Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 92

Thread: Dogmatism to the side: Science to the front...

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by 2inquisitive View Post
    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.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by superluminal View Post
    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?

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/p...ot_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?

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by superluminal View Post
    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.

  4. #44
    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.

  5. #45
    The Devil is in the details
    Posts
    3,181
    Quote Originally Posted by zephir View Post
    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)

  6. #46
    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.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by 2inquisitive View Post
    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.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by superluminal View Post
    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/

  9. #49
    Evidence. Predictions. Experiments. Results.

    Not a monologue.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Reiku View Post
    ''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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Reiku View Post
    ...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". 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.
    Last edited by zephir; 12-15-07 at 08:54 PM.

  11. #51
    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/...e_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.
    Last edited by zephir; 12-15-07 at 09:43 PM.

  12. #52
    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/.../dropplets.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/...y/dropplet.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/...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?
    Last edited by zephir; 12-15-07 at 10:16 PM.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by BenTheMan View Post
    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....

  14. #54
    Zeph....I am not Dr Wolf...

  15. #55
    Unless of course, you are...?????

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by zephir View Post
    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/.../dropplets.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/...y/dropplet.gif http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/...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...?

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by zephir
    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.
    Last edited by Frud11; 12-16-07 at 03:42 PM.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Reiku View Post
    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.

  19. #59
    ok
    cutiing edge physics in pseudo
    homework help in phys

    well done, dumbfuck sci

  20. #60
    ben is like a thug mugging well heeled tourists

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By BenTheMan in forum Formal debates
    Last Post: 11-30-07, 01:53 PM
    Replies: 18
  2. By Mickmeister in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 08-24-07, 02:14 PM
    Replies: 78
  3. By coberst in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 07-13-07, 02:12 AM
    Replies: 54
  4. By kwhilborn in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 05-12-07, 10:49 PM
    Replies: 0
  5. By Randy53215 in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 01-19-07, 05:58 PM
    Replies: 3

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •