The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is there an aether theory suitable as an alternative to BBT/inflation?  (Read 9836 times)

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Physics now bases its Big Bang model on an empirical rationale using quantum observational data taken in our earthbound setting. I submit there is an alternative approach they should use instead, namely a rationale based on the likeliest first causal processes in space. Understanding a basic force like gravity must be based on how it originated, and that could not have been in our earthbound type of setting

The likeliest place to start forming a first causal model would be space. -I submit that the origin of the universe involved two substrates: space and units of space. (Had to be "units" because we know that in our world, forces are mediated by units - atoms, photons, etc.)

The likeliest first causal process , then, should have involved units of space, which would have had to be elemental points of space itself. -The logical way to conceptualize this origins-setting in space would be of elemental spatial points oscillating symmetrically with each other and in intimate (contiguous) contact with each other. Eventually, this led to oscillational fatigue, which induced two adjacent points to collapse toward each other in a "Yin and Yang" fashion. Disruption of the perfect symmetry of space then occurred when the point-pair re-equilibrated with the oscillational setting. -Once a single disturbance of perfect symmetry, like this, happened anywhere in space, it would have propagated throughout all of space, producing an aether matrix everywhere, in which the aetheric units were all identical in terms of size scale and other properties, and in touch with each other (contiguous), so that they could transmit energic impulses instantaneously.

"Oscillational fatigue" occurs in metals, but since metallic oscillational fatrigue is a quantum process, it cannot be definitively correlated with this first-causal space setting.

In the first-causal model above, it has to be assumed that resonational "nodes" are produced on these elemental aether units as a result of the first-causal oscillational/vibrational mechanisms involved, to allow then to resonate energically with each other.

With this type of model, a simple theory of gravity results. -The quantum structuring of solid bodies is now viewed by Physics as consisting of quantum units : atoms and subatomic "solid particles." However, with this aether model, the "particles" are actually "particle capacities" made up of vanishingly-smaller elemental aether units. -When two bodies are attrracted gravitationally, then, it would involve resonances between the elemental aether units of each body resonating with the (contiguous) identical aether units in the intervening space between them, producing an attractional pull-effect.

As far as the BBT, a similar forces-model would apply. Recent astronomical observations have revealed that our universe is (surprisingly to BBT/inflation theorists) not isotropic as predicted, but rather it is anisotropic, and the direction of the anisotropy is in a northerly direction, and the movement is accelerating. -This observation would agree with the aether model just outlined, because it indicates our universe is being pulled closer and closer to another comparable cosmic attractor, which would have to be another universe. -This would also be consistent with the known fact that galaxies are observed to collide with each other. -The universal-aether pull-effect just applied for gravity would fit for both these observations.


 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Now THAT is very interesting.
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

'Was the universe born spinning?'
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46688

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis"

Our Universe spins around a preferred axis because it is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

'Mysterious Cosmic 'Dark Flow' Tracked Deeper into Universe'
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/releases/2010/10-023.html

"The clusters appear to be moving along a line extending from our solar system toward Centaurus/Hydra, but the direction of this motion is less certain. Evidence indicates that the clusters are headed outward along this path, away from Earth, but the team cannot yet rule out the opposite flow. "We detect motion along this axis, but right now our data cannot state as strongly as we'd like whether the clusters are coming or going," Kashlinsky said."

The clusters are headed along this path because our Universe is a larger version of a polar jet.

It's not the Big Bang; it's the Big Ongoing.

Dark energy is dark matter continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
« Last Edit: 16/10/2014 04:00:14 by liquidspacetime »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Now THAT is very interesting.
Quite.................

I think I'll poke this idea a little by asking an innocent little question:

Could the source of this aether be what science refers to as Dark Energy?
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I think I'll poke this idea a little by asking an innocent little question:

Could the source of this aether be what science refers to as Dark Energy?
Yes. You've heard of vacuum energy. It's "an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe". Then see Einstein's Leyden Address where he talks about space as the aether of general relativity. Then see the quote by Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate, here:

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

Space of course is dark. Note though that dark energy is said to be responsible for the accelerating expansion of space rather than just the expansion of space, but there's a problem with that in terms of conservation of energy.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."[/I]
Allow me to ask another innocent question then:

Are you then suggesting that Dark Energy is a universal pressure that is responsible for the phenomenon of gravity instead of mass bending space/time? And that the Mickelson/Morley experiment gave us erroneous results because we didn't recognize Dark Energy? That might possibly explain gravity but how would it explain time dilation? It sounds like you're trying to revive this old theory without considering every detail we have observed over the past several decades.
« Last Edit: 16/10/2014 18:38:51 by Ethos_ »
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
My take on the Michelson-Morley Experiment's continuing influence on modern theory is that it should be discarded. The MMX was done in 1887, when particle-theory was less advanced than it is now. The basic fault in the MMX was that they used inertial criteria to base their concept of an ether on (trying to detect an "ether wind" effect.) The ether model in my Thread posits a non-inertial type of ether, in which energy, at the etheric level, acts via transmission of energy impulses from etheric unit-to-unit, contiguously

After the MMX result was interpreted as "proving there is no ether," physicists like Einstein started coming up with models for how the world could work without a transmissional ether medium.

Right now, Physics is trying to explain cosmic forces by using earthbound quantum-empirical observational data: quantum mechanics and relativity. These data depend on observing quantum-scale force-units, and their spin, vectors, and so on. This approach is giving an endless stream of dead end models like the Big Bang. -In my Thread, it is proposed that the true basis of energic action is at the etheric level, and involves simple oscillational/vibrationally-acting mechanisms.  Various earth-based data that result in concepts like "dark energy," "curved space gravity," and so on are incorrectly used in trying to understand basic forces.

 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: MichaelMD
After the MMX result was interpreted as "proving there is no ether," physicists like Einstein started coming up with models for how the world could work without a transmissional ether medium.
That's certainly not true. The MMX experiment proved that light doesn't need an either to explain it's motion since the what the MMX experiment did show was that the speed of light was not a function of the velocity of an ether.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
But light has a varying velocity when moving through differing gravitational frames where the intensity of the field varies. This is however observer dependent. So the gravitational field itself mimics the effect of an aether. Although this is different in a lot of its aspects to an original aether such as the theories of the past proposed. An aether would not vary its effects on spacetime as the intensity should average throughout spacetime to a constant value. If that makes sense.
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Allow me to ask another innocent question then:

Are you then suggesting that Dark Energy is a universal pressure that is responsible for the phenomenon of gravity instead of mass bending space/time?
Yes and no. I'd say dark energy is a universal pressure that's responsible for the expansion of the universe. But matter/mass is responsible for gravity because it's a concentration of energy which sets up a pressure gradient in the surrounding space. See this depiction of a gravitational field? It's back to front. It features tension pulling space inwards. It ought to feature pressure, like the Earth is pushing out on the lattice. But note that it's got to be a pressure gradient. If the pressure is the same everywhere there's no gravity.

And that the Mickelson/Morley experiment gave us erroneous results because we didn't recognize Dark Energy?
I'd say it gave us a null result because of the wave nature of matter.   

That might possibly explain gravity but how would it explain time dilation?
Time dilation is as is. Clocks go slower when they're lower or if you move them fast.

It sounds like you're trying to revive this old theory without considering every detail we have observed over the past several decades.
No. My main point was that Einstein referred to space as aether, but most people think he did away with the aether, and they don't get to hear about papers like this http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0563
 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
But light has a varying velocity when moving through differing gravitational frames where the intensity of the field varies. This is however observer dependent. So the gravitational field itself mimics the effect of an aether.
Which is why Einstein talked about space as the aether of general relativity. See his 1920 Leyden Address:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense..."

As for the speed of light, see Baez:

"Einstein talked about the speed of light changing in his new theory.  In his 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "... according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity.  A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity [Einstein means speed here] of propagation of light varies with position."  This difference in speeds is precisely that referred to above by ceiling and floor observers."
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the aether. The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

What is referred to as the deformation of spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: liquidspacetime
Aether has mass.
First off there's no such thing as aether (aka ether). Ether, or luminiferous Ether, was the hypothetical substance through which electromagnetic waves travel. As you may know, in 1887, a crucial experiment was performed by Michelson and Edward Morley in an attempt to detect the existence of the ether. The experiment, named the Michelson-Morley experiment in honor of its authors, shocked the scientific community by yielding results which implied the non-existence of ether. This result was later on used by Einstein to refute the existence of the ether and allowed him to develop special relativity without this artificial (and non-existent) constraint. Although whether Einstein knew of the results of these experiments is unknown. He later claimed he knew of them but he may have remembered incorrectly.

