The Aether Theory of Relativity

[viscount aero]

Viscount aero
As regards to a glossary of terms I personally think what is need is a mental picture.

First one needs to picture that Space is a sold substance. That is difficult enough.
Then one needs to realist that matter is constructed of pressure transients within the Aether.
Then the complex pressure transients of matter move through the Aether limited to just below the speed of light.
Next you need to realise that matter and its associated fields are modified by its Aether velocity.

Does that seem to be a reasonable start?

Sure but it would help to define all of the things (processes) you just stated above. As of now they are vague and unfollowable and unclear to a general readership (which makes your papers very difficult to focus on). Many books have glossaries. It is normal. I'm only trying to help you but you seem unwilling.

[kevin]

Many posters have complained that i do not explain things thoroughly. So I am going to try to improve.
But will other posters improve as well? I find that most posters do not delve deeply into the physics of a question.

I am starting with this new theory simply because, if it is correct, then all physical phenomena derive from the Aether. That means that Modern physics is WRONG. Thus this theory is very important.

First, I want you to understand the difference between my theory and Einsteins.
The two theories make identical predictions on observed inertial bodies. Note the word inertial,
No real body is inertial. Every real body accelerates to one degree or another.

Now I am taking this in small stages (to see if anyone takes an interest)

Have You ever pondered that actually no-thing is moving?
That the aether is a super compressed near solid, with perfectly packed geometry.
That it so enables creation of multiple dimensions, ours been 3D, and that what is thought of as movement is actually switching.
That flowing about on the superconductive aether lattice is an electric potential.
That said electrical potential is intelligent.

Does any of the above correspond with Your theory?
Kevin

Your blunt response to this question was "NO"
Now You are stating that the universe is a solid.

Kevin

[marengo]

Sure but it would help to define all of the things (processes) you just stated above. As of now they are vague and unfollowable and unclear to a general readership (which makes your papers very difficult to focus on). Many books have glossaries. It is normal. I'm only trying to help you but you seem unwilling.

I am never unwilling. I just feel that a picture is better than a glossary.

[marengo]

Your blunt response to this question was "NO"
Now You are stating that the universe is a solid.

No, I have ALWAYS said that Space is a solid.

The equation for the velocity of propagation is v^2 = dP/drho. The prop velocity for iron is 5000 m/s (I think). That for Space is 3000, 000,000 m/s . So Space is 3.6 billion times stiffer than iron. I make that pretty solid.

[viscount aero]

Sure but it would help to define all of the things (processes) you just stated above. As of now they are vague and unfollowable and unclear to a general readership (which makes your papers very difficult to focus on). Many books have glossaries. It is normal. I'm only trying to help you but you seem unwilling.

I am never unwilling. I just feel that a picture is better than a glossary.

Ok good idea. But I'd suggest BOTH in this case. Your theory is new and a glossary of terms--which is a conventional tool used in millions of books--would incredibly help your case here. For example, define "pressure transients" and other such things. I don't understand why you are opposed to it. Illustrations---yes. Glossary--yes.

[kevin]

Have You ever pondered that actually no-thing is moving?
That the aether is a super compressed near solid, with perfectly packed geometry.
That it so enables creation of multiple dimensions, ours been 3D, and that what is thought of as movement is actually switching.
That flowing about on the superconductive aether lattice is an electric potential.
That said electrical potential is intelligent.

Does any of the above correspond with Your theory?
Kevin

NO

Which is it.....Yes or no????
I asked if universe was a near solid, your answer was NO.
Now You say it is a solid???????????????????
Kevin

[marengo]

Which is it.....Yes or no????
I asked if universe was a near solid, your answer was NO.

It is not near solid. It is solid.
Furthermore I did not agree with any thing else that you lumped together in the one question.

[marengo]

Ok good idea. But I'd suggest BOTH in this case. Your theory is new and a glossary of terms--which is a conventional tool used in millions of books--would incredibly help your case here. For example, define "pressure transients" and other such things. I don't understand why you are opposed to it. Illustrations---yes. Glossary--yes.

My difficulty is that it is hard for me to realise what other people find difficult to understand.
It would actually be a great help to me if you, as one who I think now understands something of Aether theory, were to list which areas you found difficult and those areas which you still find difficult. Many thanks for your continued interest.

[viscount aero]

Ok good idea. But I'd suggest BOTH in this case. Your theory is new and a glossary of terms--which is a conventional tool used in millions of books--would incredibly help your case here. For example, define "pressure transients" and other such things. I don't understand why you are opposed to it. Illustrations---yes. Glossary--yes.

My difficulty is that it is hard for me to realise what other people find difficult to understand.

Yes exactly. I've said that very thing in different words beforehand.

It would actually be a great help to me if you, as one who I think now understands something of Aether theory, were to list which areas you found difficult and those areas which you still find difficult. Many thanks for your continued interest.

Well that has been attempted, friend. The suggestion of a glossary is my attempt to help you bridge this communication gap. Again, what are "pressure transients"? You can start there. Otherwise we will continue to not understand each other very well.

You can also explain this:

"First, I want you to understand the difference between my theory and Einsteins.
The two theories make identical predictions on observed inertial bodies. Note the word inertial,
No real body is inertial. Every real body accelerates to one degree or another."


To my knowledge "inertia" is simply a body's present state of motion--it can be moving or stationary. Inertia is movement or non-movement. It denotes the state of motion. All bodies must therefore be inertial because they possess a state of inertia.

Therefore what do you mean?

[kevin]

Marengo,
OK...Thats a SOLID start.

I find that universe is a solid, but I have also ,hands on, followed the pathways within this solid, call it the structure of the solid?
I have followed all the most brilliant thinkers who have contributed to this forum( especially the departed Junglelord)

Then within that solid is a force( I reckon You term this Your sub aether?)
Kevin

[marengo]

You can also explain this:

"First, I want you to understand the difference between my theory and Einsteins.
The two theories make identical predictions on observed inertial bodies. Note the word inertial,
No real body is inertial. Every real body accelerates to one degree or another."


To my knowledge "inertia" is simply a body's present state of motion--it can be moving or stationary. Inertia is movement or non-movement. It denotes the state of motion. All bodies must therefore be inertial because they possess a state of inertia.

Therefore what do you mean?

The definition of the word 'inertial' is defined by physics in general. It simply means 'having zero-acceleration'.
It has nothing to do with velocity or movement.
My point is this; Real bodies always have some acceleration (they exist within a gravitational field however small), hence they can never be inertial.
The predictions of Special Relativity are derived from the postulate that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames (IRFs). Thus the theory applies only to inertial bodies situated within iRFs. But inertial bodies do not exist.

[marengo]

Then within that solid is a force( I reckon You term this Your sub aether?)

Totally wrong I am afraid.
The sub-Aether is merely the fundamental reference frame of the Universe.

[viscount aero]

You can also explain this:

"First, I want you to understand the difference between my theory and Einsteins.
The two theories make identical predictions on observed inertial bodies. Note the word inertial,
No real body is inertial. Every real body accelerates to one degree or another."


To my knowledge "inertia" is simply a body's present state of motion--it can be moving or stationary. Inertia is movement or non-movement. It denotes the state of motion. All bodies must therefore be inertial because they possess a state of inertia.

Therefore what do you mean?

The definition of the word 'inertial' is defined by physics in general. It simply means 'having zero-acceleration'.
It has nothing to do with velocity or movement.
My point is this; Real bodies always have some acceleration (they exist within a gravitational field however small), hence they can never be inertial.
The predictions of Special Relativity are derived from the postulate that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames (IRFs). Thus the theory applies only to inertial bodies situated within iRFs. But inertial bodies do not exist.

Inertia does have something to do with velocity and movement. Having zero acceleration does not describe what inertia is very clearly. Just saying "having zero acceleration" only, which is true, does not really describe what it is. My high school understanding of it was generally correct. Inertia describes a body's state of motion or rest:

in·er·tia (i-nûrsh a)
n.
1. Physics The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.
2. Resistance or disinclination to motion, action, or change: the inertia of an entrenched bureaucracy.

Therefore, how do you figure everything in existence is under constant acceleration? Constant acceleration requires a constant application of force (versus something that is just coasting through space with no force acting upon it). Is this because you believe in the constant acceleration of spacetime?

[viscount aero]

Then within that solid is a force( I reckon You term this Your sub aether?)

Totally wrong I am afraid.
The sub-Aether is merely the fundamental reference frame of the Universe.

To my knowledge it has taken you 22 pages to define the sub-aether even though you have been asked to define it for several pages. Why?

[marengo]

in·er·tia (i-nûrsh a)
n.
1. Physics The tendency of a body to resist acceleration; the tendency of a body at rest to remain at rest or of a body in straight line motion to stay in motion in a straight line unless acted on by an outside force.
2. Resistance or disinclination to motion, action, or change: the inertia of an entrenched bureaucracy.

Therefore, how do you figure everything in existence is under constant acceleration? Constant acceleration requires a constant application of force (versus something that is just coasting through space with no force acting upon it). Is this because you believe in the constant acceleration of spacetime?

Inertia and inertial are two different words with two different meanings. My definition of inertial is correct.
A body moving through outer Space will still be affected by the gravitational pull of nearby galaxies.
But the important point that you miss is that nothing on Earth is inertial and that is where theories are applied.