What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

originally posted by: IrisMoonie
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Hmm...

How do you know there is no plasma here on earth below the blue sky?

I didn't say there wasn't, I said it's not in the Young's experiment replication box and it's not, here's what I said:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So, have you figured out where is the 0.1% of the universe that is not made up of plasma? That's right, it's not where Young's experiment is duplicated in the video. The atmosphere near Earth's surface is considered a gas, not a plasma.

How do you suppose the plasma that starts around 90 km above sea level got there?

Why does the plasmasphere extend beyond the earth greater on the side opposite the sun and lesser on the side facing the sun?

The reason I prefaced my reply with "according to your source" is that it was an over-simplification, since I will tell you the same thing as Eros that the cutoff is not as sharp as your linked article implies, but can vary quite a bit depending on solar activity, night versus day and such. However there is no way I would ever call the gas inside the Young's experiment box so close to sea level a plasma, and it seems like you would rather go off on tangents than resolve an issue before moving on to the next one.

How do I know it's not plasma in the box shown for the double slit experiment? Many ways but the simplest is that air is a pretty good insulator, and plasma is a pretty good conductor, and I know I can set up a voltage on earth's surface and confirm the known properties of air as related to its pressure, temperature and humidity which can cause the dielectric peoperties to vary within certain ranges but still those ranges are all considered relatively good insulators.

originally posted by: IrisMoonie
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Oh another question for Arbitrageur, How do clouds conduct lightning in thunderstorms?

As Eros said:

originally posted by: ErosA433
So how does lightening work? Well this situation creates a large potential difference and local electric field. The air between the cloud and the Earth has, much like all insulators, dielectric properties.

Those dielectric properties being that air is a relatively good insulator, compared to plasma which is a relatively good conductor. When the voltage in clouds exceeds the breakdown voltage of air, then current can flow even though air is a relatively good insulator, which essentially forms the plasma seen in lightning. The plasma formed inside the lightning is much, much hotter than air, perhaps up to 5 times the temperature of the surface of the sun, or 50,000 degrees.

How Hot Is Lightning?

If an object is a good conductor of electricity, it won't heat up as much as a poor conductor. Air is a very poor conductor of electricity and gets extremely hot when lightning passes through it. In fact, lightning can heat the air it passes through to 50,000 degrees Fahrenheit (5 times hotter than the surface of the sun).

There are no such conditions inside the box used by Veritasium in the replication of Young's double slit experiment, so it seems getting into lightning discussion is a distraction from what's going on in that box.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Thought experiments can be interesting. They can also be important. Einstein is example number one. I always encourage and am interested by new ideas. Yet note that, in my view, several things are required for new ideas and thought experiments to rise to the level of science. Four requirements are: 1) no logical flaws; 2) mathematic rigour employed to convert from postulates and/or assumptions to quantifiable equations; 3) consistency of the results of the equations with all known experimental data; and 4) at least one experimental test to differentiate the new idea from alternatives.

Your thought on how inertia comes about may profit by attempting to meet the above criteria. For instance - would the density changes you infer be measurable? Would they lead to gravitational or electromagnetic effects? Can any such effects be quantified? Once quantified, do they agree with present data? And importantly, how can the idea be tested in a way to differentiate it from other theories? This latter issue is crucial, since otherwise we are just renaming things and aren't really doing anything new.

Here is a related item from other posts: you should at some point mathematically define things like "flow" and "vibration". I would think vibration would be something like x(t), y(t) and z(t) for the position of the electron. (You would need to specify x(t), perhaps it is Asin(wt) or some such. Or maybe you want some function of x, y, z and t; that is up to you.) Taking the time derivatives would yield the corresponding velocity components. Then, the next issue is: how does your musing compare against the present-day theories of Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz Force Equation? The latter two have enormous evidence. You will need to get from x(t), y(t) and z(t) to equations that agree with all of that evidence AND provide some experimental proposal to differentiate your theory from Maxwell and Lorentz. Yes it is a lot to ask. But that's what is needed to become science. (Perhaps by "vibrate so fast" you mean quantum mechanics, but that is a whole different subject, which would again need to meet the four requirements.)

I often find myself in sympathy with the non-scientists here on their philosophical stances. Forces should propagate via "touch"; there should be some medium to transmit light; we should have physical models behind our physics that consist of real, existing objects; and above all, physics should "make sense". After all, that is how physics was around 1904 and earlier. However, it is the scientists here and the modern status quo that are far more expert with knowledge of the data than the non-scientists. The more primitive ideas I have sympathy for are no longer in vogue for very good reasons, as efforts based on the primitive ideas generally fail at least one, and often more, of the four requirements listed above. Meanwhile the complex mathematical status quo accurately models almost all known experimental data. To make progress, step one is to try and understand the status quo, and that step begins with an understanding that things may indeed not make sense, touch might not be the way forces propagate, and an Einsteinian abandonment of a ponderable medium should at the least be considered as a viable alternative. My personal opinion is to hold out for realism and physical models, but even those positions can be (and are) questioned by very intelligent scientists.

So good luck.

I have been pursuing a simpler physics for decades now. I still am working on a single unified Aetherial model for Maxwell's Equations and the Lorentz Force Equation, and have yet to follow up on some ideas I have for gravity within an Aether. The 25 year old work on The Aether that I've linked to here "only" provides a derivation of Maxwell's Equations and it contains a proposal for negative mass that I never really liked. I can witness to this - finding a physical model that is physically simple and "makes sense", yet also produces the complexity seen in the known equations (which are themselves verified by enormous amounts of testing) has been extremely difficult, at least for me.

So again, good luck.

a reply to: ErosA433

I put all caps the 1st point I want to inquire about from the 3 mechanical kinds of laws you mentioned, defined in below 3 paragraphs.

1) "The Townsend discharge or Townsend avalanche is a gas ionisation process where free electrons are accelerated by AN ELECTRIC. FIELD, collide with gas molecules, and consequently free additional electron."

2) "Dielectric property is a molecular property inherent in all materials capable of impeding electron movement and hence creating polarization within the substance, when exposed to an EXTERNAL ELECTRIC FIELD."

3) "Paschens law is an equation showing the VOLTAGE necessary to start a discharge or electric arc, between two electrodes in a gas as a function of pressure and gap length."

In regards to the generation of lightning, where is the external electric field, electric field, or voltage coming from to generate lightning in clouds?

And the 2nd point I want to inquire about is the magnetosphere / ionosphere / plasmasphere.

4 questions... Can you describe a basic mechanism or some basic mechanisms which can account for how a magnetic field is generated around earth in a fluctuating donut shape? If the sun is 98% helium and hydrogen, and the plasma being emitted just from the sun and stars is what accounts for the plasma in the plasmasphere, why do these non metallic elements get trapped in a magnetic field? Does this magnetic field also block any plasma from the sun and if so can you explain how? If most plasma in the plasmasphere comes from the sun why does there appear to be more plasma where the sun doesn't shine compared to where the sun does shine?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I didn't realize there was voltage in air and clouds...

Can you or anybody else elaborate on this? What are the elements in air and clouds that generates voltage?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm not trying to go off on tangents but make connections. A lot of what I just replied to ErosA433 I hope you consider I'm asking you too.

But in addition to that reply, perhaps you will consider where I'm going with the below...

correct me if I'm wrong, but if you wrap copper around an iron object and hook the copper to a battery, it will magnetize the iron object and create an electromagnetic field around it, yes?

And a strong electromagnetic field can create plasma yes?

Like this mechanism, is what the direction of thought is, for how plasma is generated starting with the elements of the earth...

Is it possible that the rail gun projects through quantum TNT?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm replying to Arbitrageur on this one, but it is a question for any of the scientists here.

Decades ago, while I was working on The Absolute Theory and The Aether, there was a scientist at some university that raised the following problem for special relativity:

In Bradley aberration, the position of the "fixed stars" appears to move over the course of the year. The old, classical, Aetherial explanation is that light propagates through the fixed aether and any imaging telescope must slant a bit because of the velocity of the telescope (v_earth) with respect to the light ray. The relativistic explanation for this is that the aberration is caused by the relative velocity between the "fixed star" and the earth, and that explanation does work well for individual stars. But some stellar binaries have velocity changes greater than v_earth and orbit each other with small periods. Yet, the Bradley aberration is still the same for binaries as it is for single stars.

An aetherial explanation is clear on this. But does anyone here know how the Special Theory explains Bradley aberration of stellar binaries?

originally posted by: IrisMoonie
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I didn't realize there was voltage in air and clouds...

Can you or anybody else elaborate on this? What are the elements in air and clouds that generates voltage?

If you were interested in doing physics research, this might be an interesting topic to study, because according to Professor Mike Merrifield, we think we have some understanding but we don't understand it as well as we would like to.

First he starts by referencing the Feynman lectures which are free online and date back to the 1960s but he says some of the questions Feynman raised about lightning all those decades ago are still not well understood today. But if you want to propose theoretical physics ideas which is essentially what you're doing by saying you think visible light is particles and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation are waves, you really need to learn what's inside the box of mainstream science first, and reading Feynman's lectures would be a good place to start on learning what's in the box, for topics such as this, then you'd already have many mainstream answers to all the questions you're asking, which is three volumes of text so you can't really expect anybody to explain all that to you in some forum posts. However you need to understand a lot of that to realize whether all these dots you're trying to connect can really be connected.

A few ideas in the video are the triboelectric effect demonstrated with a van de Graff generator which creates a voltage as explained in the video, may also be the cause of the voltages generated in clouds since experiments shooting small ice crystals against hailstones have created a charge transfer thought to be a triboelectric effect, however Merrifield says this is not as well understood as we would like, and there's a charge distribution at the bottom of the cloud explained in Feynman's lectures which still isn't well understood today.

Lightning is Complicated - Sixty Symbols

originally posted by: IrisMoonie
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm not trying to go off on tangents but make connections. A lot of what I just replied to ErosA433 I hope you consider I'm asking you too.

But in addition to that reply, perhaps you will consider where I'm going with the below...

correct me if I'm wrong, but if you wrap copper around an iron object and hook the copper to a battery, it will magnetize the iron object and create an electromagnetic field around it, yes?

And a strong electromagnetic field can create plasma yes?

Opposite electrical charges attract, so on Earth's surface if you do happen to get a negatively charged electron separated from a positively charged atom that lost the electron, there will be a force pulling them together which will tend to neutralize the charged particles so that most atoms are neutrally charged.

That same attraction tends to keep the electrons bound to the neutral atoms, at least in the gases near Earth's surface, which is part of the reason why the Earth's atmosphere is is a gas rather than a plasma near the surface. There are several ways you can dislodge the electrons from the atoms, to create a plasma. One way is by simply heating up the gas. This causes the air molecules to collide with each other with more energy, and when that kinetic energy gets high enough, collisions can create forces exceeding the forces that keep the electron bound to the atom. For the most common gas in air, Nitrogen, this can happen at about 174,408 degrees K or more, according to the linked source, which is obviously a very high temperature, way hotter than even lightning.

So how is lightning able to strip electrons from atoms at a lower temperature, only several times hotter than the surface of the sun? Because the electrons are electrically charged, the electrical nature of lightning helps rip the electrons off temporarily, creating plasma, but that plasma doesn't last very long so the charges recombine quickly.

At the altitude of the Ionosphere, say ~90 km and up, the pressure is lower and the temperature is higher which allow the charged particles to be separated in spite of the attractive forces they have, thus solar radiation can contribute to the plasma in this region. This shows how the temperature and electron density (indicating plasma, meaning electrons not part of neutral atoms) increases above 90km:

Ionosphere


It's a complicated topic and this is probably a great oversimplification, but as I said nobody is going to re-post entire textbooks here explaining all the details, but you generally don't have plasma at the conditions of the gas near Earth's surface (laboratory conditions are an exception obviously). You can make plasma out of air thermally which is really hard, or with some electromagnetic contribution as in lightning but again that can be 5 times hotter than the surface of the sun. Lightning is largely the result of large static electric fields resulting in currents that reduce the charge imbalance, but as you suggest, other forms of electromagnetism or electromagnetic radiation can provide the energy needed to ionize gas. The other thing that can help in making plasma is lowering pressure, because at lower pressure, there are fewer collisions and it's the collisions that can result in the charged particles combining and becoming neutral, so fewer collisions is one reason why the relatively low pressure ionosphere is able to sustain ionized particles, which the atmosphere at Earth's surface with many more collisions at higher pressure can't do. The higher temperature in the ionosphere compared to Earth's surface helps as to maintain the ionization in the ionosphere as well as the lower pressure.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
An aetherial explanation is clear on this. But does anyone here know how the Special Theory explains Bradley aberration of stellar binaries?

Does this help?

Did Einstein Misunderstand Aberration?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks I appreciate the video.

I found a series of easy to understand points from that video which can be easily summarized in a discussion forum like this.

Top of thunderstorm has positive charge, dry ice crystals rising +

Bottom of thunderstorm is negative charge, wet hail is falling -

(There are also small parts at the bottom of the thunderstorm that have + charge)

Ground is charged positively. There is voltage from the ground +

But turns out there isn't enough voltage from the ground, to conduct lightning so there must be greater voltage above clouds (cosmic rays)

This video acknowledges there is voltage from the ground, which supports the idea that visible light passing through 2 tiny slits to shine a tiny amount of light on the back of an otherwise dark box are passing through some kind of wavy field to create an interference pattern. In this discussion I referred to this voltage from the ground as plasma.

So it seems it is confirmed, there is at least voltage being generated by earth. The next step is figuring out why the voltage increases around the point where the plasma sphere / ionosphere / magnetosphere begins... Let's just say in 3 key regions around 30 and 60 and 90 miles above sea level...

What is the magic switch???

originally posted by: IrisMoonie
a reply to: Arbitrageur
This video acknowledges there is voltage from the ground, which supports the idea that visible light passing through 2 tiny slits to shine a tiny amount of light on the back of an otherwise dark box are passing through some kind of wavy field to create an interference pattern. In this discussion I referred to this voltage from the ground as plasma.

You're talking about a steady state electric potential, certainly in the context of the Veritasium video duplicating Young's experiment where there's no thunderstorm activity, which is not wavy like electromagnetic radiation, that's problem number 1.

Problem number 2 is dictionary abuse by referring to things by completely wrong names.

Problem 3 is as I said you have way too much ignorance of experiments and observations which are the foundation of what's inside the box, to be thinking outside the box like you're trying to do. You don't even know where the box is or what's inside the box so how do you expect to be able to think outside it? So my advice is learn what's in the box, then think outside it once you know where the box is and what's in it.

You can easily prove your idea wrong. The interference pattern is a geometric effect from the waves passing through the double slits and interfering, and the maths of this geometry has been put in online simulators you can use to predict what interference pattern will occur from varying things like the slit spacing, etc. So you can change the slit spacing or any other parameter in this model and see that the interference pattern changes to match the predictions of the model.

However, Young didn't have lasers in his day, so you might have better luck doing a more modern version of the experiment with a laser. The advantage is it doesn't have that rainbow effect of the sun, because the laser is all one color so it's easier to measure the more clear interference pattern. That will allow you to enter the wavelength of the laser into the simulator. If you'd rather try it with the sun, you might be able to use a color filter to filter out all the wavelengths of the sun except the color of the filter.

Here's one such simulator, but there are others too:

Double slit simulator


So when you find that the interference pattern closely follows the model in the simulator as you change the slit spacing, etc, you should get the idea that the model seems to work pretty well, and you can also try varying the voltage that you think is causing the pattern, and you'll likely find it has no effect (If you do find an effect on the interference pattern from a voltage gradient, it's probably a problem with what you did somehow. You're talking about steady state voltage which is not wavy.)

a reply to: IrisMoonie

There is a corresponding lightning strike for
each cosmic ray, with sprites possibly involved
that impact the upper reaches of the clouds.
The thunder is caused by the ionization of the
air around the lightning bolt.

I hope I'm not too late but EM propagates due
to the momentum of the waves. In time it
doesn't even slow down but it's power
gradually fades I think.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Does this help?

Did Einstein Misunderstand Aberration?

Yes, the linked article did help. I believe I understand the critical issue now, and further, I see the source of the considerable confusion on the topic of special relativity's treatment of aberration from stellar binaries. I also believe that the linked article itself has problems, which I plan to get into. I am working on a more detailed response, as it would be good to get a full understanding of this.

Thanks for the link.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Since the earth generates voltage, and has magnetic fields, shouldn't it generate electromagnetic radiation or plasma?

Regarding the double slit experiment, I heard if you try to observe an electron passing through the slits, because you have to shine light on it to observe it, the experiment no longer yields an interference pattern.

Reiterating, plasma expands in the dark.

If the voltage generated by earth is in a pretty steady state, and the magnetic fields don't fluctuate too drastically, shouldn't the electromagnetic radiation present at the ground and sea levels be pretty evenly distributed all around the world?

Regarding the geometric pattern you presented: the assumption is plasma or electromagnetic radiation is present at the point of slit opening, and the tiny amount of visible light passing through the slits becomes waves because the plasma over powers the visible light; if visible light is passing through 2 windows side by side, there is much more visible light than there is electromagnetic radiation or plasma, the plasma won't over power the visible light, you won't get interference pattern.

a reply to: ThatDidHappen

I like this wiki of upper atmospheric lightning.

en.wikipedia.org...

"Sprites are large-scale electrical discharges which occur high above a thunderstorm cloud... They are triggered by the discharges of positive lightning between the thundercloud and the ground... They often occur in clusters, 31 to 56 miles above the Earth's surface.

Although jets are considered to be a type of upper-atmospheric lightning, it has been found that they are components of tropospheric lightning and a type of cloud-to-air discharge that initiates within a thunderstorm and travel upwards. In contrast, other types of transient luminous events are not electrically connected with tropospheric lightning—despite being triggered by it. "

It seems interesting to me that the trigger for this voltage is earth.

I also heard, the charge and radiation increases at around 30 miles altitude, and then increases drastically at 60 miles, and then gradually increases more at 90 miles.

Interesting to wonder what the mechanics causing this extreme fluctuation are...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Does this help?

Did Einstein Misunderstand Aberration?

Yes, the linked article did help. In this post I'll mention some opinions I have of it, but as stated at the end, all-in-all it was very helpful.

I always like to not set c = 1, and would have preferred just a few more lines to derive the formulas so that I didn't need to do it myself. In The Absolute Theory and The Aether all the math steps are there so the readers can easily follow along with the derivations. We should never trust anything until we can do the derivations ourselves and understand it fully, and having all the steps there makes that verification easier. But that is a personal style preference not commonly used.

The linked article has a bit of a problem, at least for me, in what is meant by "aberration". Historically "aberration", when discussing stellar observations, has meant the difference in the apparent position of a star over the course of a year. In the linked article, the author mostly uses "aberration" to mean the transformation of the angle of a light ray's path, which, while related, isn't exactly the same thing. Toward the end the author does make statements about the more traditional terminology, and cleared up the issue, but using the same term for somewhat different things led to some confusion (for me) during initial reads. It would have been better to clear up the terminology at the beginning of the article, rather than at the end.

As another critique, the linked article has a political tone, especially when taking on Tony Rothman's 2003 book "Everything's Relative" and disparaging the "anti-relativityists" and then finally wrapping up with "but these things are rather obvious to anyone who has grasped the basics of special relativity – and of course incomprehensible to anyone who hasn’t." That is, it attacks the ball-carriers as much as the ball. Which is unfortunate. Rather than being in tribes of "Einstein worshipers" vs "anti-relativityists", science should simply be a search for the truth. It is of course necessary to correct mistakes, but gloating about it really isn't helpful.

There was also something I'd consider a problem when the author states "A single transformation determines both the Doppler shift and the aberration effect. In neither case does the state of motion of the source enter into consideration." Now it is technically true that once we have a photon, the Doppler shift can be calculated without referring back to where it came from. On the other hand, it is always the case that it came from somewhere, and that somewhere is often a source, and the frequency of emission is dependent on the state of motion of that source. Indeed, Doppler shift measurements are often used to determine the velocity of the source. So again, while technically true, it gets into something that really isn't needed.

But this post is basically just nit-picking. After enough study to work through the above issues the linked article certainly does give a good explanation of aberration from stellar binaries in the Special Theory. Special Relativity has no issue with stellar binaries, that is clear.

I will continue in a second post with my overview of aberration of stellar binaries, in case others are interested.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

An overview of aberration of stellar binaries follows. It should be a lot faster to get through than the linked article, and I believe it captures the essence of the issue.

The traditional aberration formula is:

tan(f2) = sin(f1)/[cos(f1)+(v/c)]

Relativisiticly, the denominator picks up a factor of gamma.

That university professor I paraphrased in the post above had asserted that, in special relativity, the v in the aberration equation should be the relative velocity between the observer and the star. As I recall his argument, that assertion follows since only two physical entities are involved: the source and the receiver, and with everything being relative that's the only velocity for the Special Theory to use. For single stars, the predicted aberration from this line of thinking gives the correct results, but for binaries it has a problem. From the linked article, it appears that this is a fairly common point raised by "anti-relativityists".

The flaw in the anti-relativityist thinking is that it is the relative velocity between source and receiver that leads to the aberration. As made clear in the linked article, it is the position of the source, not its velocity, that comes into play. Here is what is wrong with the anti-relativityist analysis: there is a third entity - light rays - involved; not just a source and a receiver. And those light rays have their angle determined by the position of the source and the position of the receiver, not the velocities. The light ray just travels from one point to another.

The easiest way to do the analysis is to look at those light rays from a reference frame co-moving with the center of the earth's orbit, and then apply the usual analysis to find the aberration. So we arrive at the conclusion that the velocity to be used in the aberration equation is the velocity of the earth with respect to the center of its orbit. While this explanation chooses the frame at the center of the earth's orbit to do the analysis, we know that the Lorentz Transformations guarantee that we can transform that solution to any other frame we wish.

So the Special Theory has no problem with aberration from stellar binaries.

Thanks again for the link.

(Of course, Special Relativity still has the issue of Einstein-Podolski-Rosen and the subsequent tests of Bell's Theorem. But that's another entirely separate issue.)

I have recently come across a Phoenix theory for a unified approach to physics.



I have not been through all the details with it, but on the surface it looks like a clean approach to subatomic structure.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
That is, it attacks the ball-carriers as much as the ball. Which is unfortunate. Rather than being in tribes of "Einstein worshipers" vs "anti-relativityists", science should simply be a search for the truth. It is of course necessary to correct mistakes, but gloating about it really isn't helpful.

I think that's a valid point, however you've even said something like you're in the minority of relativity deniers who actually has valid arguments, since it seems like a majority of them have objections to relativity which don't seem to be well founded. At least I think you said something along those lines and that all those people with invalid arguments make it harder for your more valid arguments to be taken seriously above all that noise. So perhaps while unfortunate, attacking the ball carriers is an unfortunate side effect of that situation. It doesn't make it right, but maybe it helps explain why it happens.

a reply to: kwakakev
Ken Griggs is the one who came up with that idea as far as I know. Back in 2012 he published a youtube video I watched, describing his idea, in which he said he never actually wrote his idea down, so he was going to try the making videos format as an alternative to publishing.

At some point I think he and Jeremy Rys aka "AlienScientist" and I'm not sure who else if anyone formed "hoverbrothers" and had a website at hovebrothers.com, which is mentioned in this article from last year saying that they were going to turn off gravity:

Are these scientists about to SWITCH-OFF GRAVITY - and if they do what will happen?

A TEAM of research scientists may be on the cusp of switching-off GRAVITY itself...

However, some fear interfering with gravity could lead to the kind of universal catastrophe thus far only seen in science fiction books.

If he turns of the Earth's gravity, then what's going to hold us to the Earth? Or the atmosphere?

He planned to start smaller, with making rocks float so if you ever see he did this, be sure to post about it as it would get my interest:

Step one, he says, is to ‘float rocks.’

He said: “Right now in mainstream physics there is a massive revolution about to take place.

“Quantum entanglement somehow holds the key theory to quantum gravity and the physics community is about to discover how gravity really works.

So apparently the idea is that entanglement causes gravity and to turn off gravity just turn off entanglement. Well I'm not sure if entanglement causes gravity or not but even if it did, it may be a lot harder to turn off gravity than he thinks. At least I hope so because if he really did turn off the Earth's gravity it could kill us all when the atmosphere wasn't held to Earth by gravity any longer.

I tried to look for an update on their hoverbrothers site, but maybe they let that domain lapse or something, because all I get there is an i-frame that re-directs to another site trying to help me find hover cars at Target, LOL. I don't think that can be their actual site. So maybe they never made any rocks float, would be my guess, though I'm not sure what their theory has to do with the topic of this thread. I didn't see anything in that video about the propagation of EM radiation; it's more like an alternative to Delbert Larson's preon model regarding the composition of quarks, as I understand it.

Jeremy Rys always manages to say things that put me off, like in that video you posted at 10:40 he says "Scientists still don't know what antimatter really is or how it works". I have no idea what he's talking about, since scientists know a lot about antimatter and how it works. There's plenty scientists don't know like why there's more matter than antimatter in the universe, but that doesn't seem to be what Rys is talking about.

If Jeremy Rys and Ken Griggs make some rocks float by turning off gravity, they will have my full attention, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. If they turn off the Earth's gravity completely, I guess I'll have no choice but to hold my breath as long as I can since the Earth's atmosphere will go off into space.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yeah, it was Kennith Griggs. He has a great series with about 10 videos. I lost it on some of the more complex matrix stuff, but is great to see such knowledge, understanding and presentation. Some powerful stuff in a causal setting.



In this video he talks about how light works in relation to his model. It is a different perspective from my current understanding about light, but can see some similarities and generally fitting with what I know. The geometry he uses helps keep the rules nice and simple and it adds up.

There is more that could do with explaining as there is with complicated stuff. Trying to make a living out of it does take time and resources. I wish them the best of luck.

a reply to: kwakakev
Still nothing in that video about whether or not there's an ether. I knew he had more videos but I never watched all of them, maybe just the first two if I recall correctly that far back.

Either he's not explaining his idea very well, or there are problems with his idea. He shows how a proton and anti-proton together can make a photon, and he says the photon can decay onto a proton and anti-proton. We don't find that many photons in nature that have enough energy to decay into protons and anti-protons, but let's say we accept that is at least possible if the energy of the photons is high enough.

What about all the other photons, like most of them, that don't have enough energy to do that? Even to decay into a much less massive pair like electron and positron, the photon still needs at least 1.022 MeV for that to occur. Is he implying those photons too are composed of the combination of a proton and anti-proton? I don't follow his explanation.

Most of the photons we get on Earth's surface from the sun have even less energy than 1.022 MeV so they can't even produce an electron-positron pair. So what's the structure of those photons? Is he saying those too are still the combination of a proton and anti-proton, and if so how does that make any sense?

He's either not explaining his idea very well, or his ideas don't make much sense, I'm not sure which. The video sort of implies photons are composed of protons and anti-protons and that idea has a huge conflict with conservation of mass-energy concepts for most photons which have far less energy than that.