Ether the only path to unifying cosmic forces

[Lloyd]

Paranormal
Zyxzevn, I started a new thread with this title to address our side issue.

[Michael Anteski]

Reply to last Post of StefanR,

A way to conceptualize how vibration's "directionality" works (in contrast to the non-directionality of oscillation), would be to think of each elemental unit of the aether having a "node" with which it can loosely resonate with another unit. Such resonations would not be "fixed," but rather "loose." Thus, an elemental aether unit's "node" can interact combinationally, temporarily, with another elemental unit, or an elemental aether unit can interact, also reversibly and temporarily, with another elemental aether unit that is already interactively attached to a larger unit like a photon. -I wish I could describe more details of the exact ways these resonational interactions work, but I'd need to be able to view the aether itself, which isn't possible in our quantum world. -The reversibility of the "loose" resonances allows elemental aether units to form larger units, which can revert back down to smaller units. All this depends on the local "macro" ambient energy system, which controls the variations of the constituent aetheric units.

A key concept is that aether units have finely-tuned vibrational properties, the variations of which lead to a whole world of energic effects on the macro scale, via the contiguity of their energic transmissions through the aether.

Your question asking for a description of the exact nature of oscillation. -I am not an authority on the basic theory of oscillation. You'll have to look into standard references on "oscillation." -The way I use the concept in my first-causal space model adheres to standard concepts of "oscillation."

The question about an aether derived from space, and how it relates to "matter." -The idea in my model, that the aether arose from space, means that what we ordinarily perceive, inertially, as "bodies made of solid matter" are actually ultimately composed of aether units that lack any "mass." -This differs from quantum mechanics, which believes that elemental units that make up solid bodies also have "mass". In my aether Model, at the ultimate elemental aether level there is no such thing as "material mass."

[upriver]

Reply to last Post of StefanR,

The question about an aether derived from space, and how it relates to "matter." -The idea in my model, that the aether arose from space, means that what we ordinarily perceive, inertially, as "bodies made of solid matter" are actually ultimately composed of aether units that lack any "mass." -This differs from quantum mechanics, which believes that elemental units that make up solid bodies also have "mass". In my aether Model, at the ultimate elemental aether level there is no such thing as "material mass."

EU (Wal) insists everything has mass but how can you have variable inertia unless you start with matter that has no mass??

[David]

A key concept is that aether units have finely-tuned vibrational properties, the variations of which lead to a whole world of energic effects on the macro scale, via the contiguity of their energic transmissions through the aether.

Your question asking for a description of the exact nature of oscillation. - I am not an authority on the basic theory of oscillation. You'll have to look into standard references on "oscillation." - The way I use the concept in my first-causal space model adheres to standard concepts of "oscillation."

There is nothing in the standard literature on “oscillations” that even remotely suggests that they will produce elliptical orbits with periodic precessions.

So how does your theory explain the motion of the planets?

[quantauniverse]

I disbelieve in the unseen, whether it be dark matter or aether, somebody names it such to be. Instead, I believe in the scalability of charged plasmas, and that an atomic particle operates self-similar to galaxies. Sizes are illusions. I don't believe in any dimensions, phase changes of matter account for all 3 dimensions. Ice and water have a supersolid phase component, which is like another dimension. Solid, liquid, gas are the 3 dimensions. Plasma is the 4th. Superfluids, supersolids, makes 6 dimensions...

[StefanR]

.....
A key concept is that aether units have finely-tuned vibrational properties, the variations of which lead to a whole world of energic effects on the macro scale, via the contiguity of their energic transmissions through the aether.
....

Thank you Michael for your explanations. I got caught by your posts mentioning points and contiguity, which in a way reminded me of things I read in Boscovich' Theory of Natural Philosophy, although he treats of it in little different way. Do you have website or such where you have worked out things?

[StefanR]

A key concept is that aether units have finely-tuned vibrational properties, the variations of which lead to a whole world of energic effects on the macro scale, via the contiguity of their energic transmissions through the aether.

Your question asking for a description of the exact nature of oscillation. - I am not an authority on the basic theory of oscillation. You'll have to look into standard references on "oscillation." - The way I use the concept in my first-causal space model adheres to standard concepts of "oscillation."

There is nothing in the standard literature on “oscillations” that even remotely suggests that they will produce elliptical orbits with periodic precessions.

So how does your theory explain the motion of the planets?

The elliptical orbits of planets with periodic processions was not quite the scale level Michael was indicating. But I guess he is more able to tell you.

[StefanR]

I disbelieve in the unseen, whether it be dark matter or aether, somebody names it such to be. Instead, I believe in the scalability of charged plasmas, and that an atomic particle operates self-similar to galaxies. Sizes are illusions. I don't believe in any dimensions, phase changes of matter account for all 3 dimensions. Ice and water have a supersolid phase component, which is like another dimension. Solid, liquid, gas are the 3 dimensions. Plasma is the 4th. Superfluids, supersolids, makes 6 dimensions...

Of course anyone is free to believe anything he wants to, if it jives with reality is something else of course. Just as one is free to believe that states of matter (of (sub)-atomic and molecules) are the same as dimensions.
By the way, if you disbelieve the unseen, when have you seen an atomic particle?

[Michael Anteski]

A key concept is that aether units have finely-tuned vibrational properties, the variations of which lead to a whole world of energic effects on the macro scale, via the contiguity of their energic transmissions through the aether.

Your question asking for a description of the exact nature of oscillation. - I am not an authority on the basic theory of oscillation. You'll have to look into standard references on "oscillation." - The way I use the concept in my first-causal space model adheres to standard concepts of "oscillation."

There is nothing in the standard literature on “oscillations” that even remotely suggests that they will produce elliptical orbits with periodic precessions.

So how does your theory explain the motion of the planets?

David:

Your question is really separate from the theoretic points I've made in this Thread, but for what it's worth, I have a few random thoughts about precession and the universal-aether concept.

The most studied precession is Mercury's, which mainstream theory attributes to gravitational forces acting on the planet, and contributed to by "wobble" effects as well. I have to go along with that view.

Using the aether model, one might entertain the idea that inasmuch as Mercury's orbit is closest to the Sun, if an aether were transmitting energy to Mercury from its solar flares, then that might affect Mercury's orbit (with the energy "blips" summating into a single precessional apogee.) -However, inasmuch as solar flares occur unevenly over time, and Mercury's precession is very regular at eleven-year intervals, that kind of aether effect appears disproven.

I have to go along with the mainstream views in this particular instance. But even though the aether doesn't enter into planetary orbit theory, I don't see how that affects the kind of aether model I have presented.

[Michael Anteski]

.....
A key concept is that aether units have finely-tuned vibrational properties, the variations of which lead to a whole world of energic effects on the macro scale, via the contiguity of their energic transmissions through the aether.
....

Thank you Michael for your explanations. I got caught by your posts mentioning points and contiguity, which in a way reminded me of things I read in Boscovich' Theory of Natural Philosophy, although he treats of it in little different way. Do you have website or such where you have worked out things?

Stefan,

I don't have a website. I'd be glad to exchange e mails. My e mail is manteski@aol.com.

[David]

Michael Anteski,

There is a fundamental question that hasn’t been addressed: does the aether in anyway influence the motion of an object? And more specifically, does the aether affect the motion of the planets?

Now if the answer is that the aether doesn’t have any influence on the motion of an object, then we can simply ignore it. It exists, but does nothing; at least nothing detectable.

On the other hand, if the aether does in fact directly affect the motion of an object, then you must provide a detailed explanation. Not only that, but you must also provide a mathematical description. We need to know exactly (in precise mathematical terms) how the aether is involved. All vague descriptions must be turned into exact mathematical expressions. Otherwise, it is impossible to test or verify the theory. Presently, no one can say with any certainty what the theory even entails.

[Corpuscles]

Hi David

For even an occasional reader here, it is obvious you have a strong mathematical background.

Perhaps also a strong leaning for current Mainstream scientific status quo? If so, it is indeed encouraging to see your interest and participation in Michael's thread.

If you intend to point out in a non critical comment? the need for quantification then the point is ultimately valid. I am sure Michael is aware of that but , as I am just interjecting, ....then he no doubt will reply.

If however the post is intended to throw a dismissive "wet blanket" over the thread? Then may I comment? Paragraphs numbered

1. IMHO the discussion of aether, starts at the assumption that the fundamental stuff gives the basic ingredients to the as you say "object" (matter) it is integral to it and therefore primarily responsive for all its attributes and those of "forces"

Schroedinger once speculated, "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space."

3. If you are dismissing the aether ? I would be interested in YOUR accepted precise mathematical explanation of the movement of "objects" ("more specifically...the planets")

How does it work without aether? Or without space /and time, note which Einstein clearly admitted in Leiden Lecture that space without ether is unthinkable!

Michael Anteski,

(1)There is a fundamental question that hasn’t been addressed: does the aether in anyway influence the motion of an object? And more specifically, does the aether affect the motion of the planets?

(2)Now if the answer is that the aether doesn’t have any influence on the motion of an object, then we can simply ignore it. It exists, but does nothing; at least nothing detectable.

(3)On the other hand, if the aether does in fact directly affect the motion of an object, then you must provide a detailed explanation. Not only that, but you must also provide a mathematical description. We need to know exactly (in precise mathematical terms) how the aether is involved. All vague descriptions must be turned into exact mathematical expressions. Otherwise, it is impossible to test or verify the theory. Presently, no one can say with any certainty what the theory even entails.

[Corpuscles]

Hi Micheal

Long time no talk... good to see you continuing to develop and promote a aether theory.

I am surprised you have not linked again your published paper! It didn't get a good hearing or review a few years ago... maybe whilst you have some keen willing participants.... it might be timely?

I disagreed with some of it but didn't have any motivation to argue.

I have become rather interested in the standing wave structure of matter (many such theories). Have you considered these?

Here is one amateur offering that seemingly has impressed serious researchers
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/science-p ... agrams.htm


It also seems to me that in keeping with "Ether the only path to unifying cosmic forces" work needs to focused (ie the starting point) is on the IMHO mistaken/incomplete model held for the model of the "atom" and chemistry in general.

An aether that helps form various platonic solid structures that radically change the definition of what we currently conceive of the "electron" or "cloud">

I link an article I found most interesting (in case readers are interested also)
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-p-element.asp


Anyway sorry for the intrusion or any derailment.

Cheers
Steve

[David]

I would be interested in YOUR accepted precise mathematical explanation of the movement of "objects" ("more specifically...the planets")

Well, the honest answer is that we simply don’t know why the planets move the way they do. I can offer no explanation at all. It could be action at a distance. It could be curved space. It could be something else entirely. No one knows.

However, what we do know is how to mathematically describe their motions. And thanks to Newton, Einstein and others, we can do that with near perfect accuracy.

But the underlying mystery will most likely not be solved during our lifetimes; and certainly not at the “Mad Ideas” section of the Thunderbolts Forum.

[StefanR]

Stefan,

I don't have a website. I'd be glad to exchange e mails. My e mail is manteski@aol.com.

Thank you, but as I'm terrible with email, it would be better to keep discussions here at the forum