Einstein accepted Ether (at least around the time upon his GR)

[MJA]

I have my own model of ether. Anyhow, I am satisfied with Ether as an umbrella model as long as any continua in-between matter-energy contribute to the inclusion of physical reality in a theory.

Vacuum concept is oversimplified. In contrast, any non-vacuum are ether-like.
And all ATM (Against The Mainstream) concepts are helpful to explore the physical reality of the universe rather than just mathematical simplification.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

An umbrella's Energy Matter or EM seperates the rain's EM from my' EM.
With out it I would be all wet' EM.

A vacuum cleans the carpet, and a non- vacuum doesn't work as well.

And obviously an ATM is a money machine.

Physics oversimplified!

=
MJA

[tedjay]

I always feel that "absolute vacuum" is a disaster to theory developers.


People say that Einstein's Special Relativity overthrew ether. However, it is in Black and White with a book written by Einstein
(with pictures http://www.helical-structures.org/Ei...relativity.pdf )
mentioned in a web page Einstein conclusion about the existence of Ether after he developed the General relativity - a fact missing in the scholar Physics textbooks http://www.helical-structures.org/ei...bout_ether.htm

Please have a look.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

I agree that Einstein never denied the existence of an Aether, he just said that or his purposes he didn't need it. However Aether continued to bug him especially the thought of a particulate Aether. This was shown by his oft-quoted statement

'' I consider it quite possible that physics might not be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics''.

Einstein based all his theory on the existence of a space-time continuum but knew that if it wasn't a continuum but a dis-continuum then the very foundtiion of his theory would crumble and his castle in the air would collapse.

I have posted a number of member articles which propose just such a dis-continuous Aether and have shown to my (probably sole ) sattifaction that physics is indeed due for a radical overhaul. Toequest members are cordially invited to crit Zeron Theory

Kind Regards

Tedjay

[N0B0DY]

I think I would have an unwanted go at it, Ted, to inquire how many zeros would have to be added to quantize the particles of which the zerons consist of.

Perhaps leading to the quantization of the particulate aether, and then as history has unfolded we further refine the aether to reach the differential medium permitting aetheric wave motion, if the aether is proposed as not being absolute static.

[tedjay]

I think I would have an unwanted go at it, Ted, to inquire how many zeros would have to be added to quantize the particles of which the zerons consist of.

Perhaps leading to the quantization of the particulate aether, and then as history has unfolded we further refine the aether to reach the differential medium permitting aetheric wave motion, if the aether is proposed as not being absolute static.

Thanks for the response. I'm not sure I understand the question or statement, but let me respond using the terminology you have used.
Firstly, let me describe the Zeron more fully. We know its mass and properties and its properties could not be valid if the Zeron was in turn composed of yet smaller particles. The Zeron is the quantum. It is the very essence and the definition of matter. There is no other sort.
Aether or Cosma as we have renamed it is quantized because it consists of Quanta (Zerons) in motion. The Cosma consists of Zerons inter-colliding to form a resonant entity which is capable of transmitting wave motion in the form of structured patterns of Zeron-on-Zeron impact. The Cosma is internally dynamic not static. Seen as a whole the Cosma might well be static with the point of reference being the "centre point'' of our expanding universe, but this is really academic because movement of the Cosma or our movement through the Cosma is not subject to direct measurement.
I hope this reply is useful but if I have misunderstood the question, feel free to have another go!

Kind Regards

Tedjay

[N0B0DY]

You understood the question very well, Ted, but the statement implies the atom having once been considered the smallest particle, then the mass and properties of subatomic particles.

It further implies that the discontinuous quantization of mass/energy and aether is arbitrarily set to concur with the theoretical science behind it.

I guess another go would include what exists between said particulate notions, if not some type of field or, further, an absolute framework that would essentially have to be still?

Could you elaborate on this as well: "Seen as a whole the Cosma might well be static with the point of reference being the "centre point'' of our expanding universe, but this is really academic because movement of the Cosma or our movement through the Cosma is not subject to direct measurement."

Is the center point refering to the center of all expandable spatial points, or are you proposing one common center? And the latter part regarding subjective measurement isn't very clear to me.

[tedjay]

Could you elaborate on this as well: "Seen as a whole the Cosma might well be static with the point of reference being the "centre point'' of our expanding universe, but this is really academic because movement of the Cosma or our movement through the Cosma is not subject to direct measurement."

Is the center point refering to the center of all expandable spatial points, or are you proposing one common center? And the latter part regarding subjective measurement isn't very clear to me.

I have a confession to make! The sentence was a bit of a teaser to see whether you or any other member would pick up that the Zeron articles published so far did not cover this very interesting outcome. Well done Nobody, you did!

Let me deal firstly with the centre of the universe by saying that the highly conjectural Zeron model of the Big Bang assumes that all the Zerons in the universe are contained in one compact sphere devoid of energy. Then all the energy of the universe is injected into this ball causing the outermost Zerons to start vibrating and to fly off into space. This process continues to form a small Cosma that then expands into space and continues to do so till today. It's like putting a ball of dry ice into a vacuum and letting it ablate. In this model the position of the original ball of Zerons would be the centre of the universe. There could be many other models including no BB, multiple BB's and so on. I'm more concerned with the here and now.

''Movement of the Cosma or our movement through the Cosma is not subject to direct measurement" is not strictly accurate but one step at a time. If you have a look at Members Article No 1 on Special Relativity you will see that after amending Einstein's foreshortening equation (GASP!) there is both a foreshortening and an after-lengthening of the atom as it moves through the Cosma. This not only explains why light always travels at velocity c regardless of the movement of the source through the Cosma but lays the basis for the seemingly impossible a Universal Frame of Reference! You see if you move through the Cosma at any speed in any direction, you and any measuring instrument will either shrink or elongate to exactly compensate for that movement and you will perceive the Cosma to be stationary. That's why the Michaelson and Morley experiment produced a null result. Unfortunately the wrong conclusion was drawn and the Aether disappeared from physics theory.
But now if the Cosma is stationary no matter where I look then I am definitely at the centre of the Universe! You however might well claim that you occupy that exalted position for the same reason. Let's not argue, all we have to do is to recognise that the Cosma is truly a Universal Frame of Reference and everyone will be satisfied.

What about the proposition that the Cosma actually does not exist? Well that is a possibility but then you would have to throw out a theory that produced more than 90 outcomes that either solve anomalies or unsolved mysteries in modern physics, and one that returns physics to an ''objectively real'' status. There are two other more direct evidences for the existence of the Cosma but that's for another time.

Kind Regards

Tedjay

[N0B0DY]

No need for more evidence, Ted. I see what you are saying regarding the cosma, and that there is no relative motion to be found because it is always at absolute.

I have read your other articles and have been to your site, but don't follow your explanation of the energy being inserted into the sphere, if the sphere essentially contains the universe. Where is the energy coming from that is being inserted?

[tedjay]

No need for more evidence, Ted. I see what you are saying regarding the cosma, and that there is no relative motion to be found because it is always at absolute.

I have read your other articles and have been to your site, but don't follow your explanation of the energy being inserted into the sphere, if the sphere essentially contains the universe. Where is the energy coming from that is being inserted?

There were no witnesses to that event and circumstantial evidence is weak and contradictory. From the strictly ''scientific proof'' point of view my answer would be ''I don't know.'' I am however a biblical fundamentalist and therefore believe that everything including the energy came from the eternal pre-existent Godhead. In my book it's the only logical start from zero matter or energy to the existence of both.

Kind Regards

Tedjay

[N0B0DY]

Fair enough answer, Ted. Just one more other than the one I have for the Godhead.

Do you propose that it is kinetic energy that gives mass to the zerons within the sphere, since the zerons within are said to be devoid of energy? Or am I mistaking that the rest mass of the zerons are independent of internal kinetic energy?

[tedjay]

Fair enough answer, Ted. Just one more other than the one I have for the Godhead.

Do you propose that it is kinetic energy that gives mass to the zerons within the sphere, since the zerons within are said to be devoid of energy? Or am I mistaking that the rest mass of the zerons are independent of internal kinetic energy?

The only way to inject kinetic energy into a sphere of energy-devoid Zerons would be from outside to in. That's why I made the dry-ice/ablation model. But this is so conjectural and unprovable that it is really not worth spending much time on. I shall be asking the Creator when I get to see Him!

Kind Regards

Tedjay