Gravity Propulsion Drive

[Aqueous Id]

I'm saying that wave-functions (math) represent a real phenomena of nature.

That's sounding a little better, but you've been saying reality is 'made of' waves, which is nonsensical.

Do you know what the expectation value is... When you attempt to detect a particle, but you find nothing, then what you really found was empty space.

'Not detecting' seems odd, since all detectors are swamped with noise at the threshold of detection. That is, there's no 'detection' of 'nothing'. In fact, at the highest sensitivity, there's a detection of 'everything' (background noise).

Do you know what the expectation value is...But if you try again, and you find the particle (e.g. a photon), then you find it's energy content E=hf.

You mean 'expected' value, E{x}. I have no idea what you mean by 'try again' since observation is what collapses the wave function in the sense we mean here.

When you don't find the photon, the wave-function is still there.

There you go again. It's not there because 'it' is not an object. It's an abstraction, a mathematical representation, not an actual wave, but a model of a special kind of random behavior, one that can't be resolved to a fixed probability density, and this is describable as wavelike behavior.

When you do find the photon, you find something that is energized, has frequency, and is wavy.

Photons are not wavy. That's meaningless. Photons propagate as waves.

Therefore, photons are just energized wave-functions; wave-functions are just space waiting around to be energized.

No, therefore photons propagate as waves which has nothing to do with the wave function per se.

Ever hear of the Pauli Exclusion Principle? In a quantum system that holds electrons (fermions), every electron gets its own set of quantum numbers. Quantum numbers are like addresses for each "space" in the quantum system.

The problem with analogies is that they lead to wild speculation about how apples are like oranges. Quantum numbers (in the sense you seem to be analogizing) are abstractions that help us understand the range of discrete properties that distinguish particle types. They describe properties of real things, but are not themselves real. Properties are not things, merely behaviors or characteristics. Blue is not a thing. Nor is angular momentum.

Permittivity and permeability of free space are present whether there are photons around or not;

To say 'present' is to infer substance, but these are the intrinsic properties (impedance) of space, nothing more. Permittivity is not a thing. Again, you continue to merge the notion of properties with the notion of a thing, like a particle. This may explain why you think space contains ether-like 'things', but this just a figment of your imagination, nothing more. You aren't distinguishing reality from fiction.

both of these constants are inextricably tied to the speed of light, c. Why is that?

Because the intrinsic nature of space is that it is actually a physical manifestation of spacetime. The intrinsic impedance of space establishes the relationship between space and time in terms of wave velocity, the direction and magnitude of electric and magnetic fields, and it establishes the basis for these phenomena under both the inertial and relativistic scenarios.

Observation means you tried to detect the particle.

That's measurement, a subset of all observations.

When you find your keys in the bathroom, your house doesn't collapse (fortunately); neither does the wave-function collapse.

Huh? That's just a play on words.

The luminiferous aether is supposed to be the medium that bears light.

No. It's not supposed to exist. Because it doesn't. That was a very old idea that has been found to be an erroneous interpretation of how waves propagate and why.

Physicists have an irrational fear of the aether. They fool themselves into thinking that M&M disproved the aether.

In the first place there wasn't anything to disprove but speculation. And it was disproved, far beyond the degree of any other speculation, including the very wild ones you are advancing here. Furthermore, generalizing physicists to a stereotype of "irrational fear of ether" is paranoid conspiracy theory. Physicists study and characterize nature. Along the way they set up possible scenarios to explain phenomena for which they have no science. Ether was one of those styrofoam propositions, originating from an age of superstition. Subsequent science has been discovered to prove that this is not how nature operates. M&M set out to prove it, not to disprove it, and were humiliated by their results. We have to go with what nature actually is, not what some ill-informed people thought it might be when they had no better explanations. to do otherwise is to exhibit a fear of reality, and that's the worst kind of paranoia imaginable, since it leads to delusion - aliens, or hearing voices, for example.

All M&M did was demonstrate that the aether was not a point particle. I say that the aether is a collection of waves that look like $$e^{i(kx - \omega t)}$$, such that $$c=\frac{\omega}{k}$$. M&M didn't test for that.

You can say all you want, but your words - like mine - are trumped by nature. Nature is what it is, and like it or not, newer and better work has been done to dispel some of the older myths and superstitions about it, giving us a picture that is gradually coming into focus.

To reject that progress toward better focus is irrational, and it moves contrary to the direction of science.

 

[Mazulu]

$$\Psi(x,t)=\sum_{i=1}^{10^{28}}e^{i(k_i x - \omega_i t)}$$

This is a somewhat imperfect wave-function (math) representation of the full frequency spectrum at a point x. We can all agree that electromagnetic frequency bandwidth is from 0.1Hz to 10^27Hz. But I've written the equation as a set of integers from frequency 1Hz to 10^{28}. Please note that $$\frac{\omega_1}{k_1}=\frac{\omega_2}{k_2}=...\frac{\omega_{10^{28}}}{k_{10^{28}}$$ insures that the speed of light is c for each frequency/wavelength set; $$k_i = \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda_i}$$ In a sense, I've written a subset of the total number of frequency terms needed to provide the complete electromagnetic frequency bandwidth of empty space. The wave-function (math) that I wrote is intended to represent the naturally occurring wave-function (nature) that fills all space(-time) and provides the necessary infrastructure to support the properties of light. A more elaborate description, written with an x,y and z coordinate system, would account for all of the points in a a single inertial system (nature).

It makes sense to subdivide space(-time) into naturally occurring inertial reference frames (nature). Inertial frames (nature) are connected by accelerated frames (nature). But I don't know how to mathematically describe the length contraction and time dilation as a sum of e^i terms.

 

[Aqueous Id]

$$\Psi(x,t)=\sum_{i=1}^{10^{28}}e^{i(k_i x - \omega_i t)}$$

This is a somewhat imperfect wave-function (math) representation of the full frequency spectrum at a point x.

It's arbitary. BTW, as far as notation: if that's the imaginary i you should use another character, like j, for the index. Also note, you left off the coefficients, which renders this meaningless except for a universe consisting of uniform (discrete) white noise (resolved to 10^28 Hz.)

We can all agree that electromagnetic frequency bandwidth is from 0.1Hz to 10^27Hz.

What is that supposed to mean? And what difference does it make?

But I've written the equation as a set of integers from frequency 1Hz to 10^{28}. Please note that $$\frac{\omega_1}{k_1}=\frac{\omega_2}{k_2}=...\frac{\omega_{10^{28}}}{k_{10^{28}}$$ insures that the speed of light is c for each frequency/wavelength set; $$k_i = \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda_i}$$

What? No strings attached?

In a sense, I've written a subset of the total number of frequency terms needed to provide the complete electromagnetic frequency bandwidth of empty space.

No you haven't. You've written a summation of an ungodly number of sin and cosine harmonics, each of magnitude 1. Which means nothing.

The wave-function (math) that I wrote is intended to represent the naturally occurring wave-function (nature) that fills all space(-time) and provides the necessary infrastructure to support the properties of light.

Without the ungodly[sup]2[/sup] (squared) number of coefficients, this means nothing. In fact the Fourier-like series means nothing either since waves propagate as R[sup]-2[/sup]

A more elaborate description, written with an x,y and z coordinate system, would account for all of the points in a a single inertial system (nature).

With an ungodly[sup]4[/sup] number of coefficients, which renders the wave representation moot.

It makes sense to subdivide space(-time) into naturally occurring inertial reference frames (nature).

To you maybe. It makes no sense to me to attribute this to nature.

Inertial frames (nature) are connected by accelerated frames (nature).

By rotation in 1 or more dimensions. And linear translation can be zero acceleration.

But I don't know how to mathematically describe the length contraction and time dilation as a sum of e^i terms.

Maybe for a good reason. The Fourier transform is only useful for doing math in one domain or the other, where convolution tends to be cumbersome. This is why it makes no sense to force square pegs into round holes. SR has already been formulated as the Lorentz rotation. It has nothing to do with waves and everything to do with relative velocity. Round peg, round hole.

By the way, you can designate a white spectrum with the delta function [e.g. δ(0)] although I doubt that was your intent.

It looks to me like you were trying to compute the energy of the universe or something. I'm not even sure what you set out to do.

The spectral decomposition into sines and cosines has use in math and in practical application, but here, as a theoretical basis for counteracting gravity, it's completely arbitrary. I could just as well choose square waves or any other basis for representing frequency (or "sequency") content. And no matter what basis functions I choose, it reveals nothing whatsoever about nature, just as it imposes nothing on nature.

 

[Mazulu]

It's arbitary. BTW, as far as notation: if that's the imaginary i you should use another character, like j, for the index. Also note, you left off the coefficients, which renders this meaningless except for a universe consisting of uniform (discrete) white noise (resolved to 10^28 Hz.)
What is that supposed to mean? And what difference does it make?
What? No strings attached?
No you haven't. You've written a summation of an ungodly number of sin and cosine harmonics, each of magnitude 1. Which means nothing.
Without the ungodly[sup]2[/sup] (squared) number of coefficients, this means nothing. In fact the Fourier-like series means nothing either since waves propagate as R[sup]-2[/sup]
With an ungodly[sup]4[/sup] number of coefficients, which renders the wave representation moot.
To you maybe. It makes no sense to me to attribute this to nature.
By rotation in 1 or more dimensions. And linear translation can be zero acceleration.
Maybe for a good reason. The Fourier transform is only useful for doing math in one domain or the other, where convolution tends to be cumbersome. This is why it makes no sense to force square pegs into round holes. SR has already been formulated as the Lorentz rotation. It has nothing to do with waves and everything to do with relative velocity. Round peg, round hole.
By the way, you can designate a white spectrum with the delta function [e.g. δ(0)] although I doubt that was your intent.

It looks to me like you were trying to compute the energy of the universe or something. I'm not even sure what you set out to do.

The spectral decomposition into sines and cosines has use in math and in practical application, but here, as a theoretical basis for counteracting gravity, it's completely arbitrary. I could just as well choose square waves or any other basis for representing frequency (or "sequency") content. And no matter what basis functions I choose, it reveals nothing whatsoever about nature, just as it imposes nothing on nature.

Your comments are appreciated, thank you. I am trying to support my claim that rapid and repeated emissions of good quality frequency shifts of electromagnetic radiation, with a frequency-time slope >10^20, will produce a measurable acceleration field. This is a zero energy mechanism, very similar to the Zero energy universe hypothesis. Zero energy mechanisms violate (or appear to violate) conservation of energy, which is a conservation law. All of the mathematics of the Standard Model, GR and string theory rely upon conservation laws. Therefore, rapid frequency shifting, as a means of generating an acceleration field, will not pop out of any known equation.

Physics cannot explain (1) why the speed of light invariant for all reference frames, (2) why we observe wave-particle duality. I am trying to argue that the only way these two observations can be explained is if space, space-time and reference frames (nature) are made out of sinusoidal waves. If everything is ultimately made out of wave-functions (nature), including particles, light, and space-time itself, then we can generate gravity by imitating what gravity does to light.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Your comments are appreciated, thank you. I am trying to support my claim that rapid and repeated emissions of good quality frequency shifts of electromagnetic radiation, with a frequency-time slope >10^20, will produce a measurable acceleration field.

Vibrate fast enough and you have the frequency of a particle's equivalent energy, but not the particle itself, which is needed to produce acceleration.

Zero energy mechanisms violate (or appear to violate) conservation of energy, which is a conservation law. All of the mathematics of the Standard Model, GR and string theory rely upon conservation laws. Therefore, rapid frequency shifting, as a means of generating an acceleration field, will not pop out of any known equation.

That should be a clue.

Physics cannot explain (1) why the speed of light invariant for all reference frames, (2) why we observe wave-particle duality.

Depends on what you mean by 'why'. For example (1) can be answered by Maxwell's equations, or just the intrinsic impedance of space, and (2) can be answered by energy-mass and energy-wavelength equivalences.

I am trying to argue that the only way these two observations can be explained is if space, space-time and reference frames (nature) are made out of sinusoidal waves.

But you can't impose on nature a construct of your own. Besides, to say "space, space-time and reference frames (nature) are made out of sinusoidal waves" is a far more imposing construct than particle-wave duality, which is actually observed.

It sounds like you want to be a theorist, but without the requisite principles of science that are needed.

If everything is ultimately made out of wave-functions (nature),

you haven't gotten past this hurdle of "made out of wave-functions". It makes no sense. You aren't understanding that analysis and synthesis are wholly different activities.

including particles, light, and space-time itself, then we can generate gravity by imitating what gravity does to light.

It just seems that way to you. It's not real. It's more like using sci-fi to argue science. That's an insurmountable barrier.

 

[Mazulu]

Vibrate fast enough and you have the frequency of a particle's equivalent energy, but not the particle itself, which is needed to produce acceleration.

The frequency shift should look like a sawtooth signal in the frequency-time domain.

Zero energy mechanisms violate (or appear to violate) conservation of energy, which is a conservation law. All of the mathematics of the Standard Model, GR and string theory rely upon conservation laws. Therefore, rapid frequency shifting, as a means of generating an acceleration field, will not pop out of any known equation.

That should be a clue.

We're looking for mechanisms that "create" energy. If we found such a mechanism and created one joule of energy, that joule of energy would a negative gravitational potential energy to balance the one joule of energy. Since the energy of the big bang was balanced with negative gravitational energy, according to the Zero energy hypothesis, then any mechanism that creates a quantity of energy should be called a Zero Energy Mechanism. Physicists are not looking for Zero Energy Mechanisms because they love their physics models too much.

Depends on what you mean by 'why'. For example (1) can be answered by Maxwell's equations, or just the intrinsic impedance of space, and (2) can be answered by energy-mass and energy-wavelength equivalences.

We need to consider the possibility that there is a medium. If there is a medium, how does it work. Then we can answer those questions by describing the medium.

But you can't impose on nature a construct of your own. Besides, to say "space, space-time and reference frames (nature) are made out of sinusoidal waves" is a far more imposing construct than particle-wave duality, which is actually observed.

It sounds like you want to be a theorist, but without the requisite principles of science that are needed.

you haven't gotten past this hurdle of "made out of wave-functions". It makes no sense. You aren't understanding that analysis and synthesis are wholly different activities.


It just seems that way to you. It's not real. It's more like using sci-fi to argue science. That's an insurmountable barrier.

 

[Mazulu]

OK, watch this.

Q1. Why is the speed of light invariant for all reference frames?
Physics community: Maxwell's equations, or just the intrinsic impedance of space.
Mazulu: Because space is made out of waves. Waves always propagate with a velocity $$v = \lambda f$$.

Q2. Why do we observe particle-wave duality?
Physics community: energy-mass and energy-wavelength equivalences.
Mazulu: Because particles are contained in space and space is described by waves.

Q3.Why do we observe light to propagate as a wave?
Physics community:Because photons have energy E = hf.
MazuluEmpty space is made of waves so light is just an excitation of the waves.

Q4.What is a photon?
Physics community:Uh, it's complicated. PHotons are solutions to the Schrodinger equation when the potential energy is V = 0.
MazuluPhotons are just waves that are energized

Q5..What is time?
Physics community:It's the variable t.
MazuluThe waves of the vacuum count time based on their frequency, just like clocks do. One second is defined as 9,192,631,770 cycles of a Caesium atom emission of 9,192,631,770 cycles per second.

My answers are easier to understand.

 

[Mazulu]

If space_time is made of waves, then I should be able to explain, very simply, why the interval between two events is invariant. I want to start with a 1GHz sinusoid. So $$\omega = 2 \pi f $$, then $$cos(kx - \omega t)$$.

In the S reference frame, I want to define two points as 10 cycles of 1GHz electromagnetic frequency in the x direction.
$$(x,y,z,ict)=(x_1, y_1, z_1, ct_1) = (0,0,0,0)$$,
$$\lambda = c/f = ...

$$(x_2, y_2, z_2, ict_2) = ((3x10^8 m/s)($$

Gotta run$$

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Your wave function expression is not a general one. Further more your answers to those questions you list aren't valid. For example, the fact v=lf doesn't say why the speed of light is frame invariant. All waves satisfy that. Waves in Newtonian mechanics satisfy that but Newtonian mechanics doesn't have the speed c being frame invariant. You are just demonstrating how bad your knowledge is.

 

[Mazulu]

Your wave function expression is not a general one. Further more your answers to those questions you list aren't valid. For example, the fact v=lf doesn't say why the speed of light is frame invariant. All waves satisfy that. Waves in Newtonian mechanics satisfy that but Newtonian mechanics doesn't have the speed c being frame invariant. You are just demonstrating how bad your knowledge is.

Let's face it. If nature permits gravity propulsion drives to exist, there is a 0% chance that string theory or any kind of mathematical formalism is going to reveal it. So all your knowledge counts for nothing.

Anyone with a lick of common sense has to realize that the properties of light require a medium. Michelson-Morley ruled out aether winds, particulate gases and absolute reference frames. Now I've tried to articulate some ideas in mathematics and in techno-babble, but without success. So let me share some of my observations and insights in plain English.

Nothing exists unless something causes it to exist. This is a good solid practical aphorism. So why does light exist in enpty space? Why does 1MHz exist? 1GHz? 1 THz? Answer: energy AND the medium. Electromagnetic radiation, structurally, looks like this. What if there is no energy at that particular frequency? Well, the medium infrastructure still exists for that frequency. This infrastructure pulls double duty. It's available to transmit 905.6789MHz. But it's also there to serve as natures clock and measuring stick. After all, it is a naturally occurring clock (frequency/period), and meter stick (wavelength).

If the concept of reference frames works so well, then it has to be because nature really acts this way. We're talking about the medium and drawing reasonable conclusions based upon how it behaves. It behaves as if there really are inertial and accelerating frames that exist, ontologically as infrastructure for light, at each frequency. The big hint is that the speed of light is the same in every reference frame, and that the medium performs its own length and time measurements, in each frame.

From this, I draw the conclusion that the medium, for every ontological reference frame, is made of infrastructure that looks like the picture I showed you. Granted, it's a bit more complicated, but you get the idea. The medium is just the ontological infrastructure of the space-time continuum. Therefore, the Einstein equations are one possible description of it.

Where I work, they perform stress tests on spectrum analyzers (and other products). They rigorously drive the processor and other functional boards of the product to the edge of their design specifications until either the product passes, or it fails. I believe that the frequency shifting tests that I've described, are a way to stress test the medium. Frequency shifting seems to be part of the infrastructure that connects one inertial frame to another. After all, to get from one ontological inertial frame to another, light has to pass through an accelerating reference frame. By emitting high quality plane waves with linear frequency shifting, with high frequency-time slopes, it's like performing a stress test on the medium. I expect to see new physics; when the medium fails to keep up with frequency shifting, then the infrastructure of accelerating frames will behave unpredictably, and we will see acceleration fields. After we perform enough experiments, we will be able to predict how much acceleration is generated when the medium fails the stress test.

 

[JJM]

Howdy.....Hello......g@1=0,m/m'.....Allow an apple m when at g@1=0 to the earth to be felt by m'. Allow the apple to be pulled by m', from the earth. IN and AE threw their apples into the air, some landed on the earth. Others were pulled to other places. The greater the m density, the easier it is for m' to feel it.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Let's face it. If nature permits gravity propulsion drives to exist, there is a 0% chance that string theory or any kind of mathematical formalism is going to reveal it. So all your knowledge counts for nothing.

Firstly, no it doesn't follow if such things exist string theory is wrong. For example, there are some solutions to general relativity which allow such things and since string theory predicts general relativity string theory includes them.

Secondly, do you think I know nothing but string theory? I have knowledge of general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, special relativity, Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, fluid mechanics and an absolute ton of mathematical methods. All of them provide me insight into various physical phenomena. Even though we know Newtonian mechanics is wrong it is still a useful thing to be taught, it still allows people to put probes into Martian orbit. Even though we know non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not entirely true it still allows people to build P-N type semiconductors, understand x-ray crystallography, atomic spectra, quantum chemistry.

So your "If X turns out to be wrong all your knowledge is for nothing" is not only false, it displays a fundamental misunderstanding you have about science.

Anyone with a lick of common sense has to realize that the properties of light require a medium.

Except we have constructed accurate models of light which don't require a medium, so your statement is wrong. Furthermore you're being guided by your common sense. Common sense is a way of saying "I expect new things to behave like things I've seen before". What a staggeringly naive point of view that is.

Michelson-Morley ruled out aether winds, particulate gases and absolute reference frames. Now I've tried to articulate some ideas in mathematics and in techno-babble, but without success. So let me share some of my observations and insights in plain English.

You haven't got a clue what articulating an idea in terms of mathematics means. Do you seriously think what mathematics you're tried to post here is anywhere close to viable?

Nothing exists unless something causes it to exist.

Funny, I hear a lot of creationists try that argument to argue the teleological 'proof' of god. The standard atheist reply is appropriate here, since it undermines your god believe. Tell me, what causes god to exist? If it was something then he isn't the creator of all things. If he didn't have a cause you've undermined your own argument. If he created himself, you've undermined your own argument. Your believe in a supreme creator contradicts what you just said.

If the concept of reference frames works so well, then it has to be because nature really acts this way.

Newtonian mechanics worked well for 250 years. Someone in 1850 might have said that about Newton's work, it has to be how nature acts. Now we know better. You complained I was telling nature how to behave while you make enormous logical fallacies.

Where I work, they perform stress tests on spectrum analyzers (and other products). They rigorously drive the processor and other functional boards of the product to the edge of their design specifications until either the product passes, or it fails. I believe that the frequency shifting tests that I've described, are a way to stress test the medium. Frequency shifting seems to be part of the infrastructure that connects one inertial frame to another. After all, to get from one ontological inertial frame to another, light has to pass through an accelerating reference frame. By emitting high quality plane waves with linear frequency shifting, with high frequency-time slopes, it's like performing a stress test on the medium. I expect to see new physics; when the medium fails to keep up with frequency shifting, then the infrastructure of accelerating frames will behave unpredictably, and we will see acceleration fields. After we perform enough experiments, we will be able to predict how much acceleration is generated when the medium fails the stress test.

As usual, you're someone with almost no scientific knowledge but you think the extremely tenuous link you have to science is justification for making all kinds of assertions, no matter how laughably vapid they are or how obvious the logical fallacy you employ. To say nothing of your hypocrisy.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

If you are interested in gravity propulsion, what do you think of the following illustration? If you wanted to leave in a boat without a motor or paddle, against an onshore wind, would it be sensible to increase the surface area of the boat?

 

[Mazulu]

Let's face it. If nature permits gravity propulsion drives to exist, there is a 0% chance that string theory or any kind of mathematical formalism is going to reveal it. So all your knowledge counts for nothing.

Firstly, no it doesn't follow if such things exist string theory is wrong. For example, there are some solutions to general relativity which allow such things and since string theory predicts general relativity string theory includes them.

But you can't test gravity drive propulsion because you're relying on the stress energy tensor to curve space. Or you're relying on exotic matter or dark energy. You can't come up with a practical and affordable experiment. So in effect, neither ST nor GR predict a practical and testable gravity drive. You are also blind to the fact that a practical gravity drive has to violate conservation of energy.

Secondly, do you think I know nothing but string theory? I have knowledge of general relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, special relativity, Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism, fluid mechanics and an absolute ton of mathematical methods.

I have lingering doubts. I don't even think you know how to use the math editor. Can you do this? $$ 2 + 2 = 4 $$

All of them provide me insight into various physical phenomena. Even though we know Newtonian mechanics is wrong it is still a useful thing to be taught, it still allows people to put probes into Martian orbit. Even though we know non-relativistic quantum mechanics is not entirely true it still allows people to build P-N type semiconductors, understand x-ray crystallography, atomic spectra, quantum chemistry.

So your "If X turns out to be wrong all your knowledge is for nothing" is not only false, it displays a fundamental misunderstanding you have about science.

Why is the speed of light invariant for every reference frame? Why do we observe particle-wave duality? How does nature measure space and time so precisely? Can you answer these questions in a simple way that resembles common sense?

Except we have constructed accurate models of light which don't require a medium, so your statement is wrong.

You have theoretical models that are far removed from common sense and experimentally verifiable reality. What exactly is a string? If it exists in 11 dimensions, then what causes those 11 dimensions to exist (if they exist)? What causes the 3+1 dimension that we know about, to exist?

Furthermore you're being guided by your common sense. Common sense is a way of saying "I expect new things to behave like things I've seen before". What a staggeringly naive point of view that is.

It's all about getting quantifiable results. You don't have any ideas for a gravity drive experiment. I do. Maybe you need common sense after all.

You haven't got a clue what articulating an idea in terms of mathematics means. Do you seriously think what mathematics you're tried to post here is anywhere close to viable?

For purposes of discovering a practical gravity drive, mathematical physics is useless. Why? If you had common sense, you would realize that a gravity drive has to violate conservation of energy. But your mathematical models have to uphold conservation laws. Therefore, they are worthless.

Funny, I hear a lot of creationists try that argument to argue the teleological 'proof' of god. The standard atheist reply is appropriate here, since it undermines your god believe. Tell me, what causes god to exist? If it was something then he isn't the creator of all things. If he didn't have a cause you've undermined your own argument. If he created himself, you've undermined your own argument. Your believe in a supreme creator contradicts what you just said.

Newtonian mechanics worked well for 250 years. Someone in 1850 might have said that about Newton's work, it has to be how nature acts. Now we know better. You complained I was telling nature how to behave while you make enormous logical fallacies.

As usual, you're someone with almost no scientific knowledge but you think the extremely tenuous link you have to science is justification for making all kinds of assertions, no matter how laughably vapid they are or how obvious the logical fallacy you employ. To say nothing of your hypocrisy.

When you resort to God bashing and insults, I can't take you seriously. I just don't believe that you are as professionally successful as you claim to be. You!? A head researcher in all these areas of GR, QM? Based upon the knowledge level that you've demonstrated here, I picture you more as a physics :m:undergrad:m:.

Anyway, don't have a cow. Maybe you do have something positive to contribute. I try to keep an open mind.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Mazulu, I support your quest on aether as an active medium, and note that the pioneers of modern science, just failed to determine its characteristics.
I am trying to form a workable model for aether based on current scientific experiments etc. I have read other contributions (not on this forum) on TEW's, which has space filled with elementary waves and particles. Thanks to another post I read that Einstein did not dismiss aether, only he did not agree with its supposed properties. Common science got rid of aether and possibly will have to face it again. One reason for its dismissal it that it leads to the concept that matter is no longer self existant, and so the politically motivated philosophies of atheism have taken over.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

All efforts to detect a medium have failed.

:

And so they should, if aether is the medium that matter operates by, you and your instruments happen to be made of matter and would not be able to detect it. The irony is that its workings are always demonstrated in the things that can be seen, and if understood correctly, the visible becomes proof for the invisible.

 

[Aqueous Id]

And so they should, if aether is the medium that matter operates by, you and your instruments happen to be made of matter and would not be able to detect it. The irony is that its workings are always demonstrated in the things that can be seen, and if understood correctly, the visible becomes proof for the invisible.

That sounds like religion.

 

[sigurdV]

That sounds like religion.

For the protocol:Are you sure its not philosophy?

 

[sigurdV]

And so they should, if aether is the medium that matter operates by, you and your instruments happen to be made of matter and would not be able to detect it. The irony is that its workings are always demonstrated in the things that can be seen, and if understood correctly, the visible becomes proof for the invisible.

Everything have a cause? The visible proves the existence of the invisible? Existence proves existence of non existence?

 

[JJM]

Howdy.....Hello.....You guys' are fun. This should be good. The allow ability of m/m' naturally, is the same for the area in which it is located. i.e. the standard state laws of one is the same for exponential N. N/1/n. Is it provable? Of course it is.