There are a number of terms which seem to be stumbling blocks in multiple science fields, and I didn't find any definitions when searching the forums, so I thought I would start one here for others to add to. Hopefully this can be helpful in the discussions.

Aether - A Non-Cartesian potential (by Ken Wheeler)

Field - An aether perturbation modality (by Ken Wheeler)

Consciousness – The point where one can no longer measure the mechanisms which program. (by Eric K. Smith)

Layman - a person who knows little

Just now, Sensei said:

Layman - a person who knows little

With respect a layman is someone who knows little about the subject in consideration.

She may be an expert in chinese painting and sculpture nonetheless.

But I take you point the the Op needs to brush up on his mathematics and physics before pontificating on definitions used by others.

...man, life, intelligence, mind, memory..

but who cares?

..number..

29 minutes ago, Eric Smith said:

There are a number of terms which seem to be stumbling blocks in multiple science fields, and I didn't find any definitions when searching the forums, so I thought I would start one here for others to add to. Hopefully this can be helpful in the discussions.

Aether - A Non-Cartesian potential (by Ken Wheeler)

Field - An aether perturbation modality (by Ken Wheeler)

Consciousness – The point where one can no longer measure the mechanisms which program. (by Eric K. Smith)

Are you asking for these definitions? I’m surprised that they aren’t easily found (the first two; I don’t see how consciousness is a part of physics)

Or are these supposed to be them? If so, they leave a lot to be desired.

Ken Wheeler seems to be completely off his trolley: https://kenwheeler.substack.com/p/the-universal-codex-in-full

To quote a bit of this gobbldedook:

All motion is the division & the disturbance of rest. The greater the division, the greater the resistance; this is Natural Order. Evil & motion divide what is Pure & Whole & generate resistance, which is evil, suffering, & dilution.

To charge is meant taking motion & multiplying it by centripetal compression; this is called power or energy. To discharge is meant taking motion & dividing it by centrifugal expansion; this is called force. A base atom, or hydrogen, is a centripetal compression of light, which cannot propagate, such that its charge or frequency is so high. Frequency & charge/capacitance are one & the same thing. Higher frequency is higher capacitance.

[continues]

Er, yikes!

It looks as if @Eric Smith is some kind of shill or alter ego for this nutter.😱

Edited August 2Aug 2 by exchemist

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

is some kind of shill or alter ego for this nutter

That’s unfair. Wheeler has hundreds of thousands of followers, and has sold books, so there are a lot of people who have simply bought into the nonsense.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

That’s unfair. Wheeler has hundreds of thousands of followers, and has sold books, so there are a lot of people who have simply bought into the nonsense.

Oh so he's a known charlatan then, sort of up there with Deepak Chopra? I had no idea. I'll have to look out for him.

P.S. Found this article about him on Rationalwiki: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ken_Wheeler

Edited August 2Aug 2 by exchemist

8 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

Aether - A Non-Cartesian potential (by Ken Wheeler)

That's not what "aether" is. Why use a non physicist like Ken Wheeler to define an outdated physics term?

8 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

Field - An aether perturbation modality (by Ken Wheeler)

This is a thing in physics but not the definition you cited by Ken Wheeler.

Why not use a real source from a standard physics textbook?

On 8/2/2025 at 11:49 PM, pinball1970 said:

That's not what "aether" is. Why use a non physicist like Ken Wheeler to define an outdated physics term?

This is a thing in physics but not the definition you cited by Ken Wheeler.

Why not use a real source from a standard physics textbook?

Most of the great discoveries in the world were done by people outdife of the field in which it was discovered.

Not everybody agrees with the descriptions explained. Tesla did not agree with Einstein, and if the first ones offered were correct then there would not need to be new theories added such as String theory which has yet to have any evidence of it.

On 8/2/2025 at 3:58 PM, exchemist said:

Ken Wheeler seems to be completely off his trolley: https://kenwheeler.substack.com/p/the-universal-codex-in-full

To quote a bit of this gobbldedook:

All motion is the division & the disturbance of rest. The greater the division, the greater the resistance; this is Natural Order. Evil & motion divide what is Pure & Whole & generate resistance, which is evil, suffering, & dilution.

To charge is meant taking motion & multiplying it by centripetal compression; this is called power or energy. To discharge is meant taking motion & dividing it by centrifugal expansion; this is called force. A base atom, or hydrogen, is a centripetal compression of light, which cannot propagate, such that its charge or frequency is so high. Frequency & charge/capacitance are one & the same thing. Higher frequency is higher capacitance.

[continues]

Er, yikes!

It looks as if @Eric Smith is some kind of shill or alter ego for this nutter.😱

Once it was accepted by the world that the Sun went around the Earth and Galileo was ridiculed and put under house arrest for daring to say otherwise. There are far too many problems with Einstein's work to accept it as fact. It should always be questioned otherwise we will never advance.

On 8/2/2025 at 3:51 PM, swansont said:

Are you asking for these definitions? I’m surprised that they aren’t easily found (the first two; I don’t see how consciousness is a part of physics)

Or are these supposed to be them? If so, they leave a lot to be desired.

The first two are not related to them. If you don't see how consciousness is a part of physics, I suggest you keep looking becuase over the years it comes up over and over again. Google is your friend.

Just now, Eric Smith said:

The first two are not related to them. If you don't see how consciousness is a part of physics, I suggest you keep looking becuase over the years it comes up over and over again. Google is your friend.

So this is also a wind up

43 minutes ago, Eric Smith said:

Most of the great discoveries in the world were done by people outdife of the field in which it was discovered.

Not everybody agrees with the descriptions explained. Tesla did not agree with Einstein, and if the first ones offered were correct then there would not need to be new theories added such as String theory which has yet to have any evidence of it.

Once it was accepted by the world that the Sun went around the Earth and Galileo was ridiculed and put under house arrest for daring to say otherwise. There are far too many problems with Einstein's work to accept it as fact. It should always be questioned otherwise we will never advance.

The first two are not related to them. If you don't see how consciousness is a part of physics, I suggest you keep looking becuase over the years it comes up over and over again. Google is your friend.

Consciousness is not a part of physics. You may have fallen victim to the tiresomely widespread misconception that a conscious observer is required to "collapse" the wave function in quantum mechanics. This is wrong.

Ken Wheeler is obviously quite crazy. The passage I quoted in my earlier post is just meaningless word salad. We can put you onto proper definitions for terms in physics if you need help, even though, ahem, Google is your friend.😁

But to be honest I don't know what you are doing on a forum like this. Anyone who quotes Wheeler as an authority is going to have an uphill struggle to be taken seriously.

On 8/2/2025 at 8:17 PM, Eric Smith said:

Aether - A Non-Cartesian potential (by Ken Wheeler)

Are you sure you are not mixing up a known crank with John Archibald Wheeler ?

1 hour ago, Eric Smith said:

Most of the great discoveries in the world were done by people outdife of the field in which it was discovered

Really? Perhaps you can educate me on that I only know a few of them.

Things like, radiation, expanding universe, CMBR, Gravity waves, Higgs mechanism, anti matter, QED, speed of light, vaccines, DNA, Evolution.

The guys who contributed were scientists in the field.

1 hour ago, Eric Smith said:

. Tesla did not agree with Einstein

So what? What you should concentrate on the tests the scientific community have conducted since 1905 and since 1915.

Relatively has stood the test of time Einstein was right on that and a lot of other things.

My crankometer is glowing blue right now.

2 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

There are far too many problems with Einstein's work

Which problems? Which work?

6 hours ago, studiot said:

Are you sure you are not mixing up a known crank with John Archibald Wheeler ?

The latter would not have offered such a poor definition.

7 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

The first two are not related to them. If you don't see how consciousness is a part of physics, I suggest you keep looking becuase over the years it comes up over and over again. Google is your friend.

My PhD in physics is an even better friend in this case. 11 years of school studying physics and ~32 years of employment in the field and it never came up as a topic.

7 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

Most of the great discoveries in the world were done by people outdife of the field in which it was discovered.

Citation needed

7 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

Not everybody agrees with the descriptions explained. Tesla did not agree with Einstein, and if the first ones offered were correct then there would not need to be new theories added such as String theory which has yet to have any evidence of it.

“first ones offered”?

What does string theory have to do with anything?

7 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

Once it was accepted by the world that the Sun went around the Earth

What would it have looked like to people if it had been that way?

7 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

and Galileo was ridiculed and put under house arrest for daring to say otherwise.

