Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

MotionTheory
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by MotionTheory » Tue Oct 02, 2018 5:40 pm

Inline high lighted
webolife wrote: ...
4. Standard accepted definitions of universe -- all objects and the space between them and matter -- anything that has mass and takes up space are the beginning point from which everything else is derivative. I agree that mass is derivative from force[s], themselves invisible and insensible concepts apart from the changes of position [in space] which manifest them. Mathematics is simply a language by which we describe these invisible elements in order to better model them from our imagination. Maths do not invent "space", they describe it as an elemental feature of all reality.
...

This much I "get" as I ponder my incomprehensible friend Kevin, who refers to this principle as "consciousness."
kevin wrote: consciousness flows about all of the geometry enabling each memory to [color=#00C00]form[/color] and then maintain, it further enables transformations of memory as desired, thus We reap as We sow.
Please don't stop there! Aren't they just structure & motion understanding away from coherent picture of the/our universe?

What aether bit might(a workable model) look and structure like. What exactly-1-force underlie/enable motion. Now build our universe just from these 2. obviously, root of derivatives must based on these 2. e.g. derived properties such as: gravity, electric, magnetic, em, pressure, potential, so on..

While inside an egg, we will never know the outside of it. We must assume, this egg is self-contained and operated, unless proven otherwise. Philosophy/god/magic/parallel-dimension/etc.. are stuff outside of the egg.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by webolife » Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:02 pm

Having trouble with your English. Try again in kanji and we'll go from there.
MotionTheory wrote:While inside an egg, we will never know the outside of it. We must assume, this egg is self-contained and operated, unless proven otherwise. Philosophy/god/magic/parallel-dimension/etc.. are stuff outside of the egg.
True enough... science is limited in this respect, we can only test material causes for material effects.
But suppose an alien race unfamiliar with modern human technology stumbles upon our planet and as a first encounter captures a communications satellite. They take it apart and study it to the minutest detail of its structure, then move along, having concluded that the satellite is just a piece of random hardware. What is wrong with their conclusion?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

MotionTheory
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by MotionTheory » Tue Oct 02, 2018 6:30 pm

If they/alien know how to build it, then they know what it is for. If don't know how, then smart to find its origin to ask the builder. Satellite must has origin because it is an evidence in their hand.

Otoh, primitive alien would probably think, this satellite is something of magical/god. Current physics uses 'field' as such magic/god, thereby primitive :shock:
webolife wrote:Having trouble with your English. Try again in kanji and we'll go from there.
MotionTheory wrote:While inside an egg, we will never know the outside of it. We must assume, this egg is self-contained and operated, unless proven otherwise. Philosophy/god/magic/parallel-dimension/etc.. are stuff outside of the egg.
True enough... science is limited in this respect, we can only test material causes for material effects.
But suppose an alien race unfamiliar with modern human technology stumbles upon our planet and as a first encounter captures a communications satellite. They take it apart and study it to the minutest detail of its structure, then move along, having concluded that the satellite is just a piece of random hardware. What is wrong with their conclusion?

kevin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by kevin » Wed Oct 03, 2018 1:17 am

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sm ... &FORM=VIRE

Consciousness ( aether) spins in 720 degrees and creates a dual vortex with a heart centre of reversal( so called black hole)

ANU best visualises this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da1caAYlWVI







Kevin

MotionTheory
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by MotionTheory » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:19 am

Thanks.

Aether geometry is intriguing. Is this geometry represent 1 or collection of aether bits?

What is/are material/space beside aether formed this vortex? Since xyz coord (empty container) only contains aether and unfilled space (absolute empty - mathematically), hence logically this must be a larger object/geometry formed by collection bits of aether. Is this a memory/mass or a collection of memories?

