To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Aether Wave Theory (AWT)
PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Zephir
Hello all! smile.gif

Before one year I created the very first forum (and only one, so far..) about Aether Wave Theory (AWT).

During this time, I wrote a three thousands of posts with some half thousand of pictures and animations and I disputed this concept in different consequences with nearly fifty people here. The older posts are available with full text search support.

So I'm interested about public acceptance of this concept by now.

Thank You for your feedback in advance!
Turya
I’ve relatively recently looked at your “awt” (as you noticed for sure, I’m “new” on this forum and even that just for a while).

Thank you for your honest and remarkable efforts and for an open approach as well. In my view you have one fine and clear physical picture of reality and according to that enough wide way of thinking. A resurrection of aether obviously is an interesting fact (many now try to reinvent Einstein concept considering his Leyden paper). “Recursivnes” of phenomena is also something nonetheless outstanding and leads to the basic change of paradigm, let’s say from one “mechanistic” to more “organic” view of Universe. With your picture it seems to me you are on that way, which is right now in a very critical phase.

However, let me express few objections, and I hope it will be helpful at least because they are more than good willing:

1. You think it is totally original (in formal way “wave function + E = mc^2”), but isn’t truly. M. Wolf has almost the same approach although he is most interested in inner particle structure and Mach principle. Also very similar is a classical wave theory (out of Copenhagen’s QM and even of de Broglie-Bohm-Vigier wave mechanics) of J. P. Wesley. Very interesting in this regard is J. Constant’s wave theory, in rejection of EEP and consequently GR, but there is Klein-Gordon equation with k = mc/h and instantaneous gravity). All this approaches came earlier than yours. But in my view, it is not so important considering obvious honesty in your efforts.

2. A complete missing of quantitative analysis could be a great lack of your approach. Someone has already used a pretty rough term “useless”. Even in this respect I have somewhat different “angle”, namely, the original qualitative pictures in a good timing are of the great value if we whish to go further in our understanding of the principles.

3. And in my view the most important is that you still believe in some old concepts and paradigms and their domains of applicability. But real problem exactly is in general picture. Only very deep, general Change (let’s say of paradigm) can be really “usefull”. XX century produced sort of magic technology, but on the other side, almost totally virtual picture of the reality. By itself it was an interesting high-level interplay of “money” and “power”.

Real state of minds, through all levels of “power” and “academia”, became a “ptolemaic confusion”. If we whish to to step out of it we must, much more than in Copernican times and way, open our eyes to the New Cosmic Reality and Dynamics. Otherwise we are really “doomed”.

Kindest regards.
Zephir
QUOTE (Turya+Aug 20 2006, 03:19 PM)
You think it is totally original (in formal way “wave function +  E = mc^2”), but isn’t truly. M. Wolf has almost the same approach although he is most interested in inner particle structure and Mach principle.

Dr. M. Wolf doesn't uses the “wave function + E = mc^2 ” and his "simple spherical" particle wave has nothing to do with the composite quantum wave sindie of particles, which are having a complicated internal structure of foam. Furthermore, Dr. Millo Wolf doesn't explains, why such wave pocket would form at all, such structure assumption is a simply postulate in his theory. If Dr. Wold really would used such combination, he would never did come to such picture:

User posted image

From this point of view, the superstring theory is much more close to the AWT approach (although it doesn't use a “wave function + E = mc^2 ” combination too, but the quantum wave concept which results from “wave function + E = mc^2 ” combination in one step of recursion). After all, it's obvious, Dr. Millo Wolf doesn't understand the physic too much, most of his proposal are simply too naive, for having some connection to reality. The superstring theory has an opposite problem instead with the same result.

QUOTE (Turya+Aug 20 2006, 03:19 PM)
A complete missing of quantitative analysis could be a great lack of your approach.

It's true, but it's the property of the Universe, which is mixing the chaos with complexity. From the formal point of view, the math model of AWT is well defined and complete, so it can be simulated on the computer rather easily - but it's formal solution is a different task, outside of scope of physic. Concerning the lack of quantitative results or even pictures, it's definitely true - but none of physical theory supplies such picture and results, too (with the honor exception of rather cryptic Heim's theory).

After all, we are just at the very beginning, nobody can predict the further r evolution of AWT. From my personal point of view the AWT is much morel important as qualitative framework for general Universe understanding as a tool for the teachers, the qualitative computer simulations are business of professional scientists, which will obtain a grants and money for such simulations, not me. After all, with compare to the general level of other mainstream theories, my theory is illustrated pretty well.

QUOTE (Turya+Aug 20 2006, 03:19 PM)
  the most important is that you still believe in some old concepts and paradigms and their domains of applicability.

Do you have some particular example? My theory uses a quite few postulates with compare to other mainstream theories so it doesn't rely upon the classical concept even more. The most important problem of other theories is, they believe, such classical concepts and paradigms aren't applicable outside the domains of classical theories.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 09:36 AM)
Hello all! smile.gif

Before one year I created the very first forum (and only one, so far..) about Aether Wave Theory (AWT).

During this time, I wrote a three thousands of posts with some half thousand of pictures and animations and I disputed this concept in different consequences with nearly fifty people here. The older posts are available with full text search support.

So I'm interested about public acceptance of this concept by now.

Thank You for your feedback in advance!

You know the answer: a hoax.
Zephir
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 20 2006, 05:18 PM)
You know the answer: a hoax.

The some scientific motivations of Aether Wave Theory:

1) The light is spreading in waves, which can be described by wave equation for elastic massive environment, which results from Newton inertia law and energy conservation law. Therefore, the light wave phenomena requires the massive environment as such, i.e. the luminiferous Aether.

2) The c=const postulate of special relativity can be derived as the theorem of Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light (done by Lorentz in 1895) by using of transversal wave spreading. Such result was confirmed in 1887 by Michelson-Morley experimentally.

3) The E=mc^2 can be derived for photon wave spreading by using Newton inertia law, where the m is the relativistic mass of photon under motion, i.e. not the rest mass photon, which can never be determined experimentally.

user posted image

4) The Aether concept is consistent with the Mazur/Motola's Universe model of gravastar (the Aether is forming the massive environment of such gravastar)
user posted image

5) The proposed Aether structure of foam can be derived by Lagrangian analysis of energy wave spreading in multidimensional inertial enevironment and it's consistent with the Kip Thorne's model of black hole interior, the Mathus's fuzzball concept of superstring theory, with the protosimplex model of Heim's theory, with membrane paradigm of M-theory and the virtual quark finding in HERA collision experiments

user posted image user posted image

6) The AWT model is consistent with the deBroglie-Bohm wave interpretation of wave mechanic and is able to explain the photon and quantum entanglement formation mechanism just on the base of wave mechanic of inertial environment as the most natural QM approach available without need of QM postulates.

