I think too many people round here (including myself) have been far too quick to be judgemental, and teprimental towards each others conclusions. Here is a NEW REVOLT: Lets all work together. If we all put our heads together, we might actaully reach some final univesal-site goal.
Pease Join in. Plus, this is an ALPHA THREAD, so no arguementatives please. :)

I believe the best place to start would be either Newtonian Dynamics, or Aether Theory... Pehaps even Relativity...

Let us all put our minds together.

You never know how our conclusions can change the future, unless we believe that we can. Mind Manifests Reality.

Reiku :m:

You post a thread saying science should be pushed to the front ... that contains no science.

Hmm...

I believe the best place to start would be either Newtonian Dynamics, or Aether Theory... Pehaps even Relativity...

One of these things is not like the other...

Anyway, what is it you wanted to discuss exactly, Reiku?

......the best place to start would be either Newtonian Dynamics, or Aether Theory... Perhaps even Relativity......
Well... You can think, the world is the chaotic mixture of many quantities ..Of infinite number of different quantities - simply because of no virtual upper or lower limit exists here. While this word is virtually unlimited, we are limited creatures definitely, so that the number of quantities, which is forming us is finite.

What such limited creatures are supposed to see from such unlimited world? You should realize, to see something is casual event, based on certain well arranged mass/energy spreading in space and time, so what you can see is just a casual behavior of limited number of quantities from virtually unlimited number of others. The ratio of limited over unlimited is some quite low finite number - the lowest number of such quantities, which are even able to keep some casual relation is just a two. You can call them mass and energy, or space or time, or whatever else. The dynamic equilibrium of them would be our casual sample from chaotic reality.

The question simply is: how the limited less or more casual sample of chaos (i.e. random fluctuation) can interact with the rest by less or more casual way? From the sample limitation a number of other consequences follows: for example the fact, such sample should be always of positive curvature. So what we can see are always fluctuations of positive curvature, i.e. the particles of matter. The other particles will be perceived as a supersymmetric particles of energy and they would have an disintegration effect for us. Fortunatelly, just due the surface curvature we will tend to aggregate the matter particles, i.e. the positive curvature fluctuations.

Well...if we don't start talking about physics soon I see no reason for this thread to be here.

Well...if we don't start talking about physics soon I see no reason for this thread to be here.

Can you prove, I'm not talking just about physics?

zephir I have no idea what you are talking about.

.. I have no idea what you are talking about...

I can see that.;) To move on further in physics, we should define the common concepts of all theories, which we can all agree together. For example, the string theorists are believing, all particles are composed of 1D strings. Some variants of string theory are considering the string solution for boundary conditions of particles strings, i.e. string field theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_field_theory). By some latest insight, the string net liquid (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325954.200) structure is relevant for the vacuum, too. The LQG theorists are considering, the vacuum has structure of spin foam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOSokCXeTbw). The Heim's theory suggests, the particles and space-time is composed of protosimplexes, i.e. the foam composed of 1D elements, so called metrons. Furthermore, we have the quantum foam models of Dirac, J.A.Wheeler for vacuum and Kip Thorne's foam model of black hole interior.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/dynafoam.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/heim/dynafoam1.gifhttp://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/heim/spinnetwork.gif

The Aether Wave Theory is proposing quite simple model, how to explain the formation of such foamy structures, so conceptually it violates anything from the above, it just adds a new causality level into these models. But the Aether theory isn't the very final step, it just illustrates, how the observable reality CAN be constituted at the even deeper level. The first question can sound, why the foam structure is so general and widespread both at the cosmological scales (the foam of dark matter structures, for example), both the Planck one? What makes the foam artifact so unique?

By AWT the observation of every reality is mediated by energy, without energy spreading no reality can be seen at all. Furthermore, the energy concept is pretty general in all theories and it can be easily converted to the inertial momentum. So we can say, despite of you're believing into inertial environment concept, every energy can be expressed in terms of momentum transfer through imaginary matter, forming observable reality, i.e. the Aether. The Aether environment simply serves here as another level of abstraction.

Now we can ask, how the Aether should appear to be able to spread as much energy as possible to the largest space-time distance scales? What its structure can appear, to enable as intensive energy spreading at the distance, as possible? This is quite relevant question, because the Universe appears huge both at the cosmological scale, both in the Planck one. To be able to see as many Universe, as possible, the inertial environment should be of certain, quite specific structure, which can be found by permutations of trivial computer simulations. During this we can postulate some structure of inertial matter and we will analyze, how such structure can appear to be able to transfer the energy at the maximal distance with minimal distortion.

From formal point of view such assignment corresponds the optimization problem: finding the geometry of matter enabling the minimal Lagrangian during energy spreading. Such question is quite relevant from both physical, both formal point of view and it has unique, well defined solution. No landscapes 10+500 of different solutions is necessary to consider here. Furthermore, for the case of 4D space-time the qualitative answer can be quite simple and it can be deduced from real-life observations, as we can demonstrate bellow. No blind computer simulations are required here.

Ben... don't get too cocky. My connectin has been exteernky slow. So,,, yes, it SHOULD BE HERE... I'll re-itterate what Zeph was saying:

String Thoery, indeed all tehories COULD BE the Uniltmate Theory of Everything,...

Now that my comuter is not, i am rather tired.I willc otinue wy tommorrow this thread,,, but first, before i go, i want to post another, so please be patient.

:)

Aethers have been disproven long ago.

This thread is going nowhere.

Reiku---if you want to start a thread discussing the level of scientific discourse that we adhere to at SciForums, I would suggest that you make a more clearly stated goal in the original post.

Note to all: If this thread doesn't get some direction soon, it will be moved to the cesspool.

If you really NEED TO KNOW, you nosey little fragmatic firned, i'm not long out of the hospital, so if YOU DO NOT LET ME HAVE SOME SLEEP, i'll hold you in contempt of this forum, which CANNNOT BE refuted.

Now.. have patience oh little one.

If you really NEED TO KNOW, you nosey little fragmatic firned, i'm not long out of the hospital, so if YOU DO NOT LET ME HAVE SOME SLEEP, i'll hold you in contempt of this forum, which CANNNOT BE refuted.

I didn't need to know, and I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

If you're not healthy enough to post here, perhaps you shouldn't be...

This is a really weird thread...

:confused::shrug:

BenTheMan,
Aethers have been disproven long ago.
Now that is a bullshit statement, Ben. All M&M showed was that the type of 'ether wind' hypothesized by scientists of the time was not physically detectable. Their experiment does nothing to eliminate other types of aether, such as a dynamical aether. Scientists have not been able to detect 'strings', dark matter, dark energy, or gravitational waves. Shouldn't those hypothesis' be disproven also by your logic? You do know that the winners of the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics are aether physicists, don't you?

BenTheMan,

You do know that the winners of the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics are aether physicists, don't you?
Were they? I didn't know that. Do you have any links to that info (news articles or such)? I'm interested now.

Now that is a bullshit statement, Ben.

I have a theory which predicts pixies that live on electrons, except that the pixies are too small to be observed and have no other experimental consequences.

What Michelson and Morrely showed is that if there is an aether, then it doesn't have a preferred reference frame. This means that it has no consequences for experiment.

Just like my pixies.

if the justification of this thread in this fori is resolved in reiku's favor, i believe plazma has to reevaluate ben's modship.

enough of the bogus melodramatics. phy and math is no ones sacred stomping grounds

BenTheMan,
I have a theory which predicts pixies that live on electrons, except that the pixies are too small to be observed and have no other experimental consequences.
Sounds like string theory. Is that correct?
What Michelson and Morrely showed is that if there is an aether, then it doesn't have a preferred reference frame. This means that it has no consequences for experiment.
No, what M&M showed was that they failed to detect a stationary aether with physical properties that the Earth is moving through with their simple experiment.

superluminal,
Were they? I didn't know that. Do you have any links to that info (news articles or such)? I'm interested now.
Sure, super. George Smoot and John Mather won the Nobel Prize for detecting our motion through the universe relative to the preferred frame of the CMB (hint, hint Ben). Here is a link to their homepage and some onfo.
http://aether.lbl.gov/

Sounds like string theory. Is that correct?

A rather ill-informed potshot at string theory, and completely tangential to the subject at hand. I can wipe the floor with you twice, if you'd like.

No, what M&M showed was that they failed to detect a stationary aether with physical properties that the Earth is moving through with their simple experiment.

So if there is an aether, it has to have exactly the same reference frame as earth? Correct? Does that sound reasonable to you---a little...heliocentric? M&M showed exactly what I said, if there is an aether it has to have no reference frame, or (as you pointed out the MUCH less likely probability) that it has to have exactly the same reference frame as an observer on the surface of the earth.

Life is much easier when you are not burdened with actually having to think about things before you say them.

Sure, super. George Smoot and John Mather won the Nobel Prize for detecting our motion through the universe relative to the preferred frame of the CMB (hint, hint Ben).

Well, the CMB gives a preferred frame, is this what you mean?

But this has nothing to do with the concept of an aether.

You are drastically confusing the issues.

If this thread doesn't get some direction soon.

Which direction? String theory direction? Loop Quantum Gravity direction? Here's number of simmilar theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quantum_field_theories). How these theories can serve as a fundamental theories, if they're relying to unexaplained yet quantum mechanics and relativity theories?

Which theory will explain the later ones? Are you really interested about physics and common point of existing theories or are you rather enjoying the censorship?

Did you ever understood my explanation of the space-time geometry?

Aethers have been disproven long ago.
While the quantum gravity theory predicts, the universe was born in the black hole (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/white_hole_030917.html)?

Which direction?

Well, presumably Reiku wanted to make this an alpha thread, but he hasn't really specified what direction the discussion is to take. The thread was immediately hijacked by you, and Reiku is aparently asleep.

zephir---I have read exactly one of your posts before I realized that almost everything you post is not science.

Are you really interested about physics and common point of existing theories or are you rather enjoying the censorship?

The ``common point of existing theories''? What does your drivel have in common with anything legitimate?

...before I realized that almost everything you post is not science...

What you can realize is just a dream. The science is only, what you can prove. I can't see no evidence, some proof the less - just claims, claims, claims, parroted from textbooks. How the luminiferous Aether concept was refuted by you? By assumption, the Universe is formed by black hole?

This is a confirmation of it, instead...:D Such hypothesis says not only, the Aether is physically relevant, but it's a very dense stuff, composed of particles, too. Because every black hole is very dense particle stuff as well. This is a trivial logic.

Well, the CMB gives a preferred frame, is this what you mean? But this has nothing to do with the concept of an aether.

If it doesn't, how do you want to refute the Aether concept, after then?

Well, lets continue. I've explained, why every information inside of our Universe is mediated by energy spreading, which can be always considered inertial - at least conceptually (until the exact nature of the matter will not be known). The crucial question is by now: how the structure of such matter should appear, to enable us to see as giant Universe, as possible?

For example, if the matter, which is serving for information spreading will be composed of many particles, the energy will spread through it in longitudinal waves. This is not very good, despite of the density of matter used, because such spreading is quite dispersive. Furthermore, as we know already from Hertz's experiment, the energy through vacuum is spreading in transversal waves, which can be polarized. While the longitidinal waves cannot.

Fortunately, the Nature gives us the easy clue during condensation of supercritical foam. During this, the spongy density fluctuations are formed temporarily from particle environment. When the condensation continues, these fluctuations will reconnect and fragmentize into larger droplets, so that the longitudinal character of energy spreading is restored.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/supercrit.gif

Here at least two important points in the foamy state of matter. At first, during this moment, a certain part of energy will spread via transversal waves through it (so we can detect the temporal drop of sound waves speed, for example). At second, the energy density, which will correspond the spreading of energy through bulk phase will be always lower, then the density of energy, which will spread via newly formed spongy surfaces (why?).

If the mass/energy density of such foam will limit to infinity, the difference between energy density of bulk and surface phase will limit to the very high value too - but it will always remain finite, albeit of the quite high value. Can anybody explain by using of well known physics of Victorian era, why is it so? You can use the math of 21th century by the same way, of course...:cool:

If it doesn't, how do you want to refute the Aether concept, after then?

Aethers have been refuted elsewhere (http://www.aip.org/history/gap/Michelson/02_Michelson.html).

Aethers have been refuted elsewhere (http://www.aip.org/history/gap/Michelson/02_Michelson.html).

I don't see any evidence against the Aether here, just the evidence against the absolute reference frame, which - as You correctly stated - has nothing to to with Aether concept as such. Therefore the evidence of the absence of the absolute reference frame can have nothing to do with evidence of Aether absence - just because "preferred frame... has nothing to do with the concept of an Aether" by your own words. And what the M-M experiment has found exactly was just the absence of absolute reference frame for (visible) light spreading - the absence of Aether is solely your deduction.

Do you know some example of classical physics, where the absence of absolute reference frame for energy wave spreading is directly connected to some material environement? Do you know as least some example of energy spreading with no absolute reference frame, with exception of the light spreading in vacuum?

If not, then sorry - you're not physicist, just a mathematician (maybe). You can make a carrier in biology or botanics with the same relevancy.

Sure, super. George Smoot and John Mather won the Nobel Prize for detecting our motion through the universe relative to the preferred frame of the CMB (hint, hint Ben). Here is a link to their homepage and some onfo.
http://aether.lbl.gov/
Nice site!

But I'm confused. I couldn't find any reference to "aether" on the site itself.

And it says nothing about detecting our motion through the universe relative to the CMB. I think their prize was for the COBE and WMAP discoveries of the general small scale anisotropies found.

However:

I did find Smoots paper describing the apparent discovery of a general dipole anisotropy indicating a slightly "warmer" CMB in the general direction of the constellation of Leo. Is this what we're talking about?

Hey! That's funny! I came in here to reply in the physics sub, and left from the pseudo sub. I think that's proof of a sciforums black hole / white hole thingamabob! :D:m:

I couldn't find any reference to "aether" on the site itself.

Not will you. The CMB has nothing to do with the aether.

The CMB has nothing to do with the aether.

Come on.... How can you know about it? How can you PROVE this? I can say exactly the opposite with the same relevancy.

"The CMB has something to do with the Aether".

Do you see? It's as easy as it is.:D But I'm not interested about ad-hoc claims here, just about evidence and proofs.

Not will you. The CMB has nothing to do with the aether.
I believe that. But this seems to be an official site. Or am I deluded? Why is it called aether.lbl.gov ???

Ben,

Here's a pdf of a paper. Search on the word "aether" and see what you think of this. Can you interpret what this means? For a poor, lowly engineer? :o

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/smoot_lecture.pdf

I suspect that it has nothing to do with what is popularly thought of as the "ether" that MM of course failed to find, and more to do with a convenient reference.

What do you think?

Search on the word "aether" and see what you think of this. Can you interpret what this means? For a poor, lowly engineer?
My private experience is, the top scientists have usually no problem with the Aether concept. The Lorentz, Schrodinger, Dirac, or even Einstein in his later times were all less or more convinced aetherists. The problem with Aether is comming from 2nd party mainstream science proponents, which don't understand their subject so well.

...
In general, the question, whether some Nobelist is using the "Aether" word or not should be completelly irrelevant. Everyone should be convinced about its truth himself, not just because some Smoot or Zephir says so. If you have no such reasoning prepared, it's better not to talk about Aether at all, simply because you're not qualified to discuss such subject.

The question by now is: "how the drift of Aether reference frame can be distinguished from the drift of GR reference frame, caused by Universe expansion?"? We should realize, the CMB drift was predicted by many years before by Gamow and others at the end of 40's of the last century just by using of Universe expansion model, i.e. without using of the Aether concept at all.

If you have no such reasoning prepared, it's better not to talk about Aether at all, simply because you're not qualified to discuss such subject at all.

I already explained why the aether doesn't make sense. So you can either tell me why those reasons are no good, or you can admit that you don't know.

.. So you can either tell me why those reasons are no good, or you can admit that you don't know...

Which reasons do you mean? I can't see any reasons of yours here.

.. I already explained why the aether doesn't make sense...
And so? I already explained, why the aether does make sense. With such vague way of discussion has no sense to continue with the discussion at all. Here are many others, who are having better arguments prepared - so why I should consider just the ad-hoced claims of yours?

A rather ill-informed potshot at string theory, and completely tangential to the subject at hand. I can wipe the floor with you twice, if you'd like.
Uh, what is the subject at hand, Ben? I like detailed answers, please. And string theory, a theory with 'strings' too small to be detected, curled-up hidden 'dimensions' that can not be detected, yet serve as a catch-all trashcan for the mathematics that don't work out correctly, and makes no predictions by which the theory could be confirmed or rejected. Oh, and wipe away, I am a big boy. ;)
So if there is an aether, it has to have exactly the same reference frame as earth? Correct?
No more so than the Dirac sea or Dark Energy have to have exactly the same reference frame as the Earth. Can we detect our motion through the Dirac sea with a basement experiment conducted on the surface of the Earth?
M&M showed exactly what I said, if there is an aether it has to have no reference frame, or (as you pointed out the MUCH less likely probability) that it has to have exactly the same reference frame as an observer on the surface of the earth.
Since you seem to be totally ignorant of the new aether theories, search for "The New Aether Drift Experiment" and see if you can connect the dots. You are aware that relativity theory denies the existence of any preferred frame of reference in which physics can be described more easily and more accurately, aren't you? But, no matter, modern aether theory is alive and well, can make predictions such as an ability to determine the pecular velocity of our solar system through the universe, which was determined to be 370 km/s. Yet you claim all aether theories have been 'disproven' and belong in pseudoscience.

Uh, what is the subject at hand, Ben? I like detailed answers, please. And string theory, a theory with 'strings' too small to be detected, curled-up hidden 'dimensions' that can not be detected, yet serve as a catch-all trashcan for the mathematics that don't work out correctly, and makes no predictions by which the theory could be confirmed or rejected. Oh, and wipe away, I am a big boy.

Tempting... But since there is no actual content in this, I don't really feel the need to respond to it, other than to point out that your objections to string theory occupy the same moral ground as the intelligent design/young earth creationist/911 was engineered by Bush/global warming isn't happening/Kerry won the election/the universe is actually on the back of a giant turtle crowd.

No more so than the Dirac sea or Dark Energy have to have exactly the same reference frame as the Earth. Can we detect our motion through the Dirac sea with a basement experiment conducted on the surface of the Earth?

Maybe you and Reiku should get together for tea and crumpets. One, there is no Dirac sea. This much is clear because matter is made out of more than electrons and positrons. Anyone who has learned anything about physics since 1950 would know this. Two, dark energy's effects on Earth are too small to be measured, so even if there was some idea of a preferred frame for the dark energy, you could never measure it in a terrestrial experiment.

Yet you claim all aether theories have been 'disproven' and belong in pseudoscience.

Yes, you are right. Your well-reasoned and highly informed response has convinced me to change my mind, and reinstate this thread into the realm of legitimate science. I see the tremendous mistake I have made, and appologize profoundly to you and zephir for even thinking that the study of aether was not worthwhile or scientific.

excellent
once that is done, take a hike please

BenTheMan,
Tempting... But since there is no actual content in this, I don't really feel the need to respond to it, other than to point out that your objections to string theory occupy the same moral ground as the intelligent design/young earth creationist/911 was engineered by Bush/global warming isn't happening/Kerry won the election/the universe is actually on the back of a giant turtle crowd.
I think you have it backwards, Ben. I see no evidence to support string theory. You 'believe' in string theory with no evidence to support the theory and with no predictions to confirm or falsify the theory. You are closer to occupying the same moral ground as the intelligent designers, etc.
Maybe you and Reiku should get together for tea and crumpets.
You must be residing in a fantasy land. I reject any theory that does not display solid logic and have good experimental backing. Why do you think I am skeptical of string theories? Like Reiku, you seem to embrace speculation that lacks these qualities, just a different speculation than Reiku's.
One, there is no Dirac sea. This much is clear because matter is made out of more than electrons and positrons. Anyone who has learned anything about physics since 1950 would know this.
So now you are stating that pair production in the vacuum is pseudoscience. How about Hawking-Unruh radiation? You do realize that most pairs are electron/positron pairs? Why do you believe that all matter is theorized to come into existence through pair production?
Two, dark energy's effects on Earth are too small to be measured, so even if there was some idea of a preferred frame for the dark energy, you could never measure it in a terrestrial experiment.
Yes, exactly. The modern aether is not baryonic matter nor the old luminiferous ether. It is responsible for the 'Dark' properties of spacetime we can observe and measure and also pair production in vacuum. Exactly what it is is still unkown at this time, but we can detect its effects. Aether theories are very prominent in advanced cosmology, not a pseudoscience.

I see no evidence to support string theory.

Just the Aether theory explains the string theory concepts by intuitive way. The strings are foamy density fluctuations of Aether, similar to those, which appears inside of dense condensing matter. The problem is, many people don't understand both behavior of Aether, both string theory.

Ben,

Here's a pdf of a paper. Search on the word "aether" and see what you think of this. Can you interpret what this means? For a poor, lowly engineer? :o

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2006/smoot_lecture.pdf

I suspect that it has nothing to do with what is popularly thought of as the "ether" that MM of course failed to find, and more to do with a convenient reference.

What do you think?
Anyone interested in what a renouned nobel prize winning astrophysicist is dabbling in? Anyone?

Anyone interested in what a renouned nobel prize winning astrophysicist is dabbling in? Anyone?
My question was "how the drift of Aether reference frame can be distinguished from the drift of GR reference frame, caused by Universe expansion?"? We should realize, the CMB drift was predicted by many years before by Gamow and others at the end of 40's of the last century just by using of Universe expansion model, i.e. without using of the Aether concept at all.

Fantabulous, because i am now in a straight mind, you ignorant little fool. Now... Aether hasn't been DISPROVEN.

1. QA, has been proven TO exist, SO.... your comment > ''Aethers have been disproven long ago.''

Is incorrect.

2. The thread is gong somewhere. It's just a matter of you being a impatient, lop-sided physicist, who wants to impress the folks round here that YOU SHOULD, without impunuty and right to HAVE SUCH A POWER over people like me. If you don't believe me about the whole ''AETHER-THING,'' then contact Dr Wolf. If you don't, you know I am right.

3. You said ''if you want to start a thread discussing the level of scientific discourse that we adhere to at SciForums, I would suggest that you make a more clearly stated goal in the original post.''

And i replied, before you got your knickers in a twist: ''Ben... don't get too cocky. My connectin has been exteernky slow. So,,, yes, it SHOULD BE HERE... I'll re-itterate what Zeph was saying:

String Thoery, indeed all tehories COULD BE the Uniltmate Theory of Everything,...

Now that my comuter is not, i am rather tired.I willc otinue wy tommorrow this thread,,, but first, before i go, i want to post another, so please be patient.''

So... WTF are you talking about?

4. ''Note to all: If this thread doesn't get some direction soon, it will be moved to the cesspool.''

Lol... whateer Ben... whatever.

My question was "how the drift of Aether reference frame can be distinguished from the drift of GR reference frame, caused by Universe expansion?"? We should realize, the CMB drift was predicted by many years before by Gamow and others at the end of 40's of the last century just by using of Universe expansion model, i.e. without using of the Aether concept at all.
Unlike Special Theory, GR itself is based on an assumed aether. Why wouldn't GR give the same predictions as an aether theory? Here is a quote from Einstein:
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. (Albert Einstein, Leiden Lecture, 1920)

Ok then.

*rubs hands together*

What evidence do we have on the table for the existence of an ether or aether - whichever you prefer?

Some links would be helpful.

Unlike Special Theory, GR itself is based on an assumed aether. Why wouldn't GR give the same predictions as an aether theory? Here is a quote from Einstein:
Becausre Einsteins theory is being overthrown concerning the Aether....


Why...?

Because too many holes are now being filled. Einstein was smart, there is no denying that, but after 50 years or so, you must assume that scienceoverthrows the antiquated physics.

Ok then.

*rubs hands together*

What evidence do we have on the table for the existence of an ether or aether - whichever you prefer?

Some links would be helpful.

''Aether Theory

As you might know, Einstein’s theory of Brownian movement became empirical evidence that atoms existed. Before this discovery, particles and forces where assumed not to exist - but this revolution showed us that we could observe atoms through microscopic-lensed telescopes.
Einstein was heavily influenced by his mathematical insights, and this gave him great understanding into the world of particle behaviour - this too must bring with it the forces that 'carry' these specific particles… This included a particular medium for all matter called the Aether.
What is 'Aether Theory' all about?
Einstein wrote a paper on what was called, 'The Investigation of the State of Aether in Magnetic Fields'. I find it a most interesting paper. I believe it was originally devised contemporaneously for [one] of his uncles.
Also known as 'Ether' from the Greek Word (aio'np), which basically means 'upper' or a.k.a. 'pure fresh air,' - it was believed to be an all-spacetime filling field. They refer its effects as a 'transmissional medium'. The Aether hypothesis has come in numerous forms, through the multiple interpretations throughout history.
The orthodox Aether Interpretation is that it is a physical force/medium that permeates every corner of spacetime thus indicating an influence on all materialistic bodies contained within all spacetime. Another result of Aether presents properties that give rise to the electric, magnetic and gravitational potentials, and also determines the propagating velocity of their effects.
It get's even more complex: it states that the propagating effects throughout all of the universe, are determined by the physical field of the Aether - which acts in a manor analogous to sound waves, such as the wave properties of a photon. Any developing propagation and potential effects within spacetime due to their velocities are viewed as having real effects. Thus, fundamental interactions depend on this Aether Force, in intrical ways.
The rippling or ''propagation'' of the Force of Aether also presents time directionality, reflected in the 'Radiative Arrow’ - found in quantum evolution. Though, the effect in velocities predicted by Aether indicates the possibility in the answering of matter formations, and the age discrepancies that haunt our observations of galactic formations.
This is as elementary as i can express it: Aether is a physically-interactive force field which acts as a mediator throughout all universal bodies - even between them in the vast Intergalactic Cosmological Medium - and like all 'mediums', if it exists, as i believe it does, must have fundamental attributes consisting of a pressure, a tension, a mass density and temperature.
Aether, as controversial as it has become to be known in the academic world, has played, as i believe, one of the biggest roles in the developing theories of the equally controversial quantum mechanics. And this is why: During the 19th century, the most elementary fundamental forces where known as electrical, magnetical and 'luminous' phenomena. By unifying these fundamental characteristics, brought with it new modes of theories... integrating the fields of force into a single network.

The Preferred Model of Aether Theory

Thus, the attention during the 19th century was focused on the fundamental interaction of electromagnetic phenomena.
It was in fact assumed for a while by the majority of the physicists of that era that 'ponderable' matter, consistent of having what is called 'rest value,' and 'inertia', was inexorably differential, that was 'somehow' meshed, or, enveloped through the permeating, all-space and all-time Aether.
Now, some strange conclusions can be made here. If the above is correct, this interpretation states that an object must literally 'plow' through the Aether. If it 'plows' through the Aether, it then must also drag the ''fabric'' of Aether along its trajectory.

If the hypothetical object does not move the distribution of pressure exerted by the strange Aether, means that it is equally proportional in all directions! A function coined by scientists as (isotropic). It has also come to be more widely known as the 'Rest Frame of The Aether.'
Thought indicated that the measure of matter in motion through this Aether Field was highly important. One way to measure such an effect would be found in the momentum of the Earth, which was considered to be suffice in magnitude, that its speed was determinable.
Thus a physicist called Albert Michelson in 1881 set out to find the tail whip of the Aether wind as earth ploughed through it.

The Test of Matter in Motion Through The Aether

Michelson solved the question to this, through experimental tests, that, unfortunately resulted in 'the Big Goose Egg,' - 'absolute nada'. Again, it was repeated in 1887, this time counterparted with physicist Edward Morley, and their experiment became to be known as the 'Michelson-Morley Experiment.' However, even this revived experiment proved fruitless!
It basically meant at the time, that the positive results predicted by the ‘Preferred Model,’ were not conclusive with the predicted results.

So How Should Matter in Aether Be Viewed?

Well, science informs us that any medium would itself react to any movement of a physical ''meshed'' object, the postulate of a static Aether is also assumed to be flawed. However, ways around this can be evaluated. The 'classic way' to describe the following, is that, whenever you swirl your hand in water, and if the medium has any viscosity, it will experience a 'dragging effect', thus can be now imagined to cause a circular motion - a bit like the way a Black Hole itself drags space and time with it... However, as the time variables increase, so does the relative speed and drag between the body and the medium.
This results the overall magnitude to be equally dependant on the 'value of viscosity', which relentlessly leads to many variants of the Aether theory and the momentum of matter through it. These lead to 'Coefficient Theories,' and principles for how all Bradyonic matter should interact with the Luxen particle of light.
The progressive evolution in Aether theories has paradoxically made our search rather difficult, as they open 'too many doors', making any initial theory almost invalid to make any self-assured predictions.

Quantum Mechanics and Aether Theory

Quantum Mechanics, as you will undoubtedly know, is used to interpret the function of matter at the fundamental level. We see this as all arising from the vacuum, like the spontaneous bubbling of electrons and antielectrons out of the Dirac Sea whenever there is enough energy present. Remember, the Dirac Sea is packed full with negative particles.
Matter must come out of the vacuum, and create two distinct forms of longer-lived spacetime distortional fluctuations; a particle and its antipartner. This was called by physicist J. A Wheeler as ''quantum foam.''
These fluctuations arise out of a spatial coordinate - this size is 1.616 x 30^-33, which is the smallest known 'box' of space. The fluctuations also arise out of the smallest time possible, called the ‘Planck Time,' which is 5.391 x 10^-44 seconds. It is here, in this infinitesimal unit of space that releases an enormous amount of virtual energy in the quickest time possible!
On this small level, space and time literally forces these spontaneous rapid releases of quantum bubbles of energy/gas that breaks into a particle and its antiparticle. Thus, Quantum Theory might itself be indicating an equivalence with 'zero-point energy field,' that may be the shadow of a ''particulate Aether''.

There are simply some aspects about the Aether field that we simply ‘just need’. There are many more theories about the Aether though which are very controversial such as The Einstein-Aether Theories… And all this originally stemmed from physicist Thomas Young’s experiment of a photons quantum wave. I don't think the Aether field will be solved any time soon – however, the Aether field is now gaining more and more interest, as I have been informed by Dr. Fred Alan Wolf… The reason why is because some scientists believe that dark energy might be linked to the Aether… And because we know so very little about dark energy, this has got the scientists very excited.''

From my first book.

Link...

Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.
Have Brains / Will Travel
San Francisco
mailto:fred@fredalanwolf.com
web page: http://www.fredalanwolf.com
Blog page: http://fredalanwolf.blogspot.com/

Evidence. Predictions. Experiments. Results.

Not a monologue.

