Why an ether/aether?

[altonhare]

Instead of aether, I feel STUFF is better, every word in existance has already been assigned to something, and as I consider this whole subject should be treated in a fresh new way, with a new set of words to define it all, until that occurs STUFF covers whatever it is better ,imo.

Okay then. What does this word "stuff" refer to? What is the distinguishing quality/characteristic of stuff?

There is this basic attraction between the two opposites

By attraction are you referring to two objects moving closer to each other?

Opposite whats? What quality(ies) is/are opposite? Why does this lead to attraction?

with a definate flow from negative spin to positive spin

What is "negative" and "positive"? How can spin be negative or positive? Are you referring to CW and CCW spin? If not could you explain what you mean?

Then think of space spirralling into millions of points, and permeating right through the planet , but as it does because of the geometry involved of basically two inverted pyramids, it is turned into its opposite which then emitts out the opposite side of the sphere it entered.

How can space spiral? Is space a thing? What distinguishes stuff from space, or are they the same? What distinguishes things from stuff from space? What are we talking about?

What exactly do you mean by "point"?

Space enters a sphere, the earth, by spiraling through it? What does this have to do with light/gravity?

[davesmith_au]

In what particular, specific ways is the thread/chain similar to aether?

Both seek to explain things we can not, given our current understanding of the physical world.

Both are reliant on the postulation of something we can't see, feel, smell, touch or hear, and the effects of which we cannot currently explain with physics.

In many of your posts you claim that rope/chain hypothesis explains things better than the aether, thus the comparison is largely yours, as much as mine. So the only difference I see is one of nomenclature. That is, to call your hypothesis "rope/chain aether hypothesis" would be just as valid as your own title, because they both rely on something which we can not, with our current understanding of the physical world, explain. You appear to seek a distinction between your hypothesis and an aether theory which doesn't exist. It amounts to you trying to separate your hypothesis from all aether hypotheses, probably because the mainstream scientific world largely dismisses aether as some form of "crackpottery", "debunked" long ago.

I could go on, but that would just feed your constant derailing of valid criticism with calls for justification of each individual phrase of others, and your incessant call to "define terms" instead of answering the criticisms themselves. Most of the board speak English as their first language and your continual insistance on nitpicking nomenclature seems to indicate a basic misunderstanding of the language most of us learned in the home and at school.

My question to you would be, in what specific ways is the rope/chain different from an aether? - Apart from the obvious that these mysterious chains can pull as well as push, I see no difference, except the entanglement issue which seems to put an end to it anyhow.

I have yet to see a valid explanation of the "entaglement issue" if the ropes/chains are made from "stuff", that is, if they're existent by objectivist definition.

Have you actually seen any of my discussions about this? Other people have been satisfied with those answers.

You seem to not understand the meaning of "valid". Yes, I have read all of your discussions. Simply claiming other people have been satisfied does not make it so. And I am not "other people" and have yet to be convinced of any of your explanations for this. In fact, if I reall correctly, you seem to rely more on BG's explanation, which somehow has "solid" objects not behaving as "solid" any more, something I find, as I said, completely preposterous. So please undulge me, it won't take long I'm sure, and explain how solid objects can be connecting every atom in the universe with every other atom, without an entanglement issue arising. I really am eager to see a succinct and valid explanation. Were one forthcoming I may actually be able to get past my prejudice and look into the rope/chain hypothesis further, but this is hardly likely whilst you continue to skirt around the issue.

I'm not saying here that I subscribe to any particular aether theory either, but I do find the concept more pallatable than your ropes and chains.

Why?

How does the aether allow the earth to pull you toward it? Under rope/chain theory the reason is a direct result of the structure of the rope/chain itself.

Until you describe how something which we cannot physically detect can have "structure" I fail to see how your hypothesis is any different to anyone else's ideas. If indeed it "pulls" then, by your logic, it must have elements of physicality and solidity, so we should be able to detect it.

How does the aether allow a signal (light) to propagate rectilinear regardless of the motion of the observer/receiver? How can anything propagate rectilinear from A to B unless the signal propagates along a medium that connects A and B?

If you shoot a machine gun under water while spinning around will the bullets trace a rectilinear path? No they will not, even if the water is a "perfect" fluid.

If you wave your arms under water while spinning will the resulting motion "a wave" trace a rectilinear path? No, it will not, even if the water is a "perfect" fluid.

How do you explain the rectilinear propagation of light with this "fluid" model? I have not seen a satisfactory explanation in this regard. If you are going to ascribe to a fluid aether hypothesis you will need to justify this.

You are the one hooked on the idea of an aether having a purely "fluid" characteristic, not I.

I'm not saying here that I subscribe to any particular aether theory either, but I do find the concept more pallatable than your ropes and chains.

In case you missed it, I am not married to ANY type of aether theory, but I do find those which allow things to move without tying impossible knots easier to consider than one which does not. Again, if you are so concerned with scientific rigor and objective reality, please explain the entanglement issue to me and to others who may not yet be satisfied with your answers. So far, your chains seem to have a duality of existence where they can "pull" everything toward everything else, yet can magically slip past each other in the process. It is this facet of your hypothesis which both intrigues me and yet keeps me from considering it further.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[altonhare]

In many of your posts you claim that rope/chain hypothesis explains things better than the aether, thus the comparison is largely yours, as much as mine.

We use different words to refer to different theories. We say "rope/chain hypothesis" when we are referring to an elongated physical connection between each atom, continuous in the former case and composed of continuous links in the latter case. We say "aether" when we are referring to one of a few things, as the term shifts meaning slightly as you go from source to source and person to person. It has not, however, ever referred to anything like a rope or chain. In fact, in terms of macroscopic every day analogies, aether refers to something more like water and not to anything like a rope or chain.

You appear to seek a distinction between your hypothesis and an aether theory which doesn't exist. It amounts to you trying to separate your hypothesis from all aether hypotheses, probably because the mainstream scientific world largely dismisses aether as some form of "crackpottery", "debunked" long ago.

I don't "seek a distinction", I draw a distinction because they are distinct!

If you've read many of my posts you'd know I hold the mainstream scientific world in the absolute lowest regard. I have no desire to appease them or to distinguish myself or the theory I espouse from the "heretics" of the quantum and relativistic religious sects.

My question to you would be, in what specific ways is the rope/chain different from an aether? - Apart from the obvious that these mysterious chains can pull as well as push, I see no difference,

So you see no difference, except that there's an important difference?

An additional major difference is that, I believe, most aether theories distinguish between the aether and "the rest of matter". It's hard to really pin down the aether hypothesis on a point because it changes from person to person, but I believe the aether is "something" in which "normal" matter like protons "reside". I use a lot of quotations because I'm forced to explain the aether hypothesis largely tongue-in-cheek. In chain theory this is not the case, the atom is composed of chain and interconnected by it.

Yes, I have read all of your discussions. Simply claiming other people have been satisfied does not make it so. And I am not "other people" and have yet to be convinced of any of your explanations for this. In fact, if I reall correctly, you seem to rely more on BG's explanation, which somehow has "solid" objects not behaving as "solid" any more, something I find, as I said, completely preposterous.

If you've actually read my discussions you can't possibly think the latter. I have explicitly stated that chains never interact without consequence:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =90#p14397

The reason I did not type out the whole explanation immediately is because you claim to have read my discussions. So tell me what, specifically, is unsatisfactory? I feel I have explained the situation adequately, and others have not raised additional objections. What, specifically, do you find untenable? Do you understand my explanation of the structure and motion of an atom? Do you understand the explanation for gravitation I've given? If you understand them, where exactly is the flaw in logic in them? If you don't understand, what particular point is cloudy?

