Secrets of the Aether, Questions and Answers

[volantis]

"The cause of creation" is an invalid question. Creation has only one non contradictory meaning. The permutation of existents into new arrangements bringing new emergent identities. The idea of something from nothing is in the "not even wrong category" and the basis for the invalidity of NMC.

I disagree. You are in the category of pontificating what is reality and what is not. Let's leave belief out of the discussion. Your personal beliefs are not scientific truth.

The rest of your post is even less worthy of a response. You wanted a discussion on the science and you drove off in the direction of personal philosophy. I don't have time for endless and unfounded arguments. You completely clipped out the foundation of my work, which is the identification of the distributed charge dimensions and two types of charges. Every point of mine that had solid scientific foundation was missing in your reply. Only tiny clips of what I wrote, which were not indicative of my work, were picked at in your response.

[volantis]

This is exactly what my statement contended. "every single example given by proponents involve a relationship amongst objects."

That is a silly conjecture. By default, all material objects are referred to in reference to material objects. However, the mind that perceives the objects is non-material. So we could say the world is an illusion because it always requires a non-material mind to perceive it. This, too, would be silly.

In reality, non-material and material existence coexists. There is no objective reality to measure if there isn't a non-material mind that wants to measure it. There is no physical object if there is no non-material space for it to exist in. There is no way to perceive a physical object unless there are non-material behaviors of the objects (such as motion, resistance, luminosity, temperature, potential, current, length, time, etc).

You keep pretending that only physical reality exists and your illogical reasoning is that only physical objects are real, and therefore non-material objects (Aether units, magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, gravitational fields, solitons, and p-holes are examples of non-material objects) can't be real because they are not physical objects.

Your conjecture that only physical objects are real is patently false.

[Plasmatic]

"The cause of creation" is an invalid question. Creation has only one non contradictory meaning. The permutation of existents into new arrangements bringing new emergent identities. The idea of something from nothing is in the "not even wrong category" and the basis for the invalidity of NMC.

I disagree. You are in the category of pontificating what is reality and what is not. Let's leave belief out of the discussion. Your personal beliefs are not scientific truth.

The rest of your post is even less worthy of a response. You wanted a discussion on the science and you drove off in the direction of personal philosophy. I don't have time for endless and unfounded arguments. .

First if you dont like responding then dont. Its simple ignore me while I exercise my privelige of expressing my own interpretation. There no pretense of force here!

For your information NMC ,MC and the origin of existence are ALL in the category of the science of metaphysics/Ontology.This is the first branch of Philosophy.

This is where modern physics had better start evaluating because there are those who understand this and it wont be long before the productivity of those who do will be quite obvious!

You completely clipped out the foundation of my work, which is the identification of the distributed charge dimensions and two types of charges. Every point of mine that had solid scientific foundation was missing in your reply. Only tiny clips of what I wrote, which were not indicative of my work, were picked at in your response

No I didnt it was addressed when I said:

By the way ,can we dispense with the obvious because everybody here knows the SM is flawed.It is my contention that you make the very same conceptual misintegrations that caused the SM error....
Your definitions of "dimension","charge",and "structure" need to be examined first! You havent passed this preliminary stage.But this is exactly the problem with those whom you claim to be correcting.

Your use of "charge" is included. In fact this is the very area you claim needs to be addressed first.

"First principles" come first dont they! Your comments are bordering on hypocrisy.

That is a silly conjecture. By default, all material objects are referred to in reference to material objects. However, the mind that perceives the objects is non-material. So we could say the world is an illusion because it always requires a non-material mind to perceive it. This, too, would be silly.

What you call "conjecture" is based completely on ubiquitous observations.By the way this pertains to the science of epistemology! The same misintegration again. You CANNOT point to a single example of "consciousness" that is not a result of material primaries in a specific relationship causing an emergent attribute pertaining to the primary entity.. A secondary dynamic relationship that depends on material primaries but divorced from them. This is called reification.
Concepts again divorced from percepts.

In reality, non-material and material existence coexists. There is no objective reality to measure if there isn't a non-material mind that wants to measure it. There is no physical object if there is no non-material space for it to exist in. There is no way to perceive a physical object unless there are non-material behaviors of the objects (such as motion, resistance, luminosity, temperature, potential, current, length, time, etc).

More of the same reification.

You keep pretending that only physical reality exists and your illogical reasoning is that only physical objects are real, and therefore non-material objects (Aether units, magnetic fields, electrostatic fields, gravitational fields, solitons, and p-holes are examples of non-material objects) can't be real because they are not physical objects.

Wrong I am NOT saying this at all [exept for Aether units]

Understand me here now. I am not saying that secondary relationships do not exist! Consciousness exists it is NOT however a "primary" or an "object". Actions, attributes, relationships are All derivative secondary existents of objective primary entities .

Entities are causal primaries, relationships are derivitive thereof. All are existents!. NMC is an invalidated by uibiquitous observations.

Your conjecture that only physical objects are real is patently false.

Your assertion that I claim this is baseless and false!

[junglelord]

I have Alton and Plasmatic on Foe.
It makes them disappear.
Try it, as your explainations are really great, but the personal bias that they present is trolling, not rebuttal.

Additional guidelines to 'best practice' posting:

Personal or ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated, under any circumstances. If you disagree with something which has been posted, address the post, not the poster.

Rules & Guidelines

[altonhare]

Why should I limit myself to the limited concept of physics? How do you know that physics is the only, or even the best, way to understand the Universe? Your physics will, at best, only tell us the how of things; I'm more interested in the why.

What does naming "what everything is made of" teach us about existence, then? What does it teach us about why? This is not a bait, if you've been critically evaluating and thinking for 40 years I'm all ears.

[altonhare]

Since Alton had nothing to say, I have nothing to respond to. However, I can address your comments.

You must have missed my post:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =75#p14158

The fundamental word of APM here defined in the paper by the quantum aether physics institute:

A dimension, as defined here, is a non-material, measurable quality relating to the foundation of existence and being.

What I get from this is that dimension is a quality... A quality of what though? The author states that it is "related to the foundation of existence and being" but what actually IS a dimension? This is like asking for the definition of "tall" and someone saying "it's a quality related to size". It begs the question "What does it tell you about size? Thick, fat, skinny, wide, long, vast, tiny?" This is not a definition, it's a cop-out, an evasion. They evade using the word "object" because they could never define object in a non self contradictory way.

Your most fundamental definition says nothing. We can formulate mathematical correlations all day long. That's what the standard model is.

Science is not about having a preconceived notion and then trying to prove it.

This is more or less what we do in science. We formulate a hypothesis (a set of assumptions) then try to explain what we observe with it. If we cannot explain observations with it we formulate a new hypothesis (set of assumptions). That's the scientific method. The first thing we do is define our terms (this is where APM fails). Then we present the object(s) or model(s) of it/them involved in the theory. If there is/are no object(s) in the theory then what is happening?

-------

-------

Figure one. A "theory" with no objects.

-------
O
-------

Figure two. An object that may form the basis of a theory.

I discovered that all charge should always be distributed, and not distributed in some units and single dimension in others.

Charge is an observation. We do experiments, make specific observations (these tend to move away from each other, these tend to move towards each other, these just bounce off). As a convenience we refer to the former two observations as "charge" and the latter as "chargeless" or "neutral".

So the word or the mathematical expression for "charge" is not what we are primarily interested in, in physics. We are interested in the structure of A and B that causes them to repel/attract/neither. A and B must have some kind of structure. If they don't then you have a theory of nothing (see figure one).

When adjusting the equations of physics to correct these errors, we arrive at a meaningful Unified Force Theory, quantification of ground state binding energies from first principles, and a geometric (structural) understanding of Aether and the matter that resides in it.

A mathematical correlation is not a physical explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFu5BlJClYI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4iFCu4ih10

Further, we have abundance of evidence proving that matter is indeed being created constantly.

This illustrates why definitions are so important. What physicists measure is inertial mass in these experiments. The degree to which an object resists motion can be modified by its environment and interactions. No matter has to be "created".

Yet, Halton Arp has provided abundant evidence that new galaxies are generated constantly without sucking matter from the host galaxy.

Reference please?

Actually, abundant scientific observations support my view that matter has a non-material cause, and disproves the preconceived view that it does not. The fact that matter is observed to be created in a laboratory is proof that matter has a non-material cause.

Again, this stems from the assumption (preconceived notion) that measurement of inertia directly indicates quantity of matter. If this assumption is invalid all of these experiments must be reinterpreted.

Wouldn't it be irrational to deny matter has non-material cause when it is observed in the laboratory?

-----------
0
-----------

Figure three. Physics as the study of objects/material.

-----------

-----------

Figure four. Physics as the study of no-objects/non-material

If we can discard the inertia=quantity assumption and go back to figure three, i.e. studying something instead of nothing, why not?

Physics is about measurements and equations.

Mathematical correlations are not physical explanations! We can go into the forest and count alive/dead deer and derive a mathematical function for deer over the year. We can tell the hunters when to hunt. But it doesn't tell us WHY the deer live/and die. Physics is about WHY.

In physics we don't count deer/beans/etc. We explain.

The fact is subatomic particles have half spin.

The reason such a silly conclusion has been drawn is because of modern physics' refusal to discard the particle hypothesis. They cling to it by modeling particles as points in their equations but then interpret the equation as a wave of something (what's waving, usually they say particles, which themselves are waves... etc.).

Without a hypothesis (an assumed structure) the experiments indicating subatomic particles have "half spin" cannot be interpreted. Disregarding structure and/or clinging to the point particle has led physics down its current blind alley.

The fact is that subatomic particles behave as both a wave and a particle.

Right, this is how they *behave*. Our job as physicists is to explain WHY we observe this, not to simply accept a paradoxical contradiction and move on correlating data with equations.

Chain theory justifies the "wave nature" of matter in addition to gravitation, magnetism, and light. It does this physically, i.e. in terms of physical causation. It doesn't resort to positing "nothing".

Mere common sense tells us that something with these bizarre properties cannot have a material cause, but must have a non-material cause.

Really?

---------

---------

Figure five. A non material "cause".

The argument of the critics should not be, "but we always thought it was this way!" The argument of the critics has to address the scientific methods and conclusions used in the Aether Physics Model.

The arguments should be "How can we explain this observations instead of just correlating them mathematically?" If APM is the best mathematical correlation to date because you noticed a new model captured observed behaviors more closely, I believe you. But we can't explain observations in terms of "what" is in figure five.

If nerds like AltonHare think they can read the titles of the paper and attack a few sentences they didn't understand and claim they have debunked the APM, they are foolish amateurs who are not worth the time to respond to.

An immediate insult AND dismissal. The same behavior displayed by physicists of the establishment who want to silence critics whose arguments they can't refute.

Your personal beliefs are not scientific truth.

What is scientific truth then?

However, the mind that perceives the objects is non-material.

In reality, non-material and material existence coexists.

There is no objective reality to measure if there isn't a non-material mind that wants to measure it. There is no physical object if there is no non-material space for it to exist in. There is no way to perceive a physical object unless there are non-material behaviors of the objects (such as motion, resistance, luminosity, temperature, potential, current, length, time, etc).

------------

------------

"Something" non-material.

[altonhare]

This is Aether Q & A. I have Q's that have not been given A's.

Junglelord has declared that the aether is particulate. Particles only bounce off each other because push is a divergent force. However convergence (pull) is ubiquitous in nature. Junglelord repeatedly states that the aether justifies pull but does not state how. How can two discrete objects converge?

0 0

0 0

0 0

Now the particles stick to each other? Why? Even more compelling are the motions of the planets. Why don't they fly off into space? If aether is particulate the planets would not circle the sun as we observe, they would just fly off. Indeed the planets themselves would disintegrate as the particles constituting them bounced off each other and the aether. What is physically keeping the constituents of the universe (aether or not) together? We can only keep two particles together by connecting them physically. Words like "field" and "charge" simply refer to the observation that what we *assume* are particles *appear* to interact without direct collision. Equations simply correlate these observations mathematically, possibly identifying patterns that are useful for explaining observations. These are not explanations themselves, they are labeling/correlating observations. Convergent behavior is simply explained if the two "particles" are physically connected, this is how chains explains this observation and I want to know how the aether does.

The "material from non material" hypothesis is not only a self-contradiction, but the experimental "evidence" rests upon the assumption that measuring inertial mass is directly related to the quantity of matter. This is a very fundamental question. One large continuous object A at velocity v collides with a small continuous object B at velocity -v. Just because object A is larger does this mean it will continue at some velocity v-x and B will continue at velocity -v+x where v>x>0? Or will v<x<0, which is counterintuitive? Will x=v? In such an experiment x is a measure of relative inertial mass (inertial mass of A relative to B). In fact inertial mass is always relative to a standard (inertial mass of A relative to the standard B or the other way around). Although intuitively based on our everyday experience we expect a larger continuous object to resist motion greater (has more inertia) than a smaller continuous object, this is an assumption. We have no idea why one object would resist motion more than another. This is especially true with two discrete, separate objects as in the example above. We simply refer to the observation that one object resists changes in its motion more or greater (magnitude of x is lower or higher respectively) as an object's inertia. Objectively, we can only refer to the absolute mass of A as "1 A" the absolute mass of B as "1 B". Any discontinuous object comprised of A and B has absolute mass "n A's and m B's".

Therefore, if we take one discontinuous object, observe its inertia as x1, break it apart and observe one or more of its constituents to have inertia x2>x1 this does not demand that something "came from nothing". It means that we don't perfectly understand the observation known as inertia.

Indeed, inertia probably arises because an object is connected to and pulled by other objects in the universe. Objects that are either connected to more other objects or are pulled harder by other objects will exhibit greater inertia. A discontinuous object comprised of A and B may have an observed inertia of x1 when A and B are tightly bound. When A and B are broken apart they may develop inertia greater (or less) than x1. The inertia of A and B depends on the precise physical mechanism by which they are bound, broken apart, connected to other objects, and pulled on other objects.

[Divinity]

Volantis, Welcome! You are certainly a breath of fresh air. Looking forward to seeing more of your posts. Thank you.

Divinity

[altonhare]

My circles were supposed to be like this:

0____0

0__0

00

Now what happens and why?

[webolife]

However convergence (pull) is ubiquitous in nature.

This is your way of saying the fundamental premise of my UFT. For both of us it is impossible for the big bang to explain what is actually observed in the universe. Not only is convergence ubiquitous, it is the root cause of all phenomena. You say "convergence" is a verb, no doubt, and I agree, it is a very passive verb; but I like "compression" as an active verb... I don't think you distinguish between these two ideas. You want a noun, "chain", to be the agent, but you fail to show how any such object could actually be detected, though it is assumed that they exist.

My circles were supposed to be like this:

0____0

0__0

00

Now what happens and why?

The answer depends on the relationship of each object to a third object of potentially greater "polity" [I think you would likely say "mass" here]. I each object has similar amounts of "stuff", then the "stuff" will tend to repel into space. I would say this is because each operates in a field that is centropic to itself, therefore vectorally the pressures at the "boundary" condition are in opposite directions. But if both objects are drawn toward a greater polity point, their "fields" will naturally converge.

Now the particles stick to each other? Why? Even more compelling are the motions of the planets. Why don't they fly off into space? If aether is particulate the planets would not circle the sun as we observe, they would just fly off. Indeed the planets themselves would disintegrate as the particles constituting them bounced off each other and the aether. What is physically keeping the constituents of the universe (aether or not) together? We can only keep two particles together by connecting them physically. Words like "field" and "charge" simply refer to the observation that what we *assume* are particles *appear* to interact without direct collision. Equations simply correlate these observations mathematically, possibly identifying patterns that are useful for explaining observations. These are not explanations themselves, they are labeling/correlating observations. Convergent behavior is simply explained if the two "particles" are physically connected, this is how chains explains this observation and I want to know how the aether does.

You don't like the words "field" and "charge" (or vector/ray/beam) even though they describe the same phenomena as "ropes" and "chains." However, because [you say] my "objects" are less carefully defined in terms of shape, you feel that I have no hypothesis... I don't think you adequately explain how "ubiquitous" rope/chains interact. My slinky analogy stops working if the four people holding the two slinkies begin moving in any particular direction with respect to each other. Anyone can see that the slinkies would eventually become hopeless irreparable tangles. If your chains are indeed "material" how can they interact without consequence? If they can... how does this fit the fermion/boson dichotomy? Or does it have any relationship... I'm not a big relativist, and even less a QM-ist. How would one go about determining the size of such a chain, or do they not have any particular diameter? You refer to the links as ball/socket interactions... is this a consequence of link "shape"? Could you elaborate further on this? Aside from the "theoretical" necessity of two-way action along a chain, is there any proof or demonstration of this two-wayness in nature? If convergence is ubiquitous, and a universal "knot" could be the result, do you think this has happened in the past... is this your version of a big bang or oscillating universe?

[altonhare]

You want a noun, "chain", to be the agent, but you fail to show how any such object could actually be detected, though it is assumed that they exist.

In science we don't prove something exists. We put forth a hypothesis and explain observations.

There is compelling evidence for the chain, that cannot be denied.

The answer depends on the relationship of each object to a third object of potentially greater "polity" [I think you would likely say "mass" here]. I each object has similar amounts of "stuff", then the "stuff" will tend to repel into space. I would say this is because each operates in a field that is centropic to itself, therefore vectorally the pressures at the "boundary" condition are in opposite directions. But if both objects are drawn toward a greater polity point, their "fields" will naturally converge.

The fact is we don't know how two continuous, separate objects will interact. Any assumption about the larger one possessing greater inertia is based on the observation that larger objects seem to have greater inertia. However larger objects in our observation are being pulled on via the chain more than smaller objects. What if neither were being pulled upon? I think that, if they are both moving at the same velocity, they will come to a dead stop regardless of how much larger one is than the other.

My slinky analogy stops working if the four people holding the two slinkies begin moving in any particular direction with respect to each other. Anyone can see that the slinkies would eventually become hopeless irreparable tangles.

Fortunately there are no such "people" holding onto my chains and running about with them!

If your chains are indeed "material" how can they interact without consequence?

They don't interact without consequence.

If they can... how does this fit the fermion/boson dichotomy?

The fermion/boson "dichotomy" is predicated on the assumption that everything is a particle, including light. If we remove this assumption the terms "fermion" and "boson" go in the trash.

How would one go about determining the size of such a chain, or do they not have any particular diameter?

I have computer simulations planned to explore this very question. For reasons that, once again probably amount to a thesis, it turns out that the link must have very particular dimensions. I need to do some serious investigation to determine them.

You refer to the links as ball/socket interactions... is this a consequence of link "shape"? Could you elaborate further on this?

A link is not an interaction. I think a link looks like a cylinder with a tiny stem and a ball on one side and a hollowed out cavity on the other. This is my hypothesis because it is consistent with the overall chain being flexible but its constituents being continuous.

Aside from the "theoretical" necessity of two-way action along a chain, is there any proof or demonstration of this two-wayness in nature?

I'm not sure what you mean by "theoretical necessity". The observation is that light appears to ALWAYS trace a rectilinear path, regardless of reference frame. A particle does not do this and neither does a wave. This is because, once a particle or wave leaves the source it is no longer connected to the source, the motion of the source and the particle/wave are independent. The only way to explain the rectilinear observation is if the source and the target are already interconnected. The signal always propagates "straight" to the source.

If convergence is ubiquitous, and a universal "knot" could be the result, do you think this has happened in the past... is this your version of a big bang or oscillating universe?

It seems a logical conclusion based on the theory, that the effect of gravity (the rattle of the ball in the socket) will pull everything inward until mutual repulsion (collision and the "twisting apart" of loops of chain) overwhelms it and pushes everything outward again.

This is NOT a big bang theory. BBT hypothesizes a singularity. In chain theory the knots simply move closer together and begin to unravel (plasma state) until their mutual repulsion pushes them apart again. I suppose it's an "oscillating universe".

[Plasmatic]

You want a noun, "chain", to be the agent, but you fail to show how any such object could actually be detected, though it is assumed that they exist....
You don't like the words "field" and "charge" (or vector/ray/beam) even though they describe the same phenomena as "ropes" and "chains." However, because [you say] my "objects" are less carefully defined in terms of shape, you feel that I have no hypothesis...

The reason for your confusion on this is because you arent getting the metaphysical ubiquitous fact that entities are causal primaries. Your vectors are secondary derivitive concepts derived from the observation of causal primaries. Again the issue comes to Non material causation as opposed to objective material causation.

When one grasps that every observation of the effects we call electromagnetism involve entities as causal primaries in a dynamic relationship.

So the hypothesis being objective [entities as causal primaries] in nature is in fact due to ubiquitous observation.

[bboyer]

Just a reminder; the topic is Q&A regarding the publication, Secrets of the Aether. It is not about thread theory, NOR ... in all fairness ... should it be about criticizing the work from an esoteric philosophic viewpoint such as Randian Objectivism with its own restrictive and specialized terminology and [re]definition of words.

[Plasmatic]

Just a reminder; the topic is Q&A regarding the publication, Secrets of the Aether. It is not about thread theory, NOR ... in all fairness ... should it be about criticizing the work from an esoteric philosophic viewpoint such as Randian Objectivism with its own restrictive and specialized terminology and [re]definition of words.

I object to this categorical attempt to disqualify folks from responding to this topic directly from ones own personal perspectives. NO ONE can debate ANY topic WITHOUT their own philosophy. ALL of physics rest upon this foundation.

In particular the topic of Non-material causation is directly admitted by Volantis as undergirding his APM.Not to mention his explicit statement in his papers of the "ontological" foundation his work is addressing. This topic is COMPLETELY within the realm of metaphysics. If you do not believe this look up the subject matter subsumed therein.

This qualification of my response as an "esoteric philosophic viewpoint such as Randian Objectivism with its own restrictive and specialized terminology and [re]definition of words" is completely an attempt to disqualify anything I say by jettisoning my comments into your own philisophical framework of what is proper "criticism" or "terminology" should be ,in spite of your own assertion that my doing so is out of bounds...

Doing so is to directly exclude others from having the particular framework of interpretation that suits them. There Is NO subject that ones worldview is abstained from!

I have quoted and responded to directly relevent comments and did so without mentioning Rand or Objectivism. Your comments are unfair and without the bounds of the specific task of MODERATOR as being unbiased while acting to enforce the rules as such! There is nothing in my comments that is excluded by the rules whatever.

None of this is said in disrespect but out of desire for "fairness".

I direct you to the myriad comment of Wal referring to physics as "Natural philosophy" clearly this should be enought to demonstrate the unwarranted nature of your assertion.

[bboyer]

There is no desire to "disqualify" you from discussing the topic. But if you are going to approach it within the specialized definitions and framework of Rand's philosophy then that should take place in the Objectivism thread. Otherwise you are simply proselytizing an esoteric philosophy based on the copyrighted works of an individual, for which an appropriate thread has been established, just as this one has for the discussion of the copyrighted work of D. Thomson.