[Phractality (OP)]

PLURAL UNIVERSES

If the "universe" is everything that "is", then like Bill Clinton, we should ask, "what the definition of IS is." My imagination IS, so in a sense everything I can imagine IS. We need more restrictive meanings of "universe", and to keep them straight, we should attach descriptive labels. When we hear the word "universe", most of us think of the physical universe, and we think we have an inkling what that is. I have a cosmological model in which "our universe" is a scale-wise subset of a greater fractal physical universe. My fractal universe, though infinite in time, distance and scale, shrinks in comparison to the multiverses envisioned by some other cosmologists. So when I describe my Fractal Foam Model of Universes, I don't mean to disparage, belittle, scorn or deny the possibility that my universes are contained in a unichapter of a unibook in a unilibrary. With that in mind, I shall try to condense my model to a few paragraphs, as follows:

FIZZ

The cosmic foam of our universe is the ether foam of a super-universe, and the ether foam of our universe is the cosmic foam of a sub-universe. These are but 3 infinite universes in an infinite scale-wise sequence. (Each verse in this chapter may, itself, have infinite tangents existing in the same time, scale and location; but I shall not attempt to develop that idea any further.) The expansion of our space enlarges the cosmic voids (bubbles), thus increasing the distance (stress) between neighboring galaxies. On the assumptions that gravity is perfectly described by Newton's law of universal gravity, and that gravity is the only force acting between neighboring galaxies, we might suppose that increasing stress means decreasing strain. For an isolated pair of galaxies, we might expect strain to be inversely proportional to the square of stress. The stress-strain relationship in a foam whose bubble walls consist of thousands of galaxies is well beyond my meager math skills to analyze, but I imagine the galaxies can only be stretched so far apart before the integrity of the foamy structure breaks down, and a bubble wall "pops".

Eventually, a gap opens near the middle of a wall, and the galaxy clusters around the perimeter of the wall exert greater attraction than the galaxies across the gap. The galaxies near the gap accelerate toward the surrounding clusters, and after a billion or so years, collisions occur. Zooming out to view a larger portion of the foam, we should expect to see momentum and energy conserved by radiating pressure waves. (These waves are analogous to the sound we hear when we pour a glass of beer.) In the plane of the ruptured wall, surrounding galaxies move first away from the rupture, then back to a new equilibrium position. Perpendicular to the ruptured wall, galaxies move first toward the rupture, then away to a new equilibrium position. The kinetic energy gained by galaxies in the ruptured wall is transferred to the radiating pressure waves. I cannot say what the speed of those waves might be. Perhaps they move away at the speed of gravity (which I believe to be at least 20 billion times the speed of light), or perhaps the move at the speed of light. This is one of the major gaps in my understanding of my own model.

DARK ENERGY

The pressure waves radiated from popping cosmic-foam bubbles in one universe are the dark energy of the next scale-wise universe. The concept of dark energy was invented to explain where the energy comes from to create new space in our universe. In this model, space can be quantified as median-size ether-foam bubbles. More bubbles means more space, so expansion of space means the number of ether-foam bubbles must be increasing. When a bubble wall pops, two bubbles are united into one, which represents a decrease in the number of bubbles. (Of course, the number is infinite, so we must talk about the number of bubble in a given region of space.) For the number of bubbles to increase, ether-foam bubbles must un-pop, but that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Bubbles don't un-pop in forward time. The paradox is resolved by reversing the arrow of time from one universe to the next. As our universe gets older, the super-universe and sub-universe get younger. From a sub-universe perspective, a cosmic-foam bubble pops, and pressure waves radiate. From our perspective, the dark energy pressure waves converge to a point where an ether-foam bubble un-pops, converting dark energy to new space.

REGULAR ENERGY

Regular energy consists of ethereal shear waves, which propagate at the speed of light in the manner of acoustic shear waves in ordinary solids. The speed of sound in a bulk solid is given by the formula, c = sqrt(G/rho), where G is the shear modulus and rho is the density. So the ether must be ultra-dense and ultra-stiff. E/m waves are regular energy shear waves caused by acceleration of electric charges. Electric charges have an architecture composed of a finer grain of shear wave. I cannot yet describe in detail what distinguishes that structure from the structure of other particles. That difficulty will be evident when I discuss the formation of fundamental particles from shear waves.

The origin of shear waves (other than e/m waves) is an interplay between pressure waves and minute variations in the foamy texture of the ether. The median size ether-foam bubbles is presumed to be roughly a Planck length (1.6e-35 m) across with a volume roughly 4e-105 m^3. At the scale of electrons, variations of individual bubbles average out very precisely, so the median size is the same everywhere (probably even beyond the visible universe). At the scale of a few Planck lengths, though, there must be blobs (for lack of a better word) where the median bubble size is significantly different. Such variations must surely affect the speed of pressure waves. A pressure wave imparts momentum to the blob going in and recovers it coming out; this leaves the blob ever so slightly out of its equilibrium position. Shear stress surrounding the blob pulls the blob back to equilibrium, and shear waves radiate like ripples on a pond perpendicular to the path of the pressure wave. That is my best guess as to the origin of regular energy in our universe. I can't say whether that process is happening in the present epoch; perhaps it ended when our universe became transparent, or even sooner.


FORCES

All forces in our universe result from exchange of momentum between regular energy shear waves and dark energy pressure waves. I have no proof that momentum is exchanged between the two types of waves. I have no research budget and no laboratory in which to test this concept with chemical foams. I suspect it may take a huge block of foam and ultra-sensitive sensors to detect the effect, and I cannot be sure that chemical foams behave like the ether foam or the cosmic foam. A virtual experiment in cyberspace should come first.

When a pressure wave passes thru a shear wave in the shear wave's plane of polarity, one side of the pressure wave (moving against the sideways motion of the medium) is delayed and the other side (moving with the sideways motion of the medium) is advanced. The effect is extremely small compared to the wavelengths of the two waves, but in an infinite universe, any effect is significant. The magnitude and direction of the exchanged momentum is a function of phase and polarity.

With a white noise flux of dark energy coming equally from all directions, the flux is altered in a particular pattern around the shear wave. Consequently, one shear wave will "see" a disturbance of the dark energy flux in the direction of another shear wave. Depending on the phase and polarity relationship between the two shear waves, they may "feel" a force of attraction or repulsion toward each other. This is the ultimate source of all forces.

PARTICLES

One such force of attraction can cause a pair of shear waves (with the right amplitude and wavelength) to orbit one another. Orbiting converts the radiant energy of the shear waves to the rest mass of a particle. Accelerating the particle, from one inertial reference frame to another, changes the energy of the orbiting shear waves in accordance with relativity. The change in energy of the orbiting shear waves is the change in mass of the particle. The shear waves continue to move at the speed of light in all reference frames, which accounts for the length contraction and time dilation of the particle.

The dark-energy flux disturbance around each shear wave is spun into a spiral pattern. Those spiral patterns may mesh with other spiral patterns to form larger particles. Some spiral patterns may be complementary or opposite to others, accounting for both electric and color charge. Unfortunately, I cannot yet explain how the patterns are complementary or opposite.

At greater distances, the spiral patterns become blurred, and inverse square forces take over. Again, I cannot yet explain in detail how this makes gravity different from electrostatic forces. There's a great deal of mathematical development to be done before the model can be used to derive the electrostatic and gravity constants from fundamental principles (or vice versa).

Make no mistake about it; this is NOT the wave theory of matter, WTM. Not even close!

ANTIMATTER

Since antimatter behaves like regular matter in reverse time, and since alternate universes run in alternating time directions, it seems likely that the super-universe and sub-universe are anti-matter universes. If we can turn the clock back on expansion to an epoch when our cosmic foam and our ether foam existed at the same scale, we might discover that each universe shrank from the other universe's perspective because they were made of opposite types of matter. Of course, this raises the question of what medium both universes existed in at that time. Today, the sub-universe's cosmic foam is our ether foam; we exist as waves in that medium. At the beginning of time as we know it, both universes must have existed as waves in the cosmic foam of another universe.

PERSONAL LIMITATIONS

No doubt, Asperger syndrome was an asset in developing my model up to its present form. The other side of that coin is that I am severely handicapped in interpersonal relationships and communication skills. It is difficult for me to reach out for help from others, and I am not qualified to lead any kind of project. I am living on so shallow security, and I don't anticipate becoming famous in this lifetime. So I don't mind sharing credit with anyone who can get the ball rolling, either as an administrator, researcher or technician. They don't give Nobel prizes to theorists; that honor will go to those who discover whether the theory is true or not.

MORE
at my website

[imatfaal]

Phractality

There is so little that can be tested or argued that it is difficult to comment.  Does the same argument apply as it does to the ether - why can we not detect movement through the ether and its effects on the earth when moving towards and away from a light source?  The theory is too meta-physical to be challenged - thats probably why you have had limited responses

[Phractality (OP)]

Imatfaal,

I believe detecting movement relative to the ether is imminent−−assuming that the recent claims of success with long-distance "quantum teleportation" of data prove to be true. It is claimed that the quantum state of entangled photons was communicated instantaneously across 16 km in what the Chinese called "the quantum ether". According to SR, events cannot be simultaneous in every reference frame. If the ether is stationary relative to the CMB, then according to Earth clocks, signals sent toward Virgo should arrive before they were sent at the rate of about 9 ns/km. In the opposite direction, there should be a delay of the same amount, thus eliminating any time paradox.

Einstein, himself, showed that SR explains the null result of Michelson-Morely−−regardless of whether there is a substantive ether. Had he been aware of something being faster than light, I'm sure he would not have abandoned the idea of an "immovable" ether.

I don't accept the term "metaphysical". If anything is metaphysical it is the idea of a wave having no medium. Talk about spooky? Now, that's spooky! 

I do recognize that several untested theories are contained in the model. If I were a PhD with a government grant and a team of experimenters, I might try to measure exchange of momentum between shear waves and pressure waves in a solid foam−−though I think the effect is probably below the limit of detectability in a lab. It only becomes significant at the scale of fundamental particles, which might be a trillion times the Planck length. Imagine a blob of shaving cream 10,000 km in diamter; that might represent the size of an electron relative to the ether foam. Not an easy experiment! 

Also, there are some major differences between the ether and any foam in the lab, making any result marginally applicable. The ether foam should resemble the cosmic foam more than any laboratory foam, but we have limited ability to see what's happening in the cosmic foam. The SDSS maps are based on the assumption that redshift equals distance. We have no way to assess motion relative to the uniform expansion, and we have no measure of motion across our line of sight. Also, with time inversion between successive universes, we have no way of know if our ether foam is anywhere near the same epoch of evolution as our cosmic foam. So observations of the cosmic foam may be only marginally applicable.

Yes, it is difficult to challenge my model in its present state of development. What's really needed is a new branch of chaos theory to generate fundamental particles from a chaotic mix of shear waves and pressure waves. If the math correctly arrived at the masses and half-lives of all the particles in the zoo, I think you would accept it as valid physics. But I don't expect that to happen in my present lifetime. I fear that my model is simply too far ahead of its time.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Your ether looks like space to me. The contraction of length in relativity, is a contraction of space. Higher the gravitational field is, higher the density of space is. Either the BigBang came from a singularity or a light ring black hole, space expanded from that... Space, still, can be infinite and tend toward zero density at infinity, if it is a ring of light. Meaning there was gravity before the BigBang and a gravitational field tend to infinity (though it propagates at the speed of light)...

Take time to explain each of your concepts. You have to do the work for the reader. Try to ground each concept with reality checks.

[Phractality (OP)]

Your ether looks like space to me.

It is the fabric of space, the substantive medium of e/m waves, as well as all of the forces. We may create mathematical spaces and postulate that they are analogous to physical space. Different mathematical spaces are analogous to different kinds of graph paper.

The contraction of length in relativity, is a contraction of space.

Things in motion relative to a reference frame are contracted because the waves of which they are made must travel farther to complete an orbit which is not perpendicular to the direction of relative motion.

Imagine an electron orbiting a hydrogen atom. The orbit precesses so rapidly that we usually think of it as probability cloud. The probability cloud is a practical simplification of what's really happening at a smaller and faster scale. In the reference frame of the atom, the electron follows a circular orbit, regardless of the orbit's orientation to the x-axis. In another reference frame, the atom has relative motion along the x-axis. When the x-axis is perpendicular to the plane of the orbit, the electron follows a spiral in this reference frame. When the x-axis is parallel to the plane of the electron's orbit, the electron follows a cardoid path in this reference frame. If you trace an orbit the cardoid path and the nucleus together, it looks like the electron is following an ellipse, contracted in the direction of relative motion. Also, the electron follows a longer path in relative motion, so it takes longer to go around, hence time dilation.

The same type of analysis can be applied to the orbiting shear waves that constitute a fundamental particle. The main difference is that the shear waves must move at the speed of light in all reference frames.   

Higher the gravitational field is, higher the density of space is.

Minkowski space-time is useful and valid for large-scale calculations, but it is not helpful for understanding what happens at the scale of fundamental particles. I prefer Euclidean space, which is not warped by gravity. In Euclidean space, the median bubble size of the ether foam is uniform, except at scales much smaller than an electron. (Mapped in a reference frame with motion relative to the ether, the bubbles are length contracted in the direction of relative motion.) A strong gravitational field occurs where mass is concentrated, i.e. where you have a lot of orbiting shear waves. Each shear wave affects the flux of pressure waves, in a pattern relative to the phase and polarity of the shear waves. (Sorry, I'm not enough of a mathematician to quantify that for you.)

At large distances, the flux patterns of individual shear waves cancel out except for a very small omnidirectional effect, which accounts for gravity. So the concentration of shear waves, i.e. the mass, alters the flux of pressure waves in such a way that other shear waves are pushed toward the mass by the stronger pressure wave flux away from the mass. (This is similar to the Fatio/Lesage model, except that I'm talking about pressure waves instead of elastic particles.)

At any rate, strong gravity has no effect on the density of Euclidean space. It is only a concentration of regular energy affecting the flux of dark energy. I'm talking about waves with amplitude, wavelength, phase and polarity. I don't know which combination results in forces of attraction and repulsion. I wish I could be more specific, but the math is way beyond me. In fact, I doubt if the math has even been invented, yet. There's a Nobel prize waiting for the guy who invents it.

Either the BigBang came from a singularity or a light ring black hole, space expanded from that...

You could be right if the universe is finite. Big bang is usually described in terms of Minkowski space-time, and the space did not exist until light created it. From a Euclidean-space point of view, the big bang would have expanded into a finite bit of infinite space which always existed. But that is not how I see it, because my universe is infinite. If it is infinite, then it has always been infinite, and there was no big bang.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Your theory looks much like mine but you add a subset (or 2?) of 3 dimensions of foamy space to explain dark energy as a negative pressure. But, wouldn't this be a simpler model if we just see it as strong gravitational lightwaves beyond our observed universe?

Sometimes, i must admit, i believe that we are in a holographic world. Just to think, everything can be made of light, the basic models are 2 dimensional and the third dimension may appear from the Heisenberg Principle...

[Phractality (OP)]

Your theory looks much like mine but you add a subset (or 2?) of 3 dimensions of foamy space to explain dark energy as a negative pressure.

The dimensions of foamy space explain the transition from one universe to the next. If we had a better understanding of the dynamics of foamy space, we could derive all the laws of physics from it, but we are probably a century or two away from that level of understanding. Once you get past the transition to our universe, you can safely ignore those other dimensions; they're not part of our universe.

But, wouldn't this be a simpler model if we just see it as strong gravitational lightwaves beyond our observed universe?

Occam's razor is a good guide for physicists, but an obstacle to cosmology. I think a football game is a good analogy. You can describe a football game as a set of force fields moving the ball back and forth on the finite space-time of 360 ft by 160 ft by 1 hour. If that leads to successful wagering on the outcome, then Occams razor says that you should not concern yourself with anything else. I am psychoanalizing each player on the field in hopes of discovering a better way to simplify the game with a higher winning percentage.

If "strong gravitational light waves beyond our universe" can explain the accelerating expansion of space, that's great. But I hope to explain a lot more than that.

Sometimes, i must admit, i believe that we are in a holographic world. Just to think, everything can be made of light, the basic models are 2 dimensional and the third dimension may appear from the Heisenberg Principle...

The third dimension looks real and feels real to me. What advantage do you see in reducing it to a 2D hologram? As I see it, a hologram is a 2D arrangement of vectors which are analogous to a 3D arrangement of points. Spacial data on a computer chip are like that, too. Under an electron microscope, you can see the 2D arrangement of memory locations on a computer chip. Does that help you to understand what the data represents?

[Phractality (OP)]

From my own perspective, I answered a question on the mainstream board, and I was sent packing with my tail between my legs. I'm getting a small taste of how Galileo and Copernicus must have felt. I'm glad this board is still available to me. Now, I am moving my own answer to this thread. Then, I'll copy and paste here the one constructive response that it received, over there.

The question is, Why does an object require infinite energy to travel at a finite speed?

The relativity equations explain it well to a mathematician, but most of us have an instinctive need for picture that matches our experiences. The only picture I can offer is the one that comes from my own model, as follows:

The known particles, like electrons, protons, etc., are composed of more fundamental particles. The most fundamental particles consist of pairs (or perhaps groups) of photons orbiting one another. Since they are photons, they can only move at the speed of light, even when they are locked in orbit around one another. The center of the particle is the center of the orbit. When the particle moves relative to any reference frame, the path of the orbit in that frame is necessarily longer than the path of the center.

For an analogy, consider a bola [thanks, imatfaal, for the correction] (two or more heavy balls tied to the ends of ropes). When you throw a bolero, the balls orbit around the center of the ropes. If you trace the paths of the balls and the center, you will see that the balls travel farther than the center, but in the same amount of time. Obviously, the center of the bola can't move faster than the balls spinning around it.  []

The rest mass of the particle is the combined mass of its constituent orbiting photons. I can hear you general relativity people shouting and laughing, "Photons have no mass! Ha, ha!"  [] I'm going to have take a slight detour to satisfy the general relativists before I can resume answering the question.   

I'm not saying GR is wrong; it just uses the same words we learned in high school, but with different meanings. It may be true that, in GR, a photon has no mass; that's because "mass" doesn't mean the same thing in Minkowski space-time as it does in Euclidean space. In Euclidean space, gravity bends the path of light; in Minkowski space-time, the path of light is the definition of a straight line. Near a white dwarf or black hole, the Euclidean space is still there, but things that are spherical in Minkowski space-time are distorted in the Euclidean space. When you see a diagram of a black hole with curvy lines to represent light beams, your actually looking at the black hole in Euclidean space; there is no way to illustrate it in Minkowski space-time unless your visual cortex is wired like a modern computer.

Now, as I was saying: A photon has mass in Euclidean space. In a gravitational field, the force of gravity changes the momentum of the photon. At relativistic speeds, force is not equal to mass times acceleration; instead, force is the rate of change of momentum. The equation, f = dp/dt, works for particles with rest mass as well as for photons, regardless of the velocity. Near the speed of light, dp = mdv + vdm. Mdv = ma, and since dm is not zero at high velocities, f ≠ ma.

To satisfy conservation of momentum and Newton's third law, the force of gravity pulling a photon toward a star must be matched by an equal and opposite force pulling the star toward the photon. So the photon has gravitational mass as well as inertial mass in Euclidean space.

Let's get back to the question, shall we.

The rest mass of the particle is the combined mass of its constituent orbiting photons. To accelerate the particle, you must transform its waveform into a different reference frame. Applying the formulas of special relativity to small increments of velocity, you find that the energy of the orbiting photons is greater in a reference frame that is moving relative to the center of the particle. The greater the velocity difference between particles own reference frame and the moving reference frame, the greater the energy of the orbiting photons. Since acceleration increases the energy of the orbiting photons, it also increases the mass of the particle. The rest mass of the particle remains unchanged because it is the mass measured in reference frame of the particle.

Actually, the picture ain't quite that simple, because the orbiting photons are sometimes moving in the direction of relative motion, sometimes opposite the relative motion, and most of the time at an angle to the relative motion. You have to be pretty good mathematician to prove that the sum of masses of the orbiting photons is always equal to the total mass of the particle. (By the way, I'm not a mathematician.)

And that brings us to the standard explanation of why it takes infinite energy to accelerate a particle to the speed of light. If the center of the particle is moving at the speed of light in a given reference frame, and the particle still has its original rest mass in its own reference frame, then the equations of special relativity can only be satisfied by assuming that the particle has infinite mass. Anyway, how are the photons supposed to orbit? They must take infinite time in the part of their orbit where they move in the direction of relative motion, and zero time coming around the other side of the particle.  []

For those of you who are wondering how photons can orbit one another, it’s the Higgs force. I'm working on an explanation of how that works, but it’s not yet posted on my website. Long story short: Dark energy pushes photons less on the side facing one another, but only if they are properly matched for wavelength and aligned for phase, polarity and distance. Then, zero point energy sucks them into a potential well so deep that they become blue shifted and their mass increases by a factor greater than a million to one.

Now, kiddies, you must forget everything I've said because you'll get an F if you mention any of this in your school work. It's pure heresy. Bad thoughts!  [xx(] Nasty! Get them out of your mind, right now!

[Phractality (OP)]

Copied & pasted from the mainstream board:

I also like the bolas, cool description…

Thanks for your well reasoned and constructive response, yor_on. It's a refreshing change.
I should point out a flaw in the bola analogy. The bola’s balls move faster on the side moving away from the guy who threw it; coming back, they are much slower in the thrower’s reference frame. The orbiting photons in a fundamental particle move at the speed of light in all reference frames and regardless of their direction. Suppose the particle center is moving at ½ c in the +x direction. When an orbiting photon is moving in the +x direction it overtakes the center of the particle at ½ c. Coming back, it passes the particle’s center at 1½ c. (Meaning that, in the observer’s reference frame, the difference between the photon’s x value and the particle’s x value is changing at 1½ c.) Consequently, the photons spend more time (in the observer’s frame) while on the side moving away from the observer. Integrating the time it takes to complete one orbit, you get the familiar relativistic gamma for time dilation.

…although giving photons mass, even if in a Euclidean space, was sort of surprising I think you can use the idea without having to give them a mass.

In a vacuum in Minkowski space-time, a photon can’t change direction because its path is the definition of a straight line. So it has the same momentum when it gets out of the gravity well as when it went in. Minkowski space-time doesn’t work well for my model because photons can’t orbit one another in straight lines. But, in Euclidean space, a photon does change direction when passing close to a star. Since momentum is a vector, a change of direction is a change of momentum. If momentum is conserved, the star’s momentum must change equal and opposite to the change of the photon’s momentum. Force is the rate of change of momentum. If the photon has no mass, how can it exert a gravitational force on a star? Besides, the model is simplified by the fact that the particle’s rest mass is simply the sum of masses of its constituent photons.

…but the bola has no 'size' and what may 'spin' could be the way 'time' is treated for a photon, or my head of course

I think they (fundamental particles) do have size, albeit extremely small. And the term "spin" in quantum mechanics is probably not the same thing as the angular momentum of photons orbiting one another at a finite distance. (I don’t think anyone really knows what “spin” means in quantum mechanics.) I agree with the mainstream that a photon does not experience time, but a fundamental particle does. The distinction is that a pair of orbiting photons has an orbital period. If you could count the times they orbit one another, you would be taking the particle’s pulse. A free photon has no pulse.

Because that's one of the things that always surprised me, that something moving as fast as we can measure, still are able to follow a logic mostly applicable at speeds where there still is the possibility of a 'distance'. I know it's only rest mass that can 'experience' those effects as we don't have a description from the photons angle.

Not sure I get your meaning, but rest mass is constant in the particle’s reference frame. Transposing my picture of the particle into another reference frame involves transposing each orbiting photon at each of its locations in the orbit according to the formulas of special relativity. Accelerating the particle is equivalent to transposing it into another reference frame, and another, and another in tiny increments.
Iterative  application of special relativity is as good as direct application of general relativity, but the answers come back in terms of Euclidean space. We must be very careful about applying special relativity where there is extreme acceleration because even a Planck time (10^-42 s) might be too long of an increment to yield a correct result. I’m talking about an instantaneous snapshot of each photon at each point in its orbit. Integrating over time, and not forgetting that the orbit precesses, we can arrive at the average energy change of the photons, and that is the relative mass change of the particle. (Don’t ask me to do the math, please!)

…but we still expect them to have a 'energy', and according to a black hole? 'Energy' has a mass, not moving relativistically any more, but , from our 'frame of reference' actually being at 'rest'. If we accept that there are transformations from matter to radiation to energy, then it's kind of surprising that we have a stage in the middle without 'gravity'. but then again, this is not wholly true, is it Photons may show a 'gravity', only depending on 'direction' relative each other, but, and this one rather surprisingly also depending on your definition of a 'system? That last one is especially mysterious I have to admit.
Never the less I'm pretty sure they are without what we call 'mass' although I also see them as containing 'energy'. And they all express themselves under our 'arrow of time', interacting very specifically and logical, allowing us to construct a theory of their 'propagation' although we only can observe their 'interactions'.
Photons are weird

Well, I’m afraid you lost me. It sounds like you’re talking to yourself, instead of to anyone else. Now please forgive me if I also talk to myself, a bit.
I see mass and energy as two properties a photon. When photons enter orbit to form a particle, their mass and energy gets multiplied at least a million fold due to the Higgs force pulling them into a deep potential well. That amplified mass becomes the rest mass of the particle.
From a slightly modified general relativity perspective, the photons experience a million plus to one gravitational blueshift as the fall in. But it’s not really gravitational, is it? I am conceptually modifying general relativity to account for the fact that the Higgs force bends photons in Euclidean space, and therefore warps space-time. (I leave it to mathematicians to quantify my modification.) A particle is a sort of black hole with a tiny fraction of the mass needed to form a gravitational black hole.
I say, “a million to one”, because a free photon with the same mass-energy as an electron, has a wavelength roughly a thousand times the classical radius of the electron. If you start with a pair of photons whose wavelength is two million times the electron radius and blueshift them by a factor of a million, you get two photons with roughly the correct mass and wavelength to form an electron. If the electron is actually much smaller than the classical radius, then the blue shift must be much greater.

[yor_on]

So it's here you are

Okay, if you don't mind, let's start from the beginning, because I'm stuck on your definition of a Euclidean space and photons?

How do you find that Euclidean space allows photons to have mass?
Make it as simple as you can please
==

Even thought you are right in that you can see the path taken in  SpaceTime as a 'straight line' it is from the energy view this reasoning holds best to me. The photon will always take the path of least energy expenditure no matter how that space is defined. If you consider the path taken by placing detectors between you and the source and measure the light 'propagating' you should get a image of how that 'space' is distorted.  Could I assume that if 'straightened out' that space would resemble your idea of an Euclidean? But applying that reasoning it seems to me that the photon in a 'straightened space' would curve outwards from a sun seen, not inward?

As I see it, a gravity well turns the photon 'inward' towards the gravity well, for us 'being still' relative it as I think. But applied on a flat plane that same space fabric will get a greater area as it no longer acts in three dimensions plus time? Or am i thinking wrong here?

As I said, I'm stuck on your Euclidean Space

And also, even if I 'straightened out' the path to fit, it doesn't give the photon a mass, only a complementary motion as described on a flat surface? Am I wrong, if so, where do I need to start to see it your way?
==

not that I'm sure how that transformation from one type of geometry to the other would look as 'paths'.  I have problems imagine it as it seems as 'bubbly' to me.  Very hard to get a perfect fit imagining it, maybe there exist some tool for translating paths between them?
==

It's not that hard to do from your Euclidean Space to our Einsteinian SpaceTime. A perfect triangle would 'bulge' if bent to a sphere for example and its angles would no longer give the correct result for a euclidean space but doing the opposite applying this perfect triangle in some arbitrarily chosen place in SpaceTime to then 'straighten it out' seems to hang on the gravitational potential at that place where I 'draw it' in SpaceTime, giving me different results depending on from where I 'lift' it.

There seems no 'simple' way to do it geometrically?
Or maybe I will see it later?

[Phractality (OP)]

So it's here you are

Glad you found me, yor_on. With the anti-evangelizing rule, you have to click on my profile and go down the list of my posts to find the discussion of my "pet theory". I just now added some biography to my profile to make it a bit easier.

Okay, if you don't mind, let's start from the beginning, because I'm stuck on your definition of a Euclidean space and photons?

Named for Euclid, it's the kind of space that you learned about in high school geometry class. It's the only kind of space most people know about, and the only kind there was until Minkowski came along. The "party line" is that Minkowski "discovered" the only real kind of space-time, and Euclidean space is as outmoded as the flat Earth. The truth is that Euclidean space is still valid, and the two kinds of mathematical space coexist as analogies of physical space.

How do you find that Euclidean space allows photons to have mass?
Make it as simple as you can please

Let's move that a little farther down, shall we?

Even thought you are right in that you can see the path taken in  SpaceTime as a 'straight line' it is from the energy view this reasoning holds best to me. The photon will always take the path of least energy expenditure no matter how that space is defined. If you consider the path taken by placing detectors between you and the source and measure the light 'propagating' you should get a image of how that 'space' is distorted. 

The "path of least energy expenditure" is actually the "principle of least action". Action is energy times time; it has the same units as angular momentum, except the latter has one of its length vectors perpendicular to the motion instead of parallel. I believe this principle is valid in both kinds of space.

If your detectors are aligned on a Euclidean grid, they will see the light bending around a star; if they are aligned on a Minkowski grid, they will see the light following a straight line.

Could I assume that if 'straightened out' that space would resemble your idea of an Euclidean? But applying that reasoning it seems to me that the photon in a 'straightened space' would curve outwards from a sun seen, not inward?

Think of the two kinds of space as different kinds of graph paper. Suppose you draw a curve on lin-lin paper, trace it onto log-log paper and then stretch the log-log paper until it looks like lin-lin. You get a distortion of the original curve. If you trace that curve onto the inverse of log-log paper and stretch it to look like lin-lin paper your curve returns to its original shape. This can be done mathematically using the inverse of the log function (exponentiation). As far as I know, no mathematician has ever attempted the math to create an inverse function that converts Minkowski space-time back to Euclidean space. Do so successfully, and you might be nominated for a Nobel prize.

My ADD is kicking in, here. I need to pause to watch a movie, or something. I'll come back later and edit in the rest of my answer.

____________________________________________________________

Okay, I'm back.

As I see it, a gravity well turns the photon 'inward' towards the gravity well, for us 'being still' relative it as I think. But applied on a flat plane that same space fabric will get a greater area as it no longer acts in three dimensions plus time? Or am i thinking wrong here?
As I said, I'm stuck on your Euclidean Space

Are you imagining a gravity well as a bowling ball on a trampoline? It’s not that great of an analogy, and it doesn’t mean what people think it means. In truth, the vertical dimension, there, represents gravitational potential. The horizontal dimensions are a 2D slice of 4D space-time; they represent two spacial dimensions, with time and the other spacial dimension being constant. The normal force on the tennis ball is the gradient of gravitational potential, i.e. force of gravity on the tennis ball.  When the tennis ball nears the bowling ball it trades gravitational potential (vertical height) for kinetic energy. The tennis ball can’t represent a photon; a photon in Minkowski space-time would come out the other side on the same 4D line it started on, but not on the same 3D line (with time being constant). It ain’t easy to explain, and it’s impossible to illustrate in pictures or models. The trampoline analogy illustrates gravity in Euclidean space, not Minkowski space-time.
 

And also, even if I 'straightened out' the path to fit, it doesn't give the photon a mass, only a complementary motion as described on a flat surface? Am I wrong, if so, where do I need to start to see it your way? ?

The photon’s path is straight (by definition) in Minkowski space-time. Converting that straight 4D line in warped space-time to the bent path in 3D Euclidean space takes the warp out of the space-time. It’s much easier for me to envision the conversion to Minkowski space-time than it is converting back the other way.

Converting back to Euclidean doesn't "give the photon mass"; it changes the meaning of the word "mass" to something which the photon has.

…not that I'm sure how that transformation from one type of geometry to the other would look as 'paths'.  I have problems imagine it as it seems as 'bubbly' to me.  Very hard to get a perfect fit imagining it, maybe there exist some tool for translating paths between them? 
It's not that hard to do from your Euclidean Space to our Einsteinian SpaceTime. A perfect triangle would 'bulge' if bent to a sphere for example and its angles would no longer give the correct result for a euclidean space but doing the opposite applying this perfect triangle in some arbitrarily chosen place in SpaceTime to then 'straighten it out' seems to hang on the gravitational potential at that place where I 'draw it' in SpaceTime, giving me different results depending on from where I 'lift' it.
There seems no 'simple' way to do it geometrically?
Or maybe I will see it later?

Like I said, solve this mathematically and accept your Nobel prize.

[Phractality (OP)]

So it's here you are

Glad you found me, yor_on. With the anti-evangelizing rule, you have to click on my profile and go down the list of my posts to find the discussion of my "pet theory". I just now added some biography to my profile to make it a bit easier.

Okay, if you don't mind, let's start from the beginning, because I'm stuck on your definition of a Euclidean space and photons?

Named for Euclid, it's the kind of space that you learned about in high school geometry class. It's the only kind of space most people know about, and the only kind there was until Minkowski came along. The "party line" is that Minkowski "discovered" the only real kind of space-time, and Euclidean space is as outmoded as the flat Earth. The truth is that Euclidean space is still valid, and the two kinds of mathematical space coexist as analogies of physical space.

[EDIT: Minkowski invented a new mathematical analogy for physical space; he didn't discover something that already had a physical existence.]

How do you find that Euclidean space allows photons to have mass?
Make it as simple as you can please

Let's move that a little farther down, shall we?

Even thought you are right in that you can see the path taken in  SpaceTime as a 'straight line' it is from the energy view this reasoning holds best to me. The photon will always take the path of least energy expenditure no matter how that space is defined. If you consider the path taken by placing detectors between you and the source and measure the light 'propagating' you should get a image of how that 'space' is distorted. 

The "path of least energy expenditure" is actually the "principle of least action". Action is energy times time; it has the same units as angular momentum, except the latter has one of its length vectors perpendicular to the motion instead of parallel. I believe this principle is valid in both kinds of space.

If your detectors are aligned on a Euclidean grid, they will see the light bending around a star; if they are aligned on a Minkowski grid, they will see the light following a straight line.

Could I assume that if 'straightened out' that space would resemble your idea of an Euclidean? But applying that reasoning it seems to me that the photon in a 'straightened space' would curve outwards from a sun seen, not inward?

Think of the two kinds of space as different kinds of graph paper. Suppose you draw a curve on lin-lin paper, trace it onto log-log paper and then stretch the log-log paper until it looks like lin-lin. You get a distortion of the original curve. If you trace that curve onto the inverse of log-log paper and stretch it to look like lin-lin paper your curve returns to its original shape. This can be done mathematically using the inverse of the log function (exponentiation). As far as I know, no mathematician has ever attempted the math to create an inverse function that converts Minkowski space-time back to Euclidean space. Do so successfully, and you might be nominated for a Nobel prize.

My ADD is kicking in, here. I need to pause to watch a movie, or something. I'll come back later and edit in the rest of my answer.

____________________________________________________________

Okay, I'm back.

As I see it, a gravity well turns the photon 'inward' towards the gravity well, for us 'being still' relative it as I think. But applied on a flat plane that same space fabric will get a greater area as it no longer acts in three dimensions plus time? Or am i thinking wrong here?
As I said, I'm stuck on your Euclidean Space

Are you imagining a gravity well as a bowling ball on a trampoline? It’s not that great of an analogy, and it doesn’t mean what people think it means. In truth, the vertical dimension, there, represents gravitational potential. The horizontal dimensions are a 2D slice of 4D space-time; they represent two spacial dimensions, with time and the other spacial dimension being constant. The normal force on the tennis ball is the gradient of gravitational potential, i.e. force of gravity on the tennis ball.  When the tennis ball nears the bowling ball it trades gravitational potential (vertical height) for kinetic energy. The tennis ball can’t represent a photon; a photon in Minkowski space-time would come out the other side on the same 4D line it started on, but not on the same 3D line (with time being constant). It ain’t easy to explain, and it’s impossible to illustrate in pictures or models. The trampoline analogy illustrates gravity in Euclidean space, not Minkowski space-time.
 

And also, even if I 'straightened out' the path to fit, it doesn't give the photon a mass, only a complementary motion as described on a flat surface? Am I wrong, if so, where do I need to start to see it your way? ?

The photon’s path is straight (by definition) in Minkowski space-time. Converting that straight 4D line in warped space-time to the bent path in 3D Euclidean space takes the warp out of the space-time. It’s much easier for me to envision the conversion to Minkowski space-time than it is converting back the other way.

Converting back to Euclidean doesn't "give the photon mass"; it changes the meaning of the word "mass" to something which the photon has.

…not that I'm sure how that transformation from one type of geometry to the other would look as 'paths'.  I have problems imagine it as it seems as 'bubbly' to me.  Very hard to get a perfect fit imagining it, maybe there exist some tool for translating paths between them? 
It's not that hard to do from your Euclidean Space to our Einsteinian SpaceTime. A perfect triangle would 'bulge' if bent to a sphere for example and its angles would no longer give the correct result for a euclidean space but doing the opposite applying this perfect triangle in some arbitrarily chosen place in SpaceTime to then 'straighten it out' seems to hang on the gravitational potential at that place where I 'draw it' in SpaceTime, giving me different results depending on from where I 'lift' it.
There seems no 'simple' way to do it geometrically?
Or maybe I will see it later?

Like I said, solve this mathematically and accept your Nobel prize.

[Phractality (OP)]

I probably should start a new thread for comparing Euclidean space and Minkowski space-time. My model doesn't make much sense to those who don't understand the distinction, but it's not really part of my model. I realize that my opinion on this is against the mainstream, but do you think trying to revive an old, old, old theory really belongs in "New Theories"? I guess it's a bit like trying to revive the flat-Earth theory.

[yor_on]

No, I think it's perfectly alright.

Think of it this way, if you would to be proven right your theory would be new by definition. Doesn't matter that parts of it are old. All axioms are old, well, the simple one are at least. But I still don't see how a translation from one geometry to another brings mass. It must have to do with how you see the paths? And possibly also how you look at the idea of invariant mass?

I agree on that translating a Minkowski geometry to a Euclidean geometry leaves 'space' over, but to me it's also a question of how you should look at that 'Space'. Because when we discuss a 3-D geometry we are not only describing a cube as compared to a flat surface. We are also describing gravitational gradients and 'convulsions' inside it. Like stress marks inside thick glass maybe.

But it has to be a translation, and I'm sure there is a way to describe it mathematically as a flat plane. The way we see it may not be the way the universe sees it. I'm pretty sure of that one at least, I'm not saying that you can convert it directly but more as if there should be a third option from where both descriptions can exist/spring.

The problem is that invariant matter and light is so noticeable different. To show a invariant mass for a photon would in fact invalidate the difference. Ah well It's a interesting idea, even though I still don't see how it works it caught my imagination.

[Phractality (OP)]

...But I still don't see how a translation from one geometry to another brings mass. It must have to do with how you see the paths? And possibly also how you look at the idea of invariant mass?

I confess I don't really understand how a photon lacks mass in general relativity. It must have something to do with the fact that gravity doesn't alter the direction of its momentum vector.

A particle has invariant mass in its own reference frame, but there is no reference frame that moves with a photon, at least not in special relativity. The mass (energy) of a photon is different in different reference frames. In my model, the mass of a particle in a given reference frame is the sum of the masses of its constituent orbiting photons in that reference frame. The invariant mass of the particle is the sum of the constituent photons in the reference frame centered on the particle.

When I was in school, I learned that a particle in motion had rest mass plus the mass equivalent of its kinetic energy, which was called "relativistic mass". Now, I refer to the mass of a particle to mean its total mass (rest mass plus relativistic mass) in any given reference frame. I think that is the modern convention, but how would I know, being an outsider?

...We are also describing gravitational gradients and 'convulsions' inside it. Like stress marks inside thick glass maybe.

Varying densities inside a block of glass do sort of act like gravitational fields in a vacuum. A spherical region of denser glass slows light, bending its path inward. Gravity bends light inward by shortening its wavelength without changing its speed.

The problem is that invariant matter and light is so noticeable different. To show a invariant mass for a photon would in fact invalidate the difference....

I believe, in the original formation of a particle from photons, the energy of the photons is amplified perhaps a million or even a trillion fold by the Higgs field. This converts the zero point energy of the free photons to the rest mass of the particle. When two photons of the right wavelenghts meet at the right distance, with their phase and polarity properly aligned, the Higgs force takes over. When they fall into the Higgs potential well, their energy gain becomes a blueshift of wavelength and frequency.

This blueshift is necessary for the photons to fit in the available space, because the wavelength of a photon with half the energy equivalent of an electron's mass is about 1700 times the classical radius of the electron. I keep saying I'm no mathematician, and the math of fitting those photons into that small space is hurting my brain. Something about it seems paradoxical, but I can't put my finger on it.

Once the photons have settled into orbit at the bottom of the Higgs potential well, their energy-mass in the reference frame of the particle is invariant. Accelerating the particle is equivalent to transforming the wave equations of the orbiting photons into a new reference frame. If you do so in small enough increments of dv, you can apply the formulas of special relativity to problems involving acceleration. I think this may be a form of "Lorentzeian relativity", though that term seems to have many meanings, nowadays.

Named for Euclid, it's the kind of space that you learned about in high school geometry class. It's the only kind of space most people know about, and the only kind there was until Minkowski came along. The "party line" is that Minkowski "discovered" the only real kind of space-time, and Euclidean space is as outmoded as the flat Earth. The truth is that Euclidean space is still valid, and the two kinds of mathematical space coexist as analogies of physical space.

In fairness to Minkowski, I believe his space-time does preserve the shapes of atoms and solid objects in strong gravity, while the same objects appear distorted Euclidean space. So his invention does have a certain element of discovery to it.

[yor_on]

I don't think you're bicycling that much . But I better put in a slight declaimer too. That is that there is a clear difference between matter and 'energy/photons'. We can't just satisfy the difference by defining matter as 'photons' or even 'energy'. If they were 'the absolute same' then there is no reason for the difference at all as it seems to me. To me there has to be something that defines the 'transitions' that exist between matter and 'space' and light, allowing for the boundaries they get and the way motion can exist.

I like the idea of a particle as a 'gravity well' sort of If you made our universe into a sum of points, then some of those points would get one number defining them as space and other another number defining them as particles, just playing a little here okay. Imagine that we exchange the numbers for gravitational potentials instead, ignoring the Higgs mechanism for now, just let there be bumps those bumps will then need to be differentiated somehow to create particles and space and light. And maybe, when those 'bumps' organize themselves they create a three dimensional space? But to do it we also need a arrow of time, or causality chain, that makes it all come true. The bumps themselves are not enough for this. The chain, and as I see it, the observer of the chain is a must for it to 'exist'. Then we need a principle for 'growth' and there both you and me seem to think the same, I think? It has to be a fractal principle, don't you agree?

And then we come to 'forces' and 'energy'. Because as soon as you introduce a arrow there should become transformations, you might want to turn that around of course and define the transformations as 'times arrow' but, I don't know? It depends, both seems to build on a idea of there being something from where the 'arrow' comes, any which way you choose.

And photons, you seem to build it on the idea of photons propagating, right? And maybe also on that you see 'photons' as being the same under as over Planck time, so called 'virtual photons'. I do so at least, it's the arrow differing them to me, 'photons' don't care

[Phractality (OP)]

I don't think you're bicycling that much . But I better put in a slight declaimer too. That is that there is a clear difference between matter and 'energy/photons'. We can't just satisfy the difference by defining matter as 'photons' or even 'energy'. If they were 'the absolute same' then there is no reason for the difference at all as it seems to me. To me there has to be something that defines the 'transitions' that exist between matter and 'space' and light, allowing for the boundaries they get and the way motion can exist.

I don't get the bicyling reference. Actually, when I live in Phoenix, I biked quite a lot. Living in the rainy northwest,now, my bike hasn't been used for years, but I have been hiking 5 miles round trip to the post orifice more frequently of late. Gotta be in good shape to outrun the big tsunami when it wipes this area off the map.

Until very recently, I also thought there had to be a clear distinction between free photons and the orbiting shear waves that comprise fundamental particles. Photons must fit the formula, E = hc/λ, which makes a particle much smaller than the equivalent photons. I only started calling them "photons" when I saw HOW the Higgs mechanism packs them into such a small space−−by means of blueshifting as they fall into the Higgs potential well.

So, now, I see no need at all to distinguish the two. A particle's rest mass is nothing but the combined masses of its constitutent orbiting photons.

I like the idea of a particle as a 'gravity well' sort of ...

Where the Higgs mechanism is concerned, it is a potential well. I works very much like a gravity well, but on a far smaller scale. You could even modify Minkowski space-time to include warping of space-time in the vicinity of a fundamental particle. As long as the path of light is the definition of a straight line, anything that bends the path of a photon in Euclidean space causes Minkowski space-time to warp. The warp caused by the Higgs field would be many orders of magnitude more intense than warping due to gravity. It is so intense, in fact, that photons falling into it become blueshifted by a factor of perhaps a million or even a trillion to one. (I'm struggling with the math to try and narrow that down a bit.)

...If you made our universe into a sum of points, then some of those points would get one number defining them as space and other another number defining them as particles, just playing a little here okay. Imagine that we exchange the numbers for gravitational potentials instead, ignoring the Higgs mechanism for now, just let there be bumps those bumps will then need to be differentiated somehow to create particles and space and light. And maybe, when those 'bumps' organize themselves they create a three dimensional space? But to do it we also need a arrow of time, or causality chain, that makes it all come true. The bumps themselves are not enough for this. The chain, and as I see it, the observer of the chain is a must for it to 'exist'. Then we need a principle for 'growth' and there both you and me seem to think the same, I think? It has to be a fractal principle, don't you agree?

I prefer to deal with concrete things rather than abstract points or numbers. To me, those points consist of sub-universe galaxies. They are perhaps very much like the galaxies of our universe except for their size. (I have to say "perhaps" because the sub-universe must be operating in reverse time, and the two universes could only have the same age for one instant in their existence. For all we know, the sub-universe could resemble the way our universe was 10 billion years ago or the way it will be 100 billion years in the future.)

Reducing particles to bumps on a potential map is a simplification. There will come a time when simplification from my model to something more utilitarian will be called for, and that will be the time to invoke Occams razor. For now, Occams razor is an obstacle to a deaper understanding. First you should analyze football as individual players with abilities and personalities; then you can reduce them to force fields influencing the movement of the ball in a program that places bets on games.

The observer is not part of my model, but that doesn't make him/her irrelevant. If anyone ever gets into a discussion of free will vs. predestination from the perspective of my model, I'm sure the observer will be central to the subject.

The chain is a sequence of strange attractors in the chaotic mix of waves and particles. Each time the scale increases by about 5 orders of magnitude, the particles of the previous level become strange attractors for the next level. So fundamental particle organize into quarks, nuclei, atoms, DNA, organisms, societies, planets, solar systems, galaxies, cosmic foam, and super-universe particles.

I have to break, now, to take my walk to the post orifice before it closes. I'll be back in a couple of hours.

___________________________________________________

And then we come to 'forces' and 'energy'. Because as soon as you introduce a arrow there should become transformations, you might want to turn that around of course and define the transformations as 'times arrow' but, I don't know? It depends, both seems to build on a idea of there being something from where the 'arrow' comes, any which way you choose.

I think of time's arrow in terms of cause and effect; also it is the direction of increasing entropy in a "closed system", if there is such a thing. Also, time necessarily flows in the direction of expansing space.

In my model, it is evident that time in alternate scale-wise universes must run in opposite directions. This follows from the idea that bubbles can't un-pop in forward time, as that would violate causality and the flow of entropy. Expansion of space in one universe pops its cosmic-foam bubbles, which are the ether-foam bubbles of the next universe. When a bubble pops, that's one less bubble, and expanding space implies more bubbles, not less. 

And photons, you seem to build it on the idea of photons propagating, right? And maybe also on that you see 'photons' as being the same under as over Planck time, so called 'virtual photons'. I do so at least, it's the arrow differing them to me, 'photons' don't care

I see photons as propagating like acoustic shear waves in a resilient foamy solid medium, i.e. the ether. Anything below the Planck scale belongs to the sub-universe. Shear waves at that scale would be like ripples within a single wall of galaxies in the cosmic foam of the sub-universe; from our point of view, they would propagate from effect toward cause.

I am guessing that the median bubble size in the ether foam is roughtly a Planck length, and photons emitted by electron transitions in atoms are many quintillions of Planck lengths long. Another wild guess is that the side to side motion of the ether as a photon passes is just a tiny fraction of a Planck length; the photons only seem energetic to us because the ether is incredibly dense and stiff.

The ultimate source of photons for our universe is a mystery. It can't come from electrons, because then where did the electrons come from? My only guess, so far, is the the ultimate source of our shear waves is the non-uniformity of the ether at a scale of a few Planck lengths. At that scale there must be regions where the median bubble size is significantly different from the large-scale average; I call those "blobs" for lack of a better word. When a dark energy pressure wave enters a blob, it changes speed; leaving the blob, it returns to normal speed. This shakes the blob, leaving it out of its equilibrium position, and shear forces pull it back to equilibrium, radiating shear waves perpendicular to the path of the pressure wave.

Those primal shear waves interact chaotically with the pressure waves to produce particles and forces among the particles. So the arrow of time follows the shear waves from the shaking of the blob (cause) to interaction with other shear waves (effect).

[yor_on]

When I'm not sure I use to refer to that as 'bicycling in the great younder'.
You know, amongst those slinky starry objects that smile so benevolently on me. (In my dreams most probably:)

It helps people relax, and me

[yor_on]

And the shear forces, as I understand you to think of them, would be a aether, well, some sort of medium is a must, right? And the sub universe(s) would be what may exist under Plank length?

So, why not test 'gravity' as that 'medium'?
I think gravity is a very promising candidate, although I do not know how it would translate into shear forces? But it's a interesting idea, not too far away from my own musings about it.

Even Einstein found it hard to avoid looking at space as a something, even though he didn't consider it a medium in the normal description of such a one having a 'density' and 'friction'. What you need to make it palatable for those looking at 'space' classically, like me, as being of no resistance is a way to translate it to what we experimentally can observe I think.

[Phractality (OP)]

And the shear forces, as I understand you to think of them, would be a aether, well, some sort of medium is a must, right? And the sub universe(s) would be what may exist under Plank length?

We really don't know what forces there are among galaxies in our own universe, though it is widely ASSUMED that gravity is the only force holding galaxies, walls of galaxies and the cosmic foam together. If a galaxy carries a net electric charge, it may be electrostatically attracted or repelled by other galaxies, and its rotation may give it a magnetic attraction or repulsion. Then there's the question of dark matter; what is it and what forces are associated with it?

I ASSUME that similar forces are at work in the cosmic foam of the sub-universe, which is the ether foam of our universe. The bubbles of our cosmic foam are roughly 10^24 m across, while the bubbles of the ether foam are roughly 10^-35 m across. Except for scale, the two foams are probably more alike than they are different, though the two universes may be at vastly different stages of development. Our universe is perhaps 14 billion years old; the sub-universe could be any age. (I don't know how to judge the true age of our universe, so I tentatively accept the mainstream's number.)

If there are shear waves in the ether, then there must be shear forces. The cosmic foam and the ether foam have an equilibrium state in which the forces among galaxies balance, so the bubbles of the cosmic foam and ether foam are relatively stationary. That equilibrium can be disturbed in two ways.

First: Expansion of space can stretch a wall of galaxies to such an extent that a gap opens near the middle; then tension forces toward the edges of that wall exceed the tension forces across the gap, and the wall "pops" (taking perhaps a billion years to do so). When a cosmic-foam bubble wall pops, pressure waves radiate thru the cosmos. As a pressure wave passes, it momentarily disturbs the equilibrium by compressing galaxies closer to one another until pressure forces restore the equilibrium.

Second: Those pressure waves have a certain speed (many times faster than shear waves in the same medium). At a scale of a few bubble widths, random variations of bubble size can alter the speed of those pressure waves. If a blob of smaller bubbles makes the pressure wave slow down momentarily, the blob will be knocked out of its equilibrium position. This does not compress the blob; instead it displaces the blob. So the boundary region between the blob and the surrounding foam is in a state of shear stress. This pulls the blob back toward equilibrium and the surround region is pulled away from equilibrium. So the region of shear stress propagates perpendicular to the path of the pressure wave at the speed of shear waves. Thus shear waves are radiated like ripples on a pond perpendicular to the path of the pressure wave.

Anyway, that is the only explanation I have come up with, so far, for where shear waves originally come from. Other shear waves, probably with much longer wavelengths, are generated by acceleration of electric charges; for that to occur, you need to create electric charges, first. (I'm still trying to figure out what electric charge is, exactly; it must be something about the phase and polarity relationships among orbiting shear waves.)

So, why not test 'gravity' as that 'medium'?
I think gravity is a very promising candidate, although I do not know how it would translate into shear forces? But it's a interesting idea, not too far away from my own musings about it.

A simple enough question, but I can't answer it simply:

I believe all the forces, including gravity, stem from exchange of momentum between shear waves and pressure waves. We know that shear waves pass thru one another without exchanging momentum; likewise pressure waves. But when a pressure wave passes thru a shear wave (perpendicularly in the plane of the shear wave's polarity) there is an exchange of momentum. I have no source to cite, and I have no experimental evidence; all I have is my own visualization of the motions of the medium. A pressure wave is a back and forth motion of the medium, and a shear wave is a side to side motion of the medium. Suppose the medium at the front part of the shear wave is moving in the direction of the pressure waves path, and the medium at the rear part of the shear wave moves in the opposite direction. Therefore, the part of the pressure wave that goes thru the front of the shear wave will emerge out the other side ever so slightly ahead of the part that goes thru the rear part of the shear wave.

Beyond that, I am way over my head. I can only guess that this results in an alteration of the pressure wave's direction, and therefore a change of its momentum. Equal and opposite momentum must be imparted to the shear wave. Since (I believe) the pressure wave speed is many times greater than the shear wave speed, the effect on the shear wave's path must be many times greater than the effect on the pressure waves path.

Deviations from the above scenario, where the pressure wave's path is perpendicular and in the plane of the shear wave's polarity, result in reduction of the amount of exchanged momentum. Given a uniform flux of incoming pressure waves around a given shear wave, the outgoing flux is therefore altered in a peculiar pattern relative to the shear waves phase and polarity. To oversimplify a bit, one shear wave may appear to another shear wave as a bright or dim spot against the otherwise uniform pressure wave flux. This results in forces of attraction and repulsion between pairs of shear waves, including the Higgs force, the strong and weak forces and gravity, an perhaps other undiscovered forces. (This concept has roots in the model proposed by Fatio & Lesage, 300 years ago.)

To summarize briefly, gravity is an effect, not a cause.

Even Einstein found it hard to avoid looking at space as a something, even though he didn't consider it a medium in the normal description of such a one having a 'density' and 'friction'. What you need to make it palatable for those looking at 'space' classically, like me, as being of no resistance is a way to translate it to what we experimentally can observe I think.

If we could directly observe the sub-universe it would be part of our universe. We can only infer how our universe should behave if my model is accurate. I do have some ideas of what to look for, but this is not my forté.

I think we should look for evidence of galaxy walls popping in our cosmic foam. This is difficult, since we have no precise measure of radial distance and velocity other than redshift, and no means at all to detect motion perpendicular to our line of sight.

We might be able to detect pressure waves caused by those popping bubble walls. These should appear as temporal variations in the directional pattern of temperature in the CMB. In other words, the WMAP picture should vary with time. I don't know how much or how fast it should change, so that makes it difficult to verify or falsify. For all I know, the variations might be so slow as not to be detectible in hundreds of thousands of year; or they might show up in a few years. Also, the variations might be undetectibly small.

If I could figure out the math for my model of the Higgs mechanism, I might be able to explain how to create particles from photons and vice versa. It might be as simple as crossing laser beams of the right wavelength at the optimum angle in an electric field; if you get electrons and positrons, eurika. But I have no idea what might be the right wavelength and optimum angle.

To really develop my model, it will be necessary to develop a new branch of chaos theory dealing with shear waves and pressure waves in an infinite block of foam with characteristics similar to the cosmic foam. Get the math and the computer model right, and it should generate the sizes, masses and half lives of all the particles in the zoo, and then some. I don't expect that to happen in this century.

I am hopeful that ether theories, in general, will gain popularity when and if instantaneous "teleportation" of information is ever proven and accepted by the mainstream. It doesn't have to be instantaneous communication; you just have to prove in hindsight that the exchange took place instantaneously. (Actually, I prefer nearly instantaneous; it should be at the speed of pressure waves, which I believe is at least 20 billion times faster than light. I can accept instantaneous, though, since the pressure waves propagate in reverse time, from effect toward cause.)