''Aether Theory Fred Alan Wolf Ph.D.
Hi, Fred, you're looking pretty good and optimistic. I wish you stronger health...;)

http://www.questbooks.net/authorimg/fred.jpg

The speech of yours isn't so good, though - can you be more brief and coherent at times? No more verbose cut&paste shows, please - this is not review dashboard, but discussion of ideas. If I would interested about your books, the single link is just enough. Unfortunatelly, the example of yours works rather like deterrent for me.
...there are simply some aspects about the Aether field that we simply ‘just need’..
No, my dear. This is just another form of dogmatism: the nonscientific one. Here's simply no "just need (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USpVRWmH-Gc)". The same what I've said about anti-aether stance unsuported by arguments, remains valid for the Aether proponents. The Aether theory isn't supposed to repeat the old mistakes of mainstream science.

So, what's the Aether Wave Theory is all about?

This theory is based on understanding, whole laws of Universe are driven by laws of chaos, the laws of chaos observation in particular (because we cannot describe the Universe as such, but only how it can appears for us). If you cannot imagine the true chaos, you can imagine it as a very hot & dense matter, pretty similar to those, which can appear inside of black holes or another hot & dense stars. If you cannot imagine it anyway, you can check some videos of most hot & dense matter, which can be observed in terrestrial conditions: the condensing supercritical vapor, or you can start with some computer simulations of it to study its behavior.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/space_topology.gif

Surprisingly enough, while the ideas, the whole Universe is of chaotic nature, it's just a fluctuation, etc. aren't very new ones, they were never considered more thoroughly, it seems. The idea, the Universe is formed by some black hole interior was derived independently before years - and again, none testable prediction was derived from such insight. There was quite strong resistance/indisposition to consider the vacuum as a quite common massive environment - even between Aether proponents. The Aether was always considered slightly mystic and untouchable thing, while it's true nature can be quite simple: the probability laws of chaos observation/interaction by limited piece of chaos. The Universe appears exactly as it appears just because it's the most probable view of chaotic reality. Every subtle density fluctuation inside of supercritical vapor will interact with the rest such environment by conceptually very same way - via inertial energy spreading.

Whole our understanding of Universe is therefore limited only by our ability to extrapolate the behavior of material environment to the infinite mass/energy density. Why just infinite? Easy - because here's no other reason, why to consider some other distinct values of these quantities - that's all. We should realize, the matter of infinite mass/energy density corresponds the virtually nothing, the void space and time - simply because such environment is quite chaotic and inside of truly chaotic environment no energy/matter can spread at the distance. The existence of such infinitely dense environment is given by causality. You cannot create something from nothing, but if such creation would appear anyway, it can appear as an condensation of matter from hot and dense vapor. After then the existence of hot and dense environment can serve as an introductory causual assumption without problem. Therefore the existence of Aether is the main (and only one) introductory postulate of Aether Wave Theory. From the internal observer perspective such environment would appear as a truly void and empty space, so here's no fundamental problem even for people, who are ignoring the causality and who are believing, whole the Universe has raised from virtually nothing or from pinpoint singularity with no space and time "at the very beginning".

Such idea is quite relevant, because it's just a dual view of Aether, i.e. the view from internal observer perspective. Whole the Aether theory description is based on the observational duality. From the causality it follows, such duality is immanent for every piece of Aether description. I'll give the another examples of such observational duality later in different context.

Now, if you understood the introductory assumptions of Aether Wave Theory, we can discuss their consequences in context of inertial chaos description on the background of probability of states. My question is, if my explanation so far was totally clear for everybody here? It has no meaning to continue further, if somebody will not understand the introductory motivations of Aether theory, i.e. the reason, why it was (re)introduced into physics in its current state.

The main difference of Aether theory with compare to the older ones is:

The Aether Wave Theory considers no any other formal assumptions about Aether. The Aether is just an inertial matter driven by Newtonian mechanics. No relativity theory, no quantum mechanics or another equations are assumed. And the Newtonian dynamics is consequence of the diffusional character of energy and matter spreading in the dense particle environment. So I suppose, the assumption of infinite mass/energy density can explain the Aether behavior later, but currently I've no such derivation formalized yet. But in general, the energy is the tendency to level the differences in Aether mass/energy density at the different places of the space/Aether volume, and such leveling is driven by diffusional equation. The mass/energy spreading is always perpendicular (normal) to the mass/energy density gradient of Aether, so it follows the shortest path available - from this the first Newtonian law follows. This is an important point for further understanding of Aether density gradient behavior and the curvature of space-time. Because every space-time curvature is the manifestation of Aether density gradient and such gradient has a surface curvature. And because the energy follows the surface gradient (later we can explain, why is it so) - it always tends to spread along as straight path, as possible, thus making the gradient surface as narrow, as possible.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/dropplets.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/astronomy/dropplet.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spacetime/difussion1.gif

We can met with such behavior in illustrative way at the case of liquids with strong surface tension, like at the case of mercury droplets. These droplets can serve as a proper model of Aether particle behavior. These droplets have tendency to condense into larger ones, whenever possible - thus narrowing their surface curvature and therefore the path of surface energy. Every particle or density fluctuation of Aether - from graviton to black hole - is behaving by the same way: it tends to condense, thus decrease it's surface energy density. We call this behavior by supergravity force. The supergravity is similar to gravity, but is independent to dimensionality of space-time. It can exhibit both positive, both negative sign, depending on the surface curvature. While the blobs of Aether with positive curvature (the "particles" with center of mass in common sense) are connected together, the holes (i.e. the places of lower Aether density) are of negative curvature, and they're repelled mutually. By such way, the supergravity force is scale invariant and it's supersymmetric to the space-time curvature. The common gravity is the manifestation of supergravity in 3D+1T space-time, but we can bring up the Aether gradients in arbitrary number of dimensions (later we can explain, why just 3D+1T configuration is preferred). Is all that clear?

Now, what will happen, if we introduce some energy into dense mixture of mercury droplets, like during shaking inside of closed vessel?

One of these things is not like the other...

Anyway, what is it you wanted to discuss exactly, Reiku?


It is exactly, 1 in 7 quadrillion x 4 to the power of 9 that i have shown that string theory is probably the best place to start.... So.... :shrug:

Zeph....I am not Dr Wolf...

Unless of course, you are...?????

Now, if you understood the introductory assumptions of Aether Wave Theory, we can discuss their consequences in context of inertial chaos description on the background of probability of states. My question is, if my explanation so far was totally clear for everybody here? It has no meaning to continue further, if somebody will not understand the introductory motivations of Aether theory, i.e. the reason, why it was (re)introduced into physics in its current state.

The main difference of Aether theory with compare to the older ones is:

The Aether Wave Theory considers no any other formal assumptions about Aether. The Aether is just an inertial matter driven by Newtonian mechanics. No relativity theory, no quantum mechanics or another equations are assumed. And the Newtonian dynamics is consequence of the diffusional character of energy and matter spreading in the dense particle environment. So I suppose, the assumption of infinite mass/energy density can explain the Aether behavior later, but currently I've no such derivation formalized yet. But in general, the energy is the tendency to level the differences in Aether mass/energy density at the different places of the space/Aether volume, and such leveling is driven by diffusional equation. The mass/energy spreading is always perpendicular (normal) to the mass/energy density gradient of Aether, so it follows the shortest path available - from this the first Newtonian law follows. This is an important point for further understanding of Aether density gradient behavior and the curvature of space-time. Because every space-time curvature is the manifestation of Aether density gradient and such gradient has a surface curvature. And because the energy follows the surface gradient (later we can explain, why is it so) - it always tends to spread along as straight path, as possible, thus making the gradient surface as narrow, as possible.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/dropplets.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/astronomy/dropplet.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/spacetime/difussion1.gif

We can met with such behavior in illustrative way at the case of liquids with strong surface tension, like at the case of mercury droplets. These droplets can serve as a proper model of Aether particle behavior. These droplets have tendency to condense into larger ones, whenever possible - thus narrowing their surface curvature and therefore the path of surface energy. Every particle or density fluctuation of Aether - from graviton to black hole - is behaving by the same way: it tends to condense, thus decrease it's surface energy density. We call this behavior by supergravity force. The supergravity is similar to gravity, but is independent to dimensionality of space-time. It can exhibit both positive, both negative sign, depending on the surface curvature. While the blobs of Aether with positive curvature (the "particles" with center of mass in common sense) are connected together, the holes (i.e. the places of lower Aether density) are of negative curvature, and they're repelled mutually. By such way, the supergravity force is scale invariant and it's supersymmetric to the space-time curvature. The common gravity is the manifestation of supergravity in 3D+1T space-time, but we can bring up the Aether gradients in arbitrary number of dimensions (later we can explain, why just 3D+1T configuration is preferred). Is all that clear?

