Why an ether/aether?

[altonhare]

I still have not found a reasonable need for aether, indeed I haven't even seen an aether yet.

[junglelord]

5 Aether units produce PHI and phi by the ratio relationship between Aether quantum spin cycles and the Primary Angular Momentum quantum spin numbers. The ratio of these two fundamentals produces the Golden Field Q(√5), at five Aether Units.

Amazing how the quantum numbers actually produce PHI and phi respectively due to the ratio embedded between both Aether and Primary Angular Momentum. Hence it is the Golden Ratio and the Divine Proportion.
Pretty cool to understand why this is. The ratio between Aether cycles and Angular Momentum quantum number spins produces the Golden Ratio.

This explains why the Golden Mean (Fibonacci Series) is expressed in all life forms and why it exists as a universal ratio for inorganic forms. Awsome stuff.

[altonhare]

Since everything in the universe is physically connected, allowing rational causal explanations for light and gravity, I think the "ether" can finally die quietly.

[junglelord]

I have to say its been a great year. I have total comphrension of the EU, Aether, Charge, Synergetics, Tesla's work, Maxwells Original Work, Faraday, TT Brown, Fractal Space, Holographic Universe, Vortex Math, Sacred Geometry, Nanotechnology, Molecular materials science and more promising and fullfilling ideas still popping up all the time.
How cool is that?

Much thanks to the EU for starting the dominos to fall into place quickly and effeciently.
Knowledge is much greater then information.

[altonhare]

I have to say its been a great year. I have total comphrension of the EU, Aether, Charge, Synergetics, Tesla's work, Maxwells Original Work, Faraday, TT Brown, Fractal Space, Holographic Universe, Vortex Math, Sacred Geometry, Nanotechnology, Molecular materials science and more promising and fullfilling ideas still popping up all the time.
How cool is that?

Much thanks to the EU for starting the dominos to fall into place quickly and effeciently.
Knowledge is much greater then information.

The aether is an invalid, dead hypothesis.

If the aether is some kind of "all-pervasive fluid" then what makes it "fluid". The only way for something to be compressible is for there to be space for its constituents to move into. So what is the fluid made of? If you pose that it is continuous then it is perfectly rigid and indeed nothing can move within it. It is a dead hypothesis.

[Drethon]

What is aether?

A neutrino: [url]http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df[\url]

As far as the rest, ask any scientist that commonly uses those terms, or don't you believe in any science?

[altonhare]

What is aether?

A neutrino: http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?art ... -NB5vg7woM

The H atom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Magnetism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

Gravitation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

If everything is physically connected, what need do we have of an aether? Light simply propagates from atom to atom along a taut, physical intermediary. Seriously. The wave equations are fine but the rope model physically justifies observations such as rectilinear travel and quantized "absorption and emission". The videos ultimately do not do it justice so I am prepared to answer any questions one might have. There are also threads devoted to the topic.

There is simply no need for an aether. We should give it a quick, painless death.

[Drethon]

I don't have access to youtube here at work and have been working overtime so haven't kept up with threads as well as I could, could you point me out where I can read up in more detail on your rope theory? Until then my responses are fairly uninformed

I can't say what charge is or what a field is but what is a physical connection? Based on the common theory of matter (not saying its right), atoms never touch each other, they are balanced within their electron fields. Moving even smaller the electrons never touch the nucleus and instead are a field surrounding it.

This theory well describes the behavior of nuclear decay, gasses and particles passing through solids and other behaviors. If all material is physically connected then how do particles pass through solids without trouble?

[altonhare]

I don't have access to youtube here at work and have been working overtime so haven't kept up with threads as well as I could, could you point me out where I can read up in more detail on your rope theory? Until then my responses are fairly uninformed

I can't say what charge is or what a field is but what is a physical connection? Based on the common theory of matter (not saying its right), atoms never touch each other, they are balanced within their electron fields. Moving even smaller the electrons never touch the nucleus and instead are a field surrounding it.

This theory well describes the behavior of nuclear decay, gasses and particles passing through solids and other behaviors. If all material is physically connected then how do particles pass through solids without trouble?

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

The videos are certainly the best "freely available" illustration of the theory. The link above is the author's webpage and is mostly a thorough, detailed, step-by-step mockery of modern physics.

A physical connection means one object is connected to another object by another object. For instance, two indivisible (continuous) balls have a loop attached to the side through which they are attached by a chain. The links of the chain are also indivisible (continuous) objects. The two are permanently connected. This is just an illustration, the actual theory is better than that .

However, I recommend you read "Details of thread theory", "Problems with thread theory", and "The issue of exist resolved". Those are my three main threads with a fair bit of info.

If you are having trouble with them (as I imagine you might without background) you probably want to watch the videos first.

You will have to specify what particles you've observed to pass through solids for me to give the best answer. However, the constituents of a solid such as a salt or metal, though physically connected, may still be separated enough such that a sufficiently small particle can pass through without impediment. I see no problem with this. A connection can be immensely thin relative to the size of the passing particle.

[Drethon]

Something went through my head while reading your posts. Why separate into distinct threads or aether. Why does matter even have to be separate physical units?

I saw an interesting website that was linked in these forums (lost a HD and the bookmark to the sight...) on the topic of how atoms could be nothing more than 3D standing waves of "space/time" or what ever term you want to use for the fabric of space. Should this idea be correct then all matter is connected as it is part of the fabric of space and only manifests as a physical object to us based on the effects of standing waves. This allows interactions due to the effects of these waves propitiation through space.

As I say, why distinct threads between matter or aether, why couldn't all matter simply be different flows of the fabric of space?

Just my $0.02

[seasmith]

~
Dreathon,

Right!

That's why it is universally cognized as the "Fabric of Space"
or Matrix

~

[altonhare]

Something went through my head while reading your posts. Why separate into distinct threads or aether. Why does matter even have to be separate physical units?

I saw an interesting website that was linked in these forums (lost a HD and the bookmark to the sight...) on the topic of how atoms could be nothing more than 3D standing waves of "space/time" or what ever term you want to use for the fabric of space. Should this idea be correct then all matter is connected as it is part of the fabric of space and only manifests as a physical object to us based on the effects of standing waves. This allows interactions due to the effects of these waves propitiation through space.

As I say, why distinct threads between matter or aether, why couldn't all matter simply be different flows of the fabric of space?

Just my $0.02

If everything is "a standing wave" what does this standing wave look like? Physical objects have shape, they can be visualized. They have a border (are finite). Anything that does not have a border is not finite aka infinite. Physics is ultimately the study of objects. Numbers and the symbols that manipulate them all the way up to the highest levels ultimately refer to interactions among objects. It is the objects themselves that matter, not the abstractions we define and measure (charge, force, energy etc.). When our mathematics do not refer to any physical object but we treat them as if they do, this is a form of reification.

Dreathon,

Right!

That's why it is universally cognized as the "Fabric of Space"
or Matrix

-seasmith

Einstein convinced himself that space was a physical object, and that is what has led to the ludicrous interpretations of relativity theory. Objects have a border, space does not. Space is the antithesis of object. Objects can perform actions (move, collide, etc.) and space cannot by definition. Again anyone is free to define the words "object" and "space" and "exist" or any other terms to try to make their case for "the fabric of space" or for the "aether".

[Drethon]

If everything is "a standing wave" what does this standing wave look like? Physical objects have shape, they can be visualized. They have a border (are finite). Anything that does not have a border is not finite aka infinite. Physics is ultimately the study of objects. Numbers and the symbols that manipulate them all the way up to the highest levels ultimately refer to interactions among objects. It is the objects themselves that matter, not the abstractions we define and measure (charge, force, energy etc.). When our mathematics do not refer to any physical object but we treat them as if they do, this is a form of reification.

Take a an object and oscillate it back and forth a few inches extremely rapidly. If the speed is fast enough, your eyes cannot tell that the entire space the object is oscillating through is not part of a solid object. If you touched it on the ends you wouldn't even feel that the object was moving because it would hit your finger and move back before your finger could be moved even a hairs width.

Now turn this into a 3d oscillation where the object is expanding and contracting at an extremly fast rate. From our point of view this object would have a border at its point of maximum expansion. This object would be indistinguishable from a solid object that is at rest.

This would also work with the idea that increased energy within the object increases vibrations which causes the difference between solids,liquids,gas and plasma.

[altonhare]

Now turn this into a 3d oscillation where the object is expanding and contracting at an extremly fast rate. From our point of view this object would have a border at its point of maximum expansion. This object would be indistinguishable from a solid object that is at rest.

-drethon

So your theory is that the universe is composed of discrete, separate objects that expand and contract so fast we can't tell they're doing so?

[Drethon]

That would be the simple way of defining it. The more complex way would be that the vibrating objects are created by a wave flowing out of the fabric of the universe that causes a standing wave which acts like a rapidly expanding and contracting object.

This would be one of many theories I have, just one of my more recent ideas. I don't see anything wrong with having many theories as each of them usually have part of the truth but not all of it, its just figuring out what part is true and what isn't