By Aether Wave Theory such theory can be deduced by assumption, everything around us is formed by fluctuations of very dense hypothetical particle matter, so called the Aether.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/.../supercrit.gif
http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/...rcritical2.gif

During condensation of supercritical fluid we can observe the formation of density fluctuations from another density fluctuations. If we extrapolate such behavior to infinitely dense introductory environment, we can obtain the system of infinitely nested random fluctuations, which we are living in.

There is a way for something very light to mimic something very dense.

Measured individually air is very light. At sea level the pressure it exerts is very significant 14.7 pounds per square inch. The main stumbling block that occurs is where the pressure of something essentially very light is applied so the effect of an aether is present but not the restriction of a rigid medium.

The problem is always going to be how do you detect something that is part of and underpinning the nature of the known elements. The early Greeks knew about wind and assumed birds flew on the winds. That presented problems when birds would fly on calm days unless one assumes the wind comes from the wings or could be blown. It influenced their thinking and art.

This utube is part two of the pre Socratic philosophers Demokritos the series from part one shows the development of thought.

But this came under the heading "theory of everything". If that is just slang for "unification of gravity and the other forces", I can see how it might be attainable. If taken more literally, as an actual theory of everything, that's the part I suspect is impossible. Not just because it's difficult to the point of impossibility, but more because it was never the point of science in the first place. The only thing that is everything is everything, and if there was a theory that encompassed everything, then the universe is awfully redundant.

Yes, I agree that is a biggie. Probably the balancing point to also take along is the "correspondence principle", which basically says that a law that works on one scale should not contradict a larger scale made up of many copies of the smaller scale version. However, even the correspondence principle has a big flaw-- the possibility of "emergent physics" that is not exactly contradicted by the smaller-scale law, but doesn't result from it either. Emergent behavior is often fairly insensitive to details at smaller scales, it is really a new thing appearing on a larger scale. A brain might be a good example. So I would claim that no "theory of everything" will be remotely close to living up to its billing, given that it will give essentially zero insight into what a brain is.

__________________
Logic is the grammar of truth.

Meaning and absolute certainty are incompatible, and profound meaning and absolute certainty are profoundly incompatible.

The only thing intelligence is capable of is recognizing itself.

I read a part of your posts on the other forum. The problem I have is the millions of times the density of lead as proposed by T.J.J. See. There is a way around the issue if the matter being used to determine that density it multiple folded and a massive surface area to volume capacity is present.

The lightness of air over a large birds wing is hundreds of pounds pressure all around the wing and yet very little restriction applies. If the ether surface area to volume on matter strings is a possibility then that would indicate in the absence of a very thin ether acting at the surface and not the volume of matter would cause a complete collapse of the entire matter state.

The analogy is a large building with an enormous number of rooms. The doors are open and ether flows freely. It is instantly teleported into space. The building is primarily the walls floors and ceilings which blow out layer by layer until the parts are no longer in contact. Nothing has a rest frame relative to any other piece.

So a multi-surface matter in the absence of a very light ether on a multi-fold or string type manifold should cause a total separation discharge. It should have matter drift apart and each component part walls ceilings floors ... building string if you like now has no rest frame relative to any other component part.

You can still have the feel of ether being a density millions of times more dense than lead in a very thin ether if matter being used to measure ether can not distinguish the thin nature of ether because of the action at surfaces within itself.

Since magnetic universe is a model that specifically removes matter to study the fields then what is the photon capacity for transmitting the force of magnetism. This is an example idea but if the light photon and the magnetic force photon were so dissimilar in size as say a mountain is to a grain of sand then there is no way the ether is going to cause interference to the path of the light photon.

You cannot build the TOE on the concepts, which you don't understand in full depth. If you cannot explain magnetism, then every magnetism based theory becomes abstract undeniably.

Therefore the AWT doesn't use any abstract unexplained yet concepts. It uses the concept of dense particle system packing, which everybody can understand intuitively. It puts the question: "what can be considered real"?

If we have look to every dense particle system, we cannot see the individual particles at all. What we can see are just the density gradients, which are formed by scale invariant fluctuations of density, which follows the multinomial distribution similar to foam or Perlin noise. And this is what the reality means for us: the ordered part of every chaos.

Aether Wave Theory is recent incarnation of the ancient Aether concept in its original, most natural form. It describes the Universe as a word of nested inertial fluctuations of infinitely hot & dense massive environment, i.e. the Aether.

What such approach can be good for today, after one hundred years of relativity and quantum mechanics theory? We'll see - lets talk about it by unbiased, open-minded way.

Motto: "We don't believe things, if we can explain them by reproducible way".

In which point the Aether Wave Theory goes against mainstream? We know, the Aether concept is considered a pretty well abandoned idea.

The main difference is, the classical Aether theories have described the Aether from perspective of thin gas. This was a typical misconduct, because the light of high energy density cannot be mediated by very thin environment. Aether Wave Theory therefore extrapolates the behavior of ultra-dense inertial systems, like the interior of dense stars and black holes. Surprisingly, very low number of scientists so far have interested about inertial (Newton) physics of high density matter.

The common objections against Aether is the absence of reference frame. If the Aether is so dense, why we aren't detecting it's reference frame?

But this is just another misunderstanding of the inertial environment concept. In such environment the energy spreads in waves. The environment for waves spreading cannot be detected just by using of these waves - so it cannot exhibit reference frame for these waves. The inertial environment serving as a space-time for wave spreading is undetectable for these waves by definition.

If it's true and the vacuum is formed by inertial matter - why the observation of waves spreading through matter differs so significantly from spreading of light through vacuum? For example we know, the light speed is invariant to with respect to source or observer motion speed.

But this is the result of misunderstanding again. The observation of wave spreading in matter by using of light isn't equivalent the observation of light in vacuum by using of light, because of different experimental arrangement. We have simply a two energy waves involved in first observation, while the later one includes only light wave.

Therefore the observation of water waves by using of light cannot serve as an evidence against inertial model of light wave spreading in vacuum, as being observed by using of light.

Welcome to BAUT, Zephir!

In this Aether idea, is the Aether truly "infinitely" hot? is it truly "infinitely" dense?

By "massive" ("massive environment"), do you mean a form of mass-energy that shapes (or warps) space-time, as in General Relativity (GR)? If not, what do you mean by "massive"?

If the Aether is "infinitely massive" (and I'm not sure that's what you are proposing), how could it have "nested inertial fluctuations"?

Hi, Neeid, thank you for invitation.

This is the right question - but currently I don't see any meaningful limitation for Aether density - at least conceptually. But the Aether is just an abstract concept by its very definition, it can be never seen in its full extent. So that is possible, some practical limit for Aether density observation exists and such limit would define the scope of the whole observable Universe by the same way, when you're using a lantern in dense fog - what you'll see is the spherical zone of illuminated fog, not the whole space. The principal limitation of the observable Universe size and density is the speed of light, for example.

Another limitation follows from geometry constraints. For example, I speculated, the Universe is formed by fractal foam, so that the most dense portion of reality is formed just by many combination of existing paths. You know, when we appear inside of large maze or foam, the number of paths perceived increases greatly with the maze or foam size, so it can appear much larger, then it really is.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/...dientfoam1.gif

Another question is, why we should ask about Universe limits - the only number, which doesn't require any further reasoning is just the infinity.

The Aether fluctuations arise as a density fluctuations of colliding particles, i.e. by the same way, like the particles in gas, which are underlying the Boltzmann distribution.

This is another tricky question: what makes the particle and numbers countable and how they differ from waves, which cannot collide mutually. By AWT the only source of inertia is the gradient of Aether foam density. You can make the particles just by shaking of Aether foam, for example by using of the Java applet here.

[IMG]http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/aether/dynamic_foam.gif

It means, the Aether is infinitely hot and dense particle matter by its definition. You can imagine it as a dense interior of black hole, filled just by gravitons, axions, neutrinos...

But just because of Aether infinite density, the speed of energy propagation through such dense environment is rather low - it corresponds the speed of light from the inner perspective. So that the number of particles and particle levels perceivable is always limited. And the fluctuations of limited amount of particles can be never fully chaotic completely - they exhibit a scale invariant density fluctuations, similar to multinomial distribution of repeating patterns inside of series of random number, comming from finite interval.

Therefore our ability to see something inside of our Universe simply follows from our inability to see everything at the same moment. I'm extrapolating this concept here and here, for example.

Haven't you been peddling this AWT for years here? (until people got tired of your gobblygook and you got banned)

You already know the questions that you and your theory cannot answer, why do you start this again?
For example, what is "a word of nested inertial fluctuations of infinitely hot & dense massive environment"?
"a word"?!!!
"inertial fluctuations"?!!!
How can the aether be "dense massive", though we pass through it without any interaction?

This is the principle of so called high pressure superconductivity, for example. The interior of neutron stars is considered to be superfluous as well. How is it possible, if their material is so dense?

This is the consequence of high environment density, instead. We know, the waves at the surface of mercury are smaller, then the waves at the surface of water, they don't penetrate the space beneath the surface so much, so they cannot be dispersed by it. As the result, they're less dispersed by such environment and the Aether concept is just the extrapolation of this idea to the infinite density.

After all, the idea, the vacuum is boson condensate or superfluid isn't very new in physics. You've probably missed a few important connections, here...

"Superflous"? Are you sure? Do you even know what you are saying?

Ask the wikipedia authors first: Neutron star core material could be a superfluid mixture of neutrons with a few protons and electrons

You're not extremelly educated, are you?

I assume your first language is not English.

You wrote "superfluous" which means (from Webster-Meriam):
1 a: exceeding what is sufficient or necessary : extra
b: not needed : unnecessary
2: obsolete : marked by wastefulness : extravagant

What you meant to write was: superfluid.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Thank you for correction, English isn't really my first or even second language.. The term superfluous is used on the web quite often in connection with fluid (the fluid can be both excessive, both of no viscosity) - so I missed the contextual difference in this case.

Hi Zephir, welcome to the BAUT forum.

As others have noted, you've discussed this idea on other forums, and were eventually banned. I want you to know that you have no bad record here to overcome, but we will expect you to follow the rules here, and answer questions to the best of your ability. Ideally, if you don't know an answer you'll tell us, and if you can compute or resolve an answer, but it will take some time, you'll tell us so, and commit to a timeframe for giving the answer. I'd like to note that some of our rules are in place to weed out members who use circular or evasive rhetorical techniques to never 'lose' or be proven wrong.

Our goal here is to air out new ideas that are not mainstream, but might lead science in a new direction. The odds of any one such idea being a new direction are pretty low, so there's no shame in the idea being shown to have holes... and it may turn out that some of the criticisms here will give you some insights towards useful modifications of your ideas.

To that end, I have a few questions for you:

- By dense and massive, are you using an allegory, and you do not mean that the aether has inertia or gravitational potential by itself? If so, how complete and extensible is this allegory?

- Are you aware of any measurement possible, present or future, that could distinguish your AWT idea from the mainstream ideas it would replace?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Hi, boss... By AWT here's no conceptual difference between Aether behavior and lets say supercritical vapor/fluid behavior. On the contrary, the supercritical fluid is the good model system for demonstration of common properties of vacuum: it's elastics and inertial at the same time, while the older models of Aether have considered gas or fluid behavior separately. Aether is expected to form all kinds of matter - so it can exhibit all matter properties, depending on its state.

If you're convenient with idea, the Universe is formed by interior of black hole, then you should be familiar with concept of vacuum as a massive environment - simply because the black hole is massive stuff. This is trivial consequence and nothing very strange is about it.This is virtually impossible and it has no meaning. After all, the purpose of AWT isn't to replace the usage of special theories at their particular scopes, especially when high precision is expected/required by the same way, like the quantum mechanics/relativity isn't generally used in ab-inicio computations of water flow in CFD, simply because it's not just effective. The AWT is expected to comprehend different theories together by simple general concept - no less, no more.

Currently I'm using it rather for explanation of existing concepts, then for postulating new ones, because it can simplify the understanding of theoretical concepts of mainstream physics, by my opinion. For example, the Lissi Garrets theory explains the particle generations by E8 group geometry, but how we can understand this connection by illustrative way? This is what the AWT is good for right now.

It's like the attempt to discuss homeopathy thread in mainstream science forum... The mainstream science recognizes no TOE at this moment, because no mainstream theory is considered TOE - so you shouldn't discuss TOE topic in mainstream area. Every post about subject can be considered as "Against the Mainstream" post automatically. And why my posts were removed from original thread just after two months? Is it normal / logical behavior here?

If that is so, how - even in principle - can this idea be investigated, quantitatively?

Specifically, what mathematical tools could be employed - in principle - to investigate attributes (epiphenomena?) that take "infinite" values?

Even more specifically, how - even in principle - could "infinities" be related to phenomenology (that which is, or could be, observable)?

Interesting.

So AWT is not, by many standard definitions, part of science?

Specifically, there is no way - even in principle - to derive potentially testable hypotheses from the AWT ideas?

I do not know what this means - could you clarify please?

Also, what is the diagram? What does it intend to represent?

I dunno - you can tell me... Is the Aether concept a part of science by standard definition? By my opinion, this question is completely irrelevant - the only relevant question is, if some concept is realistic description of the reality. If not, it doesn't belong into science automatically. If yes, how it can be considered to stay outside of science? Isn't science dedicated to realistic description of reality?

Do these "particles" correspond to anything in contemporary physics, like quarks or leptons?

In AWT, do these "particles" have a quantum nature? If so, to what extent?

If, in AWT, the universe is infinitely dense everywhere and everywhen, the number of particles per unit volume is infinite (or, possibly, each of the "colliding particles" has an infinite mass). Is that so? If not, could you clarify please?

What does "inertia" mean, here?

If the density is infinite, everywhere and everywhen, how can it have a gradient?
What is the (presumably physical) attribute that is being represented by the lines?

A physical foam boundaries: string and membranes. Basically, they're formed/defined by gradients of mass/energy density of environment.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foam.gif
The same thing, like in Newtonian mechanics. The AWT is Newtonian mechanics based, fullfilling the mass/energy conservation laws on the global level.
Every piece of tangible reality can be considered as an Aether fluctuation, being formed by gradient of Aether density. The quark concept of mainstream phycics is ambivalent - while the so called virtual quarks can be considered as a real particles in AWT, the meaning of classical quarks in AWT is quite different. We can call them as modes of spin vibrations. This is how the neutron and proton are composed of quarks by knot model, for example.

http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/isospin.gif

If that is so, then why are you posting here?

I'm sure you must have read the BAUT Rules, and learned that BAUT is an avowedly science-based forum (except, of course, for the parts that are not, such as OTBB).
Indeed.

If by "realistic description" you mean to include attributes such as objectivity and verifiability then that may be so; if not, then not.

Back to my question: if, as it seems to me so far, AWT cannot be put into a quantitative form, even in principle, then in what sense could it be said to be a "realistic description of the reality" (in principle, where objectivity and verifiability are assumed incorporated in "realistic description")?

Threads merged

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Does it mean, the Aether is considered as a nonscientific concept here? I didn't invented it.
How did you deduced that? And how the quantitative form is relevant to scientific approach. Is the evolutionary theory a quantitative theory? Is the heliocentric concept wrong without Kepler's law? Whether it cannot predict something testable without math - for example the order of Venus phases?