Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits

Page 7 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Author

Message

Paul Mays

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:44 am

Guest

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:65r6e9F2gt2q5U1@mid.individual.net...

Quote:

"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:854417cb-9999-4e71-ab7b-a7bc9026105a@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Well, that doesn't make much sense. You don't help your case much with
a statement like that. Empty space (the void) is the stage that ether
and *other* quantum objects play on.

Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

Most likely we just don't know what all the quantum objects are yet. Or
their possible interactional configurations. Hopefully we will get some
more clues after the LHC has been running for awhile.

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Let me try ( I have a really hard time getting the concept in the head to be
understandable on the page) to explain why our seeming direct observation of
the universe is skewed be the intrinsic bias of us , and every tool we use,
being made of the matter that was converted out of the QP of the BB.

First I start from the position that there WAS a BB , this is a position
solely based on my agreement with COBE and other observation platforms that
seem to show expansion from a starting point and relative uniform back
ground microwave radiation. Many I have tried to explain my postulate too
first jump in and state that there was no BB so from that point the
explanation will always fail.

Consider what was the "Stuff" of the BB.. I have dubbed is a Quantum Point
.... This seems to be the best term of description I can conger and here's
why.

I conceive it as a Quantum of energy of an indefinable content. indefinable
because before time 0 it is void of any matter and as such it cannot be
defined by any physical rules as all physical rules only apply to matter in
relation to other matter. Eisenstein generally proved that matter Can be
converted into energy and energy back into matter so this Quantum point can
be converted into matter.

We are here speaking of it so it by logic must have done so.

So the QP must follow some rule and the only one that can apply would be
Probability. I see it as having the probability to convert none, very
little, some or all of that energy into matter.

Take the mental exercise of a 1oz cube of matter. it has a finite mass, a
finite 3 dim structure and exist in a finite point in space/time. If I were
able to completely convert that matter into energy without any other matter
in relation to it, it would have to be considered as an infinite amount of
energy. Because there is no physical rules that can be applied it will
always model as infinite and chaotic.

So while we try to define the QP of the BB we always fail and all rules of
physics fail. That failure causes us to conceptualize infinity.

Now lets say the QP actually had a finite amount of Unified Indefinable
Energy. It converts a portion of that energy into matter. The concept I see
is that it only converted a portion into matter and anti-matter . That begs
the question of what the remaining Unified Indefinable Energy is and how it
permeates the universe.

Now if I follow that admittly nebulous abstract concept I must recognize
that I, You, and every particle in the universe exist within that remaining
energy. That leads me to envision that the remaining Unified Indefinable
Energy of the QP still exist and is only spread out as the matter is
propelled by the early conversions of the converted matter as it is
converted into various forms of Physical Energies such as kinetic, L/H nuke
ect. as matter and anti-matter run into each other early on.

I could explain that better if needed but its just a prolog to what we are
speaking.

Now, We have real little physical balls of stuff after this inflation period
and I think they are connected via the remaining Unified Indefinable Energy
left over from the BB. Since these SPP's (Smallest Physical Particles) were
converted and blasted by the BB they are set to ringing and this ringing
produces a EM wave which propagates between every other SPP. You cannot ever
know what that wave form is actually because every SPP produces a EM wave
and if I were a SPP trying to observe another SPP all I observe is the
Heterodyne wave of my own wave form and all other SPP's.

So that is where I get the concept of Intrinsic Bias. When we dig up ore to
smelt the metals to build the devices we use to observe we, without knowing
it, are picking materials that have Intrinsic Bias. We are connected to the
device which is connected to the subject of our observation.

So how does this fit with the standard model ? It actually seems to fit
pretty well. And in my mind actually simplifies the universe. It also allows
a Unified view that cannot be obtained by physical laws.

At the same time it allows existing physical rules to remain intact for the
most part. But it explains a few points that fly in the face of existing
laws. Because we live within the Box so to speak we cannot model or observe
the box itself. That's the intrinsic bias.

If I look at a Quark and Gluon I actually cannot observe them as the waves
of all SPP's locally heterodyne, including the EM waves produced by the
devices used to observe and the observer. This bias causes me to model
discreet objects where they may be only waves observed at a fixed point in
space/time. Even if the SPP's were large as compared to say what we observe
as sub-atomic physical particles we would only observe the waves , which may
seem to have physical properties, due to the intrinsic bias of us being
formed of SPP's and producing EM waves.

This ,to me, seems to fit the observed universe and even makes a prediction.
I wrote back in 1989 that if I were correct the Universe would expand in an
ever increasing rate of expansion. I stand by that prediction. It also
predicts that the velocity of c and the value of G are variables, But
because of our intrinsic bias position within the QP ( I dub it the Quantum
State (QS) once matter was converted) we can only observe G and c as
constants. We will never be able to detect a gravitational wave as the wave
varies because we vary, any device we try to use varies and in order to
observe the wave we would have to observe it from outside the box. Take a
ruler and measure a cube, if the cube got bigger at the same rate the ruler
got bigger we could never know that the cube got bigger unless we had
something external that we knew stayed the same size.

Look at this concept on a 1 dim construct.

X'x = SPP'1, SPP'2,SPP'3 ect.
------ = QS (QP) (Quantum State with matter,
Quantum Point without matter)
< or > = direction of motion
+ or - = value of QS
^'x = point of observation

< + < - > + < - >
X'1-----------X'2---X'3---X'4---------X'5
^'1 ^'2 ^'3 ^'4 ^'5 ^'6 ^'7 ^'8

If I consider only X'1 and X'8 as they expand the QS reduces in steady state
value ( the analogy I use is an inverse rubber band where as you stretch the
band its tension decreases and increases as the SPP's move closer together
while always
staying connected no matter the separation distance.)

If I try to observe this variance at say ^'6 I cannot detect this variance,
as I (X'4) exist within that which is varying. That's the intrinsic bias of
which I speak

If X'3 try's to observe X'2 and X'4 it again is biased and can never detect
the variance.

Now set all X'x's to ringing and producing EM waves propagated
along -------- the discreet waves can never be observed as any observation
will be of the heterodyned waves of all SPP's. Only if a observer was
outside could you observe a discreet wave. Now Lets send a wave pulse from
X'1 to X'5. The tension of the total QS sets the value of travel on a global
scale but as that wave passes ^'4 its now within a local point where the
value of QS is reduced and the velocity of the wave slows. But due to the
position of say X'2 it would never detect the variance. Locally it would
seem a constant value.

The variance of the QS between SPP's would be undetectable as a direct value
but would have a local effect that would be detectable and would seem to be
a observable force . This is the causation aspect of local gravity wells and
the mental construct of curved space/time.

This also says that the value of c varies as SPP's become dense due to this
variance of universal G and local g . But the variance would be only
observable to an observer inside the QS as a constant at any fixed point.

So following this logic I state that all discreet particles that display the
aspect of duality's are only waves and appear as little balls of stuff due
to the intrinsic position of the observer and that of the wave being
observed.

Because of this bias we have to make complicated constructs to make sense of
what we observe. We make multi dimensions, strings and a host of models to
reflect what we think is going on.

Using this idea I conclude there are only 3 spacial dim's and 1 ethereal.
The reason for the value of c to seem to be effected by local mediums is not
due to absorbsion and re-emission, but due to the local value of the QS
being far greater in a local frame. This would (I think) give the same
mathematical model as absorbsion and re-emission if we modeled the variance
between the SPP's at the same rate as we model the absorbsion and
re-emission construct.

Now I admit to being a novice but to me this simplifies the universe and
eliminates the mental constructs of Duality, Infinity and constants explains
the causation of gravity and explains why we cannot using existing rules
find causes for magnetism and gravity without assuming new and exotic little
balls of stuff in our models.

Now I have asked for folks to poke holes into this idea for many years and
yet to find a rational argument against it that cannot be addressed but
since it deals with the state between physicals without regard to them it
will always be a unverifiable construct with the possibility of one aspect
being able to experimentally test. Static electrical charge across a high
state dielectric may ( pure conjecture) alter the local value of the QS on a
very local scale. This could cause the device to alter its relative mass in
relation to all other matter in the universe. If a device can produce a high
enough electrostatic stress field its relative mass may be variable.

Then again these are just the ramblings of an engineer and we all know how
much credence are given engineers in the halls of science....

>

Paul Mays

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:52 am

Guest

"vps137" <vps137@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:502743a1-470f-4ef0-8506-8757c8e6e094@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On 10 ÁÐÒ, 10:21, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 9, 8:54 pm, Laurent <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am starting to think that matter pops up where there is too little
or less dense, as if it were Nature fighting against fragmentation,
giving rise to objects like Seyferts and Quasars where it is less
dense and black holes where there is too much.

There is the "bud" theory of matter, but I used to hang with a
physicist who used to always say that "electrons don't exist"! His
theory (and it's not a particularly new one) was that electrons
actually ARE the proverbial "true vacuum" of space represented by a
"hole" in the aether. Matter supposedly works like this. electrons
are vortexes in space that in fact open a "true vacuum" hole and hence
are actually LESS than nothing. The vortex in the aether that creates
this hole actually spews aether out in to the fourth dimension. That
"wormhole" actually arcs over and comes to rest on a positive charge.
Now protons are NOT vortex "hole" entities, but rather tiny "frozen"
bits of solid aether. Light and radiation tend to cause them to want
to expand back up to a gaseous state but the aether supplied by the
electron's "wormholes" stabilizes the Proton and hence one gets what
we see as matter with a reasonable degree of stability. "Atomic"
energy is actually simply the energy represented by the mass of the
proton expanding back to a gaseous state. You can see that
electrostatic "coulomb" forces are actually due to the elasticity of
the aether-transporting wormhole in the 4th dimension.

That's it.

Yes, your friend is right. When we are talking about the aether, in
the first place we must determine what does it mean. Maybe we are
looking for it in the wrong places.
Talking about observability of the aether, we must ask ourselves
whether only it is observable and all other objects including us
ourselves are only its singularities and made up from it.
The same we are to say about space. What is the space we are living
in? Is it 3D as we can observe or maybe it has more dimension? From
the answer all depends. The 3D space is perambulated up and down by
coryphaei, so it is need to go further.
As for SR, it has been already shown as the first step that there is
another approach to the Lorentz transformation without peculiar
postulates,length contraction and time dilation. One needs just to add
one spatial dimension to our visual space. Then some consequencies
about all the nature including particles and galaxies represented by
vorteces (not in the very space, but in some medium situated in
space) can be made.
Look into vps137.narod.ru/physics.html.

Lets start from the beginning and that is what was the BB.. Einstein's
pretty much nailed it when he explained that matter can be converted into
energy and energy could be converted into matter... So what was the Energy
of the BB before any of it was converted into matter. Well a writer Alun
Williams dubbed it a chaos Point (CP) in that energy without matter would be
infinitely chaotic and indefinable.

I have always refereed to it as a Quantum Point and would follow at least
one rule and that was Probability . Other than that the energy of the BB
before time 0 is non definable as there is no matter hence no laws of
physics can apply.

We have as a Quantum Point (QP) an amount of Unified Energy of a
unquantifiable amount and indefinable nature.

My postulate states that according to Probability that QP had the
probability of converting from none to all of its energy into matter or not.
That conversion could have been from one particle of matter to a billion
billion universes of matter. My contention is that all of the Energy of the
QP need not be converted, only a small portion was converted at time 0 into
the matter we perceive as the universe around us.

The remaining energy exists all around us and is still indefinable. While we
can finely define matter in relation to other matter the energy between
matter is still undefinable. We give it constant values as we can measure it
and model it between any two massive objects so we seek the Grand Unified
Theory to explain the observed which we have yet to define. Gravity is well
modeled and we can calculate to the Nth degree what its effect is on massive
bodies we still can't define the cause of effect over distance of
gravitational
fields.

Lets try to get past the inherent Bias of the observer to better understand
the concepts to follow. The Bias is Intrinsic in that after time 0 the
matter throughout the universe is connected by the remainder of the energy
of the QP when it converted some of its undefinable energy into definable
matter. So the Bias stems from every item used to measure or observe the
universe is connected to that being observed and the data gathered is Biased
to the observer. This Bias causes us to observe what seems to be a particle
with a material nature but actually be only energy signatures of waves
measured at a specific time with tools that are connected to that which they
observe.

Lets consider converting a known amount of matter into energy completely in
that there is 1X1X1 cube of matter and we magically find a way to convert
all of that matter into energy you would have a QP (Quantum Point, Chaos
Point, Singularity) that occupied no space an since it contains no matter it
cannot be defined physically. It would have infinite energy density even
though it was converted from a finite amount of matter.

In our thought experiment we have a Quantum of Energy and we convert 2
Smallest Physical Particle (SPP) out of it. The remainder of the energy
exists as a field between those two particles. There is a massive energy
release at the conversion of matter from energy. My contention is that
converted from that Energy is a form of matter that I call a SSP or Smallest
Physical Partical an that the energy release causes these SSP's to ring and
produce a EM wave. It also causes the particles to move away from the point
of origin. Note that the particles could be matter or antimatter in any
ratios as per probibility that would rules the QP before time 0.

With 2 SSP's produced as they move away from each other the Universe exists
between those two SSP's. That Field has a value and we can define it once we
have 2 physical particles moving in relation to each other.

Now Lets add 1 additional particle.. only this particle is Anti-Matter. Its
still connected to the other 2 particles via the Quantum State (QS) But if
it runs into one of those other particles they vanish into a flash of energy
and the single particle would collapse the universe into it. If there was
several +SSP's and 1 -SSP's you would have a large energy release as the 2
particles annihilate each other which would propel the remaining +SSP's away
from each other at a higher rate.

This follows the standard theory of a short inflation period followed by the
expansion period of the Big Bang Theory. At Time 0 the QP converted some of
its undefinable energy into Matter in the form of +SSP's and -SSP's and that
shortly after conversion +SSP's and -SSP's annihilated each other causing
the remaining +SSP's to expand at a higher rate.

Now we have lots of SSP'S in a group. They are connected to each other via
the Quantum State which is the same undefined unified energy that was the
Quantum Point (QP) the EM waves interact between each SSP. The EM Waves
heterodyne and interact causing a type of natural selection in that some
SSPs are producing EM Waves that combine with some other SSP's and cause
them to stabilize into bound groups and others have EM wave forms that cause
them to separate further from some SSP's so over time you have groups of
SSP's that as a group produce a EM Wave that is a unified as a heterodyne
wave form. then these groups can become harmonically connected to other
groups and so on.

This QS (Quantum State) between particles has a variable that has been
dubbed the Universal Constant or the Gravitational Constant. I Know
...Constant Variable? These are the values we call constants as we can
measure and model matter and these values remain constant. I contend that
they are variable in that due to scale and the intrinsic bias of being
within the Quantum State we will always measure and validate them as
constants as we vary at the same rate.

In my view the Gravitational Constant of the Universe varies with the
expansion of the universe but is locally modified by groupings of SSP's.
This also applies to the value of c (The Speed Of Light). I contend that c
is a variable but varies on a scale as to be measured as a constant. Again
locally varied by local groupings of SSP's. The Quantum State acts as an
Inverse Tensor Field between all SSP's on a universal scale. It has a Strong
attraction which we measure as gravitational or magnetic or nuclear force
effects aspects of separation distance of SSP's. These forces are but
effects of heterodyne waves of groupings of SSP's and the value of the QS
varies with the distribution of SSP's both universally and locally. We have
modeled Photons taking centuries to escape from the lower sun to the surface
and theorize that photons are absorbed by matter and re emitted causing the
long trip . But in my postulate the value of c in reduced locally between
closely grouped SSP's versus widely separated SSP's. So in the dense sun the
wave form we consider a photon travels at a slower speed locally and faster
once it exits the mass of the sun.

Paul R. Mays

Paul Mays

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:59 am

Guest

"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:21170e16-2bef-40d1-949e-44eb031410f6@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:854417cb-9999-4e71-ab7b-a7bc9026105a@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Well, that doesn't make much sense. You don't help your case much with
a statement like that. Empty space (the void) is the stage that ether
and *other* quantum objects play on.

Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum.

Also know as aether...

Quote:

This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

The quantum vacumm moves? Isn't it a void, as in 'not matter'? How can
an immaterial substance move?

It sorta kinda moves .. it is connected to every physical particle and it
acts as
an inver tensor between said particles .. I call it the Quantum State as I
consider
the Aether as the left over energy of the Quantum Point of BB fame. and as
such
matter does not move through it as Maxwell and Einstine conceived and is why
we
cannot detect drag. But it is connected to matter and moves with matter.

Look at this concept on a 1 dim construct.

X'x = SPP'1, SPP'2,SPP'3 ect.
------ = QS (QP) (Quantum State with matter,
Quantum Point without matter)
< or > = direction of motion
+ or - = value of QS
^'x = point of observation

< + < - > + < - >
X'1-----------X'2---X'3---X'4---------X'5
^'1 ^'2 ^'3 ^'4 ^'5 ^'6 ^'7 ^'8

If I consider only X'1 and X'8 as they expand the QS reduces in steady state
value ( the analogy I use is an inverse rubber band where as you stretch the
band its tension decreases and increases as the SPP's move closer together
while always staying connected no matter the separation distance.)

If I try to observe this variance at say ^'6 I cannot detect this variance,
as I (X'4) exist within that which is varying. That's the intrinsic bias of
which I speak

If X'3 try's to observe X'2 and X'4 it again is biased and can never detect
the variance.

Now set all X'x's to ringing and producing EM waves propagated
along -------- the discreet waves can never be observed as any observation
will be of the heterodyned waves of all SPP's. Only if a observer was
outside could you observe a discreet wave. Now Lets send a wave pulse from
X'1 to X'5. The tension of the total QS sets the value of travel on a global
scale but as that wave passes ^'4 its now within a local point where the
value of QS is reduced and the velocity of the wave slows. But due to the
position of say X'2 it would never detect the variance. Locally it would
seem a constant value.

The variance of the QS between SPP's would be undetectable as a direct value
but would have a local effect that would be detectable and would seem to be
a observable force . This is the causation aspect of local gravity wells and
the mental construct of curved space/time.

Quote:

Most likely we just don't know what all the quantum objects are yet. Or
their possible interactional configurations. Hopefully we will get some
more clues after the LHC has been running for awhile.

The quantum refers to a quantum of energy, in other words, an amount
of energy... the smallest amount of energy as far as we know.
Information (geometry) starts with the quantum. Existence starts with
the quantum. Before the quantum there is the aether. There can be an
aether without quanta but there can be no quanta without an aether.
The aether is before matter and it is dimensionless, like a point...
yet, it contains the Universe.

--
Laurent

Quote:

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:34 am

Guest

On Apr 9, 7:59 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 8, 1:32 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Apr 8, 7:12 am,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
Colliding very energetic nucleii. Already been done
at lower energy levels, and Hawking radiation resulted.
Search on "dual to black hole".

nuclei, retard

nucleii, 31800 hits

Just because others dick around with the language, doesn't mean you
have to follow them around like a little puppy. The meaning was
clear.

what around? what meaning? Do you know what a genitive case ending
is?

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:37 am

Guest

On Apr 9, 9:21 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

Quote:

Where are the turtles?

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:49 am

Guest

There are not four!, Laurent.

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:52 am

Guest

On Apr 12, 8:31 pm, vps137 <vps...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

I would agree with your estimation of the eather. The traditional
eather really doesn't need neither in classical physics, no in quantum

doesn't need neither = does[o,t] need either

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:31 am

Guest

On Apr 14, 12:44 am, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:

Quote:

Consider what was the "Stuff" of the BB.. I have dubbed is a Quantum Point
... This seems to be the best term of description I can conger and here's
why.

There are no points.

Quote:

wrong: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+full-formula

Autymn D. C.

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 8:45 am

Guest

On Apr 14, 10:07 am, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:2944f4a7-0af9-47ea-a62c-54165f4d60b0@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 14, 12:44 am, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:

Consider what was the "Stuff" of the BB.. I have dubbed is a Quantum Point
... This seems to be the best term of description I can conger and here's
why.

There are no points.

Of course not.. Its only a way of visualizing. For the Quantum Point to be
a
point it must ocupy some space , and energy in the absence of matter
occupies
no space.

No, you dub stuff a point.

Quote:

Take the mental exercise of a 1oz cube of matter. it has a finite mass, a
finite 3 dim structure and exist in a finite point in space/time. If I
were
able to completely convert that matter into energy without any other
matter
in relation to it, it would have to be considered as an infinite amount of
energy. Because there is no physical rules that can be applied it will
always model as infinite and chaotic.

So while we try to define the QP of the BB we always fail and all rules of
physics fail. That failure causes us to conceptualize infinity.

wrong:http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+full-formula

That link does not show me wrong. and neither does any Point
you have made.. Now I would love some one to show me wrong.
Show me how any unified energy form without relative consideration
of matter has other than infinite energy density. All Physics Only

That link does, blind cretin.

Quote:

models Matter in relative motion to other matter. All field concepts and
models in physics is relative to some matter or the other. You cannot
model energy in the absence of matter. Its why every model fail when we

There was no lack of matter in yours.

Quote:

go back to the instant before the BB. The only rules that apply are

but not behind?

Paul Mays

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:04 am

Guest

"Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote in message
news:A9EMj.3274$P96.1092@fe103.usenetserver.com...

Quote:

"Laurent" <cyberdyno@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:21170e16-2bef-40d1-949e-44eb031410f6@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 6, 1:44 am, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Laurent" <cyberd...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:854417cb-9999-4e71-ab7b-a7bc9026105a@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Well, that doesn't make much sense. You don't help your case much with
a statement like that. Empty space (the void) is the stage that ether
and *other* quantum objects play on.

Volovik says it like it is very well in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;

"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum.

Also know as aether...

This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."

The quantum vacumm moves? Isn't it a void, as in 'not matter'? How can
an immaterial substance move?

It sorta kinda moves .. it is connected to every physical particle and it
acts as
an inver tensor between said particles .. I call it the Quantum State as I
consider
the Aether as the left over energy of the Quantum Point of BB fame. and as
such
matter does not move through it as Maxwell and Einstine conceived and is
why
we
cannot detect drag. But it is connected to matter and moves with matter.

Look at this concept on a 1 dim construct.

X'x = SPP'1, SPP'2,SPP'3 ect.
------ = QS (QP) (Quantum State with matter,
Quantum Point without matter)
or > = direction of motion
+ or - = value of QS
^'x = point of observation

+ < - > + < -
X'1-----------X'2---X'3---X'4---------X'5
^'1 ^'2 ^'3 ^'4 ^'5 ^'6 ^'7 ^'8

If I consider only X'1 and X'8 as they expand the QS reduces in steady
state
value ( the analogy I use is an inverse rubber band where as you stretch
the
band its tension decreases and increases as the SPP's move closer together
while always staying connected no matter the separation distance.)

If I try to observe this variance at say ^'6 I cannot detect this
variance,
as I (X'4) exist within that which is varying. That's the intrinsic bias
of
which I speak

If X'3 try's to observe X'2 and X'4 it again is biased and can never
detect
the variance.

Now set all X'x's to ringing and producing EM waves propagated
along -------- the discreet waves can never be observed as any observation
will be of the heterodyned waves of all SPP's. Only if a observer was
outside could you observe a discreet wave. Now Lets send a wave pulse from
X'1 to X'5. The tension of the total QS sets the value of travel on a
global
scale but as that wave passes ^'4 its now within a local point where the
value of QS is reduced and the velocity of the wave slows. But due to the
position of say X'2 it would never detect the variance. Locally it would
seem a constant value.

The variance of the QS between SPP's would be undetectable as a direct
value
but would have a local effect that would be detectable and would seem to
be
a observable force . This is the causation aspect of local gravity wells
and
the mental construct of curved space/time.

Most likely we just don't know what all the quantum objects are yet. Or
their possible interactional configurations. Hopefully we will get some
more clues after the LHC has been running for awhile.

The quantum refers to a quantum of energy, in other words, an amount
of energy... the smallest amount of energy as far as we know.
Information (geometry) starts with the quantum. Existence starts with
the quantum. Before the quantum there is the aether. There can be an
aether without quanta but there can be no quanta without an aether.
The aether is before matter and it is dimensionless, like a point...
yet, it contains the Universe.

--
Laurent

Best,

Fred Diether
Co-moderator sci.physics.foundations

Laurent,

I see it the same way but maybe with a bit of trouble
in the explanation.

The Quantum Point of which I speculate is as you say.
It exists as a indefinable energy from which matter may
or may not be converted out of. Indefinable in that it
contains no matter and therefore occupies no space. All
physical rules fail so it cannot be defined.

Once 2 Physical particles are converted the Universe exist
between those two particles and the Quantum exists as an
inverse tensor between those 2 physical particles. This is
what has been conceived as the Aether, I call it the Quantum State
as to my small brain that term better describes it.

The two particles are connected like a rubber band that has
inverse tensor aspect in that as they move further apart the
value of the tensor is reduced and if moved closer it is increased.

Each particle is set to ringing by the event of their conversion. This
ringing produces EM waves propagated through the QS between
them. But since for Particle A to observe Particle it must perceive
using EM waves A can never actually observe Particle B because
each particles waves heterodyne. So Particle A effects the observation
of B.

This basic concept explains the causation of Gravity and gives a
very simple view that allows existing SR,GR,QM to be in agreement.
Its explains why Maxwell's Aether cannot be detected by drag, and gives
a completely new way to conceive of the reality we observe from the
Macro to the Micro while only requiring 4 dimensions to explain all
the observable universe.

This postulate led me to predict that the Universe will expand with
an ever increasing rate of expansion in 89 so I can say recent observations
seem to agree. But it does lead to some assertions that cause physicist to
yell at me a lot. It leads to a view that c is variable, there are no
constants,
and that there is a Base Form of matter which I call a SPP ( Smallest
Physical Particle) which can never be directly observed. It also gives
a rational for duality of what seems to be massive particles.

I'm I wrong , more than likely, but I have yet to find anyone that has
actually attempted to understand my postulate that has given me an
argument that has made me think I'm incorrect. If I'm correct then this
postulate is a TOE and leads to a GUT.

Robert J. Kolker

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:15 am

Guest

mitch.nicolas.raemsch@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:

But geometry is substance.

Geometry is an abstraction that lives inside our brains. if there were
no sentient beings, there would be no geometry.

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:18 am

Guest

Ralph Hertle wrote:

Quote:

mitch.nicolas.raemsch@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

But geometry is substance.

[...]

Mitch:

Where is a single piece of evidence for what you say, verification in
terms of facts and proper experimental method, published discovery, or
proof.

I'll bring forward an example that is one of the primary definitions
from the science of geometry:

"A point is that which has no part." Euclid, "The Elements", Book 1,
Defn. 1

Was is "a part"? What is "has?

The definition of point as given by Euclide was never ever sued in any
of the proofs. Only the axioms and postulates and a few hidden
assumptions about the objects of geometry were used according to the
principles of logic.

Geometry rests on a set of undefined notions plus assumptions which
provide meaning for the undefined notions.

Bob Kolker

Paul Mays

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:07 pm

Guest

"Autymn D. C." <lysdexia@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2944f4a7-0af9-47ea-a62c-54165f4d60b0@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 14, 12:44 am, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:

Quote:

Consider what was the "Stuff" of the BB.. I have dubbed is a Quantum Point
... This seems to be the best term of description I can conger and here's
why.

There are no points.

Of course not.. Its only a way of visualizing. For the Quantum Point to be
a
point it must ocupy some space , and energy in the absence of matter
occupies
no space.

Quote:

wrong: http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+full-formula

That link does not show me wrong. and neither does any Point
you have made.. Now I would love some one to show me wrong.
Show me how any unified energy form without relative consideration
of matter has other than infinite energy density. All Physics Only
models Matter in relative motion to other matter. All field concepts and
models in physics is relative to some matter or the other. You cannot
model energy in the absence of matter. Its why every model fail when we
go back to the instant before the BB. The only rules that apply are
probability
and uncertenty.. If you can show me a modle, that fits existing physical
rules,
of the energy in the absence of matter I would be very impressed indeed.

Szczepan Bia³ek

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:22 pm

Guest

"Paul Mays"

Quote:

. Einstein's pretty much nailed it when he explained that matter can be
converted into
energy and energy could be converted into matter...

In yor opinion "=" means "made of"?
S*

Paul Mays

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:56 pm

Guest

"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bialek@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:fu01ts$tgh$1@node1.news.atman.pl...

Quote:

"Paul Mays"

. Einstein's pretty much nailed it when he explained that matter can be
converted into
energy and energy could be converted into matter...

In yor opinion "=" means "made of"?
S*

No... "=" means Equal To, "Made Of" means
Every Thing, Observed and Un-observed that is the
total substance of a "Thing"

Quite Different ...

In the context of what you snipped, if you subscribe to
BB Theory, You cannot have Matter with out energy
but you can have Energy without Matter. But that Unified
Energy that matter is converted from cannot be modeled or
physically defined because physical laws only apply to matter in
motion relative to other matter in motion. You cannot show
me a model of fields, waves, propagation ect that in the model
relative reference is not made to some matter, even if the matter
be the observer.

Quote:

Page 7 of 9 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Fri Jul 25, 2008 7:32 pm Science Forum Index