How Can real energy 'permeate space-time', when space-time is just maths construct?

In the sense that 100 years of physics research has shown it to be true.

Physical. But by your usage, I don't think you know what the terms "physical" and "abstract" mean, so I'm not sure you'll understand that.

I haven't read all of your nonsense, no. But I really don't need to - it won't help me understand the current state of physics.

We all get who you are, Undefined - you're quite open about it. So why not just own it? The answer I gave is the "Real" answer. I know it. You know it. Everyone else here knows it. There is no need for you to play this game - it won't ever get you anywhere.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In order to have mass, it has to exist - which it doesn't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium ... If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory." - Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics

"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, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the hidden sub-quantum medium referred to by de Broglie is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a great demonstration of why the word has fallen out of favor. You take any use of the word and twist it into being equivalent to the pre-SR ether.

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Aether is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Aether has mass.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

The state of displacement of the aether is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the aether.

Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

True.

Repeating nonsense doesn't turn it into truth. If it did, you'd be sharing a podium in Stockhom with Undefined!

Please answer: are you aware that what you are saying is not modern, mainstream physics?

 

Shown what to be true? That it is the best abstract/math model we have? No argument there. But it isn't complete and real physical explanation, is it?

Never designed to be, since they went and left the reality physics behind and just decided that geometry/math modeling will have to do, because they don't know the real physical entities/mechanisms underlying the observed phenomena they are geometrically/mathematically modeling 'and that's close enough' for some, isn't it? Not for me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And if you boast you "don't read" that which you are responding to, then that just proves you are working/arguing from prejudice and ignorance and not informed arguments.

Where does that leave anything else you have an opinion on, whether the person or the work/ideas? Nowhere rational or cogent or even relevant. Your choice. If you can't even answer that simple question without more abstraction and defensive bluster and insults and innuendo, then you disqualify yourself from any discourse thereby of your own accord. Thanks, but no thanks, mate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oy. You asked the question! You're going to need to put in a little more effort to understand your own thread!

As far as is currently known, it is.

Repeating your nonsense will never turn it into non-nonsense. Same question to you:

Please answer: are you aware that what you are saying is not modern, mainstream physics?

 

'[1305.5759] Comment on higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5759

"The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of continuous media.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

Please answer: are you aware that modern, mainstream physics can't explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity or the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment?

 

You first.

 

What I am saying is modern, not-mainstream physics.

'[1305.5759] Comment on higher derivative Lagrangians in relativistic theory'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5759

"The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of continuous media.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

In a double slit experiment the particle physically travels through a single slit and the associated physical wave in the aether physically passes through both.

Your turn to explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

 

So if mainstream physicists don't put any stock in the ideas you are forwarding, why should anyone here?

No.

 

But it was you that claimed 'something' was true? I just asked you to clarify what that 'something' was. No more no less than that. If you don't know what the OP question is based on, or what your own 'answer' is about, then how is anyone to make any sense of your rambling and vague 'answers and claims'?

So, did you understand the question as put? Did you read where presenting more abstractions would not answer? Do you know what it is you are trying to say/claim is 'true'? Does your impression that 'whatever' it is you are thinking of 'is true' have any bearing on what the question is addressed to...reality answers not more abstractions?

Good luck.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Due to your inability to explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.

In a double slit experiment it is the aether which physically waves.

 

You're babbling. The OP question was simple and had a simple answer, and I answered it simply.

Good luck to you too. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish by flooding the forum with your crackpot nonsense, but good luck, nonetheless.

 

No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

In an internet forum that is unmoderated, you get to make crap up and slap it onto the forum, but that doesn't ever make it right.

 

You 'answered' with more abstractions. That was therefore a 'non-answer' as it didn't 'answer the question as put in the OP. This time read the WHOLE OPENING POST and try again if you think you have any real answer and not default into more abstraction. Thanks.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There's that word again. You keep using it, but clearly have no idea what it means. There were no "abstractions" in my answer. Your question was a wrong question: it started with a false premise. That's not an abstraction, that's a physical reality. No matter how many times you claim that mainstream physics is an "abstraction", it will never become true and what you claim will never stop being babbling crackpot nonsense.

 

I'm always advancing my knowledge...
You are stuck in a rut though......
You have no evidence, and that's where your fairy tale begins and ends...Live with it.

 

No, the aether as you define it, does not exist...If it did, and it had mass as you say, the planets would slow down in their orbital path.
Experiments have shown many times it does not exist.



DM though is overwhelmingly supported to exist...
See the Bullet Cluster observation.