The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is there an aether theory suitable as an alternative to BBT/inflation?  (Read 9803 times)

Offline liveside23

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Hi, I am new to this site and forums in general, I realize that I don't have as much understanding on these subjects as many of you. I find myself searching many different avenues for answers and came across, you all may already know of him, Gregg Braden. He claims to be a scientist, I haven't found good evidence of his credentials. He claims that the Air Force revisited the MMX experiment and found that it does exist.
I don't know if that particular experiment has since been found to be wrong or not. Something else I watched a few years ago, which I could actually wrap my head around, is this. newbielink:http://aetherforce.com/introducing-the-primer-fields/ [nonactive] There are four or five parts to watch. A question I have, because of my limited experience, is if the Double Slit Experiment claims that matter acts different when observed, how do we know that our other observations can be trusted?
Anyway like I said I am new to all this. If my links don't work or the way I used any information is wrong take it easy on me and I will get it right.
Thanks
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
liveside23:

I gather you have read my Aether Model for this Thread. -In terms of  my Model of an aether, the double-slit setup uses added electronic (electromagnetrically-active) instrumentation for "observing" what happens at the double slit, and the photonics there, "because we're observing it." However, adding more electromagnetic devices to the setup (in my Model) will change the behavior of the photonic energies, due to the contiguousness of the aether, even from a distance to the side of the double slit. (According to quantum mechanics theory, the added instruments to the sides wouldn't affect energics at the slits. -So my Model would attribute the "difference due to being observed," to the changes that were made, for the aetheric energies all around the setup, and being responsible for a change in the findings "because we observe them."
 

Offline MichaelMD

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

In your last Post, you questioned exactly how my aether model would explain gravity, and how the field-dynamics are explained. -In my Model, gravity and electromagnetic energy are basically the same process, with gravity's electro- component being "underfired," compared to electromagnetism, due to the great difference between magnetism and gravity in terms of distances involved. -To use as an example, a technical setup of electromagnetism, where a positively-charged pole and a negative pole (cathode and anode) are separated by an electrically-conductive wire, a strong magnetic field is produced as the current flows through the wire. -Quantum theory claims that what is happening is that electrons are flowing through the wire, which produces a magnetic field, but quantum theory has no explanation for just how the field arises in the space around the wire, converging at the two poles. -In my aether model, what is actually happening is that elemental aether energy units are contiguously conducting the energy impulse through the wire (with a concomitant increase of electrons being incidentally generated along the way.) The "magnetic field" merely represents "rebalancing" of electrical forces, in space, contiguously from the wire setup, by identical aether units in the space around the wire, forces that were "unbalanced" in the vicinity of the wire, by sending the electric current through the wire.

In the case of cosmic gravity, of course there is an absence of an artificially-accentuated electrical flow that exists when an electrical current flows through a wire. -However, I submit my belief that a somewhat-analogous setup exists between the two systems (electromagnetic and gravitational.) I believe that with gravitational attraction, there does exist, at the aetheric level (too rarified to be measured with our quantum measurements), a charge-differential at their surfaces, between two gravitationally-attracted bodies which are cosmically located at slightly-energically-different cosmic ambient locations. -This is admittedly theoretical, but very conceivable, within this cosmic type of framework. We just aren't able to measure processes at the aetheric and gravitational scale at present.
 

Offline Fussball

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
-In my aether model, what is actually happening is that elemental aether energy units are contiguously conducting the energy impulse through the wire (with a concomitant increase of electrons being incidentally generated along the way.) The "magnetic field" merely represents "rebalancing" of electrical forces, in space, contiguously from the wire setup, by identical aether units in the space around the wire, forces that were "unbalanced" in the vicinity of the wire, by sending the electric current through the wire.

Michael, correct me if I am wrong. Like in earlier ether models of Gravity, yours is making assertions without providing relevant mechanics. Is yours theory different than Laplace's model for example?

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity [nonactive]

The first attempt to combine a finite gravitational speed with Newton's theory was made by Laplace in 1805. Based on Newton's force law he considered a model in which the gravitational field is defined as a radiation field or fluid. Changes in the motion of the attracting body are transmitted by some sort of waves.[4]
 

Offline MichaelMD

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

I wouldn't want to put my Model up against that of Laplace or anyone else's. -I think it stands on its own rationale, even without citing the kind of evidence you mention, especially that of "relevant" mechanics. Your points of criticism seem to me to indicate that you haven't fully thought my model through. -In my model, the "mechanics" of classical theories don't apply. My model stands on its rationale of non-mechanical energy that takes place at an elemental aetheric level, via contiguity and vibrational resonance. (I'm not sure if the "mechanics" you were referring to is the mechanics of quantum mechanics, which I discussed in some detail in my posts, or whether you meant an inertial type of mechanics, which would be even less relevant to compare to my model. My model is trying to account for basic cosmic forces like Gravity, Time, and Electromagnetism, rather than dealing with larger-scale energy systems that we are more familiar with, "mechanistically."
 

Offline Fussball

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
MMX
« Reply #30 on: 30/11/2014 05:49:47 »
My take on the Michelson-Morley Experiment's continuing influence on modern theory is that it should be discarded.

Michael, I agree with your take on the MMX. Are you aware that the Theory of Aberration was ignored by Lorentz and Einstein in their analysis of the transverse arm of the MMX considering a stationary ether hypothesis?

According to the Aberration Theory, considering a stationary ether hypothesis, the telescope in the apparatus needs to be tilted by an angle given by tan(90-a) = v/c where a is the aberration angle, (that is the tilting angle of the telescope). The faster the apparatus travels, greater the technician needs to tilt the telescope.

This tilting angle is shown by Michelson in his original diagram. And it looks like he did observe this angle but he claimed it was a second order effect.

See Fig 1 and Fig 2 in the link below.

newbielink:http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Relative_Motion_of_the_Earth_and_the_Luminiferous_Ether [nonactive]

The ray sa is reflected along ab, fig. 2; the angle bab, being equal to the aberration =a, is returned along ba/, (aba/ =2a), and goes to the focus of the telescope, whose direction is unaltered. The transmitted ray goes along ac, is returned along ca/, and is reflected at a/, making ca/e equal 90a, and therefore still coinciding with the first ray. It may be remarked that the rays ba/ and ca/, do not now meet exactly in the same point a/, though the difference is of the second order;

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.

Yes this was an erroneous interpretation since in reality the MMX was never capable of detecting anything measurable. Maxwell wrote in a letter that any terrestrial experiment was incapable of detecting the velocity of our solar system relative to the ether. If you're interested you can read more about the MMX and its history newbielink:http://www.sites.google.com/site/goeton [nonactive]. Please scroll to page #37.
 
-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.

Your ideas have some resemblances with my own but my idea uses traditional mechanics to explain how the oscillations might produce a force that we call Gravity. The vibrations you refer to in your posts did not help me understand how they produce Gravity; an all attracting force. If you a longer work where you explain this I will be happy to take a look.

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.

I agree with you here. But dark energy might be your ether. And curved space gravity is to me simply a fantastic assertion without relevant mechanics. For example: Why does space curve? How does it curve? What relevant mechanics causes this curving? Without these answers, one is left with an assertion.
« Last Edit: 30/11/2014 05:52:28 by Goeton »
 

Offline MichaelMD

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

Your discussion of the fine mathematical and optical details in the MMX went over my head, but I still think the rationale for my non-mechanical model of the aether is not relevantly affected by any such mechanical construct, or any constructs based on a "stationary aether.". -You are correct in saying that my E-M/Gravity model does not explain exactly and fully how gravity is mediated by contiguous vibratory elemental-aether units. -In my last Post, I gave an example of how an (artificial, not cosmic) magnetic field is produced in a setup involving a wire and two poles having opposite charges. I submit that this model, which claims that the magnetic field around the wire is produced by elemental aether units in space resonating with identical units in the wire, are "rebalancing" forces in the vicinity of the wire that had been "unbalanced" by passing the current through the wire, makes more sense, than the present "electron-flow" quantum-mechanical model of physics, does. -The same (artificial, wire-transmission) model for magnetic fields can be generally extended to cosmic magnetic fields, but extending it in any detail to cosmic gravity fields would be impossible, because we are unable to detect aether.

Since my model is based on elemental-aether energics, and its non-mechanical, contiguous, vibrational resonance, it would view gravity and gravity fields as being of the same nature as in electromagnetism. However, in view of the vastly-greater distances, and diminished 'electro-" component of gravity (compared to electromagnetism), it's not possible to define exactly how dipoles, generated in elemental aether units, would be oriented, and would resonate, for two solid bodies being attracted gravitationally. Nonetheless, I would submit that differential surface charges should exist between the two bodies that are basically analogous (although not as highly "charged," in sum) to those involved in electromagnetism. I stick to my model for gravity, described as "aether-gravity's simple contiguity-mechanism." -I'm saying that gravity fields exist, but are too diffuse and too aetheric to be detected by us.
 

Offline Fussball

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Your discussion of the fine mathematical and optical details in the MMX went over my head,
Michael, did you read my newbielink:http://www.sites.google.com/site/goeton [nonactive]work on page 37 and 38? I tried to keep it really simple there. There are only two angles that one needs to consider.

1. The angle of the incoming light ray.
2. The angle of the telescope.

In the MMX, the incoming light ray's angle is 90. The other other angle is the tilting angle of the telescope, given by tan[90-a]=v/c. What confuses you here? I used a Wikipedia diagram to explain Aberration in the context of the MMX.

but I still think the rationale for my non-mechanical model of the aether is not relevantly affected by any such mechanical construct, or any constructs based on a "stationary aether.".
If your model is a stationary ether model, you are essentially giving up the Principle of Relativity. Does your theory use the Principle of Relativity?

but extending it in any detail to cosmic gravity fields would be impossible, because we are unable to detect aether.
You can interpret the MMX's null result, the Aberration Theory, and Dark Matter as evidence for an etheric matter.

Since my model is based on elemental-aether energics, and its non-mechanical, contiguous, vibrational resonance, it would view gravity and gravity fields as being of the same nature as in electromagnetism.
Interesting, idea. My suggestion, although unwarranted perhaps, would be for you to work out a mechanical model than a non-mechanical one. But that's only my suggestion.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Goeton:

I have a general idea of the principles behind the MMX, but I don't have an impetus to start a deep study of its finer details, such as how various optical angles could apply to your "stationary ether" hypothesis, how aberration would be explained, or the like. I could try to understand that, or any of the various other quantum mechanical, or relativity, approaches to the question of ether, in finer detail, but there would be no point to that from my vantage point.  -I consider my Aether-Origin-from-Space model to be the most coherent one and the correct one, and that all the quantum-observational approaches, including your MMX interpretations, are based on local (earthbound, quantized) empirical perspectives, superimposed upon a true, more-subtle, cosmic model, based on vibratory resonance of elemental ether units

You use the term "etheric matter." -I would only ask, what would have been the origin of that kind of matter? (My aether-origin model proposes that the concept of "solid" matter is false, and that original Space (space as it was constituted prior to the first appearance of forces) gave rise to the ether, and that the ether consists of elemental contiguous units, which resonate interactively so that then, the ether comes to also comprise larger resonant units, like atoms, and eventually inertial systems, like our earthbound one, evolve from it, systems that only give the illusion of being made of solid material.

For these reasons, I have no impulse "to work out a mechanical model.'

To answer your last question, I believe Einsteinian Relativity is a false theory. -My previous posts have described the reasons (the false assumptions about the ether underlying the MMX which then led physicists like Einstein to start coming up with models for how the world could work without a medium to transmit forces. -The basic premise for such a model being false, I don't have to go further into it.
 

Offline MichaelMD

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

You questioned how my non-mechanical ether model would describe how gravity occurs in terms of what is occuring to two bodies being gravitationally attracted. -I can suggest another way of thinking about this that could make it clearer how my model would account for it.

In my model,there are elemental ether forces within the two bodies and in the space between the bodies, and elemental ether units are in constant mutual resonance, are contiguous with each other, and are uniform, or identical, both within and outside the bodies. -The forces pulling the bodies together are the same forces that, within the bodies, hold the bodies together. There is a space between them which lessens the resonance effect outside (between) the bodies compared to the strength of their resonances inside the bodies, but there is also a contiguity (of the elemental ether units) between the bodies, although there is a separation of the bodies in terms of a "space gap.".

Maybe this perspective will clarify my ether/contiguity/gravity model.
 

Offline Fussball

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
You use the term "etheric matter." -I would only ask, what would have been the origin of that kind of matter?
Michael, I don't know the answer to that question. All field theories have no answer to that question. I am not a fan of ether myself, and in my work I do away with the need for a medium, because I start with the premise that there were fundamental particles at the beginning, that evolved to become various fields and matter that we observe today. In my work, matter and field are made of the same entity. I just use the mechanics of helixes, to explain the behavior of fields instead of making assertions.     
 
To answer your last question, I believe Einsteinian Relativity is a false theory. -My previous posts have described the reasons (the false assumptions about the ether underlying the MMX which then led physicists like Einstein to start coming up with models for how the world could work without a medium to transmit forces. -The basic premise for such a model being false, I don't have to go further into it.
I agree with your view on Lorentz-Einstein Relativity. But one can do away with the need for a medium, as I have done in my work, with a Particle Theory of Light. If it interests you can take a look at my work.
 

Offline Fussball

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
In my model,there are elemental ether forces within the two bodies and in the space between the bodies, and elemental ether units are in constant mutual resonance, are contiguous with each other, and are uniform, or identical, both within and outside the bodies. -The forces pulling the bodies together are the same forces that, within the bodies, hold the bodies together. There is a space between them which lessens the resonance effect outside (between) the bodies compared to the strength of their resonances inside the bodies, but there is also a contiguity (of the elemental ether units) between the bodies, although there is a separation of the bodies in terms of a "space gap.".
Michael, your explanation reminded me a little of the Casimir Effect and does sound like a variant of the Shadow Theory of Gravity. Is my comparison reasonable in your opinion? 

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation [nonactive]

The theory proposed a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting all material objects from all directions. According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other from the impinging corpuscles, resulting in a net imbalance in the pressure exerted by the impact of corpuscles on the bodies, tending to drive the bodies together.
 

Offline MichaelMD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Goeton:

I have sent you a Personal Message about debating other theories, if you care to check your Messages.
 

Offline Fussball

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Michael, thanks for your message. But it always helps reading other models. You have obviously made your choice. :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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