Ether the only path to unifying cosmic forces

[Michael Anteski]

A certain kind of ether - an ether acting via simple vibrational resonance, and mediated by elemental ether units that are contiguous - can answer the basic questions about cosmic forces that are presently unanswered by quantum mechanics and general relativity.

I have posted a Thread giving a model of how such an ether could have arisen. It is based on the concept of an "original" Space, prior to the first appearance of forces, a Space that differed from our present space. The concept is that of a self-compatible Space comprising elemental, contiguous, spatial points that were in perfectly-symmetrical oscillation with each other. Then, a point-pair underwent oscillational fatigue and combined in "Yin and Yang" fashion, which broke the symmetry. This "disturbance" in the perfect symmetry then was propagated throughout all of space, producing an energic ether consisting of contiguous, vibratory (as derived from the oscillatory), identical, elemental units, which are able to resonate interactively.

(The concept of oscillatory fatigue occurs in metals, but since metallic oscillatory fatigue is a quantum process, it cannot be definitively correlated with first-causal oscillatory fatigue.)

(The concept that elemental ether units are able to resonate with each other energically can be thought of in terms of "nodes" produced by the directional vibrations, which permit non-fixed resonances which can produce larger units like photons, atoms, and so on.)

A cosmic model based on this "origin" framework would act via non-mechanical vibration, unlike quantum mechanics, where discrete "particles" interact via spin, various space-vectors, and the like. Elemental ether units would interact via resonances among identical, uniform, elemental, units. This kind of model would be much better suited to explain the origin of orderly cosmic systems like atoms, planets, and so on. Although the quantized energies we observe in our earthbound setting fit the quantum mechanics model, that doesn't mean we are entitled to use QM to explain cosmic forces.

One can cite a non-cosmic system, like an electric current passing through a wire, to illustrate how the ether model differs from the QM model.-In such a setup, a wire is connected to two poles of opposite charge. Quantum mechanics explains the current as being due to a flow of electrons through the wire, but QM cannot account for the magnetic field produced around the wire, using the electron-flow model.

If instead, we use the elemental/contiguous ether model, this field is explained very easily. The wire's ultimate structure is composed of elemental ether units, and the ultimate composition of the space around the wire is also composed of the same elemental units. All these units are in constant interactive resonance with each other, both within, and without, the wire. When the electric current passes through the wire, although it "incidentally" induces a buildup of quantum electrons in the wire, it mainly consists of an impulse transmitted contiguously by etheric units. This movement of forces along the wire "unbalances" the elemental ether forces in the space around the wire, and the magnetic field that is produced simply represents the "rebalancing" of these forces in the vicinity of the wire that were unbalanced by passing the current through the wire.

One can use this as a prototype for cosmic magnetic fields, but for Gravity, the issue is more complex. -With this ether model, gravity would be very difficult to pin down, because of the vast cosmic-scale distances involved, and a resultant "underfiring" of gravity's electro- component compared to electromagnetism. In addition, gravity fields would be mostly etheric/elemental and diffuse, and besides that, we are not able to detect the ether. -Nonetheless, Gravity also becomes much simpler by applying the elemental ether model. Gravity then becomes a contiguity mechanism in which solid bodies, whose ultimate structures comprise elemental ether units, are resonating with identical ether units in the space between the bodies, producing an attraction between the bodies. -Stated briefly, this model is describable as "ether gravity's simple contiguity mechanism."

[Lloyd]

Michael, thanks for replying on my thread at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 13#p103004. Feel free to reply to my reply to you there, if you like. It would be good to have your explanations there of why Distinti's ideas seem to be wrong. But here it would be good to focus on your theory. I'll try to read it both here and in your earlier thread.

Do you define Inertia as "a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion"? I'm trying to understand what inertial-less aether would be like. Maybe I'll find info in your posts.