User posted image

7) The AWT is able to explain the cosmological inflation concept like Aether phase transform together with the latest observation of acceleration of Universe "expansion" without introducing ad-hoc postulate of dark energy by classical model of collapsing star.

user posted image

8) The AWT has a lot of direct analogies as a general model of model of matter evolution, and as such it's able to explain the creationistic aspects of social and biologic evolution.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 03:00 PM)
The some scientific motivations of Aether Wave Theory:

1)  Therefore, the light wave phenomena requires the massive environment as such, i.e. the luminiferous Aether


BS. Michelson Morley and Kennedy Thorndike experiments say exactly the opposite

QUOTE

2) The c=const postulate of special relativity can be derived as the theorem of Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light (done by Lorentz in 1895) by using of transversal wave spreading. Such result was confirmed in 1887 by Michelson-Morley experimentally.


You mean INFIRMED. More BS.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

2) The c=const postulate of special relativity can be derived as the theorem of Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light (done by Lorentz in 1895) by using of transversal wave spreading. Such result was confirmed in 1887 by Michelson-Morley experimentally.


You mean INFIRMED. More BS.


3) The E=mc^2 can be derived for photon wave spreading by using Newton inertia law, where the m is the relativistic mass of photon under motion, i.e. not the rest mass photon, which can never be determined experimentally.


More BS, E=mc^2 was derived from a thought experiment involving EM radiating bodies by Einstein in this paper:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

The "rest mass of the photon" is exactly 0, as postulated by QED and as CONFIRMED by multiple experiments.

1. Eric Adelberger, Gia Dvali, Andrei Gruzinov, "Photon Mass Bound Destroyed by Vortices", arXig.org
2. Goldhaber, Alfred S., and Nieto, Michael Martin, "Terrestrial and Extraterrestrial Limits on The Photon Mass", Rev. Mod. Phys. vol.43 #3 pp.277–296, 1971 [1]
3. E. Fischbach et al., Physical Review Letters, 73,514-517 25 July 1994.
4. Official particle table http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/tables/gxxx.pdf
5. L. Davis, A. S. Goldhaber, and M. M. Nieto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1402 (1975)
6. Roderic Lakes, "Experimental Limits on the Photon Mass and Cosmic Magnetic Vector Potential", Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1826 (1998) [2]
7. J. Luo et al., Phys. Rev. D 59, 042001 (1999)
8. B. E. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4964 (1999)
9. J.Luo et al., Physical Review Letters, (28 February 2003)


REST OF YOUR BS is SNIPPED[B]
Guest_amrit
zephir is aether existing in space
or aether itself is space ?!
Zephir
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 20 2006, 06:19 PM)
Michelson Morley and Kennedy Thorndike experiments say exactly the opposite

The Michelson Morley and Kennedy Thorndike experiments says c=const.
The equations of Maxwell's Aether Theory of light says c=const, too... wink.gif

The Aether disapproval by M-M experiment is the most widespread hoax persisting in scientific community, despite the explicit dismissive stance of Einstein.

QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 20 2006, 06:19 PM)
..The "rest mass of the photon" is exactly 0, as postulated by QED and as CONFIRMED by multiple experiments..

The mass of photon has nothing to do with the rest mass. The rest mass of photon cannot be experimentally tested as nobody did ever see the photon at rest... wink.gif

QUOTE (Guest_amrit+Aug 20 2006, 06:19 PM)
..zephir is aether existing in space
or aether itself is space ?! ..

Aether is forming the space like the water is forming the water surface (i.e. the gradient of Aether density) for subsequent surface wave spreading.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 03:36 PM)


The Aether disapproval by M-M experiment is the most widespread hoax persisting in scientific community, despite the explicit dismissive stance of Einstein.


I bolded your nonsense. Looks like now you ran out of scientific arguments and you go to personal attacks against Einstein. Unfortunately the whole scientific community is laughing in your face.

QUOTE

The mass of photon has nothing to do with the rest mass. The rest mass of photon cannot be experimentally tested as nobody did ever see the photon at rest... wink.gif


You are showing your ignorance. Why don't you read some of the papers I listed for you?


Rest of your BS is snipped as irrelevant self advertisment.
Zephir
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 20 2006, 06:41 PM)
Unfortunately the whole scientific community is laughing in your face.

Einstein, University of Leyden, 1920:

According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether 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.

I don't know about whole scientific community, can you prove this? I'm not very sure, if the whole whole scientific community is quite happy from me - but this is a life, who cares. Every BS finds the way out, sooner or later..

Mrs.Gump: Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 03:50 PM)
Einstein, University of Leyden, 1920:

According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether 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.

I don't know about whole scientific community, can you prove this? I'm not very sure, if the whole whole scientific community is quite happy from me - but this is a life, who cares. Every BS finds the way out, sooner or later..

Mrs.Gump: Life is a box of chocolates, Forrest. You never know what you're gonna get.

I have exposed your "selective quoting" before. Anyone looking here:

http://www.aetherometry.com/einstein_aethe...relativity.html

can see that you trunkated the last (and most important) sentence:

"But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

That is,Einstein is saying that : the "motion of light thru Aether" that MMX and KT were trying to detect cannot and will not exist.

You gave "graduated" from BS-ing to actual lying, kiddo.
Zephir
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 20 2006, 06:55 PM)
That is,Einstein is saying that : the "motion of light thru Aether" that MMX and KT were trying to detect cannot and will not exist.

Nope, the Einstein is saying:

"But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Wanna bet?

BTW I have exposed the reality twisting in interpretation of foreign sentences, kiddo... wink.gif
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 03:58 PM)
Nope, the Einstain has said:

"But this Aether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Wanna bet?



Why did you trunkate the concluding remark in first place? Did you think that people are so dumb to believe you without checking the link? You have "graduated" from BS-ing to outright lying and cheating. But you get exposed every time you try to pull a fast one, like the one above, kiddo.
Zephir
You have "graduated" from BS-ing to outright lying and cheating. But you get exposed every time you try to pull a fast one, like the one above, kiddo.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 04:03 PM)
You have "graduated" from BS-ing to outright lying and cheating. But you get exposed every time you try to pull a fast one, like the one above, kiddo.

Singing praise about yourself? For once, I agree with you.
Judge_Judy
Zephir,



Summary:

1. Nothing in "AWT" strikes me as new or original. Every idea in it has been used by many others.

2. Using words and pictures is not Science; you say over and over that "this explains ...__" yet you haven't EXPLAINED anything (Physics), you have only DESCRIBED something.

3. Like everyone tells you, without any math (hell, even some NUMBERS would do you good) you don't have anything close to a "theory". Explain something with simple, real mathematical statements.


Bottom line:

You should be a Science Journalist. Tell the masses about what's going on out there. At least you win an award.. for "The Most Posts on this Forum Without Really Saying Anything".


JJ


Zephir
QUOTE (Judge_Judy+Aug 20 2006, 07:51 PM)
Nothing in "AWT" strikes me as new or original.  Every idea in it has been used by many others

Bacically it means, the AWT is rooted in commongly used mainstream science concepts... So, where's the hoax problem? I'm just explaining the common science... smile.gif

The AWT uses the only one very new idea, the substitution of energy into mass of string in solution of wave equation. Such concept wasn't never used (try to correct me, if I'm wrong), although it's a quite trivial, I admit. The better for theory.

The math background of Aether Wave theory (AWT) consist in the common solution of two equations:

1) the wave equation user posted image
2) the mass-energy equivalence principle user posted image

These equations are describing the oscillations of massive elastic string, where the mass density of string is always proportional to it's energy density in each moment & location. Here's lot of ways, how to solve such system and such solution is job for math, not for physic. The few first iterations can be done even on normal PC computer, in 2D the result looks like this:

user posted image

At the first glance, the AWT predicts, for example:

1. The Universe can be described by substitution of mass density of vibrating string by the energy density by E=mc2
2. The gravity field is manifestation of Aether density, the gravity force is tendency of Aether to level the energy density via diffusion of Aether
3. The Aether theory derives the constant speed of light and Lorentz transforms of SR
4. The vacuum has a 6D spongy structure composed from 3D bubbles recursively
5. The Universe is highly, if not infinitesimally recursive
6. The Universe is formed by black hole interior, filled by such spongy matter
7. The Universe collapses, instead of expansion with increasing speed like common gravity bounded objects without need of dark energy postulate
8. The supermassive black holes inside of gallaxies are the rest of quasars and these quasars were created by collisions of newly created vacuum mass during inflation
9. The observable mass was created from secondary condensation of energy radiated from quasars by adiabatic cooling
10. The dark matter was formed from non-condensed portions of such energy as the zone of more dense Aether surrounding the quasars and secondarily all the observable mass
11. The dark matter gradient is responsible for so called Pioneer spacecraft anomaly and the Galaxy shape anomaly
12. The particles are created by dense aggregates of Aether foam by phase transition process
13. The spin of particles is formed by mutual composition of motion on the phase interface inside of Aether foam
14. The charge of particle is the result of helicity of such motion.
15. The photon is the result of interference of light wave with Planck size wave pockets, forming our vacuum.
16. The wave function is the Aether mass/energy density profile formed by the internal motion inside the particle, forming an wave pocket confined by the dense vacuum like by gravitational lens (blob).
17. The "hidden variable" responsible for quantum entanglement is the phase shift of wave forming particle with respect of the center of gravity of such blob.

Some of the points have some backup in older concepts. Most of them is solely new, though, at least the mechanism, by which they're explained.
Pupamancur
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 05:04 PM)
Bacically it means, the AWT is rooted in commongly used mainstream science concepts... smile.gif


Nope, it is rooted in crackpottery for everyone to see.
Rest of AWT/Zephir BS snipped.
Zephir
QUOTE (Pupamancur+Aug 20 2006, 08:07 PM)
Nope, it is rooted in crackpottery for everyone to see.

Can you prove this? ... cool.gif
Zephir
How is it possible that many physicists end up looking at models that are nothing else than increasingly dysfunctional versions of bad ideas that did not work even 120 years ago? It is exactly because they have lost the sense of altitude.

Because they understand, they're climbing on the wrong hill.... dry.gif
*vanadesse
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 02:19 PM)
Because they understand, they're climbing on the wrong hill.... dry.gif

Can you prove this? ... cool.gif

Is there any experimental proof that supports the AWT but contradicts theories accepted by most scientists?

Just wondering.

Thanks smile.gif
Nick
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 20 2006, 06:19 PM)
How is it possible that many physicists end up looking at models that are nothing else than increasingly dysfunctional versions of bad ideas that did not work even 120 years ago? It is exactly because they have lost the sense of altitude.

Because they understand, they're climbing on the wrong hill.... dry.gif

They are simply taking their answers too far. Science is guilty of this. After all it is just the beginning.
Zephir
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Aug 21 2006, 02:32 AM)
Is there any experimental proof that supports the AWT but contradicts theories accepted by most scientists?

It's equivalent with the above list of AWT motivations.

At the first line, the light is forming waves. Just the inertial environment is forming the waves. Everybody can make the experiment with light diffraction and prove the Aether existence by such way. It seems, to understand the most easy things is being most difficult quite often.

Why the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be considered as the Aether concept refusal, but confirmation is clear, too. The Aether theory can predict such result as a only theory available and this experiment unveils the structure of Aether, too. Just the foamy environment can spread the energy in transversal waves, thus fulfilling the M-M experiment observed result and the relativity theory postulates. It's quite easy to understand.

Here are a lot of other less or more indirect indicias, for example the similarity between predicted structures of black holes and vacuum, microwave background reference frame, etc. But the most important experiments were done before more hundred years already, we just ignoring the reality. It happens, but it's necessary to realize it, finally and make conclusions.

After all, it's just a physical theory - nobody will die and no animals will hurt, if we change it slightly.... wink.gif
amrit
zephir you did not answer my question
so İ will answer it myself

there is no aether into space
space is enough into itself
or if you want other way around:
space itself is aether
two words for one reality

as aether can not be observed (as something that exist into space)
better to talk about space
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 21 2006, 10:04 AM)
zephir you did not answer my question

You didn't put any question here.. The Aether cannot be observed using light because no environment can be observed by the waves, which are formed by such environment. The surface of water can be observed by the light waves, but not by surface water waves. But it doesn't means, such surface doesn't exist at all, it just means, we aren't using a "proper waves". The wave character of light can serve as the indicia, such environment should exist, so if you're observing a wave behavior, you're observing the Aether evidence too.

QUOTE (amrit+Aug 21 2006, 10:04 AM)
..space itself is aether, two words for one reality..better to talk about space

I don't think so.. wink.gif The Aether is the Aether, the space is the space - both these terms are having a solid and a quite different meaning from historical point of view. The Aether is much more general denomination than space in taxonomic hierarchy, because the Aether can contain a number of different spaces with arbitrary number of dimensions at the same time.
amrit
because the Aether can contain a number of different spaces with arbitrary number of dimensions at the same time.
you see zephir this is metaphysics

at the same time ?
which time ?
noon time !?

is aether existing into space-time or is space-time existing into aethe ?
please quiick short anwer
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 21 2006, 12:54 PM)
.....you see zephir this is metaphysics...

Just a wave mechanic. The space is formed by system of Aether density gradient in certain Aether phase. So you have a different time for water surface and the underwater with respect of mechanical wave spreading. With respect of the photon spreading you can have a different time inside and outside of black hole. And with respect of graviton wave spreading you can have a different time outside and inside of our Universe generation. No problema.

QUOTE (amrit+Aug 21 2006, 12:54 PM)
.....is aether existing into space-time or is space-time existing into aether...

I answered You such question briefly in [Yesterday at 6:36 PM]. The time is relative concept by AWT by the same way, like the space.

It's a quite easy, Amrit. Suppose the Universe is formed by some black hole interior, which contains an another black hole interior. Which time is relevant, after than? You can use the time in outer Universe, but such time can be just a specific case of more general Universe outside, and so on.. Until you found the mechanism, how to limit such recursion, you haven't a absolute time measure, sorry.
LOL
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 21 2006, 10:35 AM)
It's a quite easy,...
amrit
zephir it not so simple for me as for you regarding time


And with respect of graviton wave spreading you can have a different time outside and inside of our Universe generation. No problema.

inside and outside our universe generation ???!!!!

that all is dreaming zephir
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 21 2006, 02:35 PM)
...inside and outside our universe generation ???!!!! that all is dreaming zephir...

Not at all... wink.gif By Mazur/Motola's gravastar hypothesis (which is fully compatible with the AWT, by the way) our generation of Universe is formed by giant black hole, similar to those, which we are expecting at the center of most the galaxies. Such black hole can contain an another BH, and so on, recursively. The time cannot be compared trough such generations of Universe easily, because they're separated by chaotic singularities each of other.

user posted image User posted image

Furthermore, it can be derived, the inner structure of such black hole is surprisingly similar to the expected structure of the vacuum inside of our Universe. In fact, this isn't any dreaming, but the most specific hypothesis about our Universe nature & origin available. All the other hypothesis are quite speculative, just the gravastar hypothesis is based on real physical objects.
amrit
yes zephir an AGN space transforms into matter
but time here is only a motion

see my article
AGN ..............(2005) www.ejtp.com
*vanadesse
QUOTE (Z+)
At the first line, the light is forming waves. Just the inertial environment is forming the waves.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the inertial environment forming the waves. But what you are basically saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that because light forms waves the aether must exist? Well light doesn't form waves, light is a wave. And so is everything else, by the way. All particles have a probability wave. These probability waves are not classical waves, and they do not need a medium to "wave" in. Light is no different. If you can show me experimental evidence on the contrary, I would be happy to look at it.

QUOTE (Z+)
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be considered as the Aether concept refusal, but confirmation is clear, too. The Aether theory can predict such result as a only theory available and this experiment unveils the structure of Aether, too. Just the foamy environment can spread the energy in transversal waves, thus fulfilling the M-M experiment observed result and the relativity theory postulates. It's quite easy to understand.

Well I guess I'm a little slow then. sad.gif

QUOTE (Z+)
But the most important experiments were done before more hundred years already, we just ignoring the reality.

Like which ones?

smile.gif
Zephir
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Aug 21 2006, 09:41 PM)
...light doesn't form waves, light is a wave....

I don't want to stick in semantic discussion (after all, English isn't my native language), but I suppose, the light appears in two forms, which can be described like the wave and the particle, therefore I've used the formulation "light is forming wave". After all, the surface wave after boat is the wave too, but its not definitely the light - so it seem, here's relly some semantic difference between "light" and "wave" concepts.

By AWT, everything in observable reality is formed by waves of matter.

QUOTE (*vanadesse+Aug 21 2006, 09:41 PM)
...because light forms waves the aether must exist....

At least I've no other explanation for such interesting phenomena. Do you?

QUOTE (*vanadesse+Aug 21 2006, 09:41 PM)
...all particles have a probability wave...probability waves do not need a medium to "wave" in... light is no different.....


The Sun is yellow. The banana is yellow, too. The Sun is banana...
Where's problem in such "logic"? wink.gif

QUOTE (*vanadesse+Aug 21 2006, 09:41 PM)
...Well I guess I'm a little slow then.....


The Michelson-Morley Experiment :c=const (1887)
The Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light: c=const (1895)
The anti-aether proponents: The Aether Theory is wrong, because the M-M experiment result refutes the Aether.

What's wrong on such logic? Well, just another example:

The experiment: The speed of transversal wave spreading doesn't depends on the absolute motion of environment. The speed of longitudinal wave spreading depends in the absolute motion of environment.
The anti-aether proponents: The Aether environment requires, the wave spreading would depend on the absolute motion of environment. Such dependence doesn't exists, it means the Aether theory is wrong.

It's not just you, who have a slow thinking at this point. How much slow, exactly? About a one hundred years, I think... wink.gif
Such people are usually requiring, each the physical theory "must be build up upon strict formal logic based on math ", with no exception. Each the theory should be based on experimental proof.
But why such people requires such formalism, if they not even understand the trivial Boolean logic? Why such people requiring the experiment, if they even aren't able to interpret it correctly? It's funny. smile.gif
*vanadesse
QUOTE
I don't want to stick in semantic discussion  (after all, English isn't my native language), but I suppose, the light appears in two forms, which can be described like the wave and the particle, therefore I've used the formulation "light is forming wave". After all, the surface wave after boat is the wave too, but its not definitely the light - so it seem, here's relly some semantic difference between "light" and "wave" concepts.

Sorry, misunderstood you. It's all good smile.gif

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I don't want to stick in semantic discussion  (after all, English isn't my native language), but I suppose, the light appears in two forms, which can be described like the wave and the particle, therefore I've used the formulation "light is forming wave". After all, the surface wave after boat is the wave too, but its not definitely the light - so it seem, here's relly some semantic difference between "light" and "wave" concepts.

Sorry, misunderstood you. It's all good smile.gif

At least I've no other explanation for such interesting phenomena. Do you?

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_gp_ls.html#lightmot
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge...nit4/light.html

QUOTE
The Sun is yellow. The banana is yellow, too. The Sun is banana...
Where's problem in such "logic"? wink.gif

I don't think we quite understand each other... unsure.gif

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The Sun is yellow. The banana is yellow, too. The Sun is banana...
Where's problem in such "logic"? wink.gif

I don't think we quite understand each other... unsure.gif

The Michelson-Morley Experiment    :c=const (1887)
The Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light: c=const (1895)
The anti-aether proponents:  The Aether Theory is wrong, because the M-M experiment result refutes the Aether.

What's wrong on such logic? Well, just another example:

The experiment: The speed of transversal wave spreading doesn't depends on the absolute motion of environment. The speed of longitudinal wave spreading depends in the absolute motion of environment.
The anti-aether proponents: The Aether environment requires, the wave spreading would depend on the absolute motion of environment. Such dependence doesn't exists, it means the Aether theory is wrong.

Oh no, I wasn't saying that the M-M experiment proved that the aether doesn't exist, it just showed that the aether doesn't provide any observable effects. This makes it kind of a "useless" theory.

QUOTE
Such people are usually requiring, each the physical theory "must be build up upon strict formal logic based on math ", with no exception. Each the theory should be based on experimental proof.
But why such people requires such formalism, if they not even understand the trivial Boolean logic? Why such people requiring the experiment, if they even aren't able to interpret it correctly? It's funny. smile.gif

Well eventually all theories must include math and should always be based on experimental proof. However, lots of people don't require mathematics in the original theory; Einstein came up with the general ideas for his theories without math - the math came later. However, the math is a very important part of a theory, because if it cannot be proven then it has no basis.
geirlade
QUOTE (*vanadesse+Aug 21 2006, 08:14 PM)
Oh no, I wasn't saying that the M-M experiment proved that the aether doesn't exist, it just showed that the aether doesn't provide any observable effects. This makes it kind of a "useless" theory.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../mmhist.html#c2

Take two light sources and let the beams inter-cross. The light beams can pass straight through each other, there are no interactions between the photons. Waves through matter from different sources would create a total mess. At best you could get some interesting interference patterns, but the end result is totally different. Another example: Large waves move faster in water than small waves. Light moves at the same speed in vacuum, independent of wavelength.

--
GR
*vanadesse
QUOTE
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase.../mmhist.html#c2

Take two light sources and let the beams inter-cross. The light beams can pass straight through each other, there are no interactions between the photons. Waves through matter from different sources would create a total mess. At best you could get some interesting interference patterns, but the end result is totally different. Another example: Large waves move faster in water than small waves. Light moves at the same speed in vacuum, independent of wavelength.

Right, try telling that to Zephir.
Zephir
QUOTE (geirlade+Aug 22 2006, 12:07 AM)
Take two light sources and let the beams inter-cross. The light beams can pass straight through each other, there are no interactions between the photons. Waves through matter from different sources would create a total mess.

Huh? Don't believe everything on the web...

User posted image

QUOTE (geirlade+Aug 22 2006, 12:07 AM)
...Large waves move faster in water than small waves....


User posted image
rpenner
Hello. Since phenomena that violate Lorentz covariance are expected to generate a Goldstone boson, a quasiparticle similar to a phonon, what properties does the Aether of AWT have?

For example, the Aether of http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0410001 has nothing to do with the Luminiferous Aether.

It is easy to prove to yourself that Aether is imaginary. The evidence is all around you. Here are 12 simple proofs:
  • Try detecting it, http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0505211
  • Mathematically list all of it's properties compared to water, steel, etc
  • Watch the light of distant galaxies, and optical binaries
  • Think about EEP, and especially LLI. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502097
  • Read Lorentz's justification for Lorentz Transforms
  • Ponder mechanisms for Lorentz Transforms in a Euclidean universe
  • Understand the limits of physical models
  • Think about the 19th centurys obessesion with fluids
  • Understand ambiguity
  • Look at historical models of Aether
  • Notice that there is no scientific evidence
  • See the magic
Nick
The aether is the highest concept.

The best is always left out.
amrit
yes that is the problem with the aether
it is only a concept without any experimental evidence
so aether should be drooped totally
aether is a metaphysics, a philosophy
RealityCheck
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 22 2006, 05:46 AM)
yes that is the problem with the aether
it is only a concept without any experimental evidence
so aether should be drooped totally
aether is a metaphysics, a philosophy



Hehehe. I just had a 'vision' of ALICE (you know, 'in Wonderland') telling a FISH that 'water' is a 'metaphysical' concept, hehehe.

Just kidding, amrit! I know what you meant. This post was purely in jest!

Cheers!

RC.
.

Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 22 2006, 08:46 AM)
..aether should be drooped totally, aether is a metaphysics, a philosophy..

Aether is just a word, which can be replaced easily. But its concept hides the dependence between mass and energy, i.e. the dependence, which is known for many years already, but it was ignored sucessfully by most of mainstream theories.

It's evident even on the discussion about photon mass. By mainstream physic, the photon has the momentum, but not the (dynamic) mass. Does it means, the p = m v isn't valid anymore?
StevenA
Though I don't know how well the Aether ideas work on scales, physics is missing models that scale well. Everytime we move up a few magnitudes of scale, new properties seem to emerge that need another field of science to analyze. There needs to be a more unified view of properties on various scales that doesn't require as much recharacterization once you're working with a collection of objects. The Aether ideas directly support this.

I admit I'm not certain that the Aether can describe everything from atomic structure, characteristics of quarks, chemical bonds, planetary orbitals, galactic orbitals and dark matter etc. in a single rather intuitive framework (ok truly I doubt it does all this, and even if it can, it's not entirely intuitive how), but I think it has a lot of merit in the types of phenomenon it can potentially describe and I wish Zephir (and others) luck in getting it all to fit.

When you consider that currently whenever some new observations are made at new scales it seems yet another layer of patches are added with new cosmological constants or new families of virtual particles etc. added. There seems to be a level of recursion being missed that unifies properties over a wider variety of scales. I feel confident if as much time and energy had gone into an ether model, we'd be no worse off than we are now and quite possibly better off.

You can rather easily convert a static network or medium into a light speed space. Space doesn't appear to be empty, and considering that at a minimum it defines delays between non-spaces. Refraction, reflection and diffusion seem able to explain a lot. The issue is in being a bit creative to realize how these can operate to generate observed phenomenon.

All that aside, The main weaknesses, to me, regarding an ether model seem to be the quantization apparent at small scales. Though likely quantization occurs as a diffused property not solely present at small scales but in the form of an energy that can be traded off in various ways via. time, location, and kinetic or potential energy. I assume there's some sort of recursion between a smaller number of particles that's reflected in various ways in different scales, but I can't untangle it, yet it still seems apparent it's there. One form of planck unit is angular momentum, you could look at this as a unit of energy, but it can exist in various forms from frequency, velocity, even alterations in time depending on what you're looking at, though in an ether model this would likely be tied to the energy of a vortex, but likely not all vortices will appear to act identically, so again it's a challenge untying the knots.

But again, I doubt we'd be any worse off today if they'd gone with an ether model 100 years ago. The worse case seems to be that we'd just be plugging in new patches and constants into that model instead of the current standard.
geirlade
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 21 2006, 09:45 PM)
Huh? Don't believe everything on the web...

I believe in the reality of physics as we know it, which is not compatible with your aether theory.

QUOTE
User posted image


Light moving in empty space (vacuum) do not disperse. Why? Because there is no matter to interact with.

--
GR
Zephir
QUOTE (geirlade+Aug 22 2006, 03:35 PM)
I believe in the reality of physics as we know it, which is not compatible with your aether theory.

Your opinion is respected as valuable, but the belief as such isn't enough in physic. I'm quite rational personality, I don't bother with anything, which cannot be understood in one, more to the two simple logical steps. I'm simply too dumb to understand a more complicated things, no questions about it.

Matthew 5:3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom

From such reason, I can see a physical reality as a quite transparent and simple:

Each the energy is spreading through matter in waves. The light is forming waves too, so here should be some matter. Does some other theory explains the existence of waves without matter? If not, why the reality of physic should be incompatible with Aether theory as such?

QUOTE (geirlade+Aug 22 2006, 03:35 PM)
Light moving in empty space (vacuum) do not disperse. Why? Because there is no matter to interact with.

The dispersion of light is the matter of density (a refraction index) gradient. If we haven't diamond, we cannot observe the diffraction even at the case of light, simply because whole environment is uniform and we finished in explanation. Can we have a more dense vacuum at all, after than?

In fact, we can! We can imagine, the vacuum is slightly elastic, so it becomes more dense (compressed) in the neighborhood of heavy object. In fact, being compressible, the vacuum can form the clouds (blobs) of the more dense vacuum even without presence of observable matter at all and we are calling such clouds a dark matter. So we should observe, the dense vacuum slowes down the light speed.

Is it true or not, if the relativity says, the light speed is very invariant? Well, this is a reason of so called relativistic aberration and gravitational lens effects. Such lensing effects would be impossible, if the light speed in vacuum would be constant.

User posted image User posted image

So, now you can have some material for thinking, whether the Aether theory is in contradiction with physical reality, or not... wink.gif
amrit
what is relation between space-time and eather ?
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 23 2006, 09:14 AM)
...what is relation between space-time and aether?

You should try to understand the mechanism of space-time formation for energy spreading in mater - it is quite common physical process, no abstract concept or even mystery is behind it! When water vapor condenses in supercritical conditions, the difference in density between water phase and gas phase is infinitesimally low. As the result, the water doesn't condenses in form of droplet, but in the form of dense foam, filling the whole space of the condensing system.

Another step in understanding of Aether physic is, the energy spreading prefers the gradients in general, because the gradients are having potential energy, which comes from tendency of system to level the concentration gradients by diffusion, which requires time. Simply speaking, the more gradients the environment contains, the more slowly all the physical processes runs, the more "dense" environment is, the higher is energy density, which can spread through it. As the result, the foam of condensing water slows down the energy spreading through system significantly and most of energy waves (acoustic waves, light waves, etc.) are spreading along the newly created gradients in the foam.

By such a way, the phase transition (condensation) of matter creates a new phase, which is proffered for subsequent wave spreading, i.e. it creates a new space-time, embedded in the existing space. If you don't understand the underlying physic of such process, it has no sense to dispute about nature of space or time, because such discussion is solely abstract with respect of
AWT.

The newly created phase can be described by independent solution of wave equation, which uses two quantities in mutual duality: space and time. From this point of view, we can talk about newly created space-time, although the time quantity is quite different from distance quantity and it cannot be interchanged mutually with it without risk of lost of information about process.

It's evident, both the existing phases are having a common more general time, which can be derived from another one, even more general phase transition of more general space-time recursively. Why we should consider such mechanism a quite seriously?

Here's a lot of reason, but the most singificant is, such model is fully consistent with observable physical reality, it doesn't requires the introduction any new unknown effects or phenomena. The other reason is, it can be modelled by combination of two (...and just the only two...) simple theorems, the mass-energy equivalence principle and the wave equation, the validity of both wasn't impeached yet.
amrit
how many different "time" exist in eather theory ?
could you explain them one by one and how they are related ?
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 23 2006, 01:09 PM)
how many different "time" exist in aether theory ?
could you explain them one by one and how they are related ?

Briefly speaking, a lot... wink.gif By my opinion, the AWT has no built-in mechanism, how to restrict the number of recursions directly. So to each time in particular space-time hierarchy (formed by certain phase of Aether) some more general time can be assigned. The consequent members in time hierarchy are related mutually via concept of so called inverse/reciprocal/imaginary time, introduced by Stephen Hawking into cosmology from quantum mechanic. I've explained just you this concept before half year and it's obvious, you didn't understand anything. The AWT is easy, but for full picture you should consider a rather big number of consequences, if you're not very experienced in iterative solutions of wave equation by rote.

User posted image

I'm looking for finite solution of course, but it depends on the definition of gradient concept, which is infinitely recursive, too. It seems' some time always requires some space (environment) for creating it and such space cannot be created atemporally.

The understanding is the naive belief in reasons
amrit
Briefly speaking, a lot...

zephir we all know that simplicity of the theory reflect its correspondence with physical world

aether theory has to many time to be right
nature is not so complicated
there is only one time into nature: MOVEMENT İNTO A-TEMPORAL SPACE
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Aug 24 2006, 10:14 AM)
there is only one time into nature: MOVEMENT INTO A-TEMPORAL SPACE

It's just a hypothesis, which can be disproved by bat example. This animal uses the time interval for orientation in space and the motion in space is just a mental construct for such creature. In fact, both these concept are in mutual duality and as such they're solely equivalent. By AWT you cannot create space without time and vice-versa: without space you cannot define the time.

Furthermore, we are able to perceive the time without motion at all, just on the base of scalar filed change. Try to have look on the night sky with the twinkling stars.. Here's no motion observable - but you can observe the time flow without problems. You can even define the time measure based on the frequency of stars twinkling.

Please, don't ignore the factual arguments, just because they're doesn't fits well the ideas of yours. I'm not interested about categorical stances without arguments. The physics isn't matter of belief, but understanding.
Guest_amrit
zephir stars are twinkling in the space only
how you can not understand that ?!
Zephir
QUOTE (Guest_amrit+Aug 27 2006, 11:14 AM)
zephir stars are twinkling in the space only, how you can not understand that ?!

They're twinkling, but no moving... wink.gif Without space doesn't exists anything, of course.
But I'm discussing the repeated statement of yours, the time is motion. As you can see on the animation bellow, no motion occurs here at all. We can even define/measure a different time speed by such way... wink.gif

user posted image
StevenA
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 27 2006, 09:05 AM)
They're twinkling, but no moving... wink.gif Without space doesn't exists anything, of course.
But I'm discussing the repeated statement of yours, the time is motion. As you can see on the animation bellow, no motion occurs here at all. We can even define/measure a different time speed by such way... wink.gif

user posted image


That's the way I see it also. Motion is subjective. There are people still debating how many dimensions to model space in. How is it that we can know space without time? We can't.

In your imagines, truly nothing had to necessary move except information - wave collapses. The physical particles involved could have remained stationary with light moving even instantly between points, but in the correct sequence to create that image. You can't even prove for certain where the photons went through space before you saw them, because as soon as you try they no longer take the same path.

Yes, space exists in some form, but the most appropriate form for it could possibly depend on the application.

BTW, do you have a link for the information regarding your hydrosphere dimensionality graph (peak ~7.2 dimensions)? I sent you a message a couple days ago but didn't hear anything back.
jal
A balance approach would be for you to look at a model that has the math and that is easy to understand. See the link below …. then you can make up your mind on how the universe is made.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...00&#entry120941
jal
Zephir
QUOTE (StevenA+Sep 7 2006, 07:48 PM)
...do you have a link for the information regarding your hydrosphere dimensionality graph (peak ~7.2 dimensions)?...

Of course, search the hyperpshere topic on MathWorld...
Zephir
Scheme of matter fall into black hole (so called "accretion") by AWT. Near the event horizon the density of Aether increases by the way, it becomes comparable with density of Aether inside of particles. The particles are kept together by gradient of Aether density - you can use the surface tension or total reflection mechanism for explanation. Whenever the surface gradient decreases, the internal forces aren't able to keep the matter together anymore and the particles will dissolve into neutrinos and the photon radiation, which transfers rest of mater energy into space. Another portion of matter will be removed from black hole neighborhood by radiation pressure of this radiation.

user posted image

By such way, the real portion of matter which can fall into black hole by accretion mechanism is quite small. This is the reason, why the mass of black hole cannot increase considerably by accretion mechanism and why most the black hole appears only as the result of gravitation collapse of massive stars (the BH's of 1000 solar mass range) and/or by collapse of Aether during inflation (the ultra-massive BH's of 1000,000 solar mass range, so called primordial black holes at the center of galaxies).

The process of matter annihilation can be considered as the reversion of thermodynamical time arrow, because the matter decomposes by negative gravitation pressure. Such process is reversal to the gravitational collapse of matter. Inside the black hole the annihilation process continues and the rest of matter will dissolve into radiation and even more lightweight particles, like axions.
amrit
QUOTE (Zephir+Aug 27 2006, 09:05 AM)
They're twinkling, but no moving... wink.gif Without space doesn't exists anything, of course.
But I'm discussing the repeated statement of yours, the time is motion. As you can see on the animation bellow, no motion occurs here at all. We can even define/measure a different time speed by such way... wink.gif

user posted image

time is material change into a-temporal space
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 10 2006, 09:13 PM)
time is material change into a-temporal space

I've told you before year, the time cannot be "just the motion", because the motion is only a special case of change, i.e. change of location... wink.gif

From AWT point of view, even the motion doesn't exists, just some less or more random redistribution of Aether density in time. The more dense, the more time for diffusion is required, the less entropy some volume area contains. The emptiness is nothing, but fully random (chaotic) environment without pronounced thermodynamic time arrow.
amrit
zephir that time is material change I published years ago.
my statement that time is change was a provocation in order to give a better understanding
actually every material change has motion on atomic or subatomic level

let's stay with "time is material 'change" as you like it more

From AWT point of view, even the motion doesn't exists, just some less or more random redistribution of Aether density in time. The more dense, the more time for diffusion is required, the less entropy some volume area contains. The emptiness is nothing, but fully random (chaotic) environment without pronounced thermodynamic time arrow.

that motion does not exist I will not comment, it goes beyond my intelligence
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 10 2006, 10:04 PM)
that time is material change I published years ago

LOL, can you prove it? If yes, so why do you not saying it here? You're just scrambled, Amrit - that's all... wink.gif

The true is, just the AWT is able to explain, what the time really is and how it appears.
amrit
QUOTE (Zephir+Sep 10 2006, 07:12 PM)
LOL, can you prove it? If yes, so why do you not saying it here? You're just scrambled, Amrit - that's all... wink.gif

The true is, just the AWT is able to explain, what the time really is and how it appears.

zeph in 2004 i published in Episteme article TİME İS CHANGE

- Sorli A. (2004). Physical Time And Psychological Time.
Frontier Perspectives, Vol 13, Num 1

-vSorli A. (2004). Time Is Change. Episteme, Perugia, Italy, Number 8
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/ep8/ep8.htm
Pimenov
Hello, Amrit.
I have tried to go by your reference - and get error-message (404 - file not exist) - because Bartocci site was moved to: www.cartesio-episteme.net - and looks like your texts was NOT moved...

So, I am trying to get my answers right here:

Are you also (like me and some other physics) thinking that "time" is NOT the "primary entity" - but just a "measure of changes"?
So it is NOT correct statement, that "matter is exist in space and time" - but more correct statement should be:
The space and time is the PROPERTIES of the matter...

You should agree, that this "minor correction" should (will) have VERY seriouse concequencies. If not in math-representation - then in "paradigma" at least.
(And of cause the "math" should be at list "re-thinked").

Of cause you (we) are NOT the first with this idea. The first was Tit Lukreciy from ancient Rome (55 year b.c.(!)). I can get you citation from him (later) - the main idea was that "time is the characteristic of `movements`".
After him this idea "had striked" a lot of people: Ibn-Cinna, Leibnitz, Laplas,Mach (sure I fogot someone :o)
But it is VERY strange that I could not find enough MODERN "independent thinkers" which shared this idea (but I still know several).

Ok, you are welcome to our "company" :0)
(You could also answer me by my mail: web5@federalspace.ru)
(it is Russian space-agency)

Good luck.
Zephir
QUOTE (amrit+Sep 13 2006, 01:50 PM)
...zeph in 2004 i published in Episteme article TİME İS CHANGE...

LOL.. biggrin.gif Consider a list of my arguments and subsequent discussion, why the time cannot be just a manifestation of motion, but the change, too... wink.gif

Some other quotations of yours:

Time seems exist only in the mind. Time is a “a basic mind frame” into which we experience universe.
versus
..for me time is real, time is physical...
versus
Time Belongs to the Mind, Motion Belongs to the Universe
versus
Time passes irregardless of any motion of matter. That is gravity.
versus
Time causes movement, but in itself can exist without causing movement - that’s a most nonsense I read here ever.
versus
Motion of particle is time, no motion, no time
versus
..motion does not require time, what we observe in the universe is motion, all moves without any time...
versus
my definition of time is: time is motion (2)
and by many time after:
..definition (2) is proved with the way we measure motion, we measure duration of motion with clocks, motion and time are identical, one physical phenomena...

The true is, you're just a old scrambled man, which don't know, what he just talks about, Amrit. Most of stances of your were negated just by you during time...
What do you think about it? You're not searching the truth here, Amrit - just the recognition and confession of yours. This is not enough, you know wink.gif
Pimenov
Неу, Zephir, stop trample on old man :O)
The "movement" is just a version of "changes" - so I do not see contradictions...
Now I have readed his articles (see: http://www.ejtp.com/articles/index.html )
- and see only one (but GENERAL) "slip" - he think that his "space" could be "a-temporal"...
But according to his previouse statement that "temporal" is "changeable" - that will mean that such "space" should be "unchangeable" - which for me looks "hardly possible" :O)
Your position looks to me more "materialistic", meaning philosofic slogan: "matter reveal itself ONLY through CHANGES" (not my invention :O)
And there is other consideration - while we are "materialists" - we SHOULD have in mind some MATERIAL STRUCTURE at EVERY LEVEL of matter!
So, for "materialists" (us) - there should NOT be any difference between "space" and "aether" (it should be Ä in German transcription).

So I do NOT understand why you keep stamping on each other - while you both should "stamp on" Einstain instead? :O)
Because it is his "contradictory" position about MATERIAL "ground" of his "space" - was the source of all following "paradoxes". But it is the other story. Einstain was NOT a materialist (he admitted it) - so it was easy to him to accept the "metric spaces" of his big friend Minkovsky. And he "sincerely" do NOT understand that those "metric spaces" was NOT materialistic (as most of math-definitions do).

Ok, looks like I am "on my favourite horse" again...
If it gives you some "new info" - we can continue.

Good luck from ROSCOSMOS (Russian space agency).
Zephir
QUOTE (Pimenov+Sep 15 2006, 03:14 PM)
OK, looks like I am "on my favorite horse" again...  If it gives you some "new info" - we can continue.

Hi, Pimenov,

from my point of view the conceptual discussions about nature of space and time have no meaning at all, as they should be anticipated by some physical model. Without such insight the discussions about time is just a waste of it, 'cause physic isn't philosophy.

The problem is, Amrit refutes the Aether concept obstinately, but he talks about "density of space" and some other inconsistencies, thus compromising the Aether concept from both the sides. Furthermore he's pretty annoying and he spreads claims without arguments like mantra into different topics, thus diluting the relevant information for all the readers here. It wouldn't be any problem, if the stances would be consistent and supported by some relevant arguments - but it's not definitely the case of Mr. Sorli... dry.gif

From solely technical point of view, I've nothing against the concept of time as a manifestation of ORGANIZED motion of matter. The solely random motion appears like noise with no short distance time arrow at all. My theory supplies a consistent math model for it, and as the "most organized" motion is considered the wave motion, here.

I've no problem with the stance of Einstein, neither - especially from his later times, when Einstein start to consider the Aether concept, but he never understood it fully, like you've told. The in depth implementation of his formula (E=mc^2) and the Poincare influence have prohibited him to understand the AWT concept in all consequences. As we know, both the massive environment concept of relativity, both the hidden dimension concept had come from Poincare into physic and the Poincare wasn't definitely the friend of Einstein and whole Prussian academy of Sciences due the WWW I. So that the politic and personal rivalry has delayed the final understanding of Aether concept for more than one hundred years.

The denomination "Aether" doesn't come from German but Greek and in English is written both like "Aether", both the "ether". But I'd prefer the first one to prevent the confusion with ether (diethylether) as a chemical substance. To determine exactly, what I know about this subject, you should read all my former posts (3000+ posts) at first... wink.gif
Pimenov
Ok, I am ready to read something ab your theory - but, please, give me reference to more or less "complete" page (or document) with your ideas. I do NOT like to mess ideas with its "discussions" :O)
But it looks like I already understand "what it is all about" - because I am "in business" long ago :O)
And please keep in mind that I am your "confederate" - looks like we both are materialists. Ok, possibly it`s not enough sometimes. But that`s what differs us from Minkovsky (Einstein) with his "metric spaces" and from all those "math-physics" to whome math-abstracts looks like "purfectly real things" :O)
The humor is that I am also a kind of "math-man" (doing some computer models of on-board systems and a lot of other "models").
I am specialized in "General Teory of Systems" (my profession in Roscosmos) - but also have to create something material, like on-board-automation systems.

And thus (as a "system-man" (JST)) I do REFUTE that ANY part of matter could be "un-structured". I think that it needs a kind of "mental courage" to continue to ask "what STRUCTURE has this entity" (like "space"), when anyone already "agreed" that "there is emptiness below this level of matter" :O)

I also could console you, that "official science" already started to move to the same direction. You surely have hear about Yang-Mills "spin-network" teory? The main thought there - the "space" is NOT "always exist" - but constantly "re-created" by interactions beween "particles" and gravitation (whatever they mean under it). Of cause it is only "first step in correct direction" - there is a lot of contradictions to me as a physic (as math-theory it looks "non-contradictory" of cause).
There also is some works of Carlo Rоvelly with his "Loop Quantum Gravitation" theory - to the same direction as Yang-Mills, but with efforts to "fit to" Einstein General Relativity. To me looks rather like effort to add some "structure" to Ensteins`s "space", adding some "corrections" to Enstain equations.

Ok, again this post is already too long - select points which is more interested to you...
Zephir
QUOTE (Pimenov+Sep 15 2006, 04:52 PM)
...give me reference to more or less "complete" page (or document) with your ideas....

Just click the AWT link... wink.gif

QUOTE (Pimenov+Sep 15 2006, 04:52 PM)
..."what STRUCTURE has this entity" (like "space"), when anyone already "agreed" that "there is emptiness below this level of matter"....

All the phase levels are just relative. For example, from the perspective of surface water waves the underwater seems to be filled by true chaos formed by water molecules and it cannot be distinguished from emptiness. The clean water surface appears "empty" for such waves - it doesn't disperse in reflects anything.

The true is, it just appears - that's whole story. The "emptiness" of vacuum or black hole interior is based on the very same physical principle.

QUOTE (Pimenov+Sep 15 2006, 04:52 PM)
..the "space" is NOT "always exist" - but constantly "re-created" by interactions between "particles" and gravitation.....

By AWT the Aether behaves like common matter, so that the space is formed by the same way, like the space in ordinary matter, i.e. by volume gradients of Aether. Exactly like the space for energy wave spreading at water surface is created by the density gradient of matter at the place of water surface. No exceptions from this rule are introduced at the scope of AWT, so everything remains as clean & consistent, as possible.
Lalbatros
Hello Zephir,

May I paraphrase you (see your post in another thread):

QUOTE
Hi, antpin, which postulates is "A concept" using? What testable results is this theory able to 1) explain 2) predict 3) compute (just in brief points, please)?

Simply speaking, try to collect the conceptual inputs and outputs of this theory for us. Thxs.


" Hi, Zephir, which postulates is "AWT theory" using?
What testable results is this theory able to 1) explain 2) predict 3) compute (just in brief points, please)?

Simply speaking, try to summarize the conceptual inputs and outputs of this theory for us. "


Thanks

Michel
Pimenov
Zephir, your citation - was NOT really my ideas - I have described ideas of Yang-Mills-Rovelly. As an example that "official science" are moving in nearly the same direction. But too slowly...
I have to repeat my question: could you give me the reference to the site-pages where your "paradigma" is explained more or less "continuousely"?
If not - it is your PRIMARY task to create such pages. As place of keeping those pages I can offer my "Communities Server of ROSCOSMOS":
comm.roscosmos.ru
I and my friends do keep our "ideas" there - to have possibility to give reference to some page when necessary.

And, please, let me know something about your "background" (education, specialization, etc) - it is not a form of "insult" - I just want to know which form of discussion will be most "effective" :O) If you think it is not "convenient" to expose such personal info here - please send me mail to: web5 AT federalspace.ru
I really appriciate some of your "revelations" here, and think that we could find some "common language" (English? :O)
But if you want to "prove" something to someone (at least on this forum) - your "base propositions" should be described more "clearly".

For example, did you see your ether as "continuouse indescreet media"? Or you could admit that ALL objects are SYSTEMS and thus should have some STRUCTURE?
And thus "differential equations" (based on "Newton laws" and Newton math-postulates) could NOT be "directly" used in situations when we describe processes at the "border of STRUCTURE" (when the "media" already could NOT be viewed as "continuouse").

Again, please, do NOT get this last question as a description of problem in your "model" (we even does not have one :O) - it is just propositions (hints) of directions in which ANY "ether-model" should be developed.

Here in Russia we have a LOT of such ether-model - and some of them is "perfectly convincing". But most of them are just "computer-models" because Newton-like differential equations are NOT "working" in this case!
But it is the subject for very long separate discussion(s) (later).

Please, try do not give "fast answer" to this posting - I am interested in more "detailed" discussion with you, so I want to get something "above emotions" :O) And I am ready to help you in ANY kind of "computer-models" of your ideas - just because it is my profession (:O) and because it is already some 10 yeas (I am 52 now), while I am trying to make something "of the same kind :O)

with all respects,
Valeriy V Pimenov, (web5 AT federalspace.ru)
ROSCOSMOS
Turya
QUOTE (Pimenov+Sep 16 2006, 10:20 AM)
I have described ideas of Yang-Mills-Rovelly.

Wrong way.

QUOTE
..But too slowly

Bloody right.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
..But too slowly

Bloody right.

Here in Russia we have a LOT of such ether-model - and some of them is "perfectly convincing".

Pure sign of confusion and I see it from the last St. Petersburg's Congress. Namely it seems to me consensus is made: SR/GR is wrong but then all go back to the OLD paradigm even to the Newton's mechanics. Cosmos doesn't follow anything of it.

Like in the middle age, SCIENCE now going on indepenedently, out of the "centers".



Pimenov
Hello, Turya.
I have strange suspicion that you know Russian (lang)?
In this case, could you please read the text of my friends at:
gipotesa.library.ru
- and let me know your opinion - where is "the weak point" there?
Better personally, to (web5 AT federalspace.ru) or to Communities Server (comm.roscosmos.ru) in Science - Physic - Модели

As about the "local sciencies" - I see it as a BIG advan