[Marketa]

I'm still not convinced. I believe in simple explanations. The ether is not as simple as space-time model. By the way, what's the relation between space, time and ether?

[Masa Hiryuu]

I believe the ether in wisp theory is much simpler than space/time in reletivity.

In wisp theory space/ether is seen as particles that are tightly packed together, so tightly pact that there is in fact no space in between them. this would of course make ether nearly impossiable to detect because of its nature. but particles on the other hand are the exact opposite they are holes in the ether.

But, in relitivity space/time is seen more as a force, and particles exist within space. Space warps around these particles and that is what einstien believed caused gravity. I find this model harder to believe because i find it hard to imagine solid particles floating within a sea of force. this also means that there is a point where a particle can no longer be reduced to a smaller unit. that there must be some fundemental particle from wich all other particles are made that cannot be destroyed, what i call an "Invincible Particle". It also brings into question, just how are these forses conveyed? what medium do they use?

But, in wisp theory this problem is resolved becaise there is no smallest unit a particle is mearly a hole in the ether it can always be cut smaller and smaller without end. Also, force is conveyed through the ether quite naturally and fluently. Aso gravity is easialy explained (something reletivity cannot do).

But in wisp theory it also brings up the question, can wisp particles be destroyed? can they also be broken into smaller bits? what makes up a wisp particle?

that is the only thing i find wrong with wisps theory it seems to still suffer from the "Invincible Particle" concept, but, it is still simpler and more believeable than reletivity in my opinion.

[Marketa]

And what's the relation between ether and time? I think this is very important in any theory.

[wisp]

Originally Posted by Marketa

And what's the relation between ether and time? I think this is very important in any theory.

Absolute time remains separate from ether. It would be the time that a biological/mechanical clock records when stationary in the ether.



Observers that move through the ether experience a slowing of time. However, because their biological and mechanical clocks slow equally, they are unaware of this effect, which is called time dilation. And their clocks measure relative time.



So moving observers will all agree that experiments carried out in their “local” moving frames obey the known laws of physics – Lorenz symmetry.



However, if observers could see each others experiments, the stationary observer would witness the moving observers’ experiments running slower. And the fast moving observers would notice the slow moving observer’s experiments running faster.

[d p fitzpatrick]

Originally Posted by Rybo

I disagree. Gravity is pulling force that creates all resultan pushing forces of Universe.

Rybo

I'm going to agree with my old friend RYBO on this one.

Gravity is a PULLING force.

I'll go even one step further to say this:

Gravity is nothing more than the spin of quarks attracting other spinning quarks just as magnetism is the spin of electrons causing the attraction of other electrons "locked on orbitals".

Want more about gravity?

Click this link http://www.rbduncan.com/page4.html and scroll about half way down.


Cheers

Fitz

[Rybo]

Originally Posted by d p fitzpatrick

I'm going to agree with my old friend RYBO on this one.
Gravity is a PULLING force.
I'll go even one step further to say this:
Gravity is nothing more than the spin of quarks attracting other spinning quarks just as magnetism is the spin of electrons causing the attraction of other electrons "locked on orbitals".

Good to hear Fitz, it appears this way fromyour viewpoint;
1) spinnng motion of electron(s) creates magnistism( attractive force )

2) spinning motion of quark(s) creates gravity( mass-attrctive force )

3) spinning motion of gluons( quark attractive force )?

What about other spinning particles, do they also creat attractive forces?

Rybo

[battybat]

I think the problem with ether-compression explanations of gravity is the nature of gravity itself. As Einstein pointed out in his Relativity Theories, there are two types of motion under which a body can move in a straight line (for the sake of simplicity, we'll ignore rotational motion) - accelerated and non-accelerated motion. Under the later, the body is moving with constant velocity in an inertia frame of reference and if you were moving with it, you couldn't detect this motion, except in relation to another inertia frame. This is the basis of the Special Theory. On the other hand, if you were in an accelerating system you would feel the G-forces and know you were accelerating, without needing to measure your motion relative to another frame of reference.
On the face of it you would think that a body falling under the influence of gravity would be in an accelerating frame and if ether-compression theories were correct this would be true. But this is an illusion! Imagine you're in a lift (or elevator) cut from its suspension cable and falling down a vertical shaft. You would be in free-fall and the experience would be exactly the same as travelling in a spaceship outside of a gravitation field and at constant velocity i.e. in an inertia frame of reference. In both instances you would experience zero gravity and no acceleration. So, neither pushing or pulling theories of gravity can explain the phenomenon of free-falling as, otherwise, in both cases you would experience a force and its resultant acceleration.
Einstein also realised that if you were standing in a lift suspended above the earth's surface (assuming you survived the last elevating experience), you would feel the same G-forces as being in a spaceship whose rocket motors were accelerating you headfirst at ten metres per second squared. This led to his Principle of Equivalence and eventually to General Relativity, where he managed to incorporate gravity and accelerating systems into his theory. His solution for doing this was ingenious but somewhat contrived. He took Minkowski's four-dimensional space-time continuum and had matter/mass warp or curve this space so that bodies naturally came together - brilliant but very difficult to visualise!
I think there's a much simpler and more easily visualised explanation for the 'equivalence' between the experiences of being in a stationary (with respect to the earth) lift and being in an accelerating spaceship. Why not have the surface of the earth accelerating upwards like the floor of the spacecraft. This, of course, is an expanding-matter theory of gravity and I've been trying to promote mine on the 'Your TOE Theory' forum under the name 'Steadybang'. It does have its flaws (which I'm sure you'll all be quick enough to point out), but it does have the advantage of a vorticular model of matter which can explain all four fundamental forces kinetically. For more imformation go to the website at www.steadybang.com.

By way of a little levity, as we've been discussing Relativity, here's a limerick extracted from an article in the New Scientist March 1979 celebrating the centenary of Einstein's birth.

There was a young lady named Bright,
Who travelled much faster than light.
She left home one day,
In a relative way,
And came home the previous night.

Battybat

[wisp]

Battybat

The concept of the equivalence principle is both simple and ingenious, and it is the building block for general relativity (GR). What makes GR complex is Einstein's space-time concept. If GR were explained in terms of ether, I'm sure it would be easier to understand. Who can honestly say that they can visualise what 4-D space-time looks like!

Ether gravity would accelerate all fundamental particles equally and so you would not feel the effects of acceleration if you were in free fall.

I'll check out your expanding matter theory.

[battybat]

I think what you are saying, Wisp, is that someone stood on the Earth is in an inertia frame of reference and someone in freefall is in an accelerating frame due to the force of the ether-pressure. It's possible of course, but this is the exact opposite to what Einstein believed, when he created the Equivalence Principle. I'm sure there must be a way of telling whether you're accelerating, independant of the movement of the bodies around you and if he was around maybe he could tell us.
You say that all the atoms in your body would accelerate at the same rate, but surely the ones closest to the ether force would shield the ones on the other side of you so that they accelerated less, thus creating a compression of your body that you could detect.
I must admit I don't have a good understanding of your ether. Maybe you could explain what it consists of and the mechanism by which it accelerates bodies of matter. In particular, does it have mass and are Newtonian principles still applying or is it working in some mysterious way?

Battybat.

[wisp]

Originally Posted by battybat

I think what you are saying, Wisp, is that someone stood on the Earth is in an inertia frame of reference and someone in freefall is in an accelerating frame due to the force of the ether-pressure. It's possible of course, but this is the exact opposite to what Einstein believed, when he created the Equivalence Principle. I'm sure there must be a way of telling whether you're accelerating, independant of the movement of the bodies around you and if he was around maybe he could tell us.
You say that all the atoms in your body would accelerate at the same rate, but surely the ones closest to the ether force would shield the ones on the other side of you so that they accelerated less, thus creating a compression of your body that you could detect.
I must admit I don't have a good understanding of your ether. Maybe you could explain what it consists of and the mechanism by which it accelerates bodies of matter. In particular, does it have mass and are Newtonian principles still applying or is it working in some mysterious way?

Battybat.

Einstein's equivalence principle first suggested that a light beam bends in an accelerating frame and gravity bends it he same way. However, he later worked out that light bends twice as much in a gravity field compared to an accelerating frame. So whereas matter follows the equivalent principle, light bends twice as much in a gravity field.

The ether-pressure passes through every part of matter, except the tiny holes at the centres of the fundamental particles. These holes are many millions of times smaller than the nucleus of atoms and so the shadows they create have no affect on neighbouring atoms.

The ether obeys Newton's laws. It is Newton's third law which results in gravity (ether-pressure) adopting an inverse-square law. The gravity force on a small area of a body is equal and opposite to the force that area projected millions of km's into space. So no matter how complex the processes that creates the ether pressure, the overall pressure force always adopts the simpler inverse-square law form.

Also near large bodies the ether is rarer, because of curvature, and the forces between the ether (wisps) are weakened. And since these forces affect the atoms in atomic clock, the clocks run slower. In deep space away from gravity, the ether is denser, the forces are stronger, and clocks run faster.