Gravity Propulsion Drive

[Mazulu]

Your "logic" bugeye is dizzyingly circular.

Do you deny that you exist? Do you deny that everything ultimately requires a wave to exist?

Gotta go to work. I look forward to your rebuttal.

 

[sigurdV]

Name something that doesn't need a wave to exist. Whether you realize it or not, waves are fundamental to everything, to EM radiation, quantum particles, everything!

Aether medium waves are real things that allow everything to exist; they facilitate existence.

Since the universe exists, and everything requires waves to exist, then everything that does exist, exists because waves exist. The only kind of wave that can make things exist is an aether mediumwave. Therefore, aether medium waves exist.

Surely somebody in this community of intelligent and educated individuals there is someone who can refute my proof.

First you try to prove by induction that everything requires waves to exist, unsuccessfully of course.

Then you try to use it in a premise of an argument "Since the universe exists, and everything requires waves to exist, then ..."

Which makes the argument invalid.

 

[Mazulu]

First you try to prove by induction that everything requires waves to exist, unsuccessfully of course.

How do you know it was unsuccessful? Maybe you dismissed the premise without even thinking about it?

Then you try to use it in a premise of an argument "Since the universe exists, and everything requires waves to exist, then ..."

Which makes the argument invalid.

If you could think up an exception, that would make the argument invalid. You haven't suggested anyhting that does not require waves to exist. I'll give you a hint. It starts with the letter "g". When you figure out what it is, we'll go from there.

 

[Mazulu]

Why are there no takers?:shrug:

 

[Mazulu]

Name something that doesn't need a wave to exist. Whether you realize it or not, waves are fundamental to everything, to EM radiation, quantum particles, everything!

Aether medium waves are real things that allow everything to exist; they facilitate existence.

Since the universe exists, and everything requires waves to exist, then everything that does exist, exists because waves exist. The only kind of wave that can make things exist is an aether wave. Therefore, aether waves exist.

There are dumbell and clover shapes for the hydrogen atom wave-function; they describe angular momentum. Since wave-functions are just a mathematical way to describe aether medium waves, then dumbell and clover shapes can be included as permissible aether waves, even though they don't look like waves.

Aether waves faciliate the existence of particles, the EM spectrum, the vacuum, properties of space, and even gravity. Even though the space-time continuum is just a math model, it describes the behaviour of gravity. Aether waves can facilitate the existence of gravity and space-time curvature. They can do so because every frequency in the EM spectrum is available because an aether wave at that frequency exists. For every frequency, aether waves measure distance with the wavelength of each wave cycle. Furthermore, every f in the EM spectrum functions as a clock that can pace the reference frame. So time evolves in any given reference frame because every frequency in the spectrum serves as a clock. This is how aether waves facilitate distance measurements and the evolution of time. Aether waves will also facilitate the curvature between two reference frames.

Would anyone like to challenge this?

 

[AlexG]

All you have done is made baseless assertions.

You show nothing.

 

[sigurdV]

How do you know it was unsuccessful? Maybe you dismissed the premise without even thinking about it?


If you could think up an exception, that would make the argument invalid. You haven't suggested anyhting that does not require waves to exist. I'll give you a hint. It starts with the letter "g". When you figure out what it is, we'll go from there.

You are mistaken my friend. Its you,who was using induction, who must prove that there are no exceptions to the claim that everything requires waves to exist. I continue reading your debate... it reminds me of the drop of water on a hot stove...how long will it remain??? Im just a poor devotee of logic so I dont understand the arguments in here when they become too tecnical but its fun reading. So please go on dont dwell on this miniscule matter

 

[arfa brane]

Hold on! You're telling me that a time traveling photon is the photon's annihilation partner? I don't see how that helps move theoretical physics forward when time travel is not only "not observed", but it creates paradoxes.

Physics doesn't distinguish between time moving forwards or backwards. Experiments are time-symmetric; for instance when two particles interact and scatter off each other, it doesn't matter if they do this in a forward or reverse time direction.
What distinguishes the direction of time has nothing to do with how systems of particles interact with each other or anything else. It seems rather to be connected to our observation that randomness increases rather than decreasing--particles in a gas don't move in the same direction and gather at one end of a container. Entropy increases.

So "moving theoretical physics forward" makes sense if it "moves backward" at erm, the same time. Except for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that is.

If you understood a bit more about quantum mechanics, you'd know why a photon is its own antiparticle, and why that means its state is independent of the assumed direction of time. Theoretical physics can choose either direction, you see, and it makes no difference to conservation laws.

Physicists are notorious for overlooking words like "orderliness of nature". Physicists take for granted the "orderliness of nature". Physicists cannot make meaningful progress until they ponder what causes "orderliness of nature".

Is that something you heard by the coffee machine? Do you know what "weasel words" means?

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

You believe that anti-gravity is science fiction because the physics community has failed you. They have failed you by denying the existence of the aether medium. They will continue to deny it's existence. Eventually, they will come to realize that: the quantum vacuum is made out of aether waves of the E&M spectrum.

Then, they will see that time dilation is what happens when all of the aether waves of the EM spectrum (for the reference frame) frequency shift.

Then, they will say: "Hey! What will happen if I synthesize a frequency shift?" Some day, they will perform the experiment. Then, they will stumble upon the gravity drive.

Gravity may be a product of the aether medium, but how do you explain the gradient of gravity?

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

In that case, there is no medium, it has no physical basis.
No, what remains is nothing. It has no structure so no "infrastructure". Calling it aetherial doesn't change the physics.
?? Well it certainly isn't independent of energy, because that's what it "is".
No, what you have is still 64 individual photons. The phase of different frequencies doesn't "line up", instead you get a beat frequency.

If something is not perceptible by known matter does not mean that it does not exist. That is the "seeing is believing" philosophy. It just means that it cannot be detected by matter.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

everything ultimately requires a wave to exist?

.

I don't doubt that the background forces of matter reveal characteristics of known matter, like waves, but I doubt that a wave or waves adequately describe those forces.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

You have something here. A propogating medium. Another meaning for waters is "darkness," opposite to the "light." Matter is composed of an interplay of the two, but only because the "light" was separated from the medium. Energy is a difference between one thing and another, between light and the waters.

 

[arfa brane]

If something is not perceptible by known matter does not mean that it does not exist. That is the "seeing is believing" philosophy. It just means that it cannot be detected by matter.

Do you think there's a way to detect something without using matter? Or a way to prove a negative?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Hold on! You're telling me that a time traveling photon is the photon's annihilation partner? I don't see how that helps move theoretical physics forward when time travel is not only "not observed", but it creates paradoxes.

You don't see a lot of things because you don't bother to look. All of your arguments boil down to "I don't understand it therefore wrong".

Conservation of energy is taken for granted by physicists.

No, it isn't. Many things which a layperson might think physicists take for granted are actually things we test time and again. The recent thing with the possibly faster than light neutrinos shows that physicists are constantly checking their work. Constructing models which violate things like Lorentz invariance, which can have issues for energy and momentum conservation, is not unheard of in the physics literature. I could, immediately and off the top of my head, write down a number of constructs which do not possess energy conservation or possess energy conservation but not momentum conservation. It's easy when you know how.

Time and again you keep telling people what physicists do or think when you have absolutely no bloody clue what we do or how we do it. You know you aren't a physicist and you know you don't know mainstream physics yet you persist in posting "Oh well physicists say...." or "Physicists do....". I've already corrected you a number of times when you've said such things in the post.

Are you doing it deliberately, knowingly lying and making things up? Or are you so dense you can't learn from mistakes?

Physicists should wear a shirt that says: S**t Happens! Don't care why!

You should wear a shirt "I don't give a **** what physicists say, I just make up stories to delude myself". You clearly haven't bothered to find out what physicists actually say and you're willing to misrepresent us.

Do you honestly think you're going to get anyone who understands physics to listen to you if all you ever do is lie about them? No one in their right mind who understands physics is going to want to work with you if you're a compulsive liar.

Waves and particles wouldn't have any reason to obey conservation of energy unless they were part of the same "vacuum of space", part of the same aether medium, part of the same system.

And simply asserting things using an argument from personal ignorance isn't science. Just because your mind is, quite frankly, too small and too weak to grasp other possibilities doesn't mean your laughably naive view of the world is right.

You really need to get over your delusion that your ability to understand is the yard stick by which the universe is sized up.

Physicists are notorious for overlooking words like "orderliness of nature". Physicists take for granted the "orderliness of nature". Physicists cannot make meaningful progress until they ponder what causes "orderliness of nature".

I really do wonder if you're dishonest or stupid. I'm beginning to think you're a potent mix of both.

Seriously, do you think becoming a pathological liar is going to get you anywhere?

 

[Mazulu]

You don't see a lot of things because you don't bother to look. All of your arguments boil down to "I don't understand it therefore wrong".

Are you doing it deliberately, knowingly lying and making things up? Or are you so dense you can't learn from mistakes?

You should wear a shirt "I don't give a **** what physicists say, I just make up stories to delude myself". You clearly haven't bothered to find out what physicists actually say and you're willing to misrepresent us.

Do you honestly think you're going to get anyone who understands physics to listen to you if all you ever do is lie about them? No one in their right mind who understands physics is going to want to work with you if you're a compulsive liar.

And simply asserting things using an argument from personal ignorance isn't science. Just because your mind is, quite frankly, too small and too weak to grasp other possibilities doesn't mean your laughably naive view of the world is right.

You really need to get over your delusion that your ability to understand is the yard stick by which the universe is sized up.

I really do wonder if you're dishonest or stupid. I'm beginning to think you're a potent mix of both.

Seriously, do you think becoming a pathological liar is going to get you anywhere?

Is this how you win arguments? You fluff up your ego, your 0.1% knowledge of the universe, and condescend and ridicule someone who can innovate beyond your 0.1%. I'm trying to explain why a frequency shift experiment will work. But your ego feels threatened, so you rant, and rant and rant and rant and rant and rant... But you don't ask for clarification.

The fact remains, I have a gravity drive experiment.

All you have is page after page of ranting, and more ranting, and more ranting, and more ranting...

Your endless ranting is not getting you any closer to a gravity drive experiment.

 

[Mazulu]

Physics doesn't distinguish between time moving forwards or backwards. Experiments are time-symmetric; for instance when two particles interact and scatter off each other, it doesn't matter if they do this in a forward or reverse time direction.
What distinguishes the direction of time has nothing to do with how systems of particles interact with each other or anything else. It seems rather to be connected to our observation that randomness increases rather than decreasing--particles in a gas don't move in the same direction and gather at one end of a container. Entropy increases.

So "moving theoretical physics forward" makes sense if it "moves backward" at erm, the same time. Except for the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that is.

If you understood a bit more about quantum mechanics, you'd know why a photon is its own antiparticle, and why that means its state is independent of the assumed direction of time. Theoretical physics can choose either direction, you see, and it makes no difference to conservation laws.

Is that something you heard by the coffee machine? Do you know what "weasel words" means?

So what! This doesn't explain a photon's relationship to the vacuum, to that which implements the properties of the vacuum, to the mechanisms of length contraction and time dilation, to the mechanisms of time itself.
Look, you can't build a time machine or a wormhole to the past. So time symmetry of photons is just brain candy.

In contrast, I say that everything that exists, including the vacuum itself, is implemented by aether medium waves.
Aether means aetherial, which means that you can't measure them directly. Medium means they exist everywhere in the whole universe (with the possible exception of the black hole interior). Waves because are everywhere in physics: wave functions, EM spectrum, harmonic oscillators. Also, waves that obey the speed of light, c, have a cycle: a cycle has a period (good for implementing the flow of time) and a wavelength (good for measuring distance). Length contraction, time dilation, and curvature of space-time need an implementing mechanism that can measure time and distance very accurately.

 

[Mazulu]

I don't doubt that the background forces of matter reveal characteristics of known matter, like waves, but I doubt that a wave or waves adequately describe those forces.

Aether medium waves are meant to give nature a clock (a whole EM bandwidth of clocks), a ruler (a whole EM bandwidth of wavelengths), a way to express energy (as EM bandwidth), and a way to facilitate momentum ($$p = \frac{h}{\lambda}$$. The actual mechanisms that give us gravitational time dilation, gravity, particles, inertia are based upon the foundation of aether medium waves. Aether medium waves are there to facilitate the existence of everything in our universe.

Alphanumeric,
I don't want to misrepresent you or the physics community; to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in physics literature about that whichfacilitates existence, right? That which facilitates existence also includes the characteristics of space and dimensions. Physicists talk about models and they avoid making claims about ontology. Ontology is treated as a philosophical approach to "existence". In contrast, I say that aether medium waves facilitate existence. Do you care to comment?

Is that something you heard by the coffee machine? Do you know what "weasel words" means?

What I have to say is very very profound. I don't use weasel words. Weasels use my words.

 

[Mazulu]

Gravity may be a product of the aether medium, but how do you explain the gradient of gravity?

I depict the vacuum of space as a line along the x-coordinate, from x=x_a to x=x_b. Of course a space should be a 3d volume, but I want to make this as simple as possible to understand. Along the x-axis of my line of vacuum of space, there exists available EM bandwidth, from the lowest frequency (radio waves) to the highest frequency (gamma rays), and everything in between. This frequency bandwidth is available for propagating photons of any frequency and any phase. It can propagate anything and everything in the EM frequency spectrum. This frequency bandwidth is available because there are aether medium waves that exist at every frequency in the bandwidth. If there is no aether medium wave at frequency f, then no photon of frequency f will be able to travel in the +x or -x direction along this line.

Because the aether medium exists along the x-axis, then quantum mechanics can exist as well; wave function solutions describe aether medium waves.

Because aether medium waves exist in my line of vacuum of space, then particles with mass may exist.

Albert Einstein first explained the wave–particle duality of light in 1905. Louis de Broglie hypothesized that any particle should also exhibit such a duality. The velocity of a particle, he concluded then (but may be questioned today, see above), should always equal the group velocity of the corresponding wave. De Broglie deduced that if the duality equations already known for light were the same for any particle, then his hypothesis would hold.

Particles with mass are a group of aether medium waves. Since aether medium waves facilitate the properties of space, and particles are just groups of aether medium waves, then particles and space are made of the same thing, aether medium waves.

A photon or a particle will follow the same wave or waves from x_a to x_b. If the space is inertial (no acceleration), then the frequency bandwidth will have zero frequency shift. $$\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}= 0 $$. If there is frequency shift along the x-axis, then there will acceleration.

This will have to be experimentally verified.

The gradient of gravity is explained as frequency shifting off the whole bandwidth of aether waves by some slope, $$\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta t}>< 0 $$

 

[AlexG]

The fact remains, I have a gravity drive experiment.

The fact remains you don't have shit.

You have blinking christmas tree lights and a cardboard box you pretend is a spaceship.

 

[arfa brane]

So what! This doesn't explain a photon's relationship to the vacuum, to that which implements the properties of the vacuum, to the mechanisms of length contraction and time dilation, to the mechanisms of time itself.

The "mechanisms" of Lorentz invariance are definitely connected to the propagation of light in a vacuum. Why do you think time is a mechanism? Time, or rather the direction of time, in physics is like an abstract mirror. Try googling "time symmetry".

Look, you can't build a time machine or a wormhole to the past. So time symmetry of photons is just brain candy.

The time symmetry of quantum particles isn't brain candy. Read some Feynman, or watch some of his online lectures, my man.
In relativity, the past and the future are different for different observers. That isn't time travel.