# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?  (Read 8976 times)

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• Posts: 73
##### Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« on: 21/11/2014 18:01:09 »
I posted a thread last month ("Is there an aether model that can explain gravitational...") It presented a new theory of an aether based on the idea that a universal aether originated in space, when oscillating contiguous points in original space (space before the first appearance of forces) transitioned to a vibrating energic aether, and that the world's gravitational forces ultimately come down to a simple process in which elemental aether units comprising both the ultimate structure of solid bodies, and the ultimate medium of the space between bodies, produces gravitational attraction through a common vibrational property, which produces a resonance between two bodies via the contiguity of aether units. This could be briefly stated as "aether-gravity's simple contiguity-mechanism."

I would like to describe how that same aether model could account for Time, in addition to Gravity.

This aether model would relate the rate Time passes to the vibratory rate of the elemental units that make up the aether. This rate could vary, depending on the local energy-setting. For example, a clock at earth's surface would measure the rate time passes in our familiar earthbound setting. Then, if one places an atomic clock in an orbiting satellite in space, the time rate changes. In my aether model, the energy ambience of space is less quantized (less magnetically energized) than on earth's surface. The more-etheric setting of space would slow the vibratory rate of the aether units that make up the clock's elemental structure, because, via mutual resonance, the lower energy level in space slows the vibrations of its elemental aether units. (A second factor to slow the clock as it moves through space is the velocity of the satellite, which increases the rate of resonance between the aether units of the clock and the aether in space, which slows down the vibrations of the elemental aether units in the clock, and the clock's time rate slows also.)

#### liquidspacetime

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 119
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #1 on: 22/11/2014 03:32:11 »
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the physical state of the aether in which it exists.

The faster an atomic clock moves relative to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the clock the greater the pressure exerted by the displaced aether toward and throughout the clock the slower the clock ticks.

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists including the rate at which the clocks tick which are used to determine the speed of light. This is why the speed of light is always determined to be c.

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• Posts: 73
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #2 on: 22/11/2014 14:30:29 »
liquidspacetime: As a fellow aetherist, I have to argue somewhat with your model of how transmissions take place in a universal aether.

According to my model of the aether (for the basic model, you can refer to my October Thread discussing how an aether would account for gravitation), the way energy transmissions occur in the aether (including transmission of light) is by conduction of a vibrating energic impulse from aetheric unit-to-unit, contiguously. There also occur simultaneous resonances "to the sides" which affect other aether units, larger "aetheroidal" units, and quantum-scale units such as the photons that we see with the naked eye. All these occur virtually instantaneously in space, via the contiguity of the aether.

#### liquidspacetime

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 119
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #3 on: 22/11/2014 22:25:48 »
There is evidence of aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

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 stuff anchored to 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.l

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

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether which passes through both.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• Posts: 73
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #4 on: 23/11/2014 14:17:46 »
liquidspacetime,
I guess we are facing off as rival aether-theorists. I would submit that your aether model is not as fully coherent as mine.  Your idea of an aether that gets "displaced" by solid celestial bodies is at variance with my concept of the aether, which is that the aether consists of individual energic units which act by vibration and vibratory resonance, a unit-based aether that exists contiguously, both within and between solid bodies. -"Waves" in my model are merely quantum-scale (thus observable by us at our quantum level) effects caused by the movement of larger (aether-aggregative) units, like photons or electrons, moving through a "sea" of smaller (etheroidal and elemental aetheric) units. (This model would yield a different interpretation of the double-slit experiment than either your aether-displacement or quantum mechanics.) All these units of energy, of various size-scales are in constant interaction, or resonance. The primary resonance between them is at the level of vibration of the elemental aether units, although energic effects other than vibration, like the ones we see at our quantum level of observation, can superimpose themselves upon the elemental level of vibration. The larger-scale energic processes, which are the kinds we observe, involve "superimposed" factors (superimposed on the primary elemental vibrations), such as unit-spin, various kinds of space-vectors, and so on, as in quantum mechanics.

The "aether displacement" model you advance is the kind of aether model Michelson and Morley proposed over a century ago. They claimed their famous experiment (Michelson-Morley Experiment, 1887) disproved such an aether can possibly exist. That was when physicists like Einstein started coming up with models for how the world could work without any kind of medium to transmit forces.

#### liquidspacetime

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 119
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #5 on: 23/11/2014 15:11:30 »
The MMX looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth the moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see the state of the aether connected to and neighboring the Earth. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

"Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University.

Honey has mass and so does the aether. The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field"

The electromagnetic field is a state of the aether. Aether has mass. Particles of matter are condensations of aether.

'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?' A. EINSTEIN
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2."

The mass of the body does diminish. However, the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished; it still exists, as aether. Matter evaporates into aether. As matter evaporates into aether it expands into neighboring places; which is energy. Mass is conserved.

When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether. The evaporation is energy. Mass is conserved.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
« Last Edit: 23/11/2014 16:52:44 by liquidspacetime »

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• Posts: 73
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #6 on: 24/11/2014 13:12:36 »
liquidspacetime:

In this Post, you refer to the standard model of physics as the reference-point for your own aether theory, and you haven't really debated any of my points in my Aether Model. You cite recent empirical observations by NASA as the standard point of reference, and you try to show how their observations might conform to your Model of a "displaceable" aether, as the kind of aether that would fit as an alternative to QM/GR.

I don't see anything in your Post to debate, vis-a-vis our different aether-models, because you haven't really addressed any of the theoretic points I make in my Thread. Rather, you just cite the standard views of physics, and tell how your "displaceable" theory of the aether would compare to standard quantum/relativity theory.

I still believe that my "Aether, Origins" model makes the most sense.

#### liquidspacetime

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 119
• Thanked: 2 times
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #7 on: 24/11/2014 13:41:50 »
Dark matter is now known to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.

'Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids'
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/cosmologists-penn-weigh-cosmic-filaments-and-voids

"Dark matter ... permeate all the way to the center of the voids."

'No Empty Space in the Universe --Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/02/no-empty-space-in-the-universe-dark-matter-discovered-to-fill-intergalactic-space-.html

"A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter."

Dark matter has mass and fills what would otherwise be described as empty space; otherwise known as the aether.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space"."

'Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy'
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912

"The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments."

A "subquantic medium" which is every present in what we call "empty space" is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it and is what waves in a double slit experiment.

« Last Edit: 24/11/2014 14:52:14 by liquidspacetime »

#### lymond01

• First timers
• Posts: 2
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #8 on: 26/11/2014 00:53:24 »
MichaelMD,

I haven't read your gravitation post yet (next on my list after seeing this one) but your aether theory is along the lines of my own and others I've heard.  My thinking is that the aether isn't separate but that everything is a manifestation (in the form of vibrations, essentially) of the aether.  The Earth doesn't move through the aether -- it's more like an eddy of the aether.  I'm not quite sold on your interpretation of time in the aether: I'll think on it.  I'll take a look at your gravitation post...

Lymond01

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• Posts: 73
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #9 on: 26/11/2014 18:03:45 »
lymond01:

I could mention that I have a potential field test to produce solid evidence for an aether. I got the test-design from an obscure source. The idea would be to generate a selectively-aetheric force-field, and to demonstrate a predicted decrease in density of materials in the test system. No known form of energy is known to produce such an effect. -I just need a financial backer.  The test would be costly to do. -Finding a new form of energy, possibly having new properties, would be worth doing..

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• Posts: 73
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #10 on: 14/04/2015 11:25:35 »
liquidspacetime: As a fellow aetherist, I have to argue somewhat with your model of how transmissions take place in a universal aether.

According to my model of the aether (for the basic model, you can refer to my October Thread discussing how an aether would account for gravitation), the way energy transmissions occur in the aether (including transmission of light) is by conduction of a vibrating energic impulse from aetheric unit-to-unit, contiguously. There also occur simultaneous resonances "to the sides" which affect other aether units, larger "aetheroidal" units, and quantum-scale units such as the photons that we see with the naked eye. All these occur virtually instantaneously in space, via the contiguity of the aether.

In my model for the ether, elemental ether units vibrate, and resonate with each other via their vibrations (the vibrations forming loose connections (not fixed connections) with each other, linearly, from unit-to-elemental-unit, the vibrational connections being somewhat analogous to their having "nodes" that interconnect. -Near earth, time passes fatser than in space (this has been verified using atomic clocks in satellites). -The way this would agree with my ether model of Time, is that on or near earth, the planet's magnetic field induuces the elemental ether units to vibrate faster, increasing the time rate. As part of the same process, the magnetic energy near earth induces the elemental ether units to form linear alignments or entrainments (along with the increase in vibratory rate), increasing their rate of resonance with each other, which increases the rate at which larger energy units form, such as quantum scale units. Thus, the earth becaomes "quantized" relative to space, besides having a faster rate of time than in space.

#### petm1

• Full Member
• Posts: 52
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #11 on: 18/04/2015 01:24:31 »
What if time is the aether?

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• Posts: 73
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #12 on: 18/04/2015 12:49:41 »
PetM1:

I see that you are a "Jr. Member." asking what I mean by "aether" and "time." -PetM1, the basic idea of my Thread is that present-day mainstream-scientists who adhere to quantum mechanics as the basis for how to understand cosmic processes, like time (as well as their beliefs about  the nature of forces in the Cosmos, like gravity) is to use the quantum-forces data we obtain here on earth, and that this approach is wrong. -I maintain that cosmic processes, including Time, involve a very-finely rarified underlying aether-medium, or aether-matrix, that arose in Space. I also believe that our earthly observations give us data that are not appropriate for the Cosmos, because where we live, on a planet, our world is "quantized" compared to space, which is more aetherized.

My aether model is basically very different from the present "purely-quantum" concept of forces, which we got from using just our quantum data. -I propose that cosmic forces first arose in Original Space, a kind of space that existed before the first appearance of forces. I believe that Original Space consisted of oscillating, tiny but finite, "point-localities" and that this eventually led to a pair of these "points" becoming oscillationally fatigued, and joining into a "Yin and Yang" pairing. This produced a "disturbance" of the hitherto-perfect-symmetry of space, which was then copied exactly, and propagated, through all of space, producing a universal aether. This aether is "unit-based" and uniform throughout, which represents a logical basis for how we came to have our present world, where atoms and so on are all basically uniformly structured, everywhere in space.

So the model we arrive at iinvolves a basic underlying universal matrix of vibratory (as derived from the oscillatory) aether units. The way forces are transmitted through this aether is by vibration only, linearly, from one elemental unit to another elemental aether unit. (Our familiar earthly quantum forces, on the other hand, involve larger energy units, and processes like spin, vectors of space, perhaps non-linearity, and so on. However, these quantum energy processes have been superimposed upon a true, underlying, elemental, aether energy process of vibration-with-resonation, where one elemental aether unit resonates with another aether unit, analogous to their having "nodes" that connect to each other by curving and connecting. -These aether connections are not "fixed," but rather "loose," which allows elemental aether units to form larger energy units, such as quantum units, and then revert back down in size scale, to aether-size units

So to understand Time, we need to understand how the basic underlying aether vibrational matrix works. -In my aether model, the rate of time depends on the rate of vibration of the elemental aether units. This time-rate then filters through to larger units (which are made up of the aether units) such as quantum units, and to our world of time here on earth. -In my model, the fact that atomic clocks are slower in space is because space is less energized than on earth. -Earth has a magnetic energy field, which makes the aether units vibrate faster than they do in space, so time passes faster on earth than in space.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #13 on: 18/04/2015 18:52:53 »
In my model, the fact that atomic clocks are slower in space is because space is less energized than on earth. -Earth has a magnetic energy field, which makes the aether units vibrate faster than they do in space, so time passes faster on earth than in space.

I thought clocks ran faster in space. Out of interest, how do these vibrations you talk of affect the speed of light? (Your theory needs to be able to account for a light clock running slow too.) When standing on the surface of a planet, is the speed of light passing you faster downwards or upwards, and if so, what are your proposed mechanisms for this? And the same questions again if you're at the event horizon of a black hole. (Bear in mind that if the speed of light is the same inwards and outwards at the event horizon, nothing can enter the black hole.)

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• Posts: 73
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #14 on: 19/04/2015 11:54:55 »
David,

Clocks do run slower in an airplane or a space vehicle (www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_special.html.) -In terms of my aether model, this becomes even more complex than if you use relativity theory, because when a vehicle with a clock is moving very fast, the aether units making up the clock's infra-atomic structure are whizzing past more aether units in space per unit time, which means that the clock resonates more intensesly with the aether of space, just due to the motion of the vehicle. But besides that, as I said in my last post, there is relatively more aether in space for the clock's aether units to resonate with, per unit of space volume. -Both of these factors will make the clock run slower in space. (Of course, a plane and even an orbiting satellite are not really in "outer" space, so that earth's magnetic field is still operating on the clock to lessen the slowing-effect on the clock by the aether of space.)

As to how observed light travels with respect to the aether, and about the speed of light. - The way my aether model would look at the path, and speed, of light as we observe it would be this: The speed of light reflects the basic speed of aetheric electronic energy units, which began when the universe began. The first, and the fastest energy units were the aetheric electron/photon units, which still are the smallest in size, that is what made them fastest. (Protonic and neutronic aetheric units, and quantum protons and neutrons, formed later, and, being larger, they "bunched together" as in atomic nuclei.) -As aetheric light units traverse space, they undergo resonance with ambient aetheric units in space. Part of this resonational process leads to induction of quantum-size-scale energy units, which are what we "see" with our eyes and our earth instruments: quantal "photons." The quantum-scale light beam is generated naturally by the aether units during the passage of an aether light beam through space. -In my aether model, also, as a light energy unit leaves a distant star, it is highly energized, then it loses some of that energy going through space on the way to our solar system. (Our sun is a "focus for resonation" in space that a light beam can sense through the aether of space as it begins "traveling" toward earth. -The light beam is "aiming" at the sun, and earth, due to the high light-energy concentrated there. -The light beam "moves" through space basically by means of transmission of an energy impulse from elemental aether unit in space-to-elemental aether unit, vibrationally. -My aether model explains the bending of light from a distant star, when it reaches our Sun, by the fact that the aether light beam is once again approaching a high-light-energy star (the Sun), which re-energizes the light beam, increasing its resonation with other light energy units near the Sun, which in turn "curves" the light beam (an effect physics now refers to as "gravitational lensing.") -My model for this kind of bending of light has nothing to do with "curvature of space."

David, I'd rather not go into how my aether model views black holes. -I believe they represent purposeful "creational" uses of aether forces to optimize the universe for existential entities. Thus a black hole is not a "random" feature and can't be fit into a "very first cause" aether model like mine, which just tries to explain how original space randomly led to an aether, and how the aether accounts for how we have atomic structures, and the like.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #15 on: 19/04/2015 19:19:35 »
David,

Clocks do run slower in an airplane or a space vehicle (www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_relativity_special.html.)

Are you sure you can trust your information source? Here is the relevant paragraph from it:-

Quote
A couple of real-life examples may help to make the effects of special relativity clearer. Experiments have been carried out where two identical super-accurate atomic clocks were synchronized, and then one was flown around the world on an airplane while the other stayed at home. The clock which travelled recorded marginally less passage of time than the other (as predicted by the theory), although the difference was of course minimal due to the relatively slow speeds involved. Our fastest military airplanes can only travel at about 1/300,000 of the of the speed of light, so the time dilation effect γ is only about a ten-thousandth of 1%.

If they did that experiment with a plane flying near to sea level, it could be true, but usually when they do the experiment they fly at high altitude and the clock in the plane runs faster than the one on the ground because it is further out of the Earth's gravity well, so what they then do is adjust for the gravitational effect and claim that the clock in the plane ran slow due to the higher speed of travel, even though it actually ran faster. You are then taking the simplified claim as evidence for clocks running slower further out of a gravity well. The result is that you've gone to a lot of trouble making up a theory to explain something that is not reality. Clocks in fast moving planes and rockets will run slower than clocks in slow moving planes and rockets at the same altitude. Clocks will run faster at higher altitude than clocks at lower altitude if they are moving at the same speed. Your theory must not contradict the results of experiments.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1915
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #16 on: 19/04/2015 22:24:11 »
Are you sure you can trust your information source?

The whole report is greatly simplified for general consumption. As you suggest the OP needs to go to the original sources to ensure consistency with the actual results.

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• Posts: 73
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #17 on: 20/04/2015 13:14:42 »
Even if we stay with standard physics theory, how can time pass faster in space, if a hypothetical outer-space-traveler ages less after a lengthy space voyage, than the people he had left, back on earth? -This is a familiar and generally-accepted hypothetical example in science.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1915
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #18 on: 20/04/2015 13:30:11 »
Even if we stay with standard physics theory, how can time pass faster in space, if a hypothetical outer-space-traveler ages less after a lengthy space voyage, than the people he had left, back on earth? -This is a familiar and generally-accepted hypothetical example in science.
You need to go back and reread what David Cooper wrote. There are 2 effects at work here, this is standard physics.
Just a point of terminology, it is better to talk of time measured by clocks than time itself passing at different rates, the latter assumes a something else to measure the rate of time passing.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #19 on: 20/04/2015 17:18:19 »
With the twins paradox (it isn't actually a paradox, but it can look like one if you ignore the accelerations), the travelling twin has to move fast in order to age less. If the travelling twin just went into space and stayed still for a long time, that twin would age more than the one who stays down on the Earth. If you want to understand this (and I'm going to give you the Lorentz Ether Theory account rather than SR/GR because it's closer to what you're trying to do), just picture a light clock which sends a pulse of light between two mirrors and counts each circuit as a tick. If you move the clock fast, the light has further to go to complete each circuit within the clock, and the clock will tick slow as a result. All clocks are affected in the same way because everything they do is ultimately performed through forces which act at the speed of light, even within a mechanical mechanism with cogs and springs. Your cells are affected the same way too because chemical reactions take time to happen, and so you yourself are a clock which can be slowed by rapid movement, thereby aging less. However, if a clock just sits still in space (or is moving at the same speed as the Earth), it will tick more quickly than a clock on the Earth, and the reason for that is another factor - gravity slows the speed of light, so it takes longer for light to complete each tick in the clock. Take a clock out of a gravity well and it will speed up, but if you move it faster it will slow down, so you have to take account of both of these factors when trying to predict how it will behave. Lorentz Ether Theory and Einstein's Relativity both take these factors into account and fit the actual facts of experiments, but your theory conflicts with the facts and is therefore wrong. You need to modify it radically if it isn't to be a dead duck.

#### PmbPhy

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 2762
• Thanked: 38 times
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #20 on: 20/04/2015 22:20:02 »
Quote from: David Cooper
I'd be careful when you say things like this since the twin paradox is an honest to goodness paradox, i.e. a "paradox" in the strictest sense of the term. Perhaps a refresher on what the term paradox would help clarify this point. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
Quote
A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true (or wrong at the same time).
So a paradox may indeed be true. In this case the paradox is a set of twins, obviously two people born on the same day, one of which sets off on a journey and comes back and is younger than the one who stayed home. This on the face of it seems contradictory. That's why it's called a paradox. But as we all know, it's exactly what we expect to happen should it be attempted.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2015 01:11:06 by PmbPhy »

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• Posts: 73
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #21 on: 20/04/2015 23:27:14 »
I see now that I got myself into a cross-theory quagmire when I carelessly referred to "even if we use standard physics..." -I should have known better than to mention any kind of reference to theory and hypothesis, for cosmologic forces, based on our present quantum empirical data. -The only way I can rebut the posts against my model for time, with, is to return to my ether model and use it to confront the points made against my claim that Time slows down in outer space. -The key word here is "outer."

The point has been made that although time slows as measured with atomic clocks inside a moving vehicle in "near space" regions, it again speeds up when measured at higher levels, sometimes referred to as "GPS," or  satellite-orbit, levels. -Using my model of the ether (and not subscribing at all to the quantum/relativity models)  I would offer this as a counter theory for those findings.

I stay with my claim that a higher level of non-quantized, elemental, ether in OUTER space slows the rate of time there, because earth's magnetic field is not quantizing the ether, once you get beyond the energizing and quantizing influence of the magnetic field.. -The fact that time passes faster in the middle-space regions traversed by orbiting satellites, than in near-space regions closer to the ground, is due to the amplifying effect of the ground on the strength of ether-influenced phenomena, including time. -Because there is a higher level of ether coming from the ground, that is what slows the rate of time in "near earth space." -Passing a little farther out into "middle space," the effect of ground ether is lost, while the quantizing effect of earth;' magnetic field is still quite strong, which accounts for the rate of time speeding up again when you enter "middle space regions."

At this point, I must insert my belief that below ground regions are used occultly to tap ether energy. The properties of this non-random effect on measurements of time at various levels above the surface would be impossible to determine with our present quantum technologies. -I believe that when we are able to carefully measure and compare the rate of time in truly - outer space, we will see that time really does pass more slowly there than on earth.

#### Colin2B

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1915
• Thanked: 123 times
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #22 on: 21/04/2015 14:25:51 »
It would be really good if we could find a way that you can prove your theory experimentally. A few questions to help us devise a method.

Can you explain more about what you mean by quantised. Do you mean energised in discrete energy levels? What calculations have you done to show the change of magnetic field strength and it's effect on clock running rates. Can you share your calculations please.

You say the magnetic field strength is an important factor in explaining clock rates at GPS altitudes. As the earth's field strength is not homogeneous, we should see differing rates for satellites in different field strengths. What do your calculations show and do you have any evidence that this effect is observed.

Overall, the earths magnetic field is quite weak. We should therefore be able to influence the aether by using the powerful magnets available to us and this effect would be many times greater than that due to earth's field.
- Have you noticed any time dilation effects close to strong magnets?
- In powerful magneto electric systems eg power generators, we should see time dilation effects on the electrons circulating in the system. Have you observed these or can you account for the expected magnitude in your calculations?
- magnetoaether interactions should also be seen in CRT and other types of equipment, can you account for these or have you observed them?

What do you think David, you've studied these topics more than I have.

#### MichaelMD

• Full Member
• Posts: 73
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #23 on: 21/04/2015 15:04:30 »
Colin2B,

Your questions about my aether model show that you haven't gone through my earlier post which gave a general model for how the aether would have arisen from Original Space, leading to a universal unit-based background energy matrix that transmits energic impulses via vibration, and resonance between elemental aether units, linearly, from elemental aether unit-to-elemental unit. (Then other energy systems may became superimposed such as quantum energy systems.)

By "quantization," I am refering to how the underlying elemental-unit aether-matrix produces larger-scale energy systems, like our quantum energy (which of course works via spin, vectors, perhaps non linearity, and so on.) -The basic idea is that in macrocosmic neighborhoods like ours on earth, the influence of the magnetic field induces the elemental aether units to "close-up," and align into entrainments, which increases the degree of resonance between the aether units, which in turn produces larger scale energy units like quantum units. (The quantum units have their own energy properties like spin etc., but also retain the ability to resonate vibrationally with the underlying aether because they are made up of the elemental aether units.) (This leads to a more rational model for action-at-a-distance, which physics is now calling "quantum entanglement.")

Your statement "the erath's magnetic field is weak" is only true using our quantum technology to measure it. With the aether model, the concept of the earth's magnetic field is much different, and the field is conceived as much stronger and more aetheric.

Colin2B, you inserted a quantum mechanics/relativity hypothesis, when you mention the concept of time dilation. - As an aether theorist, that would represent just one of numerous erroneous hypotheses, based on erroneously applying our earthbound quantum empirical data to cosmic forces like gravity, magnetic fields, Time, action-at-a-distance, and others.

To answer your question about "a test for the aether," I do have a test design, which I got from an obscure independent source, to look for an aether property in a field test. -It would be based on generating a selectively-aetheric force-field, then measuring materials inside the test system for a predicted decrease in density. Such an effect is not found with known forms of energy. -The test would be costly to do, however.

#### David Cooper

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1505
##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #24 on: 21/04/2015 17:54:19 »
Quote from: David Cooper
I'd be careful when you say things like this since the twin paradox is an honest to goodness paradox, i.e. a "paradox" in the strictest sense of the term. Perhaps a refresher on what the term paradox would help clarify this point. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
Quote
A paradox is a statement that apparently contradicts itself and yet might be true (or wrong at the same time).
So a paradox may indeed be true. In this case the paradox is a set of twins, obviously two people born on the same day, one of which sets off on a journey and comes back and is younger than the one who stayed home. This on the face of it seems contradictory. That's why it's called a paradox. But as we all know, it's exactly what we expect to happen should it be attempted.

A naive understanding of something which fails to match up with reality does not result in a paradox. The reason the twins paradox was called a paradox may in origin have been because if you consider twin A to be stationary throughout the experiment, twin B should be younger than A afterwards, while if you consider twin B to be stationary throughout the experiment, twin A should be younger than B afterwards. However, when you consider the role of the accelerations, you then realise that one of the twins cannot reasonably be considered to be stationary throughout the experiment, so at that point it ceases to be a paradox.
« Last Edit: 21/04/2015 18:13:10 by David Cooper »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Can an aether model account for time better than the standard model?
« Reply #24 on: 21/04/2015 17:54:19 »