[Lloyd]

Michael, I tried to condense your posts into simpler form that I can understand better. It's mostly your words, but I don't know if I stated them here the way you meant. Does this below sound right?

Original Space
- Space consists of contiguous ether units that vibrate and resonate.
- In an "original" Space (that differed from our present space) the contiguous ether units were in perfectly-symmetrical oscillation with each other.
- Then, a point-pair underwent oscillational fatigue and combined in "Yin and Yang" fashion, which broke the symmetry.
- This "disturbance" in the perfect symmetry then was propagated throughout all of space.
- "Nodes" produced by the directional vibrations permit non-fixed resonances, which can produce larger units like photons, atoms, and so on.)

Magnetic Fields
- When an electric current is passing through a wire connected to two poles of opposite charge, a magnetic field is produced around the wire.
- The wire and the space around the wire are composed of the same elemental units, which are in constant interactive resonance with each other.
- When the electric current passes through the wire, it mainly consists of an impulse transmitted contiguously by etheric units.
- This movement of forces along the wire "unbalances" the elemental ether forces in the space around the wire, and the magnetic field is the "rebalancing" of these forces in the vicinity of the wire.

Aether-Gravity
- Aether-gravity is a contiguity-mechanism involving resonance of the elemental aether units
- For two quantum-structured bodies, made up of elemental aether units, their aether forces are contiguous with identical aether units in the space between the bodies, with their aetheric resonance producing a gravitational attraction between the bodies.

[Michael Anteski]

Lloyd

You wanted me to analyze your interpretations of my Post, and give my comments.

The first part, where you gave your interpretation of how I picture Original Space, requires clarification as to what I meant. -In my model, there have been two types of Space: (1) Original Space, which existed in the very beginning, before there were any cosmic forces. This Space consisted of compatible, contiguous, elemental, spatial points which oscillated in perfect symmetry with each other. The Aether had not appeared yet. -(2)The second type of Space would be our present Space, where cosmic forces exist. Our present space certainly differs from Original Space. -Of course, there can't be any way to test original Space, which no longer exists.

The oscillations of spatial points led to fatigue of a pair of adjacent points of space, which fell toward each other, as in the Yin and Yang depiction. This point-pair was still perfectly in symmetry with all the other spatial points, but then, this new point-pair had to re-equilibrate with the the original oscillatory setting, which produced an interaction between unlike points of space, which is when the first real "disturbance" of the perfect symmetry of space occurred. Once a single disturbance of perfect symmetry occurred, it would have been propagated throughout all of space, which naturally would have produced a new kind of space, a space with non-symmetrical elemental units everywhere. -Non symmetry meant directionality, which meant that there were now directional forces in space.

Now, there existed the Aether, which, in the main, consists of identical, contiguous, elemental, units which are able to resonate with each other. -I used the word "nodes" as a simplified way to conceptualize how, when the aether units vibrate (directionally or energically, as contrasted with non-directional oscillations), they can resonate with each other. These resonances are not fixed, but rather are loose enough that they can result in formation of larger "particle capacities" like photons and atoms, and back again, to smaller units of the aether.

Lloyd, your interpretation of Magnetic Fields as in my model is accurate as to what I meant. Likewise your interpretation of Aether Gravity is accurate.

[Lloyd]

Aether-Gravity
- Aether-gravity is a contiguity-mechanism involving resonance of the elemental aether units
- For two quantum-structured bodies, made up of elemental aether units, their aether forces are contiguous with identical aether units in the space between the bodies, with their aetheric resonance producing a gravitational attraction between the bodies.

Can you show us a diagram of what you're talking about, with the resonance in aether units within and between two bodies? How would resonance cause the two bodies to move toward each other?

[Zyxzevn]

As I described in other threads, it seems that ether is not a valid model yet.
The Aether model describes how the speed of light would behave in certain circumstances.
I have not come across models yet that describe something that is conform the observations
of the experiments described on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_s ... relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
There are also tests of general relativity, but they can be explained by other models much easier.

My idea is that if aether exists, it is more multidimensional.
I personally see quantum physics as a basis for developing a new model,
but different quantum physics than is currently accepted.
Quantum physics can be described very simple as particles that resonate with
their own energy.

In quantum physics everything is connected in a single basic time.
So when energy goes from one place to another, it follows a speed of light
in connection with the transmitter. This connection through space is a
direct connection. According to the EU it has a very fast connection.
The energy is then transferred over this connection until it reaches
a certain amount of energy. Both the receiver and transmitter have to be
in resonance with each other. And if nothing happens to stop it, the energy
is transferred in a quantum or photon.

The transfer of energy itself give a change of the quantum states in both
the sender and the receiver. This change can be measured. And each step
of change gives the basis of relative time.
So we have basic time and relative time, where relative time
comes from "collapsing wave functions".

So just following the logic and basics of quantum physics, I do not
get an aether that is a fluid or space. I get an aether instead that is
the transmitted energy of all particles that share the same state.
These particles transfer energy to each other and resonate with each other.
Since there are different states simultaneously possible,
this aether appears multidimensional.

I do think that this model can be used to explain all experiments as described in the wiki.
While the model is flexible, it can still be tested:
instant connections, should show some differences in behavior from
particle transfers, when the connections are manipulated.

[Lloyd]

Zyx said: I do not get an aether that is a fluid or space. I get an aether instead that is the transmitted energy of all particles that share the same state. These particles transfer energy to each other and resonate with each other. Since there are different states simultaneously possible, this aether appears multidimensional.

What are examples of "particles that share the same state"? And by state, do you mean energy level, direction, velocity, acceleration, gas, liquid, solid, or plasma? If aether is transmitted energy, does that mean aether is photons?

[Michael Anteski]

Zyxzevn

Your post seems to ask for a debate on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics -versus- the aether theory I propose.

It's hard to know where to start. -We could discuss a number of different observations that are open to alternative explanations, such as the behavior of photons in the double slit experiment, and how their behavior changes when "observing" instruments are placed nearby. -We could discuss the observation of gravitational lensing, and contrast the explanation given by General Relativity/Quantum Theory, versus the Aether Theory I propose. -I could propose alternative explanations (alternative to quantum mechanics) of such observations, based on my aether model. -Let me know if you want to discuss any topics like that.

Another approach that might help clarify this theoretic confontation might involve your asking for more details about certain questions, such as how my aether model offers an alternative explanation of the nature of waves that are associated with quantum "particles." (In my model, such quantum units are not actually discrete solid "particles," but rather "particle capacities" formed by resonances of smaller aether units.)

[Michael Anteski]

Lloyd,

Your question, as to how aether gravity produces attraction between solid bodies, would be best answered indirectly and by association with the aether-theory of solid bodies and how their composition differs from the composition of space between them. -In my aether model, the surface of the solid bodies is composed of atoms, subatomic units such as protons and electrons, but their ultimate composition and the principal component, would be elemental aetheric units, which are vastly more numerous than, and vanishingly smaller than, the quantum-size-units.

In the space between the bodies, the aether is less quantized (has fewer units of the order of atoms). The aether in space is mainly composed of elemental aether units. These aether units are exactly like the aether units at the surface of the bodies, being elemental, although their density is less than in the solid bodies.

The density of all energic units in the solid bodies is vastly greater than in the space between two such bodies. -That is what holds them together. The energies inside the bodies is much higher than in the space, and this energy leads to a greater aggregation of smaller units into larger units like atoms, inside the bodies. However, the greatest density of energic units inside the bodies is that of the aetheric units, especially elemental aether units. (For example, the vast spaces inside atoms isn't "empty" as quantum mechanics believes, but is filled with aetheric forces.)

So, when the numerous aether units near the surface of the bodies interacts resonationally with (identical though less numerous) aether units in the space between two bodies, the very-densely-crowded units inside the bodies sense and react to the closeness of another, analogous, densely aether-packed body, via the aether units in space between them, by a strong degree of resonance, which, at our level of observation, results in an attractive inertial force between the two bodies.

To go into a little more detail about aetheric resonance producing gravitational attraction, for each pair of aether units that resonate with each other, there is produced an electrical dipole at the opposite pole of each unit. These retroactively result in a field in space outside the solid bodies being gravitationally attracted. -The complexity of how to detect and describe gravity fields was discussed toward the end of my opening Thread.

I described how aetheric resonance would work in my model, in the opening Thread (vibration, "nodes," and so on.)

[Zyxzevn]

Zyxzevn
Your post seems to ask for a debate on the fundamentals of quantum mechanics -versus- the aether theory I propose.

And relativity..
And I don't want any "debate". That means that we start with a conflict.
I prefer to start with observations that we all agree on, and see how our models
perform under these circumstances.

While your model might be right, it needs to be able to explain the observations that we have.
Even stating that some of these observations were invalid is an explanation.
You do not need to explain everything exactly, but it helps to understand the model.
I think that we can understand a model better, if we can see how it performs in difficult
circumstances.
If we understand it better, we can even test it.
When there is a difference between the observation and the model,
we can improve the model or change it.

As far I understand the quantum physics, I think that it is an incomplete model of
the behavior of particles and energy on a very small scale. It does perform
very well on this small scale in statistical predictions. And because there
are many particles on this level, our statistical predictions can be very useful.
Limit 1: It is not capable of predicting the movement of one particle in a system.
Limit 2: We do not understand why particles behave like waves and vice versa.
Limit 3: Not many people understand quantum physics.
Observations that may break it: http://www.unquantum.com

I can do something similar with special relativity.
It describes the change of mass, size and time of an object that moves very fast
relative to another object.
Limit 1: It creates a dependency on the observer.
Limit 2: It breaks the concept of time and distance.
Limit 3: It does not work in rotating or accelerating systems (one needs general relativity for that).
Derived from: Electromagnetism, Maxwell equations.
Observations that may break it:
1) (Moon/Spencer, 1956) describes observations that seem to confirm a direct connection of light
with its sender. See..

[Michael Anteski]

Zyxzevn

I understand that you commented in order to understand my model better, not for debate.

Maybe it would help if I address at least a couple points in your latest post, to describe how they would be viewed in my Model.

You stated we should try to clarify "why particles behave like waves." -The wording of the question contains a couple assumptions that my model differs with, on a very-basic level. -Firstly, in my model, there are no such things as "particles" as now held in quantum theory. In my aether model, quantum-size-scale units are actually "particle capacities" which are built up by resonances among much smaller aetheric units. These resonances are not fixed, but rather they are loose, which causes reversibility, so that a photon, for example, may be formed, but then revert back to several or more smaller units. (All we are able to observe at our quantum level of observation is the photon. Thus the photon may vanish from our observation. QM theorists interpret this as its "change to a waveform," but in the aether model, the change in the photon is interpreted very differently.

As far as the nature of such "waves," again, my model has a very different perspective than does quantum mechanics. The way the aether model views the waves observed in quantum-scale energy systems is that the waves are formed as part of the processes occurring during resonances among aetheric energy units and larger energy units, such as quantum units like photons. As a photon follows a curvational track, resonating among a "sea" of smaller aetheric and aetheroidal units, it produces waveforms, similar to the way a boat forms waves as it passes over water. A wave represents a pattern of "rather large" resonances between the (comparatively large) photon, and other energic units, too small to be seen themselves.

[Solar]

Therefore, no “capacities” can ever be ‘separated’ from their “wave” due to a continuous simultaneity of ‘conversions’ and “reversibility”. What would be observed, for those aspects that can be observed, is the quality called “oscillations” that would characterize the continuous to-and-fro dynamic. Therein lay the “harmonic oscillator” function which then, by way of resonance, will form a coherent region – a ‘rhythmic system” - of internalized oscillating “capacities” relative to the ‘external’ domain of that will be interpreted as being able to “drive” or “pump” the domain consisting of a "sea" of smaller aetheric and aetheroidal units” inducing “wave” phenomena.

This relationship would obviously have to be a result of "wave" phenomena. There is no reason for some people to continually assert the existence of the reality of "waves" while never answering the question 'Waves in what'? This is how "wave" phenomena work; there must always be some smaller aspect to "carry" or "transmit" said "waves". Good on you Mr. Anteski for having the ability (and courage I might add) not to go wandering around leaving that question as merely hanging fruit. When said fruit supposedly fell upon Newton's head he also got a clue.

What prey tell has to fall upon the head of the rest of physics is anyone's guess.

[Zyxzevn]

"Waves in what?" is a good question, which is not answered by normal physics yet.
Theoretical physics tries to push the idea of superstrings, to maintain their old partially invalid theories.

My first question would be "What wave?"
There seem to be 3 kinds of waves in a medium:
1) sound-waves. speed of sound
2) EM-waves. speed of light (c), follows Maxwell equations
3) Quantum probability waves. instantly, follows Schrödinger equation

The aether hypothesis describes a medium that is responsible for EM-waves, but
does not describe the instant connection.
I don't believe that there are solid particles, but there may be things that we perceive as particles.

For the instant waves 3) we need a connection between source and target.
One such model is described by the "Rope hypothesis"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7hiR1gjcEs

Then if such ropes exist, these ropes might also be used for transferring energy using,
EM-waves. This can be done in packages/quanta, just as we see in quantum physics.

Then to get sound waves, we have circles of ropes that collide with each other.

While the model may not be completely correct, it does explain what we see.
And this model answers the question: "Waves in what?"

And if you are looking for some kind of ether, this Aether could simply by the sum of all ropes together.
And maybe if we look deeper, we may find other structures too.

[Zendo]

I think the ether of the author is too complex of an explanation of a medium. Note: The below explanation requires light to only propagate as waves, not photons, as per Planck's loading theory, the existence of only two fields E and M, and the existence of only two particles electron and proton with inherent spin and magnetic moment (neutron being a result of electron + proton configuration), the invalidation of special and general relavtivty. Although it's easy to dismiss these initial requirements as unscientific I would direct the reader to unquantum theory, Wall Thornhills notes about the phenomena of gravity, the fact that beta decay produces a proton and electron from a neutron and that a neutron is never observed in a free state, K.T. Assis Relational Mechanics, the various cosmological gravitational lensing non-observations and the confused state of particle physics (as per Alexander Unzicker "The Higgs Fake" among other books).

I apologize in advance for what may seem like jumping to conclusions, but it's in essence a wealth of information attempted to be condensed into a few paragraphs.


We go by the assumption that space contains "nothing", but as far as we know all space contains, as I would argue the very thing that defines a medium: A non-zero electric and magnetic field (meaning that a test particle or wave is always interacting with one or the other no matter it's location of in space). On earth particles are within the earths EM-fields, while outside it's sphere of influence the sun gradually takes over, outside the sun the galaxy, and so on.

It's perhaps difficult to conceptually imagine that a medium can be the vacuum because we feel like we should be able to touch a medium and feel it "pushing" back. Well what is this force pushing back when we interact with a conventional medium (e.g. glass or water)? It's the electrons in our skin pushing against the electrons of the medium. This posits the existence of electric forces pushing back, and with electric forces comes magnetic ones.

Well what if the medium of wave propagation is solely based upon the density, structure (e.g. lattice formation) and properties of the internal electromagnetic fields of the material?

Thus if we define a medium as the density and structure of electric and magnetic field vectors it would mean that space it self is a medium of propagation. Looking at just EM-fields I challenge anyone to find a place in the observable universe where both fields are undetectable.

The building blocks of the stars and galaxies would thus be a result of the mechanisms emerging from the interaction of the particles in these two fields, and thus we do not need aether, relativity, QED or QCD to explain the forces in the cosmos. If my suspicions are correct it invalidates aether, quantum electrodynamics and relativity, which would be to most physicists a pill too hard to swallow

Without meandering too far off topic: I think it's unnecessary to invoke hidden particles, forces, dimensions or needlessly complex heuristics models to understand what's going on in nature. We "simply" need to find the lowest common denominator between all observed effects and work our way up from there. I'd say, looking a the evidence, that EU is really paving the way for the first grand unification theory. I think the clue lies in emergence in the basis of simple mechanisms (double layers being and transfer of kinetic energy through EM-waves being two of them) as well as the fractal properties seen in electrical phenomena. This kind of approach has the advantage of essentially invalidating one of the greatest problems of the main stream models namely the hierarchy problem as well as many of the current conceptual problems and the need for many heuristic models used now to solve problems in physics.

Happy new year

[Solar]

"Waves in what?" is a good question, which is not answered by normal physics yet.
Theoretical physics tries to push the idea of superstrings, to maintain their old partially invalid theories.

My first question would be "What wave?"
There seem to be 3 kinds of waves in a medium:
1) sound-waves. speed of sound
2) EM-waves. speed of light (c), follows Maxwell equations
3) Quantum probability waves. instantly, follows Schrödinger equation

Those are all "transverse waves" induced orthogonal to the direction of propagation. These occur because "matter", or "particles", are 'absorbing' the "energy density" of the "magnitude" of The Aether species.

The Aether imparts it's dynamic by way of the Longitudinal Force. Extract your earlier proposition and begin to work with that:

I do not
get an aether that is a fluid or space. I get an aether instead that is
the transmitted energy of all particles that share the same state.

That would be the meaning of the term "Scalar". It means that "all particles that share the same state" and this will hypothetically constitute their own unique resonant magnitudes. Every last of each 'particulate' phase. However, given a particular "particle" - electrons for example - it would be thought they would all have to return to their "ground state" in order resume such a fundamental magnitude. One would surely then have a perfectly symmetrical crystalline electron lattice and obviously an energy density... a resonant Magnitude whether as ideally crystalline positron lattice, a perfectly crystalline muon lattice. On and on it goes.

The oscillations in energy density aka "striations" in the plasma are the result of the resonant 'absorption' of the magnitude, or energy density of the "field" which is interconverted into "linear momentum" (forward propagation) on the one hand and "photon" emission on the other as a result of charged species 'shedding' energy in excess of their "ground state".

In terms of the oscillating magnitude of the constituents of the "field", a phase of The Aether constitutes said "field", Aether species are 'absorbed' and interpreted as the quality called "charge" - thus "charged particles" are called "charge carriers" and not "charge" itself. The "cascade" function as interpreted by the physics is not a game of marbles undergoing "collision". It is a function of energy exchange and conversion between species working nearly the way member Anteski describes:

The density of all energic units in the solid bodies is vastly greater than in the space between two such bodies. -That is what holds them together. The energies inside the bodies is much higher than in the space, and this energy leads to a greater aggregation of smaller units into larger units like atoms, inside the bodies. However, the greatest density of energic units inside the bodies is that of the aetheric units, especially elemental aether units. (For example, the vast spaces inside atoms isn't "empty" as quantum mechanics believes, but is filled with aetheric forces.)

The "transverse waves" occur in the "wake" of a propagation. What is propagating? The magnitude of Aetheric Forces which occur longitudinal to said "transverse waves" as the propagation of the energy density (the magnitude)of the "field". That which induces "transverse waves" in its "wake" must necessarily propagate faster. The longitudinal, or "scalar", function is not a "wave"; it is a Magnitude of energy density.