[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by 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.

Steven;
It would appear that you had a teacher who is an ignorant moron.
If you do your research, you will find that the concept of the ether was NOT disproved, only determined to be unnecessary due to the fact that the mathematical terms and methods were scaled and manipulated to account for its effects. Relativity is a primary example of this type of scaling and manipulation of a gauge theory.

It would appear that it is you who is in need of an education.
Using the term "Schmucks" to those you do not know also show the level of your upbringing. Do us Schmucks a favor and leave TOEquest. You have nothing to offer.

[Brian Jakub]

Dave,

I always saw the picture, I just didn't have the proper physics terms to describe it. I thank you for that and will reference you if I publish.

What if the process of condensing the ethereal matter into atoms causes gravity, instead of the other way around.

Quote:
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.

What if the unstructured matter of the ether is really structured. It could be made up of made up of particles that are interlocked and spinning and in the vacuum of space they settle into near perfect order, or high spatial density. This could be caused by an aligning of the axes of the spinning particles that make up the ether.

What if the ether is a volume of high spatial density, and the inside of the atom is a volume of high spatial density because the motion of the particles that make up both spaces aren't randomn. Could the motion of the entire space of an atom as a whole, relative to the space of the ether be the only thing that is randomn? As the randomn motion of atoms combine to build large pieces of matter they create an area of low spatial density, like a planet. So we end up with an volume of low spatial density, ( the planet) made up of volumes of high spatial density, ( the atoms) imbedded in a volume of high spatial density(the ether). So, the volume of high spatial density of the ether would try to equalize with the volume of low spatial density, of the planet. This equalizing would be the gravitational force, just like in weather when the air of a high pressure area rushes into the area of a low pressure system.

Brian

[Brian Jakub]

Originally Posted by Scoopcone 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.

Since you have admitted yourself that you can't be certian of your facts, because they are just statistical, why are you calling us schmucks? The very notion that the ether doesn't exist might be a figment of your own imagination, as could be my notion that it does exist, be a figment of mine. I would hope that you called us that name in humor to lighten up an otherwise deep discussion (deep, for my small mind anyway). I would gladly read what you suggested and discuss it with you, if not for our own enlightenment, but for the enlightenment of anyone else in the world whose reasoning might be similar to ours.

If you weren't trying to be humorous, but instead insult me, good bye.

Brian

[dleviwing]

Hi Brian;
I tend to define Ether as the matter of space that has almost total randomized motion; however the subatomic particles also have a quantity of randomized matter within their interior. We can look at this as a wave function that is limited due to being confined to a small volume by its uniform motion.

The wave function wavelength cannot exceed the diameter of the unit. In the case of the universe, this maximum wavelength is quite huge. In the case of a subatomic particle the maximum wavelength is extremely small. Large wavelength range translates to low spatial density whereas short wavelength range translates to high spatial density. In short, the internal randomized matter of particles can be considered as "High spatial density Ether".

Unstructured matter dose not mean that the matter (Ether) cannot have uniform motion. Waves produce momentary uniform motion that result in higher spatial density. That's what an EM wave is. Ether can also have a continuous flow without forming particle structures that will also cause increase spatial density. We tend to call this "Gravity", "Strong Force", and "Weak Force".

I'm sure if you follow your instincts, you will come to the same conclusions I have.

As far as Quantum, and Relativity gauge theories are concerned, we must realize that we are discussing a perceptual paradigm and not the science of measurement. The perceptual paradigm will enable us to provide a rational interpretation of what our measurements and mathematics are telling us.

I don't think what's-his-name was joking!!! You find his type on many "News Groups".

Best regard;
Dave

[Brian Jakub]

Dave,

Originally Posted by dleviwing I tend to define Ether as the matter of space that has almost total randomized motion;

I tend to look at the ether as the matter of space that is almost totally ordered. I view atoms as seperate spatial dimensions, with order inside them, imbedded in the the spatial dimension of the ether. (hyperdimensions) The order in the ether is hard to detect because we, and the sensors we biuld, are made up of atoms that are combined into matter with less order than the order in the ether, or inside individual atoms. This order can be inferred as gravity trying to even out the volumes of lower spatial density created by two large masses. It can also be inferred by the double slot experiment. The mixing of the axes of individual atoms disturbs the order in the axes of the particles that make up the ether between to electron gun and the sensor.

however the subatomic particles also have a quantity of randomized matter within their interior.

Yes they do have a "quantity of randomized motion", and that quantity can be changed by adding energy to an atom. Stephen Hawking states in "A Brief History of Time":

The weak nuclear force was not well understood until 1967, when Abdus Salam at Imperial College, London, and Steven Weinberg at Harvard both proposed theories that unified this interaction with the electromagnetic force, just as Maxwell had unified electricity and magnetism about a hundred years earlier. They suggested that in addition to the photon, there were three other spin-1 particles, known collectively as massive vector bosons, that carried the weak force. These were called W+ (pronounced W plus), W- (pronounced W minus), and Zº (pronounced Z naught), and each had a mass of around 100 GeV (GeV stands for gigaelectron-volt, or one thousand million electron volts). The Weinberg-Salam theory exhibits a property known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. This means that what appear to be a number of completely different particles at low energies are in fact found to be all the same type of particle, only in different states. At high energies all these particles behave similarly. The effect is rather like the behavior of a roulette ball on a roulette wheel. At high energies (when the wheel is spun quickly) the ball behaves in essentially only one way – it rolls round and round. But as the wheel slows, the energy of the ball decreases, and eventually the ball drops into one of the thirty-seven slots in the wheel. In other words, at low energies there are thirty-seven different states in which the ball can exist. If, for some reason, we could only observe the ball at low energies, we would then think that there were thirty-seven different types of ball!

In the Weinberg-Salam theory, at energies much greater than 100 GeV, the three new particles and the photon would all behave in a similar manner. But at the lower particle energies that occur in most normal situations, this symmetry between the particles would be broken.

The more energy we have in an atom the more symmetry there is, and to me symmetry is order.

We can look at this as a wave function that is limited due to being confined to a small volume by its uniform motion.

By adding energy we confined the volume because, the quarks in an atom want to pulsate around each other on axes that are in 90-degree relationships. By adding energy angular momentum re-establishes this relationship like adding energy to a gyroscope stabilizes its movement about its axes. I think the inside of an atom looks like a bunch of interlocked gyroscopes.

The wave function wavelength cannot exceed the diameter of the unit. In the case of the universe, this maximum wavelength is quite huge. In the case of a subatomic particle the maximum wavelength is extremely small. Large wavelength range translates to low spatial density whereas short wavelength range translates to high spatial density. In short, the internal randomized matter of particles can be considered as "High spatial density Ether".

These gyroscopes occupy a certian geometric shape and the diameter of each is a fixed unit. When energy is added to the gyroscopes (short wavelength translates into higher energy, or faster spinning gyroscope) they line up in a 90-degree relationship with the ones next to them, and interlock because of their fixed geometric shape.

My instincts told me something different, but I just couldn't find the words to describe what I was seeing. You gave me some of the terms and concepts I needed to come up with that description. I'll type it up with some diagrams and references and show it to you when I get done.

Thanks,
Brian

[dleviwing]

Brian;
I fear you are making your model far more complex than it needs to be. There are many proposed hypothesis for the solutions of physical structure and interaction. Particle physicist make many unproven (as yet) claims of which the "W" and "Z" bosons are just a few. Symmetry only applies in very limited dimensions of structure. Chaos rains predominant in our universe.

The bosons are not real particles; they are energy quanta like the photon and observed during collider experiments.

I think you may be taking the terminology much too literally. Unfortunately this is a serious problem to those attempting to learn physics from books and web sites. I have always been annoyed by those who portray bosons as particles.

I'm not sure if I can be of any further help to you on the approach you are using, but I would be pleased to review your diagrams and references if you like. Just send them to me by Email.

Best regards;
Dave

[Brian Jakub]

Dave,

What is the difference between the energy stored in a real particle, or the energy in a imaginary one. Maybe the real particle we observe is made up of two, we just call it one. Maybe each quark in a proton has a corresponding vector boson that looks just like that quark to build symmetry in matter, we just imagine them as different. After all, we are only imagining what the inside of an atom looks like, as we destroy an atom in a particle accelerator, and then organize the data in a matrix to try and develope a picture. The problem is, we have a preconceived notion of what parameters we must use when organizing the data, or we think that picture must look a certian way before we start drawing it in our minds. With all humility, I think the preconceived notion in mainstream physics is wrong.

I am not trying to take the terminology literally,(sometimes the terminology doesn't even exist) I'm trying to take the data and observations literally and draw the picture it is telling me to draw.

Chaos reigns in the area we do our sensing, namely the area where matter or atoms come in contact with the ether, and the area where atoms contact other atoms, not the entire universe. The ether has order in the vacuum of space.

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.

If gravity is not the result of a volume of low spatial density (namely,matter as the spatial density is lowered by the relative motion of atoms to each other, not the motion of the quarks inside individual atoms, which are not as random) relative to a volume of high spatial density (ether where the virtual quarks that make it up are not moving randomly except where they contact matter), then what is it? These changes in density would cause an energy flow, and create a gravitational field.

Here is the big question. Could it be that chaos reigns only in the area where the space-continuum is warped by matter to cause gravity, and everywhere else the space-time continuum has order, or high spatial density. If that is true, how could we sense it. Every sensor we construct of matter would cause an area of low spatial density around it, even in the vacuum of space. What if I'm right and we can't prove it, because by definition we create areas of low spatial density in the ether just by our very existence. It seems to me everywhere I turn, order or disorder, I am asked to take huge leaps of faith. I challenge you to leap into order to describe what you see, rather than how we got here. As you get to the level of order that you will observe and need to explain gravity and the weak electro forces, the how that order came about will become unexplainable and frustrating. I know it has for me, so then I had to turn somewhere else besides science to answer that frustration.

I have truly enjoyed this dialogue, and appreciate your patience with my learning curve. You have helped me immensely, but the initial picture I had hasn't changed, and I'm sure it works. I will now try to clarify it and send it to you. I look forward to further correspondence.

Brian

[dleviwing]

Brian;
I have also enjoyed our talks and looking forward to reading your paper.
Thanks;
Dave

[PoPpAScience]

Hi dleviwing,

I just wanted to reply to this beautiful interaction between Brian Jakub and yourself. I feel this is a must read for anyone who has questions about the inner workings of our Universe. I wish I had the time right now to give my opinions on what I read here, they are many. I hope to in the future. Right now I just want to stop this thread from falling of the page. I would say hi to Brian also but it seems he has left us a while ago. Thanks again for the great reading.

[dleviwing]

Hi Allen;
Brian never sent me his paper so I guess he is still doing a rewrite.
I would be pleased to continue this thread with you and look forward to your ideas on the subject.