"Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter"

[Khwartz]

Hi all! Here I open a new thread for theoretical discussions about the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter, as a fundamental base for the "free" clean disposal energy" quest.

One of its secondary purposed is to free the pure experimental thread from such discussions so that experimenters could focus on their stuff.

I will paste here few starting points of discussions, especially from I and Verpies as our discussions brought us to this necessary new thread.

Cheers, Khwartz.

[Khwartz]

from: verpies on November 11, 2013, 11:46:13 AM
No, pressure differential is potential energy, not the pressure alone.

Fish don't feel the pressure because thy don't experience any pressure differentials. If they have gas bladders or other empty cavities inside their bodies that cannot resist the external pressure, then pressure differentials are created and fish can feel them.

At least in the fish example you have water (a proven tangible thing) that is the carrier of the pressure.  In energetic devices, you don't have any such medium, unless you postulate an ephemeral and unmeasurable Aether - a concept that has been tried and failed.

Electric charge (just like water) by itself, is not energy, either - just look at the units W=½QV
Likewise, water (and analogous media) is not energy unless you can decompose it to cause a pressure differential.

For example, you could make water electrolysis on the bottom of an ocean.  The bubbles of oxygen and hydrogen would rise to the surface performing useful mechanical work. Finally you could burn the hydrogen and oxygen at the surface in a flame or fuel cell and recover even more energy.
Maybe you could even get more energy that way than you had put into the electrolysis at the ocean's floor

Not sure dear Verpies that the eather concept has failed, there are coherent complete theories in physics equivalent to the old eather concept, and as I have alreday noticed, Dirac himself, when speaking of his plenum were speaking a full energy "vaccum" but where the different energies (instabilities of potential differences) are all balanced, so why we call it ZERO Point Energy. And personaly, to conceive waves in an suppose "nothing suport" is just a big nosense, but it is just an opinion

Cheers.

[Khwartz]

from: verpies on November 12, 2013, 01:41:58 AM
But here we go again: Are there any takers that are willing to define Aether and its properties to me without falling in conflict with empirical observations?

See Dirac plenum theory and others I will try to find back, but for me, still EM waves without any substract (what ever we call it: "ZEP", eather, "plenum", etc.), makes much more sense than "waves of nothing" ("vacuum")

[Khwartz]

from: verpies on November 12, 2013, 02:04:54 AM
IMO the old Aether concept as a fluid that fills space has failed.

I came to the SAME conclusion too! Nevertheless...

Yes, there are but they are not equivalent to 19th century Aether concept.

Indeed! BUT they keep the idea that EM waves could be propagations of changes of energetical potential with specific caracteristics which make RF or light and so on.

We need to be careful with the word "Aether" because there is not a universally agreed-on set of Aether's properties.

Very agree with you!

It's much better to explicitly define its properties and verify them with the empirical reality, rather than argue about the word itself.

That what Maurice Allais have done by checking the Miller's experiment and the checking of the Lorentz's symetry: all what said "Einstein's theories" explain looks been explained with the concept of a substrat of infinitesimal step to step changes of energetic potentials. In this page you will find (but you probably know ) a extention of the Standard Model doing so, explaining indirectly the Allais's anomalus gravitational effect when eclips occur that contradict Lorentz symetry and so Einstein's vacuum emptyness theory.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-Model_Extension

But of course, the point of view I defend is in an opposition with near only corpuscular point of view for the light. If light is seen as a pack of waves ("waves" => parterns of changes in the susbrat), it makes more sens having of course this substrat. If only corpuscular, so we reasonning with particles through an empty space, that I well understand. But about me, I just bent on the pure waves of changes of potentials (exitations) in a substract. Then, PARTICLES are CONCENTRATED REPETITIVE CLOSED PARTERNS OF CHANGES IN A LOCAL AERA AROUND AN AVERAGE POINT, THE CENTER OF GRAVITY OF THE SAID PARTICULE. Then MATTER is only an CONCATENATION OF PARTICLES WHERE FLOWS OF "ENERGY" (UNCLOSED PARTERNS OF CHANGES GOING TO A POINT OF THE SUBSTRAT TO AN OTHER) GLUE THE WHOLE THING.

Dirac is a famous guy but he does not have the respect of my mind.

May I know why?

As a counterpoise I will quote Mathis:That's sound thinking, but you are assuming that waves in vacuum/space or Aether are needed to explain light, photons, or RF EM.

No! I know other models can and are used with much effectiveness! But it doesn't mean that we can not do better with the "substantial" viewpoint I have chosen to follow.

You appear to be still stuck in the infantile paradigm that we are like fish stuck in a 3D aquarium (space) and clocked by an ever advancing 1D river of time.

The ONLY infantile is The One who treat others of infantile and can not accept others to have others point of view! I am very sad to see you could have gone so low!

If I thought that, light propagating through an empty space (nothingness) would also be a preposterous idea to me.

I can understand and accept this idea, especially if you see photons as pure particles, but interferometers show since long they are not pure solid particuless but have waves aspects in their inner structure; so the question is: "Waves of what?", "Changes of what?" in the space if the space has nothing inside?

[Khwartz]

I know I should respect another viewpoint, but it is very hard for me when I see the underlying conceptual error in plain sight.  It is like seeing some child struggle with that 9-dot puzzle that needs to be connected with 4 lines and seeing the error he makes over and over, knowing that he will never solve that puzzle that way.  It would be very hard to be respectful towards such error and treat it as "another point of view".  My dilemma is similar.

I do understand you despite I could feel exactly the same about you! ...

Well deserved.  I apologize if I offended you with the phrase "infantile paradigm". Perhaps I should have used the words like: simplistic, routine, common, fashionable, trendy, ubiquitous, etc...  I meant no malice - it's just that I had this discussion so many times that I am getting exasperated with repetition.  You're just an unlucky guy that came as last to that discussion...

If you say so

Please distinguish a discussion about a different point of view from a discussion about a conceptual error that is well known to one party.

I do understand what you mean; except that from my point of view I make no conceptual error and you rather do.

I've been there, done that 23 years ago when I was that proverbial pup trying to solve that 9-dot puzzle.
I don't see them as particles nor waves and I don't see them as traveling through space nor Aether but I understand how they can appear to do so.

OK, so how do you see that please?

There is no answer to this, because in this question you falsely assume waves.

Falsely for your concern, as I understant now, ... but not for mine.

There are no such changes in space as you are asking for.

Prove it! Or demonstrate it, please; if you can!!

This question indicates to me, that you did not take my comment to heart and you are still stuck in that bleeping 3D/1D paradigm (s3/t1).
Space as you know it is just an emergent 3D geometric reference system created by motion of gravitating observers through projective geometry.
As a reference system space cannot be curved or distorted or have waves in it.  Yes, Einstein would turn in his grave if he could read that...

We do not need Einstein's complications of screwing the space, fields theories can do much simpler for the same results.

Do you really want to discuss such stuff on OU forum?
Most people here will not understand it anyway and soon start objecting to too much abstraction and too little engineering....and they probably would be correct.

Well, if made on a specific thread, who cares?! If at least 2 people are interested and could one or a other day someone else be interested. "Of the Very Nature Of Space, Time, Energy and Matter", is that a name you would approuve or have you a better name, dear Verpies