[analog]

Hey Dip and Graham,

The Aether we refer to on this thread is made of the matter you see before you. Just imagine a malleable substance with its shape and density per rigid volume at the mercy of its properties, which dictate the entire cycle. It's the uniform motion within a volume that determines its mass, as that is what mass is a calculation/measurement of; which is also directly proportional to the density of that volume. Random motion would thus be the reciprocal to the uniform motion within a volume, as the product of both would equal the whole of absolute motion within a volume. The self-affinity is what helps dictate the ratio.

Basically we're saying that you haven't ever, nor will you ever come into contact with anything in this universe that isn't manifest by the condensation of Aether. Even if you were floating in deep space you would merely be engulfed in a less dense/more expanded volume.

Anti-matter could be viewed as volumes with conflicting motions relative to matter; whereby the cancelation/annihilation with matter and the event of radiant energy and local inflation is explained. I think the need for the hypothetical dark matter and dark energy to correct the galactic calculations explaining galaxy rotation would merely be replaced by a better understanding of the dynamics of absolute motion and self-affinity, thus better understanding the real physical process of anti-inflation going on within a galaxy.

Perhaps, Dave would give us more insight concerning this?

P.S. I'm sure if they smash stuff together at high enough energy levels, they'll find some fleeting measurable event they can call/interpret as the Higgs.

[dleviwing]

The answer is quite simple; Aether is made of the fundamental stuff of the universe – fundamental matter (FM).

Now if you question is, “What is fundamental matter?” then that would be like asking someone “Who are you?”. You can only state its given name, its measurable attributes, and its behaviors. For example: Aether (name) is the near total randomizing (behavior) of the motions (attribute) of that quantity of FM and placing its bonding property (another attribute) at a minimum strength; you might just say it is the product of destructive interference of fundamental matter or as some call it - electromagnetic energy.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by analog

Hi Austin,
As I said in my other post. To a substance such as this, volume is irrelevant and infinitaly proportional. It isn't the volume/size that's important; it's the resolution at which motion acts upon the whole.

btw: There's no luck in a deterministic framework. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by DLeviwing

The Aether is like the substance of a single particle (a universe particle) and thus it too can produce changes at speeds that would appear to be instantaneous. When ever a high density Aether event occurs it must also produce a low density event and thus these events are entangled at the speed of “Absolute Motion”. That’s as close to instantaneous that you can get.

Originally Posted by Dleviwing

Tim;
We don’t have the means to detect events that occur at the quantum level (beyond the Planck limit) nor those that occur faster than light. These are referred to as the hidden variables or other dimensions.

If a localized volume of Aether increases its spatial density it is interpreted as a virtual particle or polarization phenomena if it produces a pair of virtual photons. The low spatial density is the other entangled virtual particle or opposite polarization. Though it is quite likely that they were produced in an adjoining state, they can separate at a velocity greater than the speed of light and thus appearing as being entangled at a distance. The concepts that state the distance is across the universe are purely conjecture.

The concepts of entanglement are extremely complex when using the standard model paradigm; if you use our approach of “Absolute Motion” they become simplified but hard to relate to current terms of QM. If you can do it, I’ll recommend you for the Nobel prize.

Best regards;
Dave

Hi Tim and Dave .... Well, anyone listening to you pair would soon become convinced that our World is deterministic ... lol

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Determinism: From what I understand from your posts the Universe is a Deterministic one, and that the current 'uncertainty' is a flaw in the measurement, to be corrected at an indeterminate time in the future. In effect, variations in the spatial density can be used to conjecture, or normalise the 'uncertainty' that we currently measure. But one way or another, uncertainty is only a temporary experience, a paradox.

The only point I flag here is that we do currently experience 'uncertainty'. Whether we view it from QM or Spatial density or 2c, we do agree that it is currently there.

This is a good explanation and I don't disagree with its validity ... but its not the view I favour most.

Let me know if I have your viewpoint wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My explanation, or conjecture, which is subject to the same limitations as Dave's quote above:

According to the Heisenberg uncertainty relations the simultaneous knowledge of a particles location and its momentum is limited. The combined uncertainty of these two properties must exceed the 'quantum of action' (Planck's constant -- (0.00000000000000411))

In other words the combined information or the product of the two uncertainties is reciprocal. The more we know about one, the less we know about the other. As we narrow down the values in our efforts to determine where the little bugger is, the more we widen the spread of values for its momentum. As we narrow down our experiment to determine its momentum, the more we lose definition of where it is.

From a QM viewpoint the little bastard could be anywhere in the universe according to that locations probability. (I accept that I am using some conjecture here)

But when there are two particles, or atoms, bound (old term = sharing electrons) such as 2 atoms of hydrogen, then the probability alters towards a more deterministic event. If the single atom has a probability of 50 in 100 chances of being either here or there, then the probability of two particles being (together) here or there is only 25 chances in 100. Add another atom and the binomial becomes 12 in 100.

By the time you reach the trillions of particles that make up a single strand of RNA the binomial probability of chance has changed, magically and transparently, from randomness into a Deterministic World. Only a flyshit of uncertainty remains, so close to zero as to be never experienced in several eternities. This is the world we live in ... from anybody's macro point of view, a deterministic one, old faithful.

This is also a good explanation and I don't disagree with its validity ... I see no flaws ... and its the view I favour most.

The reason I favour it most is that, if you discard the bullshit associated with the bizarreness of QM, (and here I have totally come around to Dave's point of view regarding sensationalist's like Dr Greene) then you are left with some really 'elegant' statistics (pardon the pun )....

Originally Posted by Dleviwing

We don’t have the means to detect events that occur at the quantum level (beyond the Planck limit) nor those that occur faster than light.

