Aether and Relativity: Why there is no Contradiction
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 тра 2024
- Part 1 of the series about aether: Dislocations, topological defects and theior relativistic behaviour.
See also my recent ZAMM paper:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/a...
Further reading:
arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0011064 - a tribute to Ekkehart Kröner
arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9612061
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@TheMachian:c
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/ - Наука та технологія
I adore this channel. Please keep up the excellent work.
absolutely fascinating concept though I hope you could expand on how this explains the double slit experiment and entanglement.
My undergraduate education was in materials engineering and dislocations are one of the first things you learn about. Dislocations move and the strain fields interact with other dislocations, making a material harder and more brittle. Patterns of dislocations can be seen with Transmission Electron Microscopes, and other techniquies like scanning-tunneling. Dislocations often have important interactions with impurity atoms, or alloying elements. This is metallurgy 101, understood since about the second world war. Interesting to note that Einstein wouldn't have known about this. I am a little unclear about your idea of subatomic particles being dislocations in the fabric of an aether. I think they would have to be edge dislocations, screw dislocations and so on. Geometry is geometry. I also like the idea of an aether on an emotional level, but am not really able to connect the dots of what you're saying.
Very appropriate comment.
This is a great video in the context of Susskind's lectures, for a spread of different POV and the Correspondence Principle Imagery applications to identifying phenomena "everyone knows" but approach in contexts that are "complicated and messy" relatively speaking.
The idea of prime-cofactor frequency alignments that structure crystallisation out of Singularity-point i-reflection superposition of e-Pi-i omnidirectional-dimensional containment-condensation to 0-1-2-ness crystal cubics and merged at a dislocation by Spheroidal arrangements of photon-phonon positioning of multi-phase valence bonding, ..it's sounding familiar, but needs some Crystallography revision to relate it to what is it is intended to mean by Sublimation-Tunnelling jumps => dislocation and tangency space oscillation potential ratio-rates of resonance bonding and so on..
Another job for experts in parallel disciplines to bring together. Interesting.
@@davidwilkie9551word salad doesn't help anybody...
Infrared is affected by the electric field of a lattice in a crystal, and as such several types of crystal defect types I can see with infrared spectroscopy. The effect depends on the mineral composition as the behaviors in infrared are different. He shows a simple lattice but ignored composition of the lattice and uses a lattice as a generality instead of actual mineral structure but then talks about mineral lattice defects, here I presume he is mentioning quartz.
I think it's really a deep metaphysical disconnect. Are photons particles of light, or are they "made" of aether? If they are made of aether, then you can compose all particles as geometric compounding of photons, just as you can see all elements as compounded hydrogen. If they are not distortions in a common substrate, then you have to search for another "thing" that they are made of.
bingo you fucking NAILED it. @@dsm5d723
This also blew my mind! Topological deformations as particles! In that way we can conduct quite few interesting properties of Aether. It's not what i imagined before. Crazy stuff!
But the connection between topology and certain phenomena has been known for so long. I wonder how it remained fringe for decades???
An ethereal elastic solid of 2 particles types, +ve and -ve, with +ve particles as point-like quanta close-packed by a free-flowing, compressible, displace-able -ve electro-gas can emerge semi-classical universe models. Stretchy but quantised space. It's a matter-energy field and wave medium. It wants to be as close-packed as possible so if +ve cells are kicked free with 'total escape energy' the cell(s) and the excess -ve electro-gas are repelled into balls (matter and antimatter) by the far more balanced field trying to stay that way.
--
The field is inertial as the easiest way to get rid of an imbalance is straight on at the speed it's going. Field flows from in front to behind a particle's hard core. Particles deform the field around them. These field warps can interfere and diffract, directed a particle core (pilot wave theory). Light is a longitudinal field compression at its peak that warps the field in a lateral direction, forming a transverse wave of field cell 'blips' where a field cell moves half a cell or less and back as the wave passes. Light peaks can diffract but can also be directed by their accompanying field warps like particles.
--
and that's all without using -ve electro-gas (aether) flow in a big way that adds more power and options to the model but arguably is not needed.
@@PrivateSi If matter does not exist and is only a dislocation in the ether, what's for example the difference between the positive and negative charge? Why do they attract each other?
@@maciejnajlepszy .. I'm not sure what I'm replying to as I can't see my original comment but I don't care what causes the electric force from which all other forces emerge (in my view). It just exists.
--
POLECTRON FIELD: cell: a + & a - particle split by Full Split Energy as a positron+ & electron-. Bonds to 12 neighbours
MATTER: p+ / e- = half cell (& a cell as +-+ / -+-)? Polarises field as + & - shells. SPIN: centre polarisation axis
LECKY: absolute charge. MASS: particle lecky. INERTIA: rebalancing field kicks mass. STRONG GRAVITY: field repels mass
MOND: lecky density slows acceleration/TIME and shrinks cells, loss to gravity gradients grows voids, aids acceleration
BIG BANG: more proton-antiproton pairs malformed as proton-muon than antiproton-antimuon so hydrogen beat antihydrogen
POSITRONIUM: e_p. Muon: ep_e. Proton: pep. Neutron: pep_e. Tau: epep_e. Neutron mass is halfway between muon and tau
ANTIMATTER: 1,2 e_p pairs annihilate. 3: proton+anti proton or muon+anti muon. 4: neutron+anti neutron. 5: tau+anti tau
WEAK FORCE: unstable atoms form and annihilate e_p pairs. BETA- DECAY: pep_e => pep e. BETA+: pep + new e_p => pep_e p
NUCLEAR FORCE: neutron electrons bond to protons. ENTANGLEMENT: correlation broken by interaction? Physical link?
BLACK HOLE: atoms cut into neutrons fused as higher mass tau cores (epep). Field rotates. Core annihilates: ep => cell?
PHOTON: cell polarisation/lateral shift wave. LONGITUDINAL WAVE: gravitational wave, neutrino: 1 to 3 cell wave
DOUBLE SLIT: photon/particle field warps diffract and interfere, guiding the core. Detectors interfere with guides
ENTROPY: simplicity. Closed system complexity reduces over time. Uniformly (dis)ordered (hot)/cold field is simplest
Very, very good of you to talk english! It makes it easier for al of us not that good in german.
there is an essay called "On the philosophical Inadequacy of Modern Physics and the need for a Theory of Space" by Henry Lindner
It a has a lot of opinionated tangents, but includes a pretty convincing (to me) argument for the aether. In short, special relativity is true, but may still have its own flow as an aether. The "curved space" observations of GR may well be flowing space instead.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
This is indeed fascinating stuff. Thank you Professor!
You make a great point about advancing physics at the end.
We can't get far with this era of indoctrinated yes people afraid to report anything new, pretending to be scientists.
Thank You.
Great channel
Bravo! Fascinating. I think you are into something!
OMG!!!! MIND BLOWING!!! "IF YOU THINK MATTER AS DEFECTS".... BIG BADASS BRAIN !! AMAZING THOUGHT!
Fascinating stuff! I don't understand much of it but it is clearly exciting and fun stuff to think about!!
Thanks for setting physics back 100+ years Unzicker!
My pleasure! :-)
Better, we have to go even further to stop Copernicus from his heresy that eventually destroyed science. I recommend Robert Sungenis' books for a remedy for current pseudoscience.
What's really interesting is: Just think of the vast arrays of magnetic and electric fields throughout the cosmos on scales we can barely comprehend? Then photons with their sheer amount of momentum & frequency converts into energy. In space static charges, temperature differences, density pressures, rotational inertia. Play such a huge role to help build the structure of our universe. It's facinating to ponder about the structures of the natural world around us. Keep up the great work 👍🏻
Excellent! Thank you so much for elucidating this. Did you know that in 1870, a mathematician called W. K. Clifford gave a lecture at the Cambridge Philosophical Society in England , called, 'On the Space Theory of Matter,' which anticipated General Relativity also? It sounds so similar to what you've just said in this video! I'm extremely interested in knowing more about General Relativity and the aether. Here's part of Clifford's lecture:
" That small portions of space are in fact of a nature analogous to little hills on a surface which is on the average flat; namely, that the ordinary laws of geometry are not valid in them. That this property of being curved or distorted is continually being passed on from one portion of space to another after the manner of a wave. That this variation of the curvature of space is what really happens in that phenomenon which we call the motion of matter, whether ponderable or etherial......[I]n the physical world nothing else takes place but this variation."
There are at least three models of ether. Here's an example you might like ua-cam.com/video/1KXpkUYvbGo/v-deo.html
Aether of the 1930s when my father went to college was stuff comprising space beyond our atmosphere that bound the universe. It was a placeholder concept. Perhaps today replaced with dark matter, dark energy, dark stuff.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
@@davidrandell2224 1800s through early 1900s and perhaps today was driven by this idea basic observation of nature would solve how it works without instruments. So we got from that evolution (life from dirt by coincidence and enough probability), and other stupidisms that made bunk work by adding time and chance. So it is not just physics of that age that had problems. We go bunk medicine like eggs have cholesterol, cholesterol is linked to heart disease, don't eat eggs. That lasted for 50 years until someone asked how it failed to get broken down in the gut.
@@donaldkasper8346 All down gravity-Aristotle, Newton, LeSage,Mach, Einstein, Wheeler, Zee, Penrose etc- wrong. Up gravity-McCutcheon (Expansion Theory)- correct. All Standard Theory/Model was replaced by Expansion Theory in 2002. SR wrong due to reference frame mixing and bad math. Etc. No end to man’s ignorance, until “The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.
Thanks doc!
Having read in the comments that the aether could be the source of matter, I added a reply stating that; maybe 'lumpy aether' is the manifestation of all fundamental particles that make up atoms, as well as all the other known detectable entities we know of, upto now of course. Futher to that reply, the dislocations and maybe ripples, the 'lumps', in the fabric of the aether could account for the diversity of matter.
Thank you very much
Thank you.
In condensed matter physics and string theory these deformations are well understood. See Z2 symmetry and emergent gauge theories from no symmetry
The biggest problem is the understanding of physics.
Three layers
1/ Particles
2/ Aether(spacetime) framework
3/ Non-dimensional Hyperspace
Then, one can discuss overlapping universes..... ;)
Until then, scientists will say "but that is impossible!"
A key idea that allows the ether to be compatible with Special Relativity is that it is all one thing and not stuff moving inside of something else.
What is all one thing?
The statement that a body is in motion can only be made from the observational standpoint of a second body.
@@ZeroOskul Good point. If matter is thought of as topological defects in spacetime (ie 'the ether') then it can be thought of as 'all one thing' at the level of sub atomic particles. One might plausibly suppose that these defects combine to form what appear as stable bodies separate and within spacetime. I am of course working feverishly on calculations to support this idea.
@@morganhavard1605 Work on calcultaions to defy the idea.
Science is about proving that ideas are wrong.
When you cannot prove it is wrong, you assume it is right.
When you strive to prove it right, you get confirmation bias.
@@morganhavard1605Not related to video but you are too beautiful to be physicist Ma'am
Dear Prof. Unizicker thank you for your attainable ( even to 'laymens' like me) explainations that really promote everyone to get involved to think about these concepts.Abt minute 5:56. How you get from 'geometric description ( A )' to Riemannian geometry ( B )' with regard to how the two vecors x (horizontal) y (vertical) in 36 'fields'.B => B` -> one field ..to the vectors x y being orthogonal (90 degrees) to each other. Which angle to the surface ( A or B) (In `laymens` terms :) does x y have ?
I am not sure I understood the question. After parfallel transport along a closed line, a vector is rotated (by curvature) or shifted (by torsion). You may try the papers listed in the description with references.
Wonderful point that you have highlighted in this video.Obviously you have good publication. I myself too surprised when I came across Frank's 1949 results.
Nobel attosecond too take us back to 100+ years. Fundamental sciences is now on a track of " turning stairs". It has now refueled quantum world without statistical significance alone.
Truely first time in last 70years a different culture even on editor's choice.
[Quantum aether > quantum gravity]:
The idea of the ether as a gas-like medium can also be accepted on the basis of the analysis of the behavior of elementary particles at their interactions.
The question arises how the particles of ether can be held in the composition of the elementary particles of matter, if ether is a gas?
The answer to this question is not difficult if we take into account that elementary particles of matter are toroidal vortex formations of compacted gas-like ether.
The basis for this statement is the fact that toroidal vortex formations are the only form of motion capable of holding a compacted gas in a closed volume.
"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." Niels Bohr
Michael Faraday was correct! Magnetism IS the dielectric field.
just at the beginning of the video, but could a mass such as a planet moving through the ether Cause the stress dislocations, and could those stresses be the distortion of the space-time substance perceived as gravity?
Dear Alexander, I found your video fascinating and was greatly intrigued by the idea of general relativity being compatible with aether theories. I've spent several years working on a new model of gravity that I refer to as 'gravitoelectroweak theory' wherein an aether-like background of tunneling virtual electrons exchanges W+ and W- particles with other fermions. I felt electrons were a good candidate for a gravity particle since they also interact readily with particles of light; I suspect also that invoking neutral currents (i.e. the exchange of Z bosons) will eventually explain neutrino oscillations. I have a somewhat innovative idea about the Higgs detection also; I don't know what you'd think of this; I suspect it was a naked singularity from its decay products. I'm interested in getting my ideas out there and have been steadily writing a book on the topic. I was wondering if you'd ever be interested in discussing my ideas. Best wishes, Sam Cottle.
Excellent presentation, as usual. Thank you.
One question; if the mathematical formalism describing crystalline distortions matches that of relativity, wouldn't that suggest that length contraction and time dilation (and mass increase) could be purely abstract ideas, with no physical basis? The math simply describes a transform, as it did for Lorentz before Einstein came along.
To rephrase the question; can we not use the same formula to describe some sort of change without any 'relativistic' effects?
The mass-energy equivalence and length contraction are consistent with compression of a fluidic aether with a speed of sound equal to the speed of light by Johannes D. Johansson
"The Lorentz aether theory was the mathematically equivalent precursor to the special theory of relativity (SR). It assumed the existence of a static aether filling space in which particles are affected by the Lorentz factor for length contraction to explain the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, it was early abandoned in favour of SR due to the apparent arbitrary introduction of the Lorentz factor. The aether has thereafter been assumed not to exist as it is seemingly undetectable and not needed for the SR. In this discussion paper it is argued that this reasoning to reject the aether is unfounded since the Lorentz factor also appears as an increased resistance term in fluid dynamics when the speed of sound is approached. This means that, for example, particle accelerator tests of the Lorentz factor can be interpreted as a form of detection of a fluidic aether. Furthermore, it is shown that the mass-energy equivalence is identical to the energy for compression of a fluid with the speed of sound equal to the speed of light. It is thus possible that the aether not only exists but that it also is the matter all particles are made of."
Interesting idea, aether maybe the fundamental source of matter. Could it possibly be that matter, atoms, fundamental particles just be 'lumpy aether'?
@@grahamfoulkes7321 Wouldn't that be too simple? If that is, everything can be made of everything. What then is the distinction between the protons and the electrons? Why the attract each other, since, according to this theory, they ale all the same? Etc.
for about a year, I've thought that it must be the case that if matter appears to influence the surriunding space-time continuum it's because matter itself is created from the spacetime continuum by drawing into a space, and the more matter you make the more of the surrounding continuum you draw from and the more spacetime is stretched towards the direction of the created mass, causing a greater gravitational effect. So it's not so much mass changes spacetime rather mass itself is spacetime pulled towards a location and inevitable the curveture is stretched towards that point.
Rotating space-time that flows into mass creating dark matter, fragmented space-time is gravity that flows through the universe as dark matter, fueled by space-time rotation.
I am but a lowly physics student at Cal, but I've been saying this to all my peers and even show them how Einstein switched to believing in an aether in the 1920s and believed it the rest of his life
And I always used to say that matter was a 'field curled in on itself,' and that 'field' is basically just the aether. It being a 'defect' is the same line of reasoning. Using a 'particle' model just makes it far, far easier to describe instead of having to do insane mathematical calculations that shows a self-sustained aether defect, but I detest particle models, because they obscure the truth behind half-truths.
Have you noticed that Einstein explained the PhotoElectric Effect, Brownian Motion, and Energy/Mass Equivalence, which describe interactions between the Quantum and Macro, but Q-Grav and string "theory" insist he was unable to unite QM with GR?
If you replace "graviton" with "General Relativiton" it really becomes clear how ridiculous it is to suggest there's something missing from the theory or that gravity is a force that requires a particle to describe it.
It's not that the particle model is easier, its actually how it appears to us... When we're observing the wave function collapses and you see what you're supposed to see when you're observing. In other words our minds see "things" while in actuality there is no such thing as a thing. Its as if its made up the moment its observed
For decades I've felt this idea was intuitively correct, and that there is no "flow" through the luminiferous aether, *everything* gets transmitted through it. By this reasoning, I believe the "great attractor" in the CMB, is actually the evidence of the "neutral" velocity in the aether (a vector of negative magnitude of the velocity to the so-called "great attractor". That said, I rather expect that once this transmission is recognized, an analysis of the quantum realm will show that wave functions can transit this aether in a possibly unreal way, but I suppose we can discuss that when we get there.
So I've had this thought for several months at least. I've been curious about it.
Actually, longer :-) part of the work is ~20 years old, I decided to put it on vixra much later.
Less look at the Feynman diagram. At 9:27 It shows moving back in Time. That graph is only in 2D. My Idea is it move in a 3D, that fixes the moving back in time problem. As for look at the atom structure crystal fractal structure might fit more than other Ideas.
It will be interesting to see this applied in microspace to describe component spins and coordinated rotations and moments or atomic distortion
It would also mean objects such as satellites going through it, rupture it and cause eddies that we should expect to detect.
As the "Continuum" as such, does not exist, as long as forces travel through different media. The theoretical "Incompressible elastic Solid" will show it's properties, once forces and resistances are applied. (It has to be kept in place somehow, and Forces have to interact with it). It will behave according to it's environment. But i don't know any Material that is Incompressible and Elastic at the same time.
Time is a crutch construct we make, to describe what has passed. The description itself makes it past, since the "experience" already happened. Space on the other hand is something that moves within that construct and is defined separately, in different measurement units. If we want to describe future events, the "IF" always has to be considered. And there are always "Ifs and Buts". We can't "see faster than light" as it is a radiation we have to perceive. Or we could take Instant (faster than Time) measurements of the Universe, which could be helpful for accuracy. THAT makes the Attosecond-Laser experiment the clear Achievement winner this year.
❤ Faced with ether, everyone forgets that space-time and particles must be provided by it, and geometry and logic without space-time cannot be considered in the same way! A new way and mathematics different from stereotyped articles is necessary!
About two thirds of the way into your presentation I switched from being intrigued to outright laughter. Not because I thought this was silly, but because I always thought there was something wrong with the way physics dismissed the aether after the Michaelson Morley experiment and how ironic it would be to think that a serious look at the concept at the mathematical level might reveal the aether idea to be true, in some sense at least. Quite a chuckle 😊
What's even more funny is that the length contraction was actually introduced by Lorentz in his Ether theory to save the ether after the Michelson experiment, and then foolishly adopted by Einstein in his etherless theory.
Not foolishly. Btw, Einstein reconsidered the aether around 1920.
@@TheMachian I never delved into the details of all that history, but I've noticed over recent years the term being used again in physics articles. Always brings a smile. After all, what better word to describe whatever the bizarre structure is that gives rise to the fundamental properties of the universe?
Guess I'll have to go read what Einstein thought about it. All I recall is that he didn't originally say the aether didn't exist but that you can't detect it. At least not the way they tried.
There has to be something that determines the speed of light, creates magnetic fields in response to accelerated charged particles, etc....
@@TheMachian Why not ? Length contraction was 100% linked to the ether, since it was a concept especially developed by Lorentz in order to explain why the Michelson experiment failed to detect the ether. So it was 100% foolish to adopt lenght contraction without the ether. And it was not the first time that Einstein foolishly adopted a concept without understanding the context: Maxwells equations, which Maxwell developed within an ether framework, Einstein claimed to be perfectly valid in a vacuum. When in fact in Maxwells physics the permettivity and permeability were not properties of vacuum, but of lumineferous ether, which was the propagation medium for light waves. Then he adopted Planks EM wave equation, which was only valid for waves, as the energy of his photon particle, which propagated through vacuum as a particle, and not as a wave. So this fool Einstein mostly copied everything but he did not understand anything and gave his own foolish interpretation to others scientist's equations. As if Maxwell was an idiot, who thought light is a wave in ether, and Einstein the genius who corrected him that light is a particle in vacuum. A light wave is a particle, is one of the most foolish things in science, and he even got a Nobel for that utter non-sense. And I dont care he changed his mind about ether, probably because Tesla called out his bs meta-physics, since he never admitted that he was wrong and his etherless theories were wrong, and that he got a Nobel for a completely wrong and illogical theory.
@@TheMachian And talking about Nobel prize for stupidity, I have proved that the Pound and Rebka gravitation redshift experiment was completely stupid and it did not confirm Einstein's theory at all. In fact it infirmed it. Here is the paper, feel free to leave a comment if you want to support real science and not bs science: ua-cam.com/video/uQs137gFipg/v-deo.htmlsi=R8pPqJ-2X2D6wfnk
Matter is a standing wave in the aether.
Thankyou. It makes us nothing more than farts in a hurricane, but it needs to be said. "Matter is a standing wave in the aether."
@@martinsoosOr we may form loops and knitted structures that affix consciously in the flow.
Very interesting ideas. It's a lovely idea that matter is a deformation or 'event' in a elastic aether medium. You might be interested in Dr Hal Puthoff's paper "Linearized Turbulent Fluid Flow as an Analog Model for Linearized General Relativity (Gravitoelectromagnetism)" in which he examines "the relationship between the representation of fluctuations in background media and curved spacetime formulations."
He appears to be using crystallography for aether, and also seems to mix fields with grids of aether, which would appear to be more fields, without defining what a field is. A field is a what? A field is a behavior of a particle in motion. Otherwise we continue with the idea a field is a concept with a value at a point in space, but eh, always caused by matter nearby. Don't think so? Okay, explain how liquid nitrogen changes metal properties in terms of magnetism. The metal is colder and now its behavior at a distance changes? Really. I thought fields were fields, objects of themselves. Oh well, now the matter nearby determines field behavior.
@@donaldkasper8346 'A field is a behaviour of a particle in motion'. It's an interesting sentence, because by its own definition, there is no field. The word 'field' indicates something present through space, as in a farmer's field. Scientists may be psychologically clinging to the idea of matter being separate from space, because that's how they perceive it, and because they like to focus on atomicism. As a result, they avoid the idea that reality is a single, standing pattern.
@@AdrianJamesEllis A field defines a behavior of particles or particle in motion. There is no such thing as a concept with values of behavior at a point unless you are promoting God and ESP. You promote witchcraft physics.
@@AdrianJamesEllis The term "field" is old science term coming from the 1800s or possibly much earlier. It was the observation of matter behaving, often moving with nothing observable touching it. For example, iron filings aligning between poles of a magnet. So they gave this behavior a name. Now, modern science calls this thing a nothing with a particular value at a point in space, but yeah, always relative to the matter it is interacting with or the sensor it is affecting. It is a witchcraft concept of nothing identifiable its own fundamental structure in the group of matter and fields, like a fundamental particle. It just exists, but we cannot see anything, we just measure it. But it is not the 1800s any more. We now understand through simple observation we are not going to extrapolate how the universe works. Think of the two slit experiment for light. Light is a thing like a field is a thing with no observable mass, but, yeah, you have to run the light through matter at less than the wavelength of the light to make sure the light interacts with the field of the matter. Then its behavior changes. I would say, we observe surfaces of things in the abstract and at a high level, but electrons go everywhere and are expelled easily from matter (atoms) all the time, so there aren't really surfaces any more. And if this is the case, then objects attract not from space-time, but from their matter fields of the particles they cast out or we are all a part of. For example, the laws of gravity and electromagnetism are exactly the same, operating on different scales, so some schmo decided they are different forces (actions in fields). I would say any action operating with the exact same law behavior as another action, by definition is the same thing. Gravity is then electromagnetism. This is the cause of this field behavior. The universe does not have fields or forces, it just has matter with behaviors. Here, a force is a field vector, a special case.
@@AdrianJamesEllis E = mc^2 says what? A particle in motion, something with mass, is energy/force/work. More than one, often a very large set of particles acting the same way and interacting with each other, is a field. A field does work.
It always comes down to everything starts with geometry, doesn't it!
I think a problem has been that it is assumed that an (a)ether defines a fixed reference frame. In fact though, the only reference frame is at the boundary of a particle/chunk of matter, regardless of that particle's motion relative to any other matter. To me it seems the only way to explain wave propagation which is shown in experiments - waves have to travel through something, in this case displacement of virtual particle pairs. ?
I saw a quote of Einstein where he pretty much agrees with you.
At least for general relativity, the Riemann space is like the aether.
I was watching a video about the double slit a few weeks ago and it came to me as well, that waves in and of itself need some sort of an aether. I think they are really photons though, but that we cannot see, just like you can't see the still water. So still photons that can be excited. Even special relativity pretty much demands it, it is kind of implied there is a sea of photons that are still and they form a whole. It's the only way they can be everywhere instantaneously from their point of view, from their clock.
Forget about the concept of observer creating the reality (time and space) according to HIS measurements. Self - sustaing waves (that is no-medium waves) is the worst concept in science, since we do not see any of that in the real world. Nothing, philosofically, does not exist. There has to be a medium.
All is a cymatic aether hologram. All in 2 forms, compressed aether/matter/light and uncompressed aether/space/dark. Minimal energy level difference between the 2. All uncompressed flows towards compressed, uniformity from all sides, hence planets are spherical or why water in zero gravity wants to form a sphere. This flow is the force what we experience as gravity or on atomic level as strong force. G force is simply a pressure gradient caused by acelleration through uncompressed. Elements are a cymatic scale, radioactive elements are simply unstable cymatic forms, that spit out bits of compressed aether at varying energy level as radiation, Alpha beta and such, which all evaporate quickly back in to the uncompressed aether, until the element becomes a stable form. Vibration frequency of the uncompressed is time, vibration frequency of compressed is form/element. This theory can explain everything from micro to macro. Explain electricity. Explains time. Explains why relativistic speeds effect time. Why there is a speed of light(rate of induction) Explains entaglement, explains it all! As N.Tesla said frequency/vibration/energy(aether)
If I had enough money, I'd enroll for a physics Ph.D. right now wherever you teach.
Nowadays you can study everywhere whatever you want... thx for the nice comment however.
There's an idea that particles in are actually topological solitons made of the metric tensor field in general relativity. That sounds similar to what you're talking about, if not the same.
What about Max Abraham and Kauffman experiments?
If you want something interesting, calculate what happens if you put Mars at the Jupiter-Sun L5 point. Fascinating indeed!
See also fermion boson duality
All of this cosmology of space-time is like phrenology (skull shape and facial features) depicting the actual personality within the person ! All of these models are 2D and not 3D, negating their whole principle of statement about a 2D cosmos being a 3D cosmos.
There's no need for defending special relativity, the ether and the geocentrism are all we need to make physics great again.
interesting, but you need to give more details of how the edge dislocations relates to einsteinian relativity and the structure of the aether
Correct
I seem to recall Wal Thornhill (and someone else, can't remember who off hand) mentioned a repeat of the Michelson-Morley experiment which did in fact detect an "ether", albeit weaker than anticipated. But there was a signal. This was much later, I think 50 years after the original experiment and with greater precision. I'll try and find it.
a conceptually flawed experiment because the aether does not impede the speed of light. Based purely on assumption.
@@TD-zr5xm I'm not so sure. Let me find the second experiment first, eh?
Do you mean Dayton Miller? You can check "Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right" fore more info.
The solution we are looking for will find forces, energy, charges, gravity, inertia and momentum all manifestations of Aether.
The shocker will be how simple and manifestly 'real" Aether is.
The question is what is this "material continuum" or "aether". If all of space is filled with quantum foam, then Planck scale discrete elements that appear to come in and out of existence must be the basis for all the structure. This makes it unlike any material medium studied. Somehow a stochastic medium is behaving like an atomic lattice or regular medium. It is also supporting particles that are vastly larger than the Planck scale (e.g. proton). Supposedly electrons have no radius, but that seems to be based on flimsy inferences. Electrons are not billiard balls and how they scatter does not have to conform to classical limit simplifications. The similarity between particles and lattice defects is not clear even if the math seems to point in this direction. All the particles we know are likely composites of Planck scale elements. How these ephemeral elements become immortal are questions from realms of physics not considered in the current dogma.
The last thing charge baby said when we spoke was he still hears mom back at the origin telling us to get away from her. And he hasn't seen Dad for a while after Mom shot me out, dad ran off 180⁰in the opposite direction. He said he's sure they'll never cross paths again. You can't choose your parents.
Try to condense what you want to say in less comments.
@@TheMachian Okay. Assigning properties to space is a fraud. Assign properties only to things that exist. x=qt is the center of the universe. Where x is the manifestation of the unit vector called charge x time. Chargetime, not Spacetime. That's where you start.The whole universe can only be found by satisfying the function x=q(t). Time is the radius of an expanding sphere and matter is just an infinity of charge functions, q(t). What kind of mathematics would you use for calculating a chaotic mass of an infinity of charge functions, iterating through time? In a nutshell. Time is the execute function of a calculator. Time is energy, charge is the calculator. X is the results of time pressing the execute button. On an infinity of calculators, with and infinity of original directions. Forming the skin of a sphere, with it's radius increasing with every iteration of mother time. And since every point on the skin of a sphere is the center, she does it simultaneously. The properties of this function fit exactly with what our emergent minds see before us.
And time communicates with charge via periodic wave. Energy and curvature are high in the beginning and flatten out over time. Expanding forever. Perfect fit. x=qt, Chargetime.
I also realized that qt solves cosmic inflation completely. Matter cannot collapse in on itself if it has a qt as the "origin" function on which the known mathematics is superimposed. It can only collapse into the skin of a sphere which will eventually expand large enough for matter to separate. Wow. I solved cosmic inflation.
Basically distinguishes concept and object.
Coordinate systems are concept. Even if we bend records of coordinate systems, as for example by bending of record carriers, like rubber blankets, they are physically not bendable. It is a mathematical gimmick and only made the recording of physical events more difficult ;-)
M A T H E M A G I C
The crystal is not continuous, though.
As an addition, you could look at how the electric wave is modeled in this video:
This demo tests your understanding of light | Barber pole, part1 - 3Blue1Brown -> ua-cam.com/video/QCX62YJCmGk/v-deo.html
The electric field in 2D is like a sheet around the charge, that moves like a cloth. Exactly like the dislocation moves in the crystal.
Sure, I can try to summarize and fact check the video titled “Aether and Relativity: Why there is no Contradiction”. Here is what I found:
The video is by Alexander Unzicker, a physicist and author who is critical of modern physics and advocates for a return to the classical concept of aether.
The video claims that there is no contradiction between the idea of aether and the theory of relativity, and that aether can be understood as a medium of dislocations and topological defects that have relativistic properties.
The video cites some papers by Ekkehart Kröner, a German physicist who developed the theory of dislocations in continuous media and applied it to cosmology and gravitation.
The video also refers to Unzicker’s own paper, published in ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics, where he argues that aether can be modeled as a crystal with defects and that this can explain the phenomena of electromagnetism, gravity, and inertia.
The video’s main argument is based on the assumption that aether exists and that it can be described by the theory of dislocations. However, this assumption is not supported by any empirical evidence or experimental verification.
The video’s main argument also contradicts the principle of relativity, which states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference and that there is no preferred frame of reference. This principle is well established by many experiments and observations, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment5, the aberration of light, and the gravitational redshift.
The video’s main argument also ignores the fact that Maxwell’s equations, which describe the behavior of electromagnetic fields and waves, are not invariant under Galilean transformations, which are the transformations between inertial frames of reference in classical mechanics. This means that Maxwell’s equations cannot be compatible with Galilean relativity, which assumes that velocities add up like vectors. Instead, Maxwell’s equations are invariant under Lorentz transformations, which are the transformations between inertial frames of reference in special relativity. This means that Maxwell’s equations imply special relativity, not Galilean relativity .
The video’s main argument also fails to account for the many predictions and successes of the theory of relativity, such as the bending of light by gravity, the gravitational time dilation, the gravitational waves, and the equivalence principle.
Therefore, based on my web search results, I conclude that the video titled “Aether and Relativity: Why there is no Contradiction” is not factual and not reliable. It presents a speculative and unsupported hypothesis that contradicts well-established physical principles and experimental evidence.
Yes, I can fact check the comment. Here's what I found:
1. Alexander Unzicker is indeed a physicist and author who has expressed criticisms of modern physics and has advocated for a return to the classical concept of aether¹.
2. Ekkehart Kröner was a German physicist who developed the theory of dislocations in continuous media and applied it to cosmology and gravitation²³. However, this doesn't necessarily validate Unzicker's claims about aether.
3. I couldn't find any specific reference to Unzicker’s paper in ZAMM - Journal of Applied Mathematics and Mechanics that argues aether can be modeled as a crystal with defects.
4. The existence of aether is not supported by empirical evidence or experimental verification. The Michelson-Morley experiment, conducted in 1887, is one of the most famous experiments in physics that disproved the existence of aether¹².
5. The principle of relativity, which states that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference and that there is no preferred frame of reference, is well established by many experiments and observations¹⁷²².
6. Maxwell’s equations are not invariant under Galilean transformations but are invariant under Lorentz transformations¹⁷. This means that Maxwell’s equations imply special relativity, not Galilean relativity.
7. The theory of relativity has made many successful predictions such as the bending of light by gravity, the gravitational time dilation, the gravitational waves, and the equivalence principle⁶⁷.
Therefore, based on these findings, it seems that the video titled “Aether and Relativity: Why there is no Contradiction” presents a speculative hypothesis that contradicts well-established physical principles and experimental evidence. It's always important to approach such claims with a critical eye and consider the consensus within the scientific community.
Source: Conversation with Bing, 2023-10-13
(1) Bankrupting Physics | Not Even Wrong - Columbia University. www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6156.
(2) [gr-qc/0011064] What can Physics learn from Continuum Mechanics - arXiv.org. arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0011064.
(3) Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether.
(4) Michelson-Morley experiment - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment.
(5) Are Maxwell’s Equations Relativistic? (Simple Explanation & Proof). profoundphysics.com/are-maxwell-equations-relativistic/.
(6) . bing.com/search?q=predictions+and+successes+of+the+theory+of+relativity.
(7) Einstein's Theory of Relativity - ThoughtCo. www.thoughtco.com/einsteins-theory-of-relativity-2699378.
(8) Relativity's Long String of Successful Predictions. www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/relativitys-long-string-of-successful-predictions.
(9) The Theory of Relativity, Then and Now - Smithsonian Magazine. www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/theory-of-relativity-then-and-now-180956622/.
(10) ESA Science & Technology - 100 years of General Relativity. sci.esa.int/web/lisa-pathfinder/-/56909-100-years-of-general-relativity.
(11) General relativity - Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity.
(12) AETHER AND THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY. aetux.com/ether-and-the-theory-of-relativity/.
(13) α ρ() cos dy d sin dx d +kdx dy b ϕϕϕ ϕ∧− ∧ ∧ ⊗ α ρ k. bing.com/search?q=Ekkehart+Kr%c3%b6ner+theory+of+dislocations.
(14) The Theory of Elastic Media with Microstructure and the Theory of .... link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-30257-6_39.
(15) Dislocation theory as a physical field theory | SpringerLink. link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00420827.
(16) α ρ() cos dy d sin dx d +kdx dy b ϕϕϕ ϕ∧− ∧ ∧ ⊗ α ρ k. www.iam.kit.edu/zm/download/Continuum_Theory_of_Curved_Dislocations.pdf.
(17) On the Geometric Structure of Simple Bodies, a Mathematical ... - Springer. link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-30257-6_27.
(18) Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are ... - Amazon.ca. www.amazon.ca/Bankrupting-Physics-Scientists-Gambling-Credibility/dp/1137278234.
(19) Dissident physics and some questions from someone with a ... - Reddit. www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/8x6xyw/dissident_physics_and_some_questions_from_someone/.
(20) Michelson-Morley experiment | Description, Results, & Facts. www.britannica.com/science/Michelson-Morley-experiment.
(21) Michelson-Morley experiment - Simple English Wikipedia, the free .... simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment.
(22) Michelson-Morley Experiment - The Flat Earth Wiki. wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment.
(23) MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT | Encyclopedia of Cleveland History | Case .... case.edu/ech/articles/m/michelson-morley-experiment.
(24) 10.7: Maxwell’s Equations - Physics LibreTexts. bing.com/search?q=Maxwell%e2%80%99s+equations+and+Galilean+transformations.
(25) What does a Galilean transformation of Maxwell's equations look like?. physics.stackexchange.com/questions/378861/what-does-a-galilean-transformation-of-maxwells-equations-look-like.
(26) How did Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics contradict the Galilean .... physics.stackexchange.com/questions/281485/how-did-maxwells-theory-of-electrodynamics-contradict-the-galilean-principle-of.
(27) undefined. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-30257-6_39.
(28) undefined. scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/cmchap11.pdf.
(29) undefined. www.britannica.com/science/relativity/Experimental-evidence-for-general-relativity.
(30) undefined. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity.
Evidently, not a bad AI agent who wrote this. Which one did you use? However, the AI fails to understand the crucial point: that SR does not contradict the aether, as long as particles are something like topological defects. For the rest, I did not claim that this is a complete theory.
@@TheMachian
To answer your question, I ran it through Bing, which I believe is now using GPT-4. Personally, I thought the video was interesting and presented some thought provoking ideas. Thank you for your video and thoughts, as it gives everyone a chance to explore more about life. Wishing you the best with all of your endeavors. As a side note, I only shared the summary/fact check because it helps everyone to expand their horizons. It's on each individual to take what they will from any information source and go out and discover/put it to the test. I'd be interested to see how your ideas evolve.
You are familiar with Michelson's experiments. (1881) and its improvements for the discovery of gravitational waves (2015). And that's only 50%. It is possible to continue this experience; Use "two non-circular spools of fiber from the gyroscope." This is how the speed of a car is measured in a straight line (the movements of the satellites are not recorded) I can share ideas for a joint invention.
Linear Sagnac Effect
What's the difference between the following three scenarios, from a relativistic point of view? Three objects are together in a straight line, numbered 1 to 3 left to right, in an imaginary diagram, and remain in a straight line while some or all are moving relative to each other.
Scenario 1: object 1 is moving to the left of object 2 at velocity 20 and object 3 is moving to the right of object 2 at velocity 20.
Scenario 2: object 2 is moving to the right of object 1 at velocity 20 and object 3 is moving to the right of object 1 at velocity 40.
Scenario 3: object 2 is moving to the left of object 3 at velocity 20 and object 1 is moving to the left of object 3 at velocity 40.
The answer is, in my opinion, that there is no difference. What would it mean if time dilation existed? The answer would be rather complicated, which is why you have never seen an Einstein thought experiment with more than two frames, a third frame between the other two would present some unresolvable paradoxes.
What was the coefficient of elasticity to longitudinal forces of the aether became the permittivity of vacuum. What was the coefficient of elasticity to transversal forces of the aether became the permeability of vacuum. Aether has not disappeared. Now is just called vacuum.
Yes!!
I belive that quantum microspaces with a mathematical structure, dinamic topology, enthengelment îs vital. 4 enthengeled microspaces mins fotons. Some thetraedral structure. Ether mins this infinit set of microspaces.
Nice video and presentation.
First let us address how may we continue this discussion under the shadow that Aether was “rejected” by Einstein with the observations in interferometer?
EInstein later, around 1920, returned to the aether.
@@TheMachian
The following statement was copied from the internet.
The negative outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887) suggested that the aether did not exist, a finding that was confirmed in subsequent experiments through the 1920s. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether.
@@philoso377 Michelson-Morely disproved some popular Aether models, but prompted the development of Lorentz Ether Theory, from which Einstein took his equations without modification but a new philosophical interpretation to create Special Relativity. Hence the Lorenz transform. A Lorenzian framework Aether is therefore completely compatible with observations.
I would strongly recommend new chapters 51 about matter/antimatter actual source, and 52 about antimatter whereabouts - in "Time Matters, 5th edition". You'll forget ether and spacetime, promise.
Longtime sub. You’re the new voice of reason in physics and you should have 10x subscribers at least.
Not sure how he got to the aether being a regular grid. A grid of what? He is describing crystal lattices of minerals. Now, using infrared spectroscopy quartz crystals have spectra unique for each face, and if you scan with sufficient resolution on the place of Japan Law twin planes, the spectra has an additional peak. This is something I found in Japan Law crystals over 5 years ago. So these lattice fields affect electromagnetic infrared energy and are detectable. If you take Mannebach twinned feldspar crystals and compare the wide and narrow faces, they swap spectra with twinning.
I don't have the math to tinker with these ideas, but I have always had a problem with the seemingly mystical/metaphysical ideas in physics. For instance, statements such as, "particles know when we are watching" have always seemed to be unsupportable to me, so I appreciate that there is the possibility of another explanation available. Nevertheless, the notion that particles are dislocations in space implies that aether is 'something' rather than nothing. So far, so good, but what is it? What dislocates to produce particles? And what could possibly have caused the dislocation we call the Big Bang which produced everything out of nothing? Or have I got it all wrong?
Big Bang is Big Fraud. I recommend "Galielo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right" for the point to start. However, the ether science is still in its infancy, thanks to our pseudoscientific pseudoauthorities.
I think we need a non local theory of gravity
Space is empty, except for the average mass it contains. Which is made of charged particles. Which means space is nothing but the electric field. Space is not curved, the electric field is.
This all is not new. For a deeper dive into this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleparallelism
The analogy between the geometry of spacetime and defects in a cristal grid is also described in detail.
When Nicola Tesla attended university in Austria in the 1870s aether theory was predominant in physics. He stuck with it all his life. When relativity came along he read all Einstein's paper, understood them, and rejected them for several good reasons. One being that he had been successful working along certain lines for 30 or 40 years and saw no reason to scrap everything and start over.
I believe this is one reason his work is so controversial. He was looking at things in a way unfamiliar to today's scientists who were raised on relativity. Is it possible you would have to understand aether theory to understand Tesla?
By the way the latest ideas in dark matter and dark energy sound an awful lot like aether.
Yes, I have learned that one would need to understand the ether to then understand a lot of the devices that Tesla was building.
I have spent most of the last 40 years studying the electric field, and the last 20 years studying Tesla's designs. In the beginning Tesla's notes and quotes made little sense. I did understand some since we electrical engineers these days still have a similar language. But it wasn't until I realized, about 15 years ago, that the ether was a real thing and not a mistake, that I finally started to comprehend Tesla's devices and his notes.
For the past few years I have finally learned enough to start replicating his devices. One thing I have noticed is that every time I try and carefully follow his designs, the devices work just like he said they would.
@@victiliniumnil6540 One of his most controversial inventions was broadcast power. Critics object that you can't broadcast power by radio waves, he explained that his invention had nothing to do with radio, radio is 90% electronic and 10% electrical while his system is 90% electric and 10% electronic. He also did a lot of work with air coils. I don't know enough physics or engineering to follow this, have you done anything on these lines?
@@mrdanforth3744
"Critics object that you can't broadcast power by radio waves".
I have found that those critics are incorrect. It may be that they just lack the understanding required to know how it works, or they could just be gaslighting, meaning that they do know that it works but they pretend that Tesla did not know.
It is easy enough for you to see for your self. You can easily observe power being delivered via the radio waves that travel through the ground and the air. Get a crystal radio. You can order a kit and build it, or just get one that is already built. (I like the one from United Nuclear, or maybe you could find another one).
Add a long aerial antenna, and attach a good ground. The ground can be connected to a water pipe, or an iron sewer pipe, or make the ground yourself. Once you have the crystal radio operating, you can hear AM radio stations. You'll notice that it is actually powered, but without batteries, and it is not plugged into the power from the wall. The power is coming from the radio waves that travel from the radio transmitter, through the air and the ground. Add a longer aerial antenna, and the stations get louder. Disconnect the ground wire, and the radio stops working, etc.
@@mrdanforth3744
"he explained that his invention had nothing to do with radio, radio is 90% electronic and 10% electrical while his system is 90% electric and 10% electronic."
What is going on here has a bit to do with the difference in the type of electric wave. What Tesla meant is that his devices utilized electric longitudinal waves rather than electric transverse waves. All of our current technology relies on the transverse waves, and not on the longitudinal waves. "Transverse waves" are like the up and down waves on the surface of the ocean, and "longitudinal waves" are pressure waves, like sound is a longitudinal pressure wave with air as its medium.
The problem becomes that longitudinal waves can only exist if there was a medium, an ether. And since the conventional people have done away with the ether, then therefore electric longitudinal waves can not exist. Or so they say.
Actually, what Tesla really meant is a bit stranger than what I have just described, but I was trying to be brief.
@@mrdanforth3744
"I don't know enough physics or engineering to follow this, have you done anything on these lines?"
Yes, these past few years I now know enough to build some of his devices. I am definitely starting small, and I've only built a few things.
There is no contradiction if the Aether particles are moving at the speed of light. It is likely electron-positron pairs that are below the threshold of detection.
Ether doesn't have to move, least at the speed of light, just like the electrons in the wire does not move at the speed of light. They send a wave, that travels with c, at the same time, they are moving a few mm per sec. The same with the ether. A wave carries an information and that's enough. Ether can stay more or less in place.
@@maciejnajlepszy In place with what? Us?
@@onehitpick9758 Looks like we (Earth) are in the center of the Universe, so yes, us :)
Direkt nachdem ich dieses Video gesehen habe, wurde ich auf das hier aufmerksam: ua-cam.com/video/eKkH4IH-zmw/v-deo.html
Das war mir wirklich neu! Ich habe es noch nicht nachgerechnet, aber es klingt sehr plausibel. Das ist ja wirklich spannend. Anscheinend lässt sich die spezielle Relativitätstheoie auch mit einem Äther formulieren. In dem anderen Video wird als Vergleichsbeispiel die Luft verwendet. Würden wir die Luft (und Schallwellen) als Informationsübertragungsmedium, also auch als Basis für das Ticken von Uhren, verwenden, so würde sich trotz der absoluten Geschwindigkeiten innerhalb der Luft die relativistischen Phänomene ergeben, die wir auch aus der SRT kennen, wenn wir Licht als Informationsübertragungsmittel verwenden. Spannender Gedanke!
Ich kenne den Kanal, ausgezeichnet. Und ja, Sie haben recht, es handelt sich um das gleiche Prinzip. D.h. Lorentz-Kontraktion und Zeitdilatation ist nicht mystisches, sondern folgt einfach aus der Kontinuumsmechanik mit Schallwellen.
An accountant calculates the total cost by:
Cost A + Cost B = Total Cost
An engineer calculates the total force by:
Force 1 + Force 2 = Total Force
The two are fascinated by the fact that they use the same very fundamental formula. Obviously there is a deep connection between accounting and engineering.
Yes, primarily accountants get into management, decide that engineering is an expensive, unnecessary luxury, cripple or fire the engineers, then keep accurate accounts as the company slowly slides into bankruptcy, never understanding what actually happened. This is the true nature of the relationship.
As far as this video goes I don’t really have a comment but I think you’re searching for a deeper understanding in strange places.
See the Pattern” on YT recently did a series of videos on a few key figures in early modern physics whom based their understanding around an aether. (Of course the idea goes back to ancient history.) Someone pointed out that GR borrows heavily from Lorentz and that GR only works because of it, essentially making it an aether model with a fictitious underlying concept of bending space. What they got wrong was the idea that the aether is anything like semi-ridged.
What is rarely if ever mentioned is the aether acts like a little to no resistance superfluid (which resolves many conceptual problems.) Superconductor of electromagnetism.
Electrodynamics is out as a tenable theory of anything. Completely absurd. Virtual photons do not explain magnetism. I mean it could if there was an emission mechanism. It could if there wasn’t better known rational physics at play. It could if the definition of a photon was different, which of course it is, yet still conceptually fails.
Magnetism /electromagnetism (same thing) is the central concept one should focus on as most apparently do not know what it is or how it really works. The aether flows IN and AROUND an electromagnet and is the Force and Charge. Positive outflow and Negative sink. Electromagnetohydrodynamics largely based on pressure mediation.
Gotta wonder about that timeline in the multiverse where WW2 never happened.
Ether, the substance that makes up the particle zoo, has as much to do with crystal defects as it does with biology. Interesting topic though.
I always believed in Aether
Read "Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right"
Vortices in fluids can look like dislocations in solids/crystals. If ether is more like fluid, vortices may behave as charges.
That chimes with my recommendation that Dr Unzicker might like to read Dr Hal Puthoff's paper "Linearized Turbulent Fluid Flow as an Analog Model for Linearized General Relativity (Gravitoelectromagnetism)"
Thanks for the reference, I'll seek. I was thinking along the lines that vortices could be the charge rather than having charge attached to particles.@@AdrianJamesEllis
@@johnhodge6610 The idea that the vortex IS the particle, rather than the medium in which it exists, is a beautiful idea. Paul LaViolette developed his Sub Quantum Kinetics model based on this idea.
@@AdrianJamesEllisinteresting. he wasn’t the first or last to come up with that. Rumor has it there were many aether particle theories. Begs the question whether someone had an original idea. Makes no difference to me, I’m just tired of listening to nonsense.
@@TD-zr5xm So am I.
The magnetic field is the same shape as electron clouds I’ve noticed. Also the Stienmetz diagram of a current travelling down 2 wires and the magnetic fields surrounding- it’s also the same shape. A torus and the negative hyperboloid, combined form a complete form, a sphere.
Are particles just pinched off fields forms under the pressures in black holes and pumped back out into the universe recycled and ready to go. Magnetism is the dialectic field, also magnets don’t attract, they are objects that have field properties ab-extra to their material. The attraction we see is just acceleration back to a null pressure gradient (in counter space) I see matter as herniated aether, all matter is trying to roll back down hill into no physical counter space. Black holes are the ultimate example surely? Self erasure.
Just a pattern of shapes/fields I’ve noticed in my travels.
There's no mathematical contradiction but as Lorentz admitted, there's no physical interpretation for time dilation compared to the Lorentz contraction in his ether theory. It's a mathematical transformation. Einstein followed by Minkowski presented far more elegant and easier to understand versions IMO, because they present clear physical foundations. For Einstein it was invariance of the speed of light for all observers, for Minkowski it was the invariant space-time interval.
I would argue that this is a physical interpretation in a real setting. Bear in mind that this was found much later.
If i sum two equations like:
1=2
2=1
i got:
3=3
Were the starting assumptions correct?
This is relativity. If the outcoming math is correct, that doesn't mean that the assumptions were correct. If you want to keep 1=2, stay with Einstein. I prefer to use logic in science.
To be realistic this can't be aether, which just doesn't work for relativistic physics. It might be a very simplified model of space built out of quantum geometry. But you have only shown here how it works in space. Can you extend it for spacetime in such a way that you can recover the hyperbolic geometry of spacetime?
Yes, nature is wrong and a 100 year old, plagiarized theory, is absolutely correct. So correct in fact it was never recognized by the Nobel committee because that committee hadn't been indoctrinated by corporate media since childhood. Every single experiment that's "proven" GR has been addressed without the need for warped spacetime. And the crisis in cosmology regarding ad hoc nonsense like dark matter/energy has emerged from a dogmatic belief in a theory that's not allowed to be questioned by scientists who care about their careers.
@@acetate909 👍👍👍
I just go with the theory of autonomics. But that's just me.
Reflexive (proto) causality is described by the "conspansive matrix" model per the CTMU.
Sounds like the Flat Earth version General Relativity to get round the lack of mass ?
Our universe is finitely atomic and discrete, including our earth and sun. Since Newton and the theory of relativity, special relativity or general relativity, the sun became a point, and everything between discrete and finite atoms disappeared, such as the electrical charges. Because light is an electromagnetic wave, the aether should be an electromagnetic field of the combination of all electrons and protons in the universe.
Einstein renamed the Aether "SpaceTime", and gave it some more definite attributes.
Indeed.
No, both are entirely different from each other. Aether is supposed to be substance like a smooth liquid or gas. Space time is intervels in time and space, altogether one intervel in space time.
@@surendranmk5306 Spaceteime, you say, is one interval in SpaceTime? Interval of what process relative to what?
SpaceTime is the substance that light traverses and which expands along along with expanding light because light is massless and so isolated from experiential time and is not gravitationally (temporally) bound to anything but SpaceTime.
Light from distant bodies becomes red-shifted in the doppler spectrum because it expands with the expansion of SpaceTime.
Our universe is finitely atomic and discrete, including our earth and sun. Since Newton and the theory of relativity, special relativity or general relativity, the sun became a point, and everything between discrete and finite atoms disappeared, such as the electrical charges. Because light is an electromagnetic wave, the aether should be an electromagnetic field of the combination of all electrons and protons in the universe.
@@user-vp1vl6yp9t The Sun became a point?
Light is the EM field and it resides within, not as part of, SpaceTime.
All charge has the same core vector. All entangled charge has the same core velocity. So why would I not allow superposition? You speak of coordinates that do not have any properties. Keep your eye on the ball. It's only charge that matters.
When most physicists used such General and/or Special Relativity and talk about space-time and the cosmos, then they start talking nonsense about a flat (2D) or curved (still a 2D model), or look down upon the surface of a basket ball cosmos at the surface ... the whole cosmos is INSIDE of that sphere, not on the outside. So why should anybody take these people as serious or intellectual, when they literally ignore that their whole existence on this planet is flying around within this massive cosmic environment ....
I doubt dislocations exist the way you draw them. Microscopic structures in nature tend to be spherical and form them self like brick layers for structural integrity. A dislocation would have to zig-zag.
But then I doubt the whole lay up of sub atomic particles as well and then there can't be any dislocations in atoms. Only energy moves trough them and like fat cells they swell up accepting energy from outside. I believe in an energy universe and that chemistry is in reality energy transfers as well.
A side note, fields has no physical properties! They consist of nothing, just like the universe is nothing with energy splattered around in it.
This is philosophicaly unteneable. Nothing doesn't exist, so it cannot transfer forces. There has to be something. And something that exerts physical forces doesn't have to be 'physical' itself like oridinary matter. Even if it were 'physical', we don't have the tools to measure it. Nevertheless, the finite speed of light and non-infinite permeability of free space are a strong hint that there's something limiting those phenomena.
@@maciejnajlepszy Humans have a hard time understanding nothing. They need tangible stuff. Since space it self is nothing. It's not a container, it's not a medium/aether therefore it doesn't create drag, resistance, obstacles, boundaries. expansion or contraction. Because of this energy transfers are instantaneous. It doesn't travel. There is no light speed, there isn't even light! What your brain perceive is a chain of energy transfers through atoms in a never ending cycle. It doesn't start in a hydrogen atom in a star but that is what you "see" as light after the energy entered your eye and the energy travelled through your nerves to the atoms in you brain cells. The increased swelling of the atoms in the cells create a pattern, that the cells combined interprets as kind of a map. The process of the brain to create the mental image, robs the brain cells of energy and turns it to heat that leaves your body and radiate to other atoms, in for an example a wall after passing through atoms in the air. At night most of this energy radiates out in the universe again and the cycle repeat it self since stars are continually being replenished with energy from everywhere.
It's a huge contradiction. The Earth has no orbital velocity. The variance in c shown in MMX shows the relative motion of Earth to the ether is almost nill. Relativity was explicitly put forward to remove that concept from people's mind so they accept second order corrections and a nice story to supplement the fact that the Earth does not move. There's a uniform translation of motion in form of an "ether wind" from the cosmos that that rotates around us.
Subsequent experimentation reveals a first-order dependency on sidereal time only. Further: in an experiment in 2004, Ruyong Wang found that linear motion can be measured with interferometry with nanometer precision.
I'll openly debate anyone on the subject of aether, Relativity theory and earth's assumed motion.
Michelson, A. A. and E. W. Morley (1887). "On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether." American Journal of Science s3-34(203): 333.
Sagnac, G. (1913). "The Existence of the Luminiferous Ether Demonstrated by Means of the Effect of a Relative Ether Wind in an Uniformly Rotating Interferometer."
Michelson, A. A. and H. G. Gale (1925). "The Effect of the Earth's Rotation on the Velocity of Light." Nature 115(2894): 566-566.
Miller, D. C. (1925). "Ether-Drift Experiments at Mount Wilson." Nature 116(2906): 49-50.
Miller, D. C. (1930). "Ether Drift Experiments in 1929 and other Evidences of Solar Motion." Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada 24: 82.
A. Dufour, F. P. (1942). "On a Fringe Displacement of Fringes Recorded on a Platform in Uniform Rotation." J. de Physique. Radium Radium 3, 9: 153-162.
Wang, R., et al. (2004). "Generalized Sagnac Effect." Physical Review Letters 93(14).
Múnera, H. A., et al. (2006). Observation During 2004 of Periodic Fringe-Shifts in an Adialeiptometric Stationary Michelson-Morley Experiment.
Galaev, Y. M. (2001). Etheral Wind in Experience of Millimetric Radiowaves Propagation.
Galaev, Y. M. (2002). "Measuring Ether-Drift Velocity and Kinematic Ether Viscosity within the Optical Waves Band." Spacetime and Substance 3(5): 207 - 224.
Bennett, R. (2020). "Sagnac (1913) Completed by Dufour & Prunier (1942)."
Bennett, R. (2014). "A Landmark Experiment: The Linear Sagnac Test of Ruyong Wang."
Hi, it is contended that the problem with the MMX expt was that it measured ether flow on the wrong axis. If ether is space-time, then the major direction of flow is normal ie inflow of ST, a part of gravity. MMX looked at x-z plane, not y. Comments??
@@xlerb_again_to_music7908 Subsequent experiments conducted by Miller, and Yuri Galaev at altitude show an increase in the strength readings. Meaning the translation of motion becomes easier to read when you get closer to the source. There's no Relativistic mechanism for that translation of motion. You can see a similar translation in the the A. Dufour, F. P. (1942) experiment. Particularly their third modification to the Sagnac setup with a rotating frame and a stationary frame (source and observer) and the variance in c recorded by the stationary, INERTIAL observer records a fringe that has a first-order dependence on the angular rotation of the rotating platform.
i.e., the rotating platform generates its own ether vortex with respect to the primary vortex which causes the variance. That was Sagnac's understanding, anyway.
Further, in GPS we have a rare opportunity at a first-order one way measurement of the SoL and it shows a preferred direction of propagation and shows a variance in speed proportional to the observer's velocity.
So when you say that the flow was on the wrong axis, that's in regard to an interpretation of trying to facilitate Earth's assumed motion within the aether.
A. Dufour, F. P. (1942). "On a Fringe Displacement of Fringes Recorded on a Platform in Uniform Rotation." J. de Physique. Radium Radium 3, 9: 153-162.
Sharlanov, G. (2020). Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiment -The Factual Analysis.
Ruyong, W. (2000). Re-examine the Two Principles of Special Relativity and the Sagnac Effect Using GPS' Range Measurement Equation. IEEE 2000. Position Location and Navigation Symposium (Cat. No.00CH37062).
Gezari, D. (2009). "Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector."
Allan, D. W., et al. (1985). "Around-the-World Relativistic Sagnac Experiment." Science 228: 69 - 70.
Wolf, P. and G. Petit (1995). "Relativistic Theory for Clock Synchronization and Realization of Geocentric Coordinate Times." Astronomy and Astrophysics 304: 653.
Marmet, P. (2000). "The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light." Acta Scientiarum.
The MMX measured a value which was smaller than expected and IN THE WRONG direction (nearly perpendicular to the Earth's movement). Miller repeated this. So, no movement in the direction of Earth's velocity implies no LUMINERFEROUS ether, but small value did suggest another type of ether.
@@johnhodge6610 When you say nearly perpendicular, that would be the arm that aligned to the West, correct? The one that was supposed to catch the drag of a stationary ether.
That supports my previous argument of a preferred direction. A stationary earth and ether wind with a first-order dependency on sidereal time would dictate that electromagnetic propagation is faster traveling East to West than it is going West to East.
not always east or west, but varies depending on time of day and time of year. The direction is more nearly outward from the Sun with a moon component - not velocity of Earth or velocity of measuring instrument.@@space_audits
Einstein turned science into crackheads 😂
Einstein just said: good bye to logic, welcome to my new dogmas.
Charge is f(t). And t is an iteration. And charge and t have a baby and that's when they realize they need more room. Well baby is just like daddy, he's an f(t) too. And f(t) always spits out a three dimensional vector called space, and charge baby always listens to it's mom, t. And charge baby says mom just stands there and keeps counting right in my face over and over again saying "1, Get away from me! 2, get away from me! 3...." And so I say I need to get away from her so I take the number she gave me and plug it in and I just know we're both much happier now that we've both matured. But mommy and daddy keep banging together all day long now I have a whole lot of siblings. But now that mom is calling out the 100^16000's everybody has a bigger plot of space for themselves so there's a whole lot less banging going on. That's our universe. Trippy. Yep
Isnt this just quantum field theory?
no.
Don't fields do what aether was claimed to do?
That's stil the same ether.
@@maciejnajlepszy
It appears to my untrained eye that aether and fields both perform a few of the same functions and have the same characteristic of being everywhere.
@@deezynar One simply cannot escape forever from the reality, at some point it would be unavoidable to accept it and this is what slowly and with a strong resistance is happenning to the ether concept.
Actually it is a contradiction. Unless that is the aether is just a random frame of reference having no influence on the laws of physics. In other words, not the aether of the 19th century physics. .
Local topology of matter acting like universal geometry of particles? Sounds like Astrology to me. 😉
Ashtekar has unified Gravity with Electrodynamics
Do you don't consider him because he is an Indian Physicist
I believe, the reason why we cannot solve G.U.F.T or Unified Field Theory. Is because there is no symbol for 'Modes' to describe the various combinations of Fermions and Bosons from the standard model.
I've invented a full, unifying theory which is more fundamental than, and obsoletes, all other physics theories. It's for sale, satisfaction guaranteed. I like your enthusiasm, but you are just dabbling.