Relativity vs. Aether Theory

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

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby lizzie » Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:56 am

Is matter really just a different manifestation of aether?

http://www.supraconsciousnessnetwork.org/Intro2.htm

The theory postulates that as matter-energy is continually subdivided within the subatomic realm into smaller and smaller components, it eventually dissolves, or reduces to, the background of space to become part of it. It is suggested here, therefore, that matter is actually a very highly condensed form of space.
lizzie
Guest
 

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby davesmith_au » Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:06 am

Wow lizzie, you seem to be a research machine!! :mrgreen:

That's a compliment, not a dig. Your sirname isn't Gmirkin by any chance??? :lol:
Cheers, Dave Smith.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby junglelord » Sun Apr 13, 2008 12:01 pm

I agree and I would also like to thank our new member for keeping me so busy and also finding such gems.
Kudos to you lizzie.
:D 8-)

I cetainly can compare that link to the Aether/Scalar model and the way they talk about intelligence I can relate to Wilberts Smiths Aether model specificly and how they relate to his model of dimensions. Something most models do not do. Kudos to that view, as I too believe its impossible to leave consciousness out of the equation. I may get flammed for that but thats what I believe.
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby rangerover777 » Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:34 pm

The “Integrated Theory of Intelligence” seems like a nice try. It seems that
the author took upon himself an oversized challenge.

The general direction of glue all phenomenas under one umbrella is a good one.
Though when he start to mix different matters that cannot dissolved neither merge
within each other, there starts the conflicts.

Though the author tries to keep his options open as possible through the process,
he have to stop at mile stones and reveal his opinion.

For instance in the Big Bang Theory he fail to the common illusion of assuming
that something large as the universe have to start from something small (because
it’s still expending). That bring us to the way we view time. We experience time
in a linear way… excluding the possibility that cause and effect must occur in a
a certain chronological way, but in fact it’s not necessarily the case. For instance,
the assumption that the universe is expanding can be done by transformation of
a finer matter to denser one, but the finer matter was there all the time, we just
watching the denser matter (including solids through all the magnetic spectrum waves).
so we may call it the Transforming Universe, not necessarily the expanding one.

Now, you may ask where the finer matter came from ? Well, this is another
story of transformation of higher laws into a finer matter, or in other words
“Make something from nothing” which I tends to attribute to either God or
creatures that SUPPOSE to posses intelligence / consciousness or “Free choice”
(which human-being is among them). Simply when you have a free choice it’s
up to you to create your own thoughts, feeling and reflecting yourself into the
“future”. So if author ask whether inelegance or consciousness came after
the creation, the answer is “Creation cannot be done without a will”, whether
it’s the “Chorological Universe” which is God creation, or your choice of what
you going to do next. It all start from a finer matter going down the “ray of creation”.

We as human cannot (or not there yet) view how one law can be express itself
within the next “grade of laws” down to the next grade and so on.

I had not finish reading this theory (which have interesting aspects). So there
may more to come.

Cheers
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby rangerover777 » Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:51 am

Sorry to interrupt the legendary aether. If you would consider that the Atom is
made of orbiting N & S individual magnets and a common core (Neutral Particle
of Matter), you already have 75% the answer to the aether.

Magnets fill the universe, they travel billions of light years in a blink of an eye
(this my assumption, I'll get to that in the next posts). All the waves are made of
N & S magnets running in different speed and different combination, including
the visible light, though light carry the NPM with it and become matter.
Gravity is made of N & S magnets, Heat happen when N & S individual magnets
are too crowded very close together in a medium/space/object, so their natural
way is to expand the medium they reside in (including the atoms that held by
magnetic connections) and expand.

Then you will have your aether in it’s naked form. And the aether finally will be an
integrated part of the universe, unfortunately it will loose it’s name, since it’s made of
magnets and not aether…

My point is, if you start from the right place with the right particles - the sky is
your limit, otherwise you will have to keep inventing names and theories…

The funny thing is that no one even consider this model (by the way it’s not mine,
it belong to Ed Leedskalnin). And the reason are clear : all physics literature will
have to be rewritten (it will cost more then the Iraq war), too many Egos will have
to “eat their hats”, the public will start to question the integrity science, it may open
the door for free energy and basically it will look like a global avalanche of fresh air.
or, you would be expelled…

Hopefully some brave scientists will check this model one day…

* by the way, everything that grow in the universe do that through transformation
of matter/food/energy, so why the Big-Bang is expending without any food ???

Cheers
Last edited by rangerover777 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby junglelord » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:10 am

Let me take a stab at something here that has been running through my mind.
We need a list of short comings of the standard model in very simple form.
We also need a list of Aether theory models and their varying answers to these short comings.
Then we just see what we come up with as far as concencus of majority of new paradigm on each short coming of the standard model with the Aether models replacement concencus theory and see if we can make a new one that is a combination of the ones out there at present.
How does that sound?
Group Hug.
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby junglelord » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:18 am

Standard Model Pit Falls
1. Light (What is a photon? Is light more then one particle and how does it propagate through space?)
2. Gravity (what is it and is it a primary force?)
3. Wave/Particle Dual Nature Matter (Seems to leave us with no clear answer to the reality of matter)
4 Relativity and QM do not balance (If we cannot marry them then someone needs a divorce! I believe this is where the Aether comes in to play)
5. Strong Force (gluons are a article of faith in the standard model)
6 Weak Force (is the Weak Force explained properly for the proper reasons?)
7 EM (what is the proper and complete theory!)
8 Dimensions (how do we define them and how many do we need?)
9 Sub Atomic Particles (are they a point particle? Do quarks really explain the sub atomic nuceli?)
10 Dark Matter/Energy (do they exist? If so then what is it as their seems to be various interpertations on this term between the standard model and Aether models and proponents of the EU do not like that term!)
11 Spin/Anglar Momentum (what is it and how can we define it?)

About now I feel like I already fell off the cliff (feel like a lemming after all these years) forget Pitfall, or yes I was caught in a trap. Lets see if we can find some firm ground!
There I think I am done with the edit function...
:lol:
Last edited by junglelord on Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:45 am, edited 8 times in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby junglelord » Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:24 am

I would like to throw in another idea in the above list
12 Creation of Matter (Big Bang aside does is matter created in any other way?)

Aether Theory Models for our consideration. Please add to the above list and or this list in your post and lets see what we find out.

Aether Physics Model
http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/index.html

Scalar Field Hydromagnetic Model Theory
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=47_ ... sublevel=0

Aetherometry Model Theory
http://www.aetherometry.com/index.html

Space/Vortex Model Theory
http://www.tewari.org/

Tempic Field Model Theory
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:NOd ... cd=3&gl=ca
http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/Theory.htm

Tesla Group Theory
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowl ... round.html
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby rangerover777 » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:38 am

Thanks Junglelord for your response, the questions and the links.

Allow me to offer a way to deal with the questions you posed :
1. In order to be productive and accurate, it would be nice to start from a common
ground, that means to agree on the building blocks of all these phenomenas you
mentioned.
2. Start to test and experiment with the building blocks (maybe we have the wrong ones…).
3. Once the BB where established, start building sub-models (atom structure, electricity,
gravity, light, radio waves, moon/earth relations, etc.).
4. Needles to say that some models could not be figured out without other models.
5. Expend to other sub-models in astronomy, biology, geology, botanic, physics branches, etc.
6. All the way stick to : math, logic, simplicity, elegancy and honesty (funny, that in order to
be a real scientist, you need to start with the human part of you…)

It may sound too easy, though it’s not that hard as it sound.

Now to the wild side :
Even though I went through many tests, that showed me how S & N individual magnets
are at the base of some phenomenas, it would be nice to hear other explanations to the
results of these tests.

I think that the means which the exploration is done, is no less important then the results.
In other words, you can drawn in the sea of information available today, or you can start
from the beginning, using only parts of other researchers theories (Tesla, Maxwell, Maury, etc.),
but just the relevant parts. And that require courage more then anything else…

Just a small remark : personal opinion (whether is right or wrong) worth more then any
links to other website or theories “outside of yourself”…

Cheers
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby junglelord » Mon Apr 14, 2008 7:58 pm

I think the N/S magnet is just another way of looking at the matter/antimatter pair which is really the same difference.
Which is therefore another agreement about a new and logical way to try to solve the problems mentioned when talking about photons and subatomic particles.

As far as rebuilding the model from the ground up I am not sure we need to go that far (throw out the baby with the bathwater) on the standard model and relativity, QM, possiblly I see the need to review String Theory (but I think Ed Whitten is the smartest math man in the world and certainly is nothing to discount and actually very very closely follows APM), but we need to review the need for exotic matter and energy (dark matter/energy) and the creation of matter from a Big Bang. I think we could all agree on that...but maybe not.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby rangerover777 » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:45 pm

Thanks Junglelord for your comments,

Before going to matter / antimatter, I would try to figure out the atom,
since it’s an important building block of matter. Now textbooks claim that
it’s made of a protons, orbiting electrons and some newly discovered particles.
So we need to go even one more step back - to the electron (you can read some
of my former posts, to avoid me to repeat my arguments).

My best advice to you, is to perform some of Ed’s experiments (not in your head
but in reality), that may self-explain you the non existence electrons and the logic
behind N & S magnets that make electricity.

Sorry to repeat that question again, but how do you explain, that electricity that made
by a generator occur when S & N pole magnets revolving around copper wire coil,
which inducing the coil with particles. Those particles run from the coil to the wires
that carry them to the electric motor. During that, both the copper wire coil and the two
wires suddenly show magnetic field (when those particles passing through). When these
particles comes inside the motor they produce alternating magnetic fields that rotate the
motor, so what goes in, what goes through and what goes out - you call electrons ???

Same story with a battery. Take for instance the old Zinc/Acid batteries. When the acid
taking apart the zinc, N & S magnets are coming out as DC currents, you can test it and
verify that for yourself. It have nothing to do with any theory - it’s a fact.
After that ask yourself, where are the protons and the electrons went (if nothing left from
the zinc) ?

Now if you will allow yourself for a brief moment to use this model of magnets at the base
of the atom, then it will make sense that gravity effect any matter (gravity is two stream
of N & S magnets running in the same direction (they don’t have attraction, unless they
run one current against another, like in electricity)). And if you think gravity have to do with
mass or density, so go there and find what this mass is made of and how it operate, and you
may reach to the same conclusion…

After doing most of Ed’s tests I’m not so naïve about electricity, although these tests are
only the beginning, there is much more to figure out, but at least I believe I have sound base.
Hopefully a new book will be published soon that will translate Ed’s tests to a much more
“user-friendly” language w/ drawings, that a 7th grade student could understand.

If you think our common ground should be different, please explain.

Thanks
rangerover777
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:28 pm

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby junglelord » Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:41 am

I was lead to believe that Einstein did not believe in the aether and that relativity had killed it.
The APM webpage has shown that he is often misquoted and not well understood.
Albert Einstein, an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
Ether and the Theory of Relativity
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
Way to go Einstein, your back at the top of my list.
:D
Everyone that misquoted him and misunderstood him and led all of us down the wrong road, I will forgive. The aether is not dead and is needed.
:lol:

I will get back to you on the N/S magnet model soon. I do have a problem with that way of explaining it and the number one would be gravity is just a N/S Magnet....then why is it so hard to design a antigravity machine if its only a magnetic field itself? Seems to me if that was correct we would have been flying on hoverboards years ago.
;)

Have you read the work of Howard Johnson the father of spintronics on the secret world of magnets>
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintro ... rd-Johnson
which would agree with the work you cited and the two currents as Howard says the same thing, infact if one looks closely there are always two currents...never just one.

One common concensus with the Aether Model group is that they all say gravity is a Longitudinal Scalar Wave, either a closed field line, or a superposition of two primary fields, or a quantum unit itself, but dispite the different refined ideas the general concensus is that it is a longitudinal scalar wave. I can buy that. That would explain why it is so hard and expensive to make a antigravity device. You cannot cancel it out, which would not be the case if it was a N/S magnetic pair. But it can be bent with the longitudinal model, but never canceled. I think that would make valid sense and would refute the N/S model which would allow total cancelation.

As to the photon, the electron and the subsequent atomic nuceli the matter/antimatter pair (which is a N/S idea) is the common concensus again with the aether group about fundamental building blocks of matter combined with spin or angular momentum. I think the terminology may be more in line with your theory then out of line. The electron is negitive, the positron is positve and the matter/antimatter pair construct all the matter we see as a vortex pair in different geometric configurations. I spent a lot of time on this at this thread link.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 05&start=0
Last edited by junglelord on Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby kevin » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:13 am

Instead of trying to quantify the ether as one object, consider it is a collection of objects acting symbiotically with each other.
As an example, look at how a mig welder works ( metalic inert gas ) you have to have an high frequency signal forming a pathway, or else the high amperage current just flicks all over the place.
Similer but different providing first a pathway, then another following the pathway.
So its not an either or neither ,its a collection.
kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby lizzie » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:18 am

Steven Rado - Aethro-Kinematics
http://www.westworld.com/~srado/

All Prevading Aether:

Aethro-Kinematics renders an alternate mechanical solution for the polarization of light. Thus, it reinstates Faraday and Maxwell's gaseous model of the Aether and resumes the original task of exploring all 'action at a distance forces' as fluid dynamical behavior of the all-pervading Aether. -- In Aethro-Kinematics, Aether is taken as an all-pervading gas at an ultra-microscopic order of magnitude. The constituents of this medium, the 'Aethrons', are in constant random motion with perfectly elastic collisions, analogous to the atoms of an ideal gas. -- This system obeys the simple laws of the Kinetic Theory of Gases.

Magnetism:

Aethro-Kinematics extends and widens Faraday's ideas. For example, it demonstrates that a perforated pipe with a fan in its middle creates a circulation in the surrounding medium similar to a magnetic field. When two such 'fan magnets' are placed in proximity to each other they behave like ordinary bar-magnets, exhibiting attraction between unlike poles and repulsion between like poles.

Electricity:

Aethro-Kinematics reinstates the gaseous model of the all-pervading Aether and further develops Faraday's and Maxwell's Aether theories, suggesting a new kinematic theory for the relationship between Electricity and Magnetism. One of the new fluid-dynamical examples is the 'water-battery'.

Gravity:

Aethro-Kinematics explains Galileo's Principle, Huygens' centripetal acceleration, Kepler's Laws of planetary motion, Newton's gravitational attraction and the origin of rotational gravitation using a single fluid-dynamic theory of the Aethereal Sink-Vortex.

Relativity:

Aethro-Kinematics uncovers the fundamental misconception that the Earth moves relative to the Aether and reinstates Descartes' original theory that the Earth and the planets are carried within the gigantic Aether-vortex of the Sun.

Since there is no relative motion between the Earth and Aether, the Michelson-Morley experiments cannot show anything but 'Null-results'. The measured speed of light on Earth must be the same in all directions. -- Thus, the relativistic postulates and their mathematical machinery are superfluous and wrong.

Quantum Theory:

Based on the ideal gas model of the Aether, AETHRO-KINEMATICS renders a conceptual explanation why Planck's mathematical sculpturing works, and why the discontinuity of energy, or 'Quantum', became one of the fundamental theories of physics.

The Photon:

Aethro-Kinematics renders an alternate solution to the enigma of the Photoelectric and Compton Effects and re-establishes the clearly mechanical compression wave nature of light in the Aether. Planck's Quanta fits into this theory in a different way, giving the quantitative expression for the elastic nature of the Aether.

Matter-Waves:

Aethro-Kinematics tears down both dualisms!

In the all-pervading ideal gas of Aether all moving chunks or particles of matter create waves just like a fish or a boat in the water. When particles are driven through a narrow slit the reflecting Aether-waves destruct their straight line paths. This is the real kinematic cause of the diffraction of electrons.

The Big Bang:

Aethro-Kinematics presents an alternate solution of a non-expanding, non-exploding, non-Big-Banging cosmos; a simple Rotating Universe. The theory also clarifies the real kinematics of the Doppler-shift of light-waves in Aether and explains how the whole phenomenon of 'cosmic red-shift' is produced in the prisms of Earthly laboratories.

Understanding Nature:

Aethro-Kinematics is simply an attempt to resurrect intuition, logic and common sense in the pursuit of UNDERSTANDING NATURE.
lizzie
Guest
 

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby junglelord » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:28 am

Boyd Bushman-Skunkworks Scientist
Nature does not speak english. Mother Nature tells us what must be honoured, and has been talking to us on many domains and we have datasets we are still trying to understand but I cannot talk to theorist because there are no theories where we are.

What we have is wonderful and comes from miracles occuring. But that what you see will not be that what we have.
To listen where languages are not taught and verbilization is not used but we must learn its language.

I am working on something that all you have to do is charge it and it begins to lose weight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEMbZEacaw


notice he says losing weight...not canceling gravity. Thats why I say gravity is not a N/S arrangement.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests