It is my opinion that the medium for the propagation of light is made of electron-positron pairs that are bound into a medium. When electrons and positron annihilate, the bind back into the medium. Given the right amount of energy, an electron and a positron can be unbound from the medium. This analogous to how sodium and chloride bind into a medium called salt, and given the right energy, they can be unbound from the medium.
Hi there, I've watched quite a few of your vids and like your thinking... I agree with you but prefer to emerge electrons and positrons from an electro-positronic base field where only one of the two particle types is properly quantised (though the -ve electro-gas could be quantised)... Here's the basic thinking... -- So what's the simplest quantised matter-energy field that can hold itself together and emerge a universe like ours... Particles are quantised and forces can hold things together so lets start there.. 1 attractive force and 1 particle type is simple, but too simple for anything other than an unchanging, solid ball. Electricity is a much more powerful force but if we only have one particle type the universe would just repel itself apart - we need +ve and -ve particles, with at least one of them being the main quantiser of the universe.. -- +ve cells (quanta, base charge +1) close-packed by free-flowing -ve electro-gas (or liquid in variants) provides the most emergent possibilities with the fewest quantised base particles (1), overall matter types (2) and forces (1 that can repel and attract). This enables vibrations, currents, local cell (gap) size gradients due to local charge density gradients, spinning / vibrating loops of cells, bubbles with trapped field cells and gas warping the field around it as it cuts through.. It's inertial so energy lost by displacing field is regained as the field rebalances with a kick behind. -- Positrons are field cells kicked out of place with 'full escape energy' in this Electro-Positronic Universe with the excess -ve gas left behind forming an electron. The surrounding empty field is balanced close-packed and regular and determined to stay that way so repels the excess charge the positron / electron tries to expel from all directions, into a ball (that can pulsate, perhaps as a standing wave and/or swirl in a toroid, with loops of gas and vibrating cells forming a magnetic spin field in some variants) -- Why would The Universe waste one of only 2 proper permanent massive elementary particles in the form of The Positron... It is much more conservative to have a Proton made of 2 half neutralised positrons + a fully, strongly neutralised electron. I like the idea of the Mass Multiplier Mechanism as the neutralised electron as a ball of compact trapped field in a bubble with only the core of particles truly obeying the Pauli Exclusion principle, the rest as a field warp that can diffract in narrow slits and interfere. Bohmian. -- A Neutron is a proton + extra neutralising electron bonded by the Mass Addition Force.. Beta- decay = neutron losing its extra electron, leaving the proton. Beta+ = NEW e_p pair formed near a proton with the electron retained, positron expelled. In the Big Bang more positrons hit an electron with the right angle and energy to strongly bond into a proton than 2 electrons hit a positron to form an anti-proton but it would have worked either way, it would just be an antimatter universe. A hydrogen plasma soup was the net result once the dust settled and universe hyperinflated. -- All these forces are emergent, like gravity which could work in a number of ways. I prefer to have each positron always attracting and each electron always trapping 1 quantum of -ve gas away from the rest of the universe that expanded as a result (less -ve gas from the FINITE supply). Voids expanded, galaxies may have shrunk the local spatial metric, all massive bodies may to a point, perhaps even to the centre of each subatomic particle as part of the strong force.
I am pretty happy with Ken Wheelers model of cosmology. You ask great questions, and again you must ask what is light, and more importantly, what is a Field. Aether and particles are mutually exclusive. Everything is 'waves' in the aether. Get an atomist to explain what a Field is?? An aether perturbation. Simple. Not bumping particles.
Ken Wheeler doesn't really have a model. All he has are a bunch of words but nothing quantifiable. As a computer scientist, I need something tangible in order to MODEL the cosmos. But that's just me.
@@FractalWoman Not that I know of. Personally I’m not convinced it’s necessary. Should everything make sense mathematically? I can say maybe yes and maybe no. If the universe is constantly either expanding or contracting, how will we ever develop proper measurement? Has humanity found the smallest particle yet and have the boundaries of the universe been established? From what gather maybe at best. If we can’t establish the smallest and the largest, can we measure it properly enough to create a computer code? Do I have to know how many hams are in a car to know how it works? Do I have to know how many foam bubbles are formed in the ocean by crashing waves, to know how the ocean works? As Ken states, Mother Nature is not a crazy hooker on crack with a calculator, she is a hippy with muddy feet. LOL, I think that is the close to the quote.
Fundamentally space time is a mass-energy radiation field. This mass-energy radiation field is governed by generalized and scalable forms of Einstein quantum A and B coefficients. For example at the Planck scale Einstein’s B coefficient is exactly equal to G divided by c squared. As such various models can be construed to provide alternative insight.
Energy. Space is made of energy. I think it fits into the wave model of matter as the troughs, where electronic phenomena are the crests, of incremental change variations (time-periodic vibrations). The radiation frequencies produced from Hawking Radiation are in the infrared range, vibratory energy in a standing wave pattern instead of radiated traveling waves. Space is low-frequency radiative "heat" energy in a standing wave pattern with respect to Planck time. Each clock click produces "space" as the half-wavelength of the frequencies of phenomena, and time as the indicial parameter of changes. Negative and positive energy densities balancing in phenomenal form.
