> B. Food for thought.

[Anonymous No.14558056]

>>14558032
>postulate a mechanism
Yes, by all means do so, but attacking quantum is tangential at best, provably irrelevant at worst. Don't drown the baby in the bathwater prior to throwing it out.

[Anonymous No.14558084]

>>14558054
>>14558056
It's not the only thing I mentioned and the things I mentioned are not the only ones that make me think that postulating an aether is overall more parsimonious than spacetime and quantum physics.
Aether has parsimony, true priority, simplicity and uniformity across all scales on its side. Relativity and quantum mechanics only have illegitimate priority on their side. There is no baby to throw out, only dirty bath water. We threw the baby out long ago.

[Anonymous No.14558085]

>>14558054
You can add arbitrary numbers of variables to this, but you lose plausibility if you don't know how to measure any of them. We have to prioritize competent measurement in physics because they're all arguments of precision in the end.

[Anonymous No.14558432]

>>14557914
This would be the true michaelson morely experiment;

What kind of sensor device could be made that could register aether/graviton/virtual photons?

If the device was held facing left, right, center, backwards, all directions, and registered differences, would that be evidence?

[Anonymous No.14558441]

>>14557918
>quantum behaviors" exist, let alone useful in understanding "relativistic" and "quantum" phenomena, by cutting
PR firm advertising hyping quantum science as being so magically different than quantum was and is a conspiracy, of a certain group of people trying to sneak into the public subconscious unconcious and conciousness a pseudo scientific pseudo spirituality pseudo cult pseudo mystery religion to supplant what they saw in the 20s through the 40s as the eroding of a societies sense of wonder and spirituality thankful as they were not fans of the stuffy unscientific traditionalism but forsaw the need for a new religion for the new atomic age. They also liked the godlessness of the eastern religions who also happened to have a penchant for intrigue in regards to thr importance of conciousness.

[Anonymous No.14558484]

>>14557950
>plasma
What Actually Is Plasma though? Is it just the EM field component fused together at a locality?

Is it vacuum lightning?

Is it photons and virtual photons fused and forced to travel a weird way, when a massive group of charge is massively accelerated to a high degre the field can't handle this so breaks down?

[Anonymous No.14558488]

>>14557966
Where does it not exist?

Is there real areas of space that are purely truly Nothing in the universe?

When EM radiation is propagated, from point A, is it a thing/wave that is traveling from point A to point Z 100 miles away?

[Anonymous No.14558498]

>>14558488
Prove to me that there is gravity/magnetic fields in any of the giant supervoids in the universe or really anywhere where there is no matter
Until you do that the notion that any of this stuff permeates the entirety of the universe is popsci schizo shit

[Anonymous No.14558516]

>>14558498
All we have is probability and deduction in those regards:

Where there is ocean medium, it is quite continous of itself, same of air medium.

Do you agree that the earth orbiting the sun occurs by the Sun interacting with the gravity field/medium?

We have not detected the Sun hitting any ""air"" pockets and momenterily throwing off gravity, so it's assumed that it's more likely the gravity field exists everywhere and not just in networked patches here and there.

Same for EM. Where do stars get all the EM waves/photons from?

They all just happened to form where a near unlimited supply of propagatable EM waves/ photons existed?

[Anonymous No.14558531]

>>14558516
>Do you agree that the earth orbiting the sun occurs by the Sun interacting with the gravity field/medium?
What kind of schizo shit are you trying to pull here?
The earth orbits the sun because of gravity
>We have not detected the Sun hitting any ""air"" pockets and momenterily throwing off gravity, so it's assumed that it's more likely the gravity field exists everywhere and not just in networked patches here and there.
The gravity "field" does not exist everywhere, because gravity is a direct result of the cumulation of atomic forces, same as electromagnetism, if you have no matter, there is no gravity.
>Where do stars get all the EM waves/photons from?
The're formed in subatomic interactions

[Anonymous No.14558672]

>>14558531
>The earth orbits the sun because of gravity
And what is gravity, physically mechanically how does it occur? Standard consensus is there exists an invisible medium of gravitation substance that the sun warps and then the earths path of least resistance is surfing that warp.

What do you know of the Physics of how gravity occurs?

[Anonymous No.14558690]

>>14558672
Not a valid standard. Don't lie about categories.

[Anonymous No.14558749]

>>14558672
>And what is gravity, physically mechanically how does it occur?
Gravity is the weak and strong nuclear forces, the more matter you have the stronger the gravitational field.

[Anonymous No.14559044]

>>14558690
>>14558749
Wow, just wow... It is a very long time ago now but I remember when I was first looking into the wild and whacky world of fundamental physics, beggining to realize how much of a game of chess it was and how far I was from being a grand master, the high if those initial mysterious years of wonder and ignorance being slowly replaced with sensical understanding is a high I am still chasing to this day.

[Anonymous No.14559061]

>>14558441
This, quantum religion was created because of atomic bombs and the power of knowledge of physics. It has been deemed too dangerous for civilization so we had to sacrifice any forward progress and completely halt the teachings of it.

[Anonymous No.14559247]

>>14558013
I'm familiar with it but couldn't find a good source, and it seemed as if the experiment has been "debunked" by an attempted replication, so I didn't include it in the section on experimental evidence.

The De Witte experiment is the most convincing to me, although unfortunately the original data seems to have been lost. The design of the experiment is very straightforward, however, and precludes the possibility of temperature dependence.

You may find Marinov's experiments to be interesting. They are similar to Silvertooth's, but JP Wesley has some papers where he explains Marinov's work in depth.

[Anonymous No.14559302]

>>14555680
>"modern physics" has literally infinite research funding
wat

[Anonymous No.14559311]

>>14559302
It's just a bunch of average people desperate to feel special to satisfy their narcissism. If that means ignoring demonstrable reality and verifications of the physics they reject, well, as we've seen they'll ignore anything. See also: Flat earthers.

[Anonymous No.14559325]

>>14559311
Whence the "literally infinite research funding"??

[Anonymous No.14559857]

>>14555197
>gmail
>not in a journal
>aether
Stopped reading right away.

[Anonymous No.14560526]

>>14559325
Modern physics is a massive field comprised of many many individuals; the research funding is proportionally a lot when considering what modern physics research community got as a whole; but now because the field is much larger comprising more individuals, universities, and instititional, a greater amount of funds likely would seem lesser as it needs to be spread more thin to cover the many.

This should only be motivation for the Council of Great Absolute Divine Superior Geniuses of Modern Physics Leadership to curtail frivolity in their field and wasteful focuses and spending.

Plenty and plenty of money will feel like much much too little if spent unwisely

[Anonymous No.14560534]

>>14559325
Modern physics is a massive field comprised of many many individuals; the research funding is proportionally a lot when considering what modern physics research community got as a whole in the early to mid 1900s; but now because the field is much larger comprising more individuals, universities, and instititions, a greater amount of funds likely would seem lesser as it needs to be spread more thin to cover the many.

This should only be motivation for the Council of Great Absolute Divine Superior Geniuses of Modern Physics Leadership to curtail frivolity in their field and wasteful focuses and spending.

Plenty and plenty of money will feel like much much too little if spent unwisely

[Anonymous No.14560570]

>>14559311
Draw a 3D object that you cannot leave in any direction you go to and has equal distance to its center with finite length shadow no matter is your light angle. Your mapping shouldn't be any kind of diffeomorphism from the 3D-sphere model. (you made it so cringe, you made me talk about its shape as if it was a theoretical model)
>brain.exe has stopped working

[Anonymous No.14560574]

>>14559311
>ignoring demonstrable reality

Do tinfoils really?

[Anonymous No.14560578]

>>14559857
It is obvious bait(high school calculations, almost no calculus) , yet you are as much stupid for not giving it a chance. Luckily you're not of important role to society to control the NPC crowd.

[Anonymous No.14560586]

>>14558672
We do not care.
Really, mysticists should realize it is not the 16th century and we will not see the hand of god through scientific observation. We don't really care.
Gravity is any calculation term, when added minimizes error in celestial body motion calculation. End of the story.
Have a hot bath and relax.

[Anonymous No.14560761]

>>14557790
you get blue. specifically cherenkov radiation, which is caused by particles travelling faster than light can in a given medium (water or air, usually)

[Anonymous No.14560986]

>>14560578
>high school calculations, almost no calculus
If it's wrong, it should be easy to disprove then

[Anonymous No.14561000]

>>14556163
>Tons of replications of Michelson Morley.
Did they all produce the same useless null result too? (yeah they did)
>Writing an ad hoc excuse for one and ignoring the ridiculous number of replications from various methods is just a waste of everyone's time
Redoing the MM experiment over and over is a waste of everyone's time. Bringing up a null result like it means something is also a waste of everyone's time.

>>14556497
>The results he speaks of are null
>posts endlessly about null

>>14557704
>because the speed of light is a constant
Proof of light having a speed let alone a "Constant" one?

>>14557779
>You understand speed of light is a constant, right?
No because there's literally no proof of that being the case.

>>14557868
Another fancy description some academic book learned moron came up with as a coping mechanism for being unable to explain how magnetism works.

>>14558488
>Is there real areas of space that are purely truly Nothing in the universe?
Space has no properties. It acts upon nothing, it couldn't if it tried.

>>14558749
>gravity is the (DESCRIPTION OF MASS ATTRACTING TO MASS), the more quantities you have of (NOT THIS DESCRIPTION) the stronger the (DESCRIPTION OF MASS ATTRACTING TO MASS).
Okay, how does gravity work though?

