[yor_on]

It's not that I disagree in there can be other 'dimensionality's'
Just that I question the assumed 'divisibility' of them.

Think of it as 'properties' instead. Then we can have how many you like, all unique, but here we will have what we have. String theory will still be able to be right in there being other properties to our SpaceTime but then our universe also will have to be seen as eleven, or whatever, contained in form of 'properties', but not 'divided'.

Can't prove this though, but it suits me
Also it makes it possible for me to see SpaceTime as something coming into existence as a 'whole thing' which makes much more sense to me than to expect it to be yet another type of singular 'forces' now called 'dimensions' that somehow gets 'glued together' into a SpaceTime.

This 'glue problem' that I see it as is one of the most puzzling questions I have. And it comes into play whenever we discuss singular 'forces'. Simply expressed it can be stated as 'Where exactly is the interface' and how do those 'interfaces between forces' become 'glued'. By what? And also, what do you expect to be between the interfaces?

[yor_on]

If you imagine a cube of jelly, representing SpaceTime, then 'frames of reference', to me, becomes the correct way of describing it. This cube will exist at all times, but its 'distance(s)' will differ on your observation from what frame, be it 'moving' or 'still' relative something else. The only way to define yourself as moving as I understands it is when you accelerate, and probably only when doing it non-linearly, at least not when doing it in a uniform acceleration (at a constant One G for example).

The mystery of this 'cube' is that it can shrink with appearant motion at the same time as an uniform motion inside a black box, again as far as I get it, is impossible to differ from any other uniform motion at a different speed, relative some common originator. Now you can point point that I'm mixing the metaphors here as I on the same time calling it a 'black box' on the same time referring to a 'common origin' making it possible for me to define a velocity to that black box. And you would be right in that, but I'm assuming the eye of an God in this, and you might think of it as me being in a superposition Knowing without knowing.

[yor_on]

And if you want to be truly drastic you might want to turn that around, it's not me, it's actually SpaceTime being in a 'super-position' .
==

And if you look at it that way, then the 'defined states' we assume to make up a 'history' inside our SpaceTime only 'materialize' because ?? And there I stop imagining, to me it comes down to what 'times arrow' is, and how it can realize those states.

I don't really have a problem with entanglements and superpositions, although they become very weird when combined with the idea of 'times arrow'. You could argue that we need an arrow to observe them of course

Maybe the correct way to look at SpaceTime is without 'times arrow'?
Like some gigantic infinite 'soup' of possibilities, all there at the same 'time'? But we are born, and we die, all of us do. We 'do work' only under this arrow of time, so?

Also time seems to contain greater patterns, coming back at a regular pace, sort of chaos-constants. How would that coincide with it being in a 'super-position'? Maybe if we looked at as 'fractals'? Like the universe being similar cubes inside cubes inside ...

But that still don't explain times arrow, if the arrow wouldn't be that motion, ourselves unknowing from 'cube to apparent cube?' to us describing times arrow, but to SpaceTime not being a motion at all. Like some constant change of 'focus'

When do I get the paper?
Sh* I gotta be certified now )

And, how the he* does it do it?

[granpa]

Bear in mind that the aether could not have been a simple elastic.
In fact it would have needed pretty miraculous properties.

[Geezer]

Just because it clearly has miraculous properties, we should not deny its existence. The mere fact that light has speed should be a significant clue.

[JP]

But then it's just "the vacuum" by another name.  I think the reason aether has been dropped is because the original theory specified a material with very specific properties and the vacuum was found not to be filled with or made up of this material.  The modern idea of how the vacuum behaves and how light propagates through it is so different from the original aether theories that it doesn't make sense to use the name anymore. 

I do agree that the vacuum is a kind of "stuff."  The word vacuum shouldn't be taken to mean an absolute void--if that were the case, then light couldn't propagate through it!

[yor_on]

I wrote "The mystery of this 'cube' is that it can shrink with appearant motion at the same time as an uniform motion inside a black box, again as far as I get it, is impossible to differ from any other uniform motion at a different speed, relative some common originator."

