[zeroca]

Originally Posted by ThirdWorld

Respect to all scientist who have done so much hard work in searching for the answers to everything...this has actually laid the ground work for my own TOE... sad to say however many of their theories are incorrect.

The theory of 'ether' cannot explain EVERYTHING and so it will always be subject to criticism.

I however have a true TOE ie explaining EVERYTHING in one shot. If anyone is interested they may so indicate in this forum.

Your Friendly Physicist, ThirdWorld.

I'm not physicist and I have my own view of the subject, but I'll look through your explanation with great pleasure if you put it briefly

yours sincerely zeroca

[jeffprice]

Originally Posted by Rybo

Gravity is the5-fold icosahdral "fabric of space".

Rybo

Rybo,
What?? You need to dumb down your quote a little for me. I don't know what "5-fold icosahedral" means. I have big ideas, but little education. However, I am smart enough to know better than to think that my ideas are the only plausible ideas. I believe the final TOE will come from the collaboration of many people working together and sharing their ideas until a complete theory comes together. Please help me to understand what you mean. Remember, you are speaking to a man with very little math background. I am assuming "icosahedreal" is an advanced geometry term. I've only had one year of geometry, 19 YEARS AGO! Please, make it simple if possible.

[jeffprice]

Originally Posted by wisp

Jeffprice

You’re right in that the stretching of the fabric of space causes the gravitational effect. And following that logic would require the existence of ether.
Isaac Newton – the greatest scientist of all time – believe that gravity was caused by density variation in the ether, although he couldn’t get the maths to work for an ether model. And so he stuck with his law of gravitation, in which gravity was caused by “action at a distance”, requiring no further explanation as to its cause.
If you do support the concept of ether, then you are against Einstein’s spacetime concept and almost all professors that teach physics.
When I studies relativity for my degree, I knew relativity was false, but accepted its views, and fully understood its principles and predictions. I later found that an ether model produces better results in which the whole of relativity can be embedded.
The only way in which matter can cause density variations in the ether is if it exists as holes in the ether. Around the hole the structure of the ether changes - its density drops because the ether particles are stretched into circular symmetry. The mass associated with the matter is not within the empty hole but in the surrounding mass of the ether space.
Don’t expect any support form your professors.
Don’t be too concerned about the Michelson-Morley result (two-way light test).
If special relativity wants to prove itself it must be able to stand up to a modern “one-way” speed of light test that uses two clocks and a laser. This test will prove the end of Einstein’s relativity.

Why do you say that there are holes in the ether? If there are holes, what causes these holes, and what causes the different types (elements) of matter? Wouldn't a continuous contraction of the ether be a more plausible explaination for all the different elements? By this I mean, the more contracted the ether, the more dense the element.
The variations detected in the background radiation (as measured by radio telescopes) would correspond to the initial variations in the ether density. These density variation would have lead to the development of mostly Hydrogen and maybe some Helium. Supernovas would have lead to further contraction (compression) of the ether, which would have produce the heavier elements.
By my understanding, though admittedly an uneducated understanding, a continuous ether density is easier to understand. The more dense the ether, the heavier the element.
Please explain your theory as though you were explaining it to a high school student if possible.

[Rybo]

Originally Posted by jeffprice

Rybo,
What?? You need to dumb down your quote a little for me. I don't know what "5-fold icosahedral" means. I have big ideas, but little education. However, I am smart enough to know better than to think that my ideas are the only plausible ideas. I believe the final TOE will come from the collaboration of many people working together and sharing their ideas until a complete theory comes together. Please help me to understand what you mean. Remember, you are speaking to a man with very little math background. I am assuming "icosahedreal" is an advanced geometry term. I've only had one year of geometry, 19 YEARS AGO! Please, make it simple if possible.

http://home.usit.net/~rybo6/rybo/index.html
Jeff, go to my link for one source of more explanaiotions.

Ther are three and only three, prime, triangularly stabilized, symmetrical/regular polyhedra in Unvierse. They are three of the 5 Platocnic polyhedra.

Tetrahedron(4-fold) octahedron(4-fold) icosashedron(5-fold).

These prime gemtric polyhedra of Unvierse fronm which all others and all energetic(3D) things of Unvierse come from.

4-fold and 5-fold has to do with the axes of symmetry assscoitated with all polyhedra.

4-fold is not rationally commensurate with 5-fold.

There is much to understand. Start with my web site. Mybe checkout Synergetics on the web. Do search for various aspects geomctrical aspects ive spoken of.

