World class documentaries you are gifting us Gareth! We appreciate it so much.

Robust and comprehensive meta analysis. These thirty eight minutes of your condensed efforts to compare and contrast foundational concepts from lifetimes of other's obviously passionate efforts to comprehend this magnificent existence we find ourselves swimming in...... Superb.

Wonderfully researched and presented. Props to the channels creator(s) for this and the other presentations of history's great minds, their struggles, thought processes and progress. My thanks.

I wonder how many physics grad students have ever even heard of these theories? 🤔

@psmoyer63

Жыл бұрын

Aether theories have a miserable reputation. But considering how many theories of discrete space are popping up currently, it is valuable to reveal the varieties and characteristics of Aether theories that have been explored 100 years ago. I hope Ebenezer Cunningham will show up here soon, in the proper context.

@user-hs4it2zs7j

Жыл бұрын

I’m one of them! The 6th state of water floored me. Suggesting it is one of the most common state made me wonder if there’s a sixth state of helium known as gravity!!!

@d3m3n70r

Жыл бұрын

Probably none. And the vast majoriy can't even pronounce the name Dmitri Mendeleev right.

@davidhand9721

10 ай бұрын

Every physics student knows who L'Armor is.

@PyrrhoVonHyperborea

10 ай бұрын

_Shut up and calculate!_

The way you say Larmor is just angelic. It's like you almost sing it. Great presentation.

I'm glad I found this channel, good information about these things isn't easy to come by

Damn... what's right with me!? This is the BEST channel EVER 😮😮😮❤❤❤

Amazing work. Thanks for your dedication!

Great! Appreciate to explain physics in a new way by telling the tracks which were not successful in the end - but helped to find the right solution.

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

Lol Aether was always right in the end. Now we're left with a mess of incompleteness.

@luudest

Жыл бұрын

@@off6848which Aether do you mean?

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

@@luudest Just Aether. If you're asking which model is most precise and has the least contradictions probably goes to De Volson Wood's Ether

As usual, way beyond fantastic presentation.

*sees notification, drops everything*.

@xhanathos

Жыл бұрын

These videos are not for everyone, you have to question the established physics to enjoy them.

A great presentation the comment that stood out was the acceptance that (not a direct quote) the electromagnetic fields of human consciousness are able to intergrate/work with the electromagnetic nature of the Aether

Wow. That's amazing. Possibly the most number of things I have to look up per minute in the history of my education on KZread. Oh wait, no, that was your video on the problems with Quantum Electrodynamics sheeeesh.... Keep me busy for years, thanks 🙏

Another great video, love the animations! I think I prefer the Maxwellian model of the vortex filaments representing the magnetic lines of force of Faraday, since this model resembles something with a real physical analogy, like the behaviour of a superfluid. What I find hard to decipher is the motional magnetic field of the electron - I see how in Maxwell's model if the magnetic field moves along the surface of a conductor as part of an E x H "energy current" (Heaviside) then the magnetic filaments align in such a manner that the magnetic forces attract between adjacent wires with similar current flow, which solves some of the issues facing Larmor's model. However, the magnetic field could then be construed as being independent of the motion of the electrons in the wire that are moving at 0.1mm per second rather than C. In fact, one could argue that the filaments create polarizations along the wire that pull the electrons along, this would seem to be implied by Fitzgerald's wheel and band model. So that has me a bit stuck, since there shouldn't be two mechanisms that cause the same phenomenon - is the magnetic field along the conductor caused by the moving electrons, or is it caused by the E x H energy current moving at C?

Hi. This is the best presentation about this great man. Thanks.

Great As Always 🍻

Very good synthesis ! I would like to see a similar video on Carver Mead's concept of an electron.

Beautiful 👏

physics seems so much more advanced a century ago

@douglasstrother6584

8 ай бұрын

The ingenuity of late 19th and early 20th Century Physicists is under-appreciated.

@john-ic5pz

27 күн бұрын

Los Alamos fairly well ruined physics. it's what happens when the Pentagon & intelligence community gets their claws in anything.

Thanks again for such a heavy duty series, worth every second. Funny we do not hear about this side of the story from the ''academics''.

You sound a little unwell my friend. I hope you feel better soon! Thanks for another great video Gareth. *Sends chicken soup*

Very interesting video, the core engine would be the dynamic exchange of energy at the lowest scale of reality (higher to lower state), understanding that may solve the riddle of ether. Great addition. Thanks

A video of history of theories. A good tutorial for Big bang model of universe in present days . A bang of Aeather or Space time that is hot and cool to formation phases. A rotation that is everything. Sorry for electron singularity two next generation still in fight for "g-crown'. Life time is again for g . Great video great channel great man A void comments. Thank you.

Ignoring the philosophical components, I find it amazing how the presentation of aether as space matched recent articles by Etnan Siegel of spacetime being the source of the laws of physics. Particularly from the 25 to 30 minute mark in your presentation. Also, it occurred to me that Larmor's gyroscope action matched Maxwell’s Aether spin. Aether spin could account for the matter antimatter imbalance if you wanted to go a little crackpot. Excellent presentation all around.

@AR15andGOD

9 ай бұрын

Ignoring philosophy is ignoring the vast majority of things you could know

@psmoyer63

9 ай бұрын

@@AR15andGOD absolutely, philosophy is the study of the meaning of questions. I just didn't want to get into it at that point.

SPECTACULAR!!! ❤❤❤

Pondering the Aether is an addictive, yet infuriating pursuit.

@Aquaticphilosophia

Жыл бұрын

You can easily feel the aether. It’s just the body water that all the metabolism is happening inside of. All the perceptions you have are electrical patterns happening inside the body water. Action potentials, etc. you see that pattern in the water and that is how you perceive space and objects. People study the perceptions but they ignore the water the perceptions are happening in. I have the dance and moment application up on my channel but it also explains most physics problems because we are essentially studying our perceptions or the things that give rise to perception.

@eclipse369.

Жыл бұрын

@@Aquaticphilosophia inside the body water? how can you be inside the body water when you and everything else is the body water wouldnt be more like manifestations of the body water itself as there is no inside or outside of it, you either are manifested or you are not in which case you would simple be the body water, as to the condition of "nonexistence" or the unmanifest ive no clue but strive to know.. as for me, emr or light proves the ether because it (emr/light) is the ether itself being disturbed and we see illumination or that disturbance interacting with other physical/manifested ether things

@Aquaticphilosophia

Жыл бұрын

@@eclipse369. everything you see is a pattern in your metabolism. That’s why you go blind when your optic nerve is cut. The metabolism is happening inside the body water. Your perception of space, your self, and all the objects in space is a pattern you are recognizing in your body water. Everything you perceive or think is happening in that water.

@Aquaticphilosophia

Жыл бұрын

@@eclipse369. yes, light is an induction of motion into the aether but so is time, mass, etc.

@Aquaticphilosophia

Жыл бұрын

@@eclipse369. I have exercises and ways of conceptulizing it on my channel that free you from body and awareness identification. Once free of both those things, most things are fairly obvious or obvious eternal mysteries. People usually get stuck on body identification and if free of that they start identifying as awareness. Both block clear understanding.

:13 I can see aether with the naked eye. It's certainly ocean/wave like but colorless. Take it for whatever it's worth, but I see it clearest on the come down of psilocybin or aya session. Some times I see straight long tubes (still clear) shooting past. Other times I've noticed a density, slower and lingering, around the faces of singers and or their guitar. In the 5 or 6 times I've witnessed it, I'd say it fills voids but never truly touches or connects to objects. If anyone here has experienced the same...please reach out. ty

Great treatment...though I'm fully aware that you prefer the literary research path ... I would dearly love to see a speculative treatment of the superfluidic aetheric model

@SeethePattern

Жыл бұрын

That depends on what information is available on the subject. I’m guessing not much written by your comment.

Wonderful and extremely appreciated work. With that being said, my unasked inkling opinion is that the idea of physicalism is what will always be in the way. The idea that the ether is a material fluid that spins and compresses creates the same underlying questions as opposed to a monadic non-eucledian plane of reality that can become out of phase relative to its static quality resulting in the projection of what we call waves, toroidal fields, which derive the mirages of atoms (which would be standing waves), time and space. This is a holographic idea of the ether where the whole is found in the sum and the sum makeup the whole. Varying orientations or harmonics in the sum account for diversity of expressions of matter as opposed to everything being all one kind of particle or atom.

@classicalmusic1337

Жыл бұрын

Interesting but a bit cryptic, can you link to a pdf?

@DegreesOfThree

Жыл бұрын

Sounds similar to Walter Russell.

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

Fellow initiate this is about as succinct as it gets

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

@@classicalmusic1337 Just read Plotinus.

Woah, this is pretty much exactly how I see how things work. I knew it wasn't original since Tesla said things like "everything is energy, everything is light" but man this is a bit humbling.

@27:00 The pink porcupine Aether ball gremlins definitely need their own follow-up episode. 🦔 🤯 😂

Can you have a look at "Joseph Newman's Gyroscopic Particle" theory as detailed in the book"Joseph Newman's Energy Machine"?

It’s great to see all of these different ideas being showcased. The mainstream falsely advertises certainty where they have little, and keep competing notions hidden from view. It’s really quite cult-like.

If one accepts the validity of the Mandelbrot sets - one sees (as others) that all matter, landscape, and observable objects can be divided up into triangulated groups. This means that all matter structures, atomic structures, (including the multiple atomic Bravais lattices) will fall into smaller triangulation groupings. Thus, matters, atoms, protons, neutrons, ... electrons, positrons, *tron neutrons, *tron photons ... electrinos, positrinos, *trino neutrinos, *trino photons, ... and the smallest of (per se) - gluons, + gluons, gluon neutrinos, gluon photons ... and - gravitons, + gravitons, graviton neutrinos, and graviton photons must be of triangular shape and composition. This gives credence that higher formations of matter and crystals must be triangular.

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

Yes that is what Pythagoras was getting at. 1,1,2,3 is the trinity or triangle continuing on in the golden ratio is 1,1,2,3,5,8,13 etc now you get the spiral and round shapes arise from a triangular base.

Centrifugal inertia complicates things outside Krafft's definition of nearly frictionless "viscid" ether. Krafft reasoned ether had to be the source of inertia not directly due to mass, but mass was an expression of continuity of ether motion predominantly centered on, and emanating from vortical motion.

although the flywheels are more akin to a soup of fermion's than lamor's flywheels. and for the entire thing to be consistent and be able to dissipate without most of rotation almost instantly running of the the bottom level, the layers of emergent "flywheels" have to go on forever, so it is more of a fractal dynamical system than a mechanical model like lamor's, this also means the elements carrying the angular momentum at all scales are subject to effective interactions just the same as the macroscopic level. i don't blame the 1890s guys or maxwell for not spotting that, it isn't an easy thing to spot. but because the dissipative and driven nature of the spin networks are as they are you need a fractal structure, analogous but obviously not identical to a newton fractal, electrostatic forces and similar forces only come about when you have this kind of structure as well, the only real property can be said to be angular momentum in a sense, but because all levels have the same types of effective interactions the interactions themselves can be considered as fundamental as the rotations and inertia as well. it turns out to be a very rich more modern condensed matter system, that can't quite be described in the right way by modern quantum mechanics, but has many of the phenomena in common with it at all scales where matter exists to greater or lesser degree depending on the phases of vacuum and the scale of systems relative to the parameters of the sort of first layer of vacuum structure whatever approximate subsystem you are looking at are in relation to and embedded in.

Those rotating elements look like string theory. Was that the intent? Is there a connection? I think you are also showing branes from string theory? That chart of the knots with regard to Kelvin's theories is wild. Do those knots have any application in physics?

@SeethePattern

13 сағат бұрын

There are some scientist who have taken the idea of knots and atoms and used it in the context of protein folding (link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10910-020-01151-0) and then it has also found a connection in magnetic loops (phys.org/news/2017-06-magnetic-nanoknots-evoke-lord-kelvin.html)

Thank you! ^.^

@TheMemesofDestruction

Жыл бұрын

24:34 Dampening?

want to know something funny? the dissipation problem with lamor's model when fixed by essentially the analogous structure to the flywheels changing their scale by evaporation and loss of rotational energy to smaller scale "spin networks" in the vacuum,(handwavy statement), but in a realistic picture the prediction it makes is the expansion of the intrinsic scales of space, or the contraction of the scales of matter and the corresponding interactions related to the dynamics of matter. aka if you fix the dissipation in the right way it predicts the expansion of the universe and also phase transitions similar to inflation happening over and over, but these more accurate models are not as simple and can exist in many different phases, with topological arrangements that are gravitationally bound such that many varieties of particles may exist.

Good explanations are simple and not oversimplified. An explanation to a theory becomes less simple when there are patches to cover holes. The more patches the less significant the theory becomes.

@tngtacticalmiata1219

Жыл бұрын

Which is where the "standard model" breaks into pieces... I involuntarily groan every time someone mentions "dark matter"

@d3m3n70r

Жыл бұрын

💯

@erebology

Жыл бұрын

* groans *

at 13:59 to 14:03 can the left image be the aether and the right(kind of) be matter and the more knots the different types of matter as in electrons neutrons and protons all of which may be the same particle but at different states of energy

@SeethePattern

Жыл бұрын

The image shows two different types of vortex atoms. The first a simple ring the one on the right a more complex one. Kelvins idea was that ‘knots’ represented different types of atoms. In Larmors mind they would be ‘hollow’ vortices inside of the aether.

@silvergreylion

Жыл бұрын

I wonder if Larmor's model can be reconciliated/merged with the "atoms are made from discrete spheres" model.

this whole story also integrates really nicley with GR and extentions of gravitational theory as part of the dynamics of the unified field, whether you call it an either or not it has physical properties that can be called mechanical if anything deserves that notion at all, even though we associate the word with gears knobs and fluids, stress and pressure and so on. the mechanical hypothesis is fine we just didn't know what mechanical means, all it means to me is a self consistent dynamical system that doesn't rely on abstraction to define its relations or operations as it exists. newtonian mechanics for example doesn't account for the forces within the description, it injects it in all at once in the form of an equation of motion, while this kind of system has no separation between the state and the evolution laws. even an intuitive mechanical model base on gears or something doesnt have that feature of complete relationalism, it has to have parameters for the properties of hard bodies or stresses and so on.

Have a look at Jeff Yee Energy Wave Theory where he use the neutrino as a spherical standing wave and builds the electron with spin , nucleons and atoms with outstanding precision. Also this structure explains electrons position on a minimizing energy principle.

Covering Carl F. Krafft any time?

Hello Gareth, I admire your skills of comparing different theories in detail - well done, and thanks for that. ----------- I´m convinced that former and present Aether discussions are seriously confused by mixing the electromagnetic technical investigations with the natural aether flow in cosmos. It´s like having two persons not understanding each other’s language. I´m having no troubles insulting myself, betitling myself as a Natural Philosopher, and I find it remarkable that the good Joseph Larmor was ridiculed for “not being rational”. Mathematicians are excellent to DESCRIBE cosmological topics in the theories but are significantly lesser skilled to EXPLAIN cosmological issues, no matter the scientifically validity of their theories. - I can describe a lot of cosmological issues by simple words and sentences, and the stupid mathematicians cannot understand most of it, because they lack the philosophical sense of connecting things naturally. For that, it requires natural philosophical ponderings, intuitive openness, and what this channel is all about, namely “See the Pattern” recognition skills which all leads to rational conclusions. - By inspirations from studying Comparative Mythology and having my focus on the numerous ancient Stories of Creation, I can find more rational explanations than from modern cosmologists if interpreting the ancient texts and symbolism into modern terms. Regarding the concept of “aether”, our ancestors had/have the terms, “Primordial Sea” and “Cosmic Ocean” to refer to this topic, and they described it specifically as a “shimmering silvery sea of a standing fluctuation”, a kind of a subatomic “cosmic foster water” in where and through where everything flows. I´m looking forward the next video.. Best Wishes

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

What do you think about Anaxamander

@ivornelsson2238

Жыл бұрын

@@off6848 Hello, I think he had some very interesting points in his cosmic swirling and spiraling pattern conceptions. What are your own thougths of this?

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

@@ivornelsson2238 I like that he’s one of the first and his cosmology of spirals is a lot like Walter Russels work. For some reason it seems like the further back you go in history the more on point they were

Kind of funny how Einstein did away with the idea of the Aether and modern quantum mechanics brought it back (without really bringing it back). They call it the Higgs field and the way it’s explained sounds a lot like how people like Tesla describe the Aether.

@ultravioletiris6241

Жыл бұрын

Modern physicists are extremely averse to thinking philosophically about their field. Also everyone likes to ‘coin’ something in order to create a shrine to themselves

@Triggernlfrl

Жыл бұрын

All to hide truth about our world. In the beginning there was only nothingness. Consius energy was somehow created by it. Light energy that splashed in many parts. Those parts learned to create worlds by projecting their energy. Our whole universe is such a world where little parts of creator beings have a human experience. What we call space/ether is part of the projection.

@kevconn441

9 ай бұрын

no they're not @@ultravioletiris6241

the "Fact"(experiment done results in) that 2 photons make an electron shows us that electromagnetic energy of some kind (i think photons/aether that have to be excited for light to be perceived and maybe some kind of EM we have not detected as of yet) has to be the aether,,,,, and compression of the highly energized(EM radiation) aether particles creates matter,,,,, i see the aether as a 3d newtons cradle excitement from all directions as light em and other em are sent outwards the further it gets the less intensity it has to affect the other aether quasi particles and at some point during loss of energy(momentum or some other mechanism) it tends to travel along the path where the pressure is strongest coming from the source of excitation

perhaps matter is rotating aether and gravity is inertia of gyroscopes in a universe which accelerates in its rotation...in such a system, i wonder what happens when one planet is destroyed,could the harmonic spacing of the orbits change and the tilt angles of planets change without physical contact between them

Thank you for this and your other similar discussions. Learning which is rare & clear summaries, not easily found in one or few resources. Amazing is the tolerance for pluralism in fundamentals of what God has made. May I ask please, is there yet a phenomenological theory of the concept of charge? Is there really variable energy of 'fundamental-charge events? Or is is simply a binary value? Secondly an explanation of the fundamental origin of temperature and pressure. Q: Why will a vessel with currently measurable High Pressure, if ideally sealed, continue to have 'high pressure" over all time? After steady 'temperature' increase from 'pumping' becomes 'equilibrium'. I Q2: At absolute zero temperature, does pressure also go to zero? No phase-of-matter then? These are related line of questions. What is fundamentally causing the "state-variables" of charge, and the heuristic scales of temperature, and pressure being applied at the atomic-interaction scales?

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

Look up the OMparticle model I think pressure is always non-zero rarefaction but can be virtually zero within a conspansive manifold universe

ELEKTONS & ELEKTICITY & ELEKTRONS FOR BEGINNERS. 1. A good conductor of elekticity can be called a metal. 2. A metal is a good conductor of elekticity. 3. A metal has a thin layer of elektons on its outside surface - that is what makes it a metal. 4. Non-metals do not have a layer of elektons on their surfaces. 5. Elektons are photons that hug the surface…. 6. whilst propagating at the speed of light in the medium touching the surface (eg air)(eg plastic insulation). 7. Elektons move in every direction on the surface of a say Cu wire - but (eventually) mainly along. 8. The propagation speed of elektons duznt depend on the kind of metal - all kinds of metals give the same speed. 9. The ruffness of the surface slows the speed of elektons - due to the extra distance up&down over the ruffness. 10. Elektons have a negative charge, equal to the charge attributed to the standard electron. 11. Elektons go straight ahead - except that their trajekt is affected by other elektons (due to repulsion). 12. Hence, after a while, elektons tend to move mainly along a wire (albeit in both directions)….. 13. & elektons follow the surface. 14. If the surface of a wire duz a u-turn (eg at the blunt end of a wire) then elektons do a u-turn at the end (koz the surface duz a u-turn)(ie elektons follow the surface). 15. Elektons form a thin negatively charged outer surface layer due to repulsion from atomic elektrons. 16. Atomic elektrons are photons that orbit (hug) an atomic nucleus. 17. The outer orbital elektrons escape from the nucleus, & form an outer layer of elektons (now hugging the general surface rather than hugging individual nuclei). 18. The elektons are attracted to the positively charged nuclei. 19. Different metals will have a different degree of saturation of elektons (on the surface). 20. The better conductors will have a denser saturation of elektons (on the surface). 21. A battery can supply elektons at the positive terminal…. 22. & rob elektons at the negative terminal. 23. The supply etc of elektons can result in what we call voltage, or potential. 24. The supply etc of elektons can result in what we call charge. 25. A dead-end length of wire touching a positive terminal is saturated with elektons going both ways along the wire (doing u-turns at the dead-end). 26. Elektons do not reflekt off or at a dead-end (they do a u-turn), see (14). 27. When the flow of elektons going each way is equal then their magnetic fields cancel….. 28. & hence their nett magnetic field is zero (in the far field)…. 29. & there is no heat loss in the wire. 30. A dead-end length of wire touching a negative terminal will be saturated with elektons going both ways along the wire (doing u-turns at the dead-end). 31. The numbers of elektons going up & down a dead-end wire will depend on the degree of saturation. 32a. The degree of saturation will depend on the surface area available etc…. 32b. & whether the wire has a coating of insulation. 33. This saturation creates what we call resistance…. 34. or, if u like, this resistance creates saturation (many processes are chicken'&'egg). 35. Once u have learnt the above rules then u will understand that if u somehow discharge/short/earth a length (L) of wire, then u can expect that the primary discharge will take a duration of 2L/c seconds (ie it wont take L/c seconds)….. 36. & the discharge voltage will be V/2 (ie it wont be the more obvious V/1)…. 37. & if that there wire is insulated then the duration will take 3L/c seconds (as per (6) & (32b)). Enuff for today.

