[dleviwing]

Mr nobody;
Goedel's theorems are great material for mathematical debate, however he is quite full of it and quite wrong. Of course this is only an opinion.
Dave

[Brian Jakub]

Dave,

You said:
Why do you keep insisting that Ether is made up of some form of particulate structure? Ether matter only changes in spatial density as EM waves. Under the proper conditions a quantity of Ether can be converted to an autonomous unit that can go on to form subatomic particles.

Because there is order to the Ether. The Ether is made up of individual pieces of space spinning in reference to each other, the same way ions of opposite charge are spinning in opposite directions to each other, or electrons and positrons, quarks and antiquarks. Maybe I should call them pieces of space to be more precise. I'm trying to put a real picture to the hyper-dimensional physics it is going to take to come up with a ToE. Are these spaces really spinning, I don't know any more than I can tell if opposite charged ions are actually spinning, but how else do we picture this. Should we forget the picture and just talk definitions and mathematical equations. Mathematical equations mean much more to me when they draw a picture of something happening in x-dimensional space, and my brain works best in three-d.

I know the Ether is made up like this because, there must be some kind of order to the ether for the single electrons to travel through in the two slot experiment to from the wave patterns it does. The single electrons leave the gun in slightly randomn vectors but once they enter the ether they are channeled into some predetermined paths. These paths are defined by the matrix built by the lines defining the individual pieces of space. These pieces of space must be spinning, because if they weren't they couldn't be differentiated as individual pieces of space, they all morf into one piece. We know there is order to them because their is a certian pattern to the paths the electrons follow, partly dependent on the randomness of how they leave the gun, but also because the matrix isn't solid, it is made up of interlocked pieces of space I would like to call a virtual particle. This matrix can be disturbed in such a way by sensors and other disturbances that can make it appear that the paths are completely randomn. This matrix can be disturbed and bent which appears as a warping of the space time continuum where it comes in contact with matter giving us gravity.

Charges can also be sent through the particles making up the ether to give us electromagnetic fields. For this to happen these particles must be able to be charged positive on one side and negative on the other. This would suggest the virtual particles are made up of smaller particles, or pieces of space. I would suggest that these are the same particles we call quarks when they are in matter. Could quarks just be the smallest piece of space you can put into order to make the ether and matter.

Dave, you also said:
In one sentence you say matter is an entity that can be measured and then the very next sentence you state you can measure its mass. Mass is not a measure of the quantity of matter, it is the measurement of its resistance to change in motion (inertia)

Encyclopedia says:
Mass in physics, is the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume
or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight,
which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a
body.



I agree with you though, because a proton, electron and neutron all have mass and they are not matter just the building blocks of matter. The total inertia these particles carry when they come out of matter, and are absorbed by the ether, or a sensor, when an atom is destroyed. By some happy coincidence, these protons electrons and neutrons are always spinning and orbiting inside the atom in basically the same pattern and are always carrying the same inertia, so the equation E=mcc can define this inertia, if the mass is defined by how many electrons, protons and neutrons a certian piece of matter is made up of. I would think this pattern of suggests the particles inside the atom are in a certian order, and make up a matrix just like the particles of ether. The difference is the matrix of matter is spinning the speed of light in relation to the matrix of ether. As the matrix of matter comes in contact with the matrix of ether it warps it giving us gravity.

I know I am interchanging types of energy, but this is a picture I am drawing to give us something to look at. Einstien used people on trains and in elevators in the vacuum of space, to come up with relativity. I am just trying to imagine qm this in a way that gives us a picture without deviating from actual measured observations if at all possible. Let's draw a picture and then keep redrawing it until it's right. A picture in the mind is easy to change to match observed data if you're at least close. It's is the shape of the virtual particle of ether, that defines the matrix, that gives us the order to explain the double slot experiment, Planck's constant, and others.

Brian

[Scoopcone]

I know I am interchanging types of energy, but this is a picture I am drawing to give us something to look at. Einstien used people on trains and in elevators in the vacuum of space, to come up with relativity. I am just trying to imagine qm this in a way that gives us a picture without deviating from actual measured observations if at all possible. Let's draw a picture and then keep redrawing it until it's right. A picture in the mind is easy to change to match observed data if you're at least close. It's is the shape of the virtual particle of ether, that defines the matrix, that gives us the order to explain the double slot experiment, Planck's constant, and others.
The explanations we miss with Quantum Physics is that since "uncertainty" is the rule and exact observation is all but impossible, all deduced facts are "statistical" (probability), not actually observed but deduced by the Mind of the observer.

[Scoopcone]

Please note above that the first paragraph is a quote from the previous poster.

[Brian Jakub]

Scoopcone,

I guess that's what seperates us from the supercomputers, animals, and the rest of matter.

But, if we happen to guess how the matrix and virtual particles of ether and particles of matter are put together using statistical anlysis, can't we predict uncertianty so accurately that it almost disappears except for the decisions of each individual mind.

Brian

[dleviwing]

Brian;
I might suggest that you invest in some physics text books. Your encyclopedia is not very accurate.

What causes mass? Mass is a property of physical objects that, roughly speaking, measures the amount of matter they contain. It is a central concept of classical mechanics and related subjects.

Strictly speaking, there are two different quantities called mass:
Inertial mass is a measure of an object's inertia or its resistance to changing its state of motion when a force is applied. An object with small inertial mass changes its motion more readily, and an object with large inertial mass does so less readily.

Gravitational mass is a measure of the strength of an object's interaction with the gravitational field. Within the same gravitational field, an object with a smaller gravitational mass experiences a smaller force than an object with a larger gravitational mass. (This quantity is sometimes confused with weight, which is the force experienced by a mass. An object will have a larger weight if it is placed in a stronger gravitational field, but its mass remains unchanged.)

Although inertial and gravitational mass are conceptually distinct, no experiment performed to date has ever managed to find a difference between the two.

Now that we have stated the text book concept, let's look at mass in terms of the absolutes. As an object is accelerated, its mass value increases. This is referred to as Relativistic mass. If mass were truly representative of a quantity of matter, this value would remain constant regardless of motion. What we observe with acceleration of an object is the conversion of the random motion of an object to the uniform motion of a linear accelerated velocity. As we stated earlier, uniform motion allows the Self-affinity bonding property to increase and thus it causes the substance of the object to condense to form an object with greater spatial density and quite likely smaller spatial dimensions. Thus this dose not increase the quantity of matter, only the quantity of uniform motion and results in less random motion. This can also be viewed as causing the random motion wavelengths to reduce and to be confined within a smaller spatial volume.

[dleviwing]

Scoopcone;

The photon is one of the most misunderstood concepts in scientific literature. We are often lead to believe this is a particle of radiant energy and given the illusion of it traveling through space. Though this visualization is convenient when explaining various phenomena involving light, it leads to unnecessary confusion. What we refer to as a photon, is the observed measured quantity of energy that is emitted or absorbed by structured matter. Planck showed that this quantity occurs in discrete increments relative to frequency of the radiation.(The basis of QM) In a sense, the photon represent the quantity of matter that defines a quantum unity particle but dose not acquire the angular uniform motion needed to become autonomous. The photon is part of an ether transverse matter wave.

When it is said that energy is absorbed or emitted, we sometimes view this as an interaction that denotes the exchange of matter or the exchange of an entity of energy. The reality is that there is not an exchange of anything. This concept of exchange comes from the notion that the term "mass" is referring to a quantity of matter and that mass and energy are equivalent. These two terms are equivalent only due to the fact that they are two terms that define the same phenomena - the measure of the motion state of matter (mass) and the measure of the change in the motion state of matter (energy). The interactions we call absorption and emission are changes in the distribution of the absolute motion of the autonomous particle matter. If the motion is randomized the particle will expand (decreased self-affinity) and oscillate its diameter. If the interaction results in converting the randomized motion of the particle to uniform motion, the particle will attempt to collapse (increased self-affinity) its matter; again resulting in an oscillation of its diameter. Thus, no exchange of any entity, no matter and no energy. Energy however, remains a mathematical term needed to define this change in the distribution of absolute motion. However a more vivid understanding of the physical interaction taking place will allow us to comprehend and interpret these mathematical and measured terms.

I hope this helps you draw you picture.

[Brian Jakub]

Dave,

Thank you so much for your precise explanations. Now, by using your definitions, I would like to see if I can conceptualize a little without making a fool of myself.

Originally Posted by dleviwing Thus this does not increase the quantity of matter, only the quantity of uniform motion and results in less random motion. This can also be viewed as causing the random motion wavelengths to reduce and to be confined within a smaller spatial volume.

The quantity of uniform motion of all hydrogen atoms of the same temperature and at rest is always the same as stated by the special theory of relativity. This theory suggests that all atoms in this special condition of identical relative speed, and identical temperature, have the same mass. I think this is telling us that the mass is defined by the uniform motion of the particles making up the atom. Is it possible these particles are just pieces of space spinning and orbiting each other in a certian way. So mass could be defined as a way to compare the amount of uniform motion in one space compared to the amount of uniform motion in another space. So all stationary hydrogen atoms of the same temperature have the same amount of uniform motion among the individual particles or, individual pieces of space, that make up these atoms. The reason for this is, all the particles that make up these atoms are following the same pattern in their movement, and are confined in a volume that is defined by the same geometric shape for all hydrogen atoms that stationary relative to the ether, and are of the same temperature.

General Relativity tells us what happens if the spaces are being accelerated with respect to each other, for instance the ether remaining stationary and a group of atoms, or matter, are being acclerated through the ether.

What we observe with acceleration of an object is the conversion of the random motion of an object to the uniform motion of a linear accelerated velocity. As we stated earlier, uniform motion allows the Self-affinity bonding property to increase and thus it causes the substance of the object to condense to form an object with greater spatial density and quite likely smaller spatial dimensions.

This straight line acceleration warps the space time continuum as it has to adjust for the change in relation between the space of the atom and the ether. This would appear as a compression wave in the ether in front of the atom, or an area of greater spatial density in the ether just ahead of the atom. It also appears as an area of lower spatial density in the ether behind the matter being accelerated. This area of lower spatial density would draw in any matter from the surrounding area, which is what we call gravity.

What Einstien couldn't explain is why is there a large area of lower spatial density, which appears as a warp in the space-time continuum in the area around a large piece of matter such as a planet or star This can even be observed as it bends the path of light from a star around our sun during a solar eclipse. Why is the ether even able to develope areas of lower spatial density? What is it made up of to give it this property? And what is the relationship between large pieces of matter and the ether that allows these large areas of lower spatial density to surround a planet even if it is relativity stationery in the ether? Could it be that the ether is made up of pieces of space, or virtual particles, that are a specific geometric shape, that fit together with a higher density in a space with no matter around to disturb their alignment, but as the ether comes into contact with matter, the matter disturbs this alignment of the virtual particles in the ether, and thus lowers the spatial density in the ether surrounding that matter and causes gravity? And this lower spatial density, or disorder in the ether is at its highest at the surface of a planet, or star.

Dave, I hope I didn't take too many liberties in trying to fit your definitions into my concept.

Brian

[dleviwing]

Hi Brian;
I am impressed that you are beginning to see the picture. Though space (Ether) and particulate matter are both the same substance, I prefer to use the term structured matter and unstructured matter. Calling structured matter pieces of space is OK but may be confusing.

A rule of thumb when referring to spatial density is to think of low special density as a greater randomization of the ether (expansion) and higher spatial density as condensing the ether due to uniform motion. (linear wave) Low spatial density is not the cause of gravity.

Gravity like strong force and weak force, is a process that is condensing the Ether and thus the uniform motion of the particulate matter is inducing uniform motion on the environmental Ether matter around it.

In Relativity the warping of space is the condensing of the ethereal matter. Object with greater linear velocity will have greater density to their atomic structure and thus when referencing these objects, Relativity uses time dilation to correct for the difference rather than realizing it is a true physical change.

I don't mind you taking liberties, just be sure to reference me in your acknowledgments if you publish.

Dave

[Scoopcone]

Schmucks,

The idea of the (an) ether was disproved over a century ago.

There is no need for an ether in a "Post-Einsteinian" (see "Simply, Everything") or even simply, an Einsteinan Universe.

The engine of the Universe is "Invariance". Einstein actually got that right!

One day I'll explain it all to you.