The Aether foam exhibits an nonlinear behavior, as the soap foam gets more dense during shaking. Therefore every wave spreading through such foam makes the foam more dense temporarily at the same moment. You can check this behavior by using of the Java applet here.



This behavior can be understood easily, if we realize, everything what can be observed from random field of fluctuation are the fluctuations, where the randomness is less or more violated by ordered, collective motion. And the wave is the most deterministic, causal kind of motion, so it increases the "reality density" (it decreases the entropy density) at the place, where the wave is just spreading. So that every wave is spreading through particle environment like less-or more dense blob of this environment, i.e. like particle. By AWT this mechanism is infinitely recursive and all the Aether unparticles are made by the same way.



How such concept is related to quantum mechanics? Well, by a quite simple way: the Schrödinger equation describes the undulation of N-dimensional string, whose mass density is proportional to its energy density in each moment and location, i.e. the undulations of foam (so called the quantum string). You can check this behavior in DHTML applet here (sorry, for MS IE 6.0 browser only). I suppose, the relativistic version of Schrödinger equation (the Dirac's equation) describes the undulations of nested foam.

You can analyze for example the ultrasound spreading inside of condensing supercritical fluid in its critical point and you can compare this behavior with particle simulation on computer. You can derive the quantum mechanics equations from the model of energy spreading through foam. You can model the most compact geometries of such foam and compare them with root system of E8 group by diffraction and dispersion measurements.


Isn't Universe considered infinite in this moment? How we can talk about it, after then? After all, Cantor has developed the term cardinality and infinite set calculus before hundred years, so I don't afraid, formal math cannot comprehend the infinity concept phenomenologically.

Yes, Aether has been considered nonscientific since about 1905.

Yes, quite. I'll give an example. We should not find Trilobyte fossils in Jurassic dated rocks. Quantitative also includes collection of empirical data and modelling and analysis of data. Both of which are a part of evolutionary theory.

You know, you don't have to have a heliocentric theory to have Venus and Mercury showing phases. Earthcentric theory, with Venus and Mercury revolving around the Sun, would produce the phases we see.

In the case of the Aether of the AWT. What is its compressibility? What is its permitivity? What is its permeability?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

OK, from which reasons?
This is still qualitative comparison, though. The Jurassic dating is the matter of geology. And please, don't say me. we are dating the age of fossils used by Darwin theory by using of age of fossils estimated by Darwin theory...
The Aether is of infinite density, zero compressibility, permitivity and permeability. It doesn't conduct energy at the distance at all. It's just abstract concept. What you can measure/compute is one of Aether phases, i.e. the vacuum.But the Venus phases aren't the only qualitative evidence of heliocentric model, the stellar parallax or Jupiter moon phases can serve as an evidence as well. By the same way, the evidence of AWT isn't based on the single aspect of Aether behavior, which can describe at least one of mainstream theories. The evidence of Aether is based on the indicia, the explanation of which would require combination of two or more mainstream theories.

It's hasn't been shown to be needed, since then. Prior to that, it was thought something need to wave for light to move. It was found that the nature of a light wave didn't need anything to wave. Of course, if you want to go with the particle nature, then you don't need it either.

Actually, no it's not. Did you miss this part of my post:
Quantitative also includes collection of empirical data and modelling and analysis of data. The collection of the fossils falls under the collection of empirical data. The dating of the rocks the fossils are in and the study of the fossils themselves fall under the analysis part. Determining when and if species died off or changed would fall under modeling. It's all quantitative.

It is also a matter of paleontology.

If you are going to invoke Darwin's theory, at least understand it. No where in Darwin's theory does the theory estimate the ages of fossils. Darwin's theory comes in after Animal Paleontology, Paleonecology, Taphonomy, Paleonbotony are all studied for a particular epoch or era. Those, having been studied, the current model predicts that we won't find trilobyte fossils in Jurrassic rocks. Now, if you disagree with the model, then by all means, feel free to post your model.




So what is the difference between the Aether and the Aether foam?


This is just a measure of distance. Which would still be the same in a Earthcentric universe.

Why? Jupiter's Moon's revolving around Jupiter while Jupiter revolve's around the Earth is proof of a heliocentric system, how?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

I'm bumping this post of mine, to highlight several unanswered questions.

Zephir, the questions that I asked in the post I am quoting are (I think) directly pertinent to the ATM ideas you presented, as you presented them.

Under BAUT's rules, you must answer them "in a timely fashion".

Of course, "I don't know" (or similar), or "I need some time to answer that" (or similar), or "I do not understand your question, could you clarify please?" and so on are perfectly acceptable responses.

I have numbered the unanswered questions, and bolded them, for clarity.

I'm confused.

All these simulations (or whatever they are intended to be) involve finite entities (or, more precisely, entities which take only finite values).

Yet, if I have understood AWT correctly, what is being simulated is entities which have infinite values (whatever that means).

Can you clarify please?

Specifically, how can you represent something (density, temperature, mass, ...) which is "infinite" in these simulations?
I'm even more confused.

Are you claiming that "what can be observed" (presumably with extensions of one or more of the human senses) is something that is "infinite"? Or fluctuations (random or otherwise) of something that is "infinite"?

Back to an earlier question: what mathematical tools does AWT use to ("realistically") describe the status/state of the infinite density, temperature, mass (more?) of the "reality" it claims to model?

It seems to me that everything quantitative you have presented so far is finite, not an "infinity" in sight ...

I find the following rather interesting. From post #34

And post #11


So if the Aether, by your definition is an abstract concept, how do reconcile the following statement from post #6:

You claim AWT doesn't use any abstract concepts, yet you claim that the Aether is an abstract concept. That sounds like a particularly big contradiction to me.

Also, if Aether, again by your statements is of infinite density and has zero compressibility, then there is no way for the following from your post #31:

With zero compressibility, there can be no wave spreading through your Aether. Not to mention, with infinite density, you can't have more density temporarily. Again, your own posts contradict themselves.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Nereid,

These are not simulations since Zephir has no equations and no math to drive any simulation. These are animated gifs picked off the internet in order to produce the impression of a theory. In other words, a scam.