Where did you get these notions from?
 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: liquidspacetime
Aether has mass.
First off there's no such thing as aether (aka ether). Ether, or luminiferous Ether, was the hypothetical substance through which electromagnetic waves travel. As you may know, in 1887, a crucial experiment was performed by Michelson and Edward Morley in an attempt to detect the existence of the ether. The experiment, named the Michelson-Morley experiment in honor of its authors, shocked the scientific community by yielding results which implied the non-existence of ether.

The MMX looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter that exist in it and move through it.

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed ...

The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. ... Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."
- Robert Laughlin, Nobel laureate

Quote
This result was later on used by Einstein to refute the existence of the ether and allowed him to develop special relativity without this artificial (and non-existent) constraint. Although whether Einstein knew of the results of these experiments is unknown. He later claimed he knew of them but he may have remembered incorrectly.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

Quote
Where did you get these notions from?

In the following article the aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3900

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.
« Last Edit: 19/10/2014 04:16:52 by liquidspacetime »
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Since I started this Thread, I'd like to give my take on critics' remarks, and how I feel this theory of an aether stacks up against the Big Bang model, and Physics' other theories of cosmic forces, which are based on earthbound observations and quantum mechanics/general relativity.

My Aether Model is not pointedly criticized in some of the posts, but instead standard QM/GR concepts are cited, as well as the standard dismissal-out-of-hand of the existence of any kind of aether. My counter argument would be that all the points Physics bases its "no aether" models on, basically come down to the same thing. My model of aether-gravity's contiguity-mechanism has one key totally-game-changing premise. Although aether-gravity lacks empirical evidence, its rationale is logical. -While quantum theory is based on endlessly complex variations of spin, vectors, particle-unit scales, and the like, my aether model claims that gravity is based on simple vibrational resonance of elemental aether units that are all uniform, both in space and in solid bodies. It could be stated briefly as "aether-gravity's contiguity-mechanism."

I actually have a possible field test to emprically detect an aether-effect (by generating an aetheric force-field, and producing a predicted decreased density in material inside the test system.) I got the ideas for the test from an obscure source, but the test would be expensive to do and I don't have a financial backer for it.


 

Offline liquidspacetime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Since I started this Thread, I'd like to give my take on critics' remarks, and how I feel this theory of an aether stacks up against the Big Bang model, and Physics' other theories of cosmic forces, which are based on earthbound observations and quantum mechanics/general relativity.

My Aether Model is not pointedly criticized in some of the posts, but instead standard QM/GR concepts are cited, as well as the standard dismissal-out-of-hand of the existence of any kind of aether. My counter argument would be that all the points Physics bases its "no aether" models on, basically come down to the same thing. My model of aether-gravity's contiguity-mechanism has one key totally-game-changing premise. Although aether-gravity lacks empirical evidence, its rationale is logical. -While quantum theory is based on endlessly complex variations of spin, vectors, particle-unit scales, and the like, my aether model claims that gravity is based on simple vibrational resonance of elemental aether units that are all uniform, both in space and in solid bodies. It could be stated briefly as "aether-gravity's contiguity-mechanism."

I actually have a possible field test to emprically detect an aether-effect (by generating an aetheric force-field, and producing a predicted decreased density in material inside the test system.) I got the ideas for the test from an obscure source, but the test would be expensive to do and I don't have a financial backer for it.

There is no such thing as dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

What is geometrically referred to as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: MichaelMD
My Aether Model is not pointedly criticized in some of the posts, but instead standard QM/GR concepts are cited, as well as the standard dismissal-out-of-hand of the existence of any kind of aether.
Would you like to know why it's been dismissed out of hand? Almost every week someone goes to one of the few physics forums claiming to have the correct theory of gravity but doesn't explain what empirical evidence exists which shows why our current theories are inaccurate. I understand that you don't claim our theories are wrong but you don't explain why yours is better. I.e. You wrote there is an alternative approach they should use instead but didn't demonstrate why your approach should be used instead. Then you started using terms which you created. That's a sign of a crackpot.

See http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Quote
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
In this case the term is units. You don't use the term as it's defined in the dictionary.

Then you go on to say
Quote
The logical way to conceptualize this origins-setting in space would be of elemental spatial points oscillating symmetrically with each other and in intimate (contiguous) contact with each other.
It's totally illogical to speak of something oscillating without there actually being something which can physically oscillate. 

