What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

a reply to: neutronflux
Not my concerns personally, but it would be nice to at least show an awareness of the last 120 years of work done by scientists. Even if someone doesn't agree with the science, but they say here's what the science says and here's why I think it's wrong then we could have a discussion. But I'm still not seeing any awareness of the last century or more of science from kwakakev.

a reply to: kwakakev

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: kwakakev

your entire post seems to show no appreciation for or understanding of all the work done on this problem since 1900.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I agree with everything you are saying, just trying to explain it in am more user friendly way. The Stationary Luminiferous Ether fits with the medium extending the electron.

You said you agreed with me that you don't seem to appreciate all the work done regarding the ether since 1900, yet you are still citing work done before 1900. It doesn't seem user-friendly at all for you to apparently disregard the last century or so of science, when talking about a science topic in a science forum.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I admire your experience and knowledge on this site. Might not understand all of it at times as it goes when learning stuff. Have provided heaps of well researched and thought out comments well based in reality.

Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla had a great competition to bring out their best. Tesla had it on the technology, Edison done better on the business. Both great leaders in the fields of electricity.

The work around the Periodic Table is very important in making sense of it. Many scientist and experiments still working on it.

More recently we have the work of Albert Einstein and Julius Robert Oppenheimer around the theories of the atom.

This is a wonderful question OP. Respect.

The amount of conjeture ITT is surprising to sa the least, combined with the 'blind faith' shown by many to the currect status quo regarding this question.

Caveat: I have a strong leaning towards the "Electric Universe" theory, which I personally think is the closest anyone has got to The Truth about 'what's what' out/in there

OP . . . It's an ELECTRO-MAGNETIC 'field' ... everywhere!

And it is 'through' this EM field that 'energy' in it's various forms, manifests and travels throughout 'spacetime'

think of 'spacetime' as the 'metric', the measure, just like a kilometer Is "a thing" a 'measure' for other things i.e. distance, speed, in itself it is not a tangible 'thing'. Neither is 'spacetime' which Is 'relative' however "energy" is Not, it is in itself an 'absolute' ... the 'essence' of everything

Just as 'stars' are the arse end of the 'black holes' in our 'antiverse'

a reply to: kwakakev
In your post, I see a thanks, so thanks for that. Then I see three paragraphs which if they are supposed to have anything to do with the thread topic, it's not clear what that is. Tesla certainly made valuable contributions to electrical engineering, but he's also known to have been completely wrong and out of touch with observation and experiment on his theoretical physics ideas, like some other people I can think of. His obituary pointed out that he was not a reliable source for information about electromagnetic theory since his ideas about radio were known to be wrong, so why bring him up at all?

earlyradiohistory.us...

(Tesla's obituary, in the May, 1943 issue of the same journal, far from declaring him the "inventor of radio", instead diplomatically noted that his "theory of the transmission of radio-frequency energy is at variance with that now accepted".

originally posted by: JohnnyJetson
Caveat: I have a strong leaning towards the "Electric Universe" theory, which I personally think is the closest anyone has got to The Truth about 'what's what' out/in there

There are scientific theories about electricity in the universe, but the only thing I've seen called 'Electric Universe theory' is a misnomer because it's not a theory, in the sense it has no math and can't make quantitiative predictions which is what a theory is supposed to be able to do. In fact the lack of math is seen as a selling point for the naive who are not mathematically inclined, but that also makes it a non-starter for having any explaining power as far as science is concerned.

The People Who Believe Electricity Rules the Universe

The electric universe concept does not meet the National Academy of Sciences' definition of a "theory," which is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence" and "can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."

In physics, theories need math. That's how you predict, gather evidence, verify, disprove, and support. But EU theory isn't big on math. In fact, "Mathematics is not physics," Thornhill said. While that equation aversion makes the theory pretty much a nonstarter for "mainstream" astronomers, it is the exact thing that appeals to many adherents.

I can't say current mainstream models are perfect, they may need some improvements, but what I can say is that without any math, "electric universe 'theory' " does not challenge mainstream models in any scientific way since it's not really a theory.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The importance of the names mentioned is their work stands out in trying to understand the EM aether and how it all works. There are many other scientist that have contributed bits and pieces along the way. Understanding the relationship between volts, amps and resistance is another important building block.

I know Tesla has a tarnished reputation these days, part of losing on the business side of things. His work with AC electricity was ground breaking. How he could sit next to arcing electricity showed a special kind of confidence in understanding it. One theory in why his work has been turned into a joke is due to its importance in national security. There are rumors Tesla did have some contributions to the Philadelphia experiment. If someone does produce a patient that gets national security attention these days, can be a tough place to be if the accountants don't like you.

As for theories about the electric universe, sure. Electricity is a part of this universe and its area of affect does travel. Not everything in the universe has a charge, like neutrons for example. So there will be some things that will be tough to describe in an electrical context. As for electricity representing energy, it does describe a lot that goes on.

The Mystery at the Bottom of Physics


Come across this video that provides a good description around the topics discussed on this thread.

originally posted by: kwakakev
Come across this video that provides a good description around the topics discussed on this thread.

I watched it and I don't think it has much to do with the topic of this thread, which is about a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

The theme of that video is that our knowledge has limits and we don't know where the fundamental constants come from etcetera. He makes some valid points and it's a topic worthy of a thread, but it doesn't have much to do with the topic of this thread.

The topic of why we live in three dimensions of space plus one of time, and why don't we live in 4 dimensions of space, was about the only thing where I could possibly find some way to discuss it in the context of this thread topic. I can intuitively say that I know how to draw one right angle in a plane in Euclidian geometry, and make a right angle to that plane to make 3 dimensional space in Euclidian geometry. But I would have no idea how to make another right angle to those three spatial dimensions, in reality, even if it's possible mathematically. I'm not the only one who can't draw it, since he attempted to draw that in his video and it didn't work for me.

Also, if you study the reasons for the inverse square law of let's say the sun or any isotropic source of electromagnetic radiation, where at double the distance you get 1/4 the amount of radiation per unit area, this is related to the geometry of the surface area of a sphere, as a function of its radius, so it's a three dimensional geometry. If there was a 4th dimension that could affect electromagnetic radiation, one would not expect a three dimensional geometry to be consistent with what we see.

So, more dimensions may be possible, perhaps as in string theory where they would be so small that would explain why they don't show up in inverse square observations of radiation sources like the sun, but if there are larger additional dimensions they don't seem to be interacting with our known dimensions in things like inverse square law observations.

While he has a point that we don't know everything, which is obviously true, he doesn't quite say explicitly but seems to infer as others do also, that one can infer that we know nothing. I strongly disagree with this inference, because to say we can use a model to predict what will happen is the knowledge we have and it's not nothing, even if it may not he the ultimate model or completely correct. Newton's model of gravitation still seems an extremely useful form of knowledge, even though we now know there are better models possible which cover a wider range of observations.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Awesome criticism. I agree some of the 4D space stuff is a bit ???. Some of the language comes across as a bit crass and condescending at times. I did like the simple explanation of the basic physic constructs we do know and some theories of what we don't know. I will take the note for more about the EM on board.

a reply to: AntonGonist

What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves

your question is answering it... electric and magnetic field !!!

so simple, just that