>there is no "aether">there is a "field"Is this what a master class in semantics look like?
>>17046961Aether is viscous the fields are not
>>17046970I think anyway im not a physics chud or anything
>>17046961jewish marketing
>>17046961There's a difference, my good retard.
>>17046995There always is.
electric field and magnetic field yields light wave
there are lines of force connecting points
There is a difference
>>17046961fields aren't real, they're just maths. you just assign a number to each point in space, there isn't anything actually there
>>17047049>billions spent to prove "nothing"So does Higgs field exist or there isn't anything actually there.
What's....what's moving through this "Aether Field"?Foam? Quantum foam? Strings? Balls and spheres? Wouldn't quantum foam just slop right through the field? Or is the field now the quantum foam? Foam slop field Aether vacuum? Is there a new force dealing with this....field?A field force? A force field?
>>17047049mathematics is literally reality you fucking sophist cretin
>>17046961The Aether is just dark matter, and exactly as hard to detect at the microscale as dark matter is.
>>17047076no it isn't, retard
>>17047078Dark matter and matter don't interact and can therefore pass through each other and occupy the same space.So basically its an invisible 'medium' of some type of substance that is diffuse throughout the universe, concentrating where there is gravity, just like matter. There is dark matter inside your own body right this very moment.
>>17047079no shit genius, that is nothing like an "aether", which btw does not exist
>>17046961The point of an aether is that it exists where normal matter/particles does not. This is different from fields where excitations in a field literally ARE the existence of normal matter/particles. So basically when you suppose the existence of an aether you're saying "assume there are particles where there aren't particles" which makes no sense. Hope this helps.>>17047049You're not a Platonist? ngmi>>17047076>>17047079Dark matter interacts with gravity. This is not like the aether because it is particle-like in nature.
>>17047085Which part of a bent geodesic is a particle
>>17047049Why does "spacetime" directly cause gravity in GR if its just "math" and "nothing"? Nothing for sure cant pull me down my seat. If you say "all is math" you are directly contradicting GR.>>17047085Aether is just a background medium, not particles. In QM the vakuum has all these things floating around and these energies, this is the aether.
>>17047086>bent geodesic>aetherNice try>>17047111>vacuum>aetherNice try
>>17047113>>vacuum>>aether>Nice tryThats not what i said you retard. Read my ful sentence.
>>17047111GR is not compatible with QFT
>>17047116If you really are the aetherfag then you should have understood that you died on this hill already. We're gonna keep calling it vacuum, you can call it aether.
>>17047113Trying very hard, but bent geodesics have nothing to do with particles retard. Your science only convinces pseuds.
>>17047052
>>17047127But its the medium for the light waves. Also claiming you "won" even tho you did not is retarded.>>17047086>>17047113>>17047132If you are pro aether you have to be very careful with the word geodesics. Because these are lines through the 4d spacetime. A lorentzian aether does not have them.
aether chads will rise up and vanquish their judiac foes and return sanity to the sciences (and religions)
>>17047013>light "wave"so your saying its a liquid?
I have come to suspect, though admittedly at the influence of a gaggle of pseudo-scientists I've run across, that we did figure out how the universe actually works at the most fundamental level and there's a huge coverup because the implications are both extremely dangerous if the average person knew how to exploit a more fundamental physics and because its very advantageous to monopolize the knowledge while profiting off of a much more limited paradigm. It's hidden in the semantics when you read about GUTs like SO(10). In short I hypothesize the following of its nature: That the universe is a single object, roughly spherical, continuously generating new energy at the edges of its expansion fueling a semi-stable binding force of all its interior entanglements or 'islands' we know from particles to astronomical bodies. We may be able to understand it better if we build telescopes designed to study much longer wavelengths of light instead of focusing so much on the quantum realm like we are now. Overunity tech might also be possible, which would be a really good reason to mislead everyone regardless of other intentions because it only takes one crazy ape to blow up the whole planet.
>>17046961>lapwing on the log/sci/ is healing
>>17047233There is a cover up but for a much more /x/ reason than you are suspecting.
>>17046970then why is light kept at current speed? it clearly has a viscosity of c
>>17046961sex
>>17046961/his/ will always mog /sci/3000 years ago Greeks knew about atoms before microscopes, heliocentrism before telescopes, etc
>>17047730That's not /his/ mogging /sci/. Rock art in north eastern Australia showing a link between the phases of the moon and the tides predates Galileo. Both /his/ and /sci are just different ways of being interested in the same things.
Has anyone figured out how to properly model and understand capacitance yet?
>>17047069No it isn't. Maths is a man-made abstraction of thought
