Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 40

Thread: Existence Of Gravitational Waves Now Empirically Confirmed

  1. #1
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,290
    Thanks
    88,628
    Thanked 81,099 Times in 20,304 Posts

    Lightbulb Existence Of Gravitational Waves Now Empirically Confirmed


    Albert Einstein (14.03.1879 – 18.04.1955)




    In 1915, Albert Einstein published his Theory of General Relativity, which holds that space and time are not separate, but that instead, just like the spatial dimensions, time is also nothing but a dimension of the unified space-time continuum. Among many other things, General Relativity also holds that matter — i.e. anything with mass — causes the fabric of space-time to curve around it, and that this is what causes the phenomenon we call gravity, i.e. objects fall toward each other because of the curvature of space-time.






    Because matter warps the fabric of space-time, General Relativity also predicts that the motion of matter through space-time — e.g. the rotation of stars, planets and moons — will cause ripples to occur in the fabric of space-time. This effect is called frame-dragging.






    These ripples are called gravitational waves, but although just about everything else predicted by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity had already been confirmed, the gravitational waves themselves had still not been detected directly yet. Or at least, not up until now, that is. Enter the LIGO ("Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory").






    Today, on the 11th of February 2016, the LIGO has announced that they have directly detected gravitational waves, thereby proving Albert Einstein right once again, now a whole century after the publication of his Theory of General Relativity.

    You can find the official statement from the US National Science Foundation here. I reckon that if good old Albert were still alive today, he'd be making a face like this now...



    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  2. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (11th February 2016), BabaRa (15th February 2016), Bob (12th February 2016), bsbray (11th February 2016), Elen (11th February 2016), Frances (11th February 2016), gord (11th February 2016), Joanna (12th February 2016), lcam88 (11th February 2016), The One (11th February 2016)

  3. #2
    Tot Founder England The One's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th September 2013
    Location
    In-Be-Tween
    Posts
    10,965
    Thanks
    26,696
    Thanked 48,693 Times in 10,222 Posts

    Albert Einstein was right again

    Over 100 years ago Albert Einstein said that gravitational waves existed and guess what they have confirmed today that these gravitational waves do indeed exist.

    Its taken over 100 years for all the expert scientists to finally admit these are real.

    Wow it makes you wonder if science had been taken more seriously back then how far we would have advanced by now but we all now why things are suppressed.Funny how they said we did it below no no no no no Albert did it you just did not listen.



    Albert Einstein first predicted the gravitational waves, which may help scientists to see hidden parts of the universe.

    US scientists have announced the discovery of ripples in space and time known as gravitational waves, in a breakthrough that could revolutionise astronomy.

    Their existence was first predicted by Albert Einstein in his Theory of Relativity a century ago but has never been proven - until now.

    To loud applause, researchers from the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) unveiled their findings in Washington DC.

    Laser physicist Professor David Reitze, from the University of Florida, told the National Press Club: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have detected gravity waves. We did it."

    At the news conference, they played what they called a "chirp" - the signal they heard last 14 September, believed to have come from the distant crash of two black holes.

    It was a moment that might have surprised even Einstein, who also theorised that scientists would never be able to hear such gravitational waves.

    A British member of the international team said it was "the biggest scientific breakthrough of the century".

    Professor James Hough, from the University of Glasgow, said the find was more important than the missing Higgs boson, the so-called "God particle".

    Other scientists compared Thursday's announcement to the moment Galileo took up a telescope to look at the planets.

    The waves could help scientists learn more about what happened immediately after the Big Bang and how the universe expanded.

    Gravitational waves, sometimes called the soundtrack of the universe, are elusive ripples in the fabric of space and time created by every massive object in the universe.

    Catastrophic events, such as a collision between two black holes, can create waves that spread out across the universe.

    A passing wave essentially stretches space in one direction and causes it to shrink in another.

    "It's one thing to know soundwaves exist, but it's another to actually hear Beethoven's Fifth Symphony," said Marc Kamionkowsi, a physicist at Johns Hopkins University, who wasn't part of the discovery team.

    Scientists hope that by detecting the waves, it may be possible to see parts of the universe that have so far remained hidden.

    It may also allow them to unravel the mysteries of dark matter, the invisible material that makes up around 80% of the universe.

    LIGO researchers have been using a $1.1bn device called a laser interferometer to detect the space-time ripples.

    They say it is like a microphone that converts them into electrical signals.

    Three such interferometers have been built for LlGO - two near Richland, Washington state, and the other near Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

    At least two widely separated detectors, operated in unison, are needed to rule out false signals and confirm that a gravitational wave has passed through the earth.

    Source
    Last edited by Aragorn, 11th February 2016 at 18:26. Reason: merged both threads ;)
    No one person can ever change the truth, but the truth, once learned, can and will change the person

    You must be the change you wish to see in the world when you are through changing, you are through


    theonetruth forum status theonetruth facebook

  4. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to The One For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (11th February 2016), Aragorn (11th February 2016), BabaRa (15th February 2016), Bob (12th February 2016), bsbray (11th February 2016), Elen (11th February 2016), Frances (11th February 2016), gord (11th February 2016), Greenbarry (19th July 2016), Joanna (12th February 2016), lcam88 (11th February 2016)

  5. #3
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Reminds me of research done by the Anderson Institute.

    Quote Originally posted by http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time-warped-fields.html
    As general relativity predicts, rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. This rotational frame-dragging effect is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect. The rotation of an object alters space and time, dragging a nearby object out of position compared to the predictions of Newtonian physics.
    Aragorn, do you have a definition for "gravitational waves" specifically defined by the LIGO team?

    I really can find no specific definition for the adverb-verb [fiction] composition I quoted in the prior question.

    Anyone here think this "discovery" is misinformation?
    Last edited by lcam88, 11th February 2016 at 18:42.

  6. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (11th February 2016), Aragorn (11th February 2016), BabaRa (15th February 2016), bsbray (11th February 2016), Dreamtimer (18th February 2016), Elen (11th February 2016), Frances (11th February 2016), gord (11th February 2016), Joanna (12th February 2016), The One (11th February 2016)

  7. #4
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,290
    Thanks
    88,628
    Thanked 81,099 Times in 20,304 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Reminds me of research done by the Anderson Institute.

    Quote Originally posted by http://www.andersoninstitute.com/time-warped-fields.html
    As general relativity predicts, rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. This rotational frame-dragging effect is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect. The rotation of an object alters space and time, dragging a nearby object out of position compared to the predictions of Newtonian physics.
    Aragorn, do you have a definition for "gravitational waves" specifically defined by the LIGO team?
    Well, the best way to think of gravitational waves is to picture them as ripples in a pond. For instance, if you lower, say, a basketball into a pond at rest, then this will cause the water around the ball to ripple, and these ripples will then spread out concentrically. And to then visualize frame-dragging, if you were to spin the ball while it floats on the water, then that too will displace the water molecules all around the area of its volume where it comes into contact with the water.

    As a connotation to this, it also suggests that the idea of an aether — which Einstein initially rejected, but of which he then later on said that the idea wasn't so crazy after all — is very plausible. The big difference here being that the aether is not some strange gas which fills the void of space — which is the notion that Einstein rejected — but rather that the aether would be the fabric of space-time itself.

    As a secondary connotation, this in turn then also means that if the fabric of space-time can be warped, then there has to be an extra direction — read: a dimension — into which it would be warping. You can only bend a straight line drawn on a sheet of paper because the flat sheet of paper itself exists in a spatially 3-dimensional environment. And this is something that quantum physics does allow for, because depending on the model, there could be 4, 10, 11 or 26 dimensions, with one temporal dimension included in each of those models — provided that there would, indeed, be only one temporal dimension, but personally I'm not so sure about that yet.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    I really can find no specific definition for the adverb-verb [fiction] composition I quoted in the prior question.

    Anyone here thing this "discovery" is misinformation?
    No, I don't think that it's misinformation at all. For decades already, quantum physicists have been positing that gravity is merely the result of a hypothetical elementary particle, called the graviton. But they've never been able to prove the existence of gravitons, and as we know, quantum physics and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity contradict each other in that regard.

    Personally, I have always considered Einstein's theory that gravity is the result of the warping of space-time — and both this and the frame-dragging effect Einstein predicted have already been proven multiple times, albeit indirectly — to be more plausible, as opposed to the desire of quantum physicists to describe the entire universe in terms of elementary particles.

    Therefore, I personally consider the discovery at the subject of this thread to be a big middle finger salute from Einstein in the face of quantum physicists.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  8. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (11th February 2016), BabaRa (15th February 2016), Bob (12th February 2016), bsbray (11th February 2016), Dreamtimer (18th February 2016), Elen (11th February 2016), Frances (11th February 2016), gord (11th February 2016), Joanna (12th February 2016), The One (11th February 2016)

  9. #5
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Anyone here think this "discovery" is misinformation?
    The thought has crossed my mind but I'm going to reserve judgment until "anti-gravity" technology finally becomes public. I'm sure the big militaries of the world know exactly how gravity works and whatever is going on in the public institutions is unnecessary at best.

    The little-known fact that Einstein was a kleptomaniac and worked in Vaudeville acts for a while has always intrigued me too.

    His classroom behavior, coupled with his never-ending imagination and exploratory mind, caused Einstein to wonder about the laws of physics. In fact, in 1886, as young Albert was hurling a spitwad at the back of his classmate’s head, he began to ponder the laws of physics as it applied to the flight of his projectile. Einstein felt at that moment that he had to know more and by age 16, he had mastered differential and integral calculus to further comprehend the dynamics of his flying spitwad. His strides in his academic achievements did not prevent him, however, from getting expelled from the Rotterdam Academy for releasing into the classroom a rabid skunk, again concealed in his lunchbox.

    Kicked out of academia, Einstein went on the road to pursue life as a musician and a standup comic. Not many know that Einstein was a violin virtuoso. He performed solos and was the coveted first chair in a symphony. But, he became so bored conforming to the strains of other musicians, he would often improvise and as a joke insert quips like “She’ll be Coming Around the Mountain” into the middle of performances. Even playing it backwards on occasion. Though the audience found it hilarious, the Maestro didn’t. He was sent packing. It didn’t take him long to find his way to New York as a Vaudeville comedian. His physical comedy captured the hearts of the audience. He was a huge success. But again, his success was thwarted as he was busted for stealing over 200 souvenirs from the celebrities with whom he worked. Albert Einstein was a kleptomaniac and subsequently shunned from the vaudeville community.

    With his hopes as a performer in shambles, Einstein had little left to do, but return to his “academic arts”. In 1896 he applied to FIT, New York’s Fashion Institute of Technology. He failed the entrance exam several times before finally passing it and being admitted. He seems to have excelled in his years at FIT, but a disagreement with a professor over an algorithm to calculate optimum lapel width left him closed to future opportunities with the University. He returned to Europe. It was here and then that he finally became the Albert Einstein we’ve come to know, love, and read about.

    Where in the annals of history do you read of Albert Einstein, the slow learner, the class clown, the problem child, the loser, the weirdo, the musician, the comedian, the kleptomaniac, the failure, the nut? We know him simply as Albert Einstein, The Genius.
    http://www.planetmotivation.com/albert-einstein.html


    Tesla apparently didn't think much of him either, and Tesla was a genius in his own right, who, unlike Einstein, had created hundreds of immediately useful inventions based on his theoretical models, from AC generators to remote control technology. But they both had their eccentricities and I try to reserve judgment on the whole situation.

    And if Tesla is any example of early meddling by wealthy industrialists and bankers, Tesla was spied upon by the Rockefellers, who employed members of the Bush family if I remember correctly, before they were infamous. His interest in providing free energy wirelessly to everyone on Earth did not sit well with the big energy producers, who would have no way of charging individuals for their energy consumption that way.

    Big money already pervaded this whole period of time, there are military implications, global energy market implications... So I'm just going to wait and see what technology comes out and how it works. That's when the issue will be settled beyond dispute.
    Last edited by bsbray, 11th February 2016 at 21:08.

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (11th February 2016), BabaRa (15th February 2016), boja (12th February 2016), Dreamtimer (18th February 2016), gord (11th February 2016), Joanna (12th February 2016), lcam88 (11th February 2016)

  11. #6
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,290
    Thanks
    88,628
    Thanked 81,099 Times in 20,304 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    Tesla apparently didn't think much of him either, and Tesla was a genius in his own right, who, unlike Einstein, had created hundreds of immediately useful inventions based on his theoretical models, from AC generators to remote control technology. But they both had their eccentricities and I try to reserve judgment on the whole situation.
    Both Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein were posthumously diagnosed with autism. That explains for their somewhat odd behavior.

    • Einstein refused to wear socks, and was once caught giving a very elaborate physics class before an empty auditorium, because he had been scheduled to teach at that particular hour and on that particular day, even though nobody had showed up.

    • Tesla was obsessed with hygiene, refused to shake hands, always stayed in hotel rooms with a number that was divisible by three, and he loathed people who wore jewelry, as well as people who were overweight. He also had an eidetic memory, and he purposely abstained from romantic relationships because he felt that it would distract him from his scientific work — a decision he would come to regret later in life. In his later years, he also became a proponent of eugenics.

    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    And if Tesla is any example of early meddling by wealthy industrialists and bankers, Tesla was spied upon by the Rockefellers, who employed members of the Bush family if I remember correctly, before they were infamous. His interest in providing free energy wirelessly to everyone on Earth did not sit well with the big energy producers, who would have no way of charging individuals for their energy consumption that way.
    Yes, and it was particularly J.P. Morgan who decided to ruin him and who had his Wardenclyffe Tower burned to the ground.

    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    Big money already pervaded this whole period of time, there are military implications, global energy market implications... So I'm just going to wait and see what technology comes out and how it works. That's when the issue will be settled beyond dispute.
    Well, both NASA's EM drive and David Pares's nascent warp drive could be used to repel gravitational pull.

    From what I've seen of it so far — even though I must admit that I'm still not clear on the actual physics involved, but according to Nassim Haramein, it "pushes against the fabric of space-time" — NASA's experimental EM drive seems to more or less fit the description given by Bob Lazar of the propulsion and anti-gravity system of the extraterrestrial craft referred to by his fellow technicians as "the sports model".

    David Pares's warp drive on the other hand is something which actively bends the fabric of space-time, and unlike the predictions made by quantum physicists in the 1990s that it would take enormous amounts of dark energy to do so, the key seems to be the use of very high voltage.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    BabaRa (15th February 2016), Bob (12th February 2016), bsbray (12th February 2016), Dreamtimer (18th February 2016), Joanna (12th February 2016)

  13. #7
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    bsbray:

    I like your position of waiting to see.

    I have the feeling that even if anti-gravity type technology emerges, no additional light in regards to standard model dogma will really be very revealing. I am of the view that at least metaphorically the issue boils down to: "has the fish taken the bait?" The concept is so complex and so profoundly intricate that you can spend your whole life coming to the conclusion that it is actually [not] valid. I think finding an alternative concept, if possible, is the best way [for me] to proceed.

    Aragorn:

    I think the best concept to start with is luminous light, something most of us are familiar with, perhaps as a self-propagating (along the fabric), EM oscillation. In what ways is the gravitational wave defined by the LIGO team different from luminous light?

    I suppose understanding this concept of "fabric of space", something described as not an etheric medium, is important.

    My issue with all of this are analogous concepts like "fabric of space" that leads the mind to suppose a 2 dimensional sheet that one would use when making their bed. This conceptual 2D fabric is further reinforced by likening it to the surface of a pond, where waves are analogous to ripples in the pond. But that analogy is weak because we know a position in space to be defined by 3 degrees of freedom: x, y and z (3 dimensions)

    And then to imagine that 2d "analogous" concept expanded to 3 dimensions but in such a way that the concept is not of an actual substance (not ether and devoid of "gaseous" characteristics). Then this unimaginable non-substance is then supposed to be "foldable"?

    Do you have some additional insider insight about these concepts that de-mystifies them?

    Bear in mind Anderson Institute has been researching the Lense-Thirring effect for some time now, focusing on temporal manipulations. They go so far as to say that rotating energy is enough; that it does not need to be a rotating mass. The subject matter of their research is based on the very same "frame dragging" effect observable as divergences in satellite orbital positions as compared to predictions based on Newtonian models.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (12th February 2016), BabaRa (15th February 2016), bsbray (12th February 2016), Joanna (15th February 2016)

  15. #8
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    If they release anti-gravity stuff where public scientists and engineers can see and work on it, and figure out how exactly it works, they might be able to lie or twist the truth of it at first if they wanted to, but I think in the end it would be like trying to lie about the fact that combusting gas is what propels a car forward. Sooner or later somebody is going to figure out that that's the main thing that makes it go, and nothing can work without that.

    People for years have been saying that anti-gravity type stuff uses some esoteric electronics array, maybe having to generate a strong magnetic field oscillating at a certain frequency or whatever the case may be. I wouldn't know about any of that stuff and since I'm not going to invest in a personal laboratory, I'll just be patient and see what comes of it in the end. But if this kind of technology really does rely on the EM force to "repel" off of or negative the effects of gravity, that would mean that there must be some kind of relation between EM and gravity which could be even expressed in a formula. Once we get to that level, no matter what the model looks like, then we'll be going somewhere.

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (12th February 2016), BabaRa (15th February 2016), Dreamtimer (18th February 2016), Joanna (15th February 2016), lcam88 (12th February 2016)

  17. #9
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,290
    Thanks
    88,628
    Thanked 81,099 Times in 20,304 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Aragorn:

    I think the best concept to start with is luminous light, something most of us are familiar with, perhaps as a self-propagating (along the fabric), EM oscillation. In what ways is the gravitational wave defined by the LIGO team different from luminous light?
    Oh, wow, they are very different concepts.

    • Light is comprised of photons, which are bosons, or otherwise put, energy particles — or energy waves, depending on how we look at them, because of the wave/particle duality. But these particles/waves move through and exist within the space-time continuum. See my comments below the next quoted paragraph from your post.

    • Gravitational waves on the other hand are not elements which exist within the space-time continuum, but instead they are ripples in the fabric of the space-time continuum itself.

    An analogy would be that if bosons and fermions make up for the different elements in a photograph — e.g. a house, a car, people, et al — then space-time would be the paper upon which the photograph is printed.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    I suppose understanding this concept of "fabric of space", something described as not an etheric medium, is important.
    It is, indeed. Before Einstein's time, many physicists believed that the void of space was permeated by an aether, and that light was simply a mechanical wave propagating through this aether in the same vein as how sound waves propagate through matter. But this was of course still in a time where Newton's laws of thermodynamics were considered the end-all and be-all of physics, and where people believed that time progressed constantly everywhere in the universe, and for every observer. And it is this is exactly that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity proved wrong, because the only thing that is constant everywhere in the universe, and for every observer, is the speed of light in a vacuum — hence why he chose the symbol c, for "constant".

    However, considering that space and time are interlinked and that space-time can be warped, Einstein later on posited that even though the classical description of an aether was wrong, the principle of it could be correct, in that space-time must have a fabric of some sorts, which itself then might exist as an object within a greater and as yet undefined universal construct.

    I will touch upon that a little farther below in this reply, because I see that you're jumping ahead of me.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    My issue with all of this are analogous concepts like "fabric of space" that leads the mind to suppose a 2 dimensional sheet that one would use when making their bed. This conceptual 2D fabric is further reinforced by likening it to the surface of a pond, where waves are analogous to ripples in the pond. But that analogy is weak because we know a position in space to be defined by 3 degrees of freedom: x, y and z (3 dimensions)
    I'm afraid that's a logical fallacy, i.e. you are conflating correlation and causation.

    The purpose of my analogy higher up was to convey the concept in a visually comprehensible form, or otherwise put, I am trying to visually represent a higher-order principle by way of a lower-order example. I am not constructing the principle behind the higher-order physics from the physics behind the lower-order example.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    And then to imagine that 2d "analogous" concept expanded to 3 dimensions but in such a way that the concept is not of an actual substance (not ether and devoid of "gaseous" characteristics). Then this unimaginable non-substance is then supposed to be "foldable"?

    Do you have some additional insider insight about these concepts that de-mystifies them?
    Well, I have a theory, if that is what you want to know, and my theory partly unifies the spiritual aspects with the physical aspects. My theory holds that space-time and everything in it are actually one and the same thing at the root, just like the leaves and the fruits growing on the branches of a tree are actually part of the tree itself, even though we tend to think of them as separate entities. We say that the apple grows on the tree, but the apple is part of that tree — more precisely even, it is the tree's reproductive system.

    If we postulate that matter and energy — or to put it in terms of physics, fermions and bosons — would both be "emanations" of the underlying space-time continuum, then that would explain why both their presence in and their motion through space-time cause the fabric of space-time to warp around them. If you grab hold of the very middle of a sheet on your bed and you pull it upward toward the ceiling, then even if the sheet is tucked under the mattress on all four sides, at some point beyond the elastic threshold of the fabric that the sheet is made of, you will start seeing the edges of the sheet move up on the mattress and toward you.

    The bottom line of my theory therefore is — and this is where it ties in with spirituality — that everything is an emanation of the one and the same thing that underlies all of creation. And as such, everything and everyone is interconnected, and everything has an influence on everything else in varying degrees of perceptibility. The Butterfly Effect, if you will.

    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    BabaRa (15th February 2016), Bob (13th February 2016), bsbray (12th February 2016), Dreamtimer (18th February 2016), Joanna (15th February 2016), lcam88 (12th February 2016)

  19. #10
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Aragorn:

    So luminous light "moves through" and "exists within" a medium. Not self-propagating? That very idea would suggest an etheric medium as the constituents of the fabric of space-time, does it not?

    And a gravitational wave is an effect of the medium itself?

    I'm thinking about the "photo element vs photo paper" analogy... That luminous light is the pigment applied to the paper. The issue still being, both pigment and paper are still actual substances. Can you elaborate any more?

    How do you know that mass, as you may find it in such common tangibles within your midst, are actually not effects of the medium (fabric of space-time) itself?

    I like your theory as you share it. But it too bodes better, in my view anyway, within a theory where an etheric medium indeed participates in the constituents of the fabric. Why? I think such a medium provides "connectivity" that if otherwise absent would result in all the parts, rather than a whole.

    Bear in mind, even the concept of ether is rather vague as far as the standard model would define it for the Michealson-Morley experiment. I think a perfectly valid case could be made where refining the concept of the ether would result in perfectly valid understandings of the observations made during the Michealson-Morley experiment without discarting the concept itself... <shrug/>

    Here is the real kicker question for you Aragorn: How can you know that anti-light concept we head-butted over, is not the same thing these LIGO guys are describing as gravitational waves?

    PS If you want, I can present a scenario where this "gravitational wave" idea serves as disinformation, but perhaps that is actually off topic.

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (12th February 2016), BabaRa (15th February 2016), bsbray (13th February 2016), Dreamtimer (18th February 2016), Joanna (15th February 2016)

  21. #11
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,290
    Thanks
    88,628
    Thanked 81,099 Times in 20,304 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Aragorn:

    So luminous light "moves through" and "exists within" a medium. Not self-propagating? That very idea would suggest an etheric medium as the constituents of the fabric of space-time, does it not?
    I don't see why you would surmise from my above elaboration that light would not be self-propagating. On the contrary, Einstein proved that the idea of the aether as a medium which permeates space is false.

    However, Einstein did later on contemplate the principle behind that idea with regard to space-time itself being some sort of distortable construct. But that in itself doesn't make it into an aether yet. Apples and oranges.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    And a gravitational wave is an effect of the medium itself?
    It is a distortion of the fabric of space-time itself. See my newer analogy in response to the following quote from you.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    I'm thinking about the "photo element vs photo paper" analogy... That luminous light is the pigment applied to the paper. The issue still being, both pigment and paper are still actual substances. Can you elaborate any more?
    No, I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. In this analogy, the bosons (energy) and fermions (matter) make up the information about the objects being depicted, not the pigments themselves as particles in the photographic film.

    Okay, let me try a new analogy here. You know what sound waves are, right? And you know that sound waves travel through matter. Well, music is made up of many sound waves, but in order to port music over a very large distance, we don't use sound waves. Instead, we use radio waves. The music thus becomes information, which is carried by the radio waves. In other words, the radio waves are not audible, because they are not mechanical waves propagating through matter — they are electromagnetic waves, carrying information about the sound waves.

    In this analogy, a gravitational wave is a distortion of the electromagnetic wave carrying the information about the sound wave.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    How do you know that mass, as you may find it in such common tangibles within your midst, are actually not effects of the medium (fabric of space-time) itself?
    It is part of my theory that they actually are, but with their connection to the fabric of space-time lying beyond our ability to perceive, because all we can perceive of space-time is that it is, for most part, empty.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    I like your theory as you share it. But it too bodes better, in my view anyway, within a theory where an etheric medium indeed participates in the constituents of the fabric. Why? I think such a medium provides "connectivity" that if otherwise absent would result in all the parts, rather than a whole.
    That's the great mystery here, where the connection between the space-time continuum and the particles within it should be made at the spiritual level, rather than at the physical level. Because there is no aether. Or to put it in your own vernacular, there is no medium. Space-time is a manifold, not a medium.