But what is 'energy' and where do all the constants and quantisations come from? Surely there are only 2 base forms of energy, actual and potential kinetic energy. No matter to move, no energy... It's 'clearly' a matter-energy field. Also, it's either got to be a physical wave medium or a probability 'wave' of finding a particle in space and time. The idea of an absolute universe clock where +ve and -ve particles vibrate half a phase apart is problematic but interesting, especially if linked to a variable local cell size spatial model.
@@PrivateSi That is the literal Mother of All Loaded Questions: _What is Energy?_ If you proceed with the physicists' definition, then your assertions make sense; energy is defined to be the measured or calculated product of mass and velocity squared, modified by relativity and expounded mathematically by Paul Dirac. The exquisite relation of kinetic and potential of Lagrangian mechanics is indeed a bedrock principle in this ... Field of study. I suppose my thoughts and feelings about this physical basis for understanding are just as fondly devoted whether I am thinking mathematically about Dirac, or religiously about Shiva Shakti, and shaktipat transmissions of consciousness. If energy must be a field that is due entirely to the mathematical definition of a field being used as a filter for viewing the world. I don't disagree, but it's not an answer to the ontological question posed originally. Nor is any particular religious point of view an actual ontology in my opinion,all of these being systems of information and culture with their own relevant contexts. Epistemology is apparently more algorithmic than most people may have realized, no matter what presuppositions they have built their careers on. Mathematically speaking though I like to think about geometry as timeless, while physics as the temporal perspective applied to the universal and nonlocal facts of geometry limited by temporal adjacency.
@@haniamritdas4725 .. What if the magi-matics is full of too much sweet fudge that works for a lot of cases but fails catastrophically in others? No disrespect to physics mathematicians but it seems anything goes with them, interpretation-wise. Matter-antimatter pair production prove it's one or more quantised particle fields to me, of actual particles close-packed into an all pervasive field. The actual particle we detect could be at the very least a field particle moving / vibrating / spinning on its spot (or spinning just off centre). It could even be a kicked out of place particle but this model works best with +ve old balls bound by -ve pixie farts, with old balls kicked out place forming positrons and the excess -ve pixie fart gas forming electrons. The far more balanced, close-packed surrounding empty field wants to stay that way so repels the positron / electron trying to expel their excess charge into a permanent (pulsating) field war (bulge and pinch)..
@@PrivateSi Well your new question is ridiculous lol. You can consider your thoughts proved if you like, but I think we are all speculating about things we don't really understand. But perhaps we can agree at least that magic is better applied to making fudge than to mathematical questions.
@@haniamritdas4725 .. Fudge factors have more legitimacy than declaring hypothetical particles real by changing their definition as happens too often in fundy physics.. Higgs Boson is a classic example - and that's coming from someone who is asserting there has to be at least one or more quantised matter-energy fields out there. I prefer an electro-positronic base field as so much evidence points to it. At least one of its constituents has to be quantised, so +ve cells bound by -ve electro-gas fits the bill.. I go by evidence, not confused math that's full of problems. -- Matter is concentrated potential kinetic energy (ie. electrical energy) that can move in space at speeds other than C, although you could class light as matter if you really want, I'd prefer to call light a field distortion travelling at the speed of wave propagation in the electro-positronic EM field. Ernest Sternglass (now there's a name) is the closest I've found to by views that everything is made of electrons and positrons.. A very lovely guy who Einstein advised. Anti-nuclear radiation poisoning fanatic that did a lot to convince the US to go for nuclear disarmament. Worth listening to his views on EVERYTHING BEING MADE OF POSITRONS & ELECTRONS! Lol... and life, the universe and everything, and chatting with Einstein for hours as a young man when Albert was old.
First of all , there is a truth that cannot be explained, can only be realised . And that is the fact that at the smallest scales of reality exists the fundamental mechanism which is self running , it doesn't need anything to start it , it's like an automated process which gives rise to the emergent time that we cannot rap our head around . My point is that , all quantum particles have a property called turn , they stop moving for a certain amount of time and then move to a random direction as a boson type tube , but since there is only one fabric of space and all of time shares it , a particle moves to all possible directions as a 3D tube which has peaks and troughs, these tubes again devide into all possible direction , and so on , which creates a wave like phenomenon, surely you don't expect the fundamental, the smallest building blocks of nature to obey macroscopic laws . And space is just something that contains all . The particle that sends waves of possible paths around it is matter and the possibilities are energy , which can interfere with other waves from other particles to give rise to forces , and when one of the paths from a particle hits a particle in rest state , all the other paths collapse, and the former particle moves one turn towards the latter particle , this is gravity. Particles can move through barriers they shouldn't be moving through, because they can devide into possibilities which act like bosons , black holes core is so dense that no matter what frequency the incoming wave has it will always hit a rest particle and collapse . I can go on forever and explain everything but let's not do that . Don't think about questions like what is space made of because that is invalid. Space is something we will never be able to study . But all I can say is that rn space is the container of all . And space is ONE thing not a compound of things . It is just one thing and not made up of smaller things .
If this medium does exist - it would be many orders of magnitude more dense than anything we have physical experience with. The amount of energy required to move this medium would be immense.
You could try thinking about 'solid space' / packed space.. Think of space as a load of old +ve balls repelling each other balanced by free-flowing -ve electro-gas (or magic pixie farts for all I care)... It's a crystal ball universe where each +ve field cell can at least move and vibrate on its spot... Now have them able to be kicked out of place at the speed of light (fast enough so the excess -ve gas left behind can't catch it... The close-packed = balanced field is determined to stay that way while the out of place excess charge wants to expel itself in all directions so the deformity is contained in a spherical field warp. -- It could just be a +ve bulge around the out of place cell (positron) and a pinch around the excess -ve gas (electron). It's also naturally inertial as the least effort required to get rid of moving charge is do nothing and let it pass from one POV, while from a more physical POV field cells pushed aside and around the deformation fill behind with an inertial kick. -- If the deformation pulsates the surrounding field it has even more of a 'melting' effect... I like to think of space as being able to melt and freeze at the speed of light.
So what's the simplest quantised matter-energy field that can hold itself together and emerge a universe like ours... Particles are quantised and forces can hold things together so lets start there.. 1 attractive force and 1 particle type is simple, but too simple for anything other than an unchanging, solid ball. Electricity is a much more powerful force but if we only have one particle type the universe would just repel itself apart - we need +ve and -ve particles, with at least one of them being the main quantiser of the universe.. -- +ve cells (quanta, base charge +1) close-packed by free-flowing -ve electro-gas (or liquid in variants) provides the most emergent possibilities with the fewest quantised base particles (1), overall matter types (2) and forces (1 that can repel and attract). This enables vibrations, currents, local cell (gap) size gradients due to local charge density gradients, spinning / vibrating loops of cells, bubbles with trapped field cells and gas warping the field around it as it cuts through.. It's inertial so energy lost by displacing field is regained as the field rebalances with a kick behind. -- Positrons are field cells kicked out of place with 'full escape energy' in this Electro-Positronic Universe with the excess -ve gas left behind forming an electron. The surrounding empty field is balanced close-packed and regular and determined to stay that way so repels the excess charge the positron / electron tries to expel from all directions, into a ball (that can pulsate, perhaps as a standing wave and/or swirl in a toroid, with loops of gas and vibrating cells forming a magnetic spin field in some variants) -- Why would The Universe waste one of only 2 proper permanent massive elementary particles in the form of The Positron... It is much more conservative to have a Proton made of 2 half neutralised positrons + a fully, strongly neutralised electron. I like the idea of the Mass Multiplier Mechanism as the neutralised electron as a ball of compact trapped field in a bubble with only the core of particles truly obeying the Pauli Exclusion principle, the rest as a field warp that can diffract in narrow slits and interfere. Bohmian. -- A Neutron is a proton + extra neutralising electron bonded by the Mass Addition Force.. Beta- decay = neutron losing its extra electron, leaving the proton. Beta+ = NEW e_p pair formed near a proton with the electron retained, positron expelled. In the Big Bang more positrons hit an electron with the right angle and energy to strongly bond into a proton than 2 electrons hit a positron to form an anti-proton but it would have worked either way, it would just be an antimatter universe. A hydrogen plasma soup was the net result once the dust settled and universe hyperinflated. -- All these forces are emergent, like gravity which could work in a number of ways. I prefer to have each positron always attracting and each electron always trapping 1 quantum of -ve gas away from the rest of the universe that expanded as a result (less -ve gas from the FINITE supply). Voids expanded, galaxies may have shrunk the local spatial metric, all massive bodies may to a point, perhaps even to the centre of each subatomic particle as part of the strong force
All waves propagation requires media, longitudinal water and air waves metal sound waves need media, light EMW ? vacuum - empty space. It is very hard to believe that these pattern cut off on light, exception from the rule. In my opinion I 18 years working on premise how energy conservation stored and is fundamental law of nature (in math are axions in physics are postulates and energy conservation law is postulate fact without rigid proof), in all cases from classical mechanics till electricity energy stored in number pi(), e, sine cosine e^x functions they carry information about energy level in physics process and absolute energy unit is dimensionless unit equal to unit 1. Euclidian scalar proportionality for example {mass} is just fractal smaller or bigger stuff of same fundamental function, people say this thing is bigger compare with what 99.9% lives in this Euclidian reality our eyes compares distance with objects closer to us we guess distance on Euclidian geometry it is most useful thing ever rule of the thumb. That is mathematical formalism Nature not talk in math language but Nature are built based on math language. aether, media, fields, quantum foam, Higgs field are transcendental math functions existed forever (alpha and omega) space field with incoherent chaotic waves but God uses these material (math) to creates livable livable space or living realm better term, guidance of field.
Indeed, to your point, "it is very hard to believe that these patterns cut off on light". Every wave that we know needs a medium. Why should light be the exception?
I think you maybe asking the wrong question. Space isn't made of anything, because it doesn't exist. However there can be things that occupies space . Planck length is just a random combination of 3 constants , so it probably doesn't mean anything.
Planck length and Planck time do mean something. Light propagates exactly one Planck length in exactly one Planck time. In other words, the ratio of Planck length to Planck time is the speed of light. I find that very interesting.
@@FractalWoman they just divided the Planck length by the speed of light . Literally any distance could have been used instead of the Planck length , and give the speed of light.
There are so many variables to take into account when coming to these conclusions esp since you have the main stream model which is obviously wrong and than you got smal bits and pieces of knowledge how the formulas and laws we use today are also wrong. As an example 2 kirchoff laws are wrong, 1 being disputed by Nikola Tesla hairpin circuit and 2 is disputed by Sky Scholar here on youtube on how they linked mass to temeperature which is a violation or so i understood. Than you have dissectable capacitor which implies - since vacuum capacitors exist - that the vacuum acts as the dielectric and thus space can not be empty. Another fact is that light was never proven to be electro-magnetic but in fact it could be just magnetic perturbation which causes electricity as an side effect. But ultimately most smarter people than me see the ether as dipole or 2 particles orbiting each other (electron/positron), but to me its sort of similar stuff to what electrons are its just that they are neutral until charged and neutral again when they lose their energy. So a fast muon is just a type 2 electron which after it loses its "energy" becomes an type 1 electron for a short while than "dissapearing" from our radar as a neutral electron. More neutral electrons, more they exert a gravitational force and influence atomic cloks. Ron Hatch has the best aproximation, Lori Gardi has the best units and Nikola Tesla understood 1 wire system which we are not using where radio should be used to heal people.
@@FractalWoman electricity is a bit different than what we are being thought. Electrons moving in the wire is the effect of the "electric field" going from + to - where personally i see the electric field being "inertial magnetism". Inertial magnetism is understood in transformers since the secundary coil all it sees is changing magnetic field. These are the only "facts" i trully know, everything else is a bit hypothetical To me, electrons flowing in wires do so in a surface tension kind of way. since copper wire has an electron addition, the whole copper wire becomes "bumped" and its on these bumps that electrons experience the least resistance in inductive electricity (in cpacitative electricity (high frequency) even distilled water transmits electricity via "capacitative coupling". And since you can cause electricity to flow in 1 long metal having 2 different temperatures at its ends it follows that volts are pressure and amps is the flow. But photoelectric effect is more induction than compton scatering imo, where electrons seem to be like water when near atoms but when you heat or they otherwise leave the "surface tension" they act as "gasseous water" and muons to me are "superheated gas"... So a photoelectric effect is literally boiling electrons.
@@FractalWoman And this video: ruclips.net/video/r9Kg69cQteg/видео.html perpetual magnet holder shows that electricity can be stored in the magneti moment and not just magnetic inertia. Some dude left his PMH for a few years and than lit some diodes or made a spark after removing the magnetic moment and causing a change in magnetic moment - inertia. I believe magnetic moment and inertia is what gives us phyisical moment and inertia against the ether but in a different way where understanding the ether to matter systems we should be able to build a space ship in first try.
@@manipulativer "Inertial magnetism is understood in transformers since the secundary coil all it sees is changing magnetic field." If the secondary coil only sees changing magnetic field, then the field must be external. Interesting idea about Compton scattering though. This makes sense as water only boils at and above a certain temperature and below that temperature, water doesn't boil. I will have to give that some thought.
@@FractalWoman most old school people always call conductors wave-guides so electricity is external to matter and i suspect its on the boundry electrons where most conductors (i am guessing here cause it might be lattice configuration with paired electrons atoms) have an unpaired outter most electron. So since o2 is paramagnetic it seems it always wants to make a bond with copper, titanium or iron...And quora says that copper oxide is an isolator, but below the coper oxide there is some "non symetrical" energy stuff going on where even HEAT inertia/momentum acts as electricity; perhaps this could open up some avenues in understanding if heat disparity acts as a magnetic one or who knows really. I mean... i really wish i was not lazy cause i believe we can learn A LOT by understanding how can a magnet bend polarized light and IF a vacuum capacitor with translucent walls could also bend light? And knowing these mechanisms is all i think about so i can continue building an AC MHD propulsion that first works in vacuum and than turn it inside out should work as inertial caneling shell facilitating extreme speeds.
Regarding Planck length and Planck time, another clue is that light propagates exactly one Planck length in exactly one Planck time.
Planck length is derived from equations Planck time is a made up human length. We defined Planck time not nature.
It is my opinion that the medium for the propagation of light is made of electron-positron pairs that are bound into a medium. When electrons and positron annihilate, the bind back into the medium. Given the right amount of energy, an electron and a positron can be unbound from the medium. This analogous to how sodium and chloride bind into a medium called salt, and given the right energy, they can be unbound from the medium.
Hi there, I've watched quite a few of your vids and like your thinking... I agree with you but prefer to emerge electrons and positrons from an electro-positronic base field where only one of the two particle types is properly quantised (though the -ve electro-gas could be quantised)... Here's the basic thinking...
--
So what's the simplest quantised matter-energy field that can hold itself together and emerge a universe like ours... Particles are quantised and forces can hold things together so lets start there.. 1 attractive force and 1 particle type is simple, but too simple for anything other than an unchanging, solid ball. Electricity is a much more powerful force but if we only have one particle type the universe would just repel itself apart - we need +ve and -ve particles, with at least one of them being the main quantiser of the universe..
--
+ve cells (quanta, base charge +1) close-packed by free-flowing -ve electro-gas (or liquid in variants) provides the most emergent possibilities with the fewest quantised base particles (1), overall matter types (2) and forces (1 that can repel and attract). This enables vibrations, currents, local cell (gap) size gradients due to local charge density gradients, spinning / vibrating loops of cells, bubbles with trapped field cells and gas warping the field around it as it cuts through.. It's inertial so energy lost by displacing field is regained as the field rebalances with a kick behind.
--
Positrons are field cells kicked out of place with 'full escape energy' in this Electro-Positronic Universe with the excess -ve gas left behind forming an electron. The surrounding empty field is balanced close-packed and regular and determined to stay that way so repels the excess charge the positron / electron tries to expel from all directions, into a ball (that can pulsate, perhaps as a standing wave and/or swirl in a toroid, with loops of gas and vibrating cells forming a magnetic spin field in some variants)
--
Why would The Universe waste one of only 2 proper permanent massive elementary particles in the form of The Positron... It is much more conservative to have a Proton made of 2 half neutralised positrons + a fully, strongly neutralised electron. I like the idea of the Mass Multiplier Mechanism as the neutralised electron as a ball of compact trapped field in a bubble with only the core of particles truly obeying the Pauli Exclusion principle, the rest as a field warp that can diffract in narrow slits and interfere. Bohmian.
--
A Neutron is a proton + extra neutralising electron bonded by the Mass Addition Force.. Beta- decay = neutron losing its extra electron, leaving the proton. Beta+ = NEW e_p pair formed near a proton with the electron retained, positron expelled. In the Big Bang more positrons hit an electron with the right angle and energy to strongly bond into a proton than 2 electrons hit a positron to form an anti-proton but it would have worked either way, it would just be an antimatter universe. A hydrogen plasma soup was the net result once the dust settled and universe hyperinflated.
--
All these forces are emergent, like gravity which could work in a number of ways. I prefer to have each positron always attracting and each electron always trapping 1 quantum of -ve gas away from the rest of the universe that expanded as a result (less -ve gas from the FINITE supply). Voids expanded, galaxies may have shrunk the local spatial metric, all massive bodies may to a point, perhaps even to the centre of each subatomic particle as part of the strong force.
I am pretty happy with Ken Wheelers model of cosmology. You ask great questions, and again you must ask what is light, and more importantly, what is a Field. Aether and particles are mutually exclusive. Everything is 'waves' in the aether. Get an atomist to explain what a Field is?? An aether perturbation. Simple. Not bumping particles.
Ken Wheeler doesn't really have a model. All he has are a bunch of words but nothing quantifiable. As a computer scientist, I need something tangible in order to MODEL the cosmos. But that's just me.
@@FractalWoman he totally has a model.
I agree. Been following Ken for almost 10 years and think his theory makes the most sense.
@@thecaliforniamaniac Does he have computer code to model his model?
@@FractalWoman Not that I know of. Personally I’m not convinced it’s necessary.
Should everything make sense mathematically? I can say maybe yes and maybe no.
If the universe is constantly either expanding or contracting, how will we ever develop proper measurement?
Has humanity found the smallest particle yet and have the boundaries of the universe been established? From what gather maybe at best.
If we can’t establish the smallest and the largest, can we measure it properly enough to create a computer code?
Do I have to know how many hams are in a car to know how it works? Do I have to know how many foam bubbles are formed in the ocean by crashing waves, to know how the ocean works?
As Ken states, Mother Nature is not a crazy hooker on crack with a calculator, she is a hippy with muddy feet. LOL, I think that is the close to the quote.
Doesn't really matter: put a box or sphere around it and discover the transformations. Wolfram's gone with emes. A name for bits of existence.
It's tragic watching them dismiss aether and embracing Higg's field in the same breath.
Fundamentally space time is a mass-energy radiation field. This mass-energy radiation field is governed by generalized and scalable forms of Einstein quantum A and B coefficients. For example at the Planck scale Einstein’s B coefficient is exactly equal to G divided by c squared.
As such various models can be construed to provide alternative insight.
Energy. Space is made of energy. I think it fits into the wave model of matter as the troughs, where electronic phenomena are the crests, of incremental change variations (time-periodic vibrations). The radiation frequencies produced from Hawking Radiation are in the infrared range, vibratory energy in a standing wave pattern instead of radiated traveling waves. Space is low-frequency radiative "heat" energy in a standing wave pattern with respect to Planck time. Each clock click produces "space" as the half-wavelength of the frequencies of phenomena, and time as the indicial parameter of changes. Negative and positive energy densities balancing in phenomenal form.
But what is 'energy' and where do all the constants and quantisations come from? Surely there are only 2 base forms of energy, actual and potential kinetic energy. No matter to move, no energy... It's 'clearly' a matter-energy field. Also, it's either got to be a physical wave medium or a probability 'wave' of finding a particle in space and time. The idea of an absolute universe clock where +ve and -ve particles vibrate half a phase apart is problematic but interesting, especially if linked to a variable local cell size spatial model.
@@PrivateSi That is the literal Mother of All Loaded Questions: _What is Energy?_
If you proceed with the physicists' definition, then your assertions make sense; energy is defined to be the measured or calculated product of mass and velocity squared, modified by relativity and expounded mathematically by Paul Dirac. The exquisite relation of kinetic and potential of Lagrangian mechanics is indeed a bedrock principle in this ... Field of study.
I suppose my thoughts and feelings about this physical basis for understanding are just as fondly devoted whether I am thinking mathematically about Dirac, or religiously about Shiva Shakti, and shaktipat transmissions of consciousness.
If energy must be a field that is due entirely to the mathematical definition of a field being used as a filter for viewing the world. I don't disagree, but it's not an answer to the ontological question posed originally. Nor is any particular religious point of view an actual ontology in my opinion,all of these being systems of information and culture with their own relevant contexts. Epistemology is apparently more algorithmic than most people may have realized, no matter what presuppositions they have built their careers on.
Mathematically speaking though I like to think about geometry as timeless, while physics as the temporal perspective applied to the universal and nonlocal facts of geometry limited by temporal adjacency.
@@haniamritdas4725 .. What if the magi-matics is full of too much sweet fudge that works for a lot of cases but fails catastrophically in others? No disrespect to physics mathematicians but it seems anything goes with them, interpretation-wise. Matter-antimatter pair production prove it's one or more quantised particle fields to me, of actual particles close-packed into an all pervasive field. The actual particle we detect could be at the very least a field particle moving / vibrating / spinning on its spot (or spinning just off centre). It could even be a kicked out of place particle but this model works best with +ve old balls bound by -ve pixie farts, with old balls kicked out place forming positrons and the excess -ve pixie fart gas forming electrons. The far more balanced, close-packed surrounding empty field wants to stay that way so repels the positron / electron trying to expel their excess charge into a permanent (pulsating) field war (bulge and pinch)..
@@PrivateSi Well your new question is ridiculous lol. You can consider your thoughts proved if you like, but I think we are all speculating about things we don't really understand.
But perhaps we can agree at least that magic is better applied to making fudge than to mathematical questions.
@@haniamritdas4725 .. Fudge factors have more legitimacy than declaring hypothetical particles real by changing their definition as happens too often in fundy physics.. Higgs Boson is a classic example - and that's coming from someone who is asserting there has to be at least one or more quantised matter-energy fields out there. I prefer an electro-positronic base field as so much evidence points to it. At least one of its constituents has to be quantised, so +ve cells bound by -ve electro-gas fits the bill.. I go by evidence, not confused math that's full of problems.
--
Matter is concentrated potential kinetic energy (ie. electrical energy) that can move in space at speeds other than C, although you could class light as matter if you really want, I'd prefer to call light a field distortion travelling at the speed of wave propagation in the electro-positronic EM field. Ernest Sternglass (now there's a name) is the closest I've found to by views that everything is made of electrons and positrons.. A very lovely guy who Einstein advised. Anti-nuclear radiation poisoning fanatic that did a lot to convince the US to go for nuclear disarmament. Worth listening to his views on EVERYTHING BEING MADE OF POSITRONS & ELECTRONS! Lol... and life, the universe and everything, and chatting with Einstein for hours as a young man when Albert was old.
First of all , there is a truth that cannot be explained, can only be realised . And that is the fact that at the smallest scales of reality exists the fundamental mechanism which is self running , it doesn't need anything to start it , it's like an automated process which gives rise to the emergent time that we cannot rap our head around . My point is that , all quantum particles have a property called turn , they stop moving for a certain amount of time and then move to a random direction as a boson type tube , but since there is only one fabric of space and all of time shares it , a particle moves to all possible directions as a 3D tube which has peaks and troughs, these tubes again devide into all possible direction , and so on , which creates a wave like phenomenon, surely you don't expect the fundamental, the smallest building blocks of nature to obey macroscopic laws . And space is just something that contains all . The particle that sends waves of possible paths around it is matter and the possibilities are energy , which can interfere with other waves from other particles to give rise to forces , and when one of the paths from a particle hits a particle in rest state , all the other paths collapse, and the former particle moves one turn towards the latter particle , this is gravity. Particles can move through barriers they shouldn't be moving through, because they can devide into possibilities which act like bosons , black holes core is so dense that no matter what frequency the incoming wave has it will always hit a rest particle and collapse . I can go on forever and explain everything but let's not do that . Don't think about questions like what is space made of because that is invalid. Space is something we will never be able to study . But all I can say is that rn space is the container of all . And space is ONE thing not a compound of things . It is just one thing and not made up of smaller things .
If this medium does exist - it would be many orders of magnitude more dense than anything we have physical experience with.
The amount of energy required to move this medium would be immense.
You could try thinking about 'solid space' / packed space.. Think of space as a load of old +ve balls repelling each other balanced by free-flowing -ve electro-gas (or magic pixie farts for all I care)... It's a crystal ball universe where each +ve field cell can at least move and vibrate on its spot... Now have them able to be kicked out of place at the speed of light (fast enough so the excess -ve gas left behind can't catch it... The close-packed = balanced field is determined to stay that way while the out of place excess charge wants to expel itself in all directions so the deformity is contained in a spherical field warp.
--
It could just be a +ve bulge around the out of place cell (positron) and a pinch around the excess -ve gas (electron). It's also naturally inertial as the least effort required to get rid of moving charge is do nothing and let it pass from one POV, while from a more physical POV field cells pushed aside and around the deformation fill behind with an inertial kick.
--
If the deformation pulsates the surrounding field it has even more of a 'melting' effect... I like to think of space as being able to melt and freeze at the speed of light.
So what's the simplest quantised matter-energy field that can hold itself together and emerge a universe like ours... Particles are quantised and forces can hold things together so lets start there.. 1 attractive force and 1 particle type is simple, but too simple for anything other than an unchanging, solid ball. Electricity is a much more powerful force but if we only have one particle type the universe would just repel itself apart - we need +ve and -ve particles, with at least one of them being the main quantiser of the universe..
--
+ve cells (quanta, base charge +1) close-packed by free-flowing -ve electro-gas (or liquid in variants) provides the most emergent possibilities with the fewest quantised base particles (1), overall matter types (2) and forces (1 that can repel and attract). This enables vibrations, currents, local cell (gap) size gradients due to local charge density gradients, spinning / vibrating loops of cells, bubbles with trapped field cells and gas warping the field around it as it cuts through.. It's inertial so energy lost by displacing field is regained as the field rebalances with a kick behind.
--
Positrons are field cells kicked out of place with 'full escape energy' in this Electro-Positronic Universe with the excess -ve gas left behind forming an electron. The surrounding empty field is balanced close-packed and regular and determined to stay that way so repels the excess charge the positron / electron tries to expel from all directions, into a ball (that can pulsate, perhaps as a standing wave and/or swirl in a toroid, with loops of gas and vibrating cells forming a magnetic spin field in some variants)
--
Why would The Universe waste one of only 2 proper permanent massive elementary particles in the form of The Positron... It is much more conservative to have a Proton made of 2 half neutralised positrons + a fully, strongly neutralised electron. I like the idea of the Mass Multiplier Mechanism as the neutralised electron as a ball of compact trapped field in a bubble with only the core of particles truly obeying the Pauli Exclusion principle, the rest as a field warp that can diffract in narrow slits and interfere. Bohmian.
--
A Neutron is a proton + extra neutralising electron bonded by the Mass Addition Force.. Beta- decay = neutron losing its extra electron, leaving the proton. Beta+ = NEW e_p pair formed near a proton with the electron retained, positron expelled. In the Big Bang more positrons hit an electron with the right angle and energy to strongly bond into a proton than 2 electrons hit a positron to form an anti-proton but it would have worked either way, it would just be an antimatter universe. A hydrogen plasma soup was the net result once the dust settled and universe hyperinflated.
--
All these forces are emergent, like gravity which could work in a number of ways. I prefer to have each positron always attracting and each electron always trapping 1 quantum of -ve gas away from the rest of the universe that expanded as a result (less -ve gas from the FINITE supply). Voids expanded, galaxies may have shrunk the local spatial metric, all massive bodies may to a point, perhaps even to the centre of each subatomic particle as part of the strong force
All waves propagation requires media, longitudinal water and air waves metal sound waves need media, light EMW ? vacuum - empty space. It is very hard to believe that these pattern cut off on light, exception from the rule. In my opinion I 18 years working on premise how energy conservation stored and is fundamental law of nature (in math are axions in physics are postulates and energy conservation law is postulate fact without rigid proof), in all cases from classical mechanics till electricity energy stored in number pi(), e, sine cosine e^x functions they carry information about energy level in physics process and absolute energy unit is dimensionless unit equal to unit 1. Euclidian scalar proportionality for example {mass} is just fractal smaller or bigger stuff of same fundamental function, people say this thing is bigger compare with what 99.9% lives in this Euclidian reality our eyes compares distance with objects closer to us we guess distance on Euclidian geometry it is most useful thing ever rule of the thumb. That is mathematical formalism Nature not talk in math language but Nature are built based on math language. aether, media, fields, quantum foam, Higgs field are transcendental math functions existed forever (alpha and omega) space field with incoherent chaotic waves but God uses these material (math) to creates livable livable space or living realm better term, guidance of field.
Indeed, to your point, "it is very hard to believe that these patterns cut off on light". Every wave that we know needs a medium. Why should light be the exception?
I think you maybe asking the wrong question. Space isn't made of anything, because it doesn't exist. However there can be things that occupies space .
Planck length is just a random combination of 3 constants , so it probably doesn't mean anything.
Planck length and Planck time do mean something. Light propagates exactly one Planck length in exactly one Planck time. In other words, the ratio of Planck length to Planck time is the speed of light. I find that very interesting.
@@FractalWoman they just divided the Planck length by the speed of light .
Literally any distance could have been used instead of the Planck length , and give the speed of light.
There are so many variables to take into account when coming to these conclusions esp since you have the main stream model which is obviously wrong and than you got smal bits and pieces of knowledge how the formulas and laws we use today are also wrong. As an example 2 kirchoff laws are wrong, 1 being disputed by Nikola Tesla hairpin circuit and 2 is disputed by Sky Scholar here on youtube on how they linked mass to temeperature which is a violation or so i understood.
Than you have dissectable capacitor which implies - since vacuum capacitors exist - that the vacuum acts as the dielectric and thus space can not be empty.
Another fact is that light was never proven to be electro-magnetic but in fact it could be just magnetic perturbation which causes electricity as an side effect.
But ultimately most smarter people than me see the ether as dipole or 2 particles orbiting each other (electron/positron), but to me its sort of similar stuff to what electrons are its just that they are neutral until charged and neutral again when they lose their energy.
So a fast muon is just a type 2 electron which after it loses its "energy" becomes an type 1 electron for a short while than "dissapearing" from our radar as a neutral electron. More neutral electrons, more they exert a gravitational force and influence atomic cloks. Ron Hatch has the best aproximation, Lori Gardi has the best units and Nikola Tesla understood 1 wire system which we are not using where radio should be used to heal people.
Matjaž Čeh: Can you explain what electricity is?
@@FractalWoman electricity is a bit different than what we are being thought.
Electrons moving in the wire is the effect of the "electric field" going from + to - where personally i see the electric field being "inertial magnetism".
Inertial magnetism is understood in transformers since the secundary coil all it sees is changing magnetic field.
These are the only "facts" i trully know, everything else is a bit hypothetical
To me, electrons flowing in wires do so in a surface tension kind of way. since copper wire has an electron addition, the whole copper wire becomes "bumped" and its on these bumps that electrons experience the least resistance in inductive electricity (in cpacitative electricity (high frequency) even distilled water transmits electricity via "capacitative coupling".
And since you can cause electricity to flow in 1 long metal having 2 different temperatures at its ends it follows that volts are pressure and amps is the flow.
But photoelectric effect is more induction than compton scatering imo, where electrons seem to be like water when near atoms but when you heat or they otherwise leave the "surface tension" they act as "gasseous water" and muons to me are "superheated gas"...
So a photoelectric effect is literally boiling electrons.
@@FractalWoman And this video:
ruclips.net/video/r9Kg69cQteg/видео.html
perpetual magnet holder shows that electricity can be stored in the magneti moment and not just magnetic inertia.
Some dude left his PMH for a few years and than lit some diodes or made a spark after removing the magnetic moment and causing a change in magnetic moment - inertia.
I believe magnetic moment and inertia is what gives us phyisical moment and inertia against the ether but in a different way where understanding the ether to matter systems we should be able to build a space ship in first try.
@@manipulativer "Inertial magnetism is understood in transformers since the secundary coil all it sees is changing magnetic field."
If the secondary coil only sees changing magnetic field, then the field must be external.
Interesting idea about Compton scattering though. This makes sense as water only boils at and above a certain temperature and below that temperature, water doesn't boil. I will have to give that some thought.
@@FractalWoman most old school people always call conductors wave-guides so electricity is external to matter and i suspect its on the boundry electrons where most conductors (i am guessing here cause it might be lattice configuration with paired electrons atoms) have an unpaired outter most electron.
So since o2 is paramagnetic it seems it always wants to make a bond with copper, titanium or iron...And quora says that copper oxide is an isolator, but below the coper oxide there is some "non symetrical" energy stuff going on where even HEAT inertia/momentum acts as electricity; perhaps this could open up some avenues in understanding if heat disparity acts as a magnetic one or who knows really.
I mean... i really wish i was not lazy cause i believe we can learn A LOT by understanding how can a magnet bend polarized light and IF a vacuum capacitor with translucent walls could also bend light?
And knowing these mechanisms is all i think about so i can continue building an AC MHD propulsion that first works in vacuum and than turn it inside out should work as inertial caneling shell facilitating extreme speeds.