A few threads running at the moment about time, and space time. So here is the way that my theory handles these things. Think of the Aether as an un-bonded liquid, that also acts as a field of separate particles....
The Aether, Time, Gravity, Bow Shock
- Thread starter Pincho Paxton
- Start date
Their experiment showed that the Aether was moving with the Earth.. which they though was impossible, so the Aether was removed from science. It was a mistake to say that the Aether could not be fuzzily connected with the Earth.
Actually the results of the M&M experiment were "null" results. They were unable to detect the ether, at all. This neither proves or disproves the existence of the ether. However, as I have said before it is unlikely that the "luminiferous aether" of the 1800s does exist. It is inconsistent with SR, GR and to a significant extent with QM.
GR describes the gravitational interaction of objects and space as a dynamic interaction and has been very successful over the last 100 years. While there are some observations today that are difficult or even unexplainable from within GR, without the addition of dark matter, GR is still the best model of gravity we have. Any ether model would have to be completely consistent with those aspects of GR that have been experimentally demonstrated to be accurate.
How I interpret the M&M results is heavily influenced by a conversation I had some 20-25 years ago, while sitting one evening on the porch of my uncle's (my mother's sister's husband) home in northern New Mexico, talking with him about the night sky and related subjects. During that conversation he told me he had been a mathematician involved in one of the attempts to recreate the M&M experiment in the 1950s. He explained to me that their results were the same as M&M's. Their results were also "null" results. He then explained what that meant is that the experiment was unable to prove or disprove the existence of the ether. He also told me that the group at the conclusion of the experiment was split, half believing that there is no ether to detect and half believing that the ether is out there. He as I remember, leaned toward the later though, what he told me was that he believed that it was still possible.
I admit that as a result of that conversation I am far more open to the possibility of an ether, than I might have been otherwise. Still considering the successes that GR has shown and the numerous experimental tests that support it, from where I sit any ether model must demonstrate that it is consistent with GR in those areas where GR has been proven an accurate description of experience. This so far seems to be an unscalable huddle. To demonstrate such agreement with GR requires, more than a conceptual model. It must also include a rigorupous mathematical description consistent with what we have come to know of the universe from within the context of GR.
So how is your model in agreement with GR and where it is not provide some reason why it is a better model than GR, understanding that where your model is in conflict with GR and experience generally, it has some pretty high hurdles to over come.
So far while I am listening, or reading as the case in fact is, I am skeptical....
I work with 3D images, their physical interactions, animations, and computer simulators. The interaction that I can picture are the same as Einstein's bending of space time, and relativity. So long as my images work, the maths doesn't need changing. But what I have done is added the two slit experiment to the same model, and also I have given Gravity, and magnetism a physical working structure without the need for new particles. And I have accounted for space bubbles, and Dark Matter. I have also put time in the 3D Universe.
The bending of space time is the Aether scaling down to escape pressure. The slowing down of clocks is the restriction of movement of trapped Aether particles. Relativity is the relative pressure of two moving bodies on the Aether. Particle wave duality is simply a central pressure, moving through an overlapped Aether field. Expanding Universe is the escape of negative mass particles moving away from a body until they meet in opposite directions with another body's negative mass out-flow. This will then fold back to positive mass once more, and the return journey will begin again. But at the folding point is a point of zero resistance for the second wave of particles, because these particles are crossing mass, and negative mass in their state of change.
You might think that just using images, and computer simulations doesn't work, but that's all you have before you write the maths. So all I am doing is skipping that part. Anyway, I can't write the maths, only the computer simulators.
a very fertile field lay virtually untrammeled here, where I, AEqueous, pretender to the throne of AElfric, do hereby stake my claim, that every tittle and jot, every iota and lambda as far as the eye can see from hence to the event horizon, is hereafter and forever annexed into the AEtherdom and no man shall put it asunder without due remedy.
Fine print aside, define ether. I presume you mean the vacuum that's not exactly nothing because it exhibits intrinsic impedance. Newbie, not onto your psychically emanated channel just yet.
Fine print aside, define ether. I presume you mean the vacuum that's not exactly nothing because it exhibits intrinsic impedance. Newbie, not onto your psychically emanated channel just yet.
If your question is directed to Pincho, I have no real understanding of what he means.., exactly. If you were referring to my comments, I should think that it follows that, the ether would be indistinguishable from space, from within the context of GR.
Due largely to the historical reference, the word ether carries baggage that is difficult to overcome. Still thinking of space as substance, rather than a dynamic coordinate system, as is sometimes the result of the descriptive use of, "empty space", changes the conceptual potential.
How we define things does have a significant influence on how we project them into the world around us. The ether is a heavily weighted word/concept, but then so is space and spacetime. They each carry with them some conceptual limitation.
I define Aether as the substance that propagates photon waves, and then I complete the description with new layers of information.. it also...
1/ Propagates photon waves.
2/ Propagates Gravity
3/ Propagates time
4/ Creates the entire Universe, and all particles
5/ Creates consciousness
6/ Folds to negative mass to create things like black holes
7/ Creates magnetism
The Aether, to put it simply, does everything. It is the basic data of the Quantum Universe.
I could rename my substance, but no need, it propagates photon waves, so to keep its name unites it with the Aether of history.
Cesspool please.
This is no more an "alternative theory" than Winnie the Pooh is an "alternative bible".
It has no evidence to support it, explains nothing (except in the vaguest terms) and cannot be used to explain anything: as Pincho himself states -
This isn't a theory, it's verbose illustrated hand-waving.
This is no more an "alternative theory" than Winnie the Pooh is an "alternative bible".
It has no evidence to support it, explains nothing (except in the vaguest terms) and cannot be used to explain anything: as Pincho himself states -
This isn't a theory, it's verbose illustrated hand-waving.
It is in Alternative Theroies, which is in On The Fringe, not Science. While there may be a case as to whether a thread belongs in Alternative Theories or Pseudoscience, that distinction is difficult to make so long as the qualifications for Alternative Theories is yet undefined.
I thought that part of the reason for opening the new folder was to divert some of the threads which did not include a mathematical or scientific foundation by at least reference, from the Science section of the forum.
If the standard is to be the same, i.e. a mathematical proof, there is really no reason for the folder.
Keep the rigorous mathematical proofs in Science. Comment if you like on ideas, models and/or theories posted in On The Fringe, but don't expect them to meet the same standard of proof as would be required under the umbrella of Science.
Generally if you let something lie it will fade on its own, if there is no interest from the general community.
Hecklers keep questionable topics alive as often as those with some "serious" interest.
I will now proceed to untangle the entire mess.
AEther, as opposed to ether, is the logo for a proprietary idea, meaning The All, plus Ether.
AEther, as opposed to ether, is the logo for a proprietary idea, meaning The All, plus Ether.
Unfortunately Pincho has shown himself to be incapable of taking a hint.
He'll come back and add to it regardless of (and ignoring) any comments.
What if all of reality were instantiated in the seemly innocuous particles comprising a einnie the pooh bear. That would make fools of us all.
Except for we Poohists of course!
I can make the computer model though. I have been told that a computer model counts as a proof as it is mathematical.
Only if you can show that the underlying maths is valid.
Firstly, no you can't make a computer model. Secondly it's possible to make a consistent compute model of anything. You claim mainstream physics is wrong and there's plenty of computer models of those. So by your logic mainstream physics is proven.
See how easily your claims fall apart with a nanosecond of thought?
It's not my logic.. it's science rules.. so yeah I see how easily science rules fall apart. You should know that I often post the same thing as your quote.
Last edited:
Fringe is by definition the establishment of proto-science. Thats pre-science with subjects that haven't fully matured, that are in the process of moving from hypothetical to testing. In some respects it's at the boundary of science fact and fiction, where on testing it will eventually be moved by consensus to part of established science or pseudo-science.
Such Fringe subjects are things like Wormhole theories, Time travel, Emulated Universe theories etc. Nanotechnology was one such Fringe subject that has moved into Science through technological development making it possible.
Aether theory is problematic, after all you aren't dealing with the old aether which Schroedinger was known for implying (and Heisenberg denying) or even a referral to Born's observed model. You are dealing with Pincho's person view of how his theory fits, so it can't be argued the same way or even tested with the same evidence. His supposition would require supporting via a whole different group of tests to establish any results and which way it fairs for his theory. (although for the most part people will imply that if his model is too different from the consensus, it will likely be assumed to be wrong)
Incidentally Christopher Robin must of been the high pooh priest considering his adolescent worshipping of such a bear, due to the nature of his fictional status however it wouldn't bode well for Poohism.