Aether Wave Theory

Posted by: Zephir

Aether Wave Theory - 07/01/08 08:55 PM

Aether Wave Theory is recent incarnation of the ancient Aether concept in its original, most natural form. It describes the Universe as a word of nested inertial fluctuations of infinitely hot & dense massive environment, i.e. the Aether.

What such approach can be good for today, after one hundred years of relativity and quantum mechanics theory? We'll see - lets talk about it by unbiased, open-minded way.

Motto: "We don't believe things, if we can explain them by reproducible way".
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 07/02/08 04:13 AM

Very interesting topic, Zephir. For the most part, we do seem stuck with idle speculation, but from what I've read, from people like Frank Wilczek, there seems hope that the physical properties of so called 'empty space' will be discovered in this century - hopefully within the next decade, if LHC has much to do with it.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 07/04/08 05:40 PM

The classical Aether theories have described the Aether from perspective of thin gas. This was a typical misconduct, because the light of high energy density cannot be mediated by very thin environement. Aether Wave Theory therefore extrapolates the behavior of ultradense inertial systems, like the interior of dense stars and black holes. Surprisingly, very low number of scientists so far have interested about inertial physics of high density matter.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 07/18/08 12:00 AM

So, what the whole Aether Wave Theory (AWT) is about? The AWT doesn't explain, what the reality is. It just assumes, every piece of reality is composed of many other pieces, recursively. These pieces are required to behave like colliding particles to become observable. So we can extrapolate the behavior of large set of such entities by the model of Boltzmann gas, composed of inertial particles. These particles aren't required to be observable directly, but they're forming the density fluctuations, which are observable already.

We can explain this idea by the example of dense condensing gas or supercritical fluid. We aren't required to see the individual molecules, but the density fluctuations of these molecules are apparent for us.



We can apply the same concept on the resulting fluctuations, which are behaving here as a new generation of particles and we can repeat the whole explanation again on higher level. By AWT the reality is formed by nested field of fluctuations, which are created by other fluctuations, recursively. The level of this recursion is virtually unlimited (albeit we can deduce some practical limits of this concept later). And we are living inside of one level of such fluctuations, which corresponds the current Universe generation.

Under thorough observation we can even observe the signs of such behavior inside the condensing supercritical fluid. At the moment of condensation, the density fluctuations of fluid are so massive, they can behave as a new particle generation and they can form another level of fluid with its own surface, as depicted on the right animation.

The Aether Wave Theory just extrapolates this real-life example to the infinite density and infinite number of particle condensation levels. As we can demonstrate later, despite of its simplicity, the behavior of such system can be infinitely complex and this trivial concept is surprisingly powerful with respect to explanation of many different aspects of modern physics without introducing of additional ad-hoc assumptions and/or abstract postulates.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 07/26/08 01:13 AM

"Zero version" of article about AWT on Knol, a new alternative of Wikipedia by Google.
Posted by: Zephir

The dense Aether concept motivation - 07/27/08 03:17 PM

The motivations of AWT is easy to understand even for layman people - this is the main advantage of this rudimentary "theory of everything". The main point is, the light is spreading in waves through space-time and here's no principal difference between vacuum forming the space and the vacuum, forming the particles of matter. So we can say, the light is spreading through vacuum in waves, because the vacuum is behaving like common matter from this perspective.

But as we know, the light can transfer energy of virtually unlimited density, which effectively rules out all previous thin/sparse models of luminiferous aether. It means, all previous models of sparse Aether were based on very trivial misunderstanding of the concept of luminiferous Aether, which was common both for Aether proponents, both for Aether deniers. Only Sir Oliver J. Lodge has recognized the relevance of the dense Aether model explicitly, but his insight was ignored even by Aether proponents (T.J.J.See in particular) and as such it was completely forgotten.



Instead of this, the Aether must behave like very dense particle system and as we can demonstrate later, from this assumption the foamy structure of vacuum and transversal character of light wave spreading can be deduced - between many other things.
Posted by: Zephir

The behavior of dense particle systems. - 07/27/08 03:48 PM

The behavior of dense particle systems is surprisingly poorly studied in contemporary physics from Victorian era - the main reason is, it doesn't fits well the formal approach of contemporary physics, because the heavily parallelized system of many particles is not so easy to describe by consecutive logic of formal math. Even the simplest system of few gravitational bodies is difficult to compute and predict by existing math formalism - which is the reason, our knowledge is quite rudimentary in this point.

But the behavior of dense systems of many particles can by modeled by computers by now and the complexity of such model is limited just by computational power. Therefore we can model the behavior of dense sphere, formed by mutually attracting and repulsing particles in 2/3D easily (a particle model of dense star, or something similar).



As we can see, as the hydrostatic pressure increases, the particles will agglomerate into clusters, which will agglomerate further into more dense clusters, formed by previous generation of clusters. During this, the character of previous cluster generations disappears gradually and under certain mass-energy density the existing forces will not be able to keep some persistent structures at all - the particles inside of sphere will form a less or more chaotic system, similar to dynamic foam.



The same foam of density fluctuations can be observed inside of every dense particle system, like the condensing supercritical fluid, so that such system is quite relevant from physical point of view. We can see, at the certain level of mass/energy density the positive curvature of density fluctuations is switched into negative curvature sponge of foam. This foam is formed by original "blobby" density fluctuations, which were compacted into form of thin 2D membranes and 1D strings. If we continue further with increasing of pressure, the so called the phase transition will occur and the strings will condense into 0D particles - a droplets of new phase, which can form a new system of particles, which will behave by very similar way, like the previous one.

It means, in Aether Wave Theory no fundamental particles really exists - every particle here is in fact the heavily collapsed density fluctuation of the previous particle generation. Such scale invariant particles can be called "unparticles" in analogy to some recent models - but in AWT no true particle from general point of view exist - everything is "unparticle" here, in fact.

Surprisingly enough, the emergent unparticle stuff was proposed originally ad-hoc, i.e by the same way, like the concepts of emergence, string and branes and hidden dimensions and many other usefull concepts - i.e. with no relation to the simple Aether model above described. Can it serve as an evidence of the human intuition or stupidity?

Lets decide for yourself - such dual stance is nothing unusual in AWT, after all. We can call it a "New Physics", but in fact it remains a physics of Victorian era.
Posted by: Zephir

The consequences of the AWT model 1 - 07/27/08 04:20 PM

Every model - despite of its apparent simplicity - should bring something new into existing understanding, the testable prediction(s) in particular. The main advantage of AWT is in ability to model and explain the main ad-hoced aspects of contemporary theories, the light speed invariance and the mass-energy equivalence of relativity theory and the quantum wave nature of quantum mechanics.

Concerning the light speed invariance, tnis concept can be divided into invariance with respect to environment (i.e. the absence of reference frame of environment) and with respect to observer. The first invariance is much more easier to understand.

The whole trick here is, the speed of every wave can be considered invariant with respect to its environment by its very definition. This is because the environment for wave spreading cannot be detected just by using of such wave. If some particle is serving as an environment, it cannot serve as a subject of observation in this environment and vice-versa - simply because no object can serve as a mean of its own observation.

From the above insight follows, every attempt to detect the environment just by using of waves, which are using the same environment for its spreading is hopeless nonsense even from purely semantic point of view. The question remains, why so many brilliant people have tried (and failed, of course...) to detect the environment for light wave spreading just by using of light waves? We are facing the flagrant misunderstanding of the Aether concept again.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: The consequences of the AWT model 2 - 07/27/08 05:01 PM

While the light speed invariance appears natural in AWT, the concept of dense Aether explains, why it was so difficult to understand it even for Aether proponents. The trick is, the inertial energy spreading always follows the surface of energy density gradients, because of highest local density gradients, which are slowing/mediating every inertial energy spreading.