Rybo

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by wisp

Gravity is a force that pushes down on matter and results from a compressional force acting inwards due to density variation in the ether. See http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk and go to gravity.

wisp

- particles of nothingness

I think that this universe was created from nothing (which existed before) by its splitting into two equal opposite parts, so the existence of the world is the existence of opposite processes happening within nothing, or rather within zero, which itself is homogenous, uniform.
According to this theory all processes must have their opposite ones.

The gravitation itself is always associated with body, which itself is associated with consolidation, or "thickening of substance". Arising of gravitation-that's the changing of homogeneity in direction of thickening (the process is directed from all sides to one point, which is called by us the centre); a lack of thickening in the same homogeneity afterwards presents a cause of arising of anti-thickening, anti-consolidation, and that's three-dimensional space, that’s a lack of gravitation, that is rarefaction, or rather expansion and is called and felt by us as an "empty space" (which is directed from the same center to all sides), so the thickening and the space have the very same center and we can call body the unity of the physical body with the space, which’s bind to it.
Maybe the initial was the process of expansion (rarefaction), which was followed (as a result) by consolidation (in zero all processes are followed by their equal, but opposite ones), since the gravitation, we can say, is just the quality of the matter, that's is associated with inertia, passivity and accordingly must be a result of a sort of active process (in our case-of expansion), or both processes arose simultaneously, so the mentioned “Gravity is a force that pushes” is no more than striving of matter to the center, if this matter is in the area of body (or rather in the area of space which is bind to physical body).
Maybe my statements are inexpert but I don’t see any other explanation.
You can see it at
http://autorestore.gol.ge/e6.html

[wisp]

Originally Posted by jeffprice

Why do you say that there are holes in the ether? If there are holes, what causes these holes, and what causes the different types (elements) of matter? Wouldn't a continuous contraction of the ether be a more plausible explaination for all the different elements? By this I mean, the more contracted the ether, the more dense the element.
The variations detected in the background radiation (as measured by radio telescopes) would correspond to the initial variations in the ether density. These density variation would have lead to the development of mostly Hydrogen and maybe some Helium. Supernovas would have lead to further contraction (compression) of the ether, which would have produce the heavier elements.
By my understanding, though admittedly an uneducated understanding, a continuous ether density is easier to understand. The more dense the ether, the heavier the element.
Please explain your theory as though you were explaining it to a high school student if possible.

Ether particles tend to stick together (strong binding forces). If there were no holes or large gaps in the ether, our Universe would be solid ether, which we would perceive as "empty space".
The surrounding ether squeezes any holes or gaps in the ether, but holes cannot just disappear. For example, a square hole would rapidly change to a sphere, and if its shape were not stable it would break into smaller more stable spheres.
Around these holes the ether stretches and its density is reduced.
Also, the sizes of the holes determine which fundamental particles form.
Also go to the link
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet....at_is_Q_A.html
and read "What is matter".

[Marketa]

Ether doesn't exist, which was rather proven century ago.
For wisp: I really appreciate when someone is trying to explain things. That's good. But I think that the first step should be LEARNING. Maybe few lessons of elementar physics would not cause any harm.

[wisp]

Originally Posted by Marketa

Ether doesn't exist, which was rather proven century ago.

Over a century ago most prominent physicists (Maxwell, Lorentz, etc.) supported the ether concept, and developed their work around it.
It is well known that the "null" result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley Experiment does not prove the ether doesn't exist.
After Einstein published his special relativity in 1905, the need for an ether to explain things was dismissed - not disproved.

So in reality no one has proven that the ether doesn't exist. And if Einstein's relativity theories are proven false, as may happen, what does that leave?
The ether.

[Marketa]

OK. What do you think is ether good explanation for? I think that something similar to ether in nowadays terms is space itself. I don't think there is any space left for something more called ether.

[wisp]

Originally Posted by Marketa

OK. What do you think is ether good explanation for? I think that something similar to ether in nowadays terms is space itself. I don't think there is any space left for something more called ether.

One example that I've been working on this week is an ether model of the time dilation effects for the 1971 Hafele-Keating Experiment. They flew atomic clocks around the world to test time dilation, see

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...iv/airtim.html

The ether model agrees with special relativity to within fractions of a nS. But the ether model predicts that equatorial clocks are affected by a tiny sidereal fluctuation of 0.7nS, due to the Earth rotating in the ether wind. Special relativity doesn't show this.

At present this is fluctuation is just beyond the limits of detection. But in a few years time as more accurate atomic clocks replace older ones, the effect will become more noticeable, and this will become a problem for time systems, GPS, etc.
Science will have to accept the ether model in order to meet the demands from industry.

This is just one example.