But Statistical predictions are not 'individual detected events', and unlike bullshit, conjecture, quantum level limits and '2c' they can be tested, they are just ordinary outcomes.

So now what does Bell's Theorem tell us. Dave's quote below is referring to the locality/non-locality interpretations of the theorem. At least I presume it is ... this is part of the bull shit and I agree with Dave.

Originally Posted by DLeviwing

Bell’s theorem requires magic or a supernatural existence; I don’t accept such things. Science is just working with an inadequate paradigm.

Lets not refer to locality, lets ignore it.

It can be statistically shown that if an event is 'deterministic', or alternatively, contains no fundamental uncertainty but can be derived from causal events then the detection of spin up/spin down paired particles will show a correllation range of between 55% to 100%. The range is unimportant but the minimum limit is: It can never be less than 55% or the results can not be classed as deterministic. Einstein agreed with this.

The logic and the math here is simple but I'm hoping you will trust me on it as its difficult to convey.

But, according to QM probability equations, uncertainty is fundamental, and the results will always be 50% (allow a flyshit either side). This equation also is simple, but we don't need it because we only have to test the predictions. The 55% +, or the 50%.

All the tests consistently show 50%.

This is not the same uncertainty as Heisenberg's relations which refer to the properties of matter, but is a deeper uncertainty in matter (fundamental substance). The base line, from which we measure our deterministic world, at the QM level is uncertain and our measurements reflect it. No two tests show exactly the same outcome, so we are forced to run thousands of tests and then create a probability curve.

I don't think I have used too much conjecture here so far, no more than you guys anyway ... lol


cool bananas ... greg

PS: These are only my interpretations ... not facts

[dipayankar]

If aether is mass, why is it that we have not been able to detect it as yet?

Originally Posted by G_burnett

I would step up to the plate and say at absolute rest Aether would have matter outside of transient form perception and yes then determinable as matter with mass, but from the yin and yang of all ... it would not be at rest in alignment with MF and GF effect later (what ever that is) so the concept of absolute rest may be a mute point of conception going in and out of absolute but never absolute at rest ... unless you have zero point theorem platform of perspective ... as one looks further in to anti matter or dark matter the trend seems to be that dark matter is condensed cold matter with mass and GF potential effect as light is curved around it and anti matter is not dark matter but matter of opposite nature to matter and they annihilate each other to energy form and creation of matter .. a hot event.

I am leaning toward the perception of dark matter and anti matter in mass in an aether event of magnitude where we would percieve a big bang having taken place ... so postulated there may be more then just one that has created our universe of varied magnitude and it may be eternal ... perpetual in nature ... beyond our universe even greater universes ...

In the small of things such as the proton with the missing mass calculating the Quarks mass and having a discrepancy of numbers there can be only one reason, there is other mass but not as a particle but as a fluidity existence medium the quark is in transient form immersed in. ... like water in a balloon and the marbles the quarks ... what is the composition of the medium? ... the proton itself paradoxically being agitated by the quark to expanding perception of more mass from what would be a true state of absolute rest or zero point event +/- one of condensed state ... but I am probably all wrong and there will be this imaginary God particle found.

~Kind regards graham

[austintorn@aol.com]

Maybe we did detect mass if we went into space and scooped up some space and tested it for mass, but I don't really know if we did this.

[dipayankar]

At least physics does not believe we detected 'permanent mass' in space rather than the 'virtual mass' or does virtual mass act as the aether?

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com

Maybe we did detect mass if we went into space and scooped up some space and tested it for mass, but I don't really know if we did this.

[austintorn@aol.com]

I give up, Dip, but perhaps you can send some aether back for analysis before you go on the black hole trip.

[dipayankar]

I am sure there is a logical explaination somewhere...

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com

I give up, Dip, but perhaps you can send some aether back for analysis before you go on the black hole trip.

[analog]

Hey Greg,

I see the war has began....lol

Upon a quick read, let me make this statement in lieu of a better response, which I'll try to get to soon. My mind works relatively slow sometimes.....lol

From my views, all resolutions of existence and structure are built from a deeper resolution of an absolutely moving fundamental substance. This can be traced all the way through the resolved layers to the absolute scale at which matter is in absolute motions; thus moving at absolute velocities; in a chain reaction of causality. This ties into what I said about the initial volume of the substance being irrelevant and infinitely proportional, because it's actually the internal resolutions at which absolute motion acts upon the whole (i.e. degree of randomness of absolute motion) that determines the complexity at which it can shape our universe. This is defined by the amount of elapsed motion (i.e. time) since our asymmetrical arrangement (i.e. universe) has been transpiring (the big bang/collision/beginning of inflation).

Inflation is causing the absolute scale to recede from us ever further, and the properties of the FS are causing local structures to emerge and evolve in the opposite direction; back towards the initial state of absolute solidity. Thus, resolutions are building resolutions using the same mortar of absolute motion and self-affinity, then how could a higher resolution/more evolved structure ever know anything about a lower more fundamental resolution other than in relation to probability and uncertainty. The certainty can be predicted in a deterministic way from a more fundamental scale looking out (which is how we view our macro world), but from a less fundamental scale looking in (which is how we view our micro world), there only lies probability due to it merely having more evolved tools, formed from the same founding properties, to investigate with, whose motions are in the direction of the initial state; thus more uniformly solidified; thus having imposed limits of the velocity at which they can interact.

I'll try to better address your post soon, and explain my gibberish.

regards,

Tim

[dleviwing]

Hi Greg;
A little long winded with a bit of “cover-your-ass” politics, but you’re basically correct.

The thing to remember about probability and uncertainty is that it is a simple concept that has been hyped into obscurity just like the concept of time.