[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

I take it from your approval of Maxwell's approach, that we are in fact singing from the same hymn sheet.

Not mine, mostly Maxwell's.

It does appear to be so. From other forum posts, I see we do tend to think alike on many topics.

Originally Posted by Planet_Bob

I am intrigued as to your mention of fundemental properties.
I assume this is the basic set of properties from which everything can be derived.

If we analyze the terms and terminology of our physics, there are two fundamental phenomena that seem to stand out; Motion and Bonding. Though we are taught that there are many different types of bonding, there is actually only one bonding property of fundamental matter; "it sticks to itself". Though we are taught that we can impart motion or retard motion, the fact is we cannot change the total quantity of motion of any physical system. (particle, atom, or universe) Motion is Absolute. We only change how it is distributed between wave motion and uniform motion within the system. Chaotic wave motions randomizes matter (EM waves) and causes it to expand to produce whatever name you wish to chose; space, ether, Quantum foam, or spacetime. Uniform motion allows matter's bonding property to become effective and it is the combination of uniform motion and wave symmetry motion that produce the fundamental building blocks of matter that go on to produce the subatomic particles and their structures. The interactions of the subatomic particle units of matter and the ethereal state of matter produce all the forces including magnetism. The wave function symmetry state plays a major role in the behavior of matter and the strength of its bonding.

The only new idea here is the concept of "Absolute Motion" and understanding that it is uniform motion that produce the numbers we call "MASS". We have no method to actually measure fundamental matter quantity; yet.

Nature produces many magic tricks from just a few props.
The real TOE mystery is "Life" and "Consciousness".

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Though we are taught that there are many different types of bonding, there is actually only one bonding property of fundamental matter; "it sticks to itself".

If this were the case, then the bonding of fundemental matter would be common place. All the matter would simply clump together in one place.

My opinion is somewhat opposite. In fact it's completely opposite. Fundemental matter 'avoids itself'. A bit like the weather. Two high pressure regions will push each other away.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Uniform motion allows matter's bonding property to become effective and it is the combination of uniform motion and wave symmetry motion that produce the fundamental building blocks of matter that go on to produce the subatomic particles and their structures.

If appears to me that your uniform motion may be the same as wave motion only under extreme pressure. At which point fundemental matter is forced into contact and your wave motion becomes uniform motion and bonding takes place.
The creation of fundemental particles only occurs towards the core of stars where the pressure is extreme high. The higher the pressure, the closer the proximatey and the stronger the bonds.

[baudrunner]

I have read your other responses to posts by humanbydefault and it seems that you have a reserved place for yourself on the bandwagon of popular physics. As far as I am concerned there is no argument as to the reason for the fringing of the separate bands in the optical spectrum or the velocity of waves as determined by frequency, they are to be expected when one appreciates the true nature of wave propagation and the rate of atomic interaction, and of course the "speed of light". Of course the velocity of wave propagation is variable and certainly a function of frequency, among other factors, but the term "general" enters into the discussion and "for the purpose of this discussion" the velocity of wave propagation is determined by the rate of atomic interaction which, "to all intent on purpose" is constant. Leave it at that.

Your reference to the term "fundamental particles" implies that you think that virtual particles don't conform to that description. I am talking about the perpetual creation of virtual particles in the so-called vacuum of space. One can assume that the deepest and emptiest regions of intergalactic space must have an extreme rate of virtual particle creation, compared to the rate at which they manifest in near space and close to the center of our solar system. Every particle which exists and has existed generates interactive waves. The fact that "matter waves" are negligibly small for massive objects is not insignificant, for it implies that they are of immense importance for something like a virtual particle. If you can wrap your head around that idea you will see the significance of David's description of space as something, which he has as much stated in not so many words. The constructive and destructive reinforcement of random wave interaction creates nodes of potential, which at the scale of space can only encourage the creation of more virtual particles which have a probability of finding a niche in space-time and becoming real, or hangjng around. Happens All the Time.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by baudrunner

the velocity of wave propagation is determined by the rate of atomic interaction which, "to all intent on purpose" is constant.

It is because it is.......

If wave propogation is determined by atomic interaction, and this wave is then a component part of fundemental particles which in turn can be built into atoms, then there is a simple question..

Which came first? The wave or the atom.

Surely it would be more accurate to define atomic interaction as dependant on wave propogation.
This then leaves the question open as to why.

Originally Posted by baudrunner

Every particle which exists and has existed generates interactive waves.

Not quite correct. A Photon does not generate any waves. It is the medium by which other waves are transmitted.

Originally Posted by baudrunner

If you can wrap your head around that idea you will see the significance of David's description of space as something, which he has as much stated in not so many words.

There is no dispute here as to whether space is something or not.

David's theory requires two types of motion, but does not take into consideration the varying conditions. If you consider ethereal density and the manner in which this would effect any motion within the ether, then there exists the possibility of having a single motion which displays varying properties dependant on its environment.

Although I don't adhere to idea of types of motion, I do think it is the right area to be looking, albeit more at the components of the waves rather than the waves themselves.

[humanbydefault]

Schrodinger thought of electrons orbiting the nucleus of the atom as "wave packets" instead of some... "duality-particles" if I'm not mistaken. His proposition brings the problem concerning the actual "mass" of those waves when observed as particles. He was in the same side with Einstein on this while Bohr and Heisenberg were playing on the other team... history yes, but interesting though!