[Anonymous No.14561558]

Here is a collection of some of the questions I have asked on this board the past few weeks. Apologies for the duplicate questions and typoes of general sloppiness. Maybe someday I will have the energy and effort and patience to edit it better and add more questions but it is too much for me at this time.


https://pastebin.com/myj0keQ0

[Anonymous No.14561599]

>>14561000
Linked in that same post is page with example studies, one of which demonstrates speed of light in a vacuum as a constant. You're either a troll or this narcissistic about being this retarded. Either way, you're beneath me and most 3rd graders.

[Anonymous No.14561611]

>>14561599
>light
>in a vacuum
>demonstrated

So it's not a "Vacuum" is it now? How can they demonstrate a vacuum when there's light there negating it being a vacuum?

>You're either a troll or this narcissistic about being this retarded
I'm not the one who invented a standard of measure based on the speed of light which was never actually proven.

>Either way, you're beneath me and most 3rd graders.
Is this you begging for an underage ban or?

[Anonymous No.14561624]

>>14561599
>>14561611
the classical macro view of the ocean looks like there is no empty space in there. It looks perfectly dense full of water.

Micro atomic and quantum theory suggest things are not absolutely densely packed.

They say there is vacuum in between atoms or subatomic particles or molecules.

Vacuum at least laymanly used to mean pure absolute nothing.

But now vacuum might mean pure absolute something, just not atom stuff, exactly.

So now asking of vacuum, asking of em field asking of gravity field.

Either there is absolutely no real pure true existence of actual Nothing space amidst these fields of stuff; or there is some amount.

I won't be happy about it but I am prepared to have the swift discussion regarding the highschoolers kneejerk reaction to the word 'nothing' and how can nothing be nothing if you make a word for it that means its not nothing mannnn, for all you physicsts that hate philosophy you sure give undeniable reasons for it's nessecity in your field

[Anonymous No.14561632]

>>14561611
Linked in a post you replied to is a researchgate link. It refutes your whole bullshit. Your failure to read, your willful ignorance, is nobody's fault but your own. As you are indistinguishable from a troll I'm putting zero energy into you.

[bodhi No.14561648]

>>14559247
Yes, it was "debunked" by an acquaintance of mine Doug Marret. Have you been to his website conspiracy of light? If not check it out

[Anonymous No.14561663]

>>14561632
>Linked in a post you replied to is a researchgate link
Oh no! Not researchgate!

>It refutes your whole bullshit.
By implicating the existence of nothingness? How retarded are you? From nothing comes nothing.

>Isolate "photon", get it to cease waving
>It now doesn't exist, it has no definable nature about it.
>therefore it's induced to exist with conditions that must be achieved in order for this "waving" to occur and make the "photon" (the discrete particle that is undefinable without simply referring to what "it" does and propigates through nothing) what we define it as.
Which is an electromagnetic field modality, not some retarded discrete magic bumping particle with a "Constant speed" that magically changes when it enters a medium.

[bodhi No.14561670]

>>14558015
> if you want to make a grip short audjpy to 95.09 then long the bounce there for a nice 100% return by tomorrow evening

btw FYI, STEMtards are wagie cucks who will have any personal wealth

[bodhi No.14561673]

>>14561670
*never have any personal wealth

[bodhi No.14561686]

>>14561558
you know if you namefag it makes it easy to find your posts in the archive. You can do a search for posts with your name and get the results to just have a screenshot of this kind of shit. Just fyi

[Eman Gaf No.14561832]

>>14561686
Eh maybe too late, I think I already asked all the fundamental questions I could, we shall see if duty calls for another one. Thank you for knighting me however

[Anonymous No.14561836]

>>14555229
Imagine if tooky was actually smart;
He would just publish under a pseudonym. Or, maybe he already has?

[Anonymous No.14562036]

nathan, you should pay me to publish your paper

[Anonymous No.14562472]

>>14562036
I just submitted it to a journal.

[Anonymous No.14562777]

>>14562472
You should make copies of it at the library, publish it as a zine, hand it out like pamphlets around town like a true American

[Anonymous No.14563025]

>>14562777
I suppose I could go to a university and hand it out in front of the physics building until I'm arrested for trespassing

[Anonymous No.14563384]

>>14563025
Just simplify the paper into the most easily digestable certain profound points, and place that on the cover, like the table of contents contains slogan/headlines of the proof of importance.

And the schedule a meeting with local professors theoretical physics department, to give it to them.

That and a better idea; challenge the local thoretical physics department to a debate on these topics of your choosing, set it up in some local auditorium or cafe or something, bring a projector for PowerPoint, might be best to have it at the school in some class room, but I don't think theoretical physics department or universities like or appreciate debates.

Any way start a YouTube channel, where you challenge people in the know and passionate about theoretical physics to a debate.

The only thing is university students are what like 22 years old, what could they possibly know

[Anonymous No.14563388]

>>14563025
It's not trespassing, just tell them you are truly a student of physics

[Anonymous No.14563519]

>>14563384
>start a YouTube channel
I'm afraid you're vastly overestimating my work ethic.

[Anonymous No.14563525]

>>14563388
Hmmm, good point.

[Anonymous No.14563691]

The earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.14563741]

>>14555197
Interesting

I am not enough of a retard to think this is at all legit, but too much of a brainlet to see why it is wrong, however the idea of asserting an objective frame of reference in terms of 19th century science to btfo the relativists really jives with my view on social issues so I'm willing to fight with anyone who says otherwise

[Anonymous No.14565214]

>>14561624
Respond to this unless you're not very very smart

[Anonymous No.14566361]

>>14565214
I'm smart enough to know a single link, already posted, precludes all the bullshit here. Why would I put forth more effort than you schizos? You clearly can't or won't read, so posting further links to research would serve nothing.

[Anonymous No.14567343]

>>14566361
Ohhj ohhjhj ohhhhhhhh oooOOoo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I asked a (was gonna say simple, well it is simple, just not simple to know) straight forward question, I doubt your pdfs cover.

Something
Nothing

Matter and energy = Something
Matter and energy do not = Nothing.

Gravity field
Em field
Quantum foam fluctuation vacuum field.
Something something something

Does ANY amount of actual pure pure true real actual only truly purely spatial nothingness exist in the universe?

[Anonymous No.14567452]

>>14567343
>Does ANY amount of actual pure pure true real actual only truly purely spatial nothingness exist in the universe?
Not that I know of. For that matter, how could we know without putting something there with which to determine? It's a paradox because "nothing" makes no sense. Nor is it relevant.

[Anonymous No.14567676]

>>14567452
It is neither a paradox or irrelavant, it is severely relevant.

You were on the right track and then then the conclusion of the difficulty got you flustered and you confused it's irrelavant and a paradox, lol.

I have proven it's deffinitionly and (more importantly, therefore congruent with definition) physically impossible for any given point in time the quantity of energy and matter that exists in the whole of reality is finite.

Therefore the total volumetric scope of the universe (or total multiverse) is some finite 3d/4d shape.

Beyond the edges of the universe/multiverses, there are only two or so options:

an infinite surrounding area of actual nothing (no energy, no matter, no fields, no fluctuations, no foam)

A finite surrounding area of actual nothing (weird)

The universe/ultimately finite in number and quantity multiverses, has an edge like wall and beyond it is neither something or nothing...(stop)


Therefore either some amount of true actual volumetric nothing exists in the universe, or there is not a single Planck length of real pure volumetric nothingness in the universe.

The latter would be great evidence the universe is a simulation, because a raw natural universe you would expect some real spatial distances of nothingness to ultimately be the underlying canvas on which all somethingnesses paint their paths.

Now a simulation could fakely simulate place holder nothingness; and, the location of the computation of the simulation, could be the real raw reality with patches of real nothing amongst it.

The rarest circumstance would be a real natural universe of energy and matter and fields without a single Planck length cubed area volume of actual pure nothing (no energy, no matter, no physical fields

[Anonymous No.14567683]

>>14567676
It was so annoying typing this out and anticipating all the juvenile naive knee jerk simpleton thoughtless proud expressions of ignorance due to a hatred of so many individuals to spend hours every night for years in the dark thinking deeply, heavily, pointedly, purposfully about every single possible aspect of the universes reality

[Anonymous No.14567686]

>>14567676
>It is neither a paradox or irrelavant, it is severely relevant.
Given the rest of what you wrote is a giant schizopost I am taking your reply as evidence what I said was absolutely true. It was completely irrelevant. Thanks for playing, remember to take your meds.

[Anonymous No.14567698]

>>14567452
It is neither a paradox or irrelavant, it is severely relevant.

You were on the right track and then the conclusion of the difficulty got you flustered and you concluded it's irrelavant and a paradox, lol.

I have proven it's deffinitionly and (more importantly, therefore congruent with definition) physically impossible for at any given point in time the quantity of energy and matter that exists in the whole of reality to be in quantity of quantas existing at once.

Therefore the total volumetric scope of the universe (or total multiverses) is some finite 3d/4d shape.

Beyond the edges of the universe/multiverses, there are only two or so options:

an infinite surrounding area of actual nothing (no energy, no matter, no fields, no fluctuations, no foam)

A finite surrounding area of actual nothing (weird)

The universe/ultimately finite in number and quantity multiverses, has an edge like wall and beyond it is neither something or nothing...(stop)


Therefore either some amount of true actual volumetric nothing exists in the universe, or there is not a single Planck length of real pure volumetric nothingness in the universe.

The latter would be great evidence the universe is a simulation, because a raw natural universe you would expect some real spatial distances of nothingness to ultimately be the underlying canvas on which all somethingnesses paint their paths.

Now a simulation could fakely simulate place holder nothingness; and, the location of the computation of the simulation, could be the real raw reality with patches of real nothing amongst it.

The rarest circumstance would be a real natural universe of energy and matter and fields without a single Planck length cubed area volume of actual pure nothing (no energy, no matter, no physical fields

[Anonymous No.14567707]

>>14567686
It's 2 30 am I made some typos.

When I was 10 I would have thought all the greatest minds in history were schizos, you holding this white flag of a word up is upsettingly weak of a move by you. I can not near to imagine this certain type of reoccurring 18 year old video game polished dainty manicured twink that would so stoop to the level to use the word schizo like a bullying cheerleader teen girl, to get out of a semi complex sciencio philosophica conversation.

Just man up and admit you are ill equipped and ill prepared for this topic, or am I supposed to be the bigger and better man and let you feel at ease and vindicated, that yes you are very smart and special and I'm the crazy one for talking about this topic on this board, it's ok, there is nothing you do not know or are unable to think about.

[Anonymous No.14567710]

>>14567686
>>14567452
It is neither a paradox or irrelavant, it is severely relevant.

You were on the right track and then the conclusion of the difficulty got you flustered and you concluded it's irrelavant and a paradox, lol.

I have proven it's deffinitionly and (more importantly, therefore congruent with definition) physically impossible for at any given point in time the quantity of energy and matter that exists in the whole of reality to be infinite in quantity of quantas existing at once.

Therefore the total volumetric scope of the universe (or total multiverses) is some finite 3d/4d shape.

Beyond the edges of the universe/multiverses, there are only two or so options:

an infinite surrounding area of actual nothing (no energy, no matter, no fields, no fluctuations, no foam)

A finite surrounding area of actual nothing (weird)

The universe/ultimately finite in number and quantity multiverses, has an edge like wall and beyond it is neither something or nothing...(stop)


Therefore either some amount of true actual volumetric nothing exists in the universe, or there is not a single Planck length of real pure volumetric nothingness in the universe.

The latter would be great evidence the universe is a simulation, because a raw natural universe you would expect some real spatial distances of nothingness to ultimately be the underlying canvas on which all somethingnesses paint their paths.

Now a simulation could fakely simulate place holder nothingness; and, the location of the computation of the simulation, could be the real raw reality with patches of real nothing amongst it.

The rarest circumstance would be a real natural universe of energy and matter and fields without a single Planck length cubed area volume of actual pure nothing (no energy, no matter, no physical fields

[Anonymous No.14567718]

>>14567686
To summerize:

In the universe, there is either some amount of volumetric area they actual contains no energy, matter, fields, quantum foam, quantum fluctuations, and is actually Nothing Nothing Nothing.
Or there is no such volumes in the universe.

Those are the only 2 options and knowing this is extremely relavant to fundamental physics to theories

[Anonymous No.14567758]

>>14567718
>In the universe, there is either some amount of volumetric area they actual contains no energy, matter, fields, quantum foam, quantum fluctuations, and is actually Nothing Nothing Nothing.
>Or there is no such volumes in the universe.

Given space itself has energy, the answer is "no". Barring some radical shift of understanding. This remains completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.14567764]

>Now a simulation could fakely simulate place holder nothingness; and, the location of the computation of the simulation, could be the real raw reality with patches of real nothing amongst it.
The reason space has energy has nothing to do with a simulation either. This idea does not follow from the premise, and if actually thought about is contradicted by fact. Case in point,
>Now a simulation could fakely simulate place holder nothingness; and, the location of the computation of the simulation, could be the real raw reality with patches of real nothing amongst it.
That's fucking retarded. Simulations simplify calculations by definition, because they are MODELS of things. It is simpler to have "function = 0" than it is to have "function = bunch of random fluctuations of energy" by definition. Your whole idea rests on getting this basic fact fucking backward.

You seriously need to take your schizo meds and stop doing meth. This kind of irrational thinking is what we call "a psychotic break".

[Anonymous No.14568497]

>>14567758
Saying and thinking space has energy is an overstepping. You only say and think this because you can't measure all Planck lengths in space. You haven't even measured a single one. You measure the smallest spaces here and there,.get signals of some energy at times, so you have the gumption to conclude ALL POINTS IN SPACE HAS ENERGY!?!??!

You have the furthest thing from a grounds to make this claim on. What utterly careless thinking and speaking on your part.

[Anonymous No.14568529]

>>14555197
How come this thread is still active since a fucking week
Anon are a jobless midwit finding condolences in esoteric bullshit just to fill your void?

[Anonymous No.14568535]

>>14555230
So you should not make not read science.
Maybe you are built for social trans theory or something similar.

[Anonymous No.14568544]

>>14555482
Why is adding a shift term due to displacement in wave velocity a hard pill to swallow?

[Anonymous No.14568610]

>>14568544
Because it kills relativity

[Anonymous No.14568859]

>>14567764
Oh shit tsk tsk tsk failed to follow what I wrote.

I was listing different possibilities there:

Either there are volumes in the universe that possess Actual Real True Pure Nothing.

Or there are not.

Those are the only two options.

Either the Universe is Naturally undesigned unmade by God.

Or the Universe is made by God.

Those are the only two options.


It would seem more likely that the first condition, a natural unGodmade Universe would not be So So So fucking massively large; and be unavoidably surrounded by True Real Actual Pure Nothingness (already wrote in posts above how this must ultimately most by far likely be the case), and yet The Totality of All Energy and Matter and Fields covers every single Planck volume of volume in the entire universe;


That the totality of the universes material energy density would be so tightly dense, that there would not be an iota of pocket of True Actual Pure Nothingness, in the universe.

How do you not percieve the profundity of this topic. Such a fundamental root foundational aspect of the universes existence.

So I went on to say;

If the universe is Natural not made by God, most likely to have patches of Nothing amidst it.

But; if made by God; God could have put patches of Nothing in it, in the simulation, simulated areas of nothing.

But, therefore, if it could be proven; if volumes of space could somehow be measured and known to contain no amount of actual true pure Nothing in it, that every Planck volume possess non 0 amount of energy andor matter andor substantial field and or quantum foam and or vacuum fluctuation;

That is great evidence the universe is a simulation.

The only problem, yes it's not easy wah wish I don't want to think, is making instruments sensitive enough to say for certain, not just "durrr durrr hurr durrr my instrument can't be made small enough to measure the substance fundamental fields are microly made of but I use the instruments I detect 0 energy and fluxes

[Anonymous No.14568879]

>>14568529
Shut up Einstein, back to your mundane, mediocre, menial, trivialities

[Anonymous No.14570246]

>>14568859
>Either there are volumes in the universe that possess Actual Real True Pure Nothing.
>Or there are not.
>Those are the only two options.
>Either the Universe is Naturally undesigned unmade by God.
>Or the Universe is made by God.
>Those are the only two options.
This is a good point.

To clarify what followed:

It would seem more unlikely for a Natural (non God made) Universe to have 0 volumes of Nothing in it.

Especially with fucking quasars and super novas. Assumedly pushing lots of Energy, matter, fields, away from a point;

And thats not clearing away and leaving s pocket of real nothing behind;

COULD EVEN BE A MAJOR MECHANIC, MEANING, AND SOURCE OF BLACK HOLE. IF A POCKET OF TRUE ACTUAL NOTHING IS RIPPED INTO, ALL THE SURROUNDING MATTER, ENERGY, FIELDS THAT ARE USUALLY SO TIGHTLY DENSE TO ONE ANOTHER, DONT KNOW HOW TO ACT BEING SEPERATED BY A VOLUME OF NOTHING;

SO THD EXPLOSION SENDS A BUNCH OF STUFF OUTWARD, LEAVING A REAL HOLE OF NOTHING BEHIND;.

THE ENTIRE LOCAL ENERGY, MATTER, FIELDS, THAT ARE SHOCK WAVED AWAY FROM EXPLOSION POINT, AT SOME POINT FEEL THE PRESSURE OF THE SURROUDING UNIVERSE FORCING TO CLOSE THAT HOLE;

NOW AN OVER CORRECTION OF MATTER, ENERGY, FIELDS, RUSH IN TO FILL THAT HOLE;

IN DOING SO NOW THERE IS AN ABUNDANCE OF THEM, AND THEY ARE RUSHING TO THE HOLE WITH MOMENTUM;

THE FIRST TO COVER THE HOLE COLLIDE FROM ALL SIDES CONVERGING ON A CENTER;

BUT ENERGY MATTER FIELD BEHIND THAT AND BEHIND THAT AND BEHIND THAT DIDNT GET THE MEMO, IT IS STILL RUSHING IN, SO THIS GETS A SWIRL GOING; ONLY SO MUCH STUFF CAN COLLIDINGLY CONVERGE ON A CENTRAL POINT AND THEN JUST STABLELY STAY PUT.

[Eman Nep No.14570689]

>>14570246
Bravo bravo...... maybe

[Anonymous No.14570722]

>>14568859
No, I'm following, you're just suffering what's called "magical thinking". You are making connections that do not follow. I will point out a few more of these. Paraphrasing somewhat for brevity at times.
>Either the Universe is undesigned or made by God. Those are the only two options.
You are attempting, and failing, to apply a true dichotomy. The universe could be made by many Gods, could be a combination of what we call "natural" and other things, could be none of these things.
What you should have written instead is "the universe is either designed or not", by positing "God" or any specific invocation of "some specific designer", you are presenting a false dichotomy.
>How do you not percieve the profundity of this topic. Such a fundamental root foundational aspect of the universes existence.
Your reasoning does not follow. See also: Magical thinking.

In summary:
>Posits required properties that do not follow from the premises
>Makes invalid inferences as a result
>Insists it makes sense when it doesn't
You need some help anon.

[Anonymous No.14571030]

>>14570722
>You are attempting, and failing, to apply a true dichotomy. The universe could be made by many Gods, could
This really is myopic nitpicking on your part because you could have responded to the other physics aspects of what I wrote and given me the benefit of not doubting me;

You could have also believed by my refering to God I intend to include all such purposefully made circumstances, Gods, gods, what have you, I didn't think that would be a point needing extension and clarifying. So you got me red handed, I said God, instead of God/Gods. Epic fail on my part, and some combo of God/Gods and Natural combo would fall under the God/Gods catagory, my dichotomy stands sturdily in true substance and essence. And oh if it was a trichotomy or quadchotomy that would be such a bummer because dichotomys are so much more powerful and cooler. Never the less the dichotomy stands: Natural or Godness/Creatorness


>>14570722
>You are making connections that do not follow. I will point out a few more of these.
You only really pointed out 1, and I above proved your doing so faulty and contentlessly contrived. You didn't really respond to the meat and potatoes of the ideas of my post, the second example you provide, I agree an emotional flourish, an excited icing on the cake of my point, is debatable, I think when making theories about fundamental physics, the fields themselves, field theory specifically and generally, problems with quantum gravity, dark energy dark matter, cosmological constant, vaccum fluctuations, quantum foam, the sum total volume of universal space the EM field occupies, etc.. that the possible role true nothing does or does not play in the universe and relations of all these is extremely fundamental and relavant, therefore arguably profound.

[Anonymous No.14571089]

>>14571030
>This really is myopic nitpicking on your part because you could have responded to the other physics aspects of what I wrote and given me the benefit of not doubting me;

What you wrote consists of a bunch of fragmented ideas that do not necessarily follow from the others. That is the key issue: Does not ***necessarily*** follow. Hence, you are continuing to post magical thinking. You are either on too much meth or need to be evaluated for bipolar disorder, because you're on a manic phase right now.

[Anonymous No.14571106]

>>14571089
Nah take a poll of 100 people much smarter than you, find some average folks to read our exchange and do not be bewildered when they are weary of your motives and methods, and general abilities in thinking on these topics.


Highlight something else from the post you commented on you disagree with. Every time you try to show me the way I'm which why I wrote is wrong I will show you what you missed that led you to be mistaken

[Anonymous No.14571114]

>>14571106
Bud, if I were to poll the 100 people with a higher IQ than me I'd have to spend a fortune just trying to find them. You have issues you need to investigate. I strongly recommend you do that instead of this.

[Anonymous No.14571141]

>>14571089
Oh,I do apologize for you are correct about the fragments, I never intended or seemed to imply I was not speculating. But I was speculating on a thread that seemed to carry weight. You didn't see that, oh well.

You didn't follow about the nothingness/God thing?

Either God/Gods made the universe
Or the universe was not intentionally made/designed

Those are the only 2 options (I beg you provide another, so I may enlighten myself or you)(God/Gods working with some higher nature would still fall under the God/Gods catagory, the dichotomy stands).

Either a volume/volumes of Nothing exist in the Universe.
Or not.

Those are the only 2 options.

Are we good so far?


Whether the universe is all that exists, or there are 200000 multi verses, ultimately there must be an end to the scope of the totality of Reality that exists.

It is more reasonable to assume that beyond the totality of reality exists Nothing, than assuming anything other about beyond the totality of reality.


An amount of that nothing either exists in the universe/multiverses, or it only exists outside it.

If there is 0 amount of Nothing in the universe, the universe (totality of something that is the universe, matter energy) is still taking up space in the ultimate Nothing space regardless, it is just very tightly sealed and dense (if nowhere in the universe is a volume of Nothing)

Now here is where the connection comes in for an attempt to opine a posit.

You will just have to sense this out and consider; if the universe is not God made, well first of all, let me preface this by trying to get on a ground of agreement; would you agree the universe seems quite large?

Ok, so somethingness exists (energy, matter, of different kinds) call this the universe; there's a lot of it, it's very big, ultimately it is surrounded by Nothingness (unless the universe is surrounded by multiverses, eventually eventually we reach Nothing)

Cntd

[Anonymous No.14571170]

>>14571141
>>14571089
Cntd

If the universe is not surrounded by multiverses, the universe has an edge, which is surrounded by Nothing.

The universe is Big. 3d/4d shape, unimaginably big surface area, perimeter. What's the bet to posit how that big perimeter 3d edge interacts with the nothing space that surrounds it?

That's one aspect, how Nothing may interact with the edge of the universe. But ultimately, the universe, the stuff, in totality as all objectsness, exists in the 3d nothing space. (For the universe to expand or inflate or this to move here, for the 3dness of the universe to be, there needs to be Absolute empty Nothing volume for the total somethingness of universe to exist and breadth itself in).

So either the universes stuff is so tightly densely packed, that it's impossible to shovel it out of the way and access a volume of Nothing space or it is not. By shovel I mean astronomically explode or possibly black hole or something.

It could be that Matter and fields A B and C interact with each other like X Y and Z but if it's possible for a true Nothing volume to come about in the universe, matter and fields A B and C interact with one another novelly in reference to this possibly rare hole.

Only untill like 100 years ago or so it was thought that all the darkness of space and the idea of vacuum was of Pure Nothing space.

It just seems odds in favor to posit that if the massive universe we know of is uncreated/undesigned/unplanned/uncontrolled; that it is surrounded by Nothing space, and whenever however this iteration of it naturally formed; more difficult than easy for it to have kept 100% of it's total volume free of absolute Nothing.

[Anonymous No.14571793]

>>14571141
>>14571170
annnddd therefore???

[Anonymous No.14572069]

The CMB is the universal reference frame.

[Anonymous No.14572075]

>>14555494
>I don't care.

[Anonymous No.14572115]

>>14572069
The CMB Is the signature of the generally vibrating Aether

[Anonymous No.14572126]

>>14556662
>Magnetism doesn't because light does not have a charge.
Nigger, light has helicity

[Anonymous No.14572726]

>>14572115
Could this posses some amount of validity?

[Anonymous No.14572776]

>>14555197
>no Tooker
get to the thrash no name

sage goes in all fields

[Anonymous No.14572810]

>>14572126
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect

That is not what you think it is, or you ignored what I wrote that in response to and its context.

[Anonymous No.14572886]

>>14571030
>>De Broglie waves were dismissed as unphysical due to their superluminal phase velocity. Now we have repeated superluminal phase velocities in common media and we consider them unremarkable, yet we never went and revisited De Broglie's ideas that were discarded because of that.
Have you ever read the self simulation hypothesis interpretation of quantum mechanics? What is your opinion on it?

[Anonymous No.14572931]

Hey OP. Don't get insulted by me asking about the self simulation hypothesis btw. It is different from other such theories, which is why I think its interesting. I think you are on the right track, I really do. I spent the last 5 years thinking about this stuff from a historical and philosophical perspective and a couple of weeks ago something hit me. I'm not gonna go in depth but I just want to say you aren't the only one making realizations about aether. You need to keep going and get this done for the sake of humanity. No pressure!

[Anonymous No.14573036]

>>14572931
Thanks. If you're interested, I wrote an essay about the simulation hypothesis a while back (although I don't agree with everything I wrote anymore since I've modified my views of QM since): https://nathanrapport.wordpress.com/2021/05/14/simulation-theory/

I hadn't heard of the self-simulation hypothesis before but I think a lot of these left-field sort of ideas arise from the inconsistencies of quantum mechanics, which again largely originate from earlier mistakes made regarding the emission model for light.

The problem is, it's very difficult to understate just how much of physics relies on relativity. All of modern physics is built on the assumptions of relativity and the ideas of time dilation, charge invariance, massless photons, mass-energy equivalence, and so on. The possibility of intrinsic redshift or variable speed of light, for example, destroys the Big Bang theory. The Standard Model is obliterated. Even parts of physics regarded as classical, such as electrodynamics, are heavily influenced by relativity, e.g. preferring Maxwell's equations over other formulations of EM such as Weber's electrodynamics. Everything rests on relativity, and if you yank that away the entire edifice of modern physics absolutely collapses.

That's why I don't put too much stock into ideas that rely on interpreting quantum mechanics. The field is so hopelessly lost and confused that drawing any solid conclusions at the moment is a lost cause. The entire field needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, starting by resurrecting the classical models of Bohr/Sommerfeld roughly 100 years ago.

Anyway thanks for the encouragement. I'm not super optimistic about things changing any time soon but I'm glad to have reached a better understanding of physics for my own sake.

[Anonymous No.14573057]

>>14572726
yeah sure if you redefine aether as to be all of the stray photons in a given space

[bodhi No.14573136]

>>14571114
not him but you are legit a retard with a luke warm IQ. My IQ absolutely dwarfs yours without question. There is one result for your poll

[Anonymous No.14573192]

>>14556163
>Tons of replications of Michelson Morley
Maybe there is a flaw in the theories. MM assumes a reflection that did not change the wave speed. But if you assume a recoupling, such as sound in water on a barrier or an antenna in wireless comm. Than MM must have a null result because the runtime always give a null result. In an one way setting you will observe an Doppler shift which is observed. Seeing it that way MM is a prove of an existing medium.

[Anonymous No.14573236]

>>14573036
I have read most of your work. I definitely agree with you about regular simulation theories. However this one attempts to connect consciousness to quantum mechanics in a way that makes sense to me. Might be a waste of time for you though, not sure, I'm probably not knowledgeable enough to tell.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33286021/

I definitely agree with you about rebuilding the field. I'm not going to pretend like I'm some seasoned physicist or mathematician, but I just don't understand why they keep trying to break the wall with a wooden spoon lol. The Standard Model limits you from the get go. Forget traveling to other stars for thousands of years with that model.