You then go on to say Eventually, this led to oscillational fatigue, without demonstrating why such a thing could occur. You then went on to claim it would have propagated throughout all of space, producing an aether matrix everywhere, again without demonstrating why it would happen and what such a thing is, i.e. what is this "aether" that you spoke of. Since there's no such thing in mainstream physics you have to define it yourself. If it doesn't correspond to something physical in this universe then it's all a big waste of time.

I'll leave it at that. But know that we as physicists are trained to see these flaws and when we see them we try to correct them. However I learned over 15 years ago that it's a waste of my time.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
PmbPhy,

The idea that First cause began with Space is the most logical viewpoint seems intuitively obvious to me, and I'm sure a lot of other people. The rationale behind how original space (not our present space) could have been constituted in a way that could have produced a world that could have produced uniform unit-based forces, and that in turn could have led to our kind of universe, should be, I submit, essential, conceptually, if we are to understand gravitation on the basic level.

One key to the Model I submitted would be that original space was self-compatible, which was what allowed contiguous elemental points of space to oscillate, sympathetically, so that a point-pair could form, via oscillational fatigue. -As I point out, oscillational fatigue is known in our quantized setting. Of course, there is no way to physically simulate the first causal setting. That shouldn't preclude us from trying to rationally conceptualize that setting, though.

 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: MichaelMD
The idea that First cause ..
What exactly do you mean by this phrase?

Quote from: MichaelMD
... could have produced uniform unit-based forces,
If you don't define the term "unit" as you're using it in this thread then I don't see any point of discussing anything with you. I implied that you should define it in my last post. Do I actually need to explicitly state that you need to or can't you take the hint "You don't use the term as it's defined in the dictionary." which meant that your usage makes no sense of "unit" has its dictionary definition. It can't be taken to imply that just because you use an undefined term that it's meaning is obvious.

Quote from: MichaelMD
One key to the Model I submitted would be that original space was self-compatible, ..
Here again you're using a term which is unclear what it means. What do you mean by "self compatible"?

Quote from: MichaelMD
which was what allowed contiguous elemental points of space to oscillate,
Space can't oscillate unless there's a time varying gravitational field present.

Quote from: MichaelMD
sympathetically, so that a point-pair could form, via oscillational fatigue.
Also another phrase which is unclear what it means. What is it that you are claiming is oscillating and why?

In science we don't just create theories and expect people to accept them you know. So far you haven't even made a clear statement about what it is that you're talking about. So far it's just a word salad.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
PmbPhy:
By "First causal" setting I mean that our universe must have had a preceding setting which was purely primordial, and which had characteristic(s) which could have led to the universe we have now. I submit that that setting had to have been original space. (*Original space" would not exist now, because the self-replicating first causal mechanism produced an aether-filled space.)

By "units," I refer to what Physics views as "particles" or "particle/wave" units (and most recently, "quasiparticles"), but what, in my aether model, is viewed as a system of interacting (resonating) energic "units", at the foundation of which are "elemental" aether units. Larger scale units, such as our familiar quantum-scale atomic and subatomic units, are viewed as made up of the elemental aether units. (It's proposed that the elemental aether units are vibrational and interact with each other resonationally, which is how the larger scale units are formed.) (It's of interest that Physics has recently discovered a new form of energic units called quasi-particles, which appear to be combinations of quantum units like electrons and "clouds" of still-undefined ("nano-scale" type) energic material. The "quasi-particles" have been generated in certain technological materials which were exposed to photonic energy, converting the electrons in the material to another form of energic unit, called a quasi particle. Physicists hope that systems will evolve from this leading to imnproved electronic technologies. -From the standpoint of my aether model, quasi particles would be "etheroidal" units, intermediate in scale between the elemental aether units and quantum-scale units.

I believe, however, an optimal technological system would involve generating a purely-elemental aether-unit system. I have a field test design, as I mentioned above, to try to generate such an energy, but lack the funding it would require.

To continue with your questions, "self compatible" as it would relate to the model of pure, original, Space, refers to my concept of Space at that time having comprised elemental points that were oscillating in perfect symmetry with each other ("shimmering). These points would have been in intimate (contiguous) contact in every conceivable direction.

