Electric Universe - Paradigm Shift

[Plasmatic]

Show me where this is so, within the published EU material.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

The current EU theory is based on a fluid aether/ether.

Show me where this is so, within the published EU material.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

Whats up Dave,

Im sure Alton was referring to the info I sent him upon his questioning me about Wals Aether theory.

This is precisely the Electric Universe view. Natural Philosophy has withered in its confrontation with the modern fashion of mathematical metaphysics and computer games. Most of the ‘discoveries’ now are merely computer generated ‘virtual reality’ — black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etc. The computer models are constructed upon a shadowy kernel of ignorance. We do not understand gravity!

Einstein in his special theory of relativity postulated there was no medium, called the ‘aether.’ But Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires it. And Sir Oliver Lodge saw the aether as crucial to our understanding. So Einstein, at a stroke, removed any possibility that he, or his followers, would find a link between electromagnetism and gravity. It served the egos of his followers to consecrate Einstein’s ideas and treat dissent as blasphemy. “Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it's wrong.”[9,10]Decades later, Paul R. Heyl wrote in Scientific Monthly, May 1954:
“The more we study gravitation, the more there grows upon us the feeling that there is something peculiarly fundamental about this phenomenon to a degree that is unequalled among other natural phenomena. Its independence of the factors that affect other phenomena and its dependence only upon mass and distance suggest that its roots avoid things superficial and go down deep into the unseen, to the very essence of matter and space.” —Gravitation: Still A Mystery.

This sentiment has been echoed down to the present but few are listening. The problem has been worsened by the particle physicists who indulge in their own virtual reality — inventing “virtual particles” to transmit forces. If they “could understand the structure of the particle, in terms of the medium of which it is composed” and put flesh on the metaphysical bones of quantum theory we should be much further advanced. Sir Oliver Lodge deserves to be heard once more:
“..it may be that when the structure of an electron is understood, we shall see that an ‘even-powered’ stress in the surrounding aether is necessarily involved. What I do feel instinctively is that this is the direction for discovery, and what is needed is something internal and intrinsic, and that all attempts to explain gravitation as due to the action of some external agency, whether flying particles or impinging waves, are doomed to failure; for all these speculations regard the atom as a foreign substance -- a sort of ‘grit’ in the aether -- driven hither and thither by forces alien to itself. When, some day, we understand the real relation between matter and aether, I venture predict that we shall perceive something more satisfying than that.”[11]...
If I can use a simple analogy, light travels slowly like the transverse ripples on a pond surface; gravity travels swiftly and longitudinally, like the speed of sound in water. Once again, this is at odds with Einstein’s metaphysics because it reinstates Maxwell’s aether: Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory requires a medium. How can you wave nothing?

The Michelson-Morley basement experiment was heralded as having lain to rest the notion of an aether. It didn’t.[24] Dayton Miller carried out far more rigorous repeats of that experiment at different locations and elevations. He found a residual, which allowed him to conclude that ponderable bodies like the Earth drag the aether with them. He was able to determine the relative motion of the solar system with respect to the aether....

Others and I have argued that a plenum of neutrinos forms the aether.[25] Based upon nuclear experiments, I have also proposed that neutrinos are the most collapsed, lowest energy state of matter. In other words they exhibit vanishingly small mass. However, being normal matter composed of subtrons, they are capable of forming electric dipoles. In an oscillating electromagnetic field a neutrino must rotate through 360˚ per cycle. That would link the speed of light in a vacuum to the moment of inertia of a neutrino. Having some mass, neutrinos must be ‘dragged along’ by gravitating bodies. They form a kind of extended ‘atmosphere’ which will bend light. It has nothing to do with a metaphysical ‘warping of space.’

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs


[mod deleted quotes & comments]

[flyingcloud]

This is precisely the Electric Universe view. Natural Philosophy has withered in its confrontation with the modern fashion of mathematical metaphysics and computer games. Most of the ‘discoveries’ now are merely computer generated ‘virtual reality’ — black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etc. The computer models are constructed upon a shadowy kernel of ignorance. We do not understand gravity!

Einstein in his special theory of relativity postulated there was no medium, called the ‘aether.’ But Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires it. And Sir Oliver Lodge saw the aether as crucial to our understanding. So Einstein, at a stroke, removed any possibility that he, or his followers, would find a link between electromagnetism and gravity. It served the egos of his followers to consecrate Einstein’s ideas and treat dissent as blasphemy. “Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it's wrong.”[9,10]Decades later, Paul R. Heyl wrote in Scientific Monthly, May 1954:
“The more we study gravitation, the more there grows upon us the feeling that there is something peculiarly fundamental about this phenomenon to a degree that is unequalled among other natural phenomena. Its independence of the factors that affect other phenomena and its dependence only upon mass and distance suggest that its roots avoid things superficial and go down deep into the unseen, to the very essence of matter and space.” —Gravitation: Still A Mystery.

This sentiment has been echoed down to the present but few are listening. The problem has been worsened by the particle physicists who indulge in their own virtual reality — inventing “virtual particles” to transmit forces. If they “could understand the structure of the particle, in terms of the medium of which it is composed” and put flesh on the metaphysical bones of quantum theory we should be much further advanced. Sir Oliver Lodge deserves to be heard once more:
“..it may be that when the structure of an electron is understood, we shall see that an ‘even-powered’ stress in the surrounding aether is necessarily involved. What I do feel instinctively is that this is the direction for discovery, and what is needed is something internal and intrinsic, and that all attempts to explain gravitation as due to the action of some external agency, whether flying particles or impinging waves, are doomed to failure; for all these speculations regard the atom as a foreign substance -- a sort of ‘grit’ in the aether -- driven hither and thither by forces alien to itself. When, some day, we understand the real relation between matter and aether, I venture predict that we shall perceive something more satisfying than that.”[11]...
If I can use a simple analogy, light travels slowly like the transverse ripples on a pond surface; gravity travels swiftly and longitudinally, like the speed of sound in water. Once again, this is at odds with Einstein’s metaphysics because it reinstates Maxwell’s aether: Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory requires a medium. How can you wave nothing?

The Michelson-Morley basement experiment was heralded as having lain to rest the notion of an aether. It didn’t.[24] Dayton Miller carried out far more rigorous repeats of that experiment at different locations and elevations. He found a residual, which allowed him to conclude that ponderable bodies like the Earth drag the aether with them. He was able to determine the relative motion of the solar system with respect to the aether....

Others and I have argued that a plenum of neutrinos forms the aether.[25] Based upon nuclear experiments, I have also proposed that neutrinos are the most collapsed, lowest energy state of matter. In other words they exhibit vanishingly small mass. However, being normal matter composed of subtrons, they are capable of forming electric dipoles. In an oscillating electromagnetic field a neutrino must rotate through 360˚ per cycle. That would link the speed of light in a vacuum to the moment of inertia of a neutrino. Having some mass, neutrinos must be ‘dragged along’ by gravitating bodies. They form a kind of extended ‘atmosphere’ which will bend light. It has nothing to do with a metaphysical ‘warping of space.’

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

I spoke to Wal about different approaches. He is very much in favour of the Ralph Sansbury model.
Don't know if I spelled the name right?
Its actually quite simple and elegant.
If neutrinos carry dipole charge, it would be transmitted faster then light via this mechanism.
Thats it in a nutshell.

I think the problem is proving that the neutrino carries a dipole charge. It is supposed to be without charge.
The dipole configuration allows it to appear neutral according to Wal. If we could prove that then it would be the correct answer. I think we can accompish the gravito-electric connection without assigning dipole charge to neutrinos.
I could be wrong. But so could Wal. But the mechanism would work perfect if indeed the neutrino had a variable dipole charge internal configuration. This would need labratory proof. That was the end of the conversation

nuetrino as the Aether, I was stuck at the photon

thanks plasmatic,

[altonhare]

The current EU theory is based on a fluid aether/ether.

Show me where this is so, within the published EU material.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

Plasm took care of that, thanks Plasm. I am not attacking JL's aether from APM. The basis of that theory is so far divorced from physics I see no reason to consider it.

[mod quote & comment deleted]

All right, then what, according to "rope theory" is the most basic fundamental constituent that forms all others? What is its basic nature?

-edcrater

Great question! Glad you asked it. According to Bill Gaede the rope is "it", but this cannot be correct because the rope is flexible (it forms electron shells, magnetic loops etc.) However Bill is headed in the right direction by saying that everything is connected. If, instead of a rope, we have a chain composed of continuous objects that fit inside each other, the problem is solved. Imagine a ball inside a socket. The objects are continuous and the ball cannot leave the socket. However it can rotate. A long chain of interconnected ball/socket joints would confer overall flexibility while the fundamental constituents themselves are perfectly continuous, rigid, and unbreakable. If you are interested in how this structure gives rise to observations such as gravity, magnetism, light, etc. you should watch the videos carefully and read through the discussions in "details of thread theory" and "problems with thread theory". The ball/socket fundamental constituent seems so simple but is capable of explaining all observations I know of except for why light doesn't appear to interact with light. I have some hypotheses on this matter but have not reached a final conclusion. Nobody has answered this question (it is the opinion of Bill and I that this is the Last Question and whoever answers it is the Last Physicist).

nuetrino as the Aether, I was stuck at the photon

thanks plasmatic,

-edcrater

Now ask yourself what a neutrino is. It can't be a particle. Neutrinos appear to influence each other without anything ever physically intervening! This is called "magic". If, instead, we hypothesize that the "neutrinos" are connected somehow. For example, if every atom is connected by a chain then all the links of the chain rotate and align in response to the expansion/contraction of the electron shell. This is a rational, physical, causal explanation. This is science.

[earls]

"I don't know" would have sufficed.

Regardless, are there any predictions "Thread Theory" can make?

How do you apply "Thread Theory" in your Chemical Physics studies? Do you measure these "threads?"

There's absolutely no reason to think a neutrino isn't a particle. A particle is simply a localized, measurable force.

You mock the idea, then come back with "are connected somehow." ... "Somehow, some way! How?! Who knows! But I just know they're connected! ... SOMEHOW!"

How many neutrinos have you yourself or Bill detected? How would you even go about detecting them?

Scientists, doing science based on previous scientists doing science (a credit to the 'correctness' of previous theory) devised a way to and have detect neutrinos.

All this guy Bill does is take established scientific theory and regurgitate it in different terms to absolutely no one's benefit. The entire video on gravity doesn't explain anything new about gravity, it only justifies his reasoning for changing the term "force" to "tension." Arbitrary reassignment. It doesn't matter WHAT you call the product of the equation. "X" would suffice!

[altonhare]

"I don't know" would have sufficed.

-Earl

No it wouldn't have, it would have told you nothing! I gave you a physical hypothesis.

Regardless, are there any predictions "Thread Theory" can make?

-Earl

Scientists don't do "predictions". Scientists explain what happened. The TT explains phenomena such as light's rectilinear travel and magnetism.

Your theory may come from a hunch you had about how an experiment would go, or it could come from a bad dream. What matters is, can you explain physically what happened?

How do you apply "Thread Theory" in your Chemical Physics studies? Do you measure these "threads?"

-Earl

The theory is wholly new, I think my advisor is more interested in getting funding. To get funding he needs to essentially be in some aspect of technology development. Technologists will use whatever equations will correlate the data most simply to produce whatever device the quickest.

However, I can explain all of the experiments I do now in terms of TT. I have a physical causal mechanism. That is priceless.

There's absolutely no reason to think a neutrino isn't a particle. A particle is simply a localized, measurable force.

-Earl

That's your definition of particle? A force? What's your definition of force?

A particle is not a force. A particle is 3 dimensional object that has shape. If two particles are moving we can measure their locations at even intervals. From this set of locations we can calculate velocities, accelerations, and forces. A force is something we measure. A particle is an object. The reification of concepts like force and energy is exactly what all the mainstream physicists have been doing wrong for a century.

You mock the idea, then come back with "are connected somehow." ... "Somehow, some way! How?! Who knows! But I just know they're connected! ... SOMEHOW!"

-Earl

What is your problem? I told you exactly how they can be connected. A ball/socket joint can connect two objects.

How many neutrinos have you yourself or Bill detected? How would you even go about detecting them?

-Earl

None, there is no such thing as a neutrino. It is another object granted magical properties just like the mainstream particle physicists have done.

Scientists, doing science based on previous scientists doing science (a credit to the 'correctness' of previous theory) devised a way to and have detect neutrinos.

-Earl

No, they did some experiments and measured some parameters. If the parameters fit their equations they called it a success. If they didn't then the equations were revised. They cannot tell you physically what is happening. They can correlate experiments with equations. In physics we explain things physically.

All this guy Bill does is take established scientific theory and regurgitate it in different terms to absolutely no one's benefit. The entire video on gravity doesn't explain anything new about gravity, it only justifies his reasoning for changing the term "force" to "tension." Arbitrary reassignment. It doesn't matter WHAT you call the product of the equation. "X" would suffice!

-Earl

No, he provides a physical basis. Everyone working on gravity right now either proposes that every atom shoots particles (gravitons) at each other and pulls them in or proposes that the warping of a concept called "space-time" is the cause of gravity. Neither of these explanations are any better than saying "Angels do it". Just because they have developed equations that match observations does not make their physical explanation any more valid. How can a particle collide with another particle and pull it closer but other times push it away? It is irrational. You define collision as either push or pull, it can't be both! If we can ascribe as many properties to our physical hypotheses as we want we can "explain" anything. What is "space-time"? It is a mathematical construct. Nature does not care if we call the symbols in our equations Ricci tensors or space-time curvature.

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

You're missing the message Earl. We are positing *physical* hypotheses. Newton had none. Einstein's reifies space and transforms it into a God essentially. Quantum is just a U of particles with magical properties. None of these are scientific.

I don't even mention string theory, that's not an irrational physical theory, it's a physical abortion.

[earls]

Good luck with the funding.

[altonhare]

Back to the topic at hand. The EU does not have a valid physical hypothesis at present. To avoid the pitfalls of other theories of physics it absolutely must take recourse in a physical causal mechanism. Here is a quote from the article Plasm presented:

Without accepting his model in its entirety, I consider Ralph Sansbury’s straightforward electrical theory of magnetism and gravity[15] to have conceptual merit. Simply stated, all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle. These smaller electric charges he calls ‘subtrons.’ This is the kind of simplification of particle physics required by Ockham’s razor and philosophically agreeable, though it leaves unanswered the real nature and origin of the subtrons. In this model, the electron cannot be treated like a fundamental, point-like particle. It must have structure to have angular momentum and a preferred magnetic orientation, known vaguely as ‘spin.’ There must be orbital motion of subtrons within the electron to generate a magnetic dipole. The transfer of energy between the subtrons in their orbits within the classical electron radius must be resonant and near instantaneous for the electron to be a stable particle. The same argument applies to the proton, the neutron, and, as we shall see —the neutrino.

So things like electrons are actually composed of smaller things called "charges". But what are these charges? "Charge" is a parameter in an equation, not a physical object. The author admits the nature and origin of these "subtrons" is unknown. The author also admits that one widely used property of the electron, "spin", is fairly vague.

Charge is basically a "do it all" word in modern physics, much like energy. It refers to something in an equation that ends up giving us the numbers we measure in experiments. Science cannot go on like this. Science is dying as it becomes more and more like religion every day. Scientists cannot hold their own in debates against religionists anymore because people don't know the difference. If we go on like this science will merge completely with religion. Again, anyone who hasn't watched Bill Gaede's videos I encourage to do so. His homepage will also help make this clear http://www.youstupidrelativist.com


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

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

Magnetism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

Gravitation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

[Divinity]

So things like electrons are actually composed of smaller things called "charges". But what are these charges? "Charge" is a parameter in an equation, not a physical object. The author admits the nature and origin of these "subtrons" is unknown. The author also admits that one widely used property of the electron, "spin", is fairly vague.

Charge is basically a "do it all" word in modern physics, much like energy. It refers to something in an equation that ends up giving us the numbers we measure in experiments. Science cannot go on like this. Science is dying as it becomes more and more like religion every day. Scientists cannot hold their own in debates against religionists anymore because people don't know the difference. If we go on like this science will merge completely with religion. Again, anyone who hasn't watched Bill Gaede's videos I encourage to do so. His homepage will also help make this clear http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition ... 52,00.html

Charge

In physics, charge, also known as electric charge, electrical charge, or electrostatic charge and symbolized q, is a characteristic of a unit of matter that expresses the extent to which it has more or fewer electrons than protons. In atoms, the electron carries a negative elementary or unit charge; the proton carries a positive charge. The two types of charge are equal and opposite.

Matter

Matter is a substance that has inertia and occupies physical space. According to modern physics, matter consists of various types of particles, each with mass and size.

The most familiar examples of material particles are the electron , proton , and neutron . Combinations of these particles form atom s. There are more than 100 different kinds of atoms, each kind constituting a unique chemical element . A combination of atoms forms a molecule . Atoms and/or molecules can join together to form a compound .

Matter can exist in several states, also called phases. The three most common states are known as solid , liquid , and gas . A single element or compound of matter might exist in more than one of the three states, depending on the temperature and pressure. Less familiar states of matter include plasma , foam, and Bose-Einstein condensate. These occur under special conditions.

What is an Atom?

An atom a fundamental piece of matter. (Matter is anything that can be touched physically.) Everything in the universe (except energy) is made of matter, and, so, everything in the universe is made of atoms.

An atom itself is made up of three tiny kinds of particles called subatomic particles: protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and the neutrons make up the center of the atom called the nucleus and the electrons fly around above the nucleus in a small cloud. The electrons carry a negative charge and the protons carry a positive charge. In a normal (neutral) atom the number of protons and the number of electrons are equal. Often, but not always, the number of neutrons is the same, too.