So, there is an official declassified CIA document out there, it's called the Gateway Process. It talks about aether and concepts most would consider science fiction. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP96-00788R001700210016-5.pdf

Would really be curious in your thoughts on it. Is it just nonsense? I

[Anonymous No.14573345]

>>14573057
>yeah sure if you redefine aether as to be all of the stray photons in a given space
Why are the CMB stray photons considers special important and old?

And not just diffuse ambient radiation from stars and galaxies?

I geuss the idea is, stars effing blast radiation, so they are always of a signature range;

The CMB is much lower than that, but it's quite coming from everywhere, so it's not blasted from the stars we see.. so where is it from?

It could be light from all the stars and galaxies, that does eventually get to our instruments, but is not pin point bullseye accurate, but bent lensed into the sun's gravity well, so we detect all the direct bullseye EM as perfect explicit points from stars, but the EM that is not exact bullseye, is bent and lensed by gravity wells, so hits the detector at angles, signaling as weaker energy.

Or.... Light diffused by all the gas and stuff

Yeah I don't really get how the particular instrument captures those particular EM waves and the conclusion is those waves were made 6 or 14 billion years ago or whatever, and they just got to the detector now ..... I geuss that could make sense actually... Ok.. ok...

[Anonymous No.14573392]

>>14573236
>Is it just nonsense?
It's probably just nonsense. A lot of it is clearly speculation, but who knows... there might be some useful ideas mixed in with the rest. It doesn't hurt to keep an open mind.

[Anonymous No.14573450]

>>14573392
Well, the reason I ask is you referenced Marinov in your work, and that guy did a whole bunch of work on concepts that are considered pseudoscience. Actually his ideas are very similar to the work CIA did in that document. All of that work theorizes that there exists a medium invisible to the eyes but one that holds everything together. It is that same medium through which your light travels, and one that your mind has a relationship with on a quantum mechanical level, supposedly.

[Anonymous No.14573912]

>>14573345
Does the CMB appear relatively similar from every spherical 360 degree direction we observe?

Are we still detecting the CMB recently, and how does recent detections of CMB compare to the earliest detections?

Slightly different topic than CMB:
Detections like Hubble deep field;
If the telescope detector apparatusi are aimed from any vantage point on earth, Up, Down, Left, Right, Front, Back, and increments I between;

Are the same number of galaxies seen roughly?

(I geuss this has to do with possible statements about the universes flatness, if there are much less galaxies seen in a through way direction of some relative up and down, or left and right, or front and back.

[Anonymous No.14574612]

>>14573912
I wish I could answer but I'll wait for someome more knowledgeable to respond

[Anonymous No.14574875]

>>14556764
>just crying "modus tollens" isn't sufficient
is this a textbook case of "how much is 2+2, but don't reply with 4, give me a proper answer"?

[Anonymous No.14574888]

>>14574875
I just googled Modus Tollens and the example that pops up with text says something like:

If being the king implies having a crown
Not having a crown implies not being the king

Which is silly, because there are
100,000s more crowns that exist in the world than kings

[Anonymous No.14574903]

>>14574888
Having a crown does not imply being a king.

[Anonymous No.14574915]

>>14574875
No, it's a case of OP saying "this observation is explained by X" and someone in the peanut gallery saying "your explanation is disproved by observation, modus tollens!" while not understanding OP's logic or even understanding the proper application of the phrase they're using.

Other than that, textbook case.

[Anonymous No.14574985]

>>14574903
Ok I see I see

[Anonymous No.14574994]

>>14574903
>>14574915
So let's plug the specific into the general:

Aether Theory implies X Y Z

Particular Experiment E F G observes Q R S

Therefore X Y Z does not exist and Aether Theory is False

[Anonymous No.14575016]

>>14574994
How is Einstein GR """spacetime""" ("""Aether""") bending, warping, welling Not a Theory of Aether?

Some people throughout history looked at the endless darkness in-between planets and stars and said "That is Nothing! there"

Some people looked at it and said "That is Something! there"

The former generally termed Vacuum.
The latter generally termed Aether.

Einsteins GR certainly absolutely fits more in the latter than the former

[Anonymous No.14575092]

Why is this thread still up, is literally all anti-science propaganda

[Anonymous No.14575128]

>>14560578
>yet you are as much stupid for not wasting your precious time on every single wacko paper that you come across.
Your standards weren't much more objective than his btw.

[Anonymous No.14575130]

>>14572810
What is the Zeeman effect?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect
What is the Stark effect?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect

These require direction preference to the speed of light, at whatever level you want to interpret polarization to. These same effects are what cause the phenomenon known as the index of refraction.

[Anonymous No.14575225]

>>14575092
>Why is this thread still up
Because you can't answer this >>14575016

[Anonymous No.14575309]

One of the best threads out there and Nathan is a genius. Keep going. You need open minded physicists or just people that are interested to converse with about this stuff. You should open a discord group.

[Anonymous No.14575438]

>>14575016
A Star moving through Aether makes vacuum in it's path

[Anonymous No.14575505]

>>14575092
Arguing about science is science. Science is settled type scientology isnt it.

[Anonymous No.14575828]

>>14575505
But what if the paper I wrote which got me tenure is proven wrong? Or a subject I paid $300,000 to learn and now get paid to teach is proven incomplete or faulty or containing error or mistake, do you know how many papers I have peer reviewed? How many may contain errors, oversights or under sights or slight sleights, how would you feel if this happened to ME? Science is about ME!

[Anonymous No.14576244]

>>14575309
Thanks f.a.m I appreciate it. I'm gonna keep going, the truth will win eventually.

[Anonymous No.14577272]

>>14576244
Can you summerize your 'controversial' beliefs, and what you think is being gotten wrong?

[Anonymous No.14577590]

>>14577272
See >>14555500

[Anonymous No.14577623]

If that crap is generated by a bot, it only goes to prove that AI is far less advanced than most people think.

[Anonymous No.14578377]

>>14577590
Too smart for me, say it in dumb people's terms

[Anonymous No.14578445]

>>14578377
Learn physics and maybe one day you can join the conversation

[bodhi No.14578451]

>>14575092
you are literally fucking stupid and should stfu

[bodhi No.14578453]

>>14575016

[bodhi No.14578458]

>>14574994
wrong, fucking pleb

[Anonymous No.14578479]

>>14555197
Michelson-Morely experiment was bullshit even its premise was built upon a bullshit understanding of Aether that no one notable really agreed with.

[Anonymous No.14578494]

>>14578479
But there isn't any understanding of aether which isn't bullshit, is there?

[Anonymous No.14579320]

>>14578453
Damnnnnn, if only I had a 200 hour long conversation with Einstein he would have thought, at least a relative bit, even more carefully and clearly

[Eman Nep No.14579361]

>>14578458
The Earth is traveling relatively fast orbiting around the Sun; and rotating; and traveling in a direction around the galactic center;

If the EM field/Light Aether, is something that exists independently of the Earth; it exists on scales and levels I between atoms; as the Earth moves through space is is it like a ball of mesh (like a spagheti strainer ran through water) in which new areas of the spatial EM field is always entering through the crevices of Earth's total atomic lattice?

Is the speed of light on earth and in earths gravity well, partly due to all of Earth's velocities, orbits and rotations?

Either:
The Earth drags EM field with it.
As the Earth constantly enters no space s new section of the EM field constantly enters in between all Earths atoms.
Or an amount of both.

Does EM radiation from the Sun go through the Earth (cosmic rays and suchz but not much compared to the size of the under the surface of earth?

Does EM field exist besides EM radiation (birthed from the Sun)?

And is new areas of it constantly entering through that mysterious vacuum that supposedly takes up most of the volume of every atom

[Anonymous No.14579409]

>>14578494
Nikola Tesla, Oliver Heaviside, Helmholtz, J.J Thompsons, CP Steinmetz, go and read their work and thats just a few off the top of my head. But I know you won't read their work instead you'll be lapping up bullshit like "spooky action at a distance"

[Anonymous No.14579413]

What makes everything move in the universe? Is it the flow of aether perhaps?

[Anonymous No.14579495]

>>14579413
Is it an object in motion stays in motion perhaps?

The universe is objects. In motion.

Objects are matter. Motion is energy.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Therefore energy has always existed.

Motion cannot exist alone, motion only exists as an attribute of, something, undergoing motion.

Everything has quite a lot of fast and different motions.

Where did all these fast energetic abundant motions come from?

They were always in motion. So they always stay in motion?

UNLESS acted on by another object.

It is possible for a large object to withstand and stop many motions.

Many things with motion can lose their motion energy by running into an object that can withstand being ran into.

In what way does it absorb the energy of the motion?
It's atoms move, surrounding atoms absorb this, eventually the energy of motion from colliding gets given to more and more atoms, split up more and more untill it can be said to have disipated, the energies become noisely negligible.

[Anonymous No.14579515]

>>14579361
The aether is an extremely subtle fluid; it flows through entire stars and planets with hardly any interaction, except to be absorbed very slightly. Yet we know that since the force of gravity can be incredibly powerful, the amount of latent energy that resides in this fluid must be incomprehensibly large.

[Anonymous No.14579560]

>>14579361
Don't bother, once you claim aether has to be absolute frame of reference, they'll gas light you saying your movement slows down time so C remains constant in all directions anyway.

[Anonymous No.14579953]

>>14571106
I doubt I could find 100 people that are smarter than me

[Anonymous No.14580407]

>>14579515
>>14578453
After reading this ^ Einstein speech giving a breif history of aether theory, it is stated that the great scientests of history that considered aether theory concluded that it is likely some type of solid, because liquid waves cannot be polarized, what say you?

[Anonymous No.14580412]

>>14579495
>>14579413 #
>Is it an object in motion stays in motion perhaps?
That's only from our small sample size reference frame though, how do we know if we went to the edge of the universe and threw a baseball out into the infinite nothingness, it would not slow down or just disintigrate for "no" reason

[Eman Nep No.14580420]

>>14579495
>It is possible for a large object to withstand and stop many motions.
>Many things with motion can lose their motion energy by running into an object that can withstand being ran into.
>In what way does it absorb the energy of the motion?
>It's atoms move, surrounding atoms absorb this, eventually the energy of motion from colliding gets given to more and more atoms, split up more and more untill it can be said to have disipated, the energies become noisely negligible.
Imagine a calm ocean shore with no waves really.

You toss a rock in, it ripples.

Where you toss the rock in there are relatively few atoms of water (compared to the whole ocean), the ripples start going outward towards the whole ocean;

The single instance of rock mass given energy colliding into water medium; that energy is transferred to that exact location of impact, which transfers the energy next to it and next to it and next to it and next to it and next to it.

The single quantity of energy first imparted, is distributed, the workload, to more and more and more and more atoms, until each atom posseses only the tiniest amount of that initial rock tossed given energy.

[Eman Nep No.14580425]

>>14580420
Interestingly this does not occur with light in space/field/aether/medium?

A light wave is made and its energy is not give and given and split amongst its neighborly constituents is it?

[Anonymous No.14580430]

>>14579560
There is a difference between impact energy due to motion, and velocity in general.

If 2 cars are driving towards each other one at 10 mph the other at 9.99 mph and they collide;

Vs.

If both cars are traveling the same direction --------------> the 10 mph In front of the 9.99 mph one (nearly bumper to bumper)
And the 10 mph one slows down .01 mph

The velocities are quite exactly the same in each example, the energy imparted in contact/collision is different due to direction of travel

[Anonymous No.14580480]

>>14580407
I'll probably have a lot more to say about this at some point in the future. At the moment my hypothesis is that light behaves similar to an inviscous, incompressible fluid while the aether medium it travels through is more like a gas (ie, a compressible fluid). Fundamentally they are both made of photons, but what distinguishes the two is their wavelength.

[Anonymous No.14580496]

>>14555494
>I don't care

Love it

[bodhi No.14580644]

>>14580407
where do you see that? Sorry I have read that speech prob 20 times but it is quite long and I dont remember reading that. Everything in this reality turns into a liquid when put under enough pressure. I cant see how these learned men would be unaware of this fact. I think you are referring to some electrical properties? (or they were) which would be arguable, when does a gas turn to a liquid, a liquid to solid etc. It is all based on heat and pressure. Everything is essentially quintessence (aether) and pressure are harmonic resonance determine its form and density.

[Anonymous No.14581332]

>>14580644
>>14580480
4th paragraph

[Anonymous No.14581355]

>>14580644
A few weeks ago I was asking about light in this way wondering if it's observed properties are relatively compareable to newtons craddle;

Imagining a 3d rectangle full of metal ball bearings, with one part of one side of the box open, how the energy waves would travel, forward, left right up down, if some outside ball bearings were struck with a hammer. The differnce between tapping it light and hitting it hard, hitting one ball at a time, or 10.

Also it is possible, a lot of scientests back then we're religious, and Aether theories are a step toward inspiring the thought of a creator

[Anonymous No.14581404]

>>14581355
>Imagining a 3d rectangle full of metal ball bearings, with one part of one side of the box open, how the energy waves would travel, forward, left right up down, if some outside ball bearings were struck with a hammer. The differnce between tapping it light and hitting it hard, hitting one ball at a time, or 10.
It seems to me that contrary to the mainstream view that radiation is produced by accelerating charges, it is in fact produced by the compression of charge, while acceleration alone does nothing.

If electrons are comprised of photons (or simply saturated with them, similar to the way matter is saturated with electric fluid), then the release of radiation would be a mechanical effect very similar to Newton's cradle. This would also imply that photons are not intrinsically neutral, but only appear so due to their velocity. This is consistent with Weber's electrodynamics, which predicts the force on a charge becomes zero as the charge approaches c. If a photon can be sped up or slowed down, then, it should be possible to manipulate its trajectory with electromagnetic fields.

[bodhi No.14581775]

>>14581332
Im not sure desu, perhaps they meant something like aerogel? Or perhaps they just meant "solid" as in has properties in the 3rd dimension, it isnt just a higher dimensional fluid that doesnt have properties that make it completely undetectable in the 3rd dimension, which is a very real possibility as when you get down to the brass tacks that is the real argument. Just as radio waves existed before we could detect them, without something to detect them it is just an abstract concept that you know exists but you cant give any properties if this makes sense.

In other words it could just be an idiom like if you are on a space ship but say "I am just glad to be on solid ground again" after a space walk or w/e. They may not have meant a "solid" as in solid matter but rather "solid" in the sense of "not airy" with respect to properties. Just my guess

[Anonymous No.14581802]

>>14581404
How can you slow something down if no forces can act on it?

[Anonymous No.14581806]

>>14572069
It's pigeon shit.

ROFL.

[Anonymous No.14581820]

>>14581806
relativistic cope

[Anonymous No.14581915]

>>14572069
When's the first time the CMB was detected and when was the most recent? And how had it changed? And why is it thought that radiation is from early galaxies, and not radiation scattered and diffussed by intersteller and intergalactic gasses and stuff?

[Anonymous No.14582610]

>>14581915
Anyone got this?.

[solarfair00;;;;5006 No.14583082]

>>14555230
>I have ADHD and can't concentrate for more than 5 minutes.
Read only the first sentence of each paragraph.

There are approximately 150 paragraphs. An average reading-for-comprehension speed is 15 sentences per minute. Double for speed reading.

[solarfair00;;;;5006 No.14583275]

>>14557675
It's a very nice and well-written expository paper anon, thank you. Since you have already spent time expanding it I wonder if you would consider expanding it to specifically address the paper the other anon linked: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26859498_Laboratory_test_of_the_isotropy_of_light_propagation_at_the_10-17_level

>We report on the results of a strongly improved test of local Lorentz invariance, consisting of a search
for an anisotropy of the resonance frequencies of electromagnetic cavities. The apparatus comprises two
orthogonal standing-wave optical cavities interrogated by a laser, which were rotated approximately
175 000 times over the duration of 13 months. The measurements are interpreted as a search for an
anisotropy of the speed of light, within the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl (RMS) and the standard model
extension (SME) photon sector test theories. We find no evidence for an isotropy violation at a 1
uncertainty level of 0.6 parts in 1017 (RMS) and 2 parts in 1017 for seven of eight coefficients of the SME.

[Anonymous No.14583363]

>>14581802
The electromagnetic force is zero at c. But gravitational force still operates, and photons can be refracted.

[Anonymous No.14583377]

>>14583275
The paper already assumes that Michelson and Morley obtained the correct result so there's no reason to address other replications of the experiment.

[solarfair00;;;;5006 No.14583443]

>>14583377
>The paper already assumes that Michelson and Morley obtained the correct result
I'm not stupid anon I understand that.
>so there's no reason to address other replications of the experiment.
Of course there is, the reason is to verify that the details work out. Perhaps even more importantly the reason is to show that you care enough to have bothered to do such verification.

>The paper already assumes that Michelson and Morley obtained the correct result
P.S. The paper actually doesn't, it includes a specific section regarding 8 instead of 30 and then 300 later speculating on that result, why not also include that detailed analysis on the replications?

>so there's no reason to address other replications of the experiment.
P.S. The linked paper isn't actually a replication, the abstract mentions a "standing wave" I recall no such terminology in the original.

[Anonymous No.14583511]

>>14583275
>>14583443
The experiment you link finds no anisotropy by comparing differences in frequency.

OP's paper explains that in the original experiment, no phase shift was found due to a correction to the Doppler shift. Frequency is also affected by the Doppler shift, so it is the same old experiment, after all.

OP's result is not found in the RMS model, but it should apply to it. They make the same mistake in calculating the correct (transverse, classical) Doppler shift in the RMS model.

[solarfair00;;;;5006 No.14583611]

>>14583511
>OP's paper explains
Yes, and I would feel better if it could similarly explain other experiments. Dot the i's and cross the t's so to speak.

[Anonymous No.14583981]

>>14583363
When light travels through material, do we imagine it pinball bounces from electron capture energy bump emission to electron, and is this considerd interacting forces?

[Anonymous No.14583993]

>>14583363
The electro magnetic force is 0 at c, because photons and c IS the electromagnetic force, and light in free space is not currently electromagnetically forcing anything (besides itself, 100% itself) therefore there is 0 Electromagentic force for light traveling at c;

When it hits an electron, and fore a moment things regarding c ness are iffy, the electro magnetic force occurs;

Because the photon colliding with an electron with the energy of it's c is the electromagnetic force

[Anonymous No.14584186]

>>14583981
Personally, no. I imagine the aether density is lower in the material, so the light is being pulled into the material and it slows down as its wavelength decreases. Definitely no capture/absorption/re-emission shenanigans taking place.

[Eman Nep No.14584338]

>>14583993
>>14583981


And or to some degree, matter, stars, ripping through gravity and em field, and c being a result of that interaction.

It is not fully known how ALL the components big and small are moving, so little geusses find their way in, like the geuss that the earths movement may or does not effect some objective knowledge knowing and understanding about the true nature and travel of light and the full scope meaning cause methods and modes of propagation and existence of c.

[Anonymous No.14584450]

>>14555230
There's no problem, you start reading and after several seconds, on the 3rd line you reach the word "aether" which signals you that you should stop reading.

[Anonymous No.14584765]

Aether was proven to exist in 1921-1925 by Dayton Miller.

Einstein was wrong.

https://sci-hub.se/https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.11.6.306

[Anonymous No.14585975]

>>14584338
>>14583993
What y'all think?.

[Anonymous No.14586002]

draw a picture as to how light propagates.

Is it like ripples on water surface?

Is it like zig zagging line with deffinite nose and tail?

Is it like zig zagging line with nose and tail attatched to medium, so the crest of the wave is a compression bubble disturbing equalibrium of medium?

Is it like the energy transfer waves in a 3d volume of metal bb ball like newton's craddle?

Is it some mixture of these?

Is it nothing at all to any degree like any of these?

DOES A MATERIAL (COMPOSED OF MOLECULES/ATOMS) POSSESS AND HOLD ONTO AND ACTUALLY CAPTURE AND STORE LIGHT FOR AN AMOUNT OF TIME BEYOND LIKE 1 PLANCK SECOND PER PHOTON;

DO ATOMS/MOLECULES/MATERIALS CAPTURE EM RADIATION/EM WAVES/EM EXISTENT IN THE PERIMETERS OF THEIR BODIES?

WHEN A LIGHT BULB EMITS EM RADIATION FROM ITS FILLAMENT WHERE IS THE EM RADIATION COMING FROM?

EM RADIATION LEAVES THE FILAMENT AT TIME AND SPACE Z.
DESCRIBE THAT EXACT EM RADIATS BIRTH AKD JOURNEY FROM TIME AND SPACE A.

[Anonymous No.14586078]

>>14583993
Yo yo yo yo, any validity to this at all? Any amount

[Anonymous No.14586377]

>>14581355
>>14581915

Answer this

[Anonymous No.14587291]

When light leaves the filament of a lightbulb where does the light come from before it leaves it?

[Anonymous No.14587353]

Why don't they just build something like ligo and instead of shooting light create small electromagnetic tracks big enough to run small atomic clocks down them at thousands of mph. Then compare the track time vs clock time. Keep shooting them as fast as possible down the tracks and it will begin to draw a map of which way we are moving through whatever. You could call it the temporal compass.

[Anonymous No.14587660]

>>14587353
>Why don't they just build something like ligo and instead of shooting light create small electromagnetic tracks big enough to run small atomic clocks down them at thousands of mph
Because that's retarded.

[Anonymous No.14588455]

>>14587291
>When light leaves the filament of a lightbulb where does the light come from before it leaves it?
Is the EM field anything other than:

At any and every given time, a finite and deffinitly located amount of EM waves traveling every which direction at c; Photons being the term referring to the interaction of EM waves with matter.
?

[Anonymous No.14588589]

>>14588455
Yes, it's clear that EM waves are not just waves, but are comprised of individual particles that move from point A to point B. The wave model is useful, but doesn't fully describe EM phenomena.

[Eman Nep No.14589224]

>>14588455
>At any and every given time, a finite and deffinitly located amount of EM waves traveling every which direction at c; Photons being the term referring to the interaction of EM waves with matter.
To
>>14588589

If one asks, to ocean waves, is there anything other than ocean waves as the ocean field phenomenon and existence?

One says, yes there is under water and h20 and teperature, and surface tension, molecular tensility, and equilibrium sea level, Water Wave is not the only Quantity and Quality and component of the Water Field.

What are the components of the EM field?
1)an at any given time, finite number of EM waves traveling at c many produced by stars, criss crossing every which way direction.
2) when these em waves collide with matter it does so to a quantumfiable degree, this is called a photon, or photons. Sometimes em waves or radiation or emition or propagation traveling through space are also called photon or wave packet.

As there is more to The Water Field than Water Waves, is there more to The EM Field than EM Waves?

[Anonymous No.14590183]

>>14589224
I'll let someone else respond who may be a bit more suited

[Anonymous No.14590602]

>aether
what's next on the resurrected zombie fad list? phlogiston? life force? vortex theory?

[Anonymous No.14590623]

>>14590602
More n-dimensional particle zoo theories that are dead on arrival.

[Anonymous No.14592080]

>>14581915
In the 1960s. It's not light from early galaxies, it's the last glow of the early universe filling plasma when it cooled down enough to become transparent.

[Anonymous No.14592148]

>>14592080
Whens the last time it was measured, to compare how if it at all changed,

[Anonymous No.14592234]

Is it just me or does the idea of the universe cooling down sound completely idiotic?

[Anonymous No.14592242]

>>14592148
Probably the Planck observation around 2013, there are other ongoing experiments. I don't think it really changes?

[Anonymous No.14592301]

>>14592234
Huh, that's actually a really good point that I haven't seen brought up before. The energy loss is explained by space expanding, but _that_'s explained by dark energy being added.

[Anonymous No.14592345]

>>14555197
exactly
I've been saying precisely that for over a decade
I can't believe there are still people who buy into the nonsensical garbage that is relativity theory

[Anonymous No.14592359]

>>14556451
gravity is electromagnetic
so is all the "other" forces
there's just one single field, and that is the electromagnetic field, also known as THE (not "a") quantum field
and yes, this field does indeed extend through all of space
>Could these various directions and velocities of Earth's travel, possibly effect the nature of lights travel when it is created and detected on Earth?
that is exactly what people set out to find out, since such differences, known as anisotropy, would be expected if there were indeed such a field extending through all of space, as we now know there is
the entire point of the Michelson-Morley experiment, namely to disprove this
too bad their experiment was an abysmal failure, as OP clearly demonstrates
see the experiments of e.g. Dayton Miller, as well as many contemporary experiments showing clearly that the speed of light is indeed anisotropic, and NOT constant regardless of "reference frame" as the garbage that is relativity theory would have you believe
there is a universal reference frame, namely the aforementioned field
all experiments that purport to prove relativity theory right fail miserably to understand what's actually going on, namely that the differences are in the polarizability of the field itself
ironically, this is somewhat like what Einstein ultimately concluded with when he worked out general relativity, but he still failed to comprehend that gravity is electromagnetic, like everything else, and that the "warping of spacetime" he described is actually changes in the permittivity and permability of the field

[Anonymous No.14592364]

>>14590602
"aether" is just the archaic name for what we now know as the electromagnetic field, or THE (not "a") quantum field, which is the same thing Einstein called "spacetime"
nothing wrong with using the name aether for it at all
in fact, even Einstein himself admitted as much when he worked out general relativity (which we now know is not "warping of spacetime", but changes in permittivity and permeability owing to changes in the polarizability of the aether)
>«Einstein didn't actually get rid of the aether. He said the luminiferous aether was redundant when he was doing special relativity in 1905. But later when he was doing general relativity, he described space as an aether. See his 1920 Leyden Address. He said this:
>"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense therefore, there exists an aether."
>Also see the quote here by Nobel Prize winner Robert B Laughlin:
>"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed. The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity.
>This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum."»

[Anonymous No.14592466]

>>14592242
It should change to some degree, I mean how would it not eventually dissipate, or like, what happened during X amount of time at the big bang to make this signature of CMB and for this signature to exist for years long in the same formation implies something about ?.

[Anonymous No.14592509]

>>14555390
>Literally all modern physics disagree with you
Modern physics at the time disagreed with Einstein. Modern physics at the time disagreed with Newton. I don't think its wise to say that the science is settled, when history has shown it is anything but.

[Anonymous No.14592720]

Stunning and brave OP

[Anonymous No.14593506]

>>14592466
When we look at things far away, we're seeing things in the past, because light takes time to travel. The CMB is the most distant past we can see, because it obscures anything older. It did dissipate and became the stars and galaxies around us, but we can still gather the remnants of distant light to see what it looked like in the past.

[Anonymous No.14593929]

>>14593506
Ok so CMB is from early galaxies; and if those galaxies existed for X amount of years; or they still exist, they are sending that light out, and so that light is said to have been generated like billions of years ago? How is the age of when that light was emitted known?

How has the most recent CMB images related to the oldest, what changes?

Does CMB indicate roughly equal amounts early galaxies ""up, down, left, right, front, back"" us?

[Anonymous No.14594016]

>>14593929
Nah, the CMB is way earlier than galaxies. The universe started out completely filled with hot plasma, too dense for light to get anywhere far, like the middle of the sun. When it spread out enough that light could travel, the last glow of that plasma is what we call the CMB. What changes is that light from further away arrives over time, so we see the afterglow of more and more distant parts of the universe, also we get higher resolution instruments. It's really uniform, like differences in the range of micro kelvins.
The age / distance is estimated based on the model of the universe we have that fits the data. I think this is a good 15 minute article about that: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/01/15/ask-ethan-how-does-the-cmb-reveal-the-hubble-constant

[Anonymous No.14594017]

>>14593929
>>14594016
Oh, I meant to add it does have a sort of up down left right in that it looks slightly warmer in the direction we're moving, and slightly cooler in the direction we're moving away from.

[Anonymous No.14594030]

>>14594017
The direction earth is moving, in relation to around the galactic center?

Or also from the relativistic energy of traveling toward a detected energy source as opposed to detecting it while traveling away?

[Anonymous No.14594056]

>>14594030
Mainly the speed the whole galaxy is moving, 370km/s. It's just a doppler effect as far as I understand it, not fast enough to be relativistic.

[Anonymous No.14594087]

>>14594016
>i know the entire history of the whole universe from the very start
>i know its true because i learned it from https://www.forbes.com

[Anonymous No.14594174]

>>14594056
>>14594016
So the CMB would only exist for the length of time that which created the CMb would exist for;

Unless the theory that we as a galaxy.are traveling some velocity along in the direction the CMb is traveling and we have too since the CmB was going , but because that's light it should travel faster than us even if we are going in its direction;

But some cmb is moving towards us and some is moving away? Or it is all expanding out like a spheres volume evenly increasing, or a flat sphere, a squished cylijder, which would be very intriguing and relavant

[Anonymous No.14594274]

>>14594174
Think of it like this. Imagine a line of lightbulbs all a light year apart, and they flash on and off all at the same time. You see the one next to you straight away, the next one a year later, the next one after two years, etc. The bulbs aren't moving, you're just seeing different bulbs at different times because it takes time for the light to arrive. The CMB is like that, but with the bulbs filling all of space.

[Anonymous No.14595105]

>>14594274
Yeah but light only contained the signature of The Early Stages of Universe for X amount of years:
We are Y amount if years after those events;

Wouldn't the light from those events had passed us by then having no more light to detect?

[Anonymous No.14595990]

>>14595105
Yeah, but behind that light we just see older, further light from the CMB. It was everywhere.

[Anonymous No.14596189]

>>14595990
But light travels from it's source of creation away from it's source of generation at light speed.

The universe is said to be 14 billion years old, so if the CMB is suposedly from from time period 0 to 400,000 years or so ago;

Wouldn't that light have traveled past our location billions of years ago?

Or it is suggested the early era of the universe continued candy continued to produce light, for how many millions of years? But because our Galaxy was becoming distant and more distant to that location, it was beggining to be at a location that all the light did not already pass by.


Basically, what universal year is the CMB from?

[Anonymous No.14596195]

>>14595990
You wouldn't see older light behind it, you would see newer, older light passes and is passed, only can detect if even billions years old light, years in the billions nearer our time than later

[Anonymous No.14596199]

>>14594017
Does it have an up down left right front back preference in light/galaxy distribution? Or does it seem equalish on all sides?

There's no hint of seeing an edge or the center of the universe?

[Anonymous No.14596336]

>>14596199
It's pretty much featureless with a millikelvin of noise, the COBE measurement is famous for how perfectly it matches a theoretical black body radiation spectrum. There's a "cold spot" that some people think is evidence of universes colliding or something, other people think it's the hypothetical Eridanus supervoid.

[Anonymous No.14596600]

>>14596336
How different did the most recent detections of CMB make it appear? Were all the miniscule details equal?

[Anonymous No.14596619]

>>14592359
>contemporary experiments showing clearly that the speed of light is indeed anisotropic, and NOT constant regardless of "reference frame"
The entire point is verfiability, difference in reference frame detects light differently.

What makes you say light does not propagate at a constant?

There is a medium throughout space and when it is disturbed it cannot help itself but to propagate this disturbance at a fixed speed.

Air has the sound of speed.
Water has the speed of waves
EM field has the speed of light

Why is that such a controversial possible fact?

[Anonymous No.14596723]

>>14596600
The resolution got about 75 times better. I'm not sure what changes you'd expect to see.

[Anonymous No.14596761]

>>14596723
Well there was a difference in time between the first CMB detection and the most recent.

The ancient activities responsible for the light of the CMB underwent changes over a span of seconds and days and weeks and years did they not, bodily movements?

[Anonymous No.14596780]

>>14596723
So is the clusters showing the location of early formed galaxies? And they all seem very close together?

[Anonymous No.14596920]

>>14596761
It was an abrupt event, called photon decoupling or the "last scattering". The universe cooled enough that it became transparent, the CMB is the sea of photons released at that moment.
Here's a good presentation: http://www-star.st-and.ac.uk/~spd3/Teaching/AS2001/ce04.pdf

[Anonymous No.14597600]

>>14596920
If that occured at one abrupt moment, 13 or so billion years ago; and it occured when the universe was how large across (?) And the light of that event left that location of photon creation in that large if a universe, at light speed in all directions 13 billion years ago;

Wouldnt all the light have traveled outward in all directions at c for 13 billion years, and how would it enter our telescope that amount later in time?

[Anonymous No.14597615]

I've always hated talking about the cmb, we were talking about cool stuff and then it's brought up, if the thoughts on it are correct there are still a lot of unsolved mysteries in physics, if they are incorrect it doesn't change all that much either.

I geuss if we could look one direction and see something crazy crazy uniquely different that would be really interesting, instead of uniform glalaxies and light every which way, it is absolutely startling and crazy to think that is real, that that infinite swirl of stars and galaxies is what we and all this is a part of

[Anonymous No.14597664]

>>14592509
eckshually in Newton's time, physics was starting to catch up. Kepler's laws are nothing more or less than the 2-body solution to Newton's laws. Newton did nothing to refute Kepler, in fact exactly the opposite. Note that Mercury's orbit is just as bad for Newton as they were for Kepler, so Newton even agreed with Kepler's *inconsistencies*.
Einstein, I agree, explained why Kepler couldn't account for Mercury.

[Anonymous No.14597665]

>>14597600
In the range of a few hundred million light years. We keep seeing it because light from further away continues to arrive. The sphere of the universe we can see is apparently much smaller than the extent of the universe.

[Anonymous No.14597727]

>>14597665
So it is how many light years (14 billion years is how many light years?) away from the source of the cmb or big bang?

And so how many years (traveling earths velocity) are we from the source of the big bang or cmb?

[Anonymous No.14598561]

>>14597727
There isn't a single source, it was everywhere.

[Anonymous No.14599267]

>>14598561
How large of a volume was "everywhere" when the cmb light began to occur?

And how large did it grow over the how much time the cmb light creation event activity occured?

So that as the universe was expanding, cmb begins to occur and there exist x amount of galaxies, and they are expanding and emitting light for y amount of years,

Did those early galaxies that created cmb continously exist creating light for 14 billion years?

[Anonymous No.14599447]

>>14599267
>>14598561
What percent of observed galaxies have existed from the time of the first galaxies?

[Anonymous No.14599576]

>>14599267
I feel like we're going in circles at this point.

[Anonymous No.14599909]

>>14592359
Is there absolute motion? What is "space" if not aether/the field? So, is everything just property of the aether?

[Anonymous No.14599920]

>>14596723
There is no CMB.
http://thermalphysics.org/times.pdf

[Anonymous No.14599924]

>>14599920
also this
https://www.youtube.com/c/SkyScholar/videos

[Anonymous No.14600129]

>>14599920
>>14599924
Sir...

[Anonymous No.14600182]

>>14600129
Yes? Do you have anything to add?

[Anonymous No.14600251]

>>14599920
Fuck, that's brilliant. Thanks, I hadn't seen that.

[Anonymous No.14600569]

>>14589224
Answer please

[Anonymous No.14600633]

>>14589224
>As there is more to The Water Field than Water Waves, is there more to The EM Field than EM Waves?
In my opinion, yes. The analogy you give with water is apt. EM waves (and "fields" in particular) are a mathematical abstraction for understanding the behavior of photons, the same way classical wave theory is a mathematical abstraction for understanding reflection, refraction, and diffraction, but is ultimately just a model for what's really happening, which involves a large number of individual molecules comprising the medium in question.

The mainstream view that EM fields are in themselves a real property of space is erroneous. The EM fields are a useful mathematical abstraction for modeling the behavior of photons and charged particles, but again, they are just a useful model for dealing with the underlying reality. In order to properly understand nature it is important not to confuse the abstractions used to describe reality with reality itself. Hope that helps.

[Anonymous No.14600696]

>>14555494
>Literally all modern physics disagree with you
>I don't care.
Holy based

[Anonymous No.14600714]

>>14579409
has no one taught you about argument from authority?

[Anonymous No.14600722]

>>14592364
>"aether" is just the archaic name for what we now know as the electromagnetic field, or THE (not "a") quantum field, which is the same thing Einstein called "spacetime"
bullshit. aether was conceived to be the *solid* medium (because muh transversal waves) through which em waves propagate. hold on to the bullshit and sink with it, do not try to rebrand the correct concept that superseded it.

[Anonymous No.14600744]

>>14600722
Euler thought that "light in the aether is the same thing as sound in air".
Polarization was a point in favor for particle light theorists, because wave theorists couldn't figure out how to explain it by waves in the fluid aether, until Young proved that light was a wave, and hypothesized that it was transverse to explain polarization. Then the problem became to explain the nature of the aether, since only solids were known to be able to sustain transverse waves.
So no, the word aether does not only refer to "muh immobile solid aether of Lorentz!!", it has always been associated to an ideal fluid first, challenged by the phenomenon of polarization and its explanation by transverse waves.

Superfluid helium, the closest thing we have to an ideal fluid, can sustain transverse waves, by the way.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00132087

More speculatively, we also know that surface waves between two fluids can have transverse components.
And since we have two fluids interacting in electromagnetism, the electron fluid and the aether, it's not a big stretch to hypothesize that the surface waves between them is somehow involved, with the restoring force being aether pressure (which is gravity by the way, making it no different from any other gravity wave).

[Anonymous No.14600799]

>>14600744
>More speculatively, we also know that surface waves between two fluids can have transverse components.
>And since we have two fluids interacting in electromagnetism, the electron fluid and the aether, it's not a big stretch to hypothesize that the surface waves between them is somehow involved, with the restoring force being aether pressure (which is gravity by the way, making it no different from any other gravity wave).
Very interesting. I hope you'll eventually put your thoughts to paper on this in someplace other than this board.

[Anonymous No.14601639]

>>14600799
I was planning to post a thread with a few interesting papers that corroborate some of my (and some of OP's) ideas one of these days. There is a lot of interesting research buried in published papers, which paint an even more interesting picture. I'm fairly confident that an ideal compressible fluid will end up having the necessary degrees of freedom to explain all phenomena that we see, its fluid dynamics is really a treasure trove of behavior.

[Anonymous No.14601643]

>>14600799
As for putting my thoughts together in a paper someplace else, since I misread that in the first answer, it's too early for me, since I have nothing original myself other than the aforementioned collation of papers and ideas. I'm not good enough, so I'll have to wait until and if I will ever be.