Why is the aether appealing?

[Beercules]

Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
It simply does not contain causality. All it has is empty mathematics.

That's funny, because that last time I checked, string theory still included causality. Now granted, I'm not an expert on superstrings nor even QFT, but I have seen nothing that suggest either theories do away with causality, though "probability" replaces some classic notions of matter in motion.

Can you be a little more specific?

Einstein called it ether because he knew that it must be composed of a substance of some sort.

Since Einstein never made that claim, you have nothing to support it.

You got your history wrong. The classical ether was a solid. It was the motion wrt this solid that MM failed to detect. If it was a fluid then there should be no reason to assume any motion of the earth or the MM laboratory wrt the ether. The fluid ether satisfies the null results, but since it was assumed that transverse waves could only travel through a solid then the fluid ether was not a candidate so Einstein had to satisfy the null result via pure mathematical manipulations.

I would like to see a reference on that. I've read many things on the classic aether, but have never seen it called a solid. I've certainly read that is was believed to be a gas, and at other times a liquid, but not a solid. Cite something.

Because you are not using metaphysics. You are operating in the fantasyland of pure mathematics.

Like I said, if geometry is purely abstract then so is the physical universe. I have given a logical argument as to why space is fundemental. Since the argument is valid, it holds unless one of the premises are invalid.

To your own satisfaction not to mine. My arguments have gone unheeded this is why this discussion has reached an impasse.

The above covers that.

Define "size".

In philosophy, when something is defined we are relating it a concept from our experience, be it visual, emotional, touch, etc. Size (or volume, extension, whatever) is the structure that allows us the see objects in the first place. See those visual objects in your visual cortex? That area is space, and geometry is a description of that space.

If an object has zero volume, and takes up no space, it no longer fits the traditional definition of a physical object. I will leave it to theists to imagine entities that have no size.

Because the root-level matter-in-motion of substance is incompatible with a constant speed of light in all interial reference frames.

I don't see how. Be more specific.

Apparently you have not read the speech. Here is one such quote of the many spread throughout the talk.

http://www.geocities.com/antonioferrigno/ether.html

"To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. "

Note the term "physical properties" not purely mathematical properties.

Sorry, but nowhere did Einstein say anything about substance. The dynamic space of the field is a physical property, and the same contains other properties such as gravitational energy. If you want to claim Einstein supported the notion of a substance based aether, you're going to have to back it up with an actual quote. As I said, Einstein knew that the geometry of space is indeed a physical property that interacts with everything else in the universe.

Sorry but your argument was weak at best...and why on earth do you suppose I would ever give up a causal understanding of how the forces are unified at the core level?

A. GR nor field theories violate causality
B. My argument is based on logic, and if you can't challenge any of the premises, it holds true.

So again, I argue that space is fundemental for any field or aether, because you cannot define them without. That makes space more than abstract, and renders the argument for an aether impotent.

 

[Beercules]

Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
It is caused by Einsteins initial ether-denying reaction which was a response to accidents of history that need to be corrected.

Or maybe it is caused by the fact that an aether is not compatible with experimental evidence? Keep in mind that the sea of virtual particles in a vacuum does not consistitue an aether, and those virtual particles are contingent upon a background of spacetime.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Beercules
That's funny, because that last time I checked, string theory still included causality. Now granted, I'm not an expert on superstrings nor even QFT, but I have seen nothing that suggest either theories do away with causality, though "probability" replaces some classic notions of matter in motion.

Can you be a little more specific?

String theory uses dimension as if it were something that exists outside the mind. Such a usage is purely hypothetical and amounts to an excuse to add mathematical complexity without accounting for the causality of that complexity. This is why it is non-understandable and non-visualizable.

Yes Quantum Theory uses probability instead of causality. This ignorance of causal factors results in paradox and duality.

Since Einstein never made that claim, you have nothing to support it.

I have read Spinoza. I know what Einstein was refering to when he said "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view."

A space with physical properties is a substance. You can choose not to apply this word but it doesn't change the meaning.

I would like to see a reference on that. I've read many things on the classic aether, but have never seen it called a solid. I've certainly read that is was believed to be a gas, and at other times a liquid, but not a solid. Cite something.

So you still haven't read Einstein's speech "ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY"? [[This is basic, indesputable scientific history. Ask your physics professor or do some research on the ether of Lorentz the same ether disproved by the MM experiments. You'll see.]]

Einstein's speech says early on, "It appeared beyond question that light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid."

Transverse waves are not possible in a fluid? Ahhh, see how the errors of history have finally been revealed with the recent experiments revealing that a superfluid (the most fluid of all fluids) can transmit transverse waves? A solid ether with the sheer modulus of elasticity no less than that of steel was an absurdity. No wonder MM failed to detect it! If only they had known of transverse waves in a superfluid this error would never have been commited and we woud already have a fluid-dynamic ether intact beneath the wave equations of quantum-mechanics and electro-dynamics!

Oh well, hind-sight is 20/20 and now this historical error is fixed in the structure of the theory that has been solidified around it.

Like I said, if geometry is purely abstract then so is the physical universe. I have given a logical argument as to why space is fundemental. Since the argument is valid, it holds unless one of the premises are invalid.

Let's deconstruct this argument. Please lay out the premises first and then lead to conclusions in a oulined orderly manner.

In philosophy, when something is defined we are relating it a concept from our experience, be it visual, emotional, touch, etc. Size (or volume, extension, whatever) is the structure that allows us the see objects in the first place. See those visual objects in your visual cortex? That area is space, and geometry is a description of that space.

So geometry is a description? I thought you were saying that geometry was fundamental.

If an object has zero volume, and takes up no space, it no longer fits the traditional definition of a physical object. I will leave it to theists to imagine entities that have no size.

So you are calling modern physicists "theists"? I happen to agree that they are off in their own fantasy land, but they are far from understanding the "mind of God" with their zero-dimensional (zero-size) point-particles and particle-mediated incompatible forces and many-fold overlapping yet entirely disconnected fields.

I don't see how. Be more specific.

If substance is the medium of the electromagnetic waves then the speed of these waves should be relative to the motion of this substance. It should have nothing to do with who happens to be looking and how they are moving. This is demanded by human experience with causality and codified as The galilean principal of relativity. Einstein broke with causality and the Galilean principal of relativity when he said the speed of light was dependent on who is looking.

When you first learned of the Theory of Relativity, was it not obvious that it had broken your own understanding of causality?

It was quite obvious to me and virtually everyone else who encounters relativity before learning to shut off this deep portion of the human understanding.

Once you learn Relativity you are told not to ask specific questions or think certain thoughts that naturally arise due to this unbreakable causal experience. Relativity must exist within a hermetically sealed chamber, free from contamination with causal understanding (often erroneously called "common sense"). If you have a penchant for asking questions based in causality then you are bound to have difficulty believing in relativity because reality contaminates the logical/mathematical system.

Sorry, but nowhere did Einstein say anything about substance.

Did you simply do a search for the word "substance"? Context is much more important here than a direct reference to the word itself.

No Einstein did not specifically use the term "substance", he said that the ether has physical properties which are essential for an understanding of "curved space". Anything with "physical properties" qualifies as being formed from substance according to the metaphysical definition of "substance".

substance

\Sub"stance\, n. [F., fr. L. substantia, fr. substare to be under or present, to stand firm; sub under + stare to stand. See Stand.] 1. That which underlies all outward manifestations; substratum; the permanent subject or cause of phenomena, whether material or spiritual; that in which properties inhere; that which is real, in distinction from that which is apparent; the abiding part of any existence, in distinction from any accident; that which constitutes anything what it is; real or existing essence.

So again, I argue that space is fundemental for any field or aether, because you cannot define them without. That makes space more than abstract, and renders the argument for an aether impotent.

Substance is that out of which everything is made. Its basic properties include extension and duration.

You will see that nowhere did I use the term "space" to define substance yet in ascribing properties to space one must assume physical properties, to substantiate those properties.

If, as I know you are wont to do, you say that extension qualifies as "space", you will note that extension is a property of substance, thus space would be made out of extended substance and not the other way around.

I make a distinction between "space" and extension because "space" is a term that conjures up an image of emptyness or void. Such a concept is metaphysically meaningless since it does not contain causality. Its negation is implicit in its own definition.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Beercules
Or maybe it is caused by the fact that an aether is not compatible with experimental evidence?

So an entirely causal and fluid-dynamic (mechanical) unification of all the observed forces and energy mechanisms, and a unification of observed structures on the micro and macro scales-- is an incompatibility?

Keep in mind that the sea of virtual particles in a vacuum does not consistitue an aether, and those virtual particles are contingent upon a background of spacetime.

You can call it what you want, but particles arising from probability equations is not a causal substrate.. so yes the theory does not properly contain a causal aether. Therefore the theory simply amounts to a codified ignorance of causal mechanisms.

A neutral substance in which positive and negative density and pressure deviations can occur gives a causal explanation beneath the probability equations. Which is more compatible with the evidence? The one that gives a causal explanation and at the same time unifies all the forces etc. or the one incapable of unifying the forces and the one which must invent hundreds of hypothetical entities to explain things which are incompatible with its faulty dualistic premises?

 

[Beercules]

Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
String theory uses dimension as if it were something that exists outside the mind. Such a usage is purely hypothetical and amounts to an excuse to add mathematical complexity without accounting for the causality of that complexity. This is why it is non-understandable and non-visualizable.

Dimensions are just an axis we put on space. In other words, we need 4 coordinates to locate any given event in the universe. However, an area which can clearly be described with only 2 of these coordinates, is quite different than a volume described by 3. It follows then that any space which needs to be described with a 10 (or more) axis, is quite different than our normal 4D spacetime.

Yes Quantum Theory uses probability instead of causality. This ignorance of causal factors results in paradox and duality.

No, quantum theory merely gives a different description of causality than our classic notions. It is still logically consistent, and no one has been able to find any self contradictions. As well, quantum theory is well verified by experiement, regardless of how much non physicists cry about it being such an assault on intuition.

I have read Spinoza. I know what Einstein was refering to when he said "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view."

It does not mean solid, gas or liquid medium. If you want to argue otherwise, back it up with a single quote. Just one.

A space with physical properties is a substance. You can choose not to apply this word but it doesn't change the meaning.

Substance does not equal fluid, gas, or solid. The only meaning the applies here is the ontological definition of something with existence in it's own right.

So you still haven't read Einstein's speech "ETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY"? [[This is basic, indesputable scientific history. Ask your physics professor or do some research on the ether of Lorentz the same ether disproved by the MM experiments. You'll see.]]

Einstein's speech says early on, "It appeared beyond question that light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid."

Ok, fair enough. So..... where does Einstein support the notion that the new aether has anything to do with a solid, gas or liquid? He never did.

Let's deconstruct this argument. Please lay out the premises first and then lead to conclusions in a oulined orderly manner.

I will, in a post below this one.

So geometry is a description? I thought you were saying that geometry was fundamental.

No, I already said that geometry is the study of space.

So you are calling modern physicists "theists"? I happen to agree that they are off in their own fantasy land, but they are far from understanding the "mind of God" with their zero-dimensional (zero-size) point-particles and particle-mediated incompatible forces and many-fold overlapping yet entirely disconnected fields.

Particles have size associated with their wave function. In quantum theory, you simply cannot have a particle without this associated wave function. So no, they do not support dimensionless "physical objects".

If substance is the medium of the electromagnetic waves then the speed of these waves should be relative to the motion of this substance. It should have nothing to do with who happens to be looking and how they are moving. This is demanded by human experience with causality and codified as The galilean principal of relativity. Einstein broke with causality and the Galilean principal of relativity when he said the speed of light was dependent on who is looking.

When you first learned of the Theory of Relativity, was it not obvious that it had broken your own understanding of causality?

No, it was quite obvious instead that intuitive concepts like an absolute time were redudant. Nothing changing the physicalist idea of matter in motion, nor any logical inconsistencies are present in relativity.

It was quite obvious to me and virtually everyone else who encounters relativity before learning to shut off this deep portion of the human understanding.

Oh, spare me.

Did you simply do a search for the word "substance"? Context is much more important here than a direct reference to the word itself.

No Einstein did not specifically use the term "substance", he said that the ether has physical properties which are essential for an understanding of "curved space". Anything with "physical properties" qualifies as being formed from substance according to the metaphysical definition of "substance".

Yes, the metaphysical, not scientific! In other words, something with it's own concrete existence, which goes back all the way to Aristotle. Furthermore, the field does have physical properties, none of which require a liquid.

substance

\Sub"stance\, n. [F., fr. L. substantia, fr. substare to be under or present, to stand firm; sub under + stare to stand. See Stand.] 1. That which underlies all outward manifestations; substratum; the permanent subject or cause of phenomena, whether material or spiritual; that in which properties inhere; that which is real, in distinction from that which is apparent; the abiding part of any existence, in distinction from any accident; that which constitutes anything what it is; real or existing essence.

Good. Notice how there is no requirement for a gas, liquid or solid in that definition?

Substance is that out of which everything is made. Its basic properties include extension and duration.

Thank you. Extension and duration. Or, space and time.

You will see that nowhere did I use the term "space" to define substance yet in ascribing properties to space one must assume physical properties, to substantiate those properties.

No, you instead chose to use the word extension. It doesn't matter though, because the gravitational field also has extension, whether or not you want to call it volume or something else. And extension, as you've already admited, is required for a physical substance to exist. That was my whole point, and this extension is not an abstraction, but a fundemental property of the substance. However, you don't need any mention of liquid properties, compressibility or anything else to define a substance, as you've shown above.

If, as I know you are wont to do, you say that extension qualifies as "space", you will note that extension is a property of substance, thus space would be made out of extended substance and not the other way around.

That doesn't work. You cannot have a substance existing without the property of extension in the first place. You cannot define it without! However, you can logically define a space without any additional fluid properties. So from that, we can see that physical substances are spaces with additional properties.

I make a distinction between "space" and extension because "space" is a term that conjures up an image of emptyness or void. Such a concept is metaphysically meaningless since it does not contain causality. Its negation is implicit in its own definition.

That is more a problem with your own choice of meanings then. Space, is as we've established, is a property of physical things.

 

[Beercules]

Now, as to the logic behind space as a fundemental property. I was going to show that space is a fundemental property of physical things, because any attempt to define a substance without it would lead to contradiction. In other words, certain properties such as density require space for definition, so to postulate the existence of such without it would violate the law of non contradiction. However, it seems we have at least come to an agreement on this point, although you have chosen to call this property "extension" instead of space. That is ok, because the property is still important regardless of what we call it.

If you accept that extension is indeed property of physical things, then it cannot be considered a mere abstraction. Instead, it is a fundemental property that physical things cannot be without.

So the next point is whether or not this property requires the existence of other properties, namely those of a superfluid, to form a substance first. I argue it does not, and that a physical substance is space with additional properties such as duration, curvature, etc. Logically however, there is no argument. While you cannot define a liquid-like substance without space, you can define space without fluid properties. Therefore, there are absolutely no logical reasons why any physical substance must include the properties of a liquid, gas or solid. The only properties necessary for physicalism, seem to be space and time. To call them mere abstractions, would be self refuting since any aether would also become an abstraction with a few tacked on properties.

 

[Nasor]

Man, this is like reading 'science' texts from the Middle Ages. I think this thread provides a pretty good example of why we stopped mixing serious research science with philosophy; you get crappy conclusions that conform poorly to reality.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Beercules
It does not mean solid, gas or liquid medium. If you want to argue otherwise, back it up with a single quote. Just one.

I never said that it did. I said that Sorce Theory uses a fluid medium to unify the forces. Also the equations which model the quantum vacuum are fluid equations.

Substance does not equal fluid, gas, or solid. The only meaning the applies here is the ontological definition of something with existence in it's own right.

ok and your point is?

Ok, fair enough. So..... where does Einstein support the notion that the new aether has anything to do with a solid, gas or liquid? He never did.

Right he never did and I never said he did.

Particles have size associated with their wave function. In quantum theory, you simply cannot have a particle without this associated wave function. So no, they do not support dimensionless "physical objects".

lol ok a zero-dimensional point particle has size because of an ad hoc tacked on wave function which is another mathematical abstraction.

Furthermore, the field does have physical properties, none of which require a liquid.

To unify the forces at the causal level it is required that substance is a fluid. You wouldn't understand this however because you know nothing of Sorce Theory.

Thank you. Extension and duration. Or, space and time.

Right, "space" and "time" are the modern abstractions of these attributes.

And extension, as you've already admited, is required for a physical substance to exist.

This is not a time-dependent phenomena. Extension is simply an intrinsic property of substance.

That was my whole point, and this extension is not an abstraction, but a fundemental property of the substance.

Obviously

However, you don't need any mention of liquid properties, compressibility or anything else to define a substance, as you've shown above.

and your point is?

That doesn't work. You cannot have a substance existing without the property of extension in the first place.

What first place? They are non-seperatable properties. Extension is meaningless without something physical to be extended and that something is meaningless without being extended. You cannot seperate them as you are trying to do.

However, you can logically define a space without any additional fluid properties. So from that, we can see that physical substances are spaces with additional properties.

You can logically define just about ANYTHING. This does not mean that it is physically meaningful.

That is more a problem with your own choice of meanings then. Space, is as we've established, is a property of physical things.

I established that extension was a property of all things, not space.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Beercules
Now, as to the logic behind space as a fundemental property. I was going to show that space is a fundemental property of physical things, because any attempt to define a substance without it would lead to contradiction. In other words, certain properties such as density require space for definition

Density can be defined entirely independent of space.

so to postulate the existence of such without it would violate the law of non contradiction. However, it seems we have at least come to an agreement on this point, although you have chosen to call this property "extension" instead of space. That is ok, because the property is still important regardless of what we call it.

"Space" conjures up in the mind an emptiness which does not apply to physical reality. For this reason I replace "space" with "extension" and your proof only shows that extension is a fundamental property of substance. I completely agree with this conclusion.

If you accept that extension is indeed property of physical things, then it cannot be considered a mere abstraction.

Right, extension is not a mere abstraction, but "space" is.

So the next point is whether or not this property requires the existence of other properties, namely those of a superfluid, to form a substance first. I argue it does not, and that a physical substance is space with additional properties such as duration, curvature, etc.

Lol. So you simply discard the fluidity and tack on whatever other properties YOU choose?

If we want to unify the physical model and the forces AND be consistent with the equations which model the quantum vacuum then we must understand "space" as being a physical fluid.

Logically however, there is no argument. While you cannot define a liquid-like substance without space

I most certainly can!

, you can define space without fluid properties.

Agreed. You can define it anyway you wish because you are not concerned here with matching the quantum equations nor are you concerend here with the unification of the forces and explaining the causality beneath the quantum equations. So go ahead and define it in any way you please.

Therefore, there are absolutely no logical reasons why any physical substance must include the properties of a liquid, gas or solid.

A logic consistent with the most efficient and comprehensive way possible to model reality DOES necessitate the aether to be a frictionless, compressible, fluid. You are simply unaware of this logic so you could care less about those crucial properties.

The only properties necessary for physicalism, seem to be space and time. To call them mere abstractions, would be self refuting since any aether would also become an abstraction with a few tacked on properties.

Lol, ok keep your insufficient ether and your hodge podge of incompatible forces and theories.

You can't say I never tried.

 

[Beercules]

You are just playing with semantics here. It doesn't matter what you want to call volume or space, be it extension or whatever else, as they have the same meaning. Once it's been established that space (or extension, so you don't have a heart attack) is a fundemental property of physical things, you cannot call it an abstraction. Really, there's no need for 2 pages of semantics.

That being established, there is no justification to call the gravitational field an abstraction when it has many of the same properties as any concept of the aether. To do so, on the basis of a few arbitrary additional properties, is a vacuous claim and not supported by any logic or reasoning whatsoever.

Now, if you want to claim that only a fluid like substance can unify the laws of nature, then that's another claim entirely. However, it would be a good decision to actually learn the different fields of physics before trying to unify them. Likewise, you cannot talk about matching the quantum equations with reality, when you don't even know what those equations are. So tell me about how your little aether theory unifies the forces of nature when you've actually taken the time to learn about the current theories.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Beercules
You are just playing with semantics here.

Sloppy semantics is the root of the problem with modern physics.

It doesn't matter what you want to call volume or space, be it extension or whatever else, as they have the same meaning.

But they don't have the same meaning to me. To most people "space" conjures an empty expanse of nothingness, but extension can be applied to ALL forms of matter. This root-level generality and semantic precision is key to a proper visualization.

Once it's been established that space (or extension, so you don't have a heart attack) is a fundemental property of physical things, you cannot call it an abstraction.

I say that "space" as used in Physics is an abstraction because it contains no substance and is basically a mathematical construct on which the physical properties are tacked on thus the properties have no physical substantiation. Space is therefore a much more abstract idea than substance.

That being established, there is no justification to call the gravitational field an abstraction when it has many of the same properties as any concept of the aether.

For the second time, I am not calling a gravitational field an abstraction. I am calling the theory of Relativity an abstraction and a false one at that!

To do so, on the basis of a few arbitrary additional properties, is a vacuous claim and not supported by any logic or reasoning whatsoever.

I have many books of supporting logic and reasoning that you are welcomed to read. In the end of your reading, provided that you understand the material, you will know the unified field theory.

Now, if you want to claim that only a fluid like substance can unify the laws of nature, then that's another claim entirely. However, it would be a good decision to actually learn the different fields of physics before trying to unify them.

I am not the author of this theory and the author has an amazing grasp on Physics having studied it for 60 or 70 years. I have a fair grasp but it is for the most part nonquantitative. But since I am not going to be a quantum accountant this understanding is good enough for now.

Likewise, you cannot talk about matching the quantum equations with reality, when you don't even know what those equations are.

I know what the equations say as we have previously discussed. I'll post some corroborating evidence for your convenience.

From G.E. Volovik in “The Universe in a Helium Droplet” .

“According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons, neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century. The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum.
“Among the existing condensed matter systems, the particular quantum liquid—superfluid 3He-A—most closely resembles the quantum vacuum of the Standard Model.

In “The Big Bang Never Happened” , Eric J. Lerner writes,

“... since the nineteenth century it’s been recognized that the equations of electromagnetism are almost identical with the equations of hydrodynamics, the equations governing fluid flow. Even more curious, Schrödinger’s equation, the basic equation of quantum mechanics, is also closely related to equations of fluid flow. Since 1954 many scientists have shown that a particle moving under the influence of random impacts from irregularities in a fluid will obey Schrödinger’s equation.
“More recently, in the late seventies, researchers found another curious correspondence while developing mathematical laws that govern the motion of line vortices—the hydrodynamic analogs of the plasma filaments .... The governing equation turns out to be a modified form of Schrödinger’s equation, called the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. [This equation is a central part of the study of ‘quantum liquids’ as well. The interesting coincidence is that it is a modified form of the equation describing the shell structure of an atom. How this fluid-dynamic shell gets quantized into the known electronic “orbits” is a key concept illustrated in The Orb and Sorce Theory.]
“Generally in science when two different phenomena obey the same or very similar mathematical laws, it means that in all probability they are somehow related. Thus it seems likely that both electromagnetism and quantum phenomena generally may be connected to some sort of hydrodynamics on a microscopic level. But this clue, vague as it is, leaves entirely open the key question of what the nuclear particles are. And what keeps them together? How can fluids generate particles? [This book will fill in these crucial gaps as well.]
“But the idea of particles formed from vortices in some fluid is certainly worth investigating. (This is a real return to Ionian ideas: the idea of reality being formed out of vortices was first raised by Anaxagoras 2,500 years ago!) …However, I think there are additional clues, some developed from my own work, which indicate that plasma processes and quantum mechanical processes are in some way related.
“First and foremost are Krisch’s experimental results on spin-aligned protons. Qualitatively, the results clearly imply that protons are actually some form of vortex, like a plasmoid. Such vortices interact far more strongly when they are spinning in the same direction-which is certainly the behavior Krisch observed in proton collisions. Because vortex behavior would become evident only in near-collisions, the effects should be more pronounced at higher energies and in more head-on interactions—again, in accordance with Krisch’s results.
“A second clue lies in particle asymmetry …. Particles act as if they have a “handedness,” and the simplest dynamic process or object that exhibits an inherent orientation is a vortex. Moreover, right-and left-handed vortices annihilate each other, just as particles and antiparticles do.”


I have heard from many sources, including Richard Feynman's lectures on physics that many of the basic equations are fluid-dynamic equations.

So tell me about how your little aether theory unifies the forces of nature when you've actually learned something about physics in the first place.

Don't give me that elitist bullshit. You are simply trying to justify your ignorance in your own mind by disqualifying my statements on the basis that I don't know all the equations of physics. If I were claiming to be the author of the theory then your claims would perhaps have some merit, but since I am simply a student, my qualifications do not apply to the theory itself. Would you discredit the Standard model just because it has students who are just beginning to understand its mathematics?

I have taught you several things in this thread. I know physics in many respects, better than you. I can see the standard model from the outside in comparison to another, more coherent model. From this view the standard model is a complete mess. It is really a testament to the ingenuity of mankind that the equations actually work in the absense of a causal understanding of what they actually mean.

Sorce Theory is very complicated. It has ten or so books, some of which number in the thousands of pages. It is not some little idea with no comparable complexity. It is a full fledged unified field theory just waiting to be fully fleshed out and simulated by the armies of physicists that currently waste their time on retro-fitting the standard model to the constant stream of suprising data. If they had a correct model to begin with this retro-fitting would be virtually unnecessary.

 

[Beercules]

Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren

But they don't have the same meaning to me. To most people "space" conjures an empty expanse of nothingness, but extension can be applied to ALL forms of matter. This root-level generality and semantic precision is key to a proper visualization.

As I said, it doesn't matter what thoughts are conjured up - they mean the same thing.

I say that "space" as used in Physics is an abstraction because it contains no substance and is basically a mathematical construct on which the physical properties are tacked on thus the properties have no physical substantiation. Space is therefore a much more abstract idea than substance.

Err no. "Space" in modern physics, is the extension, structure or volume of the gravitational field. The field is dynamic, and space is no longer the void Netwon imagined it to be hundreds of years ago.

For the second time, I am not calling a gravitational field an abstraction. I am calling the theory of Relativity an abstraction and a false one at that!

Learn the theory, then call it a false abstraction.

I have many books of supporting logic and reasoning that you are welcomed to read. In the end of your reading, provided that you understand the material, you will know the unified field theory.

Forget the books, you haven't presented a single logical argument that a substance must have fluid like properties to be real. That is the point of forums, not book recommendations.

I am not the author of this theory and the author has an amazing grasp on Physics having studied it for 60 or 70 years. I have a fair grasp but it is for the most part nonquantitative. But since I am not going to be a quantum accountant this understanding is good enough for now.

I have heard from many sources, including Richard Feynman's lectures on physics that many of the basic equations are fluid-dynamic equations.

So what? To boldly claim that these virtual particles can unify the forces of nature without knowing anything about the actual forces, is sheer idiocy.

Don't give me that elitist bullshit. You are simply trying to justify your ignorance in your own mind by disqualifying my statements on the basis that I don't know all the equations of physics. If I were claiming to be the author of the theory then your claims would perhaps have some merit, but since I am simply a student, my qualifications do not apply to the theory itself. Would you discredit the Standard model just because it has students who are just beginning to understand its mathematics?

In case you didn't notice, I made an attempt to keep the focus of this thread away from the technical aspects of any theory, and keep it focused on the ontological question I possed. I deliberately avoided replying to your ranting about the merits of the aether over relativity for a reason. After seeing how you made a complete embarassment of yourself on physicsforums.com, it is quite clear no discussions would be productive.

Forget Sorce Theory. It's your praising of this theory when you don't know what you're talking about that is nonsense.

I have taught you several things in this thread.

Yes, you have taught me that you are incapible of supporting an argument with logic or reason. I intended to keep the focus of this thread on the ontological aspect of space, but all you did this entire thread was hide behind semantics and praise your little favorite aether theory.

I know physics in many respects, better than you. I can see the standard model from the outside in comparison to another, more coherent model. From this view the standard model is a complete mess. It is really a testament to the ingenuity of mankind that the equations actually work in the absense of a causal understanding of what they actually mean.

Your actions at physicsforums (edit: See posts on http://physicsforums.com by the username subtillioN) leave you with no credibility whatsoever in regards to knowledge of physics. I don't debate creationists about evolution, and I don't debate physics with people with no education nor desire to learn about the subject matter.

You jumped into countless threads, attacking mainstream theories such as relativity while constantly making factual errors about them, even as many posters corrected you over and over again. Finally, the moderators got tired of your undeducated nonsense and started moving your silly posts to the crackpot section of the forum, and locking threads you had ruined. I see that a week later, you have rejoined with a new username, though it hasn't fooled anyone. Apparently the mods have noticed as well, Cracker.

So don't even try to waste my time with your idiotic rambling on physics. Since your ontological claim about substances have been shown to be nonsense, and discussing physics with you is pointless, this thread is finished.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Beercules
Learn the theory, then call it a false abstraction.

Ok, it is a false abstraction.

Forget the books, you haven't presented a single logical argument that a substance must have fluid like properties to be real. That is the point of forums, not book recommendations.

To be real? What is that supposed to mean? The point is that to unify the forces with causality a fluid substance is necessary.

So what? To boldly claim that these virtual particles can unify the forces of nature without knowing anything about the actual forces, is sheer idiocy.

What are you talking about? I never said anything about virtual particles and I DO know how the forces of nature work at the causal level and how they are causally unified, unlike you with your Standard Model and its fundamental dualities paradoxes and multi-fold mysteries.

In case you didn't notice, I made an attempt to keep the focus of this thread away from the technical aspects of any theory, and keep it focused on the ontological question I possed. I deliberately avoided replying to your ranting about the merits of the aether over relativity for a reason. After seeing how you made a complete embarassment of yourself on physicsforums.com, it is quite clear no discussions would be productive.

Embarrasment? What are you talking about? I am not embarrassed because I know that I simply stirred up the hornets nest by attacking personal belief systems with ACCURATE historical and physical FACTS and alternative models. Those people mobbed me with attempts to disqualify me, but their arguments were entirely based in the standard model and were inapplicable to Sorce Theory which goes well beyond the standard model. They simply gave up trying to discredit me when their attempts failed. The conclusion was simply that I am not an expert in the semantics or mathematics of relativity theory. So what? Why should I waste my time learning an irrelevant theory? I proved likewise that they were ignorant of the physical mechanisms of the forces and they were also ignorant of Sorce Theory. Ignorance is simply not a deterent for them to claim that Sorce Theory is incorrect. They claim MANY things in complete ignorance.

The author of Sorce Theory has studied Relativity Theory in quantitative and qualitative depth and has found many errors in the theory.

see http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Articles/4LP.htm for an example

Forget Sorce Theory. It's your praising of this theory when you don't know what you're talking about that is nonsense.

I do know what I am talking about. You simply have to discredit me in your mind so that you can safely ignore me.

Go ahead, ignore me and my claims without ever knowing what I am talking about.

So don't even try to waste my time with your idiotic rambling on physics. Since your ontological claim about substances have been shown to be nonsense, and discussing physics with you is pointless, this thread is finished.

Ok just give up like everyone else then because you don't need a causal unification of physics anyway.

BTW, the claim that I constantly made factual errors at physicsforums is unsupported. I challenge you to come up with a single factual error on my part.

Fosil-heads like yourself cannot be reasoned with. Your undying faith in your belief system prohibits any understanding of an alternate paradigm from ever materializing in your mind.

 

[Sefter]

What's aether?

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Sefter
What's aether?

The ancient spelling of "ether" which is simply space conceived of as a real physical substance instead of an absolute void filled with a mathematical coordinate system or probability equations.

 

[Sefter]

Thanks for clearing that up for me Mojo.

I don't know, I think it may be because it's what our body is forced to sense until it disappears.

 

[Mucker]

Yeah possibly Sefter.

I would say it's because it is seen as solid substance, and simply because it has a substance that can be touched and held.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Mucker
Yeah possibly Sefter.

I would say it's because it is seen as solid substance, and simply because it has a substance that can be touched and held.

With the recent observations of transverse waves in a superfluid, there is no longer any justification for the classical assumption that the ether is a solid. A fluid ether satisfies the Michelson and Morely experiments and ALL ether-based experiments as well as providing a physical substrate for the "wave-nature" of all matter and "space".

 

[Nasor]

Originally posted by sir Mojo Loren
A fluid ether satisfies the Michelson and Morely experiments and ALL ether-based experiments as well as providing a physical substrate for the "wave-nature" of all matter and "space".

Please explain how a fluid ether provides a physical substrate for the wave nature of matter. This ought to be entertaining.

 

[sir Mojo Loren]

Originally posted by Nasor
Please explain how a fluid ether provides a physical substrate for the wave nature of matter. This ought to be entertaining.

A wave is a propagating effect in a medium. Probability is not a medium and neither is the void.

Sorry but I don't have the time to entertain you further. If you really want to know the theory then email me and I can send you a pdf book.