Aether

[bbwilliams]

Is Aether, or can it be considered, the same as the Fabric of Space? As
in Gravity bends the fabric of space (You can't bend nothing!)?
Something inherently non linear can be bent without there being
something there, such as the definition of a circle being all points
equal distant from a point; but you cannot bend a straight line (being
all points with the same change of y for the same change of x) to get a
circle. You can bend a rod (something) to get a solid cylinder (something).

Along those lines, can a graviton, being a boson, be considered as a
process rather than a particle?

Bruce Williams
Bikers are a different breed. Harley riders are a dime a dozen.

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"bbwilliams" wrote in message
news:ToKdnWaJv5D2NdzN...@giganews.com...

=========================================================
You can consider anything to be anything you want, it won't make it reality.
Gravitons and tooth fairies aren't dinner.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway
Harley riders are a dime a dozen. Bikers are a nickel a hundred, buy one
get one free.

[mpc755]

Aether is the Fabric of Space.

Curved space-time is the state of displacement of the aether.

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether is physically displaced by matter.

Gravity doesn't bend the fabric of space. Matter displaces the aether.

Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward
matter is gravity.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 2:17:16 AM UTC-4, bbwilliams wrote:
> Is Aether, or can it be considered, the same as the Fabric of Space? As
>
> in Gravity bends the fabric of space (You can't bend nothing!)?
>
> Something inherently non linear can be bent without there being
>
> something there, such as the definition of a circle being all points
>
> equal distant from a point; but you cannot bend a straight line (being
>
> all points with the same change of y for the same change of x) to get a
>
> circle. You can bend a rod (something) to get a solid cylinder (something).

A new description of a structured aether is availble in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf

[Brad Guth]

IRT seems to hold promise of being more true than any GRT or SRT.

[kenseto]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 6:09:18 PM UTC-4, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Sep 1, 6:50 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 1, 2012 2:17:16 AM UTC-4, bbwilliams wrote:
>
> > > Is Aether, or can it be considered, the same as the Fabric of Space?  As
>
> >
>
> > > in Gravity bends the fabric of space (You can't bend nothing!)?
>
> >
>
> > > Something inherently non linear can be bent without there being
>
> >
>
> > > something there, such as the definition of a circle being all points
>
> >
>
> > > equal distant from a point; but you cannot bend a straight line (being
>
> >
>
> > > all points with the same change of y for the same change of x) to get a
>
> >
>
> > > circle.  You can bend a rod (something) to get a solid cylinder (something).
>
> >
>
> > A new description of a structured aether is availble in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf
>
>

> IRT seems to hold promise of being more true than any GRT or SRT.

Thanks for reading my paper. More papers on IRT are available in my website:
http://www.modelmechancis.org/

[Uwe Hayek]

On 9/1/2012 8:17 AM, bbwilliams wrote:
> Is Aether, or can it be considered, the same as the Fabric of Space?

I think we can safely assume that there is no such thing as an Aether.

The Fabric of Space is nothing.

The question on electromagnetism : "but what is waving ?" can be
answered by Quantum Mechanics.

My interpretation is that the non-locality of particles causes the
wave-like properties and appearance.

That non-locality, or Un-Newtonian behavior stems from uncertainty, the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Equation defines were inertia starts and ends.

> As
> in Gravity bends the fabric of space

This bending can be explained by an inertial field, that influences all
(hitherto) known laws of physics. I think common reasoning goes like
this : If you "bend" *all* the law of physics, you might as well say
that space bends.

I do not quite agree with the latter, the inertial field has definite
properties, like it acts on clocks, on gyroscopes, on matter by
contracting it. Understanding those properties leads to a more complete
picture of physics, it even leads to unification of General Relativity
and QM.

If you say "Space bends" then it means nothing. If you say "inertia
bends" then you can already expect that gyroscopes react. And clocks and
rods, if you study inertia more carefully.

For a primer on inertia : http://inertia-notime.com
Look at the video on gravity probe B, and ask yourself the question :
"if a gyroscope deviates, is this due to "space" or due to a deviation
of inertia ?

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 9/1/2012 3:50 PM, kenseto wrote:

> A new description of a structured aether is availble in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf

from the pdf :
> 3. There is no physical (material) length contraction. The
> physical (material) length of a meter stick remains the same
> length in all frames of reference. However, the light path
> length of a moving meter stick is observer dependent.

I think this is in direct contradiction with the MMX experiment.

The only way you can explain the null result is that the experiments
slab contracted.

This still allows for another interpretation than SR, the Lorentz
interpretation. The Two Way Speed of Light remains the same but the One
Way Speed of Light differs.

Light speed is set by the surrounding masses, and has nothing to do with
the frame in which it is measured. The motion of the frame causes the
measurement difference : clock rate and doppler makes up the perception
of SR.

You can peel away any lab-frame from the photon, that will not affect
it, what is left are all the masses (universe, stars, sun, earth) that
act on the photon. These set the speed of light. Since these masses also
affect clocks, a clock is an inertiameter, we will still measure c.

Uwe Hayek.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, September 2, 2012 9:32:57 AM UTC-4, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 9/1/2012 3:50 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> > A new description of a structured aether is availble in the following link:
>
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf
>
>
>
> from the pdf :
>
> > 3. There is no physical (material) length contraction. The
>
> > physical (material) length of a meter stick remains the same
>
> > length in all frames of reference. However, the light path
>
> > length of a moving meter stick is observer dependent.
>
>
>
> I think this is in direct contradiction with the MMX experiment.

You are wrong....IRT posits that the local speed of light is isotropic in all frames and this is due to the unique structure of the E-Matrix (the aether).

>
>
>
> The only way you can explain the null result is that the experiments
>
> slab contracted.

No....there is no local material contraction. Your assertion is rejected by SRT or IRT.

[mpc755]

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual
representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a
twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is
referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the
aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The analogy is putting a mesh bag full of marbles into a
superfluid and spinning the bag of marbles. If you were unable to
determine if the superfluid consists of particles or not you would
still be able to detect the state of displacement of the superfluid.

The superfluid connected to and neighboring the mesh bag of marbles is
in the same state throughout the rotation of the bag in the
superfluid.

The aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is in the same
state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about
its axis and orbit of the Sun.

The state of which as determined by its connections with the Earth and
the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of
displacement of the aether.

This is the reason for the near-null MMX result.

[kenseto]

On Sunday, September 2, 2012 8:25:39 AM UTC-4, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 9/1/2012 8:17 AM, bbwilliams wrote:
>
> > Is Aether, or can it be considered, the same as the Fabric of Space?
>
>
>
> I think we can safely assume that there is no such thing as an Aether.
>
>
>
> The Fabric of Space is nothing.

Then what is your inertial field? Is it nothing

>
>
>
> The question on electromagnetism : "but what is waving ?" can be
>
> answered by Quantum Mechanics.

How?

>
>
>
> My interpretation is that the non-locality of particles causes the
>
> wave-like properties and appearance.

Non-locality of particles???? Why are there such things? How does a particle transmits its non-locality properites to a different location?

>
>
>
> That non-locality, or Un-Newtonian behavior stems from uncertainty, the
>
> Heisenberg Uncertainty Equation defines were inertia starts and ends.

Why is there an uncertainty?

>
>
>
>
>
>
> This bending can be explained by an inertial field, that influences all
>
> (hitherto) known laws of physics. I think common reasoning goes like
>
> this : If you "bend" *all* the law of physics, you might as well say
>
> that space bends.

Again what is an inertial field?????

[Uwe Hayek]

So every mmx drags its own aether ?
Except for rotations, where they suddenly have the same aether again ?

>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE
>
> The analogy is putting a mesh bag full of marbles into a
> superfluid and spinning the bag of marbles. If you were unable to
> determine if the superfluid consists of particles or not you would
> still be able to detect the state of displacement of the superfluid.
>
> The superfluid connected to and neighboring the mesh bag of marbles is
> in the same state throughout the rotation of the bag in the
> superfluid.
>
> The aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is in the same
> state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about
> its axis and orbit of the Sun.
>
> The state of which as determined by its connections with the Earth and
> the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of
> displacement of the aether.
>
> This is the reason for the near-null MMX result.

If the aether is dragged there is not need for time dilation.
But that has been experimentally confirmed.

I do agree on a preferential frame. But it is not dragged, at least not
at the rate you claim. I refer to the gravity probe b experiment.

Uwe Hayek.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 9/2/2012 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, September 2, 2012 8:25:39 AM UTC-4, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> On 9/1/2012 8:17 AM, bbwilliams wrote:
>>
>>> Is Aether, or can it be considered, the same as the Fabric of Space?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think we can safely assume that there is no such thing as an Aether.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Fabric of Space is nothing.
>
> Then what is your inertial field? Is it nothing

It creates inertia, just like the electric and magnetic field creates
electric and magnetic potential.

You can measure inertia by making a mass go back and forth, this is
exactly what a clock does.

And it is inertia that *creates* space, by shrinking the objects, thus
creating 'space' between them. Hence length contraction, but more
important : gravitational volume contraction. I prefer to call it :
inertial volume contraction. As gravitation is only the gradient or
differential of inertia.

>>
>>
>>
>> The question on electromagnetism : "but what is waving ?" can be
>>
>> answered by Quantum Mechanics.
>
> How?
>>
>>
>>
>> My interpretation is that the non-locality of particles causes the
>>
>> wave-like properties and appearance.
>
> Non-locality of particles???? Why are there such things? How does a particle transmits its non-locality properites to a different location?

Newton's laws states that an object remains at rest or in motion unless
you apply a force to it.
This is sometimes called Newton's law of *INERTIA*.

First, as an exercise, think of inertia becoming near infinite : the
pendulum of the clock can no longer move. Near a black hole, for instance.

Then, take the inertia slowly away. The pendulum races faster and
faster. When it approaches zero the pendulum is at the two extremes at
the same time.

At zero inertia, an object no longer has to stay at rest, it can go
everywhere at the same time. And this is exactly what QM tries to tell
us. Feynman integrates along "all possible paths", the particle is
everywhere at once. Inertia is a localizer : you first have to apply
force to move, without inertia, that requirement disappears.

And you are no longer certain about an objects position. What every QM
experiment confirms, by the way.

Inertia creates locality, remove it and you have non-locality.

Imagine you could travel instantly to any location. The notion of
distance would be difficult to grasp, as you can reach any location with
the same effort. You would not understand the notion of "nearby", "far
away" or "local". Hence : non-locality.

>>
>>
>>
>> That non-locality, or Un-Newtonian behavior stems from uncertainty, the
>>
>> Heisenberg Uncertainty Equation defines were inertia starts and ends.
>
> Why is there an uncertainty?

Inertia gives us certainty. We take it for granted. We can calculate the
trajectory of a canon ball with high precision thanks to inertia.

But without inertia, everything is everywhere at once. We are no longer
certain about anything.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This bending can be explained by an inertial field, that influences all
>>
>> (hitherto) known laws of physics. I think common reasoning goes like
>>
>> this : If you "bend" *all* the law of physics, you might as well say
>>
>> that space bends.
>
> Again what is an inertial field?????

It is the field that creates inertia.

For a primer on the origin of inertia,
http://inertia-notime.com/

Why am I certain that length and volume contraction is a fact ?

Our inertia increases constantly, as more masses of the universe come
into gravitational contact with us.

If you apply more inertia to our solar system, our Earth decreases its
orbit size with respect to the Sun. But also every atom shrinks. This is
the relativity principle : you do not notice inertial increase, as it
influences all known laws of physics in the same way. If the atoms would
not shrink, we would notice something funny in the laws of physics.

If two objects are not in close gravitational contact, then they seem to
recede from us, but actually, we both shrink. There you have the
continuous expansion of the universe. Well, we do notice something funny.

Uwe Hayek.

[mpc755]

The aether is not dragged. The aether is displaced by matter.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the

state of displacement of the aether.

If you place a mesh bag full of marbles into a supersolid and spin the
bag of marbles the supersolid will not be dragged by the marbles. The
supersolid will be displaced by the marbles.

[Uwe Hayek]

I think this is the most important passage :
QUOTE
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something
which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a
mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the
universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space.
But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant
masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist
does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes
back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as
medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to
which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the
ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether
not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also
conditioned in its state by them.

_Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general
theory of relativity._
UNQUOTE

BTW, thanks for the link, I lost it somewhere on a hard disk in a
previous system.

Uwe Hayek.

[mpc755]

Which is the state of displacement of the aether.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 9/2/2012 9:45 PM, mpc755 wrote:

> "Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but
> is also conditioned in its state by them."
>
> Which is the state of displacement of the aether.
>

I do not think he meant this.

He meant that matter creates a gravitational/inertial field that tells
matter which path it should take, but that the matter taking this path,
also creates a gravitational/inertial field, in its turn.

You can read it here :
http://notime.home.xs4all.nl/inert/gravp546.html

"Nevertheless, it is a fact that Mach's principle -that matter there
governs inertia here- and Riemann's idea -that the geometry of space
responds to physics and participates in physics- where the two great
currents of thought which Einstein, by means of his powerful equivalence
principle, brought together in the present-day geometric description of
gravitation and motion."

Uwe Hayek.

[mpc755]

Curved space-time is the state of displacement of the aether.

Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.

[space...@gmail.com]

Aether dimensionality pushes inertia for matter.
Time aether programed by gravity pushes light inertia.

Mitchell Raemsch

[kenseto]

On Sunday, September 2, 2012 1:42:12 PM UTC-4, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 2, 2012 8:25:39 AM UTC-4, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>
> >> On 9/1/2012 8:17 AM, bbwilliams wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Is Aether, or can it be considered, the same as the Fabric of Space?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I think we can safely assume that there is no such thing as an Aether.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> The Fabric of Space is nothing.
>
> >
>
> > Then what is your inertial field? Is it nothing
>
>
>
> It creates inertia, just like the electric and magnetic field creates
>
> electric and magnetic potential.

How? In fact what are fields? How does a field influence the path of motion of an object?

[mpc755]

On Sep 3, 10:29 am, kenseto <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, September 2, 2012 1:42:12 PM UTC-4, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> > On 9/2/2012 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > > On Sunday, September 2, 2012 8:25:39 AM UTC-4, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>
> > >> On 9/1/2012 8:17 AM, bbwilliams wrote:
>
> > >>> Is Aether, or can it be considered, the same as the Fabric of Space?
>
> > >> I think we can safely assume that there is no such thing as an Aether.
>
> > >> The Fabric of Space is nothing.
>
> > > Then what is your inertial field? Is it nothing
>
> > It creates inertia, just like the electric and magnetic field creates
>
> > electric and magnetic potential.
>
> How? In fact what are fields? How does a field influence the path of motion of an object?
>

A field in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the
field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

[Ilja]

Am Montag, 3. September 2012 14:32:36 UTC schrieb mpc755:
> A field in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the
> field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.

That's three functions dx(x,y,z), dy(x,y,z), dz(x,y,z).
Not much to explain all the degrees of freedom of all the fermions and gauge
fields of the standard model of particle physics together with gravity.

[mpc755]

The fundamental experiment of quantum mechanics is the double slit
experiment because it deals with wave-particle duality.

Correctly understanding what occurs physically in nature in a double
slit experiment and what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity
unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity.

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory
of
relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when
his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium
existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in
theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to
relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these
connotations,
it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about
the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence
or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such
matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such
matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted,
studies
of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had
spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and
fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now
led
us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than
ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally
transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to
knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed
every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call
it
this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in
Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space.
Aether
is physically displaced by matter.

Displaced aether pushing back toward matter is gravity.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement. In a double
slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit while the
associated aether wave passes through both.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double
slit
experiment; the aether.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave.

Both are aether displacement waves.

Aether displaced by matter unifies general relativity and quantum
mechanics.

[Uwe Hayek]

On 9/3/2012 4:29 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, September 2, 2012 1:42:12 PM UTC-4, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>> On 9/2/2012 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote:

>>
>> It creates inertia, just like the electric and magnetic field creates
>>
>> electric and magnetic potential.
>
> How? In fact what are fields? How does a field influence the path of motion of an object?

Surely your joking mr Seto....

Drop an apple.

Why does it drop ?

Uwe Hayek.

[mpc755]

The Earth displaces the aether. The aether displaced by the Earth
pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward the Earth.

The aether displaced by the Earth pushing back toward the Earth forces
the apple to the ground.

[kenseto]

On Monday, September 3, 2012 2:41:31 PM UTC-4, Uwe Hayek wrote:
> On 9/3/2012 4:29 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, September 2, 2012 1:42:12 PM UTC-4, Uwe Hayek wrote:
>
> >> On 9/2/2012 4:33 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >> It creates inertia, just like the electric and magnetic field creates
>
> >>
>
> >> electric and magnetic potential.
>
> >
>
> > How? In fact what are fields? How does a field influence the path of motion of an object?
>
>
>
> Surely your joking mr Seto....

You said that there is nothing occupying space but there is fields in space....so I ask you what are fields?

> Drop an apple.
> Why does it drop ?
>

You tell me why according to your field theory.
According to my theory the apple follows the curved structure of the aether and the curved structure of the aether is due to absolute motion of the earth and the apple in the aether. Two papers on my theory is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

[Y]

I've been reading into quantum leap gravity, where space is defined as
being made of grains about a billion times smaller than the smallest
atom. Perhaps space has properties after-all ?

-y