PmbPhy, when you say "space can't oscillate unless there's a time varying gravitational field present," you're just reverting to quantum mechanics. -I have already given the reasons why my aether model doesn't directly correlate with quantum systems, which operate via spin/vector/variable-energy-unit-scale dynamics. -The aether operates via simple vibrational/resonational dynamics. -So your point about space oscillation doesn't apply here.

Your question "what is oscillating", as it would apply to pure original Space, can only be answered theoretically. -It must have been elemental contiguous points of Space itself, because that is the only possibility for a First causal setting that could have led to our kind of universe.


   
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: MichaelMD
PmbPhy, when you say "space can't oscillate unless there's a time varying gravitational field present," you're just reverting to quantum mechanics.
That is incorrect. That's what general relativity dictates. If you're claiming that it's wrong then you need to explain what it is that's oscillating. Space can't just "oscillate". If it did then you're right back to general relativity.

Quote from: MichaelMD
have already given the reasons ..
You've made the mistake that listing reasons somehow proves that you're reasons are correct. That's the furthest thing from the truth. There is a great deal more to physics and science as a whole than that. You have to not only state what you're theory is but you have to state precisely how to measure it by stating its physical consequences. Or as in BBT you have to make predictions based on your theory which can be verified by observations.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
PmbPhy,

Your point about my misattributing the theoretic basis for your statement that the present views of Physics (that space can't oscillate unless there is a time varying gravitational field) is correct. I carelessly attributed the source to QM when it should have been attributed to GR.

You continue critiquing my model in the same way, as though you either haven't read my position as to "standard theory versus my aether model", or else you haven't digested what I said. -My position is that QM and GR are inappropriate to cite, because they are based on earthbound observations. Quantum theory is based on energic systems involving spin, vectors, varying particle-capacities, and the like, and, I re-submit, do not correlate with what must have originated the world of forces in space in the very beginning. In my aether model, the origin of forces in space had to do with a simple process of oscillation of contiguous elemental spatial points, which transitioned to oscillational fatigue of a single point-pair, then propagation of a single disturbance all through space, producing a uniform energic aether that acts via simple vibrational resonance. -Therefore, your continuing to try rebutting this model by citing standard concepts from QM/GR gets us nowhere as far as assessing the aether origins model, or my view of aether-gravity as a simple contiguity-mechanism involving elemental aether units.

When you use the standard Physics view of space to debunk my aether model of original space, that comparison is not valid because there is no way to envision original space before the first appearance of the aether's elemental forces. Original space would certainly have differed from our present space.

In raising a point that I fail to offer any kind of empirical test for the aether that makes predictions that can be verified, again, that isn't true, because I mentioned in my posts above that there is a possible field test to detect the aether (the design for which I got from an obscure source), by generating an aether force field, then measuring materials inside the test system for a predicted decrease in densities. -This field test would be expensive to do, I lack the funds to do it myself, and I haven't been able to find a financial backer as yet.
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: MichaelMD
You continue critiquing my model in the same way, as though you either haven't read my position as to "standard theory versus my aether model", or else you haven't digested what I said. -
Both assumptions are incorrect. I've explained the problems to you. Whether you understand what I said is another story and at this point I lost interest.
 

Offline lymond01

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
MichaelMD,

Interesting.  This statement:

Quote
When two bodies are attrracted gravitationally, then, it would involve resonances between the elemental aether units of each body resonating with the (contiguous) identical aether units in the intervening space between them, producing an attractional pull-effect.

Any chance you could elaborate a bit?  I'm not easily visualizing how resonating units (aether particles) would create a pull.

Oh, and one other thing.  Brian Greene came to speak at our university about superstring theory.  Wasn't quite what I expected.  If you watch some of the visuals later in this video, you may get the impression that superstring theory is an elaborate version of your aether.



Lymond01
« Last Edit: 26/11/2014 01:24:13 by lymond01 »
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
lymond01,

The idea of how elemental aether units act is that they are vibrational. Vibration is directional. -You can think of this in terms of "nodes" which can "loosely lock" onto another elemental aether unit. -Such an effect would produce a bipolarity of the resonant units. The non-interacting end of the units would "retro-generate" a field in space. The idea is that gravity is similar to magnetism. A gravity field would resemble a magnetic field, except that the "electro" component of gravity fields is underfired compared to electromagnetism, due to the great difference between them in terms of distance factors.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums