Ethertheory

The Return of the Ether....

During the last twenty years or so the Big Bang model has developed into a mainstream religion, and it seems to be a capital scientific sin even to try to criticise it or related beliefs.

However we get more and more signals that we need to revise our current model. Read:


http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've read some interesting discussions on sciforum regarding the "warp bubble drive".

Now if there is aether after all, than we don't need some spaceship sized blackhole to "curve" the space in front of the ship.
(old QM theory wich served us well for decades, but the first cracks are showing)

instead of using "shrink space in front" and "stretch space behind the spaceship" we could think in terms of simultaniously THICKEN the ether behind the spaceship and THIN the ether in front of the spaceship. The diffence in etherpressure will move the space between it.

Now how does ether get thicker or thinner, well in my view simple: mass occupies space, means less room for the ether, so we must create mass in front of the space ship and reduce mass, the same etherforce (cosmological constant revived) that seems to expand our universe lately will effectively "Shrink" the space in front of the spaceship and "Stretch" space behind the spaceship.

Gravity, in my view, another legacy of the old big bang model, wich in the ether model would not be a PULLING force curving space-time, but rather the PUSHING etherforce. A heavy object like the earth does not "attract" objects, it is because there is less dens mass surrounding the earth so the ether is thicker there and thinner near the earth , hence entropy will push other objects from thicker ether to thinner ether, just like bubbles in water will flow to the surface.

Now how would such a spaceship look like?

requirements
- create mass in front of the spaceship
- annhilate mass behind the spaceship
obviously , as you are "building" the nose of your spaceship and "burning your tail" the compartments inbetween, the midesection" should be moved forward toward the "nose" otherwise the pilot will end up as fuel in the tail at some point.

That's just one problem, the other problem is that the ether driving force (aka gravity) is really small , it can be perceived as pulling force acting over short distance (object fall to earth) or as pushing force over large distance (expanding universe) , anyway you need a LOT of MASS to make significant things happen.

What I can think of is a spaceship that looks like a giant circular particle synchronotron, with two streams of particles/fotons , clockwise and counterclockwise. Let these two streams interact at two locations to dynamically create/destruct mass in the tube (the nose and the tail).

the pilotcompartment could be on the outside of the tube (I HAVEN'T fully realized what the tube as a whole would impose for G-forces on carbon based lifeforms ;-) or maybe even on the inside of the tube travelling between with the moving virtual nose and tail location. Provided gigantic amounts of energy are generated to create a large specificic impulse you don't need to have very frequent pulses otherwise the midsection can not keep up with the moving "nose" and "tail".

With the dynamic creation / annihilation of mass we can expect efficiency losses due to differences in angular momentum (inertia, another legacy of the old theory that just like gravity is just a SIDE-EFFECT of the etherforce, because inertia is like moving an object through THICK SOUP / ETHER, requires extra force).
We must preserve and direct as much of the angular momentae and the spin and direction of all the created particles (AND FOTONS!!) with electromagnets and Laserlike equipment.

Offcoarse the fuel for all this would be ANTIMATTER, which incidentally could be generated "on the flye" in this flying synchronotron.

Available at you local hardware store in January 2278

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd have to ask where the aether concept is making a comeback? Certainly not in the scientific community. There, it remains in the garbage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean the ruling scientific community, there is such thing as an underground scientific community. Did you read the article???
It contains links to very knowledgable ether researchers with a very solid background in math and physics... Now There... there is your scientific community.

The church tried to keep galileo in the trashcan as well, and since modern science is also about fundings it takes people with balls to consider an alternative, but time will tell. Einstein once said that "God doesn't play dice" Later, after dismissing his cosmological constant as his biggest mistake he changed that to "God does not only play dice, but sometimes He doesn't know where he throws the dice".

If Einstein's only would have kept his cosmologic constant ---> builds a case for ether, than we would know exactly where god throws the dice and what would be the outcome and where all this "missing dark matter" would be to suit the current big bang model.

 

Do you actually need an aether model?

I read books by people where the aether seems to have a different meaning to the different authors.

My version of the meaning of aether is a definition of the properties of space, that is is fluid like (not solid) and that it has varying degrees of viscosity (no fixed viscosity).

Please give me your definition of aether, ether, either.

Vortexx, with a name like that you must have read newtons second book, and bacons theorums, so I take it you believe in vortex theory, which has basis in an aether model???

 

Do we need science?

No we don't need an ether model, without ether, Einstein and Newton, the world would still be turning and humans would reproduce and die etc, just the world would look different!

Yes, my interest in the rebirth of ether was provoked when I read some stuff about the Vortex theory, where the existence of ether would make a very good medium.

http://www.chalidze.com/vortex.htm

Now even among those who believe in ether, there are many differences of how this ether looks like and what it means for our universe. For instance, because of the hostile reception of the big bang community of anything ether, you will typically see etherists with hard feelings using their own implementation of ethertheories to debunk the big bang as a big hoax. Personally i feel that a big bang is possible, in fact i think of multiple big bangs, as I mentioned earlier that near the visible borders of our universe there would be enough room (not poluted with mass, wich implies a lot of constraints by it's inherit laws of nature, just like you loose most quantum effects when coming from nanoscale to a newtonian macroscopic world) for god to throw the dice and occaisionally create some big bangs, that we see with our strongest telescopes as quasars with bursting huge amounts of energy). Some other dude that posted a question about alternating universes. I believe that is entirely possible.

Maybe the universe turns out to be predictable deterministic after all if we find out that things like random stochastic motion and The Heisenberg uncertainty priciple is just the interference of the vortices/superluminal waves/strings, whatever you like to call it of alternating universes, and can be made predictable if we understand some of the fundamental laws of these other universes/dimension. Likewise we can make some predictions about these other dimensions if we extrapolate the interference data and use accellerator experiments to confirm our theories.

I just would like to say why people should not only stick to the current model.

The current model does not answer everything, in fact it needs more and more artificial patchwork. This is just an appeal to stay open minded, we live in a unique time with tremendous technological advancement, Einstein opened our eyes, but we must not be hold back by our QM bible, we must reach out and explore and only than we truely know what it is like.

 

What exactly is the underground scientific community? It almost seems that whenever the ether is mentioned, theories about perpetual motion machines are never far behind. Perhaps it is this underground where theories that contradict known experimental evidence and offer no testible predictions live.

There seems to be a cosmological constant, which would mean that there is indeed energy at every point in space. But this is a far cry from the ether of old.

 

You know Vortexx, your assertion that mainstream science is dogmatic is tired and incorrect. I've heard this same pointless argument by probably a dozen non-scientists now on this forum alone.

Ask any scientist what he really knows about the Universe -- and he'll reply "not very much at all." Few, if any scientists believe in things simply because someone else told them so. Scientists, by the virtue of their having scientific minds, are driven to find absolute truth by experiment and logical and empirical proof. When scientists are trained in classrooms, they rarely are told to believe something is correct simply by the assertion of the professor; instead, most scientific theories are fleshed out from first principles and experimental evidence.

If you can provide a single experiment by which the aether's existence can be confirmed, let me know. There are several experiments by which the aether can be shown to be an incorrect model; these confirming measurements have precisions down to several parts per billion. If you do not have incontrovertible evidence of the aether, shut up. You're not contributing anything to the world by implying that people should continue to believe in something that has been verified to not exist.

- Warren

 

Ethertheory -
what is it?
any good websites?
someone mentioned it on "Speed of Light" thread.

 

Let's hear what the man himself said about it, before he himself dismissed the cosmological constant as his greatest error.

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html


Funny thing is that observations regarding the expansion of the universe lately support the idea of a cosmological constant (which i like to call ether).

 

Warren - be nice or we'll set Susan on you.

Seriously, sitting on top of a university with a diode, dectecting a hiss and concluding this is proof of a bigbang theory is not science. over enthusiastic pyrorectangularcubism.
Maybe these well paid research graduates should take electronics and chemistry.
As for the aether being verified not to exist I ask, which version of the aether model was it?
I had an electronics teacher that understood the natural vibrations of diodes that give rise to a hiss, you can even use it to make a white(pink) noise generator, but his belief was that the essence of the universe was heat.
Different interpretations to how things work aren't a bad thing, they make us realise that sometimes we didn't understand something as much as we should have.

Back to the aether, no them etherons don't make sense if they are understood as particles, they would make sense as an abstract mathematical system for modelling, a bit like string theory.

Vortex - if this is a smoke ring vortex, then gravity has 2, 1 above the plane, 1 below. These are generated by the action of the flow towards the center of the gravitational plane and flow away from the center in the form of 2 polar jets, 1 above, 1 below.

However there seems to be some confusion as to what a vortex is, I think it is used to describe any form of rotation????????

 

I just read this, what does the very last sentance mean?

 

I don't think anyone has ever concluded that the universe began in a Big Bang because diodes are noisy.

Uhh... they do.

The version that implies there is an asbolute standard of rest (i.e. every possible version).

There are many unsolved problems in physics. There are many places where physicists need an open mind. There are many places we need ingenuity, creativity, and off-the-wall theorism. The aether model is not one of them. It has been disproven to practically insane accuracies. There comes a point where a rational person will abandon theories that have been thoroughly disproven by countless experiments. Just as in a court of law, the evidence is so strong that the case has been closed. There are better areas of physics for you to spend your time brainstorming. Just pick of the areas that haven't been conclusively ruled out by experiment.

- Warren

 

You're just jumping on the bandwagon because you want to fleece everyone by saying "you knew it all along." Bullshit.

The cosmological constant is a modification to vacuum energy -- that's it. It still doesn't propose an absolute standard of rest, which is what an aether would do. There isn't an aether, even if there is a cosmological constant.

- Warren

 

What bandwagon???? According to the relativistic big bang community here there is no bandwagon, because the ethertheory died a long time ago.....

At least we agree that supposedly empty space has vacume energy properties (we knew that all along since the Dutch Casimir experiment in 1948). About the rest state of ether, Feldman proposes the ethertron particle. Offcoarse we can try to find alternatively ways to fit dark energy in the relativistic model, it is just that the essence of the ethertheory (while not fully re-developed yet) offers a far more intuitive explanation for our latest observations regarding the universe. I will not give a final verdict about the relativistic model yet, but I see enough material to re-open the case!

 

It has permittivity and permeability constants as well. Everyone knows this.

The Casimir experiment did not measure vacuum energy - it measured the effects of discretized QED virtual particle fluctuations in a "box" of small size.

Very few people care what Arp says about anything.

The concept that there is no absolute standard of rest is fundamental to every theory since Galilieo's time. Very few experiments will function properly with an aether. Many experiments have been designed specifically to detect an aether, and all came up exactly null to a precision of parts per billion. There is no aether.

You're an idiot. The lastest findings about the accelerating expansion of space are not understood. They may not even be correct findings -- there are many difficulties in isolating a single effect from others in astronomical study. In any event, the accelerating expansion is not evidence of an aether -- no one, ever, said it was. Give it up.

- Warren

 

vortex
you seem to be pushing ether in every frikkin thread. stay in a thread and argue your point instead of leaving ether droppings all over the place.

 

....and last but not least it contains the ether, but not everybody knows this, what is not permittive about the ether?

Wouldn't you say that the fluctuation of virtual particles implies the existence of vacuum energy? Are you denying the existence of vacuum energy?. Casimirs experiment has further reaching implications than Casimir could have imagined before he did the experiment. Sometimes you get more than you bargained for.

Sorry my fault, I meant Feldman (he was referring to some previous work done by Arp. Yes very few people care what Arp says, after all, He was only the assistant of Hubble and he has been the plaque of the Big Bang community since the 80's. I do care and maybe you should also.

Are you by any chance referring to the historical MM and Kennedy thorndike experiment experiment???

http://www.flash.net/~lgsims/mm.htm

Well there are new ether models out there that are in accordance with these experiments because our clocks change as we move through the ether.

 

Maybe it is because ether is ubiquitous present in the whole known universe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

oh
ok
carry on then

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!