Hypothesis of a Cosmology Based on a Foundational Medium

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by quantum_wave, Dec 10, 2012.

  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Alternative Theory (hypotheses about an aether concept)

    Title of thread: Hypothesis of a Cosmology Based on a Foundational Medium

    I acknowledge that starting a thread on an alternative hypothesis opens up a venue in the forum for comments of all kinds, on topic, off topic, personal and impersonal, intelligent and ignorant and so, 1) I will try to keep my comments on track, 2) I will ignore any comment I please (and I might say, "I'll ignore that comment") unless a moderator insists I respond, 3) I will try to present the topic in a sequence that goes step by step, but I know that if there turns out to be several participants that will be almost impossible. I'll mention a few steps at a time and deal with them one by one if the flow of discussion permits, but I will interrupt the discussion when I feel it is time to move to the next step unless a moderator interrupts my decisions concerning how I want to proceed. That won't be a problem if there is very little participation, and I don't expect much interest after the first initial responses assuming the thread is even in the right place.

    My overall topic for this thread is my interest in discussing an alternative hypothesis about a foundational medium model of cosmology; I call it a model, you may think that is presumptuous. I have no "as yet undiscovered proof" of anything new to the scientific community to support an aether model and demands for proof of any hypothesis for which I have no proof will be answered with "I have no proof". In the same vain, I consider the current generally accepted theories, Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, to be inconsistent and therefore not yet complete. If you say that I am wrong about that, or that I have no right to say it if I haven't sifted through all of the papers, equations, and pros and cons, we won't be able to agree on that. You can ignore me or flame me of course, and I already have a few members on my ignore list (I do peek and remove people from ignore, so don't go away mad). If you insist that you have proof of something that is not generally acknowledged by the scientific community, I won't go off on some tangent with you about it if I don't want to (start your own thread). You already probably think I have preconceived ideas of how some science enthusiasts will respond to this thread, and you are right, and if you stay on topic and don't mind if I ignore comments, say anything you want.

    I want to start describing the model by defining space, time, the medium, waves, and particles, using hypotheses that describe them one by one. These hypotheses will contain the definitions with words and phrases that apply here and any definition that you may have that differs is fine with me but it doesn't apply to my model of the foundational medium hypothesis unless you can show why it should to my satisfaction. If anyone doesn't like how I conduct this thread or thinks I am ignorant, deluded, or arrogant, I won't dispute that. I can live with that. If you are a dick about things then the moderators are your best recourse if I ignore you. I don't expect to get a pass for any infractions of the rules on my part, and I don't expect any attention to be paid to rules infractions on your part; I view that as a fact of forum life for a layman who wants to discuss alternative ideas, and that is not a comment or criticism of how moderation might or might not be applied.

    The mathematics that apply is any math that deals with space in the three dimensions of length, width, and height. I don't think there is anything special about that type of space that requires college level math to describe it, but I am a college grad and an accountant so I claim average layman math skills and am out of practice on the terms and conditions. Anyone who wants to help me with words and phrases so that the intent of my meaning can reach more people, please do. I make no claims of any superior or special knowledge or skills, and I don't plan for this thread to involve much heavy math, though I encourage you to present your views mathematically if you want. If your math doesn't pertain to my definitions and hypotheses, I won't try to sort it out. If it does apply, I will.

    To be continued ...
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Space as it pertains to the Foundational Medium Hypothesis:

    A Space Hypothesis

    Space has no characteristics except volume. A volume of space is defined to have three dimensions, and can be graphically displayed as any three dimensional figure or shape. The volume of space can be described as potentially infinite. Space can be thought of as empty, as in empty space. In my model all space is filled with a medium and when I refer to space I always mean space filled with medium unless otherwise designated. Any volume or dimension of space can be divided into smaller increments infinitely. A point, line or plane occupies no space. The vacuum of space that contains the medium is not a perfect vacuum because the medium has a presence that fills all space. A perfect vacuum is space that contains no medium and is an impossibility in my model. In my model light and gravity cannot traverse a perfect vacuum in space. The measurement of the speed of light referred to as c is the velocity of light measured in a theoretically waveless medium.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,818
    Since the complete absence of molecules or atoms in space would not consititute a perfect vacuum, what is the minimum pressure that a medium only space can attain. Or, in other words what is the pressure of the medium?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    My answser might not be the best thought out answer, but what you are referring to is a waveless medium across potetially infinite space. In that case, the average pressure would be the minimum pressure. Now add our universe to the potentially infinite waveless medium and there would be notable patches of higher and lower pressure. I take the position that any pressure added to the medium by the presence of matter would be incremental to that lower average pressure of a waveless medium. A single wave in the medium would increase the average pressure of the medium, infinitesimally. If you take my position on that, then the average pressure of the medium that is filled with the matter and energy of our universe would be far greater than the pressure of the waveless medium; greater by the amount of the average pressure of all the matter and energy of the potentially infinite universe.
     
  8. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,818
    The concept of pressure and vacuum relates to molecules and atoms. Pressure can be viewed as the force on a surface due to the number of molecules hitting the surface. Pressure is force / area. If you heat up the molecules their kenetic energy will increase and they will exert more force when they come in contact with a surface, which is why when you heat up an enclosed volume the pressure increases. A perfect vacuum is defined as a volume with no molecules or atoms in it - hence no force.

    For your medium to be able to exert a pressure it must exert a force, do you agree?
     
  9. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    One problem I ran into trying to think of how light acts in regards to an aether is the popular example of how light bends when it comes from an object that is accelerating. They say if Einsteins was inside of an elevator and that elevator was accelerating that Einstein would know that it was accelerating because the beam of light would follow a curved path. As far as I know, this is the accepted theory generaly in the physics community. The problem comes if you then say that gravitation is then equivalent to acceleration. So then light should bend if it is near a gravitational body, this is seen as gravitational lensing. The problem doesn't come up there, it really comes up if you consider that then the light was bent in the Michelson & Morley Experiment. I have heard that Einstein didn't use this experiment in order to derive his theory. This might actually have been a good thing because if he did then he probably wouldn't have ever came up with the idea of gravitational lensing. This is because if the light rays where bent in the Michelson & Morley Experiment then the light rays would have arrived at different times. A curved path would be a longer path so then it would take it longer amount of time in order to reach the end or the finish line. But, then this experiment was set up so that it was at equilibrium with the surface of the Earth, so then you could just say that all the beams where curved by the same amount.

    So then what happens if you set the M&M experiment on its side? Would it then take longer for the light rays to reach the end of the line? One beam would be traveling directly against the force of gravity and the other beam would then be traveling perpendicular to the force of gravity. One would curve and the other wouldn't. You would assume that they would then have to arrive at different times. The speed of light would not change because it was directly opposed to gravity so then it would travel at the same speed, but then the other beam would be curved and since it travels at the same speed it would then take longer for the beam to travel a certain distance. Then the real brain teaser comes in when you consider that since the surface of the Earth is accelerating that it would then be impossible to send a beam of light in a straight line from the surface. But then I don't know of any beams having to be reconfigured in order to compensate for this type of curvature. They all seem to be able to travel in a straight line from the surface of the Earth. Or is this effect just to gradual to be noticed? Or can the force of gravity cancel the affects of gravity so that light can travel in a straight line even though it is accelerating? So then there is just no lensing because we are moving with the Earth along with its rotation. Or are we able to feel like we are in constant motion on the surface of the Earth becauase the force of gravity then cancels the forces caused by acceleration?
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Your description of atoms and molecules is like the description of the pressure of a perfect gas, and the simple equation for pressure. The same equation applies of course to the atoms and molecules in a container of gas in my model. On the other hand, pressure of the medium is described as a foundational pressure and is in accord with the as yet unknown nature of the medium that I describe and define in the hypothesis of the medium to be presented with fifteen or twenty separate characteristics that begin to contrast the pressure of the medium with the classical force concept that you are trying to apply to the medium.

    Pressure is a defined characteristic of a medium that cannot be detected or quantified except hypothetically, and it is one of the things that cannot be tested. As I said above, a single wave in the medium increases the pressure. A particle is composed of many synchronized waves and so a particle contains pressure sustained in the standing wave pattern by the inflowing and out flowing wave energy components of the standing wave. My model has hypotheses that describe the medium and it has a whole list of characteristics; waves in the medium have characteristics, particles have characteristics, and motion of particles has causes different from the causes and the nature of the energy that converts to motion of the particles of gas in the container that we are discussing. The causes of the motion due to heat are well defined using models of the atoms and molecules we are discussing but my model of the atoms and molecules differ. Further, particles in my model move through the medium in response to a directional imbalance between the inflowing and out flowing wave components, so motion due to heat adds energy to the particles in a different way than you are familiar with, but the added energy corresponds with the kinetic energy added to the particles by heat in your example.

    I think that this question will certainly come up again, but until I present a few more hypotheses with definitions and descriptions, I will be getting into material about the pressure vs. the force that you don't have enough information to understand in the context of the model. Come back in a few days.

    I'll wait awhile to discuss the space hypothesis a little further, if anyone else shows up, and maybe add a few other comments particular to space, and then I plan a post about time that you will like, or at least may enjoy picking apart :shrug:. (Or we may get to the point where you just flame me and go away, lol, which is completely acceptable, though I do enjoy discussing it with willing participants who can restrain their disparagement.)
     
  11. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    Basically what I was trying to say was that in the M&M experiment light is sent in straight lines and arrived at the same time as though there was no aether or medium. But Einstein predicts that acceleration bends light rays, the Earth is accelerating, the light rays should have been bent because of this. But they where not bent they arrived at the same time with and against the acceleration.
     
  12. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    I do have a pretty good idea of what you are getting at and have said that the failure of the M & M experiments to detect the aether came a just the right time in history. Einstein filled the void so to speak with the EFEs and the math works perfectly to describe the curving of the path of light around the sun which Eddington confirmed later in 1919 during the eclipse. So the luminiferous aether was not confirmed by the experiments that should have detected it if it was there, and Einstein defined the curvatue of spacetime mathematically to a significant precision, and the aether was no longer needed in the eyes of a scientific community on the brink of general relativey and quantum mechanics. It has never come back into favor, which is fine because it is my hobby

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .
     
  13. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    Some people would think that since there is dark matter or gravity that GR cannot account for then the math isn't really that perfect. I think there is something missing, and that something could be some kind of aether. Say if the aether was accelerating at the same rate as the Earth, then the forces of acceleration could not be felt while moving with the Earth. I think the problem of light rays not curving in experiments on the surface of the Earth actually would support the aether idea. The last time I brought this up, the only answer I got was that the M&M experiment wasn't accurate enough to detect it. But, if it was not accurate enough to detect the acceleration then they would have had no bussiness doing the experiment in the first place or even saying that it proved that there was no relative motion of the Earth detectable by sending those light rays. They found they arrived at the same time because the wavelengths matched up, if they followed a curvature then the wavelengths wouldn't have matched up. The difference in the matching of waves should have been significant enough to find the curvature in the experiment.
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Lol, well we choose our battles if we can, and the math of SR and GR does what it says it does. Maybe it doesn't do it all, and maybe not even what is does do is perfect to the extent that the results correspond precisely to nature, but that is not my battle.
    I like to say they falsified the wrong aether. You are closer to my kind of aether when you suggest maybe an aether moves with the Earth. If you follow along with me you will see me try to develop a concept of an aether that moves in and out of particles and establishes the particle presence as a standing wave pattern of inflowing and out flowing wave energy components in the foundational medium. Probably not exactly like your idea but the flow of wave energy from all directions not only sustains the inflowing energy of particles from the out flow of energy from other particles, but every point in space is characterized by wave energy coming and going in all directions, sort of sounding like aether flowing with the Earth and into and out of the particles that make up the Earth.
     
  15. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    I thought it could be that there is an aether that is moving with us, or their may be a possibility that acceleration doesn't actually curve the light ray. Those would be my two best guesses, but beyond that I don't really know. Everytime I have heard that light bends due to acceleration it is always just said that Einstein just theorized it. I sometimes wonder if that is the only reason why we believe that light curves from an accelerating body.

    A lot of your termenolgy is really hard for me to follow. It is not really what I have had in mind of what the nature of mass and spacetime would be. I have only thought of them as intersections of spacetime, like you can't be at two places at once. So then there would be a force or mechanism to prevent you from going to a certain location and then that would be matter. Then it would curve into this location to cause gravity. But, I never really considered it any further than that and left the idea because superposition (or a particle being at two places at once) seemed to fit in a lot better with all of the descriptions of quantum mechanics. So then the two theories just became incompatable, and I just decided to go with quantum mechanics. It gained a lot more support from the descriptions of how particles behaive.

    Recently I have wondered if matter is just a ripple, but there doesn't seem like there is really anything to go on to support this idea either. I have been thinking about the possibility of the wavelike properties being round trip journeys in a higher curled up dimension. Then a quantum wave would just be a translation of a higher dimensional unit circle. Then it wouldn't actually be a wave but just making a round trip in a dimension that is contracted to almost zero or a unit. Then a unit circle's maths wouldn't change depending on the size of the circle, the dimension could be curled up to zero. Then this dimension would be curled up like this because everything is traveling almost or the speed of light in this dimension, so then we cannot observe it. Sadly enough it is probably my deepest theory, that could mostly fit with the observation that goes along these lines.
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Did you mean you have trouble understanding the terminology I used in the Space Hypothesis in post #2, or in my responses to Origin? As I go along I need someone like you who thinks about this stuff to raise questions about the specific hypotheses and the terminology, if you have the inclination to do so. I know it will take patience on your part because from your posts I can see you're thinking way ahead of what I have covered so far in this thread

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . But I will get to the hypothesis for why light follows a curved path around mass, its just too early for that right now. You have to understand my description of the medium that will come along in a couple of days I bet, and you have to understand the nature of the wave energy density in and around mass relative to wave energy density of the medium in deep space to understand lensing in my model. Also, the nature of the photon and of photon motion in my model is not intuitive and that plays in lensing also.
     
  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Incorrect. Space has an intrinsic impedance: 377Ω. Space subtends fields and propagates them proportional to the subtended area, at velocity c. Space propagates the orthogonal components of electromagnetic waves at velocity c. Space is continuously differentiable by time. So is the first derivative. However, the cutting of space by time is restricted to amounts less than or equal to c. Space blooms, in the manner of metric expansion. Space is relative, and will curve in the observation between two reference frames that are moving with respect to each other, or when one frame is subjected to the gravity of another. In the case of moving reference frames, the nature of the curvature is one of 3D spherical rotation, in angles of pitch, roll and yaw, angles that depend on the relative velocity--converging asymptotically in the limit as v→c, to π/2. That is, space presents to observers a 2D projection plane, orthogonal to a reference axis. In non relativistic cases the reference axis is longitudinal to the observer, but as the relative speed increases, the reference axis tilts, approaching the transverse direction asymptotically in the limit as as v→c. Under sufficient gravity, the reference axis, and its projection plane, will tilt. This presents the the apparent displacement of stars (such as when they shine behind a solar eclipse) and the distortion (from a point to a ring) of gravitational lensing.

    Then it's not empty. Nor is it space. It's matter, occupying space. Matter and space are not the same. Nor is there any matter that coincides with space generally. In general, space is either devoid of matter, or else the particle density is so low that, for all practical purposes, the space is effectively empty.

    You mean it's continuous. Don't forget that it's differentiable with respect to time, and so is its first derivative.

    You switched from natural space to abstract space. They are not the same.

    "Presence" is meaningless. Space either coincides with a continuum of matter or it doesn't. It either coincides with Maxwell's "molecular vortices" or it doesn't. It either presents a "luminiferous wind" or it doesn't. However, stating that space is filled with any kind of homogeneous continuum conflicts with its property of emptiness.

    That's putting the conclusion before the factual predicate, which invalidates it.

    Once again putting the conclusion before the predicate, which is invalid.

    It's not clear what you mean. Both waves and fields propagate at c, as do photons.
     
  18. Prof.Layman totally internally reflected Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    982
    If your model is not intuitive, I don't think I would be able to help you very much. It would have to deal with mathmatics but I haven't gotten very far into it with my theory, or the assumption that a beam of photons would not bend and arrive at the same location at the same time in a location. This may look very ugly but you would have to bear with me as well because I am not completely sure how to script.

    F = [m1(v1i - v1o)]/t*sqrt[1 - (v1i + v1o)^2/4c^2] + [m2(v2i - v2o)]/t*sqrt[1 - (v2i + v2o)^2/4c^2]

    That is if F=ma or F=m1a1 + m2a2

    It is derived from the light triangle, and since one side would not curve then it would still form a triangle. So then that would be the force of two bodies that traveled along with the aether as though the force of acceleration was not felt or traveling along with the aether. So then if the force of acceleration did bend the light ray then it would only be an approximation.
     
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    I was defining space in my model. The definition is given in the space hypothesis. Your approach to invalidating the definition of space is to say my definition is incorrect?

    Some of what you say is observational and measurement data which I invoke, and some is current theory. I do invoke all scientific observations and data but I don't invoke theory that doesn't fit the space hypothesis and the concept of a medium that fills all space. That is a starting point for a bottom up, step by step model based on a medium. That is why I started with a basic definition of space, for the very reason that my definition is different from currently accepted theory. No one, certainly not you, is going to be impressed, but as awkward as it would be for you to do, this gives you a good chance to separate out for yourself the parts of what you believe that are based on true observations, from the parts that are unobservable but mathetically sound theory. That is part of the methodology of developing my model.
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2012
  20. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    If you read and don't understand the terminology in post #2, and aren't willing to say which words don't fit into your concept well enough to say what is wrong with them, you are probably right, we won't be of much help to each other.
    Any response I give you would use my terminology that you don't understand. You have some interesting comments and I have responded as part of my topic, but you are certainly on a different topic as we get deeper into our discussion. You may want to start a thread of your own?
     
  21. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Time as it pertains to the Foundational Medium Hypothesis

    A Time Hypothesis

    Time simply passes. Everything is going on at the same rate throughout the entire potentially infinite space. The measure of time can be done with many different kinds of clocks, including http://www.horology-stuff.com/clocks/types.html. To that list I would add the aging process of living things, notably including humans when scenarios of space travel are discussed.

    A period of time is the duration between two events that are not simultaneous. When those two events are separated in time and space, the issue of simultaneity is raised. There is no way I know of to precisely synchronize two clocks at different locations in space. My model doesn't care; time still passes at the same rate in any two locations.

    Two events can be defined as having the same start and stop time and therefore the same duration and yet perfect clocks can still show different durations for that interval if they are ticking away in different wave energy density environments in the medium. An accelerated clock is operating in a different wave energy density environment in the medium relative to a stationary clock because acceleration increases the wave energy density of the environment of the clock.

    Technically it is possible to tell which of two clocks is stationary and which is accelerated anywhere within our Big Bang arena (our Hubble volume of space) by using the CMBR and raw redshift data, but that is not usually a practical observation unless motion is relativistic, so either clock can be defined as stationary relative to the background wave energy density while the other clock can be defined as being accelerated.
     
  22. gravitational_aether Banned Banned

    Messages:
    356
    It's 'effectively empty' yet somehow you believe this empty space is able to push back and exert inward pressure toward the solar system causing the magnetic field to pile up. Space is either 'effectively empty' which implies it is incapable of pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system or it is not 'effectively empty'.

    Space is effectively empty of particles of matter. Effectively empty means there are too few of them to be capable of pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system causing the magnetic field to pile up.

    Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space devoid of particles of matter.

    'NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge'
    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/dec/HQ_11-402_AGU_Voyager.html

    "Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

    It is not the particles of matter which exist in quantities less than in any vacuum artifically created on Earth which are pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

    It is the aether, which the particles of matter exist in, which is the interstellar medium. It is the aether which is displaced by the matter the solar system consists of which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system.

    "It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] 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

    "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

    The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.
     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Be careful with supporting my aether model, because we certainly don't fit the label of "two peas in a pod", I hope. Your post here on my thread could be mistaken as the start of a coalition of two significantly different factions in the aether community; your black hole jets of aether, and my potentially infinite space filled with aether as the foundational medium, not coming out of some spinning black hole jet.

    That said, your post was interesting, thank you.
     

Share This Page