What is an ion?

An ion is a charged atom or molecule. It is charged because the number of electrons do not equal the number of protons in the atom or molecule. An atom can acquire a positive charge or a negative charge depending on whether the number of electrons in an atom is greater or less then the number of protons in the atom.

When an atom is attracted to another atom because it has an unequal number of electrons and protons, the atom is called an ION.

http://blazelabs.com/f-p-swave.asp

Now that we know that indeed, to say the least, there is striking evidence that the atom structure is a standing wave, we need to describe in terms of this new concept, each observable conventional particle and picture how the real atom looks like.

We know that the atom has a high density core at the centre surrounded by a cloud of electrons. However, even in the case of atoms with a single electron, we still see a cloud, and never has anyone been able to track any electron orbiting around. We have also shown that no orbital electrons exist and therefore electrons can never collide to each other. In this theory there is no room either for a particulate nucleus or anything else described as particulate matter within the atom. The whole atom is a standing wave in three dimensions, and all known effects have to be described by electromagnetic standing wave geometry. So, where does this leave us with the picture of an atom? Surely we have got no neutrons, protons or electrons, but our model should still account for their effects in terms of 3D standing wave geometry.



Not religion. Be astounded because what you are witnessing IS the merging of science and spirituality.

[Divinity]

http://blazelabs.com/f-p-swave.asp

Now that we know that indeed, to say the least, there is striking evidence that the atom structure is a standing wave, we need to describe in terms of this new concept, each observable conventional particle and picture how the real atom looks like.

We know that the atom has a high density core at the centre surrounded by a cloud of electrons. However, even in the case of atoms with a single electron, we still see a cloud, and never has anyone been able to track any electron orbiting around. We have also shown that no orbital electrons exist and therefore electrons can never collide to each other. In this theory there is no room either for a particulate nucleus or anything else described as particulate matter within the atom. The whole atom is a standing wave in three dimensions, and all known effects have to be described by electromagnetic standing wave geometry. So, where does this leave us with the picture of an atom? Surely we have got no neutrons, protons or electrons, but our model should still account for their effects in terms of 3D standing wave geometry.


Not religion. Be astounded because what you are witnessing IS the merging of science and spirituality.

http://www.whale.to/m/cathie.html

Bruce Cathie's site:

A quote I found in a book I was reading recently appears to confirm my theory of the double matter/antimatter cycle. The book is called Beyond the Occult, by Colin Wilson.

"Human beings are accustomed to the fact that if they turn round through 3600 (through a full circle), they find themselves facing in the direction they started from. Not so an electron. By Passing it through a certain type of magnetic field, its ‘axis of spin’ can be tipped through 3600, which ought to restore it to its original position. But it doesn’t. The electron has to be turned through yet another full circle before it behaves as it did before. We cannot distinguish the difference between the two circles—the electron can—which seems to suggest that in the subatomic world a full circle is not 360° but 720°. In our world we have somehow lost half the degrees we ought to have. Or to put it another way, there may be another dimension in the subatomic world."

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Divinity,
A quick aside:
Our 'three-score and ten' lifespan is actually three-score and twelve = 72. 72 years represents one degree of precession, i.e. 72 x 360 = 25,920. (2+5+9+2 = 18 = 1+8 =9 -Funny old world isn't it?).

[seasmith]

~
Divinity wrote:
I found in a book I was reading recently appears to confirm my theory of the double matter/antimatter cycle. The book is called Beyond the Occult, by Colin Wilson.[/quote]


Divinity,

If you are liking that one, you may want to try his "Mysteries" or
F. Capra's "The Tao of Physics" , which most probably inspired Wilson's work.

s

[altonhare]

In physics, charge, also known as electric charge, electrical charge, or electrostatic charge and symbolized q, is a characteristic of a unit of matter that expresses the extent to which it has more or fewer electrons than protons. In atoms, the electron carries a negative elementary or unit charge; the proton carries a positive charge. The two types of charge are equal and opposite.

-Divinity

This definition is circular, i.e. it ultimately tells you nothing. First you define charge as a quantity of something, i.e. a quantity of electrons or protons. But then you say that these individual somethings carry charge. So charge is a quantity of somethings that have charge. This is circular. What is it they are carrying? What IS the charge they "carry"? This has not been answered.

Matter is a substance that has inertia and occupies physical space.

-Divinity

Matter occupies space, i.e. it has a border, it has shape. That's all you need. The word inertia requires another definition.

An atom a fundamental piece of matter. (Matter is anything that can be touched physically.) Everything in the universe (except energy) is made of matter, and, so, everything in the universe is made of atoms.

-Divinity

What do you mean by "fundamental"? Do you mean "continuous" as I do?

I agree that everything, aka every object, is "made of matter" i.e. it has shape. I disagree that every object is made of atoms. Atoms are not continuous objects, they are made of smaller objects. Every object in the universe is made of continuous objects (fundamental objects aka fundamental constituents).

An ion is a charged atom or molecule. It is charged because the number of electrons do not equal the number of protons in the atom or molecule. An atom can acquire a positive charge or a negative charge depending on whether the number of electrons in an atom is greater or less then the number of protons in the atom.

When an atom is attracted to another atom because it has an unequal number of electrons and protons, the atom is called an ION.

-Divinity

You have not successfully defined charge. Why would the presence of more/less electrons cause one atom to move toward another? Because of charge? But what is charge? What is it about the electron or proton that causes this atom to move toward/away from this other atom? This is what is missing from the definition.

which seems to suggest that in the subatomic world a full circle is not 360° but 720°. In our world we have somehow lost half the degrees we ought to have. Or to put it another way, there may be another dimension in the subatomic world.

-Divinity

In science, we do not "prove" a circle is 360 degrees with an experiment. We define our terms, pose a hypothesis, conceptualize, and then explain what happened in terms of our hypothesis. Those doing research on "electron spin" cannot be getting any meaningful results because they have no hypothesis. They cannot tell you what an electron is, how can they tell you how it behaves? Indeed, not a single physicist can actually tell you what spin is. All they know is that they measure some parameters and, with the right factors in their equation, they can match the experiment. The fact that they call one or more of the terms in their equation "spin" is just a label for that part of the equation. It makes communication easier. They have no hypothesis, just a mathematical correlation.

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com

[Solar]

The current EU theory is based on a fluid aether/ether. This is posited in an attempt to avoid the trap of particles, which are unable to explain gravity, magnetism, electricity, or light. The ether hypothesis may be formulated two ways:

Ether: A continuous medium that surrounds/envelopes everything
Ether: A discontinuous medium that surrounds/envelopes everything

If the ether is continuous, nothing can move within it. A continuous entity is not made of smaller parts, it cannot deform because there is no space within to move into. Obviously the first proposition falls flat.

If the ether is discontinuous, this begs the question "What is it made of?" In this instance the ether is not fundamental, i.e. it is not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is whatever continuous entity or set of entities comprise(s) the ether. So EU should be focusing on determing the nature of these objects. If they are discrete, separate entities they are simply more particles, and we are back to the impotent corpuscular hypothesis. If they are connected, how so? Indeed, assuming all atoms are interconnected by a dual strand entwined anti parallel rope or chain structure justifies all the behaviors of light, gravity, and electromagnetism.

The EU community is faced with either accepting an ether in which nothing can move, a "corpuscular ether", or throwing out the ether altogether in favor of a new hypothesis that explains all these phenomena naturally and rationally. The rope/chain/thread theory achieves this. I invite those of similar open mind to discard the ether and evaluate new hypotheses such as the one I mentioned.

A very interesting set of parameters. And that is the question regarding the Aether: How can a phase of matter be continuous yet discontinuous at the same time? A few things to consider:

"Matter": the discrete particulate nature characterizing substantive behavior.

I recently watched the NOVA program Absolute Zero regarding the race to reach the coldest temperature possible. You can watch the entire series - Absolute Zero online here. Parts 6-10 were the interesting parts imho.

The segment that may be appropriate here may be seen at Youtube: MIT physicist Daniel Kleppner

"Matter", in the form of atoms, at these low temperatures demonstrate overlapping "thread"-like behavior with no distinction between individual "atoms". The "atoms" no longer exist as a coherent corpuscular feature at these temps but instead a "quantum system" resides having one continuos phase. The "individuality" i.e. corpuscular/particulate characteristic vanishes.

As you may well know, with so called "superfluids", what appears to be zero viscosity and will not only "spontaneously" leak through it's container but will also "creep" up the sides of a container and along surfaces to "find it's own level". That fact would appear to discredit it's lack of having a corpuscular nature on the one hand, yet, it's 'phase state' as a continuous substance would seem to support it as a continuos medium.

Therefore, it appears that one could have a continuos medium (loss of particulate characteristics) that would surround and envelope everything but, owing to its zero viscosity, would facilitate movement through said continuos medium simultaneously demonstrating the quality of discontinuity.

This is interesting in relation to Mitchelson/Morley being denied "proof" of the existence of an aether. The aether was assumed to be "rigid" in that case if I remember correctly and their test did not demonstrate this. Interestingly, Dr. C. K. Thornhill (1917 - 2007), in a paper entitled "Stellar Aberration" gives account of the aether thus:

Stokes (1845) supposed that the Earth drags the local ether along with it, forming what is now recognized as a viscous boundary layer...

It has been shown (Thornhill, 2004) that, unless longstanding basic mathermatics can be discredited, it must be accepted that the no-ether concept and non-Newtonian relativity are untenable, thus restoring a fluid ether which must have viscosity.

Thus, the dual nature of continuos and discontinuous, as defined above with regard to an aether; apparently exist as a substantive behavior. Whether or not this exist with regard to neutrinos remains to be seen. Yet, it would appear that the EU may be heading in the right direction - when one considering the seeming paradoxical nature of these "condensates" - with an aether foundation because the characteristic has already been demonstrated to occur.

*IF* the universe, at anytime, has ever reached such temperatures, or undergone a "phase" that would have had the same result.

Thoughts anyone?

[Plasmatic]

Matter", in the form of atoms, at these low temperatures demonstrate overlapping "thread"-like behavior with no distinction between individual "atoms". The "atoms" no longer exist as a coherent corpuscular feature at these temps but instead a "quantum system" resides having one continuos phase. The "individuality" i.e. corpuscular/particulate characteristic vanishes.

Please define "continuous" in this usage.

If they are "overlapping" then how is this fluid "one continuous phase"? Differentiation of said "overlapping" would be impossible if it where truly continuos and not individual particulars.

Therefore, it appears that one could have a continuous medium (loss of particulate characteristics) that would surround and envelope everything but, owing to its zero viscosity, would facilitate movement through said continuos medium simultaneously demonstrating the quality of discontinuity....


As you may well know, with so called "superfluids", what appears to be zero viscosity and will not only "spontaneously" leak through it's container but will also "creep" up the sides of a container and along surfaces to "find it's own level". That fact would appear to discredit it's lack of having a corpuscular nature on the one hand, yet, it's 'phase state' as a continuous substance would seem to support it as a continuos medium

Please define "zero viscosity" so I can understand the asserted quality.

What are these superfluids made of ? If something else at all its not "continuous"

What do you mean by its "phase state as a continuous substance would seem to support it as a continuos medium"?

Would you please define "phase state" in this usage.How does this "state" make it "continuos substance" ?

If the answer to the last question is the example of "overlapping thread like" observation then the usage is invalid because one cannot differentiate an " thread like overlap" if what one is observing is continuos.

Identity makes all ontological "paradoxes" impossible. If you think you have found one then you know that you have made an error in logic.

That video on "identity crisis" Is a perfect example of the idiots running the physics departments today. This "condensate" is made of "waves" of nothing, and then "they" [plural waves] ,become "longer" but now called "packets". "They all think theyre everywhere"[plural] ,and "theyre all doing the same thing "."approximately at rest". These "wave packets" are at "rest" yet waves?

This is the perfect example of why man needs to explicitly discover the axiom of Identity. Hes "confused" because he is talking gibberish. A ball of undefined contradiction. Indeed one cannot "visualize" square-circles.

Why is it "very diffucult to imagine or to visualize"? Because the clowns havent observed this nonsensical string of meaningless sounds spilling from his mouth [like a viscous material]. These are floating abstractions with NO CONCRETE OBJECTIVE REFERENTS. One doesnt have to "imagine" what one is observing.

Solar I have to thank you for that link! It is now a poster child for prescisly why man needs to discover the axioms of Existence,Identity,and Consciousness and Physics needs to rediscover objectivity.

[altonhare]

Ahh Solar, I always enjoy your presence whether you are agreeing, disagreeing, or just playing Devil's Advocate.

A very interesting set of parameters. And that is the question regarding the Aether: How can a phase of matter be continuous yet discontinuous at the same time? A few things to consider:

-Solar

Not quite. The question is: How can an object or objects appear both continuous and discontinuous. What is it about our experiment or observation that makes us think it is continuous and/or discontinuous?

To answer the question we follow the scientific method. We define our terms and pose a hypothesis (one or more objects). We then conceptualize how these objects interact (theory). Then we explain the observation(s) in terms of this theory. If we cannot we need a new hypothesis.

The "atoms" no longer exist as a coherent corpuscular feature at these temps but instead a "quantum system" resides having one continuos phase. The "individuality" i.e. corpuscular/particulate characteristic vanishes.

-Solar

Right, the so-called "Bose Einstein condensate". This behavior is only "strange" if one assumes the atoms are discrete, separate particles. If they are all interconnected then it is perfectly natural behavior. Quantum mechanics assumes everything is a particle but then uses "wave equations" to describe it. They are choosing to live with and accept duality and contradiction instead of posing a new physical hypothesis. The fact that we observe this behavior is just another drop in the bucket of observations indicating that quantum is physically incorrect.

what appears to be zero viscosity and will not only "spontaneously" leak through it's container but will also "creep" up the sides of a container and along surfaces to "find it's own level". That fact would appear to discredit it's lack of having a corpuscular nature on the one hand, yet, it's 'phase state' as a continuous substance would seem to support it as a continuos medium.

-Solar

Viscosity, fundamentally, is just a parameter that gives you an idea of how much substance tends to interact with other substances in "non collision" situations. When we say that SF helium has "0 viscosity" we mean that it doesn't interact at all except by touching (essentially like a continuous sphere). Of course this is silly because no object can interact with another object except by touching it. In TT atoms interact "chemically" by mingling electron shells (enmeshing to greater or lesser degrees). At high temperature the atoms are moving so fast that, even if the shells do penetrate, there is very little time to become "enmeshed", we describe this as a "low residence time". This is the "hard sphere" regime, so-called because we can model atoms as hard spheres kinetically (see crossed-beam experiments). At extremely low temperatures the electron shell is tighter because of decreased rattling (as explained in my last post in "problems with thread theory"). In SF helium the shell is so tight that there is no way for any other shell to enmesh at all. Helium behaves like a perfect "hard sphere". At in between temperatures there is, of course, a competition between enmeshing and residence time. SF helium's "0 viscosity" behavior is intriguing but is a logical extension of already observed behaviors interpreted under TT.

SF helium's ability to pass through non-porous substances isn't mystical. It doesn't interact "chemically" anymore. In conventional language we might say there are no Van der Waals interactions. Helium just falls through the interstitial spaces, jostling around and ricocheting off atoms on its way. If its electron shell weren't so tight it would generally stick to the atoms in the beaker and stop. It should be noted that all substances permeate all other substances to varying degrees, a phenomenon particularly noted in high vacuum situations (air diffuses through the steel walls). Even a block of steel in a lead box is slowly evaporating and the atoms in the steel are diffusing through the lead enclosure. So SF helium's ability to pass through the beaker is an extreme case of an already-observed phenomenon.

The observation that SF helium climbs the walls of a beaker or "finds its own level" is related to its status as a nearly perfect hard sphere. Again hard spheres only interact by elastic collision (push). There is the ever-present gravitational pull among atoms but it is negligible on the scale of a beaker full of SF helium. Push is inherently a divergent force, meaning the total distance between objects engaged in push-only interactions always increases (atoms of SF helium will always move away from each other because they just collide and bounce off). In a beaker of SF helium the only way for helium atoms to move away from each other is to "climb" the walls of the beaker. It's somewhat like conventional boiling of a liquid, actually. When you boil a liquid it escapes the container because the atoms are colliding so hard (push is overcoming pull, the atoms are becoming more like hard spheres because of decreasing residence time). For SF helium it cannot quite boil because the earth's gravity is holding it down (SF He atoms have far lower momentum than He gas, which tends to escape the atmosphere). So SF He remains a liquid although it can only diverge. However, when a He atom is pushed upwards near the wall of the beaker it can land on a crevice in the wall (the walls are not perfectly smooth). More He atoms pushed upwards knock other He atoms upwards on crevices and He makes its way up and out of the beaker.

Thus, the dual nature of continuos and discontinuous, as defined above with regard to an aether; apparently exist as a substantive behavior.

-Solar

There is no such thing as something that is what it isn't. If our hypothesis cannot explain a phenomenon we do not just contradict ourselves and move on with the same hypothesis. We formulate a new hypothesis that can explain it in a non self-contradictory way.

Yet, it would appear that the EU may be heading in the right direction - when one considering the seeming paradoxical nature of these "condensates" - with an aether foundation because the characteristic has already been demonstrated to occur.

Again, if the neutrino is a discrete particle it is powerless to explain *any* of the above behaviors. Why would discrete particles ever coalesce into what we observe as a liquid? Discrete particles only diverge. If the neutrino is something else then... what is it? It has some characteristics described in terms of "charge" but again, charge is just an observation, we have no physical causal mechanism (except maybe in TT but that doesn't involve neutrinos).