[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Pat; Somewhere in another post I stated that the actual slowdown of the accelerated clock was not due to time dilation but to the effect of the increase in velocity that reduces the biological interactions of atoms and molecules. The accelerated clock also experiences this actual slowdown as does all physical entitles. If you wish to age slower, just travel at high velocities greater than half the speed of light.

I'm afraid at 62 it's too late for that trick for me David. If I could go faster than light could I reverse the aging? LOL

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dipayankar So do we need to redefine the Universal Laws???

Hi Dippy

I suppose it depends on what you means by the 'Universal Laws'. We (mostly) accept that relative theories describe reality as we perceive it, taking into account our relative motion with the things we attempt to measure and predict. This perspective resulted in the rejection of a preferred framework which would provide a static baseline for all things.

Virtually all eminent scientists accept that, somewhere along the line, a wrong step was taken and we are missing something obvious. My perspective is that this 'mistake' was the rejection of the aether when MM did their experiments on the speed of light. If there is a preferred state of rest then we have two perspectives: one where we take account of relative motion (relativity) and another (the God perspective?) which would be perceived by someone at absolute rest and able to observe everything going on around.

I'm not too concerned with the laws themselves as they are generally mathematical equations which enable us to predict the results of certain actions. The underlying paradigm is of much more interest.

regards
Felix

[dipayankar]

Hi Felix, intersting you brought the concept of ether... I have never been able to understand this aspect... What is ether? What is it made of? Is it mass or energy? If it is energy, what is the source of this energy? What is the field? Have we been able to measure the field? If it is amss, what particles make up this mass? Not sure whether we should be discussing this aspect in this thread though...

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger Hi Dippy I suppose it depends on what you means by the 'Universal Laws'. We (mostly) accept that relative theories describe reality as we perceive it, taking into account our relative motion with the things we attempt to measure and predict. This perspective resulted in the rejection of a preferred framework which would provide a static baseline for all things. Virtually all eminent scientists accept that, somewhere along the line, a wrong step was taken and we are missing something obvious. My perspective is that this 'mistake' was the rejection of the aether when MM did their experiments on the speed of light. If there is a preferred state of rest then we have two perspectives: one where we take account of relative motion (relativity) and another (the God perspective?) which would be perceived by someone at absolute rest and able to observe everything going on around. I'm not too concerned with the laws themselves as they are generally mathematical equations which enable us to predict the results of certain actions. The underlying paradigm is of much more interest. regards Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dipayankar (1) What is ether? What is it made of? Is it mass or energy? If it is energy, what is the source of this energy? What is the field? Have we been able to measure the field? If it is mass, what particles make up this mass? (2) Not sure whether we should be discussing this aspect in this thread though...

Hi Dippy

(1) My concept is that it is the fabric of space/time and therefore does not consist of anything of our real world (e.g. mass or energy). The aether consists (in my paradigm) of masons connected by gravitons to form the gravitational field - which is what I call it. The 'mason' is a variation of the Higgs boson.

(2) My concept is inseperable from the nature of time, which is controlled by chronons, so I feel that discussion on this thread is indeed relevant.

You can find a complete description in my article: http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...nce-shiva.html

regards
Felix

[MJA]

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger Hi Dippy (1) My concept is that it is the fabric of space/time and therefore does not consist of anything of our real world (e.g. mass or energy). The aether consists (in my paradigm) of masons connected by gravitons to form the gravitational field - which is what I call it. The 'mason' is a variation of the Higgs boson. regards Felix

Hi FS,

You state if you don't mind my paraphasing and asking a question, that the aether does not consist on anything real, then go on to say the aether consist of masons gravitrons gravitational fields and variations of Higgs boson.

Is your idea of the aether nothing or something, or are you saying masons and such are unreal too?
Thanks,

=
MJA

[dleviwing]

Hi Felix;
I thought it was just a type-O, but I see you used “mason” (a person who works with concrete) rather than “meson” (a boson particle in physics) in your blog pages also. Mesons however are too massive and do not decay rapidly enough to be considered for the Higgs Boson. I do agree however that the structure of space (Aether) can be viewed as a boson structure; I stated such in a post quite some time ago.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by MJA You state..... that the aether does not consist of anything real, then go on to say it consists of masons (a variation on the Higgs boson), gravitons and the gravitational field. Is your idea of the aether nothing or something, or are you saying masons and such are unreal too?

Hi MJ

I am saying that the aether is the underlying structure (fabric if you like) of spacetime. As such it does not consist of the ordinary mass and energy which we experience - it is responsible for its creation and maintenance. This is like making the distinction between a finished product which we can buy in the shops and the manufacturer of that article.

This structure is described in my article http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...nce-shiva.html

regards
Felix

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dleviwing (1) I thought it was just a type-O, but I see you used “mason” (a person who works with concrete) rather than “meson” (a boson particle in physics) in your blog pages also. (2) Mesons however are too massive and do not decay rapidly enough to be considered for the Higgs Boson. (3) I do agree however that the structure of space (Aether) can be viewed as a boson structure; I stated such in a post quite some time ago.

Hi David

(1) I chose the word mason (pronounced mazon) to denote that it was the mechanism that creates real particles and hence mass. As you say, it means 'builder' and that fits nicely. It also sounds like the French word 'maison' which is house; my concept is that the mason is the mechanism that houses matter (quarks) when they are not in existence and builds them in response to the collapsing waveforms when particle interactions take place.

(2) The mason has no connection with mesons but as the provider of mass it is my equivalent of the Higgs boson though my mechanism is completely different.

(3) I would not describe the aether as bosonic as bosons are supposedly the particles which mitigate the four forces of nature. I don't agree with this concept and think that all four forces can be described as effects related to the motion of matter.

regards
Felix

[dleviwing]

Felix;
Maybe you should add another “s” to make it “masson” or “masseon” particle to avoid the confusion with mesons. In reality though, how does this improve over current interpretations? Does it change the math and if so, how?

http://www.toequest.com/forum/forces-nature/1321-boson-space.html

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Maybe you should add another “s” to make it “masson” or “masseon” particle to avoid the confusion with mesons. In reality though, how does this improve over current interpretations? Does it change the math and if so, how?

Hi David

Thanks for the link. Having just gone through it, I can't imagine why that 2006 thread dried up? There's so much sense in there.

I spent two years searching for the right terms for my model; graviton was obvious, chronon was also in use but in a different way and I only discovered it recently. So what should I call the basic thing which is the source of all matter? 'Mason' just seems so right as it's definitely 'on the square' and its handshake unmistakable!

My paradigm is completely different from any other. It postulates a structure for the aether/spacetime which incorporates a mechanism for gravity which is in tune with GR. It explains the link with QM and the quarks of the standard model but rejects the concept of bosons as force carriers. The forces are effects of variations in the motion of matter which we have chosen to describe mathematically and call laws. It also includes a proposed mechanism for time based on the probability function. As regards the maths I leave that to those more qualified than I.

regards
Felix

PS - no I'm not