Schrodinger was so right in his theory that I approve it 110%. The concept of "wavicles" as a linguistic exit-strategy for duality is so naive that it makes me laugh. Particles as we see them and observe them every day in our "apparatus" are the logical result of a phase transition from one physical state to another in what I called a PHASE transition.
I gave you the simplest example of all: ICE. It is made of oxygen and hydrogen atoms "fused" together in a substance we called water. After some
conditions are present [0 temp] a group of molecules become ICE. Try to make ICE from less than the right/needed number of water molecules and you'll find yourself with just water.
If ICE was melt back to liquid state then you obtain once agin a non-cohesive physical state for a group of independent atoms with no mechanical/physical cohesion whatsoever.
Einstein was also RIGHT [in principle I may add] when he tried (unsuccesfully) to predict the spin of the photon or electron that fly away from an entangled one. The problem is not a theoretical one but a practical one instead. It is true that two entangled quanta will have a symmetrical configuration: one spin up and the other spin down. The problem is that because the EATHER does not allow a single quantum with half the allowed density on space to exist at all, the remained photon/electron that got away at light speed from the source was MODIFIED by the action of the UNIVERSE on it... Not a "spooky force at a distance" as Einstein used to joke about it.

The collapse of the propagation-wave of ENERGY in space [eather] will always bring changes into the final configuration [results].

It's an interesting and active thread... don't you think?

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[dleviwing]

Planet_bob;
Analyze what you are saying. You are using the phenomena of "PRESSURE" yet how do you explain how this pressure comes about? What produces the stress that exerts the force?

The strength of the bonding property of matter is dependent on its motion and it requires time of contact. Matter with opposing motions will interact such to convert the motions to vibrational motion of waves and interference. Only when the motions do not oppose each other do they promote bonding. This is when you get matter in one state of motion exerting stress or pressure on matter in other states of motion.

Matter in the state of ether, has wave motion from all directions that prevent clumping, as you call it, due to the fact that there is no sustained uniform motion. Waves only emulate uniform motion when the waves are confined to a spatial volume such as a particle and thus produces wave symmetry. It is angular uniform motion that confines the vibrations of a particle to such a small finite volume. A wave in the ether only sustains uniform motion momentarily to produce an osculation of spatial density.

In a sense, matter is being clumped. We call these clumps particles, atoms, stars, planets, black holes, galaxies, and so on.

Though it is thought that gravity does not have an opposite force, it really does; it's call expansion. This is a function of waves that are destructive or additive.

If you need to resort to using terminology such as energy, force, pressure, charge, temperature, and so on to make you view functional, it is quite obvious you have not yet applied enough thought to the problem. These are not preexisting phenomena of the universe as current mainstream science would have us believe; they are only phenomena produced through the interactions of matter and its fundamental properties of bonding and motion. The concept of Absolute Motion explains why the conservation laws of mass and energy work.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by humanbydefault

Schrodinger thought of electrons orbiting the nucleus of the atom as "wave packets" instead of some... "duality-particles" if I'm not mistaken. His proposition brings the problem concerning the actual "mass" of those waves when observed as particles. He was in the same side with Einstein on this while Bohr and Heisenberg were playing on the other team... history yes, but interesting though!

So much of what is posted here was once theorized by the likes of Einstein and his peers, only to be discarded when it ceased to be flavour of the month. Einstein dropped all references to aether because his peers had decided there was no proof of its existance.

[Planet_Bob]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Analyze what you are saying. You are using the phenomena of "PRESSURE" yet how do you explain how this pressure comes about? What produces the stress that exerts the force?

It is a given that, using common terminology rather than inventing another language, that the pressure at the core of a star is quite a bit higher than at the surface. Whether you want to call it pressure or uniform motion, it all comes down to the same thing.
The BITS are closer together and as such the influence that they can excert on other BITS has changed. As the BITS become a composite so their combined properties differ due to their reduced proximatey, properties that you would not find should they create a composite at a greater distance.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Though it is thought that gravity does not have an opposite force, it really does; it's call expansion. This is a function of waves that are destructive or additive.

If what you say is correct, then wouldn't the random nature of the aether motion cause gravity to be a self cancelling force?

Originally Posted by dleviwing

If you need to resort to using terminology such as energy, force, pressure, charge, temperature, and so on to make you view functional, it is quite obvious you have not yet applied enough thought to the problem.

If would appear that I'm not the only one guilty of not having applied enough thought to the problem.

Either have a discussion about the topic, or about grammar and spelling, but not both.

I have read your posts and your idea about the motion of waves is one way that the aether can be described. I have even suggested that maybe there is no fundemental difference between your two types of motion other than environment. This would actually make your theory simpler and potentially more credible.

Take it or leave it's your choice, but there is no need for this constant patronising tone.

[dleviwing]

To know and understand what is possible in this universe, we must discover the "Rules of the Lake". It is the same problem we get when another human professes to be speaking the word of god. In physics, we can test our guesses of what the rules are. Many good guesses have been ignored due to being incomplete or not conforming to rules already established by the temples of knowledge.

BTW: Did eating the bubble actually destroy it?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by planet_bob

Either have a discussion about the topic, or about grammar and spelling, but not both.

I can only assume you misinterpreted or did not understand my post.

As far as the appearance of a patronizing tone, I can only say that to your concepts, I've "Been there done that" and it didn't work over 30 years ago and won't work now. It seems you would prefer to put your hand in the fire to determine for yourself that it is hot. It is actually easier to learn from others, but I understand the influence of human nature and can only say that you are reading too much personal emotions into my posts. I do not have any feeling on the subject or of you, one way or another. I tend to overlook the feeling of others, and in that respect I apologies if you have taken offense.

The greatest problem here is that neither of us can present our ideas in short form posts. I'll give you a signed copy of my book, if you give me a signed copy of yours.