In the linked video, ANU used field without explain what this field consist of and what force causes motion? My previous post alleged 'field' is magic/god solution because each field coord/point is a vector of force, where this force is not defined. And even when defined with reasonable terms, it is still failed: conservation of energy and 3rd law of motion (force interaction has equal and opposite). e.g. where is the 'opposite' part of force for gravity field or potential?
kevin wrote:https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sm ... &FORM=VIRE

Consciousness ( aether) spins in 720 degrees and creates a dual vortex with a heart centre of reversal( so called black hole)

ANU best visualises this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Da1caAYlWVI







Kevin

kevin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by kevin » Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:17 am

Fields ( ANU) within fields within fields ad infinitum.


Each field interacts with, and transfers across to all other fields.


Consciousness spins in opposite directions ( helix) following super high frequency carrier lines.


There is an endless chase between these two, always seeking rest at the heart centre.
The duality of spin creates the electrical potential., just as a generator does by spinning coiled wiring about a magnetic field.

http://www.uvs-model.com/UVS%20on%20the ... %20UVS.htm



Kevin

MotionTheory
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by MotionTheory » Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:36 am

In order to use recursive fields, it needs a base case/field. Then everything can build up from the base field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion ... r_science)

fields ad infinitum is self-referencing since it doesn't has a base(known) field.
kevin wrote:Fields ( ANU) within fields within fields ad infinitum.


Each field interacts with, and transfers across to all other fields.


Consciousness spins in opposite directions ( helix) following super high frequency carrier lines.


There is an endless chase between these two, always seeking rest at the heart centre.
The duality of spin creates the electrical potential., just as a generator does by spinning coiled wiring about a magnetic field.


Kevin

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by webolife » Thu Oct 04, 2018 9:29 pm

MotionTheory wrote:If don't know how, then smart to find its origin to ask the builder. Satellite must has origin because it is an evidence in their hand.
Hmmm... I was thinking something very similar. ;)
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread post by webolife » Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:19 pm

Neutrinos, if they are clearly defined, cannot be the aether, as an aether would be ever-present at the detector sight, thus making neutrinos impossible to detect. Or questionably, what is "between" neutrinos?

Here are some questions that I think define this issue:
1. What is space?
2. Does space physically "exist?" Is it necessary? Is it imaginary?
3. Is space phenomenal, a physical agent, ie. does it directly affect real actions in the cosmos?
4. Is space malleable, bendable, stretchable, warpable, dilatable?
5. Do unseen, undetected and hitherto undescribed materials [eg. aether] fill space?
6. What experiments could be done to confirm any proposed aether?
7. If there is no aether medium, by what means are signals transmitted across a distance?
8. Is it possible to measure light speed through a space for which there are no reference materials, ie. if radiant energy is detected at a distance across which there is a [relative] vacuum, relative to what would its speed measured?
9. Since distance between particles or bodies at any hierarchy is presumed by all models [except some "solid aether" models], is it possible that gravitation [and light] act instantaneously across that distance? In this question, instantaneous action is not equated with infinite speed, ie. nothing is presumed to "travel" across the space.
10. Actions of one body are always related to those of another body, hence the term "relativity." Is it possible that the geometry of the space[s] separating objects "governs", ie. determines their interaction?

Here it is not a passive abstract space I envision, but an active vectoral space, forces, ie. pressure vectors. The region of vectors acting upon any object are its field, and every field is a subset of the universal field. Magnetic, electrical and gravitational fields act in this way, and exhibit "ground"ward centropic pressure. This is not "attractive" in the sense that something within a field centroid "pulls" on its neighbors, rather a product of universal "finitude", an abstract that "reifies" directly into the exigent universal stickiness that is the pervasive observation of physics.

Speaking of "reification," this is the objection hurled at me by a variety of "objectivist" friends with whom I've had the sincere pleasure of debating on these boards. In their view [though they should speak for themselves] such things as fields, forces, pressures, vectors, are not"real" because they are not "objects", things with clearly defined shape and size. Yet what are shape and size if not measurements and relationships of space... how are the objectivists'objects not just as reified as fields and forces? Do imaginary immeasurable aether particles make their physics any more real than geometric vector regions which are both measurable and observable?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests