On Apr 10, 12:29 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

Yousuf Khan wrote:

It [Standard Model] tends to falsify Relativity, doesn't it? Relativity has as a basic
principle, no absolute reference frame, but Standard Model depends on an
absolute reference frame. Background dependence vs. background
independence. Take your pick, both are true depending on which model you
pick.

    Yousuf Khan

   Relativity has not been falsified. Show me mathematically how an absolute
   reference frame has anything to do with the standard model.

The whole QM field is background-dependent. Most of the 10 or 11
dimensional Superstring theories are also background-dependent. If
Superstrings are supposed to be the uniter of the QM and Relativity
fields, then that will mean that Relativity will become the subset of
a background-dependent theory. Once Relativity is background-
dependent, then it's no longer "relative", it then becomes
Absolutivity. :-)

If we're living on a 4 dimensional brane, as Superstring pre-supposes,
then we can't possibly be in a background-independent universe. Just a
universe so large that we can't find its absolute coordinates at our
scale.

  Yousuf Khan

"Laurent" <cyberd...@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...

Aetheris 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 asaether...

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
theAetheras 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.

Laurent wrote:

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Empty space is not asubstance.

Bob Kolker

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
 I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation""vps137" <vps...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:4b999221-2a83-4527-bcac-291f6857de11@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
On 16 ÁÐÒ, 16:13, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation""vps137"
vps...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:97381a0a-b743-4062-ab13-0369924bab95@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Well I think your theory is not worse then others. There are facts
that it describes
and predicts. As usual the struggle with other theories is awaited.
Esp. if you use the aether notion.

I only don't understood about universe expansion. Is it really
increased in 89?
I never heard, beg for my ignorance.
The question is is your theory TOE or not. I see the next lack in it.
You try to use quantum mechanical concepts in building SSP etc but not
to derive QM from your first principles. The same I may say about
energy-mass equivalence you used.
F.e. I derived, or I persuade myself that I derived, it from the
simple model of 4D
whirl - vps137.narod.ru/article7a.html.

Valery S.

I'll try to explain..

In 1989 I came to the conclusion that if my construct was
correct then the universe would expand at an ever
increasing rate of expansion.  This was at a time when the
arguments being made were that it was expanding, Static,
would expand then collapse but missing mass would cause
it to do a big crunch and so forth.  As I considered my idea
it seemed that due to the inverse tensor nature of the Quantum
State it would expand at an ever increasing rate.  In the past
few years many papers have concluded that it is doing just that,
expanding as an ever increasing rate. While that is not the
consensus yet, the arguments I have read give a better explanation
than a static state or a collapsing state.

As far a SPP's ( Smallest Physical Particles) or Primal Matter, Its
a concept that I came up with while considering a paper on Quantum
Nodes and virtual particles. Since I was looking for a concept that
fit existing theories but gave a simple rational and SPP's seemed to
work.

For an example take a hydrogen atom. Current view is a few little
balls of stuff orbited by a little ball of stuff. But when examined we
get uncertety as to either location or energy level, we get the little
balls of stuff being made of other little balls of stuff Up quarks, Gluons
top quarks and so on. And massive mathmatical models to show force
vectors, spin rotations, valance ring jumps, Strong force, weak force and
on and on.

In my construct we have only a number of SPP's, each of which is ringing
from their conversion at the time of the BB. That ringing causes each to
emitt a EM wave.

This causes them to self assemble.

Take 2 SPP's, each ringing and connected via the Quantum State, as
the wave forms mix they hetrodyne causeing a complex pattern. If the
wave forms are compatable the SPP's will tend to lock together at some
distance apart.  To seperate them will require massive external energy as
they are locked via the Unified Indefinable Energy of the Quantum State.

This concept allows certien SPP's of assorted EM wave functions to
self orginize and those that have wave functions that don't combine to
be seperated.

Now say we have a group of SPP's that group. When we as an observer
attempt to observe them we cannot observer them spicificlly but we see the
Total Hetrodyned wave form from all the SPP's. And since we the observer,
any device we build to observe is also connected to the group we attempt
to observe we affect the wave form just by the act of observing.

So as I observe the wave form I see a point around the group where the
energy signiture peeks and If I try to look at it in 0 time I can percieve
it
as a real massive particle but if I view over time it seems a Wave. This is
the electron. Not a real little ball of stuff bit a wave that is percieved
by
the observer due to the Intrinsic Bias of the Target, Observer and any
device designed to observe being connected via the Quantum State.

This view Unifies the 4 forces and still gives a logical explination for
all aspects of particles observed in colliders.  

models to remain intact at the same time. All existing theory is still
valid from a real world view as it allows us to use the information to
do real world stuff. But If I am correct existing Theory will never
and can never give causation to Gravitational fields, Magnetic Fields,
or Duality, along with many other yet to be defined aspects of
physics.

My view does just that. Explains TOE from the BB to the dust particle
on my keyboard. All contenuios  without multi dimenions, virtual particels,
strings. Its sees a Universe without Constants of any kind, No paradox's,
and explains how the value of c and UGC can vary yet only be percieved
by man as constants.

Aether is One.

On Apr 5, 8:03 am, "Robert J. Kolker" <bobkol...@comcast.net> wrote:

Laurent wrote:

Aether is the empty space on which the Universe sits.

Empty space is not asubstance.

Bob Kolker



Then it must be a principle.


"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)

news:4b999221-2a83-4527-bcac-291f6857de11@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
On 16 ÁÐÒ, 16:13, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:

news:97381a0a-b743-4062-ab13-0369924bab95@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Well I think your theory is not worse then others. There are facts
that it describes
and predicts. As usual the struggle with other theories is awaited.
Esp. if you use the aether notion.

I only don't understood about universe expansion. Is it really
increased in 89?
I never heard, beg for my ignorance.
The question is is your theory TOE or not. I see the next lack in it.
You try to use quantum mechanical concepts in building SSP etc but not
to derive QM from your first principles. The same I may say about
energy-mass equivalence you used.
F.e. I derived, or I persuade myself that I derived, it from the
simple model of 4D
whirl - vps137.narod.ru/article7a.html.

Valery S.

I'll try to explain..

In 1989 I came to the conclusion that if my construct was
correct then the universe would expand at an ever
increasing rate of expansion. This was at a time when the
arguments being made were that it was expanding, Static,
would expand then collapse but missing mass would cause
it to do a big crunch and so forth. As I considered my idea
it seemed that due to the inverse tensor nature of the Quantum
State it would expand at an ever increasing rate. In the past
few years many papers have concluded that it is doing just that,
expanding as an ever increasing rate. While that is not the
consensus yet, the arguments I have read give a better explanation
than a static state or a collapsing state.

As far a SPP's ( Smallest Physical Particles) or Primal Matter, Its
a concept that I came up with while considering a paper on Quantum
Nodes and virtual particles. Since I was looking for a concept that
fit existing theories but gave a simple rational and SPP's seemed to
work.

For an example take a hydrogen atom. Current view is a few little
balls of stuff orbited by a little ball of stuff. But when examined we
get uncertety as to either location or energy level, we get the little
balls of stuff being made of other little balls of stuff Up quarks, Gluons
top quarks and so on. And massive mathmatical models to show force
vectors, spin rotations, valance ring jumps, Strong force, weak force and
on and on.

In my construct we have only a number of SPP's, each of which is ringing
from their conversion at the time of the BB. That ringing causes each to
emitt a EM wave.

This causes them to self assemble.

Take 2 SPP's, each ringing and connected via the Quantum State, as
the wave forms mix they hetrodyne causeing a complex pattern. If the
wave forms are compatable the SPP's will tend to lock together at some
distance apart. To seperate them will require massive external energy as
they are locked via the Unified Indefinable Energy of the Quantum State.

This concept allows certien SPP's of assorted EM wave functions to
self orginize and those that have wave functions that don't combine to
be seperated.

Now say we have a group of SPP's that group. When we as an observer
attempt to observe them we cannot observer them spicificlly but we see the
Total Hetrodyned wave form from all the SPP's. And since we the observer,
any device we build to observe is also connected to the group we attempt
to observe we affect the wave form just by the act of observing.

So as I observe the wave form I see a point around the group where the
energy signiture peeks and If I try to look at it in 0 time I can percieve
it
as a real massive particle but if I view over time it seems a Wave. This
is
the electron. Not a real little ball of stuff bit a wave that is percieved
by
the observer due to the Intrinsic Bias of the Target, Observer and any
device designed to observe being connected via the Quantum State.

This view Unifies the 4 forces and still gives a logical explination for
all aspects of particles observed in colliders.

models to remain intact at the same time. All existing theory is still
valid from a real world view as it allows us to use the information to
do real world stuff. But If I am correct existing Theory will never
and can never give causation to Gravitational fields, Magnetic Fields,
or Duality, along with many other yet to be defined aspects of
physics.

My view does just that. Explains TOE from the BB to the dust particle
on my keyboard. All contenuios without multi dimenions, virtual particels,
strings. Its sees a Universe without Constants of any kind, No paradox's,
and explains how the value of c and UGC can vary yet only be percieved
by man as constants.