Apologies, meant to say "to show that the subject matter wasn't off
Now, I was away for bit from the forum studying and what not. I'm chatty as of late because I'm simply sharing some of the concepts gathered over that period. It'll wear off in a few hehehe... This is the only place I can get these things out of my system so I'm just 'unloading' as it were.
I have another question. I'm a little bewildered by the persistent notion that either the aether is 'solid-like' or that it is 'fluid-like'. Harold Aspden is one of two that I currently know of who suggest that it can display both properties according to the situation. He placed this page up to describe:
What you see is a lattice like array of electric charges, all identical, immersed in a uniform background continuum of opposite charge polarity. Overall the aether is electrically neutral. Its properties are akin to those of a fluid crystal. When matter is present the electrical action of its charge components can cause the lattice to form a frame of reference locked to the matter frame and this can move bodily with that matter. This forms boundaries between lattice regions in relative motion. The fluid crystal property then asserts itself as the lattice charges at the forward boundaries dissolve into the fluid background only to reappear at the trailing boundary. This is a version of the aether that was no considered by the aether theorists of the 19th century. It structure determines the most important dimensionless constant in physics, namely the one which connects the speed of light with the electron unit of charge and the quantum of action we associate with radiation. - Harold Aspden
In relation to his "fluid crystal" analogy consider the action or statement "The fluid crystal property then asserts itself as the lattice charges at the forward boundaries dissolve into the fluid background only to reappear at the trailing boundary."
Compare this with The Plasma Crystal Experiment
Plasma Crystals form under certain conditions in a complex ('dusty') plasma. There, the electrically charged dust particles arrange in a regular macroscopic crystal lattice.
When you hover your mouse over the photo showing the plasma crystal at the top right of the page. It changes to the lattice form under ideal conditions as can be seen in this actual photo here
These melamine-formaldehyde spheres arranged themeless this way and appear to be electrostatically suspended and balanced. On the page "PKE Nefedov More Results (3)
" there is an .avi linked. which you've probably seen.
A puff of air was injected into the chamber and the .avi shows the interaction. If you watch it you'll see that as the "void" caused by the puff of air moves around within the initially ideal lattice array "the lattice charges at the forward boundaries dissolve into the fluid background only to reappear at the trailing boundary.
Although I'm not quite sure what Aspden means by "dissolve" this .avi is the closest I've seen to what he describes. If you'll also notice towards the last 4 seconds or so, as the "void" (equipotential surface) settles down look at the spheres beneath the "void". They are 'compressed' and 'displaced' from the original state of equilibrium i.e. they form a "field" of greater density and compactification than their original balanced state.
This, because the "void" - analogous to an object - resides in the "space" of the original equilibrium.
Barring any phase-transitions that may occur once some critical value is reached what does one say? That it is a "field" within a larger "field"? To me, the presence of an object within the aether acts in similar fashion just as Aspden suggest. Such that its qualities are neither "solid" nor "liquid" but a 'phase-state' that can display both qualities as opposed to being limited to the early 19th century constraints.
Just as surely as plasma is now recognized as the 4th state, and a Bose-Einstein Condensate is hovering around being called a 5th state, what is it that limits us to the consideration of other potential states that do not meet rigidly established 'standards'?
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden