A New Speculation on the Composition and Functionality of a "Luminiferous Aether"

[swansont]

The redshift of a photon’s frequency is proportional to a loss of energy and is called the Planck relation or the Planck–Einstein equation: v = E/h where h is the Planck constant and v is the associated EM wave. This is the loss of energy I’m referring to which is not directly associated with the amount of electromagnetic energy a body radiates per unit of time, it only has to do with the requirement for more energy to drive a higher frequency wave.

 

E=hv is the energy a photon has, and does not indicate how much frequency shift one observes from gravitation, motional or expansion effects.

 

All measurements of light speed to date have been made in the same frame of reference which as I suggest, have been determined by the propagation impedance of the ISMER in the Earth’s near proximity boundary, so in those measurements there could be no evidence of change in light speed.

 

There are a large number of experiments whose results depend on the constancy of c, even though they are not direct measurements. Some of those use light that has experienced travel that is not local.

[pioneer]

If light is a wave, what is the medium that allows the wave to propagate within a vacuum?

 

If we look at sound waves, the velocity of the wave will be dependant on the medium. Solid media allow the sound to move faster than in liquid, which allows it to move faster than in a gas. In a vacuum, since there is no medium to propagate the energy of the wave, there is no sound since the wave needs a medium to propagate.

 

If there is no aether, do energy waves propagate in vacuum because energy is also a particle? Particle can move without medium. Does the lack of an aether imply that the particle nature of energy is its primary state?

[Mr Skeptic]

I've generally found that when someone proposing a new theory says that something is evidence of their new theory, it usually isn't. Even more often, it is impossible to tell whether it is evidence or in fact refutation of their theory, because they never bother to work out how strong the effect they predict would be numerically. Meanwhile, the accepted theory almost always gives the numerically accurate prediction.

[Sunsphere]

E=hv is the energy a photon has, and does not indicate how much frequency shift one observes from gravitation, motional or expansion effects..

 

All I was indicating by that comment was that the quantum energy of any particular photon is proportional to its frequency as described by Planck’s constant, which is not directly associated with its luminosity. I had also specifically noted that there would still be a percentage of redshift attributable to galaxies moving in their respective rotational galactic trajectories, while at the same time suggesting that most of the observed redshift was resultant of my hypothesized over distance analogy in opposition to the hypothesized expanding universe theory. As for the gravitation redshift, I am suggesting that both the hypothesized gravitational redshift and even the strength of the gravitational field itself are attributable to the non-static energy level of the ISMER.

 

There are a large number of experiments whose results depend on the constancy of c, even though they are not direct measurements. Some of those use light that has experienced travel that is not local.

 

How have they been able to observe light travel that is not local? If not actually observed it can only be assumed, and if you assume the velocity of light is unequivocally constant, the experimental result would naturally confirm.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I've generally found that when someone proposing a new theory says that something is evidence of their new theory, it usually isn't. Even more often, it is impossible to tell whether it is evidence or in fact refutation of their theory, because they never bother to work out how strong the effect they predict would be numerically. Meanwhile, the accepted theory almost always gives the numerically accurate prediction.

 

I have not said that there is any evidence of my speculation, the only evidence of what I’m suggesting will come as the result of investigative research based on a new model formulated with the functional properties of the ISMER energy field as I am suggesting, in lieu of the properties of the non-existent luminiferous aether as previously proposed. I have also been very open in my comments on my limited mathematical skills to assemble that model. I’m hoping to inspire some with masterful skills to work with me to consider formulating a model incorporating my suggestions as plausible, since they are totally consistent with all substantiated investigative research. If there is any seeming variance with said research, it’s only because I may have not worded my suggestion with total up to date terminology.

[swansont]

All I was indicating by that comment was that the quantum energy of any particular photon is proportional to its frequency as described by Planck’s constant, which is not directly associated with its luminosity. I had also specifically noted that there would still be a percentage of redshift attributable to galaxies moving in their respective rotational galactic trajectories, while at the same time suggesting that most of the observed redshift was resultant of my hypothesized over distance analogy in opposition to the hypothesized expanding universe theory. As for the gravitation redshift, I am suggesting that both the hypothesized gravitational redshift and even the strength of the gravitational field itself are attributable to the non-static energy level of the ISMER.

 

The "non-static energy level of the ISMER" would seem to imply the energy density of the photons, which would be related to the luminosity. It's hard to say for sure, since you refuse to quantify any of this, or precisely define your terms using accepted terminology.

 

Gravitational redshift is proportional to mass, and not luminosity. The redshift from the sun and the earth scale with mass in determining the gravitational potential, rather than by their radiation emission strength.

[Sunsphere]

The "non-static energy level of the ISMER" would seem to imply the energy density of the photons, which would be related to the luminosity. It's hard to say for sure, since you refuse to quantify any of this, or precisely define your terms using accepted terminology.

 

Thank you swansont for your reply. I respectfully acknowledge that my skills at quantifying are limited, but please know that it's not that I refuse to do so. I am not dismissing the relationship of luminosity, it's only that the quantum of any particular photon of specific frequency does not directly affect luminosity, luminosity is associated with the overall amount of electromagnetic energy a body radiates per unit of time, or the spatial density of radiated photons.

 

Gravitational redshift is proportional to mass, and not luminosity. The redshift from the sun and the earth scale with mass in determining the gravitational potential, rather than by their radiation emission strength.

 

This is where I am suggesting that mass is also proportional to the amount of electromagnetic energy a body radiates per unit of time which determines the level of energy in the quantized ISMER field in the sun's or the earth's domain, and it is the energy level of that field which determines the gravitational potential of the mass.

[swansont]

This is where I am suggesting that mass is also proportional to the amount of electromagnetic energy a body radiates per unit of time which determines the level of energy in the quantized ISMER field in the sun's or the earth's domain, and it is the energy level of that field which determines the gravitational potential of the mass.

 

It's not. The mount of radiated energy per unit area is a function of temperature.

[Sunsphere]

No disagreement. I'm saying the same thing, only in a different manner. Radiated energy and temperature are correlational and directly proportional, more radiated energy from one mass elevates the temperature of a receptor mass, more temperature of the receptor mass increases its radiated energy, and vice versa.

[swansont]

No disagreement. I'm saying the same thing, only in a different manner. Radiated energy and temperature are correlational and directly proportional, more radiated energy from one mass elevates the temperature of a receptor mass, more temperature of the receptor mass increases its radiated energy, and vice versa.

 

This is inconsistent with the effects being proportional to the mass. You're not saying the same thing.

[Mr Skeptic]

This is where I am suggesting that mass is also proportional to the amount of electromagnetic energy a body radiates per unit of time which determines the level of energy in the quantized ISMER field in the sun's or the earth's domain, and it is the energy level of that field which determines the gravitational potential of the mass.

 

See, this is why quantifying is so important. It is much easier to see when something is wrong when it gives wrong predictions, instead of vague non-predictions.

[Sunsphere]

This is inconsistent with the effects being proportional to the mass. You're not saying the same thing.

 

Yes, different masses would not necessarily have proportional effects, but the effects are still correlated. Maybe I missed making the point clear. My suggestion is not based on this relationship, it’s simply that all radiating bodies contribute to the total summated energy level of the quantized ISMER field, and that level determines its propagation impedance which determines an increase in the speed of light as it traverses from its source, and that is what affects the observed redshift.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

See, this is why quantifying is so important. It is much easier to see when something is wrong when it gives wrong predictions, instead of vague non-predictions.

 

I apologize. I got ahead of myself by referring to the effect the quantized ISMER field would have on the gravitational potential. I added the reference remark in connection with how the speed of light, as determined by the propagation impedance of the ISMER, is what affects the redshift in light as it traverses outward from its source in lieu of it hypothetically being due to gravity. I had not yet submitted my analytical hypothesis on how the functional properties of the quantized ISMER field are what actually determine the gravitational potential in the first place. That is coming.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Sunsphere
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

Yes, different masses would not necessarily have proportional effects, but the effects are still correlated. Maybe I missed making the point clear. My suggestion is not based on this relationship, it’s simply that all radiating bodies contribute to the total summated energy level of the quantized ISMER field, and that level determines its propagation impedance which determines an increase in the speed of light as it traverses from its source, and that is what affects the observed redshift.

 

You appear to be insisting on contradictory effects: that it depends on radiated energy but also from distant sources, whose intensity drops off with r^2. There's a reason we have difficulty in seeing stars in the daytime, and this same difficulty would seem to imply that the speed of light would vary from day to night. And if its responsible for relativistic effects, this should be large enough to observe.

 

But once gain the lack of rigor here precludes knowing for sure whether this is a prediction that falsifies your idea.

[Sunsphere]

You appear to be insisting on contradictory effects: that it depends on radiated energy but also from distant sources, whose intensity drops off with r^2. There's a reason we have difficulty in seeing stars in the daytime, and this same difficulty would seem to imply that the speed of light would vary from day to night. And if its responsible for relativistic effects, this should be large enough to observe.

 

When I speak of luminosity, I’m referring to the full spectrum of electromagnetic energy all bodies (all mass) in the universe, near or distant, radiate per unit of time; both apparent (visible light) and bolometric (total radiant energy). It is that energy which I suggest is being algebraically and vectorally summated through the function of EM wave interference, to comprise the quantized ISMER energy field. By quantum definition, both light energy and photon quantum are appropriately referenced.

 

The visible light spectrum is a small fraction of the overall spectrum of radiant energy and by itself does not comprise the full dynamic of the ISMER. One of the prime properties of the ISMER is that it’s all pervading. No matter whether on the surface of the sun, in a dark cave, or within material bodies (masses), the composite structure of the ISMER energy field is there, formed of all interfering electromagnetic waves at every point in that domain. By this analogy, the ISMER energy level, and thereby its propagation impedance, is independent of and does not vary simply as a result of being in the domain of visible radiant light energy, that is only one source of the overall composite for the all pervading ISMER energy field in the Sun’s domain.

[swansont]

It would seem that you want EM radiation to behave in ways that are contrary to observation. e.g. the radiation is all-pervasive, and yet has a source, yet not following the 1/r^2 law or Beer's attenuation law.

 

The variation in EM energy density between day and night is not limited to the visible portion of the spectrum. You cannot simultaneously say that the ISMER field depends on proximity to radiators, affecting the speed of light due to the emitted radiation, and then say that it does not depend on the intensity of the radiation. You have to pick one or the other, and in doing so, it will disprove your hypothesis, because your hypothesis is wrong.

[Sunsphere]

It would seem that you want EM radiation to behave in ways that are contrary to observation. e.g. the radiation is all-pervasive, and yet has a source, yet not following the 1/r^2 law or Beer's attenuation law.

 

The variation in EM energy density between day and night is not limited to the visible portion of the spectrum. You cannot simultaneously say that the ISMER field depends on proximity to radiators, affecting the speed of light due to the emitted radiation, and then say that it does not depend on the intensity of the radiation. You have to pick one or the other, and in doing so, it will disprove your hypothesis, because your hypothesis is wrong.

 

I really appreciate your replies because with my limited experience, my analytical terminology is not always the most up to date, and by your remarks I am directed to the appropriate research material for review. I did not suggest that the ISMER field depends on the proximity to radiators, or that radiation is all-pervasive, or that the speed of light is affected by emitted radiation, and I did not anywhere say that the variation in EM energy density between day and night was limited to the visible portion of the spectrum. None of those remarks were indicative of what I actually said, so as indicated by those remarks, there must be a breakdown in communication.

 

In reality there is no variance in our respective remarks, so let’s start over. What you said, in the way you said it, is fundamentally true, but what you said is not what I had suggested. If we don’t get our message straight, a lot of viewers are going to be greatly disappointed. We were on a good track but all of a sudden everything I had previously suggested was turned around and most of what had been gained was lost. If all you wrote in your last reply was actually what I had previously suggested, you’re right, my hypothesis would be wrong, but none of that is true.

 

First of all, I did not suggest that radiation is all-pervasive, but that the quantized ISMER field is all pervasive. Second, I did not suggest that the speed of light is affected by emitted radiation directly, but that the speed of light is determined by the propagation impedance of the quantized ISMER field as inversely proportional to its energy level. Third, my suggestion is that the ISMER field does not directly depend on the proximity of source radiators, but is the product of all radiated EM energy from all sources, no matter what the proximity.

 

As for the 1/r^2 law, the energy level of the ISMER field is affected by the intensity of the radiation which I indicated when I specifically suggested that traversing outward from the source within the proximity boundary, the energy level and thereby the propagation impedance of the ISMER will be decreasing at a rate proportional to the inverse square function of the distance from the source.

 

Of prime consideration at this juncture is; what are the contributing factors that determine the energy level of the quantized ISMER field, because that is what I suggest determines the speed of light? As for the variation of EM energy density between day and night, from what you say you seem to think that the visible portion from our Sun should be considered a prime factor in determining the energy level of the ISMER.

 

At every point in the universal dimension, including within material bodies, I suggest that level is determined by the algebraic and vectoral summation of all intersecting wavefronts arriving at that point from all sources over the entire array of directional coordinates as a function of EM wave interference. In our frame of reference external to material bodies, the prime sources of radiation are the earth and the Sun.

 

In close proximity to the earth the earth is primary. The total summated apparent and bolometric luminosity from all external universal sources including our Sun is virtually constant day or night, and since as suggested the ISMER is all pervading, the energy level of its quantized field remains constant in the entire earth domain, day or night and in the darkest cave or in broad daylight. To say it most succinctly, the energy level of the all pervading quantized ISMER field is totally independent of any single source radiator including our Sun.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Sunsphere
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

I really appreciate your replies because with my limited experience, my analytical terminology is not always the most up to date, and by your remarks I am directed to the appropriate research material for review. I did not suggest that the ISMER field depends on the proximity to radiators, or that radiation is all-pervasive, or that the speed of light is affected by emitted radiation, and I did not anywhere say that the variation in EM energy density between day and night was limited to the visible portion of the spectrum. None of those remarks were indicative of what I actually said, so as indicated by those remarks, there must be a breakdown in communication.

 

I didn't claim that this was limited to the visible spectrum only. That was a tangent you introduced. I just said your ISMER should be lower at night, if it depends on emitted radiation.

 

I cannot reconcile

most of the observed redshift is attributable to an increasing velocity of the propagation of light within the proximity boundary of source radiators

 

with

I did not suggest that the ISMER field depends on the

proximity

to radiators

 

because it seems that they are in conflict, and here is yet another example where a mathematical model would reduce confusion.

 

 

First of all, I did not suggest that radiation is all-pervasive, but that the quantized ISMER field is all pervasive. Second, I did not suggest that the speed of light is affected by emitted radiation directly, but that the speed of light is determined by the propagation impedance of the quantized ISMER field as inversely proportional to its energy level. Third, my suggestion is that the ISMER field does not directly depend on the proximity of source radiators, but is the product of all radiated EM energy from all sources, no matter what the proximity.

 

As for the 1/r^2 law, the energy level of the ISMER field is affected by the intensity of the radiation which I indicated when I specifically suggested that traversing outward from the source within the proximity boundary, the energy level and thereby the propagation impedance of the ISMER will be decreasing at a rate proportional to the inverse square function of the distance from the source.

 

Once again, you have contradicted yourself. You cannot simultaneously have the field not depend on the intensity, and also depend on the intensity from sources. Either it does or it doesn't.

— If it does, even weakly (and we can predict how weak or strong it must be, because we know how big the effect is), we should be able to block it. It's electromagnetic and has to follow those laws, so "it's all-pervasive" is also a contradiction.

— If it doesn't, then it can't explain redshifts. But we know it doesn't, because the correlation you require isn't there.

 

Your options basically equate to "it's magic," and that's not science.

[Sunsphere]

I didn't claim that this was limited to the visible spectrum only. That was a tangent you introduced. I just said your ISMER should be lower at night, if it depends on emitted radiation.

 

Please read my remark again. All I was saying was that I was agreeing with you, because I had not claimed that this was limited to the visible spectrum either, and from the way you worded your comment I thought you were indicating that I had.

 

I cannot reconcile

most of the observed redshift is attributable to an increasing velocity of the propagation of light within the proximity boundary of source radiators

 

with

I did not suggest that the ISMER field depends on the

proximity

to radiators

 

You left the “as outlined above and further facilitated by an “over distance” redshift” tag off of that quote. One must review the “as outlined above” analytical terminology to understand that my suggestion is that the increasing light velocity is facilitated by the exponential decreasing of the ISMER propagation impedance due to a loss of energy within the quantized ISMER field as light traverses outward within the proximity boundary, and not just the loss of raw radiated energy. And you omitted my later remark "my suggestion is that the ISMER field does not directly depend on the proximity of source radiators, but is the product of all radiated EM energy from all sources, no matter what the proximity."

 

because it seems that they are in conflict, and here is yet another example where a mathematical model would reduce confusion.

 

I fully agree.

 

Once again, you have contradicted yourself. You cannot simultaneously have the field not depend on the intensity, and also depend on the intensity from sources. Either it does or it doesn't.

— If it does, even weakly (and we can predict how weak or strong it must be, because we know how big the effect is), we should be able to block it. It's electromagnetic and has to follow those laws, so "it's all-pervasive" is also a contradiction.

— If it doesn't, then it can't explain redshifts. But we know it doesn't, because the correlation you require isn't there.

 

 

Evidently the way I referred to the composition of the ISMER I wasn’t clear. The SMER field is not emitted radiation directly; it’s the result of emitted radiation from all sources converging at every point in the entire universal dimension that is algebraically and vectorally summated as a function of EM interference to form a quantized field. So the ISMER is that resultant field and it doesn’t depend on emitted radiation from any single source in the raw emitted state. And it’s that field that’s all pervading, because it’s not just emitted radiation from external sources directly, but the photon propagation within the mass as exited that comprises the ISMER field internal to the mass. And yes, the ISMER field will have an elevated energy level in close proximity to a prime source radiator because of the input from that source, but only as a function of the algebraic and vectoral summation of that energy with all other converging radiated energy. So again, it’s not just radiated energy from any particular body.

 

To summarize this reply, this is why some legislative documents and some scientific papers require many pages with thousands of words to hopefully prevent any ambiguity for all who read to correctly ascertain. There are so many subtopics involved with this comprehensive hypothesis, it’s very difficult to make sure that every detail is perfectly stated with no ambiguity.

 

So with that in mind, another way of analytically defining the substance and resultant energy level of the all pervading quantized ISMER field would be to say that as a function of wave interference, all contributing source radiation comprising the Ismer, both internal and external to all source radiators, will interweave and reflect within itself within any particular region of the universal domain to form the composite structure and average energy level of the ISMER throughout that domain, having no radiated energy of its own. From a quantum hydrodynamics superfluidity analysis, the quantized all pervading field is analogous to a fluidal sea and all bodies are as energy radiating sponges with the quantized fluid of the ISMER engulfing and saturating all the sponges.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Sunsphere

[swansont]

 

To summarize this reply, this is why some legislative documents and some scientific papers require many pages with thousands of words to hopefully prevent any ambiguity for all who read to correctly ascertain. There are so many subtopics involved with this comprehensive hypothesis, it’s very difficult to make sure that every detail is perfectly stated with no ambiguity.

 

 

No, the last thing you need to present is a legislative document comprising many pages and thousands of words. What you need to present is a short paper with a few equations that describe how your phenomenon depends on physical, measurable quantities. If the general idea is inconsistent with experiment, the details are irrelevant.

[Sunsphere]

No, the last thing you need to present is a legislative document comprising many pages and thousands of words. What you need to present is a short paper with a few equations that describe how your phenomenon depends on physical, measurable quantities. If the general idea is inconsistent with experiment, the details are irrelevant.

 

Again, I fully agree. I did not mean to imply that a thousand word “legislative” document was what was needed. There may be more accurate jargon to compose my argument, but it does need to be mathematically defined and I not having a master’s degree in mathematics am not capable of that. This is why, even though I do understand the structure of models, I have not personally composed a definitive stand alone model, relying on the existing models I suggest are applicable.

 

With appropriate models, I suggest a medium for the propagation of light has been discovered in the form of what has been described by those investigating quantum mechanics as a quantized EM field, that I have labeled an ISMER energy field, which is all pervading, massless, non-elastic, not universally at rest and not having a static energy level; and they didn’t know it because they weren’t even looking for it since they’ve all but dismissed even the existence of such a substance due to Einstein’s claim that an aether wasn’t necessary if you dismiss the necessity for absolute time in order to construct a model in his theory of special relativity without the incorrectly hypothesized infinitely elastic, static energy level and universally at rest aether, as a frame of reference.

 

As I said earlier, I don’t believe there is any need to start from scratch to compose a model because current models can be incorporated to form an experimental model if properly assembled. No one has suggested tying the applicable models together as I have by incorporating a revised set of properties for the aether/ISMER as I have suggested. I suggest that when that is done it will all fit.

 

With my patience in pursuing this train of speculative thought, and appreciation for your learned replies from a position of mathematical expertise, I am inviting you to join me in developing a calculable model. I will be more than thankful for your cooperation and you can share any recognition with me, because this will eventually be discovered to essentially be all I am suggesting, even though perhaps not perfectly worded at this time, and even more.

 

I do not say that in a self aggrandizing or boastful manner in any way or to limit recognition, because there are many others too numerous to mention who are also eligible for recognition, all the way from Scottish theoretical physicist and mathematician James Clerk Maxwell to Dutch physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder, and many others even before and after them.

 

Whatever your response, thank you. Either way I will still go on to submit my analytical hypothesis on how the functional properties of the quantized ISMER field are what actually determine the mechanics of gravitational potential with a suggested design for an experimental test platform for theory verification.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Sunsphere

[swansont]

With appropriate models, I suggest a medium for the propagation of light has been discovered in the form of what has been described by those investigating quantum mechanics as a quantized EM field, that I have labeled an ISMER energy field, which is all pervading, massless, non-elastic, not universally at rest and not having a static energy level; and they didn’t know it because they weren’t even looking for it since they’ve all but dismissed even the existence of such a substance due to Einstein’s claim that an aether wasn’t necessary if you dismiss the necessity for absolute time in order to construct a model in his theory of special relativity without the incorrectly hypothesized infinitely elastic, static energy level and universally at rest aether, as a frame of reference.

 

One of the problems here is that you have proposed this as being electromagnetic in nature. Which contradicts known behavior. It's not that people aren't looking, it's that they have already looked for other things and would have seen this effect if it was there. Instead, they saw nothing.

 

Electromagnetic fields do not behave the way you are proposing that they behave.

 

With my patience in pursuing this train of speculative thought, and appreciation for your learned replies from a position of mathematical expertise, I am inviting you to join me in developing a calculable model.

 

You would probably be better served to enlist someone who thinks you are correct, and a science board is not the place to do that. Anyone convinced that this is wrong would likely feel that it is a waste of time.

[Sunsphere]

One of the problems here is that you have proposed this as being electromagnetic in nature. Which contradicts known behavior. Electromagnetic fields do not behave the way you are proposing that they behave.

 

What have I said that contradicts known electromagnetic field behavior? I know the principle of wave interference is correct. Please let me know and I will do more research. Thank you.

[swansont]

You have an EM field which somehow is not detectable electromagnetically, since you claim nobody has seen it, and does not follow Maxwell's equations and Beer's law by being all-pervading.

[Sunsphere]

You have an EM field which somehow is not detectable electromagnetically, since you claim nobody has seen it, and does not follow Maxwell's equations and Beer's law by being all-pervading.

 

None of this is true. Please give me a chance to put together an appropriate reply.

 

Number 1. The quantized ISMER energy field is not detectable with instruments that detect propagated EM energy, because the ISMER field as defined has no propagation velocity of its own, but as you pointed out in a previous post, (Quote) "experiments have already been done which would indicate the presence of such a field." So as a field, it has been seen.

 

Number 2. Maxwell's equations are a set of four partial differential equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to their sources, charge density and current density. As a function of EM wave interference the quantized ISMER field is resultant of the algebraic and vectoral summation of electromagnetic waves which are comprised of electric and magnetic fields, and will therefore follow Maxwell's equations.

 

Number 3. As relating to Beer's law I have pointed out that moving out within the proximity boundary of prime source radiators the total energy level of the ISMER will decrease as a function of the 1/r^2 law which is what determines it's decreasing propagation impedence.

 

Number 4. As being all pervading, I specifically stated that its the quantized ISMER field that's all pervasive, not the contributing propagated EM energy, and that's because the ISMER field is the wave interference summation of EM energy at every point in the total universal dimension, both external and internal to all material bodies.

[swansont]

None of this is true. Please give me a chance to put together an appropriate reply.

 

Number 1. The quantized ISMER energy field is not detectable with instruments that detect propagated EM energy, because the ISMER field as defined has no propagation velocity of its own, but as you pointed out in a previous post, (Quote) "experiments have already been done which would indicate the presence of such a field." So as a field, it has been seen.

 

No, my point was that a static EM field would be detectable because you would have an electric and magnetic field which should should affect certain types of interactions, i.e. there are experiments that are sensitive to the presence of electric fields. But we don't see these interactions when we do the experiments. I'm saying there isn't experimental evidence to support your position. But, contrary to your claim, it's not because we haven't looked.

 

Your ISMER cannot be the zero-point field, because the zero-point is strictly for an occupation number of 1/2 photon per frequency mode. You seem to be claiming the presence of more photons per mode.

 

Number 2. Maxwell's equations are a set of four partial differential equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to their sources, charge density and current density. As a function of EM wave interference the quantized ISMER field is resultant of the algebraic and vectoral summation of electromagnetic waves which are comprised of electric and magnetic fields, and will therefore follow Maxwell's equations.

 

Number 3. As relating to Beer's law I have pointed out that moving out within the proximity boundary of prime source radiators the total energy level of the ISMER will decrease as a function of the 1/r^2 law which is what determines it's decreasing propagation impedence.

 

Beer's law is not the 1/r^2 dependence, it is the attenuation of radiation as it passes through a medium. And this is another reason the ISMER can't be the zero-point field, because the zero-point field doesn't have this dependence.

 

 

Number 4. As being all pervading, I specifically stated that its the quantized ISMER field that's all pervasive, not the contributing propagated EM energy, and that's because the ISMER field is the wave interference summation of EM energy at every point in the total universal dimension, both external and internal to all material bodies.

 

And yet Maxwells equations tell us we can (and do) screen electric and magnetic fields. They are not all-pervading.

 

It seems to me that your idea predicts that if one arm of a Michelson Interferometer were in "close proximity to a radiator," and the other arm were shielded from that radiator, you should get a fringe shift from the proposed change in the speed of light in the one arm. True?

 

Michelson interferometer experiments are fairly easy and common, yet I can't recall anyone reporting a surprising result such as this.

[Sunsphere]

With all we’ve covered and with all the research material we’ve engaged, I feel we’ve been distracted and we’re still missing the point. It’s all my fault. I allowed myself to be drawn into a discussion on how the concept I’ve introduced is somehow inconsistent with already modeled and already proven experimental theories. That is not true. In fact, what is presently being pursued in physics research is the basis for my theory which is directly consistent with all substantiated discovery. The sad thing is, some of my terminology has been inconsistent because of my limited understanding of some of the interrelated research pursuits. So if anything I have stated or suggested appears to be inconsistent it’s because my terminology has been imprecise, but the basic concept is still fully consistent. Please invest just a littlr time to review the material I have posted in this thread and I believe you will see this is true,

 

Even though experiments are being done which could indicate the presence of such a field because electric and magnetic fields should affect certain types of observed interactions, all presently observed experimental interactions are actually attributable to the functional properties of the Ismer as defined, but are not recognized as such because the substance and presence of the actual EM energy field I have defined as an all pervading, massless, non-elastic, not having a static energy level and not universally at rest, Ismer, is not being looked for. I suggest that when pursued with the correct properties in the experimental model, the Ismer energy field will be discovered, and argue all you want, all its functional properties I have suggested will be confirmed.

 

As I originally stated, as defined in my theory the Ismer is not measurable because it can have no propagation velocity of its own and no instrument has been invented that can directly measure the energy level of a field that is stationary relative to the sensing instrumentation. As suggested, the actual compositional configuration of the EM wave matrix in the Ismer field is virtually infinitely complex and yet to be modeled, but the fact is the radiated/propagated EM energy at all light frequencies is still there and as a function of EM wave interference that energy interacts creating a vector summed field as resultant of the superposition of all input EM energy while retaining fully incorpoated electric and magnetic components of that energy.

 

So let us get back on track. In my next post I will begin a descriptive analysis of the electromagnetic mechanics of gravitational potential as enabled through the functional properties of the Ismer as defined. I will then go on to suggest the design of an experimental test platform for confirmation.

Edited June 20, 2010 by Sunsphere