That’s something to blame on organized religion and possibly politics, not science

7 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

There are far too many problems with Einstein's work to accept it as fact. It should always be questioned otherwise we will never advance.

You don’t list any of these problems, and relativity is tested in new ways fairly often.

On 8/4/2025 at 6:47 PM, swansont said:

My PhD in physics is an even better friend in this case. 11 years of school studying physics and ~32 years of employment in the field and it never came up as a topic.

Citation needed

What does string theory have to do with anything?

You don’t list any of these problems, and relativity is tested in new ways fairly often.

That piece of paper on the wall simply means you studied the material given to you, learned what others have tought you and you understand it well enough to pass the test. It does not mean all of what you have been taught is correct, or that you have all the answers. Remember, Science means to study and we further our knowledge by standing on the shoulders of giants to look beyond it.

For citations, Google is your friend.

String theory has yet to be proven. It has lots of supporing math and it fits other things observed in the universe but it has not been proven, and some say it's on the verge of being abandoned. Just because a model fits does not mean that is how the universe works.

As for relativity, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm sure you know the two slit experiment but have you ever tried the two nail experiment? You get the same constructive/destructive pattern. A particle such as an atom will go straight(ish) but energy waves expand and like two sources of waves in a pool of water the intersecting waves will either compliment or cancel.

On 8/4/2025 at 12:58 PM, pinball1970 said:

Really? Perhaps you can educate me on that I only know a few of them.

Things like, radiation, expanding universe, CMBR, Gravity waves, Higgs mechanism, anti matter, QED, speed of light, vaccines, DNA, Evolution.

The guys who contributed were scientists in the field.

So what? What you should concentrate on the tests the scientific community have conducted since 1905 and since 1915.

Relatively has stood the test of time Einstein was right on that and a lot of other things.

My crankometer is glowing blue right now.

Which problems? Which work?

I'm sure you know the double slit experiment. You can get the same results with the double nail experiment.

49 minutes ago, Eric Smith said:

That piece of paper on the wall simply means you studied the material given to you, learned what others have tought you and you understand it well enough to pass the test. It does not mean all of what you have been taught is correct, or that you have all the answers. Remember, Science means to study and we further our knowledge by standing on the shoulders of giants to look beyond it.

Spoken like someone who has no clue what a PhD in science entails. (Or even an undergraduate degree from any legitimate source, to some extent.)

49 minutes ago, Eric Smith said:

For citations, Google is your friend.

String theory has yet to be proven. It has lots of supporing math and it fits other things observed in the universe but it has not been proven, and some say it's on the verge of being abandoned. Just because a model fits does not mean that is how the universe works.

And you still haven’t explained the relevance.

49 minutes ago, Eric Smith said:

As for relativity, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm sure you know the two slit experiment but have you ever tried the two nail experiment? You get the same constructive/destructive pattern. A particle such as an atom will go straight(ish) but energy waves expand and like two sources of waves in a pool of water the intersecting waves will either compliment or cancel.

I must confess I haven’t heard of the two nail experiment. Your description of this is muddled (do you have a more detailed one, or a link?) but if I understand it I’m not sure why you think this means anything. Water waves will diffract going around nails and interfere, with nothing about that is odds with what physics teaches. Or why an atom would go straight through.

1 hour ago, Eric Smith said:

That piece of paper on the wall simply means you studied the material given to you, learned what others have tought you and you understand it well enough to pass the test.

You have no idea what getting a PhD entails.
At that level, it is not memorizing presented facts in order to pass a test, but involves a great deal of original research, theoretical or experimental.
And his posts readily indicate he knows what he is talking about; yours, sadly, do not.

Edited August 9Aug 9 by MigL

1 hour ago, Eric Smith said:

Remember, Science means to study and we further our knowledge by standing on the shoulders of giants to look beyond it.

This seems hypocritical, doesn't it? If science means to study and collect evidence in support of the work of the giants of science, doesn't it seem more probable that swansont's PhD studies and his work as a physicist on atomic clocks for the US Naval Observatory (GPS relies on relativity) represents a more trustworthy foundation for science knowledge? No offense, but you talk about "proof" and don't understand post-graduate studies and you make the same mistakes a LOT of people make trying to learn science from popular sources instead of taking courses.

21 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

That piece of paper on the wall

Is what people trained in STEM have yes, you are on a STEM platform.

I will keep saying it, put down the pseudoscientific nonsense books by the likes of Ken Wheeler and read an actual text book on science.

If you are interested in learning science that is.

On 8/9/2025 at 12:23 PM, swansont said:

I must confess I haven’t heard of the two nail experiment.

Wasn't that the basis for the TOE Nail theory?

On 8/9/2025 at 2:23 PM, swansont said:

Spoken like someone who has no clue what a PhD in science entails. (Or even an undergraduate degree from any legitimate source, to some extent.)

And you still haven’t explained the relevance.

I must confess I haven’t heard of the two nail experiment. Your description of this is muddled (do you have a more detailed one, or a link?) but if I understand it I’m not sure why you think this means anything. Water waves will diffract going around nails and interfere, with nothing about that is odds with what physics teaches. Or why an atom would go straight through.

I didn't go into details because I thought it was self explanatory. It has not been proven and no real evidence for it has been found. Yet they call it a "Theory", not a conjecture or hypothesis.

The Two nail experiment is just like the two slit. Instead of a wall with two slits, it's open with two nails. firing the "particles" at the nails generates the same pattern as the two slit experiment. Some conjecture that it's because they aren't really particles be fired, but energy waves and the obstruction of anything causes waves to form a constructive/destructive pattern. Waves in the water (used as an example) will do the same thing.

On 8/9/2025 at 3:22 PM, Phi for All said:

This seems hypocritical, doesn't it? If science means to study and collect evidence in support of the work of the giants of science, doesn't it seem more probable that swansont's PhD studies and his work as a physicist on atomic clocks for the US Naval Observatory (GPS relies on relativity) represents a more trustworthy foundation for science knowledge? No offense, but you talk about "proof" and don't understand post-graduate studies and you make the same mistakes a LOT of people make trying to learn science from popular sources instead of taking courses.

Okay, lets talk some simple math. If E = mc² Then how is it that every few years somebody calculates a new value for 'c' which changes the entire results of the formula that everybody still thinks is the gospel of science? It's been over a century and I still see no clear definition of exactly what gravity is, how it's made, why there are gravitational anomalies.

The same is true about magnetism. Nobody including Einstein, Tesla, Steinmetz, Heavyside or others have clearly defined and explained it. Ken wheeler is the only one who has defined them, and he may not have that piece of paper on the wall, but I invite those that do to put all his work and published work to the test and it adds up nicely.

Internet Archive

Uncovering the missing Secrets of Magnetism : Ken L Wheel...

The missing secrets of magnetism and the geometry of electromagnetism.  20 years of research into magnetism and fields

On 8/9/2025 at 2:37 PM, MigL said:

You have no idea what getting a PhD entails.
At that level, it is not memorizing presented facts in order to pass a test, but involves a great deal of original research, theoretical or experimental.
And his posts readily indicate he knows what he is talking about; yours, sadly, do not.

Of course it does, I'm not condemning it. It's a great accomplishment and the beginning, but it's not the end, don't forget that.

32 minutes ago, Eric Smith said:

why there are gravitational anomalies.

Here is an interesting scientific experiment to distinguish between 2 competing hypotheses.

1) Member Eric Smith has a genuine interest in the subject of why there are real measured gravity anomolies on Earth and what discovery that led to in 1823.

2) Member Eric Smith is just here to poke fun at the scientific world.

I await his reply to decide which hypothesis to place the most credence in.

2 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

The Two nail experiment is just like the two slit. Instead of a wall with two slits, it's open with two nails. firing the "particles" at the nails generates the same pattern as the two slit experiment. Some conjecture that it's because they aren't really particles be fired, but energy waves and the obstruction of anything causes waves to form a constructive/destructive pattern. Waves in the water (used as an example) will do the same thing.

I asked for a link. Googling on “two nail experiment” (with quotes) yields zero results.

2 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

Okay, lets talk some simple math. If E = mc² Then how is it that every few years somebody calculates a new value for 'c' which changes the entire results of the formula that everybody still thinks is the gospel of science?

That’s easy: this doesn’t happen. Not since 1983, at least.

Prior to that experiments refined the value, but the changes were quite small.

12 hours ago, Eric Smith said:

I invite those that do to put all his work and published work to the test and it adds up nicely.

Why? He writes nonsense which has zero to do with science.