    Another analogy here would be that all energy and all matter are in fact only holographic projections, and that space-time would then be somewhat like the computer program running the holodeck, in Star Trek vernacular. Note that I said "the computer program", not "the hardware making up for the holodeck".

    (And no, I did not mean to imply that we would all be living inside a computer simulation.)

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Bear in mind, even the concept of ether is rather vague as far as the standard model would define it for the Michealson-Morley experiment. I think a perfectly valid case could be made where refining the concept of the ether would result in perfectly valid understandings of the observations made during the Michealson-Morley experiment without discarting the concept itself... <shrug/>
    But there is no aether!

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Here is the real kicker question for you Aragorn: How can you know that anti-light concept we head-butted over, is not the same thing these LIGO guys are describing as gravitational waves?
    Apples and oranges again. The anti-light concept perpetrated by Thunder Energies and Santilli speaks of this hypothetical form of light which supposedly refracts and diffracts in the opposite direction of what "normal" light does. The laser interferometers at the LIGO use standard laser light. Furthermore, diffraction and phase cancellation are not quite the same thing.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    PS If you want, I can present a scenario where this "gravitational wave" idea serves as disinformation, but perhaps that is actually off topic.
    Well, if you want, then I can present a scenario where I would be an advanced form of artificial intelligence, programmed either by alphabet soup agencies or by an extraterrestrial hyper-dimensional super-duper mega-powerful alien entity to infiltrate the alternative community and have you guys all chasing your own tails. And you know what? There are actually idiots who believe that.

    In fact, I didn't just make this up. I myself have had to hear, here on the forum, and from one of our members, that there are people spreading that story around as if it were true, based upon my command of the English language and the fact that I know how to use a spell checker.



    Okay now, let's get real here. Not everything is deliberate disinformation, but the fallacious belief that it would be is exactly why the alternative community keeps on chasing its own tail. Too many people can't see the forest for the trees anymore.

    As I wrote elsewhere on the forum already, mankind is its own worst deceiver. And the so-called alternative community is no exception to that rule — if anything, it's the ultimate confirmation thereof.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    BabaRa (15th February 2016), Bob (12th February 2016), bsbray (13th February 2016), Joanna (15th February 2016)

  23. #12
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    ok

    We are clearly going to continue to agree to disagree, on a lot of stuff. I am not actually challenging anything in particular that you are saying, you can't actually make this stuff up, I know. Rather I think it is better rationalized as boiler-plate cognitive dissonance for anyone who decided they liked physics.

    Photon is a name given to the concept of luminous light when observed for its particle like properties. So the use of that term, especially in context of examination of wave characteristics of various types is deliberately choosing Apple when the Orange is there in plain sight.

    Even though we are engaging in a conversation about "gravitational waves", and even though luminous light is known to have wave characteristics that are very well known, you mention "photon", a particle that can easily be misunderstood and be expected to bounce off each other, rather than electro-magnetic waves. Why?

    Just as you may be so willing to observe particle characteristics in luminous light, if you felt compelled, it is not unreasonable to expect to find wave properties observable in tangible light (matter). It begs further questions about the true nature of things in general, to me anyway.

    Ether is a theoretical medium pre-Michelson-Morley that was was considered to be the medium light waves propagate in, much like how water waves propagate in water, or like sound waves propagate in air (and water and steel etc), or perhaps even how earthquakes propagate through the the crust of the planet.

    As a result of disproving the existence of the ether, the problem of how electro-magnetic wave propagation worked had to be faced, and it was decided that electro-magnetics "self-propagate".

    Ok then.

    But to then characterize luminous light (electro magnetic waves) as "moving through" or "existing within" is to revisit a presumption where the ether indeed is a medium of propagation. I'm fine with that, but standard model is not (apparently). To create a new term for the sake of splitting differences now referring to the medium as the manifold, even when it may serve the same purpose is like renaming God to Allah.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    Another analogy here would be that all energy and all matter are in fact only holographic projections, and that space-time would then be somewhat like the computer program running the holodeck, in Star Trek vernacular. Note that I said "the computer program", not "the hardware making up for the holodeck".
    That is an interesting perspective, so following this analogy "luminous light" would be a holographic projection, and a gravitational wave would be like the "computer instruction buffer". And since we have thrown out the ether in this theory, the "holodeck" itself is devoid of any hardware?

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    But there is no aether!
    That is what the standard model says. And yet you fashion the analogies and explanations in such a way that ether seems to be required. (except the star trek analogy)

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    Quote Originally posted by me
    How can you know that anti-light concept we head-butted over, is not the same thing these LIGO guys are describing as gravitational waves?
    Apples and oranges again.
    So everything is apples and oranges. The standard model is...

    ... is completely wonky.

    I do like your explanations though, to the question I posed about anti-light vs gravitational waves. It was meant to be an easy question. Your answer is actually about how the two are

    Of course diffraction and cancellation are different things. Using standard dogma: the words are composed of different letters, they have different definitions. Seriously though, the interference pattern given by the diffracted waves have moments of cancellation and moments of energy reinforcement. <shrug/>

    Perhaps, using the star trek analogy, light is to spacetime as gravitational waves is to subspace. Maybe?

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (13th February 2016), BabaRa (15th February 2016), Joanna (15th February 2016)

  25. #13
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,290
    Thanks
    88,628
    Thanked 81,099 Times in 20,304 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    ok

    We are clearly going to continue to agree to disagree, on a lot of stuff. I am not actually challenging anything in particular that you are saying, you can't actually make this stuff up, I know. Rather I think it is better rationalized as boiler-plate cognitive dissonance for anyone who decided they liked physics.

    Photon is a name given to the concept of luminous light when observed for its particle like properties. So the use of that term, especially in context of examination of wave characteristics of various types is deliberately choosing Apple when the Orange is there in plain sight.
    First of all, the word "luminous" is superfluous in your description. Visible light is only a narrow frequency band within the electromagnetic spectrum. We could just as easily use the word "microwaves" instead of "light" — light waves do indeed fall within the somewhat wider (but still narrow enough) EM frequency band we call microwaves.

    Secondly, yes, there is the wave-particle duality. Light can behave as a wave when one specifically seeks to observe it as such, and it can behave like particles when one seeks to observe it in that manner. This duality is typical for all forms of electromagnetic radiation, but has also already been observed with fermions — i.e. matter particles — at the subatomic scale.

    The "decision" of light (or other elementary particles) to act as either a wave or a particle is what we call the collapse of the wave function, and it is one of the foundations of quantum physics. It underscores that the method of observation influences the outcome of the experiment. Similar wave function collapses can manifest in other areas of quantum physics as well. For instance, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that the closer you come to ascertaining the momentum of a particle, the less information you will have on its exact position, and vice versa.

    However, I am not the one equating apples to oranges here. You are. I will explain this farther below.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Even though we are engaging in a conversation about "gravitational waves", and even though luminous light is known to have wave characteristics that are very well known, you mention "photon", a particle that can easily be misunderstood and be expected to bounce off each other, rather than electro-magnetic waves. Why?
    A photon is simply a quantum of electromagnetic energy, perceived as a particle. The word "photon" is not restricted to visible light only. X-rays for instance can also be quantified as photons, if one wishes to observe them that way — see my elaboration on the wave-particle duality higher up in this reply.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Just as you may be so willing to observe particle characteristics in luminous light, if you felt compelled, it is not unreasonable to expect to find wave properties observable in tangible light (matter). It begs further questions about the true nature of things in general, to me anyway.
    Yes, well, I am not a qualified physicist — nor a mathematician for that matter — and my knowledge of string theory and brane theory is fairly limited. So I'm going to have to defer you to one of the experts in the field for answers about that. (This, in spite of my suspicion that you wouldn't be willing to accept what they tell you.)

    And then we haven't even touched upon quantum entanglement yet, or as Einstein described it, "spooky action at a distance". There is yet much to be explained in that regard.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Ether is a theoretical medium pre-Michelson-Morley that was was considered to be the medium light waves propagate in, much like how water waves propagate in water, or like sound waves propagate in air (and water and steel etc), or perhaps even how earthquakes propagate through the the crust of the planet.
    Correct, and the complete name for it was "the luminiferous aether".

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    As a result of disproving the existence of the ether, the problem of how electro-magnetic wave propagation worked had to be faced, and it was decided that electro-magnetics "self-propagate".
    Correct.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Ok then.

    But to then characterize luminous light (electro magnetic waves) as "moving through" or "existing within" is to revisit a presumption where the ether indeed is a medium of propagation. I'm fine with that, but standard model is not (apparently). To create a new term for the sake of splitting differences now referring to the medium as the manifold, even when it may serve the same purpose is like renaming God to Allah.
    And here is where you are equating the apples with the oranges and accusing me of doing it. It could always be possible that my eloquence would be failing me catastrophically, but I found no other verb suitable for expressing the movement or existence of light. You are focusing too much on the exact words that I wrote, rather than upon what those words were meant to convey, and in doing so, you yourself are introducing ambiguity into my words while no such ambiguity was intended by me.

    Light exists, doesn't it? And it is moving, isn't it? That does not mean that it would be moving as part of a medium — cfr. your analogy of the ripples in the water. It just so happens to be that we all currently dwell within the space-time continuum, and we can move around in that. It is the environment we exist in, not a medium. And considering that this environment can be interpreted as a vector space for making calculations on account of coordinates and movement, it is a manifold.

    Well, electromagnetic radiation exists here in this environment, and it can move here. That is what I meant to convey. Not that it would be moving through a luminiferous aether as part of it, the way ripples in a pond are actually mechanical oscillations of the water in the pond.

    And that is what makes gravity waves different, because the gravity waves are oscillations of the environment itself. They are distortions of space-time — just like the picture on a badly tuned television set with an antenna can also be distorted without that the people in the actual television program you're watching would be going through life with some strange morphological disorder — and these distortions of space-time propagate in the form of ripples that fan out like the ripples in a pond. They have a frequency (and thus a wavelength), and they propagate with the same speed as light in a vacuum, i.e. c.

    I really don't think that I could explain it any better than I just have.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    That is an interesting perspective, so following this analogy "luminous light" would be a holographic projection, and a gravitational wave would be like the "computer instruction buffer". And since we have thrown out the ether in this theory, the "holodeck" itself is devoid of any hardware?
    That's a non sequitur again, my friend. If the aether would have been brought into this equation, then it would be some kind of substance which fills up the holodeck. It would not be the hardware.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    That is what the standard model says. And yet you fashion the analogies and explanations in such a way that ether seems to be required. (except the star trek analogy)
    Nope. That's just you focusing on my vocabulary — of which I personally still think that I was not incorrect to phrase it like that — rather than upon the idea.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    So everything is apples and oranges. The standard model is...

    ... is completely wonky.
    If you say so. You're entitled to your opinions just like everyone else is, but in my personal opinion, you hold a prejudice against the whole of conventional science. And that, in my opinion, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    I do like your explanations though, to the question I posed about anti-light vs gravitational waves. It was meant to be an easy question. Your answer is actually about how the two are
    That sentence is not complete. Not that it matters, though.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Of course diffraction and cancellation are different things. Using standard dogma: the words are composed of different letters, they have different definitions. Seriously though, the interference pattern given by the diffracted waves have moments of cancellation and moments of energy reinforcement. <shrug/>
    That is indeed what an interference pattern is supposed to visualize. That has nothing to do with light refracting in the opposite direction.

    Quote Originally posted by lcam88 View Post
    Perhaps, using the star trek analogy, light is to spacetime as gravitational waves is to subspace. Maybe?
    Finally, now we are getting somewhere! <grin>
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  26. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    BabaRa (15th February 2016), Bob (13th February 2016), Dreamtimer (18th February 2016), Joanna (15th February 2016)

  27. #14
    In Memoriam Shadowself's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th March 2015
    Posts
    696
    Thanks
    754
    Thanked 4,290 Times in 688 Posts
    Good Morning guys! Long time!


    Saw this thread and thought I'd share a comment by a guy who spent as he claims "a pretty chunk of Discovery Channel money to tell their story when no one gave a crap".

    I rather like the way he tell it and hope this helps sus out the direction of this conversation about gravitational waves. and Enjoy!

    What we talk about when we talk about gravitational waves.

    By now you’ve all read the headline: gravitational waves detected at LIGO! Major breakthrough in physics! Einstein confirmed! Scientists just heard the faint sound of two black holes colliding and it’s important! Science science science waves gravity Stephen Hawking SCIENCE!

    So let’s get down to business and cut right through the crap peddling and click baiting. Is this a big deal? Yes. Is anyone telling you why? No, because it’s hard to explain in one headline. Predictably, half the world is getting this as a takeaway: EINSTEIN PROVEN RIGHT! (has there really been any doubt since Dyson’s confirmation in 1919?). LIGO is not about Einstein. I spent 6 months of my life researching and investigating LIGO; I then had the privilege to see it in person when I traveled to Nowhere, Washington and spent a pretty chunk of Discovery Channel money to tell their story when no one gave a crap. From this experience I can tell you, with one singular word, exactly why the current LIGO results are bigger than the Higgs Boson and bigger than Einstein.

    That word is LISA. LISA is going to change everything.

    To understand LISA and LIGO, you need to think about the concept of a telescope from a scientist’s perspective. Suppose you want to study the planet Jupiter. There is nothing in our technological arsenal that is capable of safely sending a human observer to the Jovian sphere, so instead, we use telescopes to parse out the intimate details of this distant world. Our telescopes catch the dim light reflecting off Jupiter, and then magnify it to the point where we can literally watch the weather change. Neat! The laws of physics then clearly state that the bigger your telescope, the more distant stuff you can see. After Edwin Hubble built the world’s largest telescope (at the time) he discovered that the little blurry things were actually distant galaxies, billions of light years away in space and time. Scientists have since built Space born telescopes like COBE, WMAP and PLANCK that are so sensitive, they can see light coming from the very horizon of the Universe. In essence, they can look back in time to the very beginning of everything! Everyone thought that we were about to learn exactly how our Universe suddenly just came to be 13.8 billion years ago.

    Except, the Universe decided to play hardball.

    For the first 400,000 years of our Universe’s existence, light (“electromagnetic radiation”) was trapped inside matter. Because light (“electromagnetic radiation”) could not travel freely, there is thus a solid wall at the 400,000 years year mark that no telescope can ever see past. Think of it like this: whenever you look at a distant star, you are seeing that star as it was millions, perhaps billions, of years ago – this is so, because it has taken the light (“electromagnetic radiation”) from that star many years to reach you. Ok, so instead of looking at a distant star, now take a look at an empty patch of space in the night sky – your telescope is looking as far back in time as the Universe will allow. In this case, it detects light (“electromagnetic radiation”) that originated 400,000 years after the big bang. Without the ability to observe any light (“electromagnetic radiation”) older than 400,000 years after the big bang, we are literally in the dark as to what happened when our Universe was born.

    But what if there was another form of radiation that we could observe?

    There is! Electromagnetic radiation (“light”) not the only form of energetic radiation that can transmit information; as it turns out, objects with mass can also emit GRAVITATIONAL RADIATION. It works like this: if I move an object with electric charge back and forth, it will induce a electromagnetic wave that propagates outwards at the speed of light. If I move an object that has mass, it too will induce a gravitational wave that moves radially outward at the speed of light. But here’s the key difference between gravitational waves and light waves: human beings evolved to detect and process electromagnetic radiation (vision) with our eyeballs because electromagnetic waves are quite large and energetic! Unfortunately, gravitational radiation is so puny that if our Sun were to suddenly explode, we would barely feel the resulting gravitational wave. (Of course, we would also be flung off into the cold expanse of deep space fated to freeze to death, but that’s beside the point.)

    LIGO was a simple proof-of-concept experiment to prove that gravitational waves could be directly detected with a large enough machine and a large enough gravitational even (say, the collision of two black holes many light years away.) LIGO is that machine – it works by firing two laser beams into mirrors to form an “L” shape, each leg being exactly 4 kilometers long. The lasers start at the bottom left and corner of the L, fire outwards, reflect, then converge back at the starting point. If sufficiently strong gravitational radiation happens to pass through Earth, it will stretch and squash the space-time we live in such that the lasers in the L shape will distort by a distance smaller than an atom, and the alarm bells will sound. Simple enough. And yet when LIGO was built, nobody knew if gravitational radiation really existed… even though Einstein predicted it and since 1919, nobody has ever really doubted that Eintstein was wrong. We had indirect evidence of gravitational radiation, but nothing concrete. And so, LIGO was proposed as a billion-dollar proof of obscure science concept – much to the chagrin of 90s era congressional republicans who saw the whole affair as wasteful government spending. Kip Thorn (The “Interstellar Dude”) championed the project, the NSF gave the finger to congress, and LIGO survived. LISA didn’t.

    Over a billion dollars later, the pricey LIGO had only heard crickets… and the occasional truck that rumbled down the road a few miles away from the experiment. NASA abandons LISA and sells whatever could be salvaged to the Europeans.

    And so, a woman enters this story who embodies the very definition human fortitude. Her name is Nergis Malvalvola and she was raised in Pakistan. Today, she is a professor at MIT and CalTech, a Macarthur Fellow, and one of the world’s most respected experimental physicists. She has dedicated her life to perfecting LIGO, and spent decade after decade refining every detail of this billion-dollar project. While she will undoubtedly scold me for this statement, I nevertheless feel obligated to mention that she is a gay woman who obliterated the thick glass ceiling of boys-club physics and deserves to be cherished as a hero to all outsiders who dream of contributing to endeavors greater than themselves. Back to the story: Nergis blazed a trail and led the charge to upgrade the experiment’s sensitivity. She, and her numerous colleagues, collaborated to invent a groundbreaking technique to increase the detector’s sensitivity from resolving the width of an atom, to resolving the width of a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, sub atomic particle. This major upgrade just paid off, because you all just read the headline. The damn thing finally worked!

    Thanks to the brilliance of Nergis and her colleagues, LIGO has now directly observed gravitational waves. Specifically, the gravitational wave radiation from a distant black hole colliding with another black hole. If an electromagnetic radiation based telescope were to resolve this event, it would have to have a mirror larger than orbit of the Earth around the Sun! That is the sheer power of LIGO – humanity’s first gravitational wave telescope! With this successful proof of concept, the time has come to put in LIGO in space, and jack up it’s power to 11.

