Electric Universe - Paradigm Shift

[altonhare]

The current EU theory is based on a fluid aether/ether. This is posited in an attempt to avoid the trap of particles, which are unable to explain gravity, magnetism, electricity, or light. The ether hypothesis may be formulated two ways:

Ether: A continuous medium that surrounds/envelopes everything
Ether: A discontinuous medium that surrounds/envelopes everything

If the ether is continuous, nothing can move within it. A continuous entity is not made of smaller parts, it cannot deform because there is no space within to move into. Obviously the first proposition falls flat.

If the ether is discontinuous, this begs the question "What is it made of?" In this instance the ether is not fundamental, i.e. it is not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is whatever continuous entity or set of entities comprise(s) the ether. So EU should be focusing on determing the nature of these objects. If they are discrete, separate entities they are simply more particles, and we are back to the impotent corpuscular hypothesis. If they are connected, how so? Indeed, assuming all atoms are interconnected by a dual strand entwined anti parallel rope or chain structure justifies all the behaviors of light, gravity, and electromagnetism.

The EU community is faced with either accepting an ether in which nothing can move, a "corpuscular ether", or throwing out the ether altogether in favor of a new hypothesis that explains all these phenomena naturally and rationally. The rope/chain/thread theory achieves this. I invite those of similar open mind to discard the ether and evaluate new hypotheses such as the one I mentioned.

Light:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-NB5vg7woM

H-Atom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE

Magnetism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8

Gravitation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs

[earls]

Do you have any practical applications of your arbitrary redefinitions?

[altonhare]

Do you have any practical applications of your arbitrary redefinitions?

Yes, to illustrate that the ether is an invalid hypothesis and render it defunct.

[earls]

You've already defined it.

"Ether: A continuous medium that surrounds/envelopes everything"

And you can sit there and bang on the keyboard about how the ether can't do this that or the other, but unless you have demonstrative proof (ie practical application) you're just making up arbitrary definitions to fit your worldview. Nothing is "correct" or "fact" until proven, animations aren't proof.

[altonhare]

You've already defined it.

"Ether: A continuous medium that surrounds/envelopes everything"

And you can sit there and bang on the keyboard about how the ether can't do this that or the other, but unless you have demonstrative proof (ie practical application) you're just making up arbitrary definitions to fit your worldview. Nothing is "correct" or "fact" until proven, animations aren't proof.

That which is continuous cannot deform, nothing can move within it. This is not about proof, this is about formulating a valid hypothesis. We can't test a hypothesis (experimentation, observation, "proof") until we have a valid one!

The ether is invalid. The EU needs a new hypothesis.

[Plasmatic]

Earl, it is not arbitrary to point out that a thing cannot both have a particular attribute or quality and not have the same particular quality or attribute. If one proposes triangular-squares as an essential quality of an existent it is not "arbitrary" to point out the misintegration conceptually.

What observation could possibly make the assertion of the existence of a square-circle non-contradictory?

The only valid counter here is to show how the proposed contradiction is not a proposed part of the aethers identity. For instance is the aether not claimed to be fundamental?

Also what "redefinitions" has Alton made particularly? What definitions do you offer for the aether specifically?

[earls]

"That which is continuous cannot deform, nothing can move within it."

Rubber bands can't deform and nothing can move within them?

[Divinity]

You've already defined it.

"Ether: A continuous medium that surrounds/envelopes everything"

And you can sit there and bang on the keyboard about how the ether can't do this that or the other, but unless you have demonstrative proof (ie practical application) you're just making up arbitrary definitions to fit your worldview. Nothing is "correct" or "fact" until proven, animations aren't proof.

That which is continuous cannot deform, nothing can move within it. This is not about proof, this is about formulating a valid hypothesis. We can't test a hypothesis (experimentation, observation, "proof") until we have a valid one!

The ether is invalid. The EU needs a new hypothesis.

Does that include Waves?

The Electric Universe/Plasma model can be tested, in the laboratory....the fundamentals scale up and down. Do you know about the nature of plasma?

[Plasmatic]

Rubber bands can't deform and nothing can move within them?

Heres your chance to ask Alton what his definition of "continuous" is. This will clear up why the rubberband is a false analogy im sure.

Does that include Waves?

The Electric Universe/Plasma model can be tested, in the laboratory....the fundamentals scale up and down. Do you know about the nature of plasma?

Solar

I asked Alton the same thing on our first private talk. He asked a simple question of me,"what is plasma?" I then realized that plasma is NOT fundamental because it is comprised of other primaries. Also waves are a relationship among individual entities that are compressable because they are not primariy constituents,which by definition are continuous.

The Aether cannot be fundamental because it is comprised of primaries and therfore is not continuous .

Alton feel free to correct me if ive misremembered anything here.

[altonhare]

"That which is continuous cannot deform, nothing can move within it."

Rubber bands can't deform and nothing can move within them?

Continuous entity/object: That which is not made of other entities. It has shape i.e. a border, it is finite.
Discontinuous entity/object: That which is made of other entities, identified as a specific set of static relative spatial relationships among smaller entities. For example if atoms were continuous entities then water is a discontinuous entity defined by a specific set of interatomic distances between H and O (once the distance between two of the atoms exceeds our distance criteria then those 3 particular atoms are not identified as water anymore).

A rubber band is discontinuous. It is made of smaller parts i.e. atoms. When you stretch it horizontally the atoms move horizontally away from each other but vertically move toward each other. If the rubber band was continuous there would be no space within it for this to occur. A continuous entity cannot bend, deform, or break by definition. If it breaks it is obviously made of smaller parts and is not continuous. There is nowhere within a continuous entity for anything to "move into".

Does that include Waves?

The Electric Universe/Plasma model can be tested, in the laboratory....the fundamentals scale up and down. Do you know about the nature of plasma?

-Divinity

A wave is not what something is, a wave is what something does. If a particle is moving up and down you may say "the particle is waving". If collections of air molecules are alternating between compression and expansion you may call this "a sound wave". If water atoms are moving up and down rhythmically you may call it a "water wave". The atoms themselves are moving, the wave is just a shorthand term for convenience. This is related to the reification I mentioned in response to your comment in the exist thread. It is the entity itself that matters, not the shorthand concept we use for convenience. So, anytime we talk about a wave we must first define what entity is actually moving in the wave.

I am familiar with plasma. In conventional physics it is a group of ionized atoms. The atoms are entities, the plasma is a shorthand term to refer to a group of entities. Plasma can deform just as a rubber band can because the atoms can be forced closer or further from each other. Plasma is discontinuous. It cannot be the fundamental constituent anymore than a rubber band can.

So the only question with respect to the aether is, what is it made of? Is it made of continuous entities? If so what is their shape that gives rise to the properties associated with "aether"? It is these continuous entities that matter, not the shorthand terms plasma, aether, wave, etc. that we use to refer to them. As physicists we absolutely must hypothesize about the shape and structure of the fundamental constituent, i.e. the continuous object(s) in our universe because it is exactly what gives rise to all the observed properties of our universe. Without it we are simply tabulating observations with no real understanding.

Plasmatic I think you have it, although you said "other primaries". Plasma is not a primary at all so I wouldn't say "other". I would say the plasma, like everything else except the fundamental constituent(s), is ultimately composed of primaries (continuous objects, the fundamental constituent(s) of the universe).

[Plasmatic]

Say Alton I think youve gotten Solar mixed up with Divinity.

Also your right about the "other" distinction. I wasnt intending to refer to plasma as a primary.

[altonhare]

Say Alton I think youve gotten Solar mixed up with Divinity.

Also your right about the "other" distinction. I wasnt intending to refer to plasma as a primary.

No, that was you who did that.

[Plasmatic]

OOPs....

[davesmith_au]

The current EU theory is based on a fluid aether/ether.

Show me where this is so, within the published EU material.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[earls]

All right, then what, according to "rope theory" is the most basic fundamental constituent that forms all others? What is its basic nature?