I am not trying to "skirt the issue". I have explained this as best I know how thus far and you say you've read it all. What point is there in retyping it? Tell me what your specific issue is and I'll explain as best I can!

You are the one hooked on the idea of an aether having a purely "fluid" characteristic, not I.

Granted, as I said, the word "aether" changes from person to person, experiment to experiment, millennium to millennium, etc. I do not know what you mean when you utter the word "aether" or what conceptualizations are in your head with regards to it. I am not personally "hooked" on a fluid aether, but for the sake of discussion I have to pick one model or the other and the fluid one seems popular.

Incidentally, although you criticize me for asking for definitions, this objection of yours is precisely based on us not having defined a word.

"Commonly used" is not a scientific criteria for a definition. In science, we define a word so that we can use it consistently. In science, when we want to know what an electron is, we don't ask an English major. In science, we hypothesize the nature/structure of the electron in some specific terms and then use the word "electron" consistently in our scientific discussion. We don't care if Merriam-Webster says it's a particle, a faerie, or my rear. Let the English majors worry about the non-scientific, common uses of a term for the purposes of everyday conversation. Let them worry about tidying up the slang, the culture, etc. We will be busy using our terms scientifically i.e. consistently.

[kevin]

Altonhare,
If I knew what stuff was , I may possibly know what your ropes are too.
by spin I do meam CW and CCW, I must learn more of the acronyms, sometimes on here it's like acronym city, here in rural T'england we are a bit behind.
I suspect space spins, because everything appears to basically follow the same method, just increases and decreases in scale.
But the STUFF appears to utilise spce as a carrier, it snakes aboutpossibly following the larger geometric pathways encoded in a system possibly bordered by a geometric shape.
It's too mind blowing to think it out and out, so what i find best is to stick to what part of that scale I am best suited to.
Then it's a case of thinking out the rest.
As we , as all living things are a consequence , and thus in a manner a scale of the system, both ourselves and the larger earth are clues and can interact with that which made us.
I consider we and the earth are both 3D and a higher dimension, occupying the same sphere in space.

By checking via dowsing that which is detectable about people and along the surface of the planet, you can build up a comparison picture, a scale model of what I conclude is simply mirrored outward and inward.

The duality of these flows of stuff do exhibit a handness, a chirality of spin where they spiral into vector points, and about people, I consider our arms and legs to be extensions upon the two main CWand CCW spin pathways of a torroidal nature about us, and that our palms and soles of our feet are similer to our eyes , except they are atuned to different signals that are possibly operating in a higher dimension.
sensitive odd balls such as myself for some reason , perhaps were throw backs?, are able to modulate to these other signals, at will.
All I can do is report as I find, I have little schooling as dyslexia rules, not an excuse just an explanation of the other realm I am best suited to operating in.
I do this freely and without any need for reward, just a sense that drives me onwards and upwards to better comprehend this wonderfull electrically driven universe.
At the moment in TIME , whatever that is, there appears to be information pouring into this other realm in abundance, a great and fabulous TIME to be here in 3D, dangerous as well, chaos looms large, but all things wither before they spring back up to flower again?
Kevin

[junglelord]

Clearly alton has never read the aether physics model
aether is quantum 2 spin rotating magnetic field.
mass is due to a 2-D circular string and is a dimension
energy is a product and not fundamental
primary angular momentum is fundamental
e- and photons exchange primary angular momentum
encapsulated by aether matter is made via tensegrity with angular momentum
the EU is a tensegrity which is all Bucky Fuller territory
Fuller Synergetics marries APM to BlazeLabs and TreeIncarnation perfectly
structure and function cannot be seperated at any level
non material is not non real
all structures spring from two sources not one
Aether encapsulates PAM
Aether is a RMF
PAM is not a RMF, nor does it have charge.
Aether has Charge and imparts it to PAM when it is encapsulated.
That is why a photon is not a EM. It is PAM. It is not encapsulated.

[altonhare]

If I knew what stuff was , I may possibly know what your ropes are too.

How can you base a theory on a word that is undefined?

Perhaps we should do away with words that have any preconceived connotation or standard meaning at all, and replace "stuff" with whatever symbol you choose Kevin, for the purposes of communicating your theory.

Replace "stuff" and "aether" and any other words you are unable to define with wholly unfamiliar symbols, that way nobody will have a preconceived notion of what you are trying to say.

[junglelord]

Far as I know ropes are made from either synthetic or natural materials woven by hand or machine.
Atoms make ropes, ropes do not make atoms.

[altonhare]

aether is quantum 2 spin rotating magnetic field.

But why does light appear to propagate rectilinear regardless of the motion(s) of the emitter and observer, while every other entity does exhibit this behavior?

mass is due to a 2-D circular string and is a dimension

But why, when I jump, do I come back down?

non material is not non real

What's the distinction?

[kevin]

Altonhare,
You demand I utilise an otherwise never before known symbol,

Then You use ROPES, many ropes are made from hemp, Hmmmmm?

Glad that You put appear in the question about light, have you not noticed how the light varies relative to the sun or moons positions?
If You could think of angle of field interactions, then you may glimpse the light, light is released on field interaction, therefore two opposing flow directions are changing the angle of opposing direction and the light released alters accordingly.
Those opposing flows are the flows of opposite spiral flows of STUFF aka aether.
It doesn't matter as yet what the dickens it is, it does what it says on the tin, it creates and equally dissolves.

The spiral pathways are the reason for the illusions of universe, you think the sun is moving, and the moon.
the moon is the biggest clue to the illusion, it appears to not spin, as do other moons of other planets, and it is illusion because of the relative geometry and how we see via the geometrical spirals pathways, and no matter where we the observer are in the universe we observe via the self same geometry, thus all the motion seems as is accepted now.
But in my STUFF universe, it is the STUFF moving, thus the mass it creates moves seemingly with it, there is no seperation between STUFF and mass, each mass has its own STUFF, but it's not the mass that came first, in a chicken and egg type way, but the STUFF, the STUFF is moving on the geometric pathways, but we cannot recognise the STUFF, so only view via the STUFF the mass.

Each person has his/hers own circulation of STUFF about them, you pass through each other when nearby someone, many can sense this if You get too near.
We think we look directly at another, but its via the circulating STUFF we see, not in an apparent linear line, often called eye to eye, no your eyes are doughnut shaped , scale models of the route the signals take, all our thoughts and information will be in the STUFF, not in our brains, that is merely the operating system, as people age , they forget, because the STUFF decreases in diameter, they forget how to remember, litterally every cell will forget what is, how to re-new, we are biological supported by STUFF.

We have been locked down into physical 3D reality, it's time to step out into where STUFF is king, and the band leader is Fibonacci, follow his sequence, STUFF does.
kevin

[altonhare]

Altonhare,
You demand I utilise an otherwise never before known symbol,

Then You use ROPES, many ropes are made from hemp, Hmmmmm?

Exactly the point. What matters is not the symbol I use, but what I mean by it. In particular, what matters is the STRUCTURE I am referring to.

With the rope, I am referring to the structure illustrated in BG's videos. With stuff, what structure are you referring to? How can we even talk about a theory of X when none of us have any idea what X is, what its distinguishing feature(s) or quality(ies) is/are?

If you translate the question "What is X made of?" you see that it means "What parts comprise X?". The answer with regard to the rope is that no other parts comprise it. The rope is a single piece, a single object. It is not made of parts. The rope is itself, it has a single distinguishing feature, shape. What is the distinguishing feature of stuff? Is it made of other parts? What do you call them and what is their structure? Are they made of other structures?

[kevin]

Altonhare,
Is your rope spiral wound?
What point of attachment on one object does your rope attach to, and what point on another does it attach to?
My spirals are multitudous, and attach to the surface at finite points, many ancient peoples have marked these points, often a single standing stone, or a totem pole etc etc.
They have left patterns inscribed in many of these of spirals and zig zags, and they exactly copy what the sun describes on precession.
I say that these spirals are in fact straight lines, but where straight lines cross straight lines, at specific angles and tilt, they thus produce spirals, and each of the attachment points are either positive or negatively charged, thus a pathway of least resistance is created, into the finite point, and out of the other side of that point is an exact opposite spiral, so two opposing vortexs meet at that point, there creation occurs into, and out of 3D
kevin

[altonhare]

Is your rope spiral wound?
What point of attachment on one object does your rope attach to, and what point on another does it attach to?

Light:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

The H Atom:

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

If a picture's worth a thousand words a good video is worth a million.

Kevin, you didn't answer any of my questions.

[bboyer]

<Snip>
If you translate the question "What is X made of?" you see that it means "What parts comprise X?". The answer with regard to the rope is that no other parts comprise it. The rope is a single piece, a single object. It is not made of parts. The rope is itself, it has a single distinguishing feature, shape. <snip>

Same could be said for the ǣther. What would preclude structure or shape varying in appearance/function while simultaneously retaining the essential character of remaining of a single, continuous "piece" or further "indivisible" or undifferentiated substance, which seems to be how you are characterizing your rope of "no further parts"? Personally, I'm of the opinion that the rope/string/thread/chain treatment of structure (perhaps even termed as ǣtheric structure) is likely one of the many valid structures of which this essential character of single "pieced-ness" manifests (perhaps somethink akin to woof and warp as in weaving), but not the only structure. If even such a base or fundamental homogeneity of identity (is that the correct objectivistic characterization?) would even be possible in the physical universe.

[kevin]

Altonhare,
Have I portrayed myself as an answering machine?
Dial in a question and demand an answer.
I don't know what STUFF is or what the neutral lattice structure is , or how it operates, that is part of my pathway, a quest to KNOW what is moving those bits of wire.
I thought it would be an easy quest, couple of weeks tops.
But this STUFF laughed at me, or definately smiled, you can sense the smile, it's recognition, don't you smile when you meet someone you KNOW?
Kevin

[altonhare]

<Snip>
If you translate the question "What is X made of?" you see that it means "What parts comprise X?". The answer with regard to the rope is that no other parts comprise it. The rope is a single piece, a single object. It is not made of parts. The rope is itself, it has a single distinguishing feature, shape. <snip>

Same could be said for the ǣther. What would preclude structure or shape varying in appearance/function while simultaneously retaining the essential character of remaining of a single, continuous "piece" or further "indivisible" or undifferentiated substance, which seems to be how you are characterizing your rope of "no further parts"? Personally, I'm of the opinion that the rope/string/thread/chain treatment of structure (perhaps even termed as ǣtheric structure) is likely one of the many valid structures of which this essential character of single "pieced-ness" manifests, but not the only structure. If even such a base or fundamental homogeneity of identity (is that the correct objectivistic characterization?) would even be possible in the physical universe.

Yes, the same *could* be said of the aether. So far the two structures I have seen are the "sea of particles" which means aether is like water or argon (but the constituents are continuous unlike water or argon) or the "glob" that proposes all atoms reside in a continuous blob which "is itself" i.e. not made of parts. These two structural hypotheses have particular shortcomings which the rope resolves, and the rope itself has a shortcoming which the chain resolves.

The particle aether suffers because it is completely incapable of justifying pull i.e. convergence. Since gravitation/attraction is an ubiquitous observation the particulate aether must imbue its particle with the ability to attract other particles at a distance. Essentially the hypothesis is doctored up until it has all the necessary properties to "explain" observations. In actuality it has no explanatory power. The fact that entities attract one another is an *observation* not an *explanation*. In physics we want to know why, we want the explanation. The rope/chain explains why entities attract each other, it does not tell you that they "just do".

Even if we accept that "particles just attract through a distance", an admittedly less parsimonious explanation than we'd like, particles fall completely flat in justifying why light seems to propagate rectilinear regardless of the motion of the emitter/observer. Discrete, separate particles don't do this by their very nature i.e. their structure. A rope justifies this behavior physically. The rectilinear path between the observer and the emitter is already established via the rope. In the case of gravity the rope hypothesis is more parsimonious. In the case of light the particulate aether is just plain impotent.

The glob hypothesis suffers because, first, we must conceive of how anything can move within a continuous object. If it is continuous then how can we displace "parts" within it, when it has no parts? This is wrong at worst and decidedly less parsimonious than we'd like. Second, how does the glob preclude atoms or other things from escaping it? Is the glob of aether continuously impoverished of non-aether objects? Assuming we can grunt past these touchy issues, how does a glob of material cause objects to attract each other? How does it justify the rectilinear propagation of light? Why would two objects present in a glob of material at a distance from each other move toward each other? We now have to imbue the aether with some extra properties to give it the explanatory power we'd like. As with the particle we wave our wand and let objects attract each other through this continuous yet deformable material in precisely the way we observe. Then we turn to light. We model light as a wave in the aether. But an emitted wave does not propagate rectilinear regardless of the motion of the emitter/observer either. Even in an "perfect fluid" or whatever. If A convulses in some way and lets loose a wave in the fluid similar to a wave in water, and B is moving relative to it, B will perceive the wave to propagate at a difference velocity than if B were relatively stationary. Again, the rope's structure directly justifies this behavior in a simple, parsimonious way.

Another hypothesis I've seen, which isn't aether, is Cotterell's theory of gravity. The hypothesis is an emitted spiral-shaped object. Gravity is proposed to function via an Archimedes screw mechanism. I have read the paper carefully and pointed out how, while inventive, the theory unfortunately fails because the claimed Archimedes screw mechanism is incompatible with the hypothesis. The Archimedes screw functions precisely because it spins *in place*. If the Archimedes screw were to move toward the water source, it would not transfer any water, it would be transferring itself. The emitted spiral of this theory is similar, it moves by translation to another atom. When it arrives at the atom it "sucks" the atom toward where it was emitted via the aforementioned mechanism. However, like I said, the spiral-object is moving itself.

I mention the third because it is the only hypothesis I have read and comprehended that sounds remotely similar to Kevin's, and I think Kevin likes to refer to his as aether also.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the rope/string/thread/chain treatment of structure (perhaps even termed as ǣtheric structure) is likely one of the many valid structures of which this essential character of single "pieced-ness" manifests, but not the only structure.

Yes, the rope and the chain are the hypotheses in a scientific theory. I am arguing (and have argued) that it is scientific to accept them because they have more fundamental explanatory power than any aether theory I've read (and comprehended). The basic issues I harp on like rectilinear propagation of light and gravity have not been explained in a simple, parsimonious way to this day. These are some of the simplest and oldest phenomena of physics. I don't propose that rope and chain theory are anywhere near being among the "last" theories of physics. But they are the most parsimonious explanations of heretofore largely unexplained basic phenomena of Nature.

My issue is not that the word "aether" is unscientific, false, heretical, etc. My argument is that the hypotheses Bill Gaede and I have put forth are wholly unlike anything called "aether" and possess more fundamental, parsimonious explanatory power.

I don't know what STUFF is or what the neutral lattice structure is , or how it operates, that is part of my pathway, a quest to KNOW what is moving those bits of wire.

Then you do not have a scientific theory. In science we hypothesize about the nature of things. We make a falsifiable statement about what X IS first! If you have not made an actual claim obviously you cannot be refuted and your so-called "theory" is unfalsifiable. This is patently unscientific.

To be right or wrong about something you have to actually make a claim i.e. have a hypothesis.