Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

Ole D. Rughede wrote:
"Paul Stowe" skrev i en meddelelse
...

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:27:31 +0200, "Ole D. Rughede"



wrote:




[snip]

Fredi has a point he Without the aether mass would be
weight- and massless? - We may say mass couldn't exist
but would immediately become free aether energy U.

Weight and gravity are completely relative quantites, but
that our spaceships and their crews may survive in space
and exist like astrophysical bodies is due to the aether,
why space is a STE-continuum. Not an empty vacuum!

Mass cannot exist without the aether, and aether cannot
exist without radiating masses.

Dale Trynor wrote:
If you mean Quantum vacuum, I agree.
The alternative theory I posted on predicts that its only the scale and
time relation to space that changes and matter wont disappear. Then
again you cant have a completely empty vacuum, or single atoms would end
up as larger than the universe with equally nearly infinitely fast time,
or worse. In that theory you cannot have space without gravity and a
gedanken I use to illustrate this is an analogue of Zeno s paradox only
when instead of 1/2 the distance each time we also contract all of ones
references on length by 1/2 each time as well. Note that he cannot
measure his remaining distance without the same problem applied to
anything he can send ahead to measure the remaining distance.
If as in the theory,gravitational time dilation just by itself can be
shown to contract matter and anything one can measure distances with
then what happens when one approaches a black hole. When the time
dilation is now 1000 times less than it originally was all of his
references on length must have also have contracted by 1000 times giving
our observer traveler the prospective of a much larger black hole where
everything that went into its creation must also now measure 1000 times
farther away.

When this goes to infinity he ends up measuring a black hole thats light
years across from his prospective and cannot contain enough mass to
still be a black hole from his prospective. All the mass that went into
its creation must have gone thought the same process and to him now
measure as to too diffuse. Black holes depend on large amounts of mass
in one place at one time not all over the place at different times.

This leads to the same predictions as those given for big bang or
inflationary theorys if you could be an internal observer when a black
hole forms.

It gets tricky here because of the way one must still have enough mass
to preserve its appearance as a black hole for our external observers
and leads to similar questions about how our universe would be behave if
it didn't have as much mass etc.

- There is a balance here,
indicating a self-supporting universe of mass and radiation,
meaning a universal conservation of mass, energy, and
momentum in a hair-fine balance. -

Thats the question that I left a bit short above.

And from this we infer
that all fairy-tales about big-bang and universal expansion
are sheer nonsense

Why should that be nonsense.
I have discussed how this alternative theory ends up giving similar
predictions as those given for inflation theory.

Note how this alternative theory also looks at questions of how the
quantum vacuum must also be related. Increasing the quantum vacuum
contracts everything one can measure it with, preserving that Lorentz
invariances from our close up observers point of view.
The theory hypothesizes that Casimir plates should not measure any
detectable changes even while they must have become contracted and that
this must happen in such a way that also expands the space in and around
them. The idea is that the quantum vacuum or the empty space itself must
have also changed accordingly. I have posted questions looking at what
would happen if this relationship were not preserved.

Later parts of the theory argue that its not just a shorter measure of
the same space but that its literally more space because it hypothesizes
alternative mechanisms to conserve the amounts of gravity one should
get from such things as black holes. It looks at alternatives to
gravitational binding energy to do this balancing.

What this also predicts is that if you could reduce the quantum vacuum,
objects would increase in volume and display a faster relative time. A
tunnel of such depleted space ends up giving remarkably similar
predictions to those given for wormholes.

of the same quality as the reason given
by one of Hawking's listeners: why the Earth is not falling
out through the buttom of the universe, namely because it
rests on turtles all way down!

Well, acording to Genesis God did not create turtles first.

Ole D. Rughede


I do promise it will be worth your time to seriously look at this
alternative theory as it dose more than just gets rid of the turtles.
Bonus that its new enough to give you lots of chance to be first with
your own conclusions.
Dale

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
news | On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:59:43 +0200, "Ole D. Rughede"

| wrote:
| Mass cannot exist without the aether, and aether cannot
| exist without radiating masses. - There is a balance here,
| indicating a self-supporting universe of mass and radiation,
| meaning a universal conservation of mass, energy, and
| momentum in a hair-fine balance. - And from this we infer
| that all fairy-tales about big-bang and universal expansion
| are sheer nonsense of the same quality as the reason given
| by one of Hawking's listeners: why the Earth is not falling
| out through the buttom of the universe, namely because it
| rests on turtles all way down!
|
| Well, acording to Genesis God did not create turtles first.
|
| Its not Turtles all the way down, its the aether medium...

Yes it is. Ya still got that nagging problem of what the ultra-mundane
corpuscles are. Regardless of whether they have a tiny mass or are
massless, they still would have to have some kind of form. So we end up
explaining fields with these corpuscles and have to make another stand
(stop) at the corpuscles. Well, I suppose there is nothing wrong with that
as long as we learn something from it and can do something with it that is
wonderful. ;-)

Now, IMHO space-time is being defined at the quantum level by vacuum quantum
objects. That is; *our* space-time. There could be absolute space but it
is really irrelevant because you could never have a reference point for it.
And it could be a zillion dimensional. Who knows? So there is a strange
mix of time and *no* time because our spacetime is being defined by vacuum
quantum objects. Time is more of a macroscopic result of the action of a
bunch of the coupled oscillators of the vacuum.

FrediFizzx

"FrediFizzx" skrev i en meddelelse
...
"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
news | On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:59:43 +0200, "Ole D. Rughede"

| wrote:
| Mass cannot exist without the aether, and aether cannot
| exist without radiating masses. - There is a balance here,
| indicating a self-supporting universe of mass and radiation,
| meaning a universal conservation of mass, energy, and
| momentum in a hair-fine balance. - And from this we infer
| that all fairy-tales about big-bang and universal expansion
| are sheer nonsense of the same quality as the reason given
| by one of Hawking's listeners: why the Earth is not falling
| out through the buttom of the universe, namely because it
| rests on turtles all way down!
|
| Well, acording to Genesis God did not create turtles first.
|
| Its not Turtles all the way down, its the aether medium...

Yes it is. Ya still got that nagging problem of what the
ultra-mundane
corpuscles are. Regardless of whether they have a tiny mass or are
massless, they still would have to have some kind of form. So we end
up
explaining fields with these corpuscles and have to make another stand
(stop) at the corpuscles. Well, I suppose there is nothing wrong with
that
as long as we learn something from it and can do something with it
that is
wonderful. ;-)

Now, IMHO space-time is being defined at the quantum level by
vacuum quantum objects. That is; *our* space-time. There could
be absolute space but it is really irrelevant because you could never
have a reference point for it. And it could be a zillion dimensional.
Who knows? So there is a strange mix of time and *no* time because
our spacetime is being defined by vacuum quantum objects.
Time is more of a macroscopic result of the action of a bunch of the
coupled oscillators of the vacuum.

FrediFizzx

Thank you Fredi!
Yes, it certainly is most interesting, and I think we must have
it that way with the good old LeSage gas of ultramundane
Newtonian massless "light-particles". - So it seems anyway,
though I have been most sceptical about it and from beginning
have not thought of light as a gas. - An inert, gravitating gas!

Aether, however, is in fact a boson-gas. Yes, and well, - it is
also ultramundane! But, we should describe it with Huygens
and all his wavy followers, and may of course also for certain
theoretical purposes look at it "as if of discrete particles" in
Gedankenexperimente "as if what would happen" to a massive
test-body placed here or there in space, when we trace a ray
or a wave-train for some explanatory reason.

You sketch some thoughts about time I haven't had myself.
I have not seen any great problems there and shall just give it
a thought before I revert to you about that subject. Thank you.

Best regards,
Ole D. Rughede

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 07:20:18 +0200, "Ole D. Rughede"
wrote:


"Paul Stowe" skrev i en meddelelse
news
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 14:59:43 +0200, "Ole D. Rughede"

wrote:


"Paul Stowe" skrev i en meddelelse
.. .

[Snip...]

Have a look at it again. kappa = cm^2/(g*sec^3). Right.
kappa*M*m = [cm^2/(g*sec^3)]*g^2 = g*cm^2/sec^3
Phi = kappa*M*m = erg/sec, since erg = g*cm^2/sec^2,

Yup, a mistake on my part. However,

(cm^2/gm-sec^3)(gm)(gm) = gm-cm^2/sec^3
{kappa}

g*cm^2/sec^3 = (g*cm^2/sec^2)/sec = erg/sec as stated
above. And a radiant flux is of dimensions erg/sec.

I've now had a chance to research the term 'Radiant Flux'.
Indeed, it is defined as you claim. For example, we find,

http://www.atis.org/tg2k/_radiant_flux.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...n/radiant.html

But also, it IS as the reference above explains, the

"Deprecated synonym for 'Radiant Power'"

It isn't truly a flux term at all, since it is NOT in terms
of per unit area. It is best equated to a 'source term'
which you have implicitly defined on a per cubic cc basis
when you set U = uV. The little u (which I'll designate S)
is actually related to an underlying source term, and, by
multiplying by V of 1 cc you've just hidden this. However,
there is a well known relationship between true flux (intensity
per unit area) as such source terms. It is simply,

i = B(S/z)

Where, in this case, z is the total linear attenuation
coefficient and B the geometric scattering factor called
'Buildup'. Note that, given an S in units of gm/cm-sec^3
and z has units of inverse length (known as the Mean Free
Path), we get i (intensity) as gm/sec^3 which IS the flux
term. Simply multiply this by the area of interest and you
will get back your ergs/sec. This is actually and integration
of i over the area of interest. However, this is the proper
use & definition of this functionality. Thus my initial
confusion.

That's units of power, not any flux. A flux is something,
such as particles, momentum, energy, or power crossing per
'unit area' per unit of time. An energy 'flux' would be,

Energy/Area-Time

or, in cgs,

gm/sec^3

A radiant energy flux in CGS is Phi erg/sec = g*cm^2/sec^3

hence Phi is a radiant flux of dimensions erg/sec, and such
a flux is acting at the velocity of light, c, why Phi*L/c = erg
as also K*Phi*L/c = erg, when K is dimensionless.

In the units you've provided, it's simple power.

Therefore G*M*m/L erg = K*Phi*L/c, provided M*m on
the left side = M*m in Phi = kappa*M*m on the right side.
Reducing to G/L = K*kappa*L/c we see, that kappa is
kappa = G*c/K*L^2 = 1 erg/(sec*g^2), and
U*L/K*h*c = G*c/K*kappa*L^2 = 1 dimensionless.

Dimension-analysis should not be that tricky, but I see that
for less trained people even the simplest physics notations
may be black talk. Now you got it Paul? ;-)

Look, I use dimensional analysis to gleam meaning from the
resultant. For example, if you end up with gm/sec then
you're either talking about straedy mass flow or resonant
harmonic mass displacement. If you end up with m^2/sec,
this again, has only a specific meaning in the physical realm.

I end up with exactly what I have written.

But you've never explained kappa, what it means, or why you
think it is significant. I spent twenty years as a professional
radiation transport specialist and am author of several transport
codes. I do understand the nuts & bolts of the processes of
radiation fluence.

Now, you're writing (and expressions) are, to me, both
unfamiliar and unclear. I am trying to make sense of them,
and put them 'in context' of physical processes I do
understand. Lose the 'apparent' backhanded insults please.

No backhanded insults. I simply just realize how difficult it
may be to communicate simple physics notations. When I
see your qualified attempts to understand CGS notation,
how difficult may it then not be to lesser trained people?

[snip]

Let' be clear on what I'm calling flux, flux is,

Unnecessary. I know what a flux is, also in SI.

Well, I'm trying to converge on a standard terminology. I still
need to understand kappa and why you think Ghc^2 is somehow an
key term.

"the rate of transfer of fluid, particles, or
energy across a given surface"

Key words & phrases, 'rate' and 'across a given surface'.
In other words, in cgs, per cm^2 per sec...

Now, perhaps you can define your meaning of flux?

[Snip...]

I doubt the SI permittivity and permeability has any
significance at all, or in any way could be considered
real in the aether of variable u. If so they should be
expressed in terms of alpha, the fine structure constant,

Why? Alpha is a pure geometric term having no
dimensionality. Permittivity & Premeability have
the same functional element as density & inverse
energy density. That is WHY,

c^2 = 1/uz

since energy density divided by simply density yields
a speed squared term. In this case, like all energetic
media, this is the RMS of the fluence.

Does not help this mismatch which has nothing to do with
the real world. It is luckily avoided in Gaussian-CGS, where
e esu and e/c emu (electrostatic and electromagnetic units)
are simply expressed in the elementary charge of the electron
e = 4.803242E-10 esu and e/c = 1.602189E-20 emu.
Permittivity and permeability are fine in ponderable media,
not in the Aether, where they are set to 1 = one. (RMS!) ;-)

They are 'normalized' to unity. I refer you back to Maxwell's
derivation of light's speed, see;


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=bf...g .net&rnum=3

Quote,

" Prop. XVI.-To find the rate of propagation of
transverse vibrations through the elastic medium
of which the cells are composed, on the supposition
that its elasticity is due entirely to forces
acting between pairs of particles. By the ordinary
method of investigation we know that

V = Sqrt(m/z) . . . . . (132)" ...

and, m in this case is simply the inverse of permeability, z
permittivity, and V what we now designate as c. Thus,
Maxwell used this same approach. IIRC it was Heavyside/Hertz
that *******ized cgs to use esu. But they weren't interested
in the model, just the resulting equations, and it was much
easier to plug in c, c^2 than Sqrt(m/z) & m/z. Griffith has
adopted this later approach because IT DOES simplfy the equations.
Now they ARE on the same footing in any media, including
'free-space' (the normalized base).

Don't believe me, feel quite free to go back to Maxwell's work.

but even that seems less attractive because the aether
is a STE-continuum without particulars of any kind.
Therefore energy, energy density, energy flux and the
aether pressure p = u/3 dyn/cm^2 at some T(Aether)
= T, and Kaluza-Klein, is all we need.

Take a higher temperature T´ and find density u´ from

u´ = u * [T´/T]^4 erg/cm^3, where u and T are

mine: u = 3.973637E-13 erg/cm^3, T = 2.692064 K.
You have to think, man, about variable G and c! ;-))

Oh, I have, alot. In fact, G is a physical term consisting
of the momentum flux [Q] (a scalar) and the square of the
characteristic mass attenuation coefficient [s] of the medium.

In other words,

G = Qs^2

In the MKS units of SI these have the value of,

Q = 6.7E+00 kg/m-sec^2
s = ~3.156E-06 m^2/kg

This in turn allow the quantification of the aether field energy
deposition due to gravitation as well as the exact value for the
observed drag on the Pioneer & Ulysses spacecraft.


You may be wrong here Paul. Aether energy U is not due to
gravitation.

Never claim it was. I claimed that both what we call gravity as well
as EM/QM process COME FROM the fact that the aether particulate media
is energetic (in motion).

Aether is a non-particular space-time-energetic continuum
which is the medium of all physical fields and forces!

We fundamentally disagree here. My reasoning is simple. If the
medium isn't at some level discretely separated you simply cannot
have the phenomena observed. Such as discrete motion & objects.

It is the other way round that inertia and gravity is due to the
STE continuum of the Aether, supplied by the radiation from all
astrophysical bodies.

The radiation from all astronomical bodies conbined isn't even a
a blip on the radar scope of the ZPE (aether energy content).

I am talking about Aether, not any ZPE invented by Dirac to fit
QM for popping electrons and positrons to pair creation and
pair annihilation. It is wrong, it is passé, and it is the reason why
physics are in great difficulties by all arbitrary "inventions" to fit
speculative hypotheses and theories.

A Rose by any other name... We are ALL talking about human 'inventions'
I just prefer to give the proper homage & due to those that have gone
before and say, it is the medium they proposed. Thus it should be called
by the time honored name.

If it was that simple to rename ZPE to aether and have aether out
of it, it would have been done long ago.

It is simply to rename the ZPE 'medium' the aether medium. It is a
physical medium.

Then, of course, you may say that radiation is intiated by
gravitation. We know, however, it is a much more complex process
in the stars.

See,

http://www.mountainman.com.au/index_ps.htm

In particular, "The Cause of Gravity, EM, and QM" for my take on
this.

Sure, I shall give it a look.

Therefore G of course shows a proportionality to U as in
G = U * [kappa*V / h*c^2], as is seen from the aether
equation: (kappa*U*V) / (G*h*c^2) = 1 dimensionless.

Fredi has a point he Without the aether mass would be
weight- and massless? - We may say mass couldn't exist
but would immediately become free aether energy U.

Weight and gravity are completely relative quantites, but
that our spaceships and their crews may survive in space
and exist like astrophysical bodies is due to the aether,
why space is a STE-continuum. Not an empty vacuum!

Mass cannot exist without the aether, and aether cannot
exist without radiating masses. - There is a balance here,
indicating a self-supporting universe of mass and radiation,
meaning a universal conservation of mass, energy, and
momentum in a hair-fine balance. - And from this we infer
that all fairy-tales about big-bang and universal expansion
are sheer nonsense of the same quality as the reason given
by one of Hawking's listeners: why the Earth is not falling
out through the buttom of the universe, namely because it
rests on turtles all way down!

Well, according to Genesis God did not create turtles first.

Its not Turtles all the way down, its the aether medium...

Certainly the Aether, and not the ZPE which has no relation to
gravity or to anything in the real world. I am pretty sure you
will understand the theory of the aether I have described, and
thanks for your efforts and valuable critical remarks.

But try to see, that the relations I have given cannot be refused,
neither from theoretical, dimensional or any other reason.
The simplicity itself ought to convince you that such relations
cannot be made as a fake or a lie. On the contrary, SR, GR,
QM, STM, and WM will have to comply with this Theory of
the Aether, whether we understand it or not. So it is because
what is right, simple, convenient and fruitful, is going to win.

Since I still do not understand you points, thus confirmation or
refutation isn't even a possibility. I do not see any significance
to Ghc^2 or your use of the centimeter standard. As for CMBR
temperature I think will find this to be the natural background
noise of the aether that is predicted to be present in every
compressible medium. Indeed, the value of this sets the value of
the observed masses of the elemental particles. But, you're right
on one score, all so-called constants are relatable to each other,
simply by a momentum quanta, a characteristic interaction distance,
the mean speed of the medium, and the geometric coupling factor.
I can do this.

Paul Stowe

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:00:11 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:


Paul Stowe wrote:



The MMX was totally consistent with the medium...

What medium?

The one tha gives rise to, and the properties of, the so-called
fundamental 'fields' like the electric, magnetic, gravitational,
... etc.

There is no supersolid space filling goo which carries light waves
transversely. If there were the planets would be slowed down
and they would spiral into the sun.

Get a marble moving in a superfluid Bob, how much friction will
it encounter. (Note, I AM NOT proposing that matter is like a
marble embedded in a superfluid, just that NO friction is present
in such a state...)

You are saying the lack of evidence proved the point?

The MMX certainly was not lack of evidence... It showed very
clearly that the iname naive notion of rigid matter was bunk.

Please feel free to show us the logic flaw in;

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ad...cg%404 ax.com

Which clearly shows that SR is an inevitable result of the very basic
nature of any medium. The medium csimply cannot transmit/communicate
with it surroundings at any speed other that the characteristic speed
c.

Paul Stowe

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:00:11 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"

wrote:


Paul Stowe wrote:



The MMX was totally consistent with the medium...

What medium?

The one tha gives rise to, and the properties of, the so-called
fundamental 'fields' like the electric, magnetic, gravitational,
... etc.

There is no supersolid space filling goo which carries light waves
transversely. If there were the planets would be slowed down
and they would spiral into the sun.

Get a marble moving in a superfluid Bob, how much friction will
it encounter. (Note, I AM NOT proposing that matter is like a
marble embedded in a superfluid, just that NO friction is present
in such a state...)

A homogeneous medium can't propagate transverse waves.
A non-homogeneous super fluid can. So now Stowe's
Aether consists of something like leaky cells: squish-squirt,
squish-squirt, squish-squirt ... It's an inelegant stretch !!!

[Old Man]

You are saying the lack of evidence proved the point?

The MMX certainly was not lack of evidence... It showed very
clearly that the iname naive notion of rigid matter was bunk.

Please feel free to show us the logic flaw in;


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ad...cg%404 ax.com

Which clearly shows that SR is an inevitable result of the very basic
nature of any medium. The medium csimply cannot transmit/communicate
with it surroundings at any speed other that the characteristic speed
c.

Paul Stowe

"Old Man" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"Paul Stowe" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 04:00:11 GMT, "Robert J. Kolker"

wrote:

Paul Stowe wrote:

The MMX was totally consistent with the medium...

What medium?

The one tha gives rise to, and the properties of, the so-called
fundamental 'fields' like the electric, magnetic, gravitational,
... etc.

There is no supersolid space filling goo which carries light waves
transversely. If there were the planets would be slowed down
and they would spiral into the sun.

Get a marble moving in a superfluid Bob, how much friction will
it encounter. (Note, I AM NOT proposing that matter is like a
marble embedded in a superfluid, just that NO friction is present
in such a state...)

A homogeneous medium can't propagate transverse waves.
A non-homogeneous super fluid can. So now Stowe's
Aether consists of something like leaky cells: squish-squirt,
squish-squirt, squish-squirt ... It's an inelegant stretch !!!

[Old Man]


Hm..! Who knows better than old men if Maxwell should not
indeed have had such frivolous phantasies about copulating
aetherial bodies? But for God's sake why inelegant stretches?

Could in fact Maxwell derive his Aether Theory of Electricity
and Magnetism from his mechanical model - and not by simple
intuition without firm theoretical one-to-one relations - Paul
should certainly now be able to "back-translate" the mundane
quantum mechanical aether corpuscles of Planck's quanta in
all magnitudes into Maxwellian bodily cells with some very
strange ghostly properties; still, however, forcing each other
to an old man's squish-squirt, squish-squirt, squish-squirt ...
action, making them stretchingly turning constantly into new
directions without altering their individual preference of
wavily flowing movements.

If Paul could watch a certain position in space of these
frivolously copulating Planck-LeSage corpuscles, maybe
he with some spinor math could show a constantly turning
predominant brane, say as a forced rolling and turning of
a great-plane in a sphere of constantly varying dimensions,
as if pulsating?

Who knows, old man? He might come out with something
just as elegant as the infinite number of energy fluxes linking
in simple strings of gravitational action any ponderable body
so marvelously to all other bodies in the whole universe,
that none of them need turtles all way down for support.

His problem is where to sit and observe a fix position in
space. Almost like Archimedes asking for a step to stay on,
while he would rock the Earth on its hinges. However, if
Maxwell could, perhaps Paul might be able to imitate the
Maxwellian artistic trick. - We would sit safely in our rocking
chairs by the fire side, telling the shocking stories of trolls and
fairies, rocking the Earth on its hinges, to the gaping kids.

Ole


You are saying the lack of evidence proved the point?

The MMX certainly was not lack of evidence...
It showed very clearly that the iname naive notion of rigid
matter was bunk.

Please feel free to show us the logic flaw in;

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=ad...cg%404 ax.com

Which clearly shows that SR is an inevitable result of the
very basic nature of any medium. The medium csimply
cannot transmit/communicate with it surroundings at any
speed other that the characteristic speed c.

Paul Stowe