ToeQuest

We're going on a TOE Quest!


Register

Reply

Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,036
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
07-05-2005, 08:45 PM
volantis,

what's your explanation for Newton's bucket experiment?

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...on_bucket.html
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is offlineReport Post
Blue Belt

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 97
13 volantis is on a distinguished road
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
07-05-2005, 10:59 PM
Fixed Space-time

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
volantis, what's your explanation for Newton's bucket experiment?
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~...on_bucket.html
As you know, my theory is called the Aether Physics Model. This is because I precisely quantify space-time, which at the quantum level is really space-resonance. I also show that each quantum particle is encapsulated by one quantum of space-time. Thus, when an electron moves, the electron is not moving relative to it's own space-time, but the space-time that encapsulates it is moving relative to every other quantum unit of space-time.

Subatomic particles can bind, and when they do, the space-time they are encapsulated by also bind. Actually, the quantum units of Aether fold over onto each other, such that space-time condenses as matter condenses.

Since gravity holds our atmosphere to the Earth, the whole Earth is basically a bound ball of space-time, moving through the solar system, which is another bound unit of space-time, which is moving through the galaxy, which is yet another grouping of space-time. When the Earth moves through the solar system, the denser Earth stirs the thinner Aether associated with the solar system. It's like moving your finger through a bucket of water.

As stated on the page, this effect is called frame dragging in the Standard Model. It is interesting that Michelson and Morley proved that there was an Aether drift, which is the same thing as frame dragging, and they were ridiculed. The only difference between Michelson-Morley and Brill-Cohen is that MM called it Aether and BC called it frame dragging. I've looked out the back side of the Earth while it moved around the Sun and I have never seen any frames. I don't recall anybody ever quantifying a frame such that it would have the property of being able to be dragged (other than picture frames, maybe).

Michelson-Morley was followed by Morley-Miller, and eventually Dayton Miller went on to do more experiments. There were well over 100,000 replications of the experiments over 20 years. The results consistently showed that there was an Aether drift of ten thousand kilometers per second. The only problem was that people thought the Aether drift would be much faster. It was said that the Aether drift experiments could be explained if the Aether dragged with the Earth, but Einstein wouldn't have any part of it because it would spell the end of his Special Relativity Theory. But along comes two fellows who change the name from Aether to frame dragging and everybody is happy. Einstein's theory is still safe because there is no Aether, and the frame dragging evidence can be recognized.

Back to the bucket. Mach is partially right, the water is spinning relative to the Earth. But Newton is also right, because the Earth is rotating relative to a greater space-time reference. Space-time is absolute at the local level and relative at the macro level. This is because subatomic particles are encapsulated by space-time. When subatomic particles form atoms, the atoms are a tight system of absolute space-time. When the atoms bind to produce molecules, the molecules can shift around somewhat and so while its still produces a fairly good absolute space-time reference for the subatomic particles involved, it is less absolute than the constituent atoms.

Similarly, as molecules produce cells or crystals, there is still a fairly good absolute space-time reference, but it is much less absolute than the molecular stage. The cells might produce organs and the organs might produce humans. The cells of my body are more or less absolutely placed, however, there is a fairly good degree of movement such that the cells in my fingers are always changing reference to the cells in my toes.

The same goes for other objects, like oceans. On a large scale, the ocean is a fairly rigid body of water, but the water molecules have a great degree of freedom within the ocean compared to the molecules in my body. The atmosphere, even more so. So absolute space-time exists at the quantum level, but it disolves to relative space-time as we become focused on the macro structures that arise from the subatomic particles binding together.

The Earth is fairly dense compared to outer space. So a bucket of water could reference the Aether associated with the Earth as its absolute space-time to a small degree. But at most, the Aether associated with the Earth can be only twice as dense as the Aether of outer space, which is hardly even noticeable. The Earth is not completely dense, like a neutron star, so there is Aether flowing through the Earth that is associated with the solar system, the galaxy, and the Universe. For the most part, the Universe does have an absolute space-time reference, and that is what most objects spin relative to.

The Earth is an example. Just as Newton's bucket cause water to bulge up the side of the bucket, the rotating Earth causes water to bulge at the equator. The rotating Earth also cause a Foucault pendulum to change direction throughout the day.

All the nonsense about Einstein's theory only applying to linear velocities and not rotational velocities is laughable. I get a big chuckle out of it every time I think about it. Einstein really believed he could design physics the way he wanted to, independent of the way the Universe worked. And Berkeley, when he said that the bucket was rotating relative to the stars... The stars are too far away to have a noticeable gravitational effect on planes flying through the atmosphere, but they can lift water up the side of a bucket when it rotates? And the stars are so uniformly distributed throughout space that they apply equal effect in all directions? Most non-scientists know the Earth is on the outer edge of the galaxy and that the Sun and Moon have a huge gravitational influence on the Earth. Why can't we see variations in the behavior of rotating water with respect to a New Moon and a Full Moon?

The short of it is that space-time is more involved than being a uniform fabric. It is composed of quantum units of Aether, which behaves simultaneously like a perfect solid, fluid, and gas. This Aether also encapsulates matter, and the matter causes motion of the Aether through the actions of the forces.
Reply With Quote
volantis is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,036
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
07-06-2005, 09:12 PM
volantis,

In a nutshell, is there a way of mathematically describe the structure of your infinitesimal space-time Aether's capsule? Can there be two distinct structures? Similarly to the positive and negative polarities of electricity and magnetism?
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is offlineReport Post
Blue Belt

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 97
13 volantis is on a distinguished road
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
07-06-2005, 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
In a nutshell, is there a way of mathematically describe the structure of your infinitesimal space-time Aether's capsule? Can there be two distinct structures? Similarly to the positive and negative polarities of electricity and magnetism?
Yes, that's the main selling point of the Aether Physics Model, it is completely quantified. The quantum Aether unit has three polarities, or dipoles, not just one or two. There is a polarity for electrostatic charge, electromagnetic charge, and mass.

The mass dipole is due to the spin direction of the angular momentum. The proton and electron both spin the same direction and so are gravitationally attractive. The positron and antiproton are gravitationally attractive because they both spin in the opposite direction. But because matter and antimatter spin in opposite directions, they are gravitationally repulsive.
Reply With Quote
volantis is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,036
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
07-08-2005, 05:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
But because matter and antimatter spin in opposite directions, they are gravitationally repulsive.
Are you familiar with the research of Terry Goldman, Richard J. Hughes and Michael Martin Nieto? The following weblink gives some ideas about their works

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9412/9412012.pdf

another one at

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9706/9706004.pdf
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is offlineReport Post
Blue Belt

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 97
13 volantis is on a distinguished road
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
07-08-2005, 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
Are you familiar with the research of Terry Goldman, Richard J. Hughes and Michael Martin Nieto? The following weblink gives some ideas about their works

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9412/9412012.pdf

another one at

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9706/9706004.pdf
I haven't read these papers before. But after reading them, they sound like any other paper or publication I have read on the Standard Model and Relativity theories.

What specifically is their unique contribution to scientific knowledge?
Reply With Quote
volantis is offlineReport Post
Raider of the lost time

AntonioLao's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,036
Blog Entries: 6
86 AntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to beholdAntonioLao is a splendid one to behold
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
07-09-2005, 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by volantis
What specifically is their unique contribution to scientific knowledge?
They were trying to do an experiment, using the antiprotons, to show effects of antigravity.
Reply With Quote
AntonioLao is offlineReport Post
I'm thinking thus I exist

David Maes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 488
17 David Maes has disabled reputation
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
03-08-2006, 05:43 PM
Nature sometimes seem to behave mathematically. I don't know if it's true, but somewhere I heared some kind of group of animals would use kind of a prime number, which would mean that mathematics could be a part of nature.

On the other hand we have Gödels incompleteness theorem; if you want to prove all basic propositions of mathematics in a mathematical way, then you get impossible solutions.

But if it would be true... Nature kind of 'uses' mathematics, but on the other hand we somehow cannot prove the basic propositions.

What does it mean??

Also mathematicians sometimes use software to prove their maths. The only problem is that some proofs are getting so complex that they just cannot get proven anymore. I mean the computer program proved it, but if some experts want to check out the prove, sometimes (even after years) they just cannot prove it because of the complexity of it.

It may have an advantage also, making it more natural; if mathematician experts have intuitions, they might be more motivated to show their logics without computer proof.
Reply With Quote
David Maes is offlineReport Post
6th degree Black Belt

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 844
Blog Entries: 3
19 harmonygirl will become famous soon enough
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
03-08-2006, 08:56 PM
Cool Mandelbrot enters the room...

I think this is where Mandelbrot fits in. Instead of thinking about equalling which, as someone else pointed out in another thread, doesn't happen in nature (everything is unique), it is about becoming... (which is what I think nature is all about).
__________________
The first is only interesting if it is the beginning of something. The first is not interesting if it is the only - Djanet Sears
Reply With Quote
harmonygirl is offlineReport Post
Green Belt

hanzoganz's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 68
14 hanzoganz is on a distinguished road
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Spurl this Post!Reddit!
Quote  
03-08-2006, 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
math is not a science. This means it cannot prove or disprove the existence of any real thing. So, it cannot be used to prove, for examples, the existence of God, mermaid, or unicorn.

mathematical ideas are simply the products of human imaginations abstracted by the use of number systems for describing idealized observations about the external physical world and establishing a logical connection between the internal virtual mind and real brain, or imaginary force and real energy, or real space and imaginary time. So, it is as fallable as that human mind is capable of being deceived by optical illusions deluding it to believe in a reality which can never of becoming actualized.
But we, mathematician, have never tryied to prove the existence of unicorns.
If something can be proved in the abstract, should make sense in the real.
Reply With Quote
hanzoganz is offlineReport Post
Reply

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
who is who in math? AntonioLao Philosophy of Math 46 05-01-2008 08:25 PM
God Guille Intelligent Design 192 12-01-2007 02:57 PM
Who is to deal with phillosophy of math? hanzoganz Philosophy of Math 4 05-08-2006 10:15 PM
Antichrist & Misunderstanding davidgow77 Ethics 9 07-29-2005 05:03 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:30 PM. Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 VBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys.