Ether the only path to unifying cosmic forces

[StefanR]

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"

Indeed, and it is even possible to go further and question if these attributes and "forces" are inherent in the fundamental stuff/Matter or not.

[StefanR]

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.

One of the biggest difficulties you might find out is the complication of terminology. What kind of language does one use and do we mean the same thing with the same words. Many models, many languages. Perhaps that is why David asks for mathematics as a universal go-between, but these discussion are usually qualitative and not quantitative, hence the need for words first and the arrival of difficulties.

[StefanR]

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.

Doesn't that validate the allowance of pondering options, without going immediately into quantitative work or mathematical language which is so hard on these kinds of forums?

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.

It seems to me, these then are mathematical descriptions of effects, and not of causes. It doesn't explain anything, but only gives an quantitative approximation of the observations in a particular framework. But the near perfect accuracy is more to do with the approximation of the observations, than with the validity of the framework.
At least so it seems to me.

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.
Personally I think you're right, maybe the moderator is willing to put it in the "New Insights"-section of the forum.

[Michael Anteski]

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

Stefan,

I'd be just as gald to exchange personal messages at the Forum. -Michael

[Michael Anteski]

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.

David

My model for the aether presents a theory for how the aether acts at the elemental level, and how this would extend from there to slightly larger scales, such as "aetheroidal," subquantal, and quantal size-scales. The model goes from there to deal with how it would extend to the inertial size scale, only as to how aetheric forces would relate to given objects, and how this aether model of forces like magnetism and gravity would affect inertial bodies to produce the gravitational, magnetic, or light propagation effects we observe. -The key concept is the aether-elemental-unit's vibration, and just how finely tuned variations in properties of the vibrations produce those effects at our level of observation.

It's not reasonable to expect such a model to account for mechanisms involving interactions among multiple inertial bodies such as occurs with cenestial bodies orbiting other bodies, or the like. -While the aether would be acting in those kinds of cases, just how its effect is exerted, and if it influences the inertial interactions at all, would be asking an aether model for too much detail at this point in time, when we are not able to detect the aether itself.

[upriver]

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.

Actually, with the understanding that this stuff called VRIL exists that we have not taken into consideration, I think that the underlying mystery of how the planets move and an inkling of what gravity might be, can be at least pondered in our lifetimes. Look at what separating kinetic energy from the particle has opened up. I am not the first one to think of this, its just that we happen to be at a crux where we have many different forms of info and observation that we can synthesize a solution. Lets look at some historical observations before we speculate about models...

[Corpuscles]

Hi 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.

I sincerely, very much, appreciate your honesty!

(Partially, because you could have, or there was a risk, that you could have perceived my comment as inflammatory)

I agree with StefanR's (later) comment that the mathematical expressions are those of effect rather than cause.

Newton's gravitational equation was that and was circular in reasoning and he knew it and said so in clear unequivocal terms.

As I alluded to previously, Einstein also backed away from the 'non ether' inference .

Point for you to ponder.... why is moon's gravity 1/6th of that of earth?... get your calculator out and see if you can make it so by mathematics?

Some other things:

“Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion.

So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the
indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.

My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific
records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself
the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement:
There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.” – Nikola Tesla

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
-Nikola Tesla

True it will not be resolved at Thunderbolts NAMI.... but the new generation may gain some insight to pursue careers that challenge established falsehoods!


Hang in there!... I am sure Michael appreciates your input and contribution!

[Corpuscles]

Hi Stefan


It is indeed as pleasure to visit here and find you posting again. You are one of the truly valuable insightful old timers!

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.

One of the biggest difficulties you might find out is the complication of terminology. What kind of language does one use and do we mean the same thing with the same words. Many models, many languages. Perhaps that is why David asks for mathematics as a universal go-between, but these discussion are usually qualitative and not quantitative, hence the need for words first and the arrival of difficulties.

So true.... they give "it" all sorts of names, and with so many "virtual" things in the particle zoo!
I often wonder whether the serious professionals don't 'in their minds eye' when contemplating "matter" internalise and think "aether" but use the contemporary jargon!

I really would like if you could review Michael A's paper.... ( He did post it on a thread here a couple of years ago) you have much stronger background than I, and I am sure he would appreciate your comments!

Cheers take care!
Steve

edit for some of the speldink errors

[Michael Anteski]

In describing my model of a mainly-elemental, vibrating, contiguously-acting, aether here, I haven't mentioned one theoretic point that especially favors this model over standard quantum theory. -It is the observation of "action at a distance." (Einstein famously referred to this kind of observation as being "spooky.") Mainstream quantum mechanics uses the term "quantum entanglement," but despite this clever phraseology, QM still doesn't rationally address the observation.

When closely-matching (highly resonant) energy units (referred to as "particles" in QM) are observed, following their separation across great distances, it is found that when one unit is experimentally tweaked, the matching unit far away reacts exactly like it had felt the same effect.

This is readily explained using my contiguous-aether model. In this model, energy impulses are instantaneously transmitted contiguously through the aether. Thus, changes in the vibrational properties of an energy unit will be "felt", even across cosmic distances, by another, closely-resonant, unit, instantaneously.

[David]

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. -- Nikola Tesla

Ah yes, Nikola Tesla, the super-star hero of every aether enthusiast. He warned us to steer clear of those dangerous mathematical equations; they bare no relation to reality. Which is quite comical since Tesla himself was an avid practitioner of numerology:

“If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.”

And then there are his delightful opinions on eugenics; which sound like they were lifted straight out of the pages of Hitler’s Mein Kampf:

“The year 2100 will see eugenics universally established. In past ages, the law governing the survival of the fittest roughly weeded out the less desirable strains. Then man’s new sense of pity began to interfere with the ruthless workings of nature. As a result, we continue to keep alive and to breed the unfit. The only method compatible with our notions of civilization and the race is to prevent the breeding of the unfit by sterilization and the deliberate guidance of the mating instinct. Several European countries and a number of states of the American Union sterilize the criminal and the insane. This is not sufficient. The trend of opinion among eugenists is that we must make marriage more difficult. Certainly no one who is not a desirable parent should be permitted to produce progeny. A century from now it will no more occur to a normal person to mate with a person eugenically unfit than to marry a habitual criminal.”

But let’s give the man his due credit. Two years after Galileo Ferraris invented the AC motor, Tesla invented the same thing. Hey man, three, six, nine…

[JHL]

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. -- Nikola Tesla

...Tesla himself was an avid practitioner of numerology:

“If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.”

And then there are his delightful opinions on eugenics; which sound like they were lifted straight out of the pages of Hitler’s Mein Kampf...

Your appeals are rather baldly irrelevant - fallacious. Obviously, whatever Tesla had right in a particular field is not rendered wrong by what he said or did elsewhere. Character isn't commonly revealed in the laboratory, that not being its purpose.

Oh, and as for 'numerology', (and while the following is not my field and I cannot comment on it as if it were), much there is to illustrate the geometric universe, Including what it seems to me would link well to the EU.

http://resonance.is/explore/quantum-gra ... s-release/

[Corpuscles]

Ah yes, Nikola Tesla, the super-star hero of every aether enthusiast.

...
But let’s give the man his due credit. Two years after Galileo Ferraris invented the AC motor, Tesla invented the same thing. Hey man, three, six, nine…

David.

Thanks for that, does it feel better to get that out of your system

Please read Einstein's Leiden Lecture.

Then tell me, or perhaps refresh your understanding, of how many major contributors to electrical engineering and physics from Newton onwards through Faraday, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Einstein who DID NOT consider aether a vital ingredient?

Tesla is notable because he also understood the charge separation of ionosphere and earth, and attempted to calculate the charge of the sun!

Thanks, I did not know about this Galileo Ferrari guy! Had he lived long enough he might have claimed to invented/thought of first, fast sports cars too?

Sorry folks to derail thread.

Cheers

[David]

Oh, and as for 'numerology', (and while the following is not my field and I cannot comment on it as if it were), much there is to illustrate the geometric universe, Including what it seems to me would link well to the EU.

http://resonance.is/explore/quantum-gra ... s-release/

It is not my intention to deliberately derail this thread and turn it into a discussion of every crackpot and loony-tune that have infested the internet. But since you provided the above link to Nassim Haramein's theory, perhaps the readers should also be made aware of this article:

“In at least one lecture he claims to decode crop circles. Topics discussed in his 4 DVD set in addition to his unified field theory include: The Arc of the Covenant, Knights Templar, Emmanuel's Tomb, Kabbalah, Tree of Life Decoded.”

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nassim_Haramein

[nick c]

If we choose to dismiss all of the work by Tesla because of his pursuit of numerology, then we must in the interest of fairness also dismiss Newton, Kepler, and other revered names in science, who were of a similar inclination.

The point is that a "guilt by association" argument is fallacious and being right or wrong about one thing (theory) does not necessarily have any bearing on being right or wrong about another.

[David]

If we choose to dismiss all of the work by Tesla because of his pursuit of numerology, then we must in the interest of fairness also dismiss Newton, Kepler, and other revered names in science, who were of a similar inclination.

The point is that a "guilt by association" argument is fallacious and being right or wrong about one thing (theory) does not necessarily have any bearing on being right or wrong about another.

I understand your point Nick. But Newton and Kepler were alive during the 1600’s, and looking at possible numerical relationships found in the Bible. It is unfathomable to imagine either of these men preaching numerology as the “key to the universe” during the 20th century.

But more importantly, they didn’t advocate worldwide sterilization of all humans deemed not up to par.

Proponents of the aether (which is the topic of this thread), routinely quote Tesla as though he were an authority on the subject. When in fact neither Tesla, nor anyone else since, can demonstrate that it even exists. My own opinion is that the mythical aether is about as believable as Tesla’s three, six, nine rubbish.