Hypothesis of a Cosmology Based on a Foundational Medium

I don't think it would be a good idea to start with that hypothesis, there would then never be a way that you could test that hypothesis. You should make room for it, and the math is not always perfect, have to say I failed to square (vi + vo) so the equation I posted orginally that you guys quoted is wrong. It wasn't my fault, entropy made me do it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Prof.Layman
That would be good advice if it wasn't too late, lol. Aqueous ID already expressed that he realized that I was designing the model under presupposed conditions. I know a bit about the current models from a layman perspective, and my hobby is to build an aether model that is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations. We're not pretending my model is reality against which we will have to test QM or GR.

Check out Aqueous Id's post #14 and look where he points out that I have made a variety of statements to which he replied, "That's putting the conclusion before the factual predicate", and, "Once again putting the conclusion before the predicate, which is invalid".

I'm not sure if he knows that I knew that is what I am doing, but he probably was being helpful :shrug:. I did mention how he could be helpful by sorting out observational data from theoretical descriptions. We'll see.

In the mean time, I held off on commenting on his post point by point but now he's been gone two days, so here is my side of the discussion I hoped to have with him:

I answered this in post #16 as follows:

I think it was clear that I invoked the right to define the terms I use and point out how I use them if the usage conflicts with generally accepted usage in current theories.

This I referred to as observational data which my model would have to explain, and though I haven't specifically addressed it, I'm thinking that the medium might very well show up as impedance. That kind of thing is for later though from my perspective. I'm still at the very beginning in defining the words and nature of the medium, waves, and particles.

That is what I referred to as theory, but the help I asked for if he was willing, was to break down what is observation and what is theory out of that.

I don't argue these points or the definitions from the perspective of generally accepted science, but with the invocation of a medium, the definitions change, and I have to model them differently.

In the case of the medium being continuous, he is right about what I meant, but he then invokes current theory and that part is not invoked in my model.

Some alternative theories us one and two dimensional concepts, sometimes associated with manifolds and quantum weirdness that I don't invoke and that was my crude way of eliminating those things from my model.

True, the medium conflicts with its property of emptiness, but the reason for making that distinction is that as described in the Space Hypothesis, space has no characteristics except volume and it is potentially infinite in volume in three dimensions. However, the medium that fills it has to have certain characteristics to allow wave energy to traverse it, particles to be composed of standing waves, and gravity to occur, and that is where the Foundational Medium Hypothesis (coming soon I hope) describes the characteristics of what fills the space.

I'm distinguishing between the space and the contents, saying the space contains the medium. The reason for making a distinction between space and the medium is because space has dimensions that can be defined as fixed and a medium within those dimensions can be compressed or decompressed. The amount of pressure in a given space is variable. The amount of the compression corresponds to the wave energy occupying that space which is a notable characteristic in my model. A change in wave energy can be described by distinguishing between the volume of space and the changing pressure of the medium in that space, and that concept is useful in many ways when the only thing there is to work with in my model comes right down to a matter of pressure as represented by the wave energy in a given volume of space.

I acknowledged the truth of those two remarks above and explained to Prof.Layman why he was right.

And that is current theory and observations that my model will have to explain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Note: re. "Waves carry pressure in the medium and the pressure of the medium determines the velocity of waves traversing it."

This post: Justification for that statement

Including graphic: Picture the medium with waves and particles in average pressure, i.e. the "common medium" concept

Introduce the time delay of quantum action and of wave advance through the medium


What does it mean, "Waves carry pressure in the medium and the pressure of the medium determines the velocity of waves traversing it"? Remember, particles are medium too.


Waves have nothing to offer but the pressure that they carry. If you imagine the aether filled with waves coming and going in all directions, the waves with the most to offer by way of pressure are the waves that influence the medium most through the chaos. The effect is most apparent as waves pass through particles. The time delay is proportional to the pressure of the particles and the pressure of particles is proportional to the pressure of the medium that they are in. The functioning of particles slows while the acceleration of gravity increases as the pressure of the medium increases.

Let me be clear and point out we are talking gravity type waves, the inflow and out flow from particles and aggregates of particles, and not light waves. Light is a whole different topic when it comes to traversing the aether because light wave-particles are the speed standard within the chaos, and their propagation is unlike the motion of aggregate objects of lesser motivated particles than photons, neutrinos, and cosmic rays. "Aggregate" objects, move at far less than relativistic velocities and their gravitational effect reaches out in front of them at the speed of light and broadcasts their presence and motion before they arrive. Of course, the message that they broadcast has a time delay equal to the distance times the speed of light and so objects react to the message on that same time delay. There is no instant transmission in my model.

The out front nature of gravity waves fills the space between objects. A given set of objects establishes a given pressure in the medium between them. If we could do a "what if" that says there is a fixed set of objects in a given patch of space that are gravitationally bound there in their locations by the presence of a perfect configuration of objects in and outside the given space which are holding our given set of objects in place, as far fetched as that scenario is in real life, then that "fixed" set of objects would generate what I call the "common medium", or the normal rest state of the medium where every object is in balance gravitationally and the pressure of the medium, even though it is full of objects with their inflowing and out flowing standing wave components, will present a happy medium. Forgive me for that.

See the graphic to get a picture of the scenario, and then see the simple designation that I use in drawings to represent the common medium. That designation is useful when I want to depict some aspect of the relationship between objects in the medium. When I show the common medium designation as the backdrop for a graphic, or as a symbol in the corner to make it easy to add to a graphic, you will know that the graphic is taking place in the medium and not in the type of space described by generally accepted theory.
*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

*

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Now to the point I mentioned in the first paragraph about gravity waves move slower as the pressure increases. Gravity overrides all of the characteristics of an atom and their individual particles with spin and bonds and oscillations. Gravity supersedes those characteristics and is a pressure that draws the foundational nature of particles to it by feeding it's constant need to be refreshed with the pressure of inflowing wave energy to sustain the presence of the standing waves. Each set of objects in rendezvous within the medium has this pressure to offer the other objects. Technically the object is offering its quanta to any particle whose pressure is not yet equalized to the environment of the coming rendezvous, but only the more massive objects end up with a net quanta loss out of the rendezvous. (Clear as mud, right?) Of course if the rendezvous is with a black hole, the black hole takes almost all of the quanta.

It is correct in my model to go on and say that the presence of that pressure is forced upon the needy particles and objects. The forcing of quanta on lower pressure environments and therefore on lower pressure particles and objects in those environments is stronger as the pressure differential gets greater, and the attracted particles take the pressure on in the form of quanta that are in the wave energy density of the out flow of the forcing mass.

Here is where the slow down effect is much more apparent than in the common medium; as particles pick up quanta, their standing wave patterns become more dense with high density spots and more numerous wave intersections, and every intersection/high density spot has a time delay.

The topic of the time delay of quantum action needs to be introduced now, in advance of the posting of the hypotheses of the characteristics of the medium, the description of the characteristics of waves traversing the medium, and the characteristics of particles. Being aware of the concept of the time delay of quantum action will help prepare for the presentation of those hypotheses, if anything will help prepare you, lol.

BTW, I have been moving but am in the process of relocating pretty much completely from the PC to the iPad for my forum activity. This document is written on the iPad in Google Drive, spell checked with iSpellChecker, the images were drawn in SketchBookX, saved in my iPad camera roll, uploaded to Photobucket with their free App, emailed to a Picasaweb album, inserted into Google docs as both an image from Picasa using the iPad "desktop view" setting, and as image links from Photobucket. When I view the Google Drive document on my iPad I see the Picasa images and the html link to Photobucket, and when I post to a forum, you see the image from the Photobucket link, and the Picasa Web pic shows up in html as a little "*", which I may or may not remove.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hypothesis: Characteristics of the Foundational Medium

1) It has to carry pressure waves.

2) The pressure waves it carries represent foundational energy and energy has to be conserved in any good model of cosmology, so the medium must be a perfect carrier of pressure waves that traverse the medium frictionlessly.

3) Wave pressure ranges across a wide scale, encompassing wave action at both the macro and micro levels of my model. The quantum waves and quantum action in the medium are active at a scale smaller than the lowest "point/space" level of the Standard Particle Model of quantum physics, i.e. below the fundamental point particle level in that unobservable space where the quantum realm splits off into the realm of various alternative theories. The foundational medium, as I describe its mechanics, replaces both spacetime and any extra dimensions with an actual physical continuum of wave interaction in the foundational medium, right down to the smallest pinhole mechanics.

4) The overall medium has what I refer to as a spongy presence in space that is more substantial than empty space. Its presence exerts a pressure equally in all directions which causes it to remain disbursed, filling all available space with an average pressure. Consider it "ethereal" in the absence of any science to quantify and describe it. It must be there to fill all space in my model just like spacetime in General Relativity Theory must be able to curve spacetime. The end result is the same, but the mechanics of my model physically produce the reality that the mathematics of spacetime quite accurately quantify.