This can be understood easily by using of surface water waves example. The fact, most of energy spreads along the water surfaces in transversal waves doesn't means, the energy cannot spread through air or underwater in longitudinal waves - on the contrary. During shallow water explosion most of energy will spread through air and underwater shock waves. But the energy density of these waves will be quite negligible due the low volume fraction of water surface. This is because the water is rather incompressible fluid, while the air is compressible enough, but it's density is rather low with compare to density of water. By such way, the surface density gradient of water is the place, where the energy can spread by the lowest speed and the energy density of explosion is much more pronounced here, so just the surface waves are having the strongest devastating effect. From surface observer perspective, the effects of both underwater, both air waves are rather negligible - the main portion of energy will spread in surface wave.

And this is the key in understanding of transversal nature of light. As I explained above, the vacuum can be considered as a dense system of energy density gradients, similar to foam. And most of energy will spread along surfaces of these gradients, i.e. along strings and membranes, forming such foam at the distance in transversal waves. The portion of energy, which will spread through bulk of such foam will remain negligible the more, the more pronounced these gradients will be.

From the above follows, because of high vacuum density, most of energy will spread through it in transversal waves and the longitudinal portion of energy spreading (the gravitational waves) will remain completely negligible with compare to the transversal one (the light waves). Furthermore, the longitudinal waves will disperse by foam membranes fast, so they will remain difficult to detect at large distances. Therefore the Aether foam model explains the transversal character of light waves and it even brings a new insight into contemporary problem of gravitational waves detection.
Posted by: Zephir

The consequences of the AWT model 3 - 07/28/08 01:50 AM

If we're thinking about reference frame of Aether, we can put the following question: if the particle of environment, forming the wave cannot be observed by such wave by definition, maybe the neighboring particles can still remain observable?

But from transversal character of prevailing energy spreading follows, the detection of environment is problematic even at the case, we will consider non-local effects/phenomena. The real life experience with surface waves can explain it again. The real water ripples are surprisingly complex mixture of transversal and longitudinal waves, depending the water depth and wavelength in particular ( gravity waves, Rayleigh-Lamb, (Q-, P-, S-)Love and capillary waves).

The driving phenomena is dispersion here. The waves of very long wavelength are gravity waves, they're of longitudinal character and the compressibility of water takes place here. The speed of motion of such waves (celerity) is completely additive to speed of water environment itself, being driven by Galileo transform.

The very tiny waves of wavelength bellow 1 cm are so small, they're dispersed by density fluctuations of water molecules (the analogy of Rayleigh dispersion of blue daylight by density fluctuations of atmosphere). The celerity of such wave is additive to speed of environment, too.



But in certain intermediate range (about 1.7 cm or so) the speed of surface waves passes minimum, because in this range the effects of both short distance, both long distance range dispersion can be minimized. Such waves are called the capillary waves and they're of pronouncedly transversal and as such non-dispersive character. With respect of such waves the water surface is behaving like thin elastic membrane hanging in the free space with (nearly) no underwater dispersion at all. Because of lack of dispersion, these waves of minimal speed 23 cm/s (1/2 mph), so they can spread the energy/information with the maximal intensity and the speed of energy spreading doesn't depend on the speed of water environment - which is the behavior typical for light spreading in vacuum, as described by relativity theory.

Such behavior is the more pronounced, the more pronounced is the surface gradient. Because the vacuum is of extremely high density, these waves are the nearly exclusive source of information here with very subtle reference frame ( Lense-Thirring effect). This doesn't mean, the energy cannot spread in longitudinal waves through vacuum - it indeed can. But we aren't observing such waves in the intermediate scale of wavelength because of their weakness and quantum noise, which is the result of dispersion and separation of time arrows.

The interesting coincidence is, the 1,7 cm wavelength corresponds those of cosmic microwave background nearly exactly - it can be considered as the middle of dimensional scale of our Universe, because it allows the energy spreading from the oldest and most distant parts of Universe - from the Big Bang event directly. It's not accidental coincidence, the 1,7 cm wavelength corresponds the scale of human neurons - its the scale of maximal Universe complexity (neg-entropy) achievable because of lowest speed of information spreading.
Posted by: Zephir

Conservative character of contemporary science - 07/31/08 08:16 PM

The conservative character of contemporary science consist in fact, it's interested about phenomena just because they're fitting the well established theories (like the Higgs boson of Standard Model, for the support of which an incredible money were invested) - not because they can refute these theories. From this moment the originally progressive science turned into reactionary, success oriented movement.

By such way, a whole range of controversial, but extremely interesting & important phenomena (like cold fusion, aether model, various psychic phenomena, etc.) are systematically ignored by mainstream science - although one would expect, they're will be considered with caution just because they can disprove the established paradigms. This is because of peer-review and grant system, which prohibits a local mutations and mistakes, so that the curious, investigative character of science was suppressed gradually. This effectively turned the science into sort of theology: it looks only for the reasons, by which it can be confirmed, but not refuted.

By such approach, the meaning of scientific method based on falsifications of theories was turned upside down. From Poppers methodology, one would expect, the scientists will be interested about cold fusion just because it can help to falsify the existing theories - but exactly the opposite is true by now. The contemporary science isn't interested about falsification experiments at all, it just seeks for further confirmations to keep its social position and esteem in the eyes of publicity - pretty well like theology of medieval era.



Such behavior has a deep physical meaning from Aether Wave Theory perpsective, which is using a concept of nested foam, which changes its curvature from positive to negative with scale. By such way, the originally progressive object changes with scale into regressive one, a sort of black hole, which prohibits a further evolution. The grant and peer-review system of contemporary science which helps the science locally is changing it into social collapsar filled by boson condensate, which is separated from the rest of society.

The problem is, the scientists cannot detect such evolution well - it can be perceived just by people, who are staying outside of science. From inside perspective the science remains pretty self-consistent environment with no conceptual problems at all. We can met with such behavior at the case of gravitational lensing, which appears to fit the Lorentz invariance perfectly from local perspective - although it violates it apparently from the global perspective. But the observer inside of gravitational lens cannot detect it, being curved together with the space-time, in which (s)he resides.

The memo is, every law or paradigm, which helps the system in evolution locally is violated at the large scale, so it exhibits an opposite effect here. From very global perspective is changes a system into foam, where its role is changing from place to place randomly. Here's no reason not to consider, even the AWT paradigm itself has its own limits, but its violation cannot be detected at the scope of AWT, but from perspective of even more general theory.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Conservative character of contemporary science - 08/05/08 02:05 AM

Interdisciplinary trap - Should people transgress the boundaries? The correspondence principle requires to do so. Motl's stance has a deep meaning in AWT. Formally thinking scientists aren't often willing to learn from fuzzy connections of reality in the hope, only complex formal theories are necessary for description of reality. But the AWT demonstrates clearly, the fuzziness and interdisciplinary approach has a still deep meaning for deeper understanding of reality, because it can show us the way, by which the more exact models can be developed later. The strategic thinking requires to consider more alternatives at the single moment, then the isolated formal and poorly conditioned models can comprehend. In addition, the interdisciplinary analogies can help us to understand the complex connections easier and from more perspectives. This text was attempted to post at Motl's blog, too.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Conservative character of contemporary science - 08/05/08 12:17 PM

Surely there can be only one common source for all energies that we experience , it's becoming clear that we cannot manufacture any energies out side of those energies extracted from the Vacuum of space.
The entire energy reserves within the universe reside in a potential form ready to be extracted on demand.
There is no other method that could contain such infinite quantities of energy, and still present the universe and all that we see in it.
The casimir effect is a classic example of constantly interfacing with the vacuum of space, extraction of energy directly and simply.
It is futile to attempt to analyse the vacuum of space, we should concentrate on developing devices that efficiently extract our energy needs, as the Sun extracts it's coronal energies.

Brian
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Conservative character of contemporary science - 08/05/08 06:23 PM

The Aether is very hot and dense, but it's energy cannot be isolated without density gradient. Try to imagine, we are living inside of hot and dense star. At the moment, everything around us is of the same temperatures, here's no way, how to excerpt such energy.

But here's a substantial energy density contained in common matter. Such energy can be released in strong gravitational field, for example by adding of stranglet during LHC experiments, but AWT proposes another ways, how to achieve the slow evaporation of matter into radiation, analogous to famous " drinking bird" toy.
Posted by: Zephir

How the AWT affects expert's thinking in "quiet".. - 09/07/08 09:40 AM

Before two years a former Harvard professor Lubos Motl well known in blogosphere was firmly convinced proponent of anti-aether lobby - but now he's promoting an Aether concept openly, albeit he's working in physics for years and he censored it in his blog comments obstinatelly. This example just demonstrates clearly, how scrambled many people (even these most physically "qualified" ones..) can be concerning the trivial Aether concept.



Posted by: zorro1

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 09/14/08 03:08 PM

In other words, your AWT is bunkum.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 09/15/08 01:32 AM

Why? That's the question.
Posted by: zorro1

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 09/16/08 03:34 PM

You know why :

-no math, ergo no falsifiable predictions

-no falsifiable predictions, ergo bunkum
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 09/17/08 07:04 PM

Originally Posted By: zorro1
..no math, ergo no falsifiable predictions..
Does it mean, heliocentric model or Darwin's theory has no testable predictions without math (Jupiter & Venus phase order, shape of Lunar crater shadows, the order of fossils records, genetic trees etc.). The predicate logic is part of math as well and here's a lotta things, which can be falsified without computing and measurement.



And vice-versa: did pile of math help the string theory to some testable predictions over the last forty years?
Posted by: zorro1

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 09/18/08 03:08 AM

You PRETEND that your theory is physics, so it has to have math.
So your theory is NOT physics, it is bunkum. eek
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 09/18/08 11:08 AM

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.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Conservative character of contemporary science - 01/04/09 05:03 PM

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
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Conservative character of contemporary science - 01/04/09 08:35 PM

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.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Conservative character of contemporary science - 01/04/09 09:57 PM

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...
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Conservative character of contemporary science - 01/04/09 11:58 PM

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..
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Conservative character of contemporary science - 01/05/09 12:14 AM

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.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Conservative character of contemporary science - 01/05/09 12:17 AM

I can feel, dense Aether concept will become a quite popular among scientists soon..;-)
Posted by: Zephir

Bohmian Mechanics and AWT - 01/05/09 01:00 AM

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.
Posted by: Zephir

Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/01/09 06:18 PM

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.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/01/09 06:37 PM

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.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/01/09 06:42 PM

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.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/01/09 07:03 PM

"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
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/02/09 12:33 PM

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.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/02/09 12:50 PM

"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?

Posted by: Zephir

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/02/09 03:11 PM

Maybe not. Can you prove, my sentence can be intepreted in English in multiple ways?

Show us...
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/02/09 03:17 PM

"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.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/02/09 09:43 PM

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?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/02/09 10:02 PM


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?"

Posted by: Zephir

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/02/09 10:22 PM

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.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/02/09 11:11 PM

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.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/03/09 12:15 PM

Originally Posted By: taraleecheesie
..there are ...one is .. ..another is ...antiwave hitchhikes ...makes existence..medium was created ... name is ..She is .. who are ...they have ..they ..FRONT ...
Well, we can illustrate by your example, what the nonsense means in AWT. Many sentences can have meaning for most of users, while they're still not usable as a part of whatever causal theory ("Earth is round", "Sun is shining", "Universe is 13.2 GYrs old",....).

AWT uses so called implicate geometry proposed by Bohm to explain this paradox. In AWT the theory appears like stream of water flowing from the top of hill in fractal landscape. Every stream of water must follow certain causal space-time gradient to be usable as a part of theory. Of course, streams can be less or more vague, i.e. formed by thin layer of water, but the general trend in causality must be always observable here.

