The Aether Theory of Relativity

[marengo]

Many posters have complained that i do not explain things thoroughly. So I am going to try to improve.
But will other posters improve as well? I find that most posters do not delve deeply into the physics of a question.

I am starting with this new theory simply because, if it is correct, then all physical phenomena derive from the Aether. That means that Modern physics is WRONG. Thus this theory is very important.

First, I want you to understand the difference between my theory and Einsteins.
The two theories make identical predictions on observed inertial bodies. Note the word inertial,
No real body is inertial. Every real body accelerates to one degree or another.

Now I am taking this in small stages (to see if anyone takes an interest)

[Michael V]

marengo,

In the spirit of new beginnings, I have two, very genuine, questions, that I believe would be of benefit to address.

1) What is relativity? - or at least, What do you mean by relativity?

2) Could you please give as detailed explanation as possible of the "sub-aether" to your aether?


Michael

[Solar]

Thank you for the thread. Hopefully it serves the topic constructively. Let me go out on a limb and posit some thoughts:

This is the second or third inquiry that I have seen regarding the "sub-aether" of Aether Theory of Relativity (ATR) mentioned only once on the website proper here:

An Introduction to Aether Physics

This "Sub-Aether" caught my eye as well. Only twice, in reference to other Aether related material, was it mentioned that the Aether is itself an 'emanation' (very bottom of this post was one of those times). This was in relation to the work of Harold Aspden and his "fluid crystal" approach to the undifferentiated Aether-matrix wherein portions, probably should say regions, of the Aether - in the presence of an electric field can 'differentiate' forming a relatively 'separate' crystallization from - yet still embedded within - the main lattice. What does that mean?

Likewise, ATR on the very same referenced page posits a "a solid matrix (the Aether) of contiguous identical Aether particles (termed aethons)." Hence, the "Sub-aether" appears to be the underlying contiguous solid-like "matrix" from which other Aether 'substances' are 'self-differentiations'. It may be that this can be likened to a 'lattice'. This is why latter on in the same page he posit that "Charged fundamental particles create an electric potential elevated above or below (positive and negative polarity) ambient ..."

"Ambient" would probably then be the nature of the 'lattice' or undifferentiated "Sub-aether" relative to all other subsequently localized "fields". Each is then a variation of Aether presenting different 'modalities' of the one fundamental essence. This is also what can cause some confusion with regard to the Aether. It has several 'modalities' analogous to the familiar solid, liquid, gaseous, and plasma 'states'- long before the 'precipitation' of its most recognized 'phases' as "matter" proper.

[marengo]

In the spirit of new beginnings, I have two, very genuine, questions, that I believe would be of benefit to address.

1) What is relativity? - or at least, What do you mean by relativity?

2) Could you please give as detailed explanation as possible of the "sub-aether" to your aether?

Thank you for your intelligent questions.
Relativity covers the effects observed of a body which are functions of the velocity (called relative velocity) of an observed body through the theoretical inertial reference frame (IRF) in which the observer is stationary.
Some well known effects are length contraction, time dilation and mass increase.
That may take a little thinking about.!

Logically there must exist a sub-Aether as the Aether itself is non-Euclidean. The way that I put it is this:- The Aether is a substance the density of which varies spatially. Density can only vary if related to some more fundamental frame, ie the sub-Aether. A part from that job the sub-Aether has no further known or conjectured effect. Einstein employs a similar frame to account for the non-Euclidean effects of Spacetime.

[marengo]

Thank you for the thread. Hopefully it serves the topic constructively. Let me go out on a limb and posit some thoughts:

This is the second or third inquiry that I have seen regarding the "sub-aether" of Aether Theory of Relativity (ATR) mentioned only once on the website proper here:

Thank you for your question re the sub-aether.
May I first ask you to read my reply above to Michael v.

I would first like to say that there is a pragmatic limit on how deep we can see into the Universe without some evidence or requirement to guide us. I have proposed a sub-aether simply because there is a logical need for it. But I do not see a need to postulate on it any further.
Now I have postulated several properties of the Aether itself and these are listed in my introductory paper. The important point about this list of properties is that a viable physics can be directly generated from them. This is the crucial test of the list as to whether it is correct or not. By viable I mean as good as or better than non-aether physics.

This is why this thread is on the Aether Theory of Relativity. For this particular Aether theory is a vast improvement on Einstein's theory. If there is no flaw in my maths or logic then this should spell the death knell of non_Aether physics.
But i think that to appreciate the Aether theory one needs to first understand the enormous flaws in Einstein's theory. Hence my first post.

[kevin]

Many posters have complained that i do not explain things thoroughly. So I am going to try to improve.
But will other posters improve as well? I find that most posters do not delve deeply into the physics of a question.

I am starting with this new theory simply because, if it is correct, then all physical phenomena derive from the Aether. That means that Modern physics is WRONG. Thus this theory is very important.

First, I want you to understand the difference between my theory and Einsteins.
The two theories make identical predictions on observed inertial bodies. Note the word inertial,
No real body is inertial. Every real body accelerates to one degree or another.

Now I am taking this in small stages (to see if anyone takes an interest)

Have You ever pondered that actually no-thing is moving?
That the aether is a super compressed near solid, with perfectly packed geometry.
That it so enables creation of multiple dimensions, ours been 3D, and that what is thought of as movement is actually switching.
That flowing about on the superconductive aether lattice is an electric potential.
That said electrical potential is intelligent.

Does any of the above correspond with Your theory?
Kevin

[Michael V]

marengo,

Relativity covers the effects observed of a body which are functions of the velocity (called relative velocity) of an observed body through the theoretical inertial reference frame (IRF) in which the observer is stationary.
Some well known effects are length contraction, time dilation and mass increase.

First of all, I don't believe in the principle of relativity or any other systems requiring faith in the supernatural. Secondly, length contraction, time dilation and mass increase are not "observed" effects. They are theoretically posited effects that have no proof or correlation to physical reality - saying something over and over again and printing it in text books does not constitute logical or physical proof, no matter how fine and grand a given suit of clothes might be said to be. Good luck with your search for a valid inertial reference frame (hint: there are none in this universe, so you'll have to look elsewhere - perhaps kevin can help). I am afraid that on the subject of relativity we will likely have to continue to agree to differ.

Density can only vary if related to some more fundamental frame, ie the sub-Aether. A part from that job the sub-Aether has no further known or conjectured effect.

What do you mean by "fundamental frame"?. I was hoping for a physical explanation. What is the real actual physical nature and physical operation of your real actual physical substance of sub-aether. What from does it take?, how does it move?, how does it interact with your aether? and by what logic do you come to those conclusions.

Logically there must exist a sub-Aether as the Aether itself is non-Euclidean.

I am trying to imagine how physical space or a physical object might be "non-Euclidean". Can you explain how a real physical object can be non-Euclidean?, or how a real physical space (i.e. a distance of separation) can be non-Euclidean?.


Michael

[Michael V]

kevin,

Have You ever pondered that actually no-thing is moving?

I take exactly the opposite view, that everything is moving. If nothing is really moving, then our entire existence, all of ours thoughts and experience, are a delusion. The notion that nothing is moving already discounts any intellectual process or conclusion, including your remaining suggestions. If nothing is moving, then the concepts of aether, compression, solid, geometry, dimension and thought become completely moot and meaningless.

That said electrical potential is intelligent.

Would this then count as "electric god" or "electric fairies"?. I suppose it depends whether it's one intelligence or many, heaven forbid, non at all.

So you have completely abandoned all possibility that our experience, thoughts and entire perceived physical existence might be even the slightest correct representation of whatever true physical reality might be, but still, you have retained "electric potential". You and I and our thoughts and experiences and all human observation of the world and the cosmos does not exist in any way that is genuinely true to the way that we perceive it to be, but somehow the one remaining truth of our perception is "electric".

The notion of other dimensions holds a long tradition since our most primitive ancestors. Unable to divine the true nature of phenomena in the universe by logical deduction, they resorted to finding answers in places that were not in the universe: the godly realm, the ghostly realm, the fairy realm, the unicorn realm, heaven and hell. Now in our modern age of critical reasoning (if only) we also have, the realm of mathematical delusion. Of course all those N-dimensions cannot be falsified by logical reasoning, because they don't exist in the same universe. Those "other dimensions" exist only in the universe of fantastical invention, but this time around there is some maths to legitimise the use of such non-existent devices. Use of a non-3-dimensional non-Euclidean space is an open admittance of intellectual defeat. Bring on the gods and the unicorns, why not, they don't exist either, so they must also qualify as potential solution paths.


Michael

[kevin]

kevin,

Have You ever pondered that actually no-thing is moving?

I take exactly the opposite view, that everything is moving. If nothing is really moving, then our entire existence, all of ours thoughts and experience, are a delusion. The notion that nothing is moving already discounts any intellectual process or conclusion, including your remaining suggestions. If nothing is moving, then the concepts of aether, compression, solid, geometry, dimension and thought become completely moot and meaningless.

That said electrical potential is intelligent.

Would this then count as "electric god" or "electric fairies"?. I suppose it depends whether it's one intelligence or many, heaven forbid, non at all.

So you have completely abandoned all possibility that our experience, thoughts and entire perceived physical existence might be even the slightest correct representation of whatever true physical reality might be, but still, you have retained "electric potential". You and I and our thoughts and experiences and all human observation of the world and the cosmos does not exist in any way that is genuinely true to the way that we perceive it to be, but somehow the one remaining truth of our perception is "electric".

The notion of other dimensions holds a long tradition since our most primitive ancestors. Unable to divine the true nature of phenomena in the universe by logical deduction, they resorted to finding answers in places that were not in the universe: the godly realm, the ghostly realm, the fairy realm, the unicorn realm, heaven and hell. Now in our modern age of critical reasoning (if only) we also have, the realm of mathematical delusion. Of course all those N-dimensions cannot be falsified by logical reasoning, because they don't exist in the same universe. Those "other dimensions" exist only in the universe of fantastical invention, but this time around there is some maths to legitimise the use of such non-existent devices. Use of a non-3-dimensional non-Euclidean space is an open admittance of intellectual defeat. Bring on the gods and the unicorns, why not, they don't exist either, so they must also qualify as potential solution paths.


Michael

There is a difference between no-thing and nothing.
IMHO no-thing actually exists except as a local memory.
That memory switchs about in a fixed aether.
The memory is enabled by a duality of spin potential.

I admit that this is difficult to accept, and to verbalise.
You Michael are a local memory, and You are switching within the local memory of this planet, in what is termed the here and now.
You are not a seperate thing, except as what You are programmed to remember.
The planet is not a rock floating about in space, it is a memory.

The super solid aether is akin to a platform for memory to exist upon.
All memories are within larger memories, add infirnitum.
.
We are co-creators of the planets memory, as are the multitude of memories created within this planets memory.
The illusion is of been seperate at all scale.
All is one...litterally, but with infinate possibilities.

When the potential leaves Your memory( death) a temporary set will occur known as rigor.
This memory loss , and until the planets memory permeates and re-members the zillions of individual memories that compose You is simply revealing the solid aether.
There is no movement, there is displacement relative to memory rel0cation.
My fingers are not moving writing this, I am sending signals out into My memory for the multitude of tiny memories that make My arms and fingers to displace relative to information telling them where to displace to.
All of this is enabled upon a scaffold of fixed geometric near solis aether, the potential driver is electrical and dual spin that chases itself in a fractional inbalance of 720 degrees of inside and outside of a sphere.
This is an electric universe .
This is remember the mad ideas section.
Kevin

[Sparky]

This is an electric universe .

Shouldn't that be the "static electric universe"?

[Michael V]

kevin,

I believe I understand well enough what you mean. The problem is that the existence and reality that we experience, observe and contemplate does not have any link to the theoretical universe that you suggest. If the universe is as you describe, then all our tools of thought and measurement are false; merely illusions and delusions of a reality that does not exist.
If your theoretical universe were a true reality, then we could not trust to any extent whatsoever any observations, measurements, conclusions or thoughts. That being the case, then there is no cognitively logical route from here to there. The only way to get there is to bypass cognitive logic and critical reasoning and to rely on the whimsy of fantastical invention; which is what you have quite eloquently done.


Michael

[marengo]

Have You ever pondered that actually no-thing is moving?
That the aether is a super compressed near solid, with perfectly packed geometry.
That it so enables creation of multiple dimensions, ours been 3D, and that what is thought of as movement is actually switching.
That flowing about on the superconductive aether lattice is an electric potential.
That said electrical potential is intelligent.

Does any of the above correspond with Your theory?
Kevin

NO

[marengo]

First of all, I don't believe in the principle of relativity or any other systems requiring faith in the supernatural. Secondly, length contraction, time dilation and mass increase are not "observed" effects. They are theoretically posited effects that have no proof or correlation to physical reality - saying something over and over again and printing it in text books does not constitute logical or physical proof, no matter how fine and grand a given suit of clothes might be said to be. Good luck with your search for a valid inertial reference frame (hint: there are none in this universe, so you'll have to look elsewhere - perhaps kevin can help). I am afraid that on the subject of relativity we will likely have to continue to agree to differ.

Supernatural does not enter into it.
I am utterly amazed that you do not believe in Relativity effects.
Trying to convince you of the Aether Theory of Relativity would therefore be a complete waste of time.

[marengo]

to Michael V
Take two perfectly accurate and synchronized clocks situated side by side.
The two clocks part and take different journeys before eventually re-uniting.
At re-union the clocks are found to be no longer synchronized.

That is an example of the relativity effect of time dilation.
It was first checked out by Hafele and Keating in the 1970s.(see Wiki)

If you disagree would you please state how,where and why.

[Michael V]

marengo,

Even if one is a decided advocate of the proposed relativistic time dilation effect, the Hafele Keating experiment is a terrible example to use.
see here: http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H%26KPaper.htm and then google for more.

Of course, the faults of that experiment do not amount to a falsification either, but perhaps best not to refer to it as a proof either. In fact, an experiment is of little use if the theory is wrong in the first place - which it is.

It is probably better to adjourn to the Einstein's Light Clock (time dilation) thread. In the next few days I will post an explanation of the issues that I perceive with that theory.


Michael