@Rosemary I get it that this concept has embarrassed everyone. But - in the same way I'm embarrassed when I read the complicated, ponderous, technical explanations for what is KNOWN about fire. All those words - all those terms - all those signs and symbols - all that complicated math - all those chemical explanations - and not one simple direct explanation for the properties of 'fire' itself. I put it to you all that this has been the point at which science has learned to 'invent' explanations relying on terms that do not in fact carry any real description. It explains nothing. I think what we call fire is pretty easy to understand when put in the right context, first we should understand that most everything we see is an illusion. If we take a piece of wood having carbon in it and this wood is in the presence of oxygen nothing happens because the C and O atoms cannot interact. If however these atoms are excited by friction or heat which are not energy but forms of energy then this excitation can cause the C and O atoms to "snap" together producing further excitation and CO which further reduces or "burns" with O2 into CO2. We should remember that this is not chemistry as every aspect of what we call chemistry relates directly to electrical or "charged" states. The energy is in the charged states of the atoms producing motion and EM radiation which is all that "heat" is. As well what we see as "fire" is the excitation of atoms leading to light which is EM radiation, Heat which is atomic excitation producing EM radiation as well as ionization which is a charged state. Much of the confusion around this issue relates to mistaking heat,light,ionization etc.. as energy, they are not energy they are forms of energy relating to the condition of something and this condition of matter relates to the rate of oscillation and charged state which is the actual "energy" and not the effects of a condition of something. I think this is why there is so much confusion regarding energy and forms of energy as many mistakenly call the effects of a condition energy when in fact it is the condition itself as it relates to other things which is the energy. Once we understand this I think everything becomes easier to understand, personally I think nature is quite easy to understand but we have to look past the illusion and the false assumptions we make based on what we see. We could apply this same concept to the aether, does it have to be "something"?, is it something or simply an effect of something?. It is odd that the closer we look at things of supposed substance the less real substance we find they have, could it be that we have never really been correct about anything in any way as most all the facts we have would have us believe that everything reduces to what appears to be nothing but a "disturbance" in the media. Speaking of the energy and matter here is something to consider, if all the electrostatic charges in a one centimeter cube of aluminum were separated how much force would these separated charges exert on one another? Well about 32 x 10^18 pounds or 32 million million million pounds of force. Regards AC
« Last Edit: 2010-12-14, 03:45:31 by allcanadian »
---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
|
Author
Topic: Ether - Does it Exist? (Read 154891 times)
