Jump to content

Testing for an aether !


Ned
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello , I have an experiment that may demonstrate the existence of an Aether . In theory the experiment should work but the potential results of the experiment could be highly dangerous with several possible outcomes. 

The physics of the experiment seems viable physics and there is a great chance for success ! 

The problem I have , how do I explain the experiment here when there is potential dangers ? 

I wouldn't want the results to end up in the ''wrong hands'' . 

This isn't the sort of experiment I can do at home ! 

One of the possible good outcomes of the experiment ,  is that we invent a way to ''siphon'' spatial energy . 

 

Edited by Ned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ned said:

Hello , I have an experiment that may demonstrate the existence of an Aether

The existence of an aether - I presume you mean the luminiferous kind - would imply a violation of Lorentz invariance, and thus also of CPT invariance. This has been extensively tested for to very high levels of accuracy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation
 

Based on the fact that all these experiments came out negative, I can pretty much guarantee you that whatever it is you have in mind will also come out negative. In all likelihood, your specific experiment has already been conducted in some form anyway.

17 minutes ago, Ned said:

I wouldn't want the results to end up in the ''wrong hands'' .

Your concerns are misplaced - these tests have all been done already, this isn’t a new thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

The existence of an aether - I presume you mean the luminiferous kind - would imply a violation of Lorentz invariance, and thus also of CPT invariance. This has been extensively tested for to very high levels of accuracy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_sear

22 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

The existence of an aether - I presume you mean the luminiferous kind - would imply a violation of Lorentz invariance, and thus also of CPT invariance. This has been extensively tested for to very high levels of accuracy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation
 

Based on the fact that all these experiments came out negative, I can pretty much guarantee you that whatever it is you have in mind will also come out negative. In all likelihood, your specific experiment has already been conducted in some form anyway.

Your concerns are misplaced - these tests have all been done already, this isn’t a new thing.

ches_for_Lorentz_violation
 

Based on the fact that all these experiments came out negative, I can pretty much guarantee you that whatever it is you have in mind will also come out negative. In all likelihood, your specific experiment has already been conducted in some form anyway.

Your concerns are misplaced - these tests have all been done already, this isn’t a new thing.

I am aware there has been many attempts to prove the existence of an Aether without success but my interpetation of physics brings ''new light'' to the table ! 

I am convinced the whole of space time is filled with a Higgs field that is ''fused'' with space . Space having the ability to conserve point energy . This point energy will have inertia and in appearance it is indistinguishable from space in its transparent form . 

An aether would be required for wave functions or space would conserve the wave energy , ''applying the brakes'' . An Aether acts as a ''quantum bridge'' between distances . It is a necessity or there'd be no motion ! 

I understand you have not seen this before , I haven't published any papers for it to become official science . 

 

 

 

qb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ned said:

I am convinced the whole of space time is filled with a Higgs field that is ''fused'' with space .

Well I am not convinced.

 

From Archimedes to Romer to Cavendish to Thompson to Einstein to Buckminster Fuller, the difference between scientists who successfully introduced their ideas and hand waving theorists like Plato  is that they all said words to the effect

"Here is a real physical object. I have an idea that predicts that if I kick it in a certain way it will respond according to my idea"

The thing is they were all also practical men who were also able to state the practical 'certain way'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well I am not convinced.

 

From Archimedes to Romer to Cavendish to Thompson to Einstein to Buckminster Fuller, the difference between scientists who successfully introduced their ideas and hand waving theorists like Plato  is that they all said words to the effect

"Here is a real physical object. I have an idea that predicts that if I kick it in a certain way it will respond according to my idea"

The thing is they were all also practical men who were also able to state the practical 'certain way'.

If you can't draw it then you don't understand it !

In my interpretation of physics  when we emit a carrier signal of information , it isn't the emitted energy that waves but rather instead the Aether . The emmitting device in my interpretation is simply vibrating the Aether causing a wave frequency . No different than sending a telegraph signal through a wire . The wire is waving not the source ! 

Ligo detected a ''gravitational wave'' , again this wave I consider was the Aether waving! 

Although none of this is exact proof , with other physics , namely the conservation of energy of space , I believe there is an Aether . 

Finally in my interpretation of physics , I think lightning is an observable rupture in the space-time ''fabric'' (Aether) . 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

The issue is what you can demonstrate. You need an actual model and ways to test it. The rules require it.

 

I can provide the full diagram and method of how the experiment works but as I said the results could be dangerous . Do you feel it is safe to draw a diagram of the experiment and upload it to here ? 

If you think it is safe I will happily provide the experiment in detail ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Ok, what the heck , I will upload the experiment . 

Method . 

Take 2 sheets of copper , both 16 meters square in dimensions . 

Place the sheets parallel  in a vertical position with a radius of 8 meters apart , 16m exactly in diameter surface to surface . 

Attach both sheets individually via cabling to a high voltage supply of electricity creating an inline circuit . 

Attach a regulator so the input current can be controlled and regulated . 

Expectations , a Faraday electomotive force and the high energy Eigenstate of the panels will curve the aether causing a spatial rupture . 

Q>0←Q<1→Q>0

 

 

 

 

r5.jpg

Edited by Ned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Ned said:

I can provide the full diagram and method of how the experiment works but as I said the results could be dangerous . Do you feel it is safe to draw a diagram of the experiment and upload it to here ? 

If you think it is safe I will happily provide the experiment in detail !

Yes, it is safe to put the experiment on line.  If the universe ends or something along those lines, I will personally take responsibility, so don't worry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Another WAG.

Could you answer to any of @Markus Hanke's objections to your idea?

Or will you just ignore them and keep freely and anabashedly playing with words and pictures?

I've posted the experiment now , feel free to question it ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Or will you just ignore them and keep freely and anabashedly playing with words and pictures?

There is a 3rd option: Involuntary dismissal from the community 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ned said:

Expectations , a Faraday electomotive force and the high energy Eigenstate of the panels will curve the aether causing a spatial rupture . 

You also said:

28 minutes ago, Ned said:

Finally in my interpretation of physics , I think lightning is an observable rupture in the space-time ''fabric'' (Aether) . 

So you are expecting a spark between the 2 copper sheets?  That doesn't seem to be proving very much...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ned said:

I've posted the experiment now , feel free to question it ! 

OK. I see the first try didn't hit the target.

Could you answer to any of @Markus Hanke's objections to your idea?

Or will you just ignore them and keep freely and anabashedly playing with words and pictures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bufofrog said:

You also said:

So you are expecting a spark between the 2 copper sheets?  That doesn't seem to be proving very much...

Not just a spark , the curvature of the Aether will effectively open up a micro black hole that will instantly attract a lot of unbounded energy . That is why it is important to regulate the experiment to control the BH . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, iNow said:

There is a 3rd option: Involuntary dismissal from the community 

Maybe that's what's in order.

Or maybe a diagram will be necessary to explain this to the author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

Another WAG.

Could you answer to any of @Markus Hanke's objections to your idea?

Or will you just ignore them and keep freely and anabashedly playing with words and pictures?

I didn't see that as objections but rather as pointing out existing experiments etc . 

1 minute ago, joigus said:

Maybe that's what's in order.

Or maybe a diagram will be necessary to explain this to the author.

Got what you wanted have you ?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, joigus said:

If you mean call you to task for ignoring the rules of the forum, yes.

Ignoring the rules ? I don't understand what you are referring too . 

I have provided the diagram for critism . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ned said:

Ok, what the heck , I will upload the experiment . 

 

9 minutes ago, Ned said:

Got what you wanted have you ?? 

I'm interested* in running a computer simulation of your experiment, can you provide the mathematics that allows for a simulation to be made? (The softwares I have available is based on established physics and does not work for science fiction stuff.)

 

40 minutes ago, Ned said:

If you can't draw it then you don't understand it !

Which seems to imply that if you can draw it you may still not understand it....

 

*) Well, Not very interested actually, just for the sake of discussing

Edited by Ghideon
grammar & format
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ned said:

Not just a spark , the curvature of the Aether will effectively open up a micro black hole that will instantly attract a lot of unbounded energy . That is why it is important to regulate the experiment to control the BH .

Yikes!!

Maybe instead of 16 sq. meter sheets of copper we could use just 15 sq. meters and only form a neutron star?  That would be less dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ned said:

Ignoring the rules ? I don't understand what you are referring too . 

 

Quote

8. Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

From,

https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

I'm interested in running a computer simulation of your experiment, can you provide the mathematics that allows for a simulation to be made? (The softwares I have are based on established physics and does not work for science fiction stuff.)

 

(Well, Not very interested actually, just for the sake of discussing)

1/2 is all I have ! Thank you for the interest but I don't think this is science fiction stuff . I believe it is space-time curvature . 

If you can some how make a y-axis split in two by curvature then thats it . Perhaps you could try coordinate points . 

 

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

This is open discussion and I haven't rejected anything ! Just because others have failed to detect an Aether that doesn't automatic mean my idea fails . 

I think you are being awkward for no reason . 

Edited by Ned
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ned said:

This is open discussion and I haven't rejected anything ! Just because others have failed to detect an Aether that doesn't automatic mean my idea fails . 

I think you are being awkward for no reason . 

Here. Let me be helpful.

You need to explain, not only your idea but, based on your idea, why all previous experiments to detect an aether have failed.

Lorentz invariance is tightly packed with CPT invariance in quantum field theory, as Markus told you. You can't have one without the other.

Are you proposing to give up CPT?

So no, it's not "for no reason."

And I woudn't dare applying an adjective to you.

Is that clear enough?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Yikes!!

Maybe instead of 16 sq. meter sheets of copper we could use just 15 sq. meters and only form a neutron star?  That would be less dangerous.

I came up with 16m sq because it has to be a large area and a multiple of 4 because 4 spatial points is the smallest possible area . I like to keep things in proportion . 

It is additionally the size of a quantum propulsion drive I have been considering , 16m cubed . 

Hopefully we will form a Neutron star and be able to syphon the energy . 

 

 

 

Just now, joigus said:

Here. Let me be helpful.

You need to explain, not only your idea but, based on your idea, why all previous experiments to detect an aether have failed.

Lorentz invariance is tightly packed with CPT invariance in quantum field theory, as Markus told you. You can't have one without the other.

Are you proposing to give up CPT?

So no, it's not "for no reason."

And I woudn't dare applying an adjective to you.

Is that clear enough?

I've already explained the method of my idea and my interpretation of the physics that gave me the experiment idea . It does not really matter why others have failed because my idea isn't the same idea , I don't understand your point ! 

why all previous experiments to detect an aether have failed? Because they weren't my idea .

If I have a new idea why are you insisting I compare to failed ideas ? I don't understand that .

Please educate me ! 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.