Ether the only path to unifying cosmic forces

[ranmacar]

Hello,

I've been looking through the Aether/non standard physics, and trying to fit my model to others.
What seems original to my understanding, is a very real Aether, with measurable misrepresented properties. My Aether is the liquid medium which carries EM, but also the source of all matter. This happens through a 'phase-change', where the local energy exceeds the limit and the Aether expands.
A mechanical explanation implies real energy transfer in all wave interactions, so in order for matter to not dissipate, it has to receive just as much energy as it radiates. The simplest way, that is both mechanical and understandably overlooked is resonance with an underlying oscillation. Stable matter 'particle' is a resonant pattern, and all observed matter is at the boiling point of Aether, enclosed in colder liquid. Stable cosmological objects are also resonant imbalances, presumably centered around and tuned to local oscillators.
EM/QM relates to actual Aether movement/phase changes, Gravity to Aether heat/pressure.
Does this make sense to anyone else here?

I'd be thankful for any feedback, and pointers to similar/related models.

Happy new year!

[Michael Anteski]

Raising the question of the exact nature of quantum waves has seemed to set off a variety of theories apart from the thrust of my opening Thread, which was intended to present a model that integrates origins with earthbound quantum observation, via a model of how a universal aether could have originated, and then led to our world and its kind of cosmic forces.

Waves are observed in association with observing quantum units like photons, but my point is that this doesn't mean waves can be explained just using quantum mechanics theory. I maintain that waves represent quantal "surface" manifestations of the interactions between the quantum scale unit, the photon, and an underlying aetheric/aetheroidal matrix. -All we observe with our quantum technology is the photon and the wave. However, the true nature of the wave, I submit, would require being able to "see" exactly what is happening at a more rarified, aetheric, scale of energics that the photon is interacting with. There is a "sea" of resonances going on.

[ranmacar]

From what I gathered, Mathis and others have proposed fixes to relativity/quantum math, mostly including some exotic mechanics. The least noncontroversial theory is Lorentz relativity, which lacks mechanics for EM, and has most of the same problems as GR. Mainstream astrophysics seems to be falling apart, Cosmology probably too. Unquantum.net has some experiments, which undermine QM, and gives a window to sub-quantum phenomenona, maybe.
My understanding is, that QM works on the level of Aether 'phase-changes' = quanta, and hides the real waves behind probability, as EM lacks mechanical explanation. One idea to test this experimentally I've had is to use water, or a common liquid at its boiling point, and explore cymatic, or fixed patterns, ideally in low gravity. Or if someone knows of a good wave simulator, that would be a good start to design a real experiment. Mathis proposed at least one test, with reflected waves in the dual slit setup, any word if it has been tested?

That is the most valuable resource I think, proposed experiments with predictions, or reinterpreted classic experiments. Is somewhere a list of such Aether related resources?

[David]

From what I gathered, Mathis and others have proposed fixes to relativity/quantum math, mostly including some exotic mechanics... Mathis proposed at least one test, with reflected waves in the dual slit setup, any word if it has been tested?

Mathis has never performed so much as a single experiment to confirm any of his outlandish, hard to swallow theories; nor is he ever likely to. In fact, he actually claims that testing is “unnecessary”:

I was asked by a reader why I didn't set up some experiments to prove my theory here, and my answer was that it is unnecessary. The experiments have all been done already, they just haven't been interpreted correctly.

http://milesmathis.com/super2.html

[upriver]

Hello,

I've been looking through the Aether/non standard physics, and trying to fit my model to others.
What seems original to my understanding, is a very real Aether, with measurable misrepresented properties. My Aether is the liquid medium which carries EM, but also the source of all matter. This happens through a 'phase-change', where the local energy exceeds the limit and the Aether expands.
A mechanical explanation implies real energy transfer in all wave interactions, so in order for matter to not dissipate, it has to receive just as much energy as it radiates. The simplest way, that is both mechanical and understandably overlooked is resonance with an underlying oscillation. Stable matter 'particle' is a resonant pattern, and all observed matter is at the boiling point of Aether, enclosed in colder liquid. Stable cosmological objects are also resonant imbalances, presumably centered around and tuned to local oscillators.
EM/QM relates to actual Aether movement/phase changes, Gravity to Aether heat/pressure.
Does this make sense to anyone else here?

I'd be thankful for any feedback, and pointers to similar/related models.
Happy new year!

Check out Aetherometry.

"Through meticulous and methodical experimentation with electroscopes, ORACs, and Tesla coils, the Correas have succeeded in identifying different types of massfree (or aetheric) energy and in explaining all the above anomalies. They have also developed several patented technologies that tap aether energy. The aether component whose action they have identified as being chiefly responsible for what they call the electroscopic 'gravito-kinetoregenerative phenomenon' is a nonelectric form of massfree energy with antigravitic properties; it is associated with the molecules of matter and their phase states, and is loosely known to chemists and meteorologists as 'latent heat'.

The other major aether component (whose spectrum the Correas have identified) is massfree electric energy consisting of longitudinal wave radiation that carries ambipolar rather than monopolar charges, for, in contrast to massbound charges (such as electrons and protons), massfree charges are neutral rather than either positive or negative. As for electromagnetic radiation, photons are considered to be transient, vortex-like standing waves in the aether, which are generated locally when particles of matter decelerate and shed the kinetic energy gained from interaction with massfree electric radiation. The aether is therefore not to be confused with the electromagnetic 'zero-point field'.

Aetherometry proposes that when units of nonelectric aether superimpose and condense to form matter particles (mass-energy), each massbound particle is accompanied by a quantum of massfree gravitational energy (i.e. a graviton). For the charged leaf of an electroscope to remain deflected, the constant microscopic work performed by gravitons in pushing the atoms of the leaf down has to be counteracted by the work of the massbound charges trapped in the leaves; this work, in turn, can only be sustained if the trapped charges draw in environmental latent heat to produce a flux of antigravitons sufficient to balance the constantly downward-pressing gravitational flux."
http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometr ... r_grav.php

I Iike this break down at Powerpedia. Its a lot easier to go through than their website even though I have gone through the entire site and own several books.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Powerpedia:Aetherometry

[ranmacar]

Mathis has never performed so much as a single experiment to confirm any of his outlandish, hard to swallow theories; nor is he ever likely to. In fact, he actually claims that testing is “unnecessary”

While I tend to agree that his work seems unnecessary complex, it is sprinkled with predictions/explanations. A mechanical explanation of gravity and QM does not need new experiments, we indeed have all data already in.

Aetherometry proposes that when units of nonelectric aether superimpose and condense to form matter particles (mass-energy), each massbound particle is accompanied by a quantum of massfree gravitational energy (i.e. a graviton).

Thanks, seems quite close, and with lots of work done. It only looks inverse in the interpretation, I think the superimposed energy boils, not condenses into mass particles, which is accompanied by volumetric and pressure increase and Aether cooling. Might work mechanically with condensation also, and negative pressure wave peaks, it's just a personal preference so far on my part.
From the summary, I feel the concept of a primordial oscillation is also there, in the time synchronicity. I prefer a more mechanical explanation. Vortexes, flow, turbulence of Aether, instead of fields and probability.
Will take some time to see their experiments and predictions through, thanks!

[David]

While I tend to agree that his work seems unnecessary complex, it is sprinkled with predictions/explanations. A mechanical explanation of gravity and QM does not need new experiments, we indeed have all data already in.

There is nothing "unnecessarily complex" to be found in any of the Mathis theories; on the contrary, they are all overly simple and childishly naïve. For example: stacked-spins, charge field, and pi=4; which pretty much covers his entire philosophy. All of his theories are based on stacked-spins and the charge field; including gravity.

Regarding your comment: "we indeed have all data already in". You may want to rethink that stance. I would argue that we have barely scratched the surface.

[ranmacar]

All of his theories are based on stacked-spins and the charge field; including gravity.

That's what I meant, there is just too much unnecessary text around it. I like the simplicity, and focus on mechanics. Can't say much about the math yet.

I would argue that we have barely scratched the surface.

Again, I agree, as we know nothing about the substance (even almost postulated it unknowable in dark energy), but we have plenty of experimental data to test any new theory. We only need new experiments to differentiate between competing models, once they pass through existing results. If Mathis can calculate celestial orbits with stacked spins and a charge field, that'd be great news.

[Michael Anteski]

The version of an aether with which I opened this Thread presented a logical model for how a universal aether, based on the concept of contiguity, could have arisen out of pure Space.

All the other theories of an aether being presented in my Thread (I won't use the pejorative terminology "thread hijacking") are just offering alternative aether-models, none of which has any suggestion as to how an aether could have originated. That should be important part of any model of the cosmos.

The alternative models for a universal aether, now being inserted into this Thread, seem to me to be based on empirical observations and thus are basically similar to quantum theory. I maintain that logic, based on possible origins, is what should instead prevail (as long as the observational evidence doesn't rule it out) because relying just on observational evidence at our earthbound setting doesn't necessarily correspond with what originally happened in the cosmos. -I'll listen if someone has a rational "origins" mechanism for their alternative aether theory.

Otherwise, I don't rated these alternative aether theories any higher than the mainstream Big Bang-from-"unknown singularity" hypothesis.

[David]

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 energetic ether consisting of contiguous, vibratory (as derived from the oscillatory), identical, elemental units, which are able to resonate interactively.

That’s all well and good. However, please forgive my skepticism, but I would like to see the mathematical rendering of your theory that can accurately predict the elliptical orbits of the planets, and the anomalous precession of Mercury.

Newton gave us a mathematical formula that could be used to test his theory; likewise with Einstein (which incidentally, took him 10 years to develop his field equations).

Without a mathematical description of your theory, it’s just wild speculation and hand-waving; and we've already got a plentiful supply of that.

[Zyxzevn]

What are we modeling?
Ether is usually used to model light waves, but is not able to model quantum waves.
That is because quantum waves are instant, and either:
1) need a direct connection. As I described in the rope-hypothesis.
2) need faster-than-light particles that interfere with each other.

I'm actually not sure how mainstream science tries to solve this problem.
I assume that they just use math and statistics to remove the whole time and space concept.

[ranmacar]

I maintain that logic, based on possible origins, is what should instead prevail

Sorry, if you feel I am hijacking this, I really am looking for people who might intuitively understand the mechanics similarly.
As to the origins, I don't think you've shared enough for us to appreciate, yet. Do you have a longer summary somewhere?

I try to separate the metaphysics, as we still struggle with simple mechanics. But in a nutshell, I see the mechanics as the first layer of the same process that has given us DNA, and HTTP - communication. Your body is the Internet of your cells, and you are their god. Starting from a still sea of consciousness.
My bias with the word Aether is toward mechanical physics, but I see it as unseparable from metaphysics. It's the first layer of separation.

[Michael Anteski]

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 energetic ether consisting of contiguous, vibratory (as derived from the oscillatory), identical, elemental units, which are able to resonate interactively.

That’s all well and good. However, please forgive my skepticism, but I would like to see the mathematical rendering of your theory that can accurately predict the elliptical orbits of the planets, and the anomalous precession of Mercury.

My position on these points is that the mathematics of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been derived from empirical observation of quantum energy systems

Newton gave us a mathematical formula that could be used to test his theory; likewise with Einstein (which incidentally, took him 10 years to develop his field equations).

Without a mathematical description of your theory, it’s just wild speculation and hand-waving; and we've already got a plentiful supply of that.

My position on these points is that the mathematics of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have been derived from empirical observations in our earthbound setting, where energies are quantized by the earth's energy, whereas cosmic forces arose in space where energies differ, and where an aether would be more applicable. -I don't dispute that mathematics work for our earthbound quantum energy systems. -There is no way to measure aether forces, as we are unable to detect the aether. Applying non mathematical concepts for an aether therefore is reasonable.

[Solar]

[-There is no way to measure aether forces, as we are unable to detect the aether.

That is not true.

I maintain that logic, based on possible origins, is what should instead prevail

Sorry, if you feel I am hijacking this, ...
(...)

As to the origins, I don't think you've shared enough for us to appreciate, yet. Do you have a longer summary somewhere?

Agreed. It doesn't seem as if the author of this thread appreciates the fact that there are quite a lot of individuals who are WELL acquainted with the basic principle of an original Aether Lattice and all subsequent ideas about same. Its been said many times that the people here are well read and this is true. How anyone can make a post and refer to contrasting contributions as "hijacking" is beyond me. Posting some thoughts for consideration to hose interested in this topic.

By way of Reason and Logic The Aether concept precedes this era and *all* current reinventied interpretations:

3.1 Mixture and Rotation

The original state of the cosmos was an unlimited (apeiron) mixture of all the ingredients. The mixture of ingredients, all with all, exists eternally. Up to some point in the past, it was motionless (59 B1, A45), and it was everywhere undifferentiated, or almost so. According to B1, which Simplicius, the source for the fragment, says was near the beginning of Anaxagoras' book:

"All things were together, unlimited both in amount and in smallness, for the small, too, was unlimited. And because all things were together, nothing was evident on account of smallness; for air and aether covered all things, both being unlimited, for these are the greatest among all things both in amount and in largeness."

This undifferentiated mass includes all there is of all the natural ingredients that there are, the ingredients that will eventually form the natural constructs that constitute the cosmos as we know it. – Anaxagoras: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Attempts to conjoin modern day concepts such as “symmetry”, “point-pairs”, individual “quantum oscillators”, “dark energy”, “vacuum”, “electric field”, “dark matter”, “field theory”, “contiguous spatial points”, “resonance”, “perturbation theory”, “magnetic field”, “entropy”, any and all qualities assigned to so called “free space”, “unbalancing”, “quantum foam”, “self-organizing”, “rebalancing” and the rest cannot escape the fact that Reason, Logic and other Aspects perforce reduce todays ideations of a Fundamental Primary Substance to nothing more than reiterations of the very same primal idea.

There are existing hypotheses, ideas, and theories of an original quintessential “undisturbed” Lattice of “Space” as some form of “charge(s)” both “electric” and “non-electromagnetic” (call them what one will) that undergoes some form of transformation for which all other states, phases, and forces are variations. Harold Aspden developed a Crystalline Aether Lattice, here is an Electron-Positron Lattice, by way of test and re-evaluation of interpretations Aetherometry has developed an Aether Lattice. Each one of the aforementioned are much further developed than an introductory post on an internet forum.

There is ostensibly nothing wrong with positing a Self-differentiating Primary Substance as Fundamental to this Universe several, if not all, theories have done this. No theory escapes this and the people on this forum are monstrously well read. No one is capable of simply slapping an idea up and not having contrast posted. I have at least five Aether Theories that I've continually worked with over several years. For those who are amenable to this concept and in line with the above theories here is yet another unsung account of the serendipitous detection of The Fuscum Subnigrum (Leibniz ) as “It slips, as through a slit in the midst of the shadows.”

The following is a saved mirror website and constitutes all that is left from the work of Roland DeWitt. While working with underground coax cable for a period of time quite by accident Mr. DeWitt noted that the equipment detected a variation that corresponded to the sidereal day:

And finally, as the experiment has been performed during 178 days, it has been possible to measure with accuracy (+ or -- 25 s) the period of the phase signal which is the sidereal day (23 h 56 min ), thus permitting to conclude that the ether-wind has been detected in contradiction with the Einsteinian " principle of relativity ", even with wind-squalls apparently. – Roland Dewitt: My Experimental detection of The Ether Wind

Where went the rest of physics supposedly wanting to "unify cosmic forces"? They're a no show.

Based on this serendipitous detection, Mr. DeWitt assessed the Aether to be ‘gaseous’, like Tesla, and that “particles” are the result of a type of inward propagating ‘reverberating resonance’ kind of effect similar to the OP. The work is well worth pouring through and taking some notes as Mr. DeWitt wasn’t looking for what he discovered. Mr. DeWitt was let go from his employer and passed away shortly thereafter. From DeWitt’s findings Reginald Cahill developed his model of “Space” as ‘substantive’ referring to It as “Dynamical 3-Space” which means three-dimensional “space” as an actual ‘volumetric stuff’ i.e. The Aether as not only in Motion but conferring Motion as well. Here is Mr. Cahill’s tribute to the work of DeWitt and others:

The Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment (to the Memory of Roland De Witte)

Make sure to understand that the above is based on experimental findings. The point is that individuals have pursued and will continue to pursue Aether concepts in light of current and historical experiments, interpretations, and observations whether as “superfluid “vacuum theory”, an original Self-Differentiating Fundamental Lattice – which is what the OP is putting forth - “space-time”, or its other transformation “electricity”. Not only is The Aether, regardless of what it is called, the most fascinating concept in the whole of physics it is remarkable to pour through the above referenced works and contrast them. That is up to each individual though. The physics has measured and given name to a variety of resonant phase-transitions of The One Essence and particle physics relentlessly hunts for more regardless of how fleeting the remarkably temporary induced “particles” may be. Would the whole of history be considered as “hijacking” this thread as well? No, obviously not.

Like Ranmacar says, as demonstrated with the ideas of Anaxagoras and others before him so very long ago the opening few post putting forth an original Fundamental Aether Lattice that differentiates isn't new nor does it share enough to appreciate for several long-time proponents of The Aether. Personally, the assistance that has been provided by people on this forum has been invaluable to me for fleshing out and further developing a myriad of things. It would probably be more beneficial to look at comments from that perspective.

[Lloyd]

Ether Chat

Michael Anteski wrote:[-There is no way to measure aether forces, as we are unable to detect the aether.

Solar said: That is not true.

The word "detect" may be more flexible than is usually appreciated. It seems that we are able to detect many things just by logic applied to other observations. And it seems that psychic abilities allow some of us to detect things paranormally. In fact, Michael stated in the Ethereal Mechanics chat room yesterday that his ether theory supposes that the ether etc is organized or managed by psychic means.

Solar Ty, maybe you'd like to be involved in the next chat room discussion about the Ether. We may have another one next Sunday at Noon Eastern Time at http://us20.chatzy.com/16614436382543.

Objective Reality
Here's a question for both of you and others. In order to get down to basics, why do we not discuss consciousness? Everything we know is consciousness and the subconscious. The field of vision is part of our perceptions and perceptions are one of the 3 kinds of consciousness we have, the other two being thoughts and emotions.

Most of our ideas stem from visual memories of events. (Memories are usually subconscious, but when we retrieve them they enter into our thoughts, or imitations of memories enter our thoughts.) So the field of vision is probably our most important source for our thoughts, which are what our theories consist of.

The field of vision is like a screen on which there are shapes, colors and intensities, which logic tells us are produced by reflections from real objects outside of our own bodies. Instead of saying I see my computer in front of me in my room, a more objective statement would probably be that my field of vision now has a seemingly natural image of my computer in my room on it. Normally, it's not efficient to talk that way, but for scientific purposes, I think it's sometimes very important to talk that way, because that's objective reality.

The universe is not really objective reality to us. Instead, our perceptions are objective reality. We may not be able to know if the universe is objective reality, because reality may consist only of consciousness. Caring seems to be an important aspect of consciousness, because it's what gives us the urge to learn about reality.

The visual field is not static, but constantly changing, at least with respect to time. So motion seems to be a significant fact about reality. Motion, matter and ether may consist of some sort of units of consciousness. There is motion and change observable in the visual field, but change is also observable in the other senses too. The senses of hearing and touch can observe motion and change, but not as clearly at a "distance" as via the sense of vision.

This kind of objective thinking seems to me to hold potential for much greater understanding in the future.