5) To help clarify the nature of the pressure of the medium with an example, take any patch of space and it contains a corresponding volume of the medium. If you keep all of the medium and reduce the space it occupies, the pressure increases, so the equation for the pressure exerted by a perfect gas comes to mind. The pressure of the medium assures that the medium is equally distributed throughout that patch of space.

6) Pressure in a patch of medium will increase when by the wave energy in the space increases. This can be accomplished by accelerating a particle to cause the net inflowing directional wave pressure to increase relative to the spherically out flowing wave pressure or by surrounding the space with mass in the form of nearby objects that contribute their out flowing wave energy component to that environment. The pressure of a patch of medium equates to contained energy of that patch of medium because waves carry energy and as more waves occupy the same patch of medium the pressure increases. Wave pressure that is added to the contained energy of a particle space increases the energy of that particle in quantum increments under the governance of the process of quantum action.There is a huge amount of energy contained in a particle relative to the energy in the medium surrounding it.

7) In my model space is potentially infinite and the pressure of the medium that fills all space has a positive value in infinite space stated in terms of a pressure constant. That means that there is a potentially infinite amount of the medium that exerts a pressure at all points in the medium across potentially infinite space. *Though space is potentially infinite, and has possibly always existed, my model accommodates the possibilities of finite space and time, and a pressure constant simply represents the pressure of a waveless medium in existing space.

8) In an infinite waveless medium there would be a single pressure constant across all space, and in the wave filled medium of my model, there is a universal average constant pressure high enough to assure the presence of matter in an overall fixed ratio to space; there is a range within which the exact ratio which can vary, given the dynamics of how quantum action and arena action play out relative to each other, meaning that pressure can be moved around the medium within particles as their standing wave patterns move according an imbalance between the inflowing and the out flowing standing wave components. That potential movement of pressure relative to the medium applies right on up to the interactions at the macro level as well, i.e. where ever wave energy pressures converge and interact, pressure is traversing the medium.

9) There is a huge range of pressures possible in the medium and there are huge arenas of high pressure and huge corridors of low pressure patches of medium between active arenas across the greater universe. The ever changing mass locations continually move in response to gravity that pulls contained wave pressure of particles together into big crunches, and the law of "critical capacity", a feature of my cosmological model that forces the disposal of contain wave energy back out into the low pressure corridors of space characteristic of the arena landscape of the greater universe.

10) A single wave in the medium propagates spherically and the space within the spherical wave front is continually equalizing with the pressure it is intruding into. Equalization is occurring across the entire volume of medium within the sphere as it expands, starting with the point/center of the sphere established when it initially intrudes upon lower pressure zones. The growing volume of medium within the sphere continues to equalize with the pressure encompassed into it with each incremental increase in the radius of the expanding sphere.

11) Given a single wave scenario in an otherwise still medium, the high pressure wave front carries the wave energy and will potentially expand forever, introducing the concept of the potentially infinite reach of wave pressure differentials across the medium. In multiple wave scenarios a pressure expands until it is interrupted by intersecting with opposing pressure waves.

12) The wave pressure of the medium determines the speed that waves traverse it. A single wave traverses an otherwise waveless medium at the maximum velocity allowed by the natural laws governing it. As the wave energy density of the medium increases, a single wave traverses it more slowly; the reduction in velocity of the advancing wave front is proportional to the increase in the pressure that the front is intruding into, i.e the relative surrounding pressure of the medium. Correspondingly, the speed of light through the medium is slowed as the wave energy density of the medium increases,

13) Conversely, as the wave energy density of the medium decreases, a single wave traverses it more rapidly (for talking purposes, never to exceed the speed of light in a waveless medium); the increase in the rate of expansion of the pressure wave is proportional to the decrease in the pressure into which the wave is intruding.

14) From a perspective of multiple pressure environments in the medium, the physical speed of light is variable based on the pressure of the medium through which it passes, while at the same time, the apparent speed of light is invariant. I acknowledge that apparent inconsistency and address it next.

15) That oxymoron is explained by the described mechanics of natural laws that determine that the pressure of space through which light passes not only affects the physical velocity of light, but also affects the rate at which particles in that space function. In my model particles of matter, just like light, are also composed of wave energy traversing. They light waves and the waves establishing particles traverse the same pressure environment in the foundational medium. The inflowing and out flowing wave energy components of the standing wave patterns that establish and maintain the presence of matter in the medium function with the same variability as the speed of light varies, i.e. relative to the pressure of the environment. So in my model, though light really does slow down as it traverses higher wave energy density space, the standing waves of the particles of matter slow down correspondingly as the pressure due to the wave energy density of the medium increases. The particles of the measuring devices and everything else, including your body, are composed of matter that is composed of wave energy that is traversing the same density medium that the light we are measuring is traversing. Due to that mutual slowing effect of wave action relative to the density/pressure of the local medium, our measurements of the speed of light don't reveal the wave pressure variability.

16) All waves traverse the medium at the maximum speed established by the local pressure, and can be said to all traverse the medium at the same speed as light traverses it, which is variable relative to the wave energy density of the foundational medium. This means that clocks will slow down as they are accelerated, people who are accelerated will age more slowly, gravitational time dilation is real and is measurable to the extent that clocks can be synchronized, and the speed of light and gravity are dependant on the pressure of the medium through which their waves pass. An observer moving with the time measuring device will not be able to detect a change in the measured rate that time passes.

17) Any means used to measure time in any local environment will be subject to the pressure of that environment, and so the rate that time is measured to pass locally is the local time rate. Any change in the wave pressure of the medium for that environment will change the local time rate. The difference between any two local time rates is equal to the difference in wave pressure of those environments. The Time Hypothesis states however, that time simply passes at the same invariant rate in all places at all times.
(1097)

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

To be continued ...

(1252)

 

No matter how much we want to know "reality", it seems the best we can do today in modern science is subscribe to General Relativity and say it applies to the macro realm, and acknowledge that Quantum Mechanics applies to the quantum realm. Of course there is an understood but elusive dividing line between the two realms, and they are as yet unreconciled.

To me, a layman science enthusiast, the dividing line is defined by the role that particle-wave duality plays. As the "size scale" increases, the importance of the wave nature of the particles that make up objects declines and the aggregate particle nature of objects brings us up the size scale to things we can see and touch or observe in space. The particle-wave duality of "reality" has more applications in the micro realm of Quantum Mechanics, and the motion of macro objects in space applies more to the realm of General Relativity.

For those of you who say that the combination of QM and GR precisely corresponds to reality ... you are too proud of what man has been able to unravel from nature. For those of you who say that science has gone down the wrong path for over one hundred years ... you are too unappreciative of how science works; and maybe both groups are too unappreciative of the fact that the advance of the science of particles and objects centers on gravity, and that is where the effort is being focused to reconcile QM and GR.

I think it all hinges on the cause of gravity.

My money is on the aether, but my money is also on the thinking that aether theory will not become accepted in my lifetime, and so my hobby is to contemplate it, post my contemplations, and ignore those who subscribe to the idea that the current state of QM and GR is "reality", rejecting aether theory as an old falsified science.

We don't know yet the physical nature of gravity, but it must work the same on all particles with mass. The influence of the electromagnetic nature of particles is huge relative to the gravitation force between objects, and it is not easy to examine gravity without the presence of electric and magnetic fields. It is even harder to attribute the quantum nature of gravity to an aether that can't be detected.

The success of electromagnetic field theory has been overwhelming and it is common thinking to see gravity as a field theory too. We are pretty certain that mass is accompanied by a gravitational field, but aether theory (or at least my model of it) addresses the concern that the gravitational field will not require the presence of mass, but will instead require the presence of wave energy traversing an aether to establish the presence of matter. The presence of matter actually forms within the gravitational influence of the surrounding wave energy traversing the aether. One more point, there is enough wave energy traversing the aether to force the presence of a fixed ratio of matter to aether.

Science professionals don't chat enthusiastically about the aether, and most layman science enthusiasts who do post about it don't agree on its nature, so contemplating the aether has a definite solitary aspect; but it is the right hobby for me.
(1546)

 

I'm sometimes seen as a critic of relativity, which I'm actually not. I just say that the EFEs are very good mathematical representations of a natural physical cause and effect; there is a cause of mass and gravity and it is not abstract math, it is natural law. If you don't think so, or if think the current state of general relativity has a precise correspondence to reality, you may be among those who disparage aether thinking. Fine.

Einstein's Postulates:

The physical laws of nature are the same in every inertial frame of reference.

The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame of reference.

These two axioms seem simple, while the resulting consequences seem to have inspired an ardent opposition. Maybe that is because of skepticism of the pure mathematical nature of the underlying theory, or because there is what I think is a justified, though generally unspoken belief that though the math works extremely well to predict and represent nature, there has to be a physical cause behind the mathematical orchestration. Whatever the roots of the controversy, what better hobby is there for an old recluse like me than to explore that ultimate brain teaser, and follow the topic to see who reveals the key to the as yet unknown secrets of the universe.

I have and maintain an ongoing model built from my studies that is continually improving because I focus on it. The dolts who have no clue about the depth of the issue can easily wave it off and criticize "aether thinking" but there really is a fundamental and long time issue that has a long list of some great names who have proposed and supported aether think:

Albert A. Michelson: The very first American Nobel prize winner (1907) is also the pioneer of interferometry, which enables the precision guidance of modern weaponry. He received honorary science and law degrees from ten American and foreign universities. He was President of the American Physical Society (1900), the American Association for the Advancement of Science (1910-1911), and the National Academy of Sciences (1923-1927). He was also a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Society of London and the Optical Society, an Associate of l'Académie Française and among the many awards he has received are the Matteucci Medal (Societá Italiana), 1904; Copley Medal (Royal Society), 1907; Elliot Cresson Medal (Franklin Institute), 1912; Draper Medal (National Academy of Sciences), 1916; Franklin Medal (Franklin Institute) and the Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1923; and the Duddell Medal (Physical Society), 1929. Though his understanding and experience with the nature and manipulation of light has made vast contributions to our modern world, it is an unfortunate fact that his most widely known contribution to science is the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. This experiment is heralded as one of the primary proofs of Relativity yet Michelson never believed relativity to be a tenable theory even to his death in 1931.

Robert A. Millikan: The second American winner of the Nobel Prize (1923) for his “Oil Drop Experiment” which proved the elementary electronic charge. Millikan's 1916 paper on the measurement of Planck's constant was dramatic in its time but the interpretation was far from the quantum movement caused by relativity. The very first sentence of one of his 1916 papers was “Einstein's photoelectric equation... cannot in my judgment be looked upon at present as resting upon any sort of a satisfactory theoretical foundation" What we now call the photon was, in Millikan's view, "[a] bold, not to say the reckless, hypothesis". In a textbook written by him as late as 1927 he unambiguously supports the existence of ether. Finally, in 1950 at age 82 (3 years before his death), under the barrage of relativity’s mainstream popularity, he somewhat fell in with the majority in his autobiography by stating that his experiments were proof of the photon.

Louis Essen: Inventor of the atomic clock and the man responsible for the modern precise measurement of the speed of light. At first he suffered harsh criticism for his new measurements of the speed of light but it was the value adopted by the 12th General Assembly of the Radio-Scientific Union in 1957and in 1983, the 17th Conférence Générale des Poids et Mesures adopted the standard value, 299,792.458 km/s for the speed of light. The atomic clock is the standard of measure throughout the world and without it the GPS system would not be possible. Why is it little known that this winner of multiple awards in physics also published a paper called “The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis”? A member of the National Physical Laboratory of the UK from which he retired in 1972 after being quietly warned not to continue his contradiction of Einstein’s theory of relativity. "No one has attempted to refute my arguments, but I was warned that if I persisted I was likely to spoil my career prospects. …the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory." - Louis Essen F.R.S., "Relativity and time signals", Wireless World, oct78, p44. ‘Students are told that the theory must be accepted although they cannot expect to understand it. They are encouraged right at the beginning of their careers to forsake science in favor of dogma.’

Ernest Rutherford: 1908 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. His research into radioactive emissions brought forth the notion of an atomic nucleus we know today. While at the Macdonald Laboratory in Montreal, he worked on a “disintegration theory” of radiation. Otto Hahn who later discovered atomic fission, worked under Rutherford at the Montreal Laboratory in 1905-06. By exposing nitrogen to radiation thereby transforming it to an oxygen isotope, he is known as the first person to deliberately transmute one element into another. As the leader of the Cavendish Laboratory, he inspired numerous other Nobel prizewinners to their achievements. C.D. Ellis, his co-author in 1919 and 1930, pointed out "that the majority of the experiments at the Cavendish were really started by Rutherford's direct or indirect suggestion". With awards and medals too numerous to mention; the progenitor of atomic physics he is truly a forefather of modern science. When asked what he thought about relativity he exclaimed "Oh, that stuff! We never bother with that in our work." Stephen Leacock, Common Sense and the Universe Wilhelm Wein: "No Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity!"
Ernest Rutherford: "No! they've got too much sense!" From The Rutherford Memorial Lecture to the Physical Society 1954 by P. M. S. Blackett, Year Book of The Physical Society 1955. "The War had just ended; and the complacency of the Edwardian and Victorian times had been shattered. The people felt that all their values and all their ideals had lost their bearings. Now, suddenly, they learnt that an astronomical prediction by a German scientist had been confirmed by expeditions to Brazil and West Africa and, indeed, prepared for already during the War, by British astronomers. Astronomy has always appealed to public imagination; and an astronomical discovery, transcending worldly strife, struck a responsive chord. The meeting of the Royal Society, at which the results of the British expeditions were reported, was headlined in all the British papers; and the typhoon of publicity crossed the Atlantic. From that point on, the American press played Einstein to the maximum." Quotation from: Chandrasekhar S., (1987) Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivations in Science, University of Chicago press

