It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But what if that thought isn't the way things are? Are we allowed to question this 'ether' thought, or must it just be accepted?
In order to relate to you we'll have to get this straight... Energy as "ether' is woven into matter. When you're willing to entertain this thought...
Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist
I don't set traps, my friend.
But what if that thought isn't the way things are? Are we allowed to question this 'ether' thought, or must it just be accepted?
In order to relate to you we'll have to get this straight... Energy as "ether' is woven into matter. When you're willing to entertain this thought...
Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist
Ok, you lost me. Can you explain 'spun density'?
Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by QuantumDisciple
psuedo-scientific terms
You wouldn't be referring to dark matter, dark flow, dark energy, etc., etc. would you?
What was it Stephen Hawking classified as a term? Massless Virtual Particles I believe it was.
“The most modern physics, even in the finest details, can be represented symbolically as psychic processes.” - Wolfgang Pauli
“Like Jung, Pauli believed that confronting the problem of evil was a necessity for human survival. He had in mind physicists in particular, even those who had no direct connection to the development of destructive forces. He felt that physics was caught in a web of adverse consequences of its own making, and that failure to consciously address this issue would lead to a stagnation of physics because of an unconscious loss of interest in the subject.” - (Lindorff, Pauli and Jung, p. 118)
“Functional thinking tolerates no static states. For it, all natural functioning is moving even where our thought technique deals with rigid structures and mobile forms. It is just this motility and uncertainty in thinking, forever flowing, which places the observer in contact with the natural process.” (Reich, SW p. 293)
“Since this view of nature is a result of the biological constitution of the natural observer, the world picture cannot be separated from the creator of the world picture. In short, against the natural research which created the atomic bomb stands the natural research which discovered the cosmic orgone energy, sharp, clear, and incompatible.
It is a matter of deciding the question whether nature is an “empty space with a few widely scattered specks,” or whether it is a space full of cosmic primordial energy, a continuum which functions in a lively way and obeys a generally valid natural law.”
(Reich, From Ether, God and Devil, 1949, in SW p. 276-277)
“The prevailing dogmas may be right, but they still need to be challenged. I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies. Since I am heretic, I am accustomed to being in the minority. If I could persuade everyone to agree with me, I would not be a heretic.” - Freeman Dyson, Many Colored Glass
Matter which we perceive is merely nothing but a great concentration of energy in very small regions. We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense. . . . There is no place in this new kind of physics both for the field and matter for the field is the only reality. -Einstein (Capek, Milic page 319 The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics.)
Obviously, then, there must be a conflict between the paradigm that discloses anomaly and the one that later renders the anomaly law-like. -Kuhn, The Nature and Necessity of Scientific Revolutions
I know I'll draw flake for this, but you really can't use post-modernist critiques to erect new science. Theories must be falsifiable to be accepted as scientific. If there's no way to test it, it becomes a kind of faith, not science. Wanting a new paradigm is all well and good, but just because you want it to be accepted as so doesn't mean it is scientific in any way. If aether exists, but it is not testable in any ways, makes no new predictions that can be observed, then it's a matter of faith, not science.
My 2c.
Doesn't it also have something to do with ten being equal to one through the reduction process which is casting out the singularity event using a base 9 number system which is in essence a programming language? (As you explained to me on page 1):
Originally posted by Americanist
Spun density: the product of a binding principle whereby energy "aether" is raveled into what we experience as mass.
Originally posted by Bobathon
reply to post by Americanist
Ok, you lost me. Can you explain 'spun density'?
Results: reality, gravity, and infinite potential scales.
Originally posted by Americanist
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
In a base 9 number system, 9 (base 10) would be written as "10" (base 9), and 18 isn't equal to 1+8 (or 9) in either base 9 or base 10.
Originally posted by Americanist
...it's a base 9 number system. Using the example you cited... 18 is (1 + 8) = 9.
The term is called reduction. 10 = 1... This reduction is casting out the singularity event. The base 9 number system is in essence a programming language. Call it what you will... This is the reason you have energy ending up as spun density (mass).
Do you see how based on that I assumed there would be no 9 in a base 9 number system since there's no 8 in a base 8 number system?
Introducing Base Eight
So what if we had eight fingers, or for some other reason, we decided to start over every eighth number instead of every tenth? Then we would have "base eight" (also known as "octal") counting. In this system, there are eight symbols to work with:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
We don't need an 8 or a 9 at all: out of just those eight symbols above, we are going to represent every possible number! So, we start by listing all the symbols after the "zero."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
When we get to that point, we're out of symbols. So what do we do? We go all the way down to zero, and add a one to our left: we write "one-zero" (10). It means "the number that comes after seven," or what we normally call "eight." This is the key turning point in this paper, so make sure you're still with me: when I write "one-oh" (10) in base eight, I don't mean ten, I mean the number eight.
Here are a few excerpts from the "Health and Biological Effects of the Rodin Coil" presentation at the Extraordinary Technology Conference in Albuquerque, NM by Jamie Buturff.
Aether isn't the word we use for it now, because it's not the same thing. What we now call the invisible structure of space is "the fabric of space-time" instead of aether.
Originally posted by beebs
You don't get what I have been saying. Aether is not the word we use for it now. Instead, we use terms like Zero Point energy, quantum foam, and concepts like 'below the Planck scale' to more precisely describe what was once called 'aether'.
so to some degree one could say that what we now call the "fabric of space-time" might be what Einstein referred to as the "new aether", but it's very confusing to call it aether for a number of reasons...it wasn't the same as the old luminiferous aether because it had different "properties" and general relativity obviated the need for it. But the term aether had other problems in that it had been used to describe a wide variety of other failed concepts which were never confirmed with observation, and in fact proven false:
In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether....
he continued that special relativity does not necessarily rule out the aether, because the latter can be used to give physical reality to acceleration and rotation. This concept was fully elaborated within general relativity, in which physical properties (which are partially determined by matter) are attributed to space, but no substance or state of motion can be attributed to that "aether" (aether = curved space-time).
So the fact that the "new aether" of Einstein not only wasn't the same as the old luminiferous aether, but also the fact that aether had been used in so many different ways as described in that Maxwell quote, that we dropped the term aether.
Maxwell wrote in Encyclopædia Britannica:[A 2]
Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic effluvia, to convey sensations from one part of our bodies to another, and so on, until all space had been filled three or four times over with aethers.... The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light.
You are correct to worry about phase shift. That is a common mistake many folks make when they try to do power measurements. Multiplying the RMS voltage with the RMS current will not produce an accurate result if phase difference is present. And if you are using a powerful motor like a router, you can expect some phase shift.