| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits
Page 1 of 9 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Laurent |
 Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Empty space is real but does not exist as matter, right? Einstein was
right, the Universe is background free. The Aether does not exist,
yet, it is the physical but immaterial substance from which the
Universe emerged.
How big is a point? Size does not apply, right? Points are
dimensionless. Same with empty space, it is dimensionless... yet, it
contains the universe. In this realm, we need to think in terms of
state, not in terms of process. Process occurs as spacetime. Trying to
describe a realm where there is no need for classical physics' laws is
not acceptable. Terms like 'velocity' or 'infinite' imply motion and
duration and can't be used to describe empty space, they are non-
descriptive and inappropriate. At the Aether scale there are no
distances to cover, it is all pervading... the Aether is one.
This notion of a primordial substance is a very old one, also known as
Akasha or Brahman, and many times described as pure energy or
spiritual fire. It has been anthropomorphized by man since the times
of Plato and Aristotle, the Chaldeans and the Akkadians. Called by the
names like Zeus, Jupiter, Brahma and others. Always seen as immaterial
until 1964, when the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was
discovered. Since then, there have emerged completely contradictory
notions which now compete for acceptance. The reductionists are going
restless in countless desperate attempts to quantify the unmeasurable.
Now there are new claims of an absolute frame of reference and an
absolute time showing up everywhere. We finally have a fixed frame!
They claim, as if we needed one.
Contemporary physics is increasingly turning into a cross between
conformational space (General Relativity) and material space (Quantum
Mechanics). After we realized there was a CMB, we have slowly
integrated particulate space into GR, while starting to take a serious
look at emerging space flow theories combining electrogravity and
relativation.
If the Aether is physical but non-material, with no possible
landmarks, how could it represent a fixed frame? Einstein, Minkowski
and Mach described a different Aether. This twentieth century Aether
differs from earlier aethers in that, in it, objects are relative to
other objects, not to empty space, therefore avoiding a Principle of
Relativity (POR) violation.
Like Einstein said, there is no absolute space, space is an extension
of matter. Space and empty space are not the same thing. Space is not
primary, nor fundamental, it does not exist by itself, it is a
product, just as matter and time are products. Space is dynamic, it
tells matter where to go and matter tells it how to curve. Empty
space, on the other hand, is primary, non-derivable. There is flat
empty space, then there is curved spacetime, or what is known as 'the
observable universe'. Einstein's Aether is the seat to an all relating
process which he called spacetime.
This new insight or synthesis represents, in one way or another,
claims already made by many great thinkers throughout the history of
Mankind. This new perspective re-introduces the Aether concept at the
same time it tries to reconcile a centuries old notion of wholeness in
space and time with the actually established scientific paradigms.
This is not a new theory but a new insight on already existing
theories. A freshly synthesized interpretation consistent with already
known and well accepted scientific facts.
This book is aimed at a general audience that goes from the specialist
to the layman. With this book and my informal style I aim to
popularize these deeply philosophical topics. It is what I have
realized after a lifelong quest for proof of wholeness in space and
time as a fundamental property of the universe. In addition to arguing
for a common substrate to all matter, I also relate self-awareness and
perception to non-living self-organized systems, thereby suggesting
that consciousness is not a supernatural entity that precedes matter
but an intrinsic property of Nature.
Finally, I use the Aether concept in an attempt to answer; 'What is
that which is?'
In most Aether views, whether material or immaterial, the Aether is
seen as an all knowing creative force, but not in this view. Here, I
compare the Aether to God in the sense that it is omnipresent and
eternal but, at the same time, I argue that it is not all knowing.
That it is a thing which can neither think nor see without a brain.
That it sees, thinks and exists through matter, and that in that sense
we truly are God's servants. Consciousness, instead of being treated
as universal, is seen as a local field around the planet.
Aether is but does not exist as matter, it is before spacetime, before
the Big Bang, Inflation, a CMB... etc. It is not matter, therefore,
notions like motion, size or duration are not applicable, time does
not apply. It is outside the rules of spacetime. Aether becomes
through matter. But, as you probably know, energy is finite, this is
the reason why nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. Not
even light can reach the speed of light! As a photon reaches speed 'c'
its waves are flattened, it loses its wavelength (energy) and goes
back into being Aether. Slow down the system and it reappears... as
required by local spacetime conditions. For a single photon to reach
the speed of light, the whole universe would need to turn into that
one photon. Because energy is finite and the speed of light needs to
be kept constant for fields to exist, there is time dilation and space
contraction for material systems moving at relativistic speeds.
"This shows us two things: you cannot have parts of the infinite and
the infinite is indivisible. But indeed, even if the One is more like
a Principle, and the one is undivided, then the whole universe will be
undivided either in quantity or in form." (Aristotle, 340BC)
"A substance cannot be produced from anything else: it will therefore
be its own cause, that is, its essence necessarily involves existence,
or existence appertains to the nature of it." (Spinoza, 1673)
"It need hardly be pointed out that with things that do not change
there is no illusion with respect to time, given the assumption of
their unchangeability." (Aristotle, 340BC)
Reduce yourself to the size of the smallest particle and what do you
get? You get empty space. Matter is made of fields and fields are
little more than apparitions. Fields are shapes in empty space, lines
of force. Matter is an illusion, but that is reality. Matter in
spacetime is the one drawing the shapes, not some creator or designer.
The Universe designs itself. Particle creation occurs according to
local spacetime's energetic or thermodynamical requirements. Reality
is process and process happens as spacetime.
Basil Hiley is correct, being remains constant during the process of
becoming. Matter is only temporary, it has a beginning and an ending,
it is subject to time (change). Things are because of the Aether,
Aether is what gives them their temporary being status. The Real, that
which 'is', is the Aether. Reality, on the other hand, simply refers
to the process of becoming.
Whether there is an Aether or not is finally answered; the Aether is
but does not exist until it turns into brains with eyes.
--
Laurent
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0016VPI7C |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Laurent |
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 1, 12:21 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
Quote: Dear Laurent:
"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e563fff-7b70-4f5b-b364-cd6f4559bcd6@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Empty space is real but does not exist as matter,
right?
Empty space does not exist.
David A. Smith
Right, that's what I said.
--
Laurent |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) |
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Laurent:
"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e563fff-7b70-4f5b-b364-cd6f4559bcd6@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Empty space is real but does not exist as matter,
right?
Empty space does not exist.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Laurent |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 4:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 1, 8:57 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
Quote: Dear Laurent:
"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4703c16-c2a7-456b-b170-9427ce6f3601@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 1, 12:21 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net
wrote:
Dear Laurent:
"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e563fff-7b70-4f5b-b364-cd6f4559bcd6@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Empty space is real but does not exist as matter,
right?
Empty space does not exist.
Right, that's what I said.
No, you said "empty space is real". It is not real. Then you
rambled on about how the aether is necessary to fill up this
"real" empty space.
David A. Smith
You can be without existing as matter, but you can't exist without
being.
--
Laurent |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear Laurent:
"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4703c16-c2a7-456b-b170-9427ce6f3601@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 1, 12:21 am, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@cox.net>
wrote:
Quote: Dear Laurent:
"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7e563fff-7b70-4f5b-b364-cd6f4559bcd6@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Empty space is real but does not exist as matter,
right?
Empty space does not exist.
Right, that's what I said.
No, you said "empty space is real". It is not real. Then you
rambled on about how the aether is necessary to fill up this
"real" empty space.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Laurent |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 1, 3:56 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Laurent wrote:
Whether there is an Aether or not is finally answered; the Aether is
but does not exist until it turns into brains with eyes.
Aether has never been observed, nor is it necessary to predict how
radiation works. No aether.
Belief in Aether is like belief in God. Neither is based on any
definitive empirical evidence.
Bob Kolker
Right, it does not exist as matter but it is, like God.
--
Laurent |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert J. Kolker |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 2:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Laurent wrote:
Quote:
Whether there is an Aether or not is finally answered; the Aether is
but does not exist until it turns into brains with eyes.
Aether has never been observed, nor is it necessary to predict how
radiation works. No aether.
Belief in Aether is like belief in God. Neither is based on any
definitive empirical evidence.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 3:04 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Apr 1, 7:31 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Laurent wrote:
Right, it does not exist as matter but it is, like God.
So you believe. But you don't know. In addition the Aether of Maxwell (a
super stiff space filling goo that was rarer than virtue) was falsified
by the MMX.
Aether makes no sense. Light is particles. It does not need a medium.
Bob Kolker
Where did the light particles come from?
What are they composed of?
When they move. What do they move through?
Einstein said, "Light is pure energy" and "Energy is space in
motion." Therefore, a light particle has be composed of energy
waves. Waves of what, if not aether? Relativity theory says they
have to be something substantial. Q.E.D. No matter what you call it,
it's still aether, or empty (of form) space.
So, the MMX proved nothing. Since the aether is the root of all
earthly matter and had to be traveling through space along with the
Earth, how could the MMX prove it wasn't really the medium of light
originating from the Earth?
Leon Maurer |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert J. Kolker |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:31 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Laurent wrote:
Quote:
Right, it does not exist as matter but it is, like God.
So you believe. But you don't know. In addition the Aether of Maxwell (a
super stiff space filling goo that was rarer than virtue) was falsified
by the MMX.
Aether makes no sense. Light is particles. It does not need a medium.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Benj |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:46 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 1, 3:56 pm, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Laurent wrote:
Whether there is an Aether or not is finally answered; the Aether is
but does not exist until it turns into brains with eyes.
Aether has never been observed, nor is it necessary to predict how
radiation works. No aether.
Belief in Aether is like belief in God. Neither is based on any
definitive empirical evidence.
Bob Kolker
Oh great. Two kooks arguing "religion"!
Hey Bob, Once again, Saying that Aether has never been observed is a
lie. Empty space has PROPERTIES therefore, aether has been observed!
How about you keep your religion in church? The failure was not to
observe Aether but rather a failure to observe Aether Drift! Quite a
different matter. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Daniel Mandic |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
Quote: Aether has never been observed, nor is it necessary to predict how
radiation works. No aether.
Belief in Aether is like belief in God. Neither is based on any
definitive empirical evidence.
Bob Kolker
Hi Bob!
That may be right. But no one has observed our own being totally,
yet... so :-)
Even you could describe the whole way of data input to our body, you
could not really say where it destinates... ;)
Best regards,
Daniel Mandic |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) |
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dear leonmaure:
<leonmaure@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:793d3e50-a2fd-49f1-9a59-2e99a72b4758@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
....
Quote: Where did the light particles come from?
They are quantum exchange particles between two charged
particles.
Quote: What are they composed of?
They are modelled by Maxwell as "EM fields". They are a series
of (non-propagating) virtual photons in QM.
Quote: When they move. What do they move through?
The Universe in Maxwell, and they don't move through anything in
QM.
He died in 1955. There is no religion with His name on it.
Quote: "Light is pure energy" and "Energy is space in
motion." Therefore, a light particle has be
composed of energy waves.
No.
Quote: Waves of what, if not aether?
Ripples in the Universe, in one model.
Quote: Relativity theory says they have to be
something substantial. Q.E.D.
No. In fact, it says they cannot have any substance at all.
Quote: No matter what you call it,
it's still aether, or empty (of form) space.
There is no empty space.
Quote: So, the MMX proved nothing.
It disproved an aether that was unique to light alone.
Quote: Since the aether is the root of all earthly
matter
Impossible to prove.
Quote: and had to be traveling through space along
with the Earth, how could the MMX prove it
wasn't really the medium of light originating
from the Earth?
It disproved one of three classes of aether.
David A. Smith |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert J. Kolker |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
leonmaure@gmail.com wrote:
Quote:
Where did the light particles come from?
God made them. Next question?
Quote: What are they composed of?
When they move. What do they move through?
They move through space. So do you. Is space a medium that carries your
body to the bathroom every morning.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert J. Kolker |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Benj wrote:
Quote:
Oh great. Two kooks arguing "religion"!
Hey Bob, Once again, Saying that Aether has never been observed is a
lie. Empty space has PROPERTIES therefore, aether has been observed!
How about you keep your religion in church? The failure was not to
observe Aether but rather a failure to observe Aether Drift! Quite a
different matter.
Aether, according to Maxwell is super stiff space filling goo that is so
rare it does not slow planets down in their orbits. Maxwell did not
believe space was aether. Neither did Michelson nor Morley.
Aether is an unnecessary and useless concept. Which is why it has been
largely dropped from physics. It has suffered the same fate as
phlogiston, caloric, electric fluid and vital essence.
Bob Kolker |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Androcles |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:26 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobkolker@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mqWdnaOtT4xS3W7anZ2dnUVZ_vbinZ2d@comcast.com...
| Benj wrote:
| >
| >
| > Oh great. Two kooks arguing "religion"!
| >
| > Hey Bob, Once again, Saying that Aether has never been observed is a
| > lie. Empty space has PROPERTIES therefore, aether has been observed!
| > How about you keep your religion in church? The failure was not to
| > observe Aether but rather a failure to observe Aether Drift! Quite a
| > different matter.
|
| Aether, according to Maxwell is super stiff space filling goo that is so
| rare it does not slow planets down in their orbits. Maxwell did not
| believe space was aether. Neither did Michelson nor Morley.
Don't bring Morley into it, he was a chemist who assisted his friend
Albert Michelson.
Michelson DID believe aether was space but changed his mind from
certain to uncertain.
|
| Aether is an unnecessary and useless concept.
Correct, and out go its properties as well.
| Which is why it has been
| largely dropped from physics.
The crank properties haven't been dropped though. Permittivity
and permeability of "free space" (aether) is still around, screwing
everything up.
| It has suffered the same fate as
| phlogiston, caloric, electric fluid and vital essence.
|
| Bob Kolker
| |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 9 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:23 am
|
|