    LISA stands for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. LISA is LIGO, but in space. She works off the same principles, but without having to worry about the curvature of the Earth, her lasers can fire much longer distances to form a gargantuan “L” shape. Remember how light is bounded until 400,000 years after the big bang? Gravity isn’t. In fact, nearly every reputable cosmological model we have predicts testable gravitational radiation artifacts in the earliest moments of the big bang. In other words, we now have the technology to literally look back in time to the very beginning of everything and watch our Universe birth itself. Think about that for a moment.

    TL;DR –

    LIGO just proved that LISA is worth the billions it will cost to put her into space.

    When LISA goes up (or whatever she’s called by then), she will see farther back in time than any other telescope in the history of mankind. Which means…

    …In our lifetimes, we will almost assuredly learn the exact physics of how the Universe (as we know it) came to be.

    So yeah, LIGO’s a big deal.
    TL...is this guy.... Tony Lund Producer, writer, and director of Through the Wormhole.

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2810966/
    Last edited by Shadowself, 13th February 2016 at 15:16.

  28. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Shadowself For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (13th February 2016), BabaRa (15th February 2016), Bob (13th February 2016), Dreamtimer (18th February 2016), Elen (13th February 2016), Joanna (15th February 2016), lcam88 (13th February 2016), Myst (13th February 2016)

  29. #15
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    10th June 2015
    Posts
    1,009
    Thanks
    2,129
    Thanked 3,244 Times in 922 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    First of all, the word "luminous" is superfluous in your description.
    Luminosity does not need to be visible, as far as I know. It can be felt, like sun rays you can feel on your skin (infra-red or ultra-violet), and insofar as you then describe those rays within a domain of electro-magnetism, I think luminous light is quite a precise concept.

    I use the term to distinguish it from other types of light, such as brilliant ideas that philosophers may externalise or even material light in tangible forms, or even spiritual light as some people may find present in their lives.

    I understand your position of engaging my initial question with the introduction of light "particles" perhaps to invoke the logical thoughts that would then find this scandalous type of difference obvious. So then the question begs, can gravitational waves also exhibit particle like characteristics?

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    Light exists, doesn't it? And it is moving, isn't it?
    So, does it really move, or does it propagate? Consider the Heisenberg principle of uncertainty, if you indeed can identify the particle, can you actually say anything about where the particle is going or even if it is going?

    I like your explanation for light vs gravitational wave. I had a different idea I am sure you don't what to hear it.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    The "decision" of light (or other elementary particles) to act as either a wave or a particle is what we call the collapse of the wave function
    Ridiculous!

    You can't say that light decided anything, all you can say is that the observers' decision to setup the various detection experiment in one configuration or another determines the type of characteristic he will find.

    The stuff about collapse of the wave function is the mathematical understanding of what happens to the model that suddenly has moved out of the predefined limit and thus no longer properly models what is observed. In other words, the model defines the limits when it can applied, once the phenomena no longer is within those bounds, then the model no longer applies, ie its ability to calculate and predict collapses.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    ...If the aether would have been brought into this equation, then it would be some kind of substance which fills up the holodeck. It would not be the hardware.
    Either analogy fits. The holodeck is presumed to be filled with air so that people who enter it do not need to bring their own life support systems. Insofar as that air serves as some part of the holographic animation it too is "hardware". But I can see you point too, I really don't know much about holodeck technology to suppose what constitutes hardware, or not. No need to overthink stuff.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    That's just you focusing on my vocabulary...
    And so do you, my friend, so do you. Excessively if I may add, and that is the only reason I call so much attention to vocabulary in the prior posting.

    It is almost as though, you find it easier to simply claim something as a non-sequitar or Apples vs Oranges than to find enough flexibility in the terms to actually understand the idea or merits of an idea. I have come to think that perhaps the real reason you are not be interested in visiting such ideas with valid points/concepts from standard model theory is because the amount of complexity in standard model theory does not permit anything but superfluous examinations and consequently defending the theory really can only be done by debunk other ideas by whatever means available.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    ...in my personal opinion, you hold a prejudice against the whole of conventional science. And that, in my opinion, is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
    I am inclined to agree with you. See one such reason I have just shared above.

    Everyone has a prejudice, insofar as you understand prejudice to be meaning and value inflected on the parts that are discriminated arbitrarily from the whole. Nobody discriminates completely equally.

    I think the more you attempt to represent or to convey such conventional scientific ideas, the more firmly my prejudices seem to become in rejecting some of those ideas. Maybe that is because the tone of our dialectic has taken, one of opposition, and not necessarily well founded opposition. I am not claiming any more innocence in this observation that I would yield to you, my friend. Not seeing eye to eye is quite distinct from claiming to be an authority of some kind.

    I rather liked you personal view of it all, that there is a wholeness, a moment where all the distinctions and differences hereto labeled by the whole spectrum of terms like "photon" to "boson" to "atom" to plant and even planet can be unified into a whole. You expressed the idea much more eloquently a few posts ago in a way much more aligned to your view of things.

    My issue, it seems, is only that I am much less tolerant in accepting ideas that can't be found to fit in what would be the homogeneous pattern of all things that define that wholeness. If you imagine wholeness as having an innate pattern, something perhaps fractal like that permeates throughout, you are imagining that homogeneous pattern. That is a pattern that I try to make fit, even where such a fit may be poor.

    Standard model appears to me as devoid of reasoning that could support such a concept. The ether being a fundamental that indeed might fundamentally make such a pattern viable to conceptualise.

    I hesitate to refer to the ether as "the luminiferous aether" only because that term is quite a bit more specific to the properties of luminous light than I understand the ether to actually be. Indeed a "luminiferous aether" may be a completely different theory to the etheric theory I have yet to elaborate on, and needless to say, conflating the two of them is a declension of one perhaps very valid theory through association with a less valid one. It would be like a type straw-man argument as such a strategy could be applied to the concepts.

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    That is indeed what an interference pattern is supposed to visualize. That has nothing to do with light refracting in the opposite direction.
    hmm, light reflects in the opposite direction. Refracting is what happens when a wave goes by a corner. Or when light enters a prism (a corner of sorts).

    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn
    Finally, now we are getting somewhere! <grin>
    I'm happy to know!

  30. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to lcam88 For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (18th February 2016), Joanna (15th February 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •