It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Two-Component Aether

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   
My two component aether model has now been put online via an article at InfoGalactic.

You can access the article by clicking here.

As a brief overview, the model assumes that the aether is made of two incompressible substances, one is called positive aether and the other is called negative aether. Each of these substances is in a solid state, so that the aether is capable of transmitting transversely polarized waves. (It is known that light is transversely polarized.) It is then assumed that under normal conditions each small volume of positive aether is attached to a corresponding small volume of negative aether. It is then postulated that the attachment criteria can be broken by putting enough energy into the aether, and this results in a situation where free (detached) aether is formed. Further, two force laws are postulated. Force Law One postulates that each aetherial substance is under tension. Force Law Two postulates that when one type of aether flows through another type of aether forces result. The tension force and the flow forces are postulated to be about the simplest possible, as they are simple linear relationships.

With the above axiomatic basis in place, the article then goes into quite a bit of math. There is a heavy dose of vector calculus, and since that is the case, a brief review of vector calculus is included early on in the article. At the end of all the math, it is shown how the axioms lead directly to Maxwell's equations in a derivation that is mathematically rigorous. But beyond that, the model does several other things. The model gives us a physical understanding of what electric charge is (it is detached aether), what the electric and magnetic fields are, why charge conservation is a law of nature, why no magnetic monopoles have ever been found, as well as much more. With electric charge identified as detached aether, that in turn tells us that the attached aether consists of two solid blocks of charge, one positive and the other negative, each attached to the other.

I plan to start a second thread here, perhaps next week or the week after, concerning some Aetherial Speculations that I have. As will be seen, Aetherial science could have some very important practical benefits!

For full information, please check out the article itself. I look forward to any comments you may have. Especially helpful would be any comments for improving the article, such as the unearthing of typos or any comments concerning the mathematics. My work has appeared in the reviewed journal Physics Essays, and also received some valuable review at the Physical Review, so I believe the math is correct, but there could be typos in the presentation. And one should always be humble enough to admit that error is also possible, so for those of you who are capable and willing to do so, please check the math carefully and let me know what you find! I believe it is really in the math that the deeper level of understanding is found, but the verbiage surrounding the math (as well as this brief intro) should be able to give everyone a reasonably good idea of the theory.

Once again, you can access the article by clicking here.




posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   
That is very interesting.

I think though, that the aether may be more basic than even this. I think you would be hard pressed perhaps to explain the power of the sun using this model.

At a basic level, this should be capable of explaining energy ... all of it.

Love this level of speculation!

P



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Sounds a good spent time for reading it. I'll give it a go in the evening. Thanks for sharing your work



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   
"Whether Einstein's relativity or Absolute Theory is correct is still an open question. No experiment has ever been conducted that would indicate that Absolute Theory is wrong. In fact, Bell's theorem tests by Alain Aspect provide some evidence that supports the Absolute Theory view over that of Einstein."

No, it is NOT an open question. Numerous experiments have established that relativity is correct. New confirmations come out almost every few months. Galilean mechanics based upon absolute space and time is totally inconsistent with the results of these experimental tests of relativity. It is why 99.999% of physicists accept relativity over Newtonian mechanics. Aspect's tests of Bell's theorem were carried out many years ago and have been confirmed many times. None of them provides ANY evidence that absolute theories are correct and Einstein's relativity is wrong. What they DO prove is that Einstein was wrong in believing that some local, classical, deterministic theory was behind quantum mechanics. This has NOTHING to do with his special and general theories of relativity, or the issue of whether space and time are absolute in nature. Both you and the Wikipedia article on absolute theories that your article links to are wrong in asserting that it does. What Aspect's experiments and their later refinements indicate is that nature's fields are non-local in nature, whether or not space and time are relative or absolute.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

I think the aether is more of an infinite spectrum of energy that we see as yhe quantum vacuum. The EM spectrum is just a compactification of the infinite spectrum into a finite spectrum.

Positive and negative are just field pressure values. Think fluid dynamics.

Thanks for posting your theory though. I'll definitely have to look at it.

edit on 12-8-2017 by BELIEVERpriest because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: micpsi


Viable Absolute Theories are Lorentzian, not Galilean. Of course the Lorentz Equations have been proven more correct than those known to Galileo. That is not the issue when it comes to relative versus Absolute Theory, at least not by those expertly knowledgeable in such matters.

Special relativity uses what are called the Lorentz Equations, they are not called the Einstein Equations, because Lorentz derived them first from within an Absolute Theory. I have shown that the physical length contraction proposed by Lorentz is not needed to arrive at the Lorentz equations within an Absolute Theory. Those are the Absolute Theories, the ones that embrace the Lorentz Equations, that have not yet been disproven.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
My dog's tail is the center of the Universe.
The tail does not wag. It is a singular stable point.
The Universe wags around it.
That is my theory.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

I know, right? Just like Time Dilation.
edit on 12-8-2017 by BELIEVERpriest because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: skunkape23

Just like the engines on the Planet Express ship in fururama.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Just for pondering, I submit that the Aether is the foundation that exists that can be in two states (that I know of at this time) . It demonstrates as space when it is pure static. This same Aether demonstrates as time when it is kinetic.

The one infinitesimal Singularity is pure time (infinite kinetics). The ONE Singularity is engaged in infinite velocity AND AT infinite angular diversity. So it APPEARS there are an infinite number of infinitesimal singularities, but there is only one.

The "wake" left behind from this Singularity kinetics is the infinite expanse of space. Pure space, static, establishing the domain for the Singularity kinetics to take place within. Also this material of Aether as space collapses from everywhere, down and inward, towards everywhere. targeting the one infinitesimal Singularity (returning to "Home")

We in our Universe as stuck somewhere in the middle where space is converting back to time so we have both to "observe" and be aware of. What is this Aether both space and time is composed of?! I can see It existing but I don't know what It is.
edit on 12-8-2017 by tkwasny because: Typo fix

edit on 12-8-2017 by tkwasny because: Typo fix



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Very impressed but I am having troubles proving your equations are correct using veggie maths. Nerveless, I find it difficult to comprehend a universal speed/time limit without an underlying luminiferous aether making it so, Question, under your theory does time dilution still occur. Is it a observational effect or does time actually slow down for all objects that move.

I am asking the question because Einstein equations tell us that time will slow down for a person travelling to Alpha Centauri at near light speeds compared to people on earth. But looking at it another way, we could also say the earth will be speeding away from the same spacecraft at near light speeds. So why doesn't time slow down for people on earth instead the occupants on the spacecraft. Only if rime dilution is relevant to underlying aether can it make sense,



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: glend

My thoughts on space time can be found in detail at this link. The short answer to your question is that the Absolute Theories (both mine and that of Lorentz) postulate a time dilation with respect to the aether, in agreement with what you think makes the most sense.



posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

thank you.

added....

Hats off, obviously an amazing amount of research and thinking went into your papers but I wonder what is the key to persuade the scientific community that einsteins theories are just observational qualities of the underlying aether, I am guessing that one difference might be the resistance or elasticity of the aether as objects approach the speed of light. I imagine the energy required to resist objects accelerating over the speed of light needs to be radiated in one form or another from the aether itself which obviously isn't the case under non-aether theories. Or is the energy dissipated by the slowing down of time itself. Clearly there must be something that can determine if the aether exists or not.
edit on 12-8-2017 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
So why doesn't time slow down for people on earth instead the occupants on the spacecraft. Only if rime dilution is relevant to underlying aether can it make sense,
If you are referring to "time dilation" and referring to the so-called "twin paradox", time does indeed pass more slowly for the twin traveling to a distant star and back. The reason why some people erroneously think that time on Earth would pass more slowly from the perspective of the spaceship traveler is due to a mis-application of simplified time dilation equations rather than using the more accurate Lorentz transformations, as explained in this video:




originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: glend

My thoughts on space time can be found in detail at this link. The short answer to your question is that the Absolute Theories (both mine and that of Lorentz) postulate a time dilation with respect to the aether, in agreement with what you think makes the most sense.
I suppose the math is simpler with the absolute theory, but I think you also understand that while perhaps more complex, the math also works for the non-aether relativity model according to experiments performed so far.


originally posted by: glend
a reply to: delbertlarson
Hats off, obviously an amazing amount of research and thinking went into your papers but I wonder what is the key to persuade the scientific community that einsteins theories are just observational qualities of the underlying aether
That is the relevant question, and the answer of course is that it would probably take an unambiguous experimental result to point the scientific community toward different models than the current consensus models. I think Delbert Larson suggested a length contraction experiment as one possibility?



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




From Arbitrageur:
If you are referring to "time dilation" and referring to the so-called "twin paradox", time does indeed pass more slowly for the twin traveling to a distant star and back. The reason why some people erroneously think that time on Earth would pass more slowly from the perspective of the spaceship traveler is due to a mis-application of simplified time dilation equations rather than using the more accurate Lorentz transformations, as explained in this video


Thanks Arbitrageur but that video was as clear as mud. My mind cannot see any reason why a spaceship (A) travelling away from Planet (B) (velocity A>B) was not equivalent to Velocity (B>A) by simply changing ones perspective that the earth was also speeding away from the spacecraft until I read the following gem....



If you view the time dilation due to acceleration as a gravitational acceleration (principle of equivalence) and then do the calculations, the results obtained for both the clock on the earth as well as the clock on the spaceship agree."


If we hypothesize that mass is really just denser twisted spacetime then we could speculate that its the density of spacetime that really slows time. With gravity only being an illusion. It would then make perfect sense why velocity through spacetime would also slow time. As velocity through any medium also increases its density. Its all my neuron deficient mind can accept without blowing a fuse so try be sympathetic!
edit on 13-8-2017 by glend because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


From Arbitrageur:


I suppose the math is simpler with the absolute theory, but I think you also understand that while perhaps more complex, the math also works for the non-aether relativity model according to experiments performed so far.


The math is actually the same, so of course it works equally well either way. Both relativity and the absolute theories use the Lorentz transformation equations. What is different between the absolute theories and relativity is the conceptual basis for the equations, and there neither is necessarily more simple. Einstein's postulates are rather simple, and the proposal of an aether is simple as well.

From glend: a reply to: delbertlarson:


Hats off, obviously an amazing amount of research and thinking went into your papers but I wonder what is the key to persuade the scientific community that einsteins theories are just observational qualities of the underlying aether


From Arbitrageur:


That is the relevant question, and the answer of course is that it would probably take an unambiguous experimental result to point the scientific community toward different models than the current consensus models. I think Delbert Larson suggested a length contraction experiment as one possibility?


Yes, tests are the key. Unfortunately, they are not the only thing that comes into play. If they were the only thing then Einstein, Podolski, Rosen (EPR) tests would have already led to setting relativity aside. While I think I've hit this note before, I'll bang the drum again:

EPR showed how quantum mechanics and relativity could not both be correct. Bell refined EPR to enable tests. Aspect, Dalibard and Roger performed the tests and quantum mechanics was correct. (See here.) But rather than set relativity aside, philosophical arguments were put forth to "save" it. Now, people talk about "non-local", and "information transfer", and other hocus-pocus. At the end of the day, the proposal is that objective reality as humans understand it no longer holds in quantum entanglement experiments. So you can always dodge and hustle your way out of facts. Humans are good at that. That's why lawyers profit so handsomely.

I have always believed that we should maintain our belief in an objective reality, and that alone should be our philosophical touchstone. We should then defer to tests to decide which hypothesis better represents nature. Hence, for each of my fundamental works I have proposed tests. And on one such effort I have a sad tale to relate.

I realized early on that a group velocity equivalent of the Michelson Morley test might yield a non-null result if no length contraction exists. It would cost under $50,000 to do. It would be rather simple to set up. So we proposed it to the NSF. You needed straight A's on the reviews to have a chance at the money, since "so much valuable science is out there to do." We got two F's and a D. The reviewers were unanimous that any further test of relativity was a complete waste of valuable taxpayer funds. After rejection, I worked to get the costs down to under $1000, I would have, and still would, pay for it myself. But we needed machine time on a half million dollar ultra-short laser device. Although the device already existed, the team would not do any test unless the NSF approved. There was fear it could endanger future grant money if we did something that was not approved. At that time I realized things were very, very wrong in science. It is not a search for truth. It is a search for money.

I think when most people go into science they do it to advance mankind. But there are far too many scientists for the number of dollars. So there must be some way to choose what gets funded and what does not. In my two decades of earning a living in science I spent a lot of time proposing and reviewing, and far less time doing. I noticed that just about everyone else in science did the same thing. When I interviewed after my last successful accelerator build, no one could get $15K for hardware. All the money went to salaries since the view was that we didn't want to lose valuable scientists. Well, they lost me. If you can't ever build any hardware to do any tests, what is the reason to stay in? It is a shame.

We need to do the tests. We should not be afraid of them. They are what will tell us what is right.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

question:

as far as I understand that, an electric charge is a region in Eather that is "injected" with "energy" to form an electric charge ? am I right ?



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur



LOL !!!

for the point of view of the man in the rocket, the Earth moves away, slows down and then accelerates again, so you can calculate the lorenz transformation the same way for the other point of view.
Kids science !!

This "explanation" uses "Gods point of view" TELLING you, the rocket is moving !



look !

if one moves away from the other, times "slows down"
Moving apart from another 1 light Year gives you a "time difference" of 1 year.
Moving toward each other, shrinks is back to 0

NO twin paradox, just observable illusion !

HOWEVER !...
if you move away from a mass, "time goes faster", but it also "goes slower" because you move relative to the density field of this mass !
Universe however is the real point of reference you move in, sure less influencing that the planet you started from, but also important.


edit on 14-8-2017 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2017 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-8-2017 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks Arbitrageur but that video was as clear as mud. My mind cannot see any reason why a spaceship (A) travelling away from Planet (B) (velocity A>B) was not equivalent to Velocity (B>A) by simply changing ones perspective that the earth was also speeding away from the spacecraft until I read the following gem....

If we hypothesize that mass is really just denser twisted spacetime then we could speculate that its the density of spacetime that really slows time. With gravity only being an illusion. It would then make perfect sense why velocity through spacetime would also slow time. As velocity through any medium also increases its density. Its all my neuron deficient mind can accept without blowing a fuse so try be sympathetic!


Your neurons are just fine !!

this explanation of him is crap!
edit on 14-8-2017 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
a reply to: delbertlarson

question:

as far as I understand that, an electric charge is a region in Eather that is "injected" with "energy" to form an electric charge ? am I right ?



In the two component aether model, the aether is made up of two solid blocks of charge - one positive, the other negative. When enough energy is put into a small volume (for instance by two photons colliding) a small chunk of positive charge can be freed from its attachment along with an equally small chunk of negative charge also being freed. Charge is simply aether freed from its attachment. (The process of photon collision may actually produce free aether rather than simply detaching it. I haven't given this issue that much thought. The main point is that the math from the Maxwell Equation derivation tells us that charge is detached aether while aether is attached charge.)

As for the twin paradox, the difference is that the traveling twin accelerates while the earth-bound one does not, and this breaks the equality between the two. You don't need any gravitational bodies for the effect. Some have said that it is during the acceleration that the differential aging takes place, but that is not correct. If that was correct, and you used the same acceleration to turn around, then the differential aging would be the same no matter how far the travel was, but the differential aging is dependent on the distance traveled. I believe that the paradox requires a triplet explanation. The special theory does not include accelerations, so there is no way to ever come back. Hence we really want three observers. One goes by the earth-bound triplet at t=0 and travels to some distant place. Then at that distant place the third triplet goes by the second one and travels toward earth. All three see the other clocks run slow. The resolution of the paradox comes in their different view of what it means to be "simultaneous" when the two triplets are at the point distant from earth. When the two moving triplets pass each other at that distant place they will disagree about what the earth bound clock must read at that time. The video provides the correct simultaneity correction for that, and I believe in relativistic parlance the video may be correct, although I've never been a fan of "rotated" time, and I think the video also isn't clear enough on the role that the distance traveled plays in the needed simultaneity offset.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join