@silvergreylion

Жыл бұрын

(5) would suggest something fundamental as to why mirrors have to be conductors.

1:57 Those are not mutually exclusive, but in fact mutually required. All science is philosophy and philosophy is science, both physical and non physical

Per an experimenter test result uploaded on KZread, using a neodymium magnet the size of a loaf of bread. He shine a laser bean by the magnet could not detect deviation regardless of how he rotate the magnet in 3D - that contradicts claims on page 10:12.

@SeethePattern

Жыл бұрын

No your misunderstanding it. At 10:12 I point out that based on that information Larmors model predicted that light rays should be deviated by a magnet but this was proved to be wrong.

@philoso377

Жыл бұрын

@@SeethePattern if I understand the title on this page it reads - the theory predicted: (past tense implies successful prediction possibly out of proof) that light ray deviation in a magnetic field ….

Evidently Larmor applied the principle of least action to his writing.

i like the stationary aether i see photons packed in a dark room no light/excitement no reaction of the aether to produce an action to our eyes

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

That is exactly what light illumination is a rate of induction in the ether. It explains why light slows down passing through water. If it were a particle being shot out at 300,000kms and slows down through water then it would require infinite acceleration to speed back up to 300,000kms once it passes the water barrier.

@whiteeye3453

8 ай бұрын

And therefore not constant

At time 14:07, I thought Larmor looked familiar for some reason. He could be J.P. Morgan's brother. If you look at J.P Morgan's picture on wiki, it's pretty striking how they look alike. There are two somewhat 'undiscovered' issues with what the constituents of open space might be: 1) how do atoms interact with, or couple to, those constituents 2) assuming there is interaction of atoms with real, physical constituents of open space, could a change in density of those constituents in the vicinity of atoms explain gravity? A large celestial body with an immense collection of atoms that decreased the density of those consituents might explain gravity. As a physical analog, if a submarine suddenly encountered a huge volume of steam at its front, its velocity would increase due to the reduction of water density. .

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

Yes of course all movement is rate of induction towards rarefaction and magneto-kinetic propulsion within an Aether of mediums. In your example though the submarine would also change direction because steam is magneto-kinetic propulsion being a phase modality of water being heated and thus expanding.

@Greg_Chase

Жыл бұрын

@@off6848 A reasonable question about the resistance to an acceleration ('inertial drag') - is this: 1) is the resistance to acceleration due to the interaction between the charged particles in matter objects with their own electric/magnetic fields (see the Abraham-Lorentz force) 2) or is the resistance to acceleration due to how the charged particles in a matter objects interact with the constituents of the dielectric (aka 'the aether') 3) OR BOTH?

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

@@Greg_Chase I think the permeability of the mediums of the aether is absorbing energy of a projectile or object of acceleration and in space it’s not completely empty but such low density that objects in motion stay in motion but I’m skeptical that objects would stay in motion forever as current science says I’m more on the side of aether models that say the aether is a combination of all material mediums in reality and the immaterial lines of force and acceleration (dielectric longitudinal and transverse electromagnetic)

@Greg_Chase

Жыл бұрын

@@off6848 "the permeability of the mediums of the aether is absorbing energy of a projectile or object of acceleration" On a physics test once, the prof put a question on the test that said "what happens to the energy used to overcome the resistance to acceleration?" No one got the correct answer. What you said above seems to be the physical reality. And it makes an important point. - when a radio antenna's accelerated charges produce an electromagnetic (radio) wave that propagates off the antenna at the speed of light - why is there no inertia for the acceleration of the wave, to get to light speed? And the answer is - THERE IS. *Radiation resistance* is that part of an antenna's feedpoint electrical resistance caused by the emission of radio waves from the antenna. Unlike conventional resistance or "Ohmic resistance", *_radiation resistance is not due to the opposition to current_* (resistivity) of the imperfect conducting materials the antenna is made of." (See the wiki article on radiation resistance for more info.) So there is known science that treats the acceleration of electromagnetic waves coming off a radio antenna. Radiation resistance seems somewhat analogous to the resistance when accelerating an object. Since the density (the number of) charged particles in, say, an automobile is quite high, the resistance to acceleration appears to scale upward as the number of charged particles increases. .

B. WHAT IS CHARGE & WHAT IS MATTER FOR BEGINNERS. B1. The aether is an excitation of the praether (praether is the primary fundamental essence). B2. Everything that we see & feel in our world is a process, a process of the aether (the secondary fundamental essence). B3. The fundamental particle is the free photon….. B4. which is an annihilation of aether (the annihilation propagating in a straight line at c km/s)….. B5. plus an excitation of the aether (the excitation propagating radially outward at c km/s). B6. The radial propagation i call photaenos. B7. Photons & photaenos have mass. B8. Mass is the property of annihilating aether. B9. Aether flows in to replace the lost aether. B10. The acceleration of the inflow gives us gravitational mass. B11. Inertial mass is the reverse of gravitational mass. B12. The acceleration of a particle needs the acceleration of aether. B14. When a free photon forms a loop (of some kind) by biting its own tail (or another photon's tail) then it bekums a confined photon (of some kind)(eg an electron)(JG Williamson). B15. Confined photons are our fundamental particles (electrons etc)(& nucleons -- protons, quarks etc)(Jeans). B16. For some reason a confined photon has much more mass than a free photon. B17. All electrical forces (charge)(magnetism) are due to the (say 2 kinds of) actions of photaenos….. B17a. charge force is due to some kind of photaeno action….. B17b. magnetic force is related to the movement of charge (praps velocity of charge)(praps acceleration). B18. When a free photon is captured by a nucleus the photon hugs the nucleus, & orbits the nucleus….. B19. at which time it bekums a confined photon….. B20. what i call an elektron (different to the electron mentioned in (B14)). B21. Elektrons & nucleons form atoms (electrons do not contribute to the formation of atoms). B22. When a free photon hugs the surface of an object then it bekums an elekton. B23a. Elektons are semi-confined photons (confined in 2 dimensions on a surface, eg wire)….. B23b. however the wire can move. B24a. Free photons are confined in 1 dimension (ie they propagate along a line through the aether)….. B24b. however the aether can move, flow, bend, accelerate etc (giving us aetherwind)….. B24c. & giving us the bending of light. B25a. Electrons (eg muons etc) are photons that are confined in 3 dimensions….. B25b. however the electron etc itself can move (along a surface)(or through space or air). B26a. Electrons give us what we call static charge (eg sitting on a surface)….. B26b. but static charges are never static….. B26c. & electrons can exist in space or on a surface (but probly can't exist inside an object). B27a. Elektrons are photons that are confined in 3 dimensions (hugging a nucleus)….. B27b. however the atom can move. B28a. Free photons have zero nett charge in the far field….. B28b. but have nett charge in the near field. B29. Electrons & elektrons & elektons have a nett negative charge in the far field. B30. Protons have a nett positive charge in the far field. B31a. Further to (B17), what we call radio is not due to photons (ie radio waves are not photons)….. B31b. & photons are not radio waves. B32. Photaenos (radio) acting on a wire can alter the natural flow of elektons on the wire (eg a radio receiver antenna). B33. Photons do not possess or radiate or involve any kind of natural rolling E to H to E etc process, or EH to zero to EH to zero etc process if u prefer (ie Hertzian waves do not exist).

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

Photons do not exist point blank. And I mean point blank in both the most literal and figurative or reified sense.

@Letsgoback2thefuture

5 ай бұрын

Brilliant. The Aether is the volume of hyperbolic space. Matter is counter space.

@Letsgoback2thefuture

5 ай бұрын

​@off6848 particle science has really hindered physics, I must say.

@atheistaetherist2747

5 ай бұрын

@@off6848 I say that the only thing that exists in our world is photons. How simple is that!

@off6848

5 ай бұрын

@@atheistaetherist2747 I don’t believe in things that aren’t real personally that’s as simple as it gets

Electric charge is present without necessarily presence of electron. Despite that electron is always charged. Larmor didn’t know or cannot tell that difference.

It's pretty much accepted that no space in the universe is empty. ...Which obviously forbids us to contemplate the absence of space...or does it?

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

counter-space is rarefaction and acceleration towards the plane of inertia which is the lowest pressure point in any medium, system or manifold. you can't even imagine true absence of space which is a good indicator that the phrase is nonsense

new article and study vindicating Halton Arp "SpaceDeep Space A Researcher Says the Expansion of the Universe Is Just a Mirage. He Might Be Right."

@boriskaragiannis

Жыл бұрын

Cosmology in Minkowski space

I'm a smart guy, but most of this is over my head

what about Charles p Steinmetz ?

Quantum fluctuations in vacuum energy. Sounds like ether.

@Greg_Chase

Жыл бұрын

there is no gamma ray background. There is disagreement per the legitimate physical existence of particle-antiparticle pairs that 'pop into existence then immediately self-annihilate.' If you fall in the camp of "virtual particles, however briefly, do attain legitimate physical existence' there is a problem since electron-positron annihilation creates gamma rays. This is proven in the lab; Feynam diagram illustrates the process. Since virtual particles are said to fill all space, there should be a pervasive gamma ray background and there isn't. If some form of the Exchange Interaction allows spin alignment in particle-antiparticle pairs, then perhaps they do not annihilate, but are persistent and fill and permeate everything. It appears similar to Larmor's idea of what the constituents of space might be. Since an electric field is created around an electron, and electric fields propagate and oscillate through space (ie. electromagnetic waves), it seems logical that the *_carriers_* for the propagating electric fields in EM waves will have electron-like attributes. A persistent particle-antiparticle dipole would have no detectable charge, just as atoms are dipoles with no detectable charge when the positive and negative charges are in equal number. There are methods to detect it.

where would these documented experiments fit in this aether model after updated current observations? kzread.info/dash/bejne/nZZ8pqqicbTYotY.html 'Dielectric Induction' producing Ground Currents.

Just because we can use supercooled ether to see rogue electrons doesn't mean space is made of it

What was this? Was Larmor's field an omnidirectional "tension" electromagnetic "Higg's type" field upon which all other fields interact? A field which held the [internal "surface tension"] of divergent "particles" together by a "Higg's" type attraction? A glue which twisted "normal" particles into filaments of density and voids of almost no particles but still occupied by .... kind of a Higg's Einstein vacuum zero point energy? Kind of good ideas without math to back it up?

@off6848

Жыл бұрын

You're describing the dielectric lines of tension as explained by Charles Proteus Steinmetz with math (for description math doesn't explain anything) There is no Higgs anything, no muons, gluon, poohons or gravitons just as when you're angry at reading this there are no anger particles being emitted and while you cope no cope particles are being produced.

@thomasgray8175

Жыл бұрын

@@off6848 Steinmetz is very interesting.

Page 10:00 ish. Aether can drift through matter? False Aether can drift around itself? Yes Aether attaches and anchor with matter? Yes. As it attaches to matter, it enables electric force to build electric field in it? Yes. Otherwise electric force stays with on the surface and can’t produce e field or displacement charge in vacuum. As it attaches to matter Aether may also pull matter together with a tensile force equal in magnitude with g.

So isn't quantum field theory just the latest take on trying to define "ether"

@Dziaji

Жыл бұрын

Not really. They are trying to define forces at a distance through particles moving through empty space, and it makes no sense.

@jeffmofo5013

Жыл бұрын

@@Dziaji Yeah, that's the same thing Forces at a distance. why does entanglement work? Field theory. There's a field that connects everything and communicate "information" to allow the 2 entangled particles to spin in opposite directions. One might refer to this "field" as "ether"

@itzakehrenberg3449

Жыл бұрын

@@jeffmofo5013 What is this "field" made of?

@jeffmofo5013

Жыл бұрын

@@itzakehrenberg3449 Exactly they don't know either. It's all guessing at this level This level being the quatum level where they have a notebook full of equations to compensate for everything they don't understand. "Oh, why is the rotation of this object slightly off in the real world compared to our calculations? Well, lets just add this bit to the calculations to fix that. And we'll call the anomaly 'Dark Matter' or there's some 'field' that is influencing ti cuz we don't know what it is" And that's how they ended up with a notebook full of caluclations.

@Dziaji

Жыл бұрын

@@jeffmofo5013 I agree with you, but the "field theorists" don't. They believe in magic forces at a distance with no aether. You or I would refer to the fields in space as aether, but that implies some sort of medium, and field theorists believe in fields without a medium to transmit them. I don't know how they are so confused, but they are.

HAS ANYBODY STUDIED WALTER RUSSEL'S ELECTRON THEORY???? IT IS MORE SO IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE MODEL...

C. (fast) ELEKTICITY & (slow) ELECTRICITY & (slow) ELEKTRICITY & (slow) PROTRICITY & (slow) DIELECTRICITY FOR BEGINNERS. C1. Elektons give us (fast) elekticity on a wire (propagates at c km/s). C2. Electrons can move & give us (slow) electricity (on a wire etc)(or through space etc)(this is not a propagation). C3. Elektrons can move & give us (slow) elektricity (in a say wire etc)(not a propagation). C4a. Protons (etc) can move (through space) & give us a (slow) kind of negative electricity that has (i think) no name….. C4b. protricity might be a good name. C5a. Re (C3) & (C4a). Atoms & molecules (eg in a dielectric) can rearrange their position or alignment or shape etc, & during rearrangement they give a (slow)(temporary) transient electricity (flow of energy) effect (in or across or through the dielectric etc)(while the change of position or alignment or shape is happening)…... C5b. which has been called (or kood be called) a displacement current….. C5c. dielectricity might be a good name.

Another reason we should abolish Einstein theory

tactical comment for algorithm

So close... monads = electron - positron pair. ( massless, chargeless, spin 0 composite. = ether. Everything extrapolates from that. )

And what Chris Smith (Cosmosaic) is saying is that the Aether is Consciousness itself and Consciousness is Nonlocal. So Light is Relative to the final point of reference, Consciousness itself, which is the Aether and the Bohmian Nonlocal Hidden Variable of Quantum Mechanics. Consciousness is faster than Light, just as Newton predicted the Aether was. Consciousness is required to observe Light and the lack thereof (darkness). Consciousness IS the Nonlocal reference-point of Einstein’s Relativity! It is the Constant for all points in Space. It is the final stop for every Observation, every Measurement, and every point of reference. This is an absolute inescapable Fact. Consciousness is what collapses the wave function in Quantum Mechanics. It is the Bohmian Pilot Wave, which is the Aether. It is the Nonlocal Medium through which Light, Time, and Space travel through and occur within.

The connection between mind and matter in Larmore's theory. It's close but its problem is that it is based in Kantianism. Dialectical Materialism is the correct epsitemological framework to understand the connection between mind and matter.

15:37 I dont like this analogy because a straight line of current doesn't exist... It must always curve back on itself to complete the loop. So if you have two parallel wires that are carrying current in the same direction the must be part of LOOPS that create magnetic flux in anti parallel directions. Those are the vortex currents that are attracting each other. There's no contradiction this way! So the current represents the edge of the vortex not the center.

@xephyr417

2 ай бұрын

17:49 nooo they tricked Larmor!!! Nooo D:

Imagine literally the entire physics community at it's highest level is like feverishly seeking out your papers, mouths foaming, to go "UM ACTUALLY" and you are not phased by this and send garbled, circuitous responses to each. Lol.

Babbitts atom

with out motion their is no awareness, with to medium their is no awareness. how ever independent if everything consists out of particles, or an charged eater the question is how can you progress faster in your models. the universe behaves like an eater independent if it is particles or one eater. but the quantification of laws is best understood thought waves. and geometry. truth doesn't always matter like the grains of weed on a farmers truck don't matter, the afford to count them fails the purpose.

Forget about Larmor, what do you think about my Refractional Redshift theory ? I have proved that refraction causes a redshift because the wavelenght changes during refraction. And you instead dig up these forgotten theories, which cant be proved and dont even come close to my revolutionary discovery. Which completely refutes general relativity and the big bang relativistic theory.

@whiteeye3453

8 ай бұрын

That is because Einstein theory is wrong and useless We accept them without proof Were as ether was "abolish" by two flawed experiments

And this is why Larmor died a Virgin.

Again prisoners of their time. I wonder did they ever consider that the vacuum itself was providing the E. Vibration.

None of these theories can explain quantum entanglement. Plz stop all VLS non sense and other simular concepts are regarded useless nowadays to explain the current experiments we are able to do. And other discoveries like Kochen-Specker Theorem debunk any classical theory that try to explain quantum mechanics using any classic framework with well-defined properties. Kochen-Specker Theorem was violated this implies that quantum mechanics is inherently non-local and entangled. Bell inequalities was also violated which resulted in the Nobel 2022 which indicates local realism theories cannot quantum behavior. Entanglement is fundamental feature of reality

ARRGGH, FFS! Why does everyone approach things from a position which is external to the 'universal' reference frame.... Ideas, Theory's, hypothesis, models, sure. But 'laws'? No. You MUST start from a valid point, perspective and/or reference frame. Whether your approximated philosophical appropriation/s are correct or incorrect is largely irrelevant, what matters is the data is VALID. When approached like this, theoretical ideas can not escape the factor that the physical plane of existence, upon. Which the principles of the molecular realm shape our perspective of the reality our most local reference frame exists as. This reference frame, or plane of existence is NOT the absolute maxims of nature's scale of reality. Our 'Universe' is not the absolute reference frame and as far as our mathematicians and science fiction publicists have managed to 'discover' this also is NOT the absolute reference frame. It's absurd at this point to continue 1) having a perspective which is situated external to the external reference frame when working on matters of fact. 2) Continue the retarded perspective that our 3D, physical 'universe' is absolutely a CLOSED system. *This allows you to stop it with the tachyon, dark matter, quantum foam, Gravity BS. (See, this also helps show that G too is a 'dipole' It's just that it is likely manifest in a plane beyond our own and the physical matter of our 'universe' 'displaces' the equalibrium of the planes rest state and is resisted, experienced by the reality on our plane of existence as a radial, 'monolole' like magical force that requires more and more magic tricks to explain its interpretation. IE; whatever is 'beyond' the universe would prefer it if physical matter to some/all degree would be expelled from reality of the local plane of existence. (Not all/any planes infer an existence of physical matter, or even the base line principles which underpin it. In fact, our 'universe' could well be the spectrum of reality which supports physical existence, much like the optical light within our planes EMR spectrum is the only band of the EMR spectrum where its properties are possible

I've been trying to feed this info into AI...maybe someone else could do a better job?

@brendawilliams8062

Жыл бұрын

Fast harmonic suggested. Cantor’s mathematical approach

aether isnt real.

@FVLMEN

Жыл бұрын

Then how does light work as a wave. All reality is the ether. Not balls or material

@RoundEarthReality

Жыл бұрын

@@FVLMEN what nonsense are you saying.

@JoeDeglman

Жыл бұрын

Also, when you assume an Aether and compute the Michelson Morley, and other interferometer experiments, using the Superposition of Waves Principle, instead of a ballistic or relativity-based equation, the interferometer experiments return a value of about 30 km/sec for the speed of the Earth around the Sun, vs relativity-based equations returning a value of 5 to 8 km/sec. Relativity fails to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment. All attempts, including Newtonian Gravity, Special Relativity, and General Relativity, to model the Universe without an Aether always result in contradictions with experiment, dark matter, anomalies and paradoxes. A Lorentz Aether Gauge Theory (a variable density Aether and a variable speed of light) is, thus far, the only model of the Universe that can be made coherent without the paradoxes of the other models. Only a true genius can make Newtonian Gravity, General and Special Relativity sound coherent.

@RoundEarthReality

Жыл бұрын

@@JoeDeglman The Michelson-Morley experiment was a scientific experiment to test for the presence and properties of a substance called aether. This was thought hypothetically to fill empty space. The experiment showed the substance did not exist. try again

@Letsgoback2thefuture

5 ай бұрын

​@RoundEarthReality he is saying nothing exists outside of the field. Everything is a strain in the field.

Nope. Wrong.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twistor_theory#:~:text=In%20its%20original%20form%2C%20twistor,massless%20fields%20of%20arbitrary%20spin.

I've been trying to feed this info into AI...maybe someone else could do a better job?

@Letsgoback2thefuture

5 ай бұрын

It's occult science. A I has been programmed to keep the occult. Occult (hidden)

I've been trying to feed this info into AI...maybe someone else could do a better job?

I've been trying to feed this info into AI...maybe someone else could do a better job?

I've been trying to feed this info into AI...maybe someone else could do a better job?