The role of causal streams in every theory is represented by so called entailments, whose time arrows are defined by material conditionals. The above essay doesn't contain no relation words (so called predicates) like "if", "thus", "therefore", "because", and so on. It's just a stream of "pure claims", so called tautologies (i.e. logical statements with true value undefined), which are representing zero-rank tensors (scalars) in causal space and their true value remains undefined. Albeit some sentences may sound familiar for someone or even appear meaningful in broader context, they cannot be used for derivation of logical constructs in fact, because their true value cannot be analyzed mutually and checked independently in terms of predicate logics.

From predicate logics perspective such sequence of statements isn't reproducibly testable, falsificable the less, i.e. it represents atemporal informational noise, from which nothing else can be deduced - despite the fact, it may be composed of claims, which are verified individually and intersubjectivelly accepted in general as so called axioms or postulates.

Therefore we are not required to analyze the meaning of individual sentences in above post at all, because we can safely say at the first sight, they're unusable with respect to every deeper logical construct due the absence of predicates, indicative conditionals in particular.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/03/09 01:36 PM

AWT is truly a "theory" of everything! My god, it's so obvious now! Now you can go track down some of David Bohm's students and try to sell the snake oil to them!

Posted by: Zephir

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 04/03/09 01:48 PM

Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
AWT is truly a "theory" of everything! My god, it's so obvious now!
From AWT follows, no theory can describe virtually everything at the single moment in consistent way.

So far AWT is free of charge and no snakes were harmed during its development. Well, some snakes may feel a bit frustrated by now, but it's a life.
Posted by: Anonymous

Very Dense ?? - 06/11/09 07:58 PM

Very dense aether theory evoked me infinitesmall black holes,
look at this link:http://www.physorg.com/news161857121.html
Maybe you find something supportive to your ideas.
Posted by: eeb

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 07/24/09 05:05 PM

Gravity a Simple Idea
Eugene Bunt

What if luminiferous aether were flexible, depending on time-scale for its local fabric size?

The greatest scientific minds have unsuccessfully searched for gravity for over a hundred years using the best equipment available. To date, nobody has found any evidence of a gravity particle or gravity wave. What if we accept experimental results and look for another reason for gravity?

If gravity were the product of a collection of mass, you would expect the center of the Earth to be hollow because the pull from all sides would cancel the pull from opposite sides there.

Einstein proposed that gravity is caused by warped space/time. This idea has been validated by astronomers photographing background constellations during a solar eclipse. The results were astonishing in that the star's positions were not drawn closer to the Sun, but were farther from the surface as if you were observing them through a huge positive lens. Einstein described the mechanics of this bending of light by imagining the process of light passing through a series of elevators rising from the Sun's surface (The Evolution of Physics 1938 by Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld page 220.) As light enters the far-side moving toward you observation point, it enters at a higher level, as it traverses the rising elevator it would necessarily exit at a lower level on your side. This transfer of light from elevator to elevator bends light so that it appears to be coming from a wider angle than a straight line past the surface of the Sun.

Putting two ideas together: Sir Isaac Newton first law of motion: 1>There exists a set of inertial reference frames relative to which all particles with no net force acting on them will move without change in their velocity. This means a body moves through space freely without resistance. 2>Einsteins rising elevator proposal, the fabric of space is being generated within a bodies gravitational field. All matter has kinetic energy, momentum. Change in momentum lags change in velocity. Space move freely through matter without resistance. Matter acquires momentum by moving through space. Matter is stopped by the Earth's surface creating deceleration. Gravity is the same as centripetal force, change in direction due to an outside force. Each new wave of passing space adjust the momentum of matter according to its current state of acceleration because change in momentum lags change in velocity.

See my google knol, Electrically Stimulated Acceleration by Eugene Bunt.
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 07/25/09 01:02 PM

Originally Posted By: eeb
What if luminiferous aether were flexible
In AWT Aether forms whatever matter you can imagine. The elastic foam can serve as a good model light propagation through vacuum, as Maxwell revealed before onehundred and sixty years already...


Originally Posted By: eeb
See my google knol, Electrically Stimulated Acceleration by Eugene
I've read your ideas and they've some meaning in AWT (despite the level of vagueness and missintepretation): for example gravitational lensing can be interpreted as a light dispersion by field of large number of electromagnetic vortices.

Posted by: eeb

Re: Aether Wave Theory - 07/29/09 08:56 PM

I'm sure you have confidence in your theory here is some experimental support for your AWT idea. One of the postulates of quantum mechanics is that electrons in an atom have two possible spins, up or down. Long ago an experiment was conducted shooting individual electron's through an aperture, they came through the aperture in sequential order of three orientations, the second perpendicular to the first and the third perpendicular to the prior two. The surface of an aperture is actually dancing around while light is passing through, as the light nears the edge it is deflected by the current location creating wave patterns. This vibration effect is accentuated by the amount of surface material. Electron's are similarly affected by the state of vibration of the apertures edge, with two possible electron spins within the atom the electron will spin synchronous to those electron's, the surface will vibrate up-and-down, side-to-side, and back-and-forth parallel to the electron's path. Three orientations are filtered by the surface electron's. One motion is canceled by traveling with the electron's path at aperture jump time, while the other two are canceled by the side-surface electron's orientations at jump time. Matter moves in quantum jumps.

Aperture sides also filter light as in a box camera, only light polarized to the deflecting side of the aperture will pass leaving only one polarized photon per location on the back of the box.

To further understand light polarization and analyzing I use the optical illusion of two crossing power lines on a utility pole, where the cross under the right lighting conditions the lines seem to disappear. The first wire polarizes the light by amplified vibrating up-and-down because the atoms are expanding and contracting longitudinally in the wire. The second wire allows photons similarly aligned to pass making both wires disappear at their intersection point. Another trick is to observe your neighbors horizontal siding while looking close to the railing of your deck, the lines of the siding magnify while close to the rail surface.

One more experiment to show how wave features are obvious from all vantage points.
This experiment was conducted by partially filling a fish tank with water containing a trace of fluorescein powder (fluorescein sparkles allowing the path of light to be visible.) Then slowly add brine through a tube to the bottom of the tank so it doesn't mix with the water. Now shine a narrow beam of light through the fish tank at brine level. The light will appear straight looking down the beam but appears wavy from a side observation.

The illustrations are from a book I wrote years ago, What is Gravity? You may use them to reinforce your theory. The illustration did not come through. I will post them on google knol with reference to your awt theory.
Posted by: Revlgking

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 07/29/09 11:17 PM

Originally Posted By: taraleecheesie
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.
Tara, sounds like you are having fun.


Are sure there are no, "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." laugh

As a theologian, I find your "theory" Interesting. smile
Posted by: eeb

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 07/30/09 01:57 PM

Hello, yesterday when I posted, I wasn't thinking, there is a very obvious example of your wave diagram. An inexpensive laser demonstrates granular dots of light that move about in patterns that you describe. This would be an amplified picture of coherent movement within the medium as light is reflected back and forth within. Do you have an Email address? I will send the diagrams that I mentioned yesterday, it would be quicker as I am not yet ready to go into a knol on that subject yet.
eeb
Posted by: Zephir

Re: Would Galileo pass peer review today? - 07/30/09 04:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: taraleecheesie
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
..sounds like you are having fun...As a theologian, I find your "theory" Interesting.
I know, some extrapolations of Aetherists sounds crazy, but such sentence still has a good meaning in AWT, where every space-time consist of pair mutually intersecting branes (causal foam density gradients) - so it forms dual membrane with two surfaces simmilar to membranes forming soap foam...



Therefore each space-time brane exhibits a presence of pair of conjugated time arrows, which are separated by observer scale: one of which is evolutionary, while the second one is enthropic... Compare the Zero-Sum theory, for example.