Let us apply some 'logic' to that statement. Either I am right in that you can't differ one uniform motion from another, in which case the idea of SpaceTime adapting to your 'appearant motion' becomes very weird.

Or I'm wrong.

So, anyone wanna tell me how to differ the 'velocity' in a uniform motion, inside that black box?

Can there be a third possibility? How about if all 'motion' etc, just as 'frames of reference', is a definition from exactly the 'point' you are, consciously perceiving it or not? Just as 'time' seems to be? A statement made from each point. Would that make it possible for SpaceTime to adapt to something we can't differ?

Sure, I guess? If we all have our own 'unique' SpaceTime, why not. Like a 'backpack' of relations you carry around with you, going all the way from the microscopic to the macroscopic. But hey, how the he* can anything like that still present us with this 'whole relation' of a 'united SpaceTime?

Don't know?
How can time do it?
==

Not really huh

It seems to introduce a 'magic universe', as from what definition would my 'bag pack' decide to 'shrink the universe' and why? We could assume that I slept under a acceleration, then woke up to measure distances not knowing, I would still get the same results, wouldn't I?

So the 'shrinking' have to be something related to my 'point of existence', but unrelated to my expectations.
I hate this well, no, not really )

[yor_on]

The weird thing about it is that it circumstances all logic I can think of. Also it introduces a element of 'objectivity' to a situation where I can't find any 'universal gold-standard' taking care of it. Assume that all 'motion' is a definition from the 'history' of your 'point of reference', also assume that the universe truly shrinks with it.

How does it differ between me 'moving' or not?
Think of it this way, you're moving uniformly, close to light speed, and send out a photon.
As you measure it it will move from you at the speed of light, not as something 'syrupy' that you almost  can catch up to, but really, at 'the speed of light' relative you.

What do I have there?

Either I'm moving close to light-speed, as defined by some common origin, or I'm not. But that light 'ignored' it, in the act also telling me that my 'frame' is 'inconsistent'. Would it differ if I was accelerating instead doing the same test? Not really, the light would act the same. So it has nothing to do with what type of 'motion' is created. But, acceleration we expect to be able to define from inside a 'black box', at least the non-linear type, uniform motion we can't? So if we can't differ it, how can the Universe? Either there is a logic to the universe, making sense to me too. Or the logic the universe use is very different from how I see it?
==

And yeah, an 'aether' might solve it? At least the question of how to define the 'speed/velocity' of a 'uniform motion' But if it exist it's nothing we can see, or prove. Although? If we can't explain how the universe can differ between 'uniform motions' ??

[yor_on]

The real question is about what 'motion' should be seen as of course On Earth we have it easy, we always know if we are in motion relative it. But when you ask what 'motion' is generally it becomes weird. If all frames will present us with 'new standards' using lights invariance as the arbiter, then every 'frame' becomes a 'dimension/SpaceTime' of its own, and just as 'frames of reference', or for that sake time, impossible to define as 'instants'.

That you 'freeze' a moment of time in making a observation tells you nothing about what time, 'frames of reference', or motion in 'reality' consists of. It doesn't define it as 'instants', and neither you may argue does it prove it to be a 'flow'.

That I like to think of it as a flow has mostly to do with the problem of 'gluing' them together, that's also why I expect 'forces' to be expressions of something 'whole' somewhere And it's also one of the reasons why I wonder if light have a 'motion'?
==

Ignore my ravings.
Just tell me how to differ a 'uniform motion' from another inside a 'black box'

[Geezer]

But then it's just "the vacuum" by another name.  I think the reason aether has been dropped is because the original theory specified a material with very specific properties and the vacuum was found not to be filled with or made up of this material.  The modern idea of how the vacuum behaves and how light propagates through it is so different from the original aether theories that it doesn't make sense to use the name anymore. 

I do agree that the vacuum is a kind of "stuff."  The word vacuum shouldn't be taken to mean an absolute void--if that were the case, then light couldn't propagate through it!

OK - I like that. I was under the misguided impression that it was commonly accepted that space was truly nothingness, and I have a suspicion that I may not be alone, but I could never reconcile how something that was not anything could have any properties at all - if you see what I mean.

Maybe I should start another thread. How about "What the bleep is space?"

[JP]

I think a problem with current theories is that general relativity and quantum mechanics both describe the vacuum as having properties, but those properties don't agree! 

Quantum field theory, for example, says that a vacuum isn't actually empty.  The only way things can move through a vacuum is if the underlying fields are present everywhere.  These fields have properties, and so the vacuum has properties.  In a sense, you could call this an aether, but its properties aren't like those proposed for the luminiferous aether, since these fields don't behave like matter.  That's why I think it's a bit confusing to call it aether.

There's also general relativity, in which the vacuum can distort in response to matter or energy.  The vacuum also has geometric properties here, but again, these are quite different from those of the luminiferous aether.

The thing is that if you're not dealing with tiny things (quantum mechanics) or large scales/strong gravity (general relativity), treating the vacuum as completely empty is perfectly valid.

[acsinuk]

I always thing of aether as the medium through which light, magnetism and radio signals can be transmitted.  It is a 3D effect and the vacuum in space must be magnetized also. Space is not empty but a fully electrified volume of ? massless ?aether
CliveS

[rwjefferson (OP)]

hindsight.101

Kind and well reasoned responses are all ways greatly appreciated.

I never said aether does not propagate light.  I said force in verse everything is inertial differential.  I said shape is not the same as force.  I said m&m were looking in the wrong direction.  I said...

physics.101
force is inertial differential
mass tends toward relative rest
matter flows towards lower pressure
inflation forces condensation
matter is energy in verse mass by spacetime constant
as wave is better measured; relative measure of particle is lost 

aether.101
space is also fluent
time is a measure of the relative flow of aether
gravity is also a measure of the aether wind
the relative viscosity of aether is hubble by the speed of light constant
light is an electromagnetic wave propagated by particles of quantum aether
as the relative velocity of aether exceeds c; waves cannot escape the flow
to measure the relative velocity by vector of the aether wind; stand on a scale; look up

Aether predicts dark matter and dark energy and acceleration by galactic vortex and drag on pioneering spaceships and even the accelerating expansion of the universe; shape (i.e. dome and sphere and warp and string) does not.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Offer your extraordinary observation that is not consistent with aether and inertial differential.   

I am
ItS
r~

[CPT ArkAngel]

The only way aether can exist is if it is extra dimensions. This dimensions are not associated with time in our dimensions but it implies that it would be associated with a different time dimension than ours, because light doesn't possess a constant speed in that medium, but it interacts with matter...

[Ron Hughes]

The first paragraph in this post explains of what your aether is composed.  http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34333.msg325530#msg325530

[acsinuk]

Hi Ron
A chap called Urban came up with a similar idea but light is electromagnetic not electro static. 3D electricity is electromagnetic as well a light but both are massless and therefore have nothing to do with particles or electrons [apart from the holes in the outer shell]. I agree with JP that vacuum is made of a kind of "stuff" and would add magnetic flux stuff.
CliveS

[rwjefferson (OP)]

science vs dogma.101
acsinuk
I will agree aether is not disproved; much less a new theory. 
CPTArkAngel
I will agree quantum aether predicts other dimensions.   

uncertanity.101
Ron
I will agree light is a wave of electromagnetic energy and energy is equally the opposite of mass by spacetime constant and e=mc^2 and f=ma and f=(e/c^2)a et al that follows. 
rami
m&m predicted earth cycles through a luminiferous ether.  There are no findings consistent with the hypothesis that aether is not fluent.

relativity.101
force is inertial differential
relative equivalence is not the same as same as
shape is not the same as force
warp is a mathematical calculation of the shape of the universe
warp is not the same as inertial differential

science.101
kind and well reasoned responses even critical debates are always greatly appreciated
evangelism and censorship in the name of dogma not so much

force is inertial differential

peace
ron