Now, what will happen, if we introduce some energy into dense mixture of mercury droplets, like during shaking inside of closed vessel?


But what about the negative qualities... as in minus, instead of positive...?

the Newtonian dynamics is consequence of the diffusional character of energy and matter spreading in the dense particle environment.
...in general, the energy is the tendency to level the differences in Aether mass/energy density at the different places of the space/Aether volume, and such leveling is driven by diffusional equation.
Is this expressed as a standard entropic flow (as in Boltzmann), or is there more to it? What does the equation look like?
Does it relate quantum uncertainty, or some conditional uncertainty, as some of the newer mathematical versions of entropy do?

Efficiency seems to be a natural thing that happens in any system that commutes or changes energy state, or microcanonical partition-wise states. Relaxation (of coupled oscillators), superposition (of quantised and analog waveforms) usually 'tries' to find a state of lowest entropy, or it 'self-adjusts' or whatever. Randomness and chaos appear to be linked to this somehow.

P.S. Considering this, the "emergence" of behaviour in any system is presumably due wholly to its inherent properties (expansion, in the case of heat and matter);
ergody, or ergosy, the study of emergence, and with the needed explanation for how life itself emerged in the universe, or at least this version of it; and what role quantum chaos plays (selection, pointer states, availability), and may have played in the emergence of life, the quantum midwife idea, is all hot stuff right now. The idea being that life arose from chaos, and it's maintained by 'background' chaos and uncertainty. Life is 'driven' by chaotic, random events.

But what about the negative qualities... as in minus, instead of positive...?

Good question.

First, you are right, and so am i. Both need to be equal i proportional ba;ance... such as a positron-electron prodction, - well done.:D

ok
cutiing edge physics in pseudo
homework help in phys

well done, dumbfuck sci

ben is like a thug mugging well heeled tourists

Gus: '''you can contact me on >''

''garethlee.meredith@tiscali.co.uk.''

>>>> Is this what you wanted?

reiku is like a deluded mutt begging to be mugged
why the fuck would i want to contact you?

the blood sweat and tears
the sex drugs and rock and roll
the shit and piss
laid out in sci
out in the fucking open
for the historical record
for humanity

ban the frikking msg sys in sci

baby
i want everything about you

So now you are stating that pair production in the vacuum is pseudoscience.

I am stating exactly that pair production from the vacuum doesn't mean there is a Dirac sea. One can also produce quark-anti-quark pairs from the vacuum. Should there also be a quark sea as well?

While the Dirac sea is a good interpretation for some things, it is outdated and has been more or less given up on after about 1950, when Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga taught us how to quantize classical electrodynamics.

I think you have it backwards, Ben. I see no evidence to support string theory. You 'believe' in string theory with no evidence to support the theory and with no predictions to confirm or falsify the theory. You are closer to occupying the same moral ground as the intelligent designers, etc.

Surely not. I think there is much you should learn before you have this conversation with me.

Oh, and this is particularly amusing:

You must be residing in a fantasy land. I reject any theory that does not display solid logic and have good experimental backing.

How about Hawking-Unruh radiation?

Show me an experiment where you detect Hawking radiation :)

ok
cutiing edge physics in pseudo
homework help in phys

well done, dumbfuck sci

I doubt that you are in a position to judge what is ``cutting edge physics''.

But, I have been wrong about things before...

BenTheMan,
I am stating exactly that pair production from the vacuum doesn't mean there is a Dirac sea. One can also produce quark-anti-quark pairs from the vacuum. Should there also be a quark sea as well?
I never argued that the Dirac sea was a complete and accurate description of the vacuum. Einstein, Dirac and others recognized that the 'Dirac sea', which is a hypothesis that predicted the existence of the positron, was a signature of an underlying aether in the vacuum. I said that it was not possible to detect our motion through the aether, by means of Earth surface-based experiments, any more easily than we could detect our motion through the Dirac sea or the Dark Energy in the vacuum. I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime. I really don't care if it is called 'aether', Dark Energy, vacuum energy, Dirac sea or whatever. They are all just bits and pieces of the larger puzzle, IMO.
Show me an experiment where you detect Hawking radiation

Ahh, I did not state Hawking radiation, I said Hawking-Unruh radiation. I am still skeptical of both forms of Hawking radiation. Here is a little cut & paste and link regarding Hawking-Unruh radiation:
At present, Unruh radiation for uniformly accelerated motion exists only as a theoretical
concept, not yet confirmed in the laboratory. Experimental evidence for Hawking-Unruh
effects does exist for uniform circular motion, as mentioned in the Introduction.
http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/accel/unruhrad.pdf

"...He asks you where you've been, you tell him who you've seen.
And you talk about anything."

I said that it was not possible to detect our motion through the aether, by means of Earth surface-based experiments, any more easily than we could detect our motion through the Dirac sea or the Dark Energy in the vacuum.

So you can't detect it? Then how do you measure it?

I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime. I really don't care if it is called 'aether', Dark Energy, vacuum energy, Dirac sea or whatever. They are all just bits and pieces of the larger puzzle, IMO.

So then the argument is reduced to symantics. This scentence has no content. you say things like ``I think'', instead of ``I can show you quantitatively...''. If your aether is the same as a Dirac sea, then surely it is wrong---I have pointed out to Reiku on several occasions that treating the Dirac Sea as a zero point field leads to the worst theoretical prediction in all of physics.

I am still skeptical of both forms of Hawking radiation. Here is a little cut & paste and link regarding Hawking-Unruh radiation:

The argument that the guy makes is here:

The Hawking-Unruh temperature ¯nds application in accelerator physics as the reason that electrons in a storage ring do not reach 100% polarization despite emitting polarized synchrotron radiation [4]. Indeed, the various limiting features of performance of a storage ring that arise due to quantum °uctuations of the synchrotron radiation [5] can be understood quickly in terms of eq. (2) [6, 7].

I am skeptical of this, but it is interesting nonetheless. Thank you for pointing this out. I think that Hawking radiation is correct because it is a robust result---every approach to quantum gravity (strings, loops, path integrals) gets the same answer, which is quite interesting.

BenTheMan,
So you can't detect it? Then how do you measure it?
Don't be such an ass. I said we can observe and measure the effects. We can observe and measure the effects of gravity, but we have never detected a graviton or a gravitational wave, have we? We know gravity exists, but we still don't know exactly what it is.
If your aether is the same as a Dirac sea, then surely it is wrong
Read my post again, Ben, and try to be honest in your arguments. I never stated the Dirac sea was the same as the aether.

Don't solve, guys, what the Aether cannot be, but what it can be. Can it behave like very dense matter, for example the interior of black hole? No? Why not?
How such very dense matter is supposed to appear? The people are using to solve many different abstract problems, but they're ignoring the most trivial questions.

ben is a troll
plazma does all of us a disservice by allowing this shit to continue as it has

ja
dumbfuck sci

oh
i know shit about physics but i know who does and doesnt

benthetroll's mantra is...if it cannot be measured it aint physics

Such way of discussion isn't very constructive, because no party involved in discussion doesn't supply some relevant arguments. The Aether concept is sort of abstraction: you needn't to believe, whether it is real or not. But what we know, the light is spreading in waves, right? It has finite wavelength, so you can imagine, the light wave is spreading in elastic enevironment, whose mass density is the third power of Planck constant (if we consider it just three-dimensional). The density of such matter corresponds the density of black hole, if we consider as black hole a mass inside its own Schwarzschild radius. If the average density of a region is rho, then very roughly we could say the Schwarzchild radius of a spherical region in asymptotically flat spacetime (and neglecting gravitational binding energy, etc) of radius r is about (8 pi rho)(r^3)/3.

Therefore, regardless of the density, if we consider a spherical region (in flat space) of radius r greater than sqrt[3/(8 pi rho)] then the region would be called a black hole. For a mass of 2.5 x 1053 kg, i.e. a 2 and a 5 followed by 52 zeroes kg, the Schwarzschild radius is about 17 billion light years. This huge mass is an estimate for the total mass of the observable matter inside of our universe. Also, given that the age of the universe is 15 billion years or so, 17 billion light years is pretty close to the size of the universe. This estimate basically says, the volume of space collapsed inside observable matter is of (nearly) the same size, like the volume of vacuum around it.

I explained many times, how the very dense matter should behave and why it cannot be detected so easily, if it's of such immense density, because the absolute part of energy will spread via transversal waves. You cannot detect the absolute reference frame of inertial environment by it's transversal waves by the same way, like you cannot detect the existence of underwater just by using of surface waves. What you should find is the subtle longitudal portion of energy waves. Therefore the existence of absolute reference frame would depend on the detection of gravitational waves. Unfortunatelly, no sign of such waves were detected so far, so we should choose some indirect approach.

One such approach is the detection of anisotropy of the microwave background of Universe(CMB) . If this anisotropy is caused just by anisotropy of Universe expansion, then such anisotropy should manifest itself even in visible part of spectrum. Unfortunatelly, no such anisotropy was detected already (in fact, some anisotropy was observed for local galaxy cluster, but it's considered as controversial and it doesn't correspond those of CMB both in amplitude, both in direction vector). Therefore the observed Doppler shift of CMB could be assigned to the Aether reference frame, instead. Why?

Because from Aether theory follows, just the longwavelength transversal waves will exhibit the Lorentz symmetry violation. Even the long-wavelength waves at the water surface are affected by the underwater motion, while the short-wavelength not. This is why, we can say, the observed anisotropy isn't caused by anisotropy of Universe expansion and/or local motion of gallactic cluster, but it's trully the consequence of inertial background of Universe.

ben is a troll

Do I need to point out the irony?

benthetroll's mantra is...if it cannot be measured it aint physics

And...? Is this a bad thing?

Read my post again, Ben, and try to be honest in your arguments. I never stated the Dirac sea was the same as the aether.

And I would ask you to read MY post again. If the aether you are talking about (which so far you haven't been able to describe to me at all) is the Dirac Sea, as you aluded to here:

I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime.

Then I am telling you that it is wrong.

So far, I can only see a semantic argument---you call something an aether, I call it a cosmological constant, or dark energy. You still haven't explained where it comes from or why it's there---you just called it something different.

you call something an aether, I call it a cosmological constant, or dark energy
...or virtual photons, or quantum foam or zero point energy. Too much denominations to single phenomena, don't you think? How do you want to explain for example the dispersion of gamma radiation detected by MAGIC experiment? The dilatation of iridium meter prototype?

You'll need to consider another and another assumptions and theories and to pile another and another attributes to your "cosmological constant". Despite the fact, the cosmological constant isn't equivalent to dark energy by any way. The cosmological constant was introduced to compensate/"explain" the stacionary Universe model by observed inflation. While the dark energy was introduced to compensate/"explain" the increasing rate of Universe expansion. The cosmological constant follows from the expansion of Universe, while the dark energy follows from acceleration of Universe expansion. In certain extent, the dark energy is related to first derivation of cosmological constant. Therefore, these two quantities aren't directly comparable - check the dimensional analysis. If the Universe would expand by constant speed, the cosmological constant will be nonzero, while the dark energy will remain exactly zero.

On the other hand, the black hole model of Universe of AWT covers all the above by single consistent Aether concept, which can be used even for explanation of quantum foam concept, dispersion of gamma and microwave radiation by vacuum, zero point energy, and many other fundamental phenomena, unexaplained yet by existing theories in consistent way. This is the reason, why I'm reintroducing the Aether into physics again: for unification and reconcilation of all existing concepts and theories with observations - not just of few cosmological ones.

BenTheMan,

I never argued that the Dirac sea was a complete and accurate description of the vacuum. Einstein, Dirac and others recognized that the 'Dirac sea', which is a hypothesis that predicted the existence of the positron, was a signature of an underlying aether in the vacuum. I said that it was not possible to detect our motion through the aether, by means of Earth surface-based experiments, any more easily than we could detect our motion through the Dirac sea or the Dark Energy in the vacuum. I think the observed and measured effects that some attempt to describe as Dark Energy, zero point energy, the Dirac sea, vacuum foam or whatever are all signatures of an aether-like background in spacetime. I really don't care if it is called 'aether', Dark Energy, vacuum energy, Dirac sea or whatever. They are all just bits and pieces of the larger puzzle, IMO.

Ahh, I did not state Hawking radiation, I said Hawking-Unruh radiation. I am still skeptical of both forms of Hawking radiation. Here is a little cut & paste and link regarding Hawking-Unruh radiation:

http://physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/accel/unruhrad.pdf

Sorry for tip-toeing in here, :D But...

There is a way to test this.

Imagine a bullet which is of course mass and energy. If you shoot it from a gun, it SHOULD drag the Quantum Aether with it... If so, then string theory could answer for the vibrating qualities found in this Aether, and proove that all known theories are indeed potentially correct.

A. Einstein

''Imagination is more important than knowledge.''

;):shrug:

Has the Casimir effect been discussed yet? Frame-dragging around a rotating BH?
What does anyone think about the first one?

Also, we perceive time as linear (here on planet Earth, anyway), but where is the line it 'moves' along?
I view time as something monotonic, but 3-d, like spatiality. In fact, time is orthogonal to any change in distance (separation). It ain't one-dimensional, except when we 'view' it this way to analyse motion (you can 'slice' a single spatial/time 'direction' to do this), but it is monotonic in a given inertial field.

Has the Casimir effect been discussed yet? Frame-dragging around a rotating BH?
What does anyone think about the first one?

Well, I was skeptical of the Casimir force the first time I heard it. But then I learned how to derive it, and read papers where some people measured it. Now I am less skeptical.

Also, we perceive time as linear (here on planet Earth, anyway), but where is the line it 'moves' along?
I view time as something monotonic, but 3-d, like spatiality. In fact, time is orthogonal to any change in distance (separation). It aint' one-dimensional, but it is monotonic in a given inertial field.

Ahh good. I will let yall entertain yourselves here with such wild speculations :)

"Time is linear" implies that it moves along a line.
Where is the line it "moves" along? Can you point it out?

Also, some science-wits appear to believe that an observation is like a snapshot; something static that we then 'look at'.
These people (who simply cannot understand that there is absolutely nothing 'fixed' or 'static' anywhere), also claim that an experiment is not an observation, and an example of 'observational only' -i.e. "non-experimental" science, wtf that means, is Astronomy.
Got banned for disagreeing with them and calling them a bunch of idiots who have no claim whatsoever to being "scientists". Or even logical.

P.S. Posted this in the wrong bloody thread, first , er, time.

Wild? Wild is the world, and so is physics. Being a physicist, you should know this, surely?

Wild is the world, and so is physics.

Well, it is certainly wild if you learned all of your physics from comic books (http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Quantums-Little-Book-Ideas/dp/1930491085/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197922140&sr=8-1).

Another troll-like answer, from another dogmatic troll-like scientist... HAHAHAHAHA

Well, I was skeptical of the Casimir force the first time I heard it. But then I learned how to derive it, and read papers where some people measured it. Now I am less skeptical.



Ahh good. I will let yall entertain yourselves here with such wild speculations :)

ahh
pseudo skepticism
all things casimir moved from fiefdom to pseudo or cess
ben, the arbiter of all that falls under the moniker of science

disgusting really
to be held hostage by one man
dumbfuck sci

/repelled

Tabula Rasa my friend gus.... don't ever whipe that comment from your mind... you where very correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i like you tho, ben
i will eat humble pie forever if you have been making the right calls
ja
i am fair like that
logic not ad homs and ad hocs
you distort with disingenuity, i never troll like that
simply aint my style

/ben sucks/big time

Wow... two compliments.... you're starting to sound sexy :)

..If you shoot it from a gun, it SHOULD drag the Quantum Aether with it..
The Aether is not "quantum" by its true nature. The Aether is matter, which is heavily compressed, so that the vacuum is behaving like the foam inside of evacuated vessel.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/aether_density.gif (http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/aether_density.gif) http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/boson_mov.gif

Inside of such foam, most of energy is spreading along surface gradients. Such system is nonlinear: the introduction of energy into foam (i.e. the shaking) leads to the condensation of foam bubbles like during soap foam shaking. The foam is of higher mass density, the higher is the energy density, like the quantum string, which gets dense at the place of vibration - from this the quantum mechanics equation follows. By such way, every wave spreads through vacuum like less ore more dense blob of Aether foam, i.e. like particle wave packet - from this behavior the particle wave duality follows and nothing miraculous is about it.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/simulace/vmlwave.gif

But from casual point of view this rather complex behavior follows from simple rules of complex geometry (which is in turn formed by complex rules/parallelism inside of large particle system) - so that the inertial diffusion is more fundamental effect here, the quantum behavior is the derived one. The complete explanation of Aether doesn't require the ad-hoc Schrödinger equation, it's able to explain the quantum wave behavior instead - therefore the Aether isn't "quantum". The Aether is just an inertial matter and the AWT doesn't require some quantum mechanics for it's explanation at all. Instead of this, it explains the QM as an inertial deterministic interpretation of it. It doesn't uses the QM postulates, so that the Aether Wave Theory is not quantum field theory. It can describe even the relativistic systems, which cannot be described by QM without loss of information.

..it is certainly wild if you learned all of your physics from comic books...
The QM is just a thin formal layer above QM postulates. It doesn't explain their physical motivation, the inertial consequences the less. This is why the Feynman had said before some time:

"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics ."

In fact, he was wrong even at the case of relativity theory, which is dual to quantum mechanics. So that if nobody understand the quantum mechanics, nobody can understand the relativity theory as well. The understanding is not the linear derivation of equations by predefined formal rules. The understanding is heavily parallelized process: i.e. the way, how from quantity derive the new quality by using of neural network foam simulation of Aether. It's phase transformation process of Aether foam, during which from large number of information pieces some new level of understanding appears. If the Aether foam is compressed, it condenses into new level of foam, filled by remnants of old bubbles. The gradients of information are condensed by passing through neural network foam like by passing through optical lens.

i know dumbfucksci
they aint qualified to comment on this stuff
just grunt

Grunt...


But Zeph... i have to disagree my friend. The Aether and matter indeed are the same, but a matter in motion must move through a static field, such as an Aether.

..But Zeph... i have to disagree my friend. The Aether and matter indeed are the same, but a matter in motion must move through a static field, such as an Aether.

But the matter is mostly the effect of standing wave at place. Such wave affects the environment quite slightly at the case, it affects just the subtle surface gradient, like the tiny capillary wave at the water surface. The motion of such waves doesn't affect the motion of underwater and vice-versa. Therefore the effects of statical field are quite diminished here. The somewhat mysterious behavior of Aether is mostly the result of its incredible mass/energy density. The problem is, the people haven't good imagination of behavior of very dense environment in general. We are subtle, "low energy" creatures. Even the geometry of quite common phenomena, like the condensation patterns inside of condensing supercritical vapor wasn't studied very thoroughly till now.

I have a theory which predicts pixies that live on electrons, except that the pixies are too small to be observed and have no other experimental consequences.
[indent]
What Michelson and Morrely showed is that if there is an aether, then it doesn't have a preferred reference frame. This means that it has no consequences for experiment.

Just like my pixies.

I was following this highly rapturing thread until got this statement, The MM experiment was not "null". The MM experiment was reproduced 300,000 times years later by Miller. Moth MM "and Miller found a residual ether drift of approximately, 8.5 km/sec, which was slightly greater than 1/4 the supposed earth-sun orbit velocity of 30 km/sec. Your statement that MM found no preferred reference frame is not consistent with the results of MM.

A very important physics parameter not considered by MM or Miller, or those discussing the results, is the fact of the sun's velocity estimated at approximately 210 km/sec drags the entire solar system along with it. Now, in one day, with a stationary sun, the earth center of mass would travel in 24x3600 = 86400 sec, 86400x30 = 2,592,000 assuming an orbital velocity of 30 km/sec.

In one day the sun would move 210x86400 = 18,144,000 km which must be added to the 2,592,000 + 20,736,000 km which is significantly greater than assumed.

Any experiment of light measurement around the earth at the equator that assume a point on the equator moves a distance of .5x86400 =43200 km is in error by by a sorely mistaken factor of 480.

Likewise, the scientific discussions that assume some more or less flat, spatially speaking, trajectory in the solar plane of the solar system must be revised. The sun drags the solar system along where the solar plane moves parallel to the axle of a wheel, where the axle is the motion of the sun.

The net velocity vector for a point on the surface of the earth is generally in a precessing southerly direction. There the .5 km/sec vector more or less parallel to the earth-sun direction, but adding the 210 km/sec velocity vector 90 degrees swamps the lesser motion vectors.

The solar system's planets does not move in a plane, as each of the planets move in a unique helical pattern. Get out out your sliding bamboo sticks pilgrims, its going to be a long cold winter.

Notice how the smilies motion below is coordinated? How do they do that?
:shrug:

:shrug:

...MM "and Miller found a residual ether drift of approximately, 8.5 km/sec, which was slightly greater than 1/4 the supposed earth-sun orbit velocity of 30 km/sec. Your statement that MM found no preferred reference frame is not consistent with the results of MM...

The AWT model compares the MM experiment result to the attempt to measure the surface wave speed dependence to the underwater motion (so called the celerity curve). The motion of large waves truly depends on the motion of underwater significantly, so that the reference frame of wave environment is well pronounced here.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/relativity/capillary_waves.jpg

Surprisingly, for so called the capillary waves (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9020144/capillary-wave) (i.e. the surface waves below 1,7 cm) the water surface is behaving like thin elastic membrane, the undulation of which doesn't affect the underwater at all. By AWT it's not random coincidence, the observations of Doppler shift of microwave background of Universe are related to the same range of wavelength. Because the water waves are the very same transversal waves of Aether, like the light waves.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/imgwav/wavcvslength.gif

Therefore, the Aether Wave Theory predict, the M-M experiment should supply the more pronounced reference frame dependence, the lower frequency of light will be used in experiment. Surprisingly enough, no variant of M-M experiment with microwaves was done so far, if we omit the Thim's experiments (http://www.atomicprecision.com/blog/wp-filez/Thim%20-%20Absence%20of%20the%20relativistic%20Doppler%20e ffect%20...%20.pdf) done recently, which were ignored by mainstream physics completely. By such way, the experimental verification of Aether concept can be quite simple and it can be done by comparison of the M-M drift frequency dependence with those of surface water waves. This dependence can be derived (http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/surftens.htm) from dispersion curve of Navier-Stokes equation.