Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 122 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Hey admin wake up the database is down
by paul
03/23/17 01:56 AM
Globalist Initiating Populaton Control in Europe?
by Tutor Turtle
03/10/17 01:46 AM
DOPPLER inside atom ! ( Marosz 2012 )
by newton
03/07/17 06:44 PM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 2
Tutor Turtle 1
newton 1
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#27789 - 09/18/08 11:08 AM Re: Aether Wave Theory [Re: zorro1]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: zorro1
...your theory is physics, so it has to have math...
  • No such rule exists
  • AWT describes more, then just physical phenomena
  • I'm using a logic in my derivations, and the logic is (fundamental) part of math
The true is, the consecutive logic of formal math describes the heavily parallelized physics of multiparticle systems poorly. Even the gravitational system of five bodies is (nearly) impossible to describe by formal math and the resulting description would be so complex, so that nothing useful can be derived from it. This forces the formally thinking physicists to use the probabilistic interpretation, like at the case of quantum mechanics - although such system remains deterministic apparently.

By such way, the formally thinking physicists are effectively blocked from understanding, our Universe can be interpreted by multiparticle system for two hundred years. Their formal math and way of thinking is simply incompatible with this trivial idea - even at the case, the illustrative understanding of such system can be quite simple. This is dual approach to philosophy, which cannot describe some connections by using of formal math, even at the case, such description can be quite simple. It's evident, the optimized approach in reality understanding should involve both strategies (the formal and nonformal one) in balanced ratio.

Of course, the above problem just illustrates the limits of math and formal thinking - not the limits of AWT concept. We should simply face the fact, here exists a certain group of phenomena and geometries, the handling of which by formal math is noneffective with respect to their understanding, that's all. This doesn't say, the formal math is nonsense - it's simply inappropriate tool for their description.

From certain perspective, the AWT is extrapolation of free fermion models of string field theory to zero dimension. These models are nothing very new in physics, as some physicists have assumed, the strings are composed from more fundamental particles (so called preons) already. The one-dimensional strings are just the lowest number of dimensions, which the formal math can handle without problem, while avoiding the singularities. The concept of environment composed from zero dimensional particles is naturally singular from formal math perspective, so it cannot use it. It can be replaced by one-dimensional strings partially, but here's a technical problem: such approximation leads to landscape of 10E+500 possible solutions, so it's unusable from practical reasons. While from particle model of Aether is evident, such system enables the only way of it's compactification, leading to dynamic mesh of one-dimensional density fluctuations (i.e. "strings") naturally - so no assumption of strings, no assumption of relativity and quantum mechanics postulates is required here at all. By such way, the zero-dimensional approach follows the Occam razor criterion, which minimizes the number of postulates in theories.


Top
.
#29022 - 01/04/09 05:03 PM Re: Conservative character of contemporary science [Re: Zephir]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hello Zephir,

I recently discovered your site and AWT theory which I am reading with great interest.

Science does seem to have become more of a business and a religion and less of an institution to promote critical thinking. The system discourages critical thinking if it might tend to invalidate the prior work of others. Sadly not very scientific!

Similar is suggested about recent discoveries that Dr. Albert Einstein may have been correct when he rejected the idea that the quantum world is random. The NewScientist article "Quantum randomness may not be random" suggests that it may require overwhelming evidence that Bohmian Mechanics is superior to standard quantum mechanics before it is accepted.[1] To be found equal (as it now appears to be) is only enough to be ignored almost completely! (Interesting similar discussion here: http://startswithabang.com/?p=1304#comment-62654)

I also find interesting AWT's theory that the aether is extremely dense. Speculative attempts to model mass at mass.bigcrash.org suggest that the aether may be so dense that it exerts a powerful gravity that pulls on mass in all directions.[2] Interesting pattern of similar thinking.

Administrator, LHCFacts.org

[1] NewScientist, Quantum randomness may not be random (22 March 2008) http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19726485.700

[2] Mass Theory, http://Mass.BigCrash.org

Top
#29023 - 01/04/09 08:35 PM Re: Conservative character of contemporary science [Re: Anonymous]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
Science does seem to have become more of a business and a religion
It does, but it's the logical evolution, because our ability to verify new hypothesis decreases with time. Before one hundred years people speculated about boundaries of Solar system - now we are discussing about Universe boundaries, while we visited a Moon inbetween.

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
aether may be so dense that it exerts a powerful gravity that pulls on mass in all directions

This corresponds the "shielding effect" of Fotio-LeSage theory - a pretty ancient one. The concept of dense Aether is quite old as well, but it was ignored and forgotten nearly completelly.

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
..Bohmian Mechanics is superior to standard quantum mechanics..
It's hard to say. Every theory, which brings a new paradigm introduces a new postulate in fact. The theories with different postulate set will become incompatible in less or more distant perspective. I've read whole NS article to understand the motivations of such claim.

Originally Posted By: Anonymous
..Quantum randomness may not be random..

No chaos can be quite random, if such chaos is serving both like object, both like subject of observation. Here are many antagonistic criterions of observability. For example, causal energy spreading in more chaotic environment is weaker, but faster. You will see less, but in larger scope.

In its consequence, chaos concept will bring quantization and determinism into causal observation - no matter, how random it really is. Dense Aether concept isn't so trivial, as it appears at the first glance.

Top
#29028 - 01/04/09 09:57 PM Re: Conservative character of contemporary science [Re: Zephir]
Anonymous
Unregistered


I read the content at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

Fotio-LeSage theory appears to be rather opposite, it theorizes a force pushing rather than pulling in all directions.

The concept at mass.bigcrash.org just applies classic general relativity theory to conclude that if the aether itself contains an extremely dense amount of energy then the aether should warp space and time (as described by GR) and cause a pull (not push) on matter in all directions. (GR theorizes that matter is accelerated toward areas of greater density, in this case matter in the aether should be accelerated toward the aether, or accelerated outward in all directions).

If correct (big if) that should tend to impart mass on matter by combining the concept of gravity from general relativity with the concept of a very dense aether that similarly warps space time...

Top
#29029 - 01/04/09 11:58 PM Re: Conservative character of contemporary science [Re: Anonymous]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
.. if the aether itself contains an extremely dense amount of energy then the aether should warp space and time (as described by GR) and cause a pull (not push) on matter in all directions...
In fact, Fatio-LeSage theory requires an infinite Aether concept as well to be able to work at all.. The pulling force and ISL is the consequence of shielding effect, after then. As a shielding theory, Fatio-LeSage theory predicts an Allais effect, which occurs during Solar eclipses, for example..

Top
#29030 - 01/05/09 12:14 AM Re: Conservative character of contemporary science [Re: Anonymous]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
..by combining the concept of gravity from general relativity with the concept of a very dense aether ..
Dense Aether concept enables to explain gravity by itself even without some relativity at all. The relativity can explain gravity in combination of omnidirectional space-time expansion (which cannot be derived from relativity itself). You can think, gravity force is an acceleration force, following from increased speed of space-time expansion near massive objects. The speed of space-time expansion increases here due higher space-time curvature: if some space is preexpanded in some place, then the uniform space-time expansion would proceed here faster too, then in another places. This faster expansion is the source of accelerating force, which we can perceive inside of curved space-time.

But the dense inhomogeneous Aether concept can explain, why space-time expansion occurs at all as a sort of bumpy glass phenomena: every layer of inhomogeneous chaotic environment appears the more inhomogeneous and funky, the more thicker is. A luminiferous Aether must be very dense indeed to be able to spread the light of arbitrary energy density/frequency (like the X-ray or gamma radiation) - and no rocket science (some relativity the less) is required to understand it.

Top
#29032 - 01/05/09 12:17 AM Re: Conservative character of contemporary science [Re: Zephir]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
I can feel, dense Aether concept will become a quite popular among scientists soon..;-)

Top
#29033 - 01/05/09 01:00 AM Bohmian Mechanics and AWT [Re: Anonymous]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Anonymous
..Bohmian Mechanics is superior to standard quantum mechanics..

The basic formalism of Bohmian Mechanics corresponds in the main to Louis de Broglie's pilot-wave theory of 1927. The concept of pilot wave theory can be derived from dense Aether easily: the density gradients inside of dense particle stuff would appear like strings and (mem)branes of foam and the particle motion along them would produce a "surface gradient wave", analogous to shear wave, which is forming above fish swimming beneath water surface perpendicularly to fish motion direction.



While the "mass wave" concept remains a very important interpretation of quantum mechanics, I'm in doubt, whether the deBroglie wave concept can explain the quantum mechanics phenomena better, then (formalism of) quantum mechanics itself. If nothing else, we should still consider a particle environment concept to understand it in its full entirety.

Top
#30059 - 04/01/09 06:18 PM Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: zorro1]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
The case of Galileo Galilei, who was condemned for promotion of heliocentric model, is usually interpreted by propaganda of mainstream science as a manifestation of superiority of so called scientific method over reactionary stance of Holy Church.

But under more thorough view we can identify many common points between reactionary stance of Holy Church and approach, which proponents of mainstream science are applying against promoters of Aether concept. This change of social roles is predicted and explained by inertial model of particle condensation.

For further details please follow my post herein.

Top
#30060 - 04/01/09 06:37 PM Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: Zephir]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Yes. Galileo would pass peer review. He had the data and observations. Many delusional people think they're the next Galileo - even though they just bark nonsense.

Top
#30061 - 04/01/09 06:42 PM Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
Yes. Galileo would pass peer review. He had the data and observations. Many delusional people think they're the next Galileo - even though they just bark nonsense.
AWT has a data and observations as well. Heim's theory has a data and observations, too. Cold fusion has a data and observations, too.

Whereas many delusional people still prefer to believe in string theory, which has no data and most observation even refutes it.

Top
#30062 - 04/01/09 07:03 PM Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: Zephir]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"AWT has a data and observations as well."

Wow! Impressive!

"...prefer to believe in string theory..."
Irrelevant, but logic, like grammar, is a mystery to you

Top
#30080 - 04/02/09 12:33 PM Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Why irrelevant? String theory is exact analogy of epicycles model. It's geometry based extrapolation of mainstream ideas by the same way, like epicycles model.

People like you don't understand, how and why string theory should be working, whereas refuting logical explanations of it by the same way, like oponents of Galileo.

Top
#30081 - 04/02/09 12:50 PM Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: Zephir]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"People like you don't understand, how and why string theory should be working, whereas refuting logical explanations of it by the same way, like oponents of Galileo. "

Maybe there's a language conversion error. Can anyone translate crank into English?


Top
#30086 - 04/02/09 03:11 PM Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Maybe not. Can you prove, my sentence can be intepreted in English in multiple ways?

Show us...

Top
#30088 - 04/02/09 03:17 PM Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: Zephir]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"Can you prove, my sentence can be intepreted in English in multiple ways?"

My question is whether it can be translated into sensible English in even one way.

Top
#30099 - 04/02/09 09:43 PM Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
My question is whether it can be translated into sensible English in even one way.
This is your problem to prove your stance, not mine. Can we prove about some claim, it has no sense in general way?

If not, how did you recognize, it's a nonsense?
If yes, why I should bother about some subjective stance without arguments?

Top
#30100 - 04/02/09 10:02 PM Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: Zephir]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...

Because it's so wise, I thought it bore repeating:

"This is your problem to prove your stance, not mine. Can we prove about some claim, it has no sense in general way?"


Top
#30101 - 04/02/09 10:22 PM Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
Zephir Offline
Superstar

Registered: 07/01/08
Posts: 498
Well, you see...

So why I should waste my time with some anonym, who isn't even able to support his stance in most trivial cases? You should learn a bit more before calling the other "crank" just because you haven't understood something...

As you can see, I can do the very same against you with no problem.

Top
#30103 - 04/02/09 11:11 PM Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? [Re: Zephir]
taraleecheesie
Unregistered


There are a couple of wave mediums. One is a antiwave medium that is inimical to life and existence and another is the 3D (of 4D hypersphere of the universe of the living) that is healthy. The antiwave hitchhikes on the true wave and makes existence for the dead, hanging out in the 'web', boring and awful. The antiwave medium was created when the Jesus gig went awry and created a monster female YAG laser, whose name is Dayna Linton. She is the keeper of the fake Gerry Butler Jesus bots, who are in the likeness of the true SON god Gerard Butler, who they have captive and who they falsely FRONT for their treachery.

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.