Herbert Ives: First transmission (1924) of pictures by wire, resulted in first public demonstration (1927) of television, for which he was awarded (1927) the John Scott Medal. As the lead researcher of Bell Labs’ television development project, he is often known as the father of modern television. As an accomplished physicist, his knowledge and experience in the propagation of light has changed our world. He is also well known for his part in the Ives-Stillwell experiment, which is regularly listed as one of the proofs of relativity. How is it that this individual who participated in this experiment, afterwards wrote numerous papers in peer reviewed journals against relativity? “The 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light is not merely 'ununderstandable', it is not supported by 'objective matters of fact'; it is untenable, and, as we shall see, unnecessary. . . . Also of philosophical import is that with the abandonment of the 'principle' of the constancy of the velocity of light, the geometries which have been based on it, with their fusion of space and time, must be denied their claim to be a true description of the physical world." - Herbert E. Ives, "Revisions of the Lorentz Transformations", October 27, 1950

Ernst Mach: The namesake of the sound barrier, Einstein entitled him as the forerunner of relativity. Most of his studies in the field of experimental physics were devoted to interference, diffraction, polarization and refraction of light in different media under external influences. Though Einstein cited Mach as a source of ideas, Mach rejected Einstein's relativity theory and asked not to be associated with the "dogmatic" and "paradoxical nonsense", in spite of the fact that Joseph Petzoldt sought to give Mach his due credit for major elements of the theory of relativity. Einstein initially adored Mach, and asked for his guidance and help. When it became known, after Mach's death, that Mach rejected Einstein and his views, Einstein ridiculed Mach. “Scientists have now become a church and I do not regard it as an honor to be part of this or of any church.”

Nikola Tesla: Very likely the greatest inventor of all time and certainly the greatest electrical engineer of all time. Tesla is most well known for his invention of the AC power distribution system that we still use today. However, he is also responsible for a variety of inventions and patents so wide he could easily be considered to be the single greatest contributor to the modern age of technology. Just a few of his inventions include the electric motor, radio and wireless communication, electronic logic (the AND gate), the discovery of X-rays, charged particle beams, the rotating magnetic field, fluorescent lighting, and the vertical take-off and landing concept. The undeniable link between electricity, magnetism and advanced physics concepts are well known to even laymen. While Relativity is entirely for the purpose of explaining electromagnetic phenomenon, Tesla, the wizard of electromagnetism who produced so many working useful concepts with his understanding, laughed at the ridiculous nature of relativity. ... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies, as observed. - "Prepared Statement of Tesla". July 10, 1937. Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. The scientists from Franklin to Morse were clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. - "Radio Power Will Revolutionize the World". Modern Mechanics and Inventions. July, 1934.

And that is just a short list of old names form one source. There are many current and past professionals working in the field of quantum mechanics to whom the word aether is not a bad word, but a hotly pursued topic called quantum gravity, if you know what I mean. If you don't you should find out. If you have any interest in where the efforts toward unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity will lead you should listen; it will be quantum gravity, and there will be a physical nature to it. It might not be called an aether, but like the rose, the aether by any other name would smell as sweet.
(1608)

 

I don't really have a problem with people believing in aether thinking. It is just one of millions of beliefs in the world and I am not the judge of whether they are true or not. I do sometimes argue with people that extend their belief systems to things that sound ridiculous. What I do have a problem with is that the aether thinkers are trying to be scientific, and yet seem to be starting with this idea that a aether has to exist and then looking for any support they can find in the scientific literature and history. It seems to be placing the cart before the horse. Aether thinkers start with a bias instead of a healthy skepticism. I realize that scientific method involves formulating a hypothesis. But the basic idea of aether has been already ruled out a very long time ago. In order to revive the aether thought, new attributes have had to be assigned to the aether. It has to be redesigned. If aether is to be the medium for light, then it has to have the properties that allow for the speed of light to be invariant. If you think that someone has successfully come up with this (other than using the Mazulu method of just saying that it has that property by definition) I would be interested in that. That seems to be the big conundrum, finding a substance that propagates light the way Einstein described. Any aether that has these properties is going to be a vary mysterious substance indeed. A lot more problematic that just calling it a vacuum.

I am familiar with many of the names you listed and a few more. But never confuse the man and his work. Einstein and Newton were responsible for some of the greatest scientific work ever done. But Einstein didn't like QM, and Newton dabbled in alchemy and biblical prophesy. I would bet that Plato lost some arguments and that Michelangelo tossed a few of his sculptures out the window. We all have our failures and misconceptions.

 

As I've mentioned in a couple of other threads, I've never been able to get my mind around curved spacetime. What is it ? What does it curve away from ? What's left in the place where it curvrd away from ? And taking a stationary object, what would cause it to move along one of these particular curves, if there were curves going in all directions ? Seems a zero sum game to me. A fairytale.

Interesting to see that Tesla thought along similar lines.

 

You are not one of those grappling with the issue of a physical cause for the curvature of spacetime, and so I understand your concerns with those who are. When people come along who actually consider an aether, they have already realized the same concern I have. There has to be a physical connection between objects in order for there to be an effect between them. Curved spacetime would be an almost perfect solution if it weren't for that missing physical connection. This is not great advanced thinking on my part, nor do I want there to be an impression that I am claiming to have come up with something new in my hypotheses; I'm building my model for my own satisfaction, posting it to get help, and I don't encourage people along who don't share my concern.

As for the characteristics of the aether, your historical acknowledgement that the Michelson-Morley experiment falsified the classical aether theory is mentioned by me in this thread too, and the fact that an aether would have to be quite different is the real focus of my hobby. I describe it within the limits that I impose on myself, i.e. the model is internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. What I do is not science, it is an appreciation of science and it is a waste of time to those who are happy with no physical cause for gravity other than the insistence that the physical cause is already quantified and proven a hundred times. I'm just not satified to be in that camp anymore than they are likely to be doing "aether think".

 

You might be a candidate for the now over used term, "aether think", lol. I don't know if you have enough interest to read my views but feel free to comment on any of the content so far. I think posts #1, #2, #18, and #43 are enough to bring up to date, though the other discussion has good content too.
(1862)

 

This is probably not going to convince you but here goes. I hope my poor writing dos not confuse my meaning too much.

Kepler determined that the orbits of the planets were elliptical. When Newton came up with his theory of gravity, he knew that his theory had agree with Kepler's discovery. Newton's formulae do recreate Kepler's theories and more. Kepler's theory was that the orbits of planets are elliptical. Newton in his wisdom knew that his theory would be used to calculate ballistic trajectories. These trajectories would have to be elliptical but that also meant that it would be very difficult to calculate the impact point of a ballistic object given its trajectory. So he did something very interesting. He simplified the problem by changing the geometry. He proposed an infinite flat earth with gravity always perpendicular to the surface which with a flat infinite earth meant that all down pointing gravity vectors were parallel. Using this method, which was approximate for all practical purposes, he was able to use parabolas to replace the elliptical orbits that ballistic objects should travel on. Parabolas are much easier to calculate trajectories with. As long as your the ballistic trajectory is less that a couple miles, it is a close approximation.

Einstein did something that is similar in a backwards way. He looked at the problem of the invariant speed of light and analyzed it in a geometric domain. Obviously the result had to also inhabit the same geometric domain. He realized that the formulae he derived were familiar and were indicative of a non-Euclidean geometry. Non-Euclidean geometry was much more popular in the 1800s than it is now. Or maybe it is just folded into other mathematical structures today. But the answer was quite familiar to Einstein. He realized that the answer to the problem at hand was to change the geometry. He realized that the problem which was posed in geometry would be solved with geometry.

Geometry is very closely tied to physics and is very physical in nature.You claimed that there has to be a physical connection between objects in order for there to be an effect between them. There is. It is geometry. Change the geometry and you change the physical laws, just as Newton did. Physics is not just objects and forces. It includes geometry, and also information. Maybe other stuff too. As many here have said, space in not just "nothing". It has properties that relate to geometry and other attributes. The geometry of spacetime is very well studied and understood, and it is really the only answer.

If you really look at the aether problem, I think you will find that the aether really looks a lot like "empty" space.

 

I have good interest, and I will read the posts you mention above - thank you for pointing them out.

 

It doesn't, but I see no problem with the writing.

I don't know which applies to you in regard to science; professional status or layman status. I don't try to be part of the scientific community and I have no allegiance to it, only respect. You may or may not have some affiliation or allegiance to the professional community. That said, I speak as a hobbyist when it comes to the physical effects of an aether, and assume you speak as at least a science enthusiast when it comes to the physical effects of the geometry of spacetime. I don't find the concept of spacetime to be the rantings of deluded physicists, and you won't confuse my delusions as the rantings of a professional. I have a hobby and you haven't convinced me otherwise; what you say is probably generally accepted in your circles; its not generally accepted in mine. And I know you have in your back pocket the waiting post that tells me of the hundreds of successful experiments that confirm and even "prove" SR and GR, but you can assume that I am aware of them, perhaps more of them than you are at least in general layman terms. Why am I not convinced?*

Let's agree to disagree with the thinking that you may never be comfortable with any explanation for why I'm not convinced short of me being ignorant, but I submit that you could be generous and wave me off by just allowing for the possibility that if I were to be convinced of the validity of your position it would mean I would have to find a new hobby

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I'm working on my next content section about Quantum Action, and it occurs to me that the first step contains just the right thought that differentiates my view of a physical effect from yours. I'll post a few lines from the upcoming section on Quantum Action:

Hypothesis of Quantum Action

Are you ready to go over the process of quantum action? Of course you are! It really is the central feature of the quantum realm, responsible for maintaining the presence of standing wave particles, and the process that utilizes directional wave density imbalances in the medium to cause those particles to move, i.e. gravity.

1)*Spherical wave convergences, high density spots, and spherical out flowing waves

This hypothesis begins with the concept that when spherical waves in the aether medium converge there is a high density spot formed at the point of convergence. One of the basics of my model is that each high density spot pushes out a spherical wave of its own that expands out into the lower density medium of the "parent" converging waves.

Further, another basic of the model is that there is a time delay between the point in time when the high density spot is created at the point of intersection, and when it is disbursed as a new out flowing spherical wave. This time delay is a consequence of a sponginess (compressibility) of the medium.

It is that time delay that changes the point by point progress of wave advance between to converging parent waves, to a spot by spot (Hugyens type) advance. That is an important distinction. A point has no volume and no action can take place without volume and time. Quantum action utilizes that tiny space, the wave differential in it, and the time given to it by the compressibility of the medium, to initiate quantum action by producing a spherical out flowing wave from the high density spot.

The post goes on and on to the extent of becoming a perfect sleeping aid, so I won't put you to sleep with it until I have it ready for the Internet, but the concept of quantum action in an aether medium is physical, and distinguishes "physical" from "geometry" in my model.
(2043)

 

The explanation I gave to Cheezle in my last post describes a physical event in the foundational medium. His claim, speaking about spacetime, is that:

How do you get an event like I described from spacetime or empty space? You don't. The high density spot is a tiny piece of matter, a tiny contribution to a particle. It comes and it goes in an instant within a standing wave pattern, but it is the quantum example of the premise that waves beget waves, and so the presence of particles is maintained by the type of event that I described. A particle in my theoy may contain hundreds of millions to hundreds of billions of high density spots that are all refreshed by quantum action once every quantum period.
(2096)

 

I was talking about the question of aether in general, not your version of it. If the definition of this proposed object you refer to as aether is to be constrained by what we observe about light and velocity, then I think you will find that there is a close match with the currently accepted object we call space, which is the non-aether. I was not considering your density spots or any other features you propound that do not match with experiment. If I was to consider such unobserved features I would have to contend with Mazulu's gravity beam and a host of other mutually contradicting ideas on what aether is, and how it acts. Your counter-science hobby aether is just another of those. I have kind of lost interest in the whole discussion.

 

OK, right, aether in general would have to look like space as we see it. That leaves us with the two groups I mentioned earlier, those who accept that the geometry of spacetime produces the physical results, or those who look for some physical cause to produce the physical results.

I understand the loss of and/or lack of interest among the set of people who are pretty comfortable with the spacetime geometry solution to action at a distance. Darn, Mazulu must have beaten me to that gravity beam thing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.
(2116)

 

The photon travels at a constant speed that doesn't change. So then there couldn't be a pressure in a medium that determines the velocity of a photon, if there isn't pressure in a medium that determines the velocity of a photon, then why would there be a pressure in a medium that determines the velocity of any particle?

 

I hope to be able to explain it to you, and in that same post I went over some reasons, but let's start with some real science and not my ranting: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_a_prism_work#page1

How does the photon slow down in a prism if it always ...

(2441)

 

Grant Hutchison gives a good quantum description of how light passes through the prism.
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/104474-What-happens-in-a-prism-at-a-quantum-level?

From the master himself
http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8