## I think I have just discovered the ''Aether''.

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

### I think I have just discovered the ''Aether''.

Hello I believe I have just discovered the ''Aether'', however it was not what I expected it to be.

This question is about the attraction of opposite polarities in electric and magnetic fields in a vacuum.

If the volume of a vacuum consisted of solely a negative polarity field, at the center of the vacuum manifested a single positive charge.

Would the positive charge be attracted to the whole of the vacuums negative field and permeate isotropic using the negative field as the ''Aether'' ?
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: No charge!

Electric charge is attributable to point sources at the fundamental level.

However, if a positive charge happened to be located within a uniform negative field, it would not be attracted to any particular location in that field. It would be the same as if there were no negative field present.

Active Member

Posts: 1793
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)
 mahesh liked this post

### Re: No charge!

Faradave » May 8th, 2017, 9:55 am wrote:Electric charge is attributable to point sources at the fundamental level.

However, if a positive charge happened to be located within a uniform negative field, it would not be attracted to any particular location in that field. It would be the same as if there were no negative field present.

That would not be logical sir.

Let me explain, I will use the greater than and lesser than symbol to represent directional arrows to show the attraction and repelling direction of likewise and opposing fields. I will use q to represent the field and - and + to represent polarity.

q+><q-

q+<>q+

Do you agree with the simple ''diagram''?
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: Making my points

The diagram is simple enough, though some use --> as an arrow. Each "q" appears as a point source from which a radial electric field emanates. Radial fields in 3D diminish according to the inverse square law, the uniform field that I referred to would not.

Active Member

Posts: 1793
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Making my points

Faradave » May 8th, 2017, 11:41 am wrote:The diagram is simple enough, though some use --> as an arrow. Each "q" appears as a point source from which a radial electric field emanates. Radial fields in 3D diminish according to the inverse square law, the uniform field that I referred to would not.

In my opening post I was referring to a uniform field. Yes in the diagram either ''q'' appears as a point source, however now you have confirmed your understanding of the diagram I can expand on the notion in the aim of looking for relative agreement.

q+>.....................................................................<q-

In the above ''diagram'' I have now extended the length of space between q+ and q-. The dots between the opposite polarities representing the spacial fields between the two point sources.

Do you agree that in this scenario setup that both polarities are equally attracted to each other ?

(We are discussing in general, field strengths at this time are un-important).

added- To help speed up the process of understanding I will add the next part of explaining looking for agreement,

q+>...............>.......................<q-

In the above diagram q+ emits a Quantum positive field represented by the red dots, the blue dots represent a Quantum negative field.
However under the red dots are blue dots, the blue dot extends all the way to our first +q point source.

Do you agree that the Quantum positive field (red dots) , ''crawl'' along the Quantum negative field (blue dots) ?

(The furthest away red dot from point source q+, being attracted to the next blue dot).

(The blue dots being a uniform in situate field)
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: Conventional "attraction" is an unattractive proposition

handmade wrote:Do you agree that in this scenario setup that both polarities are equally attracted to each other ?

Yes. By Newton's 3rd law, the forces will be equal, even if the charges are not. But I assume for simplicity you are using equal and opposite unit charges (e.g. an electron and positron).

handmade wrote:Do you agree that the Quantum positive field (red dots) , ''crawl'' along the Quantum negative field (blue dots)?

I think you're going to loose me here. It's not your fault but I don't believe physics offers any reasonable mechanism for attraction at this time. The closest physics comes to "explaining" attraction is for gravity, where it is said that the mass-energy (tensor field) alters spacetime, however no mechanism for mass-energy to get a grip on spacetime to "bend" or otherwise change it is given. I must say, it's rather embarrassing! Like you, I've had to come up with my own (G-Wiz).

The explanations for electric repulsion in QED (exchanging virtual photon medicine balls) is barely tolerable but when the same mechanism is applied to electric attraction, it becomes ludicrous (negative energy quanta, traveling backward in time etc.). So, I don't think we have a well understood mechanism to use as a starting point.

Active Member

Posts: 1793
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Conventional "attraction" is an unattractive proposition

Faradave » May 8th, 2017, 4:30 pm wrote:
handmade wrote:I think you're going to loose me here. It's not your fault but I don't believe physics offers any reasonable mechanism for attraction at this time. .

All the more reason to stay focused and in discussion with me. I am in personal theories so perhaps we could ''teach'' each other our ideas?

My initial notion of this thread I believe with a rudiment thought I have, I could explain gravity mechanism, expansion of the universe and motion.

You don't need to rely on present theory to think for ourselves .

If I could keep a conversation going, then maybe I could find somebody who understands me.

Your two agreement of yes's so far, the diagram and Newton, already ''tells'' me my notion has premise.

A body in motion will remain in motion unless acting upon by an external force.

To extend on the Newton thought, a body in motion will remain in motion because it is attracted to the space ahead of it.

The above is considering thus so far what I have mentioned.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: I think I have just discovered the ''Aether''.

added- Imagine a comet pulling itself along using space as if a rope then imagine the space behind the comet pulls the energy back, i.e comets tail.
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: I think I have just discovered the ''Aether''.

handmade » May 7th, 2017, 7:07 pm wrote:Hello I believe I have just discovered the ''Aether'', however it was not what I expected it to be.

This question is about the attraction of opposite polarities in electric and magnetic fields in a vacuum.

If the volume of a vacuum consisted of solely a negative polarity field, at the center of the vacuum manifested a single positive charge.

Would the positive charge be attracted to the whole of the vacuums negative field and permeate isotropic using the negative field as the ''Aether'' ?

Mickleson-Morley disproved the ether hypothesis over 120 years ago.

And I can't figure what your hypothetical negatively charged vacuum has to do with the old ether idea. This is not what the ether apologist were speaking of.

Besides, his can a negatively charged vacuum have a positive central charge? It's contradictory to the original description of the field.

Overall none of your post makes sense to me. Nor seems to address the original ether idea.

Maybe it's just me.

Cheers.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mic ... experiment

Heavy_Water
Banned User

Posts: 61
Joined: 02 May 2017
Location: Texas

### Re: A mention of tension.

handmade wrote:To extend on the Newton thought, a body in motion will remain in motion because it is attracted to the space ahead of it.

This sounds like a kind of surface tension* attributed to space. But if space somehow imparts a directional attractive force on a positive charge, that charge should accelerate, not just coast along at constant velocity.

A constant terminal velocity can be reached when surface tension on water is non-uniform** because water's viscosity applies an equal and opposite force on the moving particle. Space doesn't offer such viscosity or earth would stop orbiting the sun.

*perhaps brought to mind by "Heavy-Water".
**Kids do this by applying soap to just the back of a small cardboard boat, disrupting surface tension on that side.

Active Member

Posts: 1793
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: A mention of tension.

Faradave » May 8th, 2017, 11:03 pm wrote:
handmade wrote:To extend on the Newton thought, a body in motion will remain in motion because it is attracted to the space ahead of it.

This sounds like a kind of surface tension* attributed to space. But if space somehow imparts a directional attractive force on a positive charge, that charge should accelerate, not just coast along at constant velocity.

A constant terminal velocity can be reached when surface tension on water is non-uniform** because water's viscosity applies an equal and opposite force on the moving particle. Space doesn't offer such viscosity or earth would stop orbiting the sun.

*perhaps brought to mind by "Heavy-Water".
**Kids do this by applying soap to just the back of a small cardboard boat, disrupting surface tension on that side.

Thank you for your reply and thinking for yourself, it is so refreshing to ''hear'' somebodies ''voice'' instead of encyclopedia repeat.

You mention acceleration, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate? (not totally sure if this is connected).

Would you think the notion and expansion could be relative?
Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: I think I have just discovered the ''Aether''.

Heavy_Water » May 8th, 2017, 8:56 pm wrote:
handmade » May 7th, 2017, 7:07 pm wrote:Hello I believe I have just discovered the ''Aether'', however it was not what I expected it to be.

This question is about the attraction of opposite polarities in electric and magnetic fields in a vacuum.

If the volume of a vacuum consisted of solely a negative polarity field, at the center of the vacuum manifested a single positive charge.

Would the positive charge be attracted to the whole of the vacuums negative field and permeate isotropic using the negative field as the ''Aether'' ?

Mickleson-Morley disproved the ether hypothesis over 120 years ago.

And I can't figure what your hypothetical negatively charged vacuum has to do with the old ether idea. This is not what the ether apologist were speaking of.

Besides, his can a negatively charged vacuum have a positive central charge? It's contradictory to the original description of the field.

Overall none of your post makes sense to me. Nor seems to address the original ether idea.

Maybe it's just me.

Cheers.

https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mic ... experiment

The Aether was disproved that is why in opening post I said the Aether was not what I expected it to be, I noticed a title thread on other forum that is titled the Aether field.
However the title they used for their notion is not my notion but the correct title for my notion.

We are looking for something an ''Aether'' that allows things to travel through , such as light .

Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: I think I have just discovered the ''Aether''.

Banned User

Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017

### Re: I think I have just discovered the ''Aether''.

Added- I have just thought of a way/experiment that we may even be able to objectively test to prove the ''aether field'' exists.