Material Fields

Bill writes:

Thanks for the response. Since you think I’m ‘on track’, I’ll travel down the road a bit more and see if I can find that pot-hole in my understanding (which I’m sure is down there somewhere :-). We appear to agree that: 1) the patterns reflected by iron filing ‘tests’ indicate the presence of a medium, and that 2) the interaction between the microcosm and the macrocosm produces a pattern of constructive and destructive interference pattern which is indicative of wave motion occurring in the medium.

[You are right.]

With that as a base, I’m calling this area of microcosm and the macrocosm interaction a ‘field’. I’m intrigued by the concept that ‘fields’ are the manifestation of waveforms of different frequencies interacting within an aether medium which produces standing spherical waves, which in turn, create constructive and destructive interference patterns. One implication is that stable harmonic positions only occur at nodal points (creating the locations of constructive interference). If so, then our conceptual model of electron orbital’s in atoms would represent different harmonics (analogous to what’s seen in Cymatics). These harmonics are dependent on the different frequencies (and subharmonic frequencies) involved; and that ‘light quanta’ jumping between the various electron shells (as seen in atomic absorption and emission lines) are the result of the transference of energy       [Sorry, but energy cannot be transferred. Only matter or the motion of matter can be transferred. We rarely use “energy” in UD, as it neither exists nor occurs. It is a calculation. You may substitute “energy calculation” for “energy” to complete your understanding of this.]      between constructive-interference nodes. These harmonic nodes (or zones of constructive interference) would also explain chemical bonds. Going into the macro world, the concept of constructive and destructive interference patterns also suggest to me that Bode’s Rule is not simply a coincidence. Another implication is that particles and what we call matter might actually be dense spherical waveforms.

[From Wikipedia: “Bode’s Law relates the semi-major axis a of each planet outward from the Sun in units such that the Earth's semi-major axis is equal to 10:

a = 4 + n,

where n=0,3,6,12,24,48…, each value of n>3 twice the previous value. The resulting values can be divided by 10 to convert them into astronomical units (AU), which would result in the expression

a = 0.4 + (0.3)(2^m)

for m=-infinity,0,1,2…

For the outer planets, each planet is predicted to be roughly twice as far from the Sun as the previous object.”

Bill, you are right that the nodes calculated here are not coincidence, but the result of constructive interference. However, “waveforms” are not matter, but the motion of matter. Matter of a particular type survives best within a univironment that protects it. Constructive interference thus produces a protected univironment in which special microcosms can survive best.]

I may have not provided enough description for make the concept clear, but if so, I’d enjoy hearing where the pot-hole is. And in the event that I’ve driven completely off the road such that my idea is “…not even wrong”, so that you can’t comment on it, I’ll understand :-).

(As an aside, I noticed that you didn’t use the word ‘field’ and am wondering if you have a different perspective about this term like you do with ‘energy’ and ‘force’, and if so, I’d like to hear about what it is). (As another aside, you wrote that aether particles are probably moving at velocities greater than c. Does that mean that you don’t accept Einstein’s limit on matter traveling at speeds greater than c or that you mean that particles are not matter, or else is not the type of matter that is subject to this limit?)

[Being a positivist and immaterialist, Einstein hypothesized that his “field” was immaterial. It was purely mathematical. In UD, a field must contain particles that carry the motion attributed to it.

When I speculated that aether particle velocities might be greater than c, I was simply applying an analogy to air. Air molecules tend to travel in random directions at about 1000 mph even though sound waves in air travel at about 700 mph. The velocity of light, c, is simply the velocity of motion through the aether medium. It says nothing about the random motions of the particles that compose aether, which is only a guess on my part. Of course, in UD, light is not matter, but the motion of matter. Einstein, on the other hand, proposed a corpuscular theory of light, which is most certainly incorrect in the same way that the conception of heat as a “caloric fluid” was incorrect. In order for his equations to work within the positivist framework, Einstein had to consider his light corpuscles (photons) to be massless—another absurdity accepted by indeterminists worldwide. There probably is not a finite speed limit for microcosms, just as there is no finite limit for their dimensions.]

No comments: