Good morning, Aqueous Id.
This (hopefully last) post from me to you is just to politely finalize our tail-end conversation as well, before finally eschewing further internet discussions for a few weeks to concentrate on finishing my TOE for publication.
You can't have it both ways. You can't on one hand insist that space does not propagate fields, and then on the other, deny that your "solution" is knock-off of the 19th century aether.
Not trying "to have it both ways". It is your continuing propensity for conflating things which leads your inferences and arguments into non-sequiturs and circuitous 'counter-argument'.
Please just get this straight once and for all:
1) I have said clearly that the fundamental 'energy-space' medium (a real medium, unlike the 'space-time' abstraction of it) of my TOE is not like any other higher-level aether-like differentiation of it you have read from others.
2) That energy-space is where EVERYTHING arises, evolves and subsides into according to the fundamental dynamics.
3) Your 'fields' abstractions from the real energy-space phenomena/features/dynamics; so 'fields' are not 'propagating' along anything; it is the REAL perturbation and motion and dynamics effects which propagate within the energy-space, making various localized/global sets of physically manifesting 'vacuum features/properties and characteristics inherent to that 'vacuum level phenomena/dynamics arising and translating within the underlying energy-space REAL physical context.
If you can't get that straight, then you will ever be at cross-purpose and so irrelevant in your 'counter-arguments'. And if you can get that straight, then there is no argument between us because you are not talking about what I am talking about when pointing out the difference between my and any other 'medium' hypothesized' by others. Ok?
No, you're just being slippery. You're masking the only thing that matters in "your theory": a transmission medium. Forget the rest. This is your thrust. It's flat wrong. A transmission medium requires billiard balls and springs. You need a waveguide. You need a conductor. You need a dielectric. You need a ground. You need molecules and materials. And any medium will introduce attenuation, which is defies the reality you pretend to represent. Worse, you need gain to remove the attenuation of the medium. And if you deny that, then you have to admit absorption and re-rediation by aether quanta, which requires the free space between them to radiate. So you haven't solved a single one of your imaginary issues. You've simply multiplied them. What's fatal is that your scheme would have a wind, which has been disproved. Meanwhile, back in reality, fields and waves propagate at c with loss 1/4πr². Static particles emit static fields. Moving particles emit waves. And the radiation is omnidirectional. And the potential at every point in space is the sum of all potentials from all emissions everywhere. Superposition is another intrinsic property of space.
That has been my very point about YOUR abstractions (fields' etc) from the REAL things underlying any such abstraction. Only in the case of the Fundamental medium the REAL structure of the REAL things are NOT like those of the higher-level physically differentiated real things which you abstract the 'field' concept FROM.
All those properties for the other 'aether' concepts are THERE ALREADY in the VACUUM background for QANTUM MECHANICS. Every new discovery locally and astronomically points to the vacuum being the 'aether-like' backgrounds that everyone ELSE is discussing. BUT MY energy-space background is MORE FUNDAMENTAL than the various higher-level 'vacua' contexts of real things in various forms and dynamics which arise and evolve and subside into my fundamental medium dynamics. Do you understand this CRUCIAL distinction; and why you are cross-purposes with me when you are addressing NOT MY medium but others' higher-level 'vacua' types of media? Apples and oranges.
If it helps, just think of my fundamental medium as being the most PERFECT physically REAL SUPERCONDUCTIVE and/or SUPERFLUIDIC 'medium' possible. Hence NO LOSS, NO ATTENUATION etc etc. It only has the fundamental properties and capabilities which CAN MANIFEST higher-level dynamics/features which produce the higher-level ;vacua' physical background which are then 'abstracted' into theory as A SET of 'fields' of various kinds supporting/propagating their respective perturbations/solitonic features/phenomena observed at those higher levels (not at the fundamental levels which these theories are STILL MUTE about).
If you can understand that subtle distinction then I will leave you and others to discuss whatever OTHER 'aether' takes and and/or 'field' abstractions you care to discuss. It has no bearing on my TOE fundamental perspective, as all these other things are automatically SUBSUMED along the way into my TOE as it developed from scratch from that objectively self-selected starting point of REAL fundamental energy-space medium.
Hah hah hah. Free space path loss is one of the best understood phenomena of nature. You would know this if you'd ever had any actual experience in the science your believe you own the secret answers to.
That applies to other 'aether'-like and 'vacua'-like type contexts/discussions.
It is irrelevant to the fundamental medium of my TOE. Please read previous paragraphs above.
And your 'free space' is a NEBULOUS and IMPRECISE description. Either you mean 'energy-space' or you mean a 'vacuum/vacua-set' of higher-order physical dynamics. Talking like that of 'free space' shows that you CONFLATE and CONFUSE things which make your 'arguments' strawmen and/or non-sequitur irrelevancies. Hence no apples-apples 'argument' in progress. Hence we are done.
It's shouting at you: this is radiation. It's not mute at all, you're simply deaf. Your strategy is to turn off your hearing aid and proclaim that it (the screaming evidence) is not there.
You're talking of Mazulu's 'waves' (radiation etc). My fundamental medium is WHERE those waves originate, evolve/translate and subside. Leave me out of those 'higher-order' differentiation 'ather'/'vacua' discussions, as they are totally subsumed already by my TOE perspective as trivial evolutionary/phenomenological outcomes of any complex potential fundamental background dynamics which is at the BASE of all else. Not arguing any of that. Only distinguishing all that from my TOE base medium which manifest all these other things IN REALITY and not as abstractions. Thanks but no thanks.
What's "at the root" of reality is the square root of µϵ and the root of the sum of squares of displacements. Your denial of this simple fact, and your inability to work through the elementary EM problem I posed (comparing and contrasting the acoustic and EM wave propagation) are what deafen you to the screaming facts of reality. You're just lost in a make-believe world you're calling reality so you can pretend to conquer it.
It is GEOMETRY and MATHEMATICS. Abstract analytical constructs. Can't you understand this most obvious observation? It is NOT the reality from which these abstractions are derived. Try not to persist in a one-track mind despite all the evidence to the contrary. Thanks.
The fruit you're propounding is way beyond fermentation. And the rest is just nuts.
Look again at whose fruit and nuts you are talking about. Discern from others' mediums/vacua/aether or whatever from my fundamental medium which subsumes all these phenomena/abstractions. And to continue in the same veing as your allusion to fruit and nuts: please read again previous paragraphs, where and why your own 'fruit and nuts' may be the ones hanging out all too vulnerable to pounding and fermentation, hung by your own non-sequitur and irrelevant petards!
Translated: you have no clue how to relate emission or stasis to radiation, and how radiation traverses free space unhindered by any mechanism or attenuation, subject only to the path loss 1/4πr². How do "radial vectors" produce an omnidirectional wavefront or field? You've simply invented these abstractions with no basis in reality in order to prop up your silly harebrained scheme. Any vectors I'm referring to subtend the omnidirectional field.
Using nebulous terms like "fee space" again? Please read previous paragraphs where distinction between 'vacua' and 'aether' etc contexts are different from my fundamental medium where all these arise and subside in. Thanks.
Hah hah there you go again. FEATURES and MECHANISMS are mere abstract labels. Space is chock full o' properties that you will never erase no matter how hard you try. Propagation works the same for static fields as it does for waves. There's no guesswork or abstraction involved. All the science is derived from actually observing nature, not just dreaming up rules to impose on nature, as you're doing.
Not at all. These are OBSERVABLES in many parts of the natural phenomena we have studied. Don't you know that? That is the point I make; that there are OTHER MORE FUNDAMENTAL physical features and mechanisms that underlie all these other higher-order observable physical features and mechanisms. The abstractions are your 'labels' and 'math/geometry constructs DERIVED form these observable REAL THINGS. How many times need you be reminded of that obvious, demonstrable and self-evident fact?
Then it's not a vacuum. In any case, space - such as "outer space" - is also space - meaning Euclidean space. Space has direction and space has length, area and volume - without any matter occupying it. Most important, fields and waves radiate in space uniformly and omnidirectionally. Space doesn't do anything as you imagine. The field or wave influences every point in space at the maximum rate, c another intrinsic property of space (and spacetime).
That is where YOU now "can't have it both ways".
According to the ABSTRACT theories. 'space does not exist per se. They call it by a mathematical label of 'space-time'. Get it? The VACUUM exists (just ask the QM mob!). All the other things exist and propagate. BUT the abstractions would have you believe that space is merely separation GEOMETRY and mathematical relativities between positions/events/motions of 'features' (energy radiation 'particles'; matter particles, bodies etc).
Until you get that subtle difference between the ABSTRACT idea of 'space' as something purely relative and geometric relations and the idea of it as a real energy-space (rather than abstract math/geom 'space-time'), you will be conflating all these subtly DIFFERENT contexts when making your non-sequitur and irrelevant 'counter arguments' against heaven-knows-what miscontructions of your own about what others and/or I are talking about.
You mean space is differentiable? Then that's another property, isn't it? Vacuum energy is irrelevant to field and wave propagation. Again, you're simply imposing this on nature to prop up your silly scheme.
No no no. ENERGY-SPACE has inherent fundamental dynamics which manifests at various scales to produce real 'vacua' level different collections of phenomena and features and process (photons/particles and motion and dynamics all their own at that level as they evolve and eventually subside). The fundamental medium always is 'complete' and undiminished. It is only the transient and persistent perturbations which ANY SYSTEM is fundamentally subject to because of 'uncertainty' and transient states and potentials for degrees of freedom in the inherent dimensions etc etc.
The differentiation is purely EMERGENT due to these fundamental perturbations becoming persistent and producing a higher-level collection of features/potentials which are abstractly called fields when we make mathematical/geometrical constructs for analysis purposes. That's all. Nothing weird about the fundamental medium; it's nature and properties etc are what sustains the higher-order manifestations of VERSIONS of these fundamental dynamics/properties/potentials etc.
Nope, I'm sticking to my guns, which are as real as the path loss from your screen to your retinas. Your abstractions are not only abstractions, they're wrong ones. There is no mechanism in radiation. And the properties you need to explain are the properties of charge, of mass and of the dipole. You need to explain how radiation occurs at all across any distance. You need to explain radiation whether it relates to a static field or a wave. And you need to steer clear of your putative underlying reality until you've been able to understand tangible reality.
How about solve and let solve? Can you or can you not answer the question I asked? Until you can, you're just tilting at windmills.
