@jerry, I noticed your post on aether existence. I think modern aetherists has simply never really looked at the major challenges to the theory. And I’m not talking about Michelson & Morely. I’m talking about the elasticity and ability for aether to transmit all the light waves bouncing in so many directions without getting muddy. Many other objections were given in the 1990s – 2000s when the NPA had many questions for aetherists that to me have not been resolved.
Newton postulated an aether to unite the Big (cosmology) and the Small in one theoretical model. The “Principia” left gravity as “action-at-a-distance”. Nobody including Newton liked this. So, he in a later book “Opticks” outlined a proposition on how to unite the Big and the Small .
The 1800s experienced the de-volving of physics into more narrow disciplines and away from a universal study. Then came the rejection of the aether and a further de-volving. So, the place of the aether in physics as a component of the universe which allows the unifing of the Big and Small. Little wonder the aether is a topic of interest to physics dissidents.
Now, what are the properties of the aether?
” Qu. 1Masses bend passing light by an amount inverse to distance.
Qu. 3Light passing close to edges are diffracted in fringes.
Qu. 4Light path begins to bend BEFORE reaching a body or slit.
Qu. 5Light heats mass.
Qu. 6Black bodies absorb all light.
Qu. 8Black body radiation.
Qu. 11Sun and stars are black body radiators
Qu. 17Light is corpuscles that are pushed around (divergence of the aether’s density) by waves of the aether that “overtake” the rays of light. The waves in the aether travel faster than light – its not a big stretch to say MUCH faster than light. That is, gravity is not force. Gravity is the effect of the divergence of the aether, also.
Qu. 18A Medium that refracts and reflects light also allows light to heat bodies. Newton also suggested light travels faster in the void (denser parts of the aether). This is the measured Shapiro delay.
Qu. 19Refraction of light implies differing densities of the Medium (calls it“…this aether Medium…”). Density of the aether is GREATER in “…free and open spaces void of air and other grosser bodies…”. How the aether became denser between bodies was unexplained.
Qu. 20Increasing aether density (ie divergence) causes light refraction.
Qu. 21Aether rarer within dense bodies and increase with distance and “…thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies; every body endeavoring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?”. He also suggested the aether is so rare as to not impede the planets revolution (no aether wind or that the aether has no particles).
Newton suggested a reductionism step by positing (1) an aether whose divergence exerted a force that caused gravity and that caused the diffraction, reflection, and refraction of light and (2) corpuscles as light and as components of matter. That is, support for the aether and corpuscles was because the model could explain several diverse observations then known but mysterious rather than by direct observation. “
Also: “Spacetime” like Newton’s aether it has a high value where no mass exists such as between galaxies and depressed values around masses. From whence, this “spacetime” or aether?
Ray Fleming: I noticed your video on CNPS (“Proton Charge Radius Puzzle Solved”), then your videos on YouTube, and then on RG. I’ve clicked to follow you on RG. I’ve been watching a few videos on your channel. I have a few questions and would appreciate comments on my model.
What are the properties of your “Quantum Field (QF)” ? Is it like an aether of my plenum? You seem to explain the speed of light as a limit by the same character as the STOE. However, you may want to re-examine your model of the wave in the QF (plenum). It doesn’t track with the c in your explanation.
This is the 4th attempt. Says there is a problem without explanation?
See the same on the RG message.
In addition you’ve looked at the fine structure constant. see my video referenced below. It seems that your QF is like a “zero-point field (ZPF)”. As such, if it is to be physically existing, there can be no Lorentz length contraction explained as Special Relativity explains it. So, Lorentz contraction needs another explanation as I’ve attempted in the video referenced below. Your QF seems like my Plenum. So, What is your examination of Lorentz length contraction and the Michaelson-Morley (and like) experiment (paper)? see my video for my attempt.
What determines the value of the QF at any point and the origin of the fluxuations ? masses, source, like the plenum in STOE. I’d like to see some more on how you derive the fine structure constant from the characteristics of the QF. Have you looked at the Rydberg constant? (papers?)
Is the van der Waals torque the repulsion of dipoles? If so, are these dipoles in the structure electrons and protons? In the STOE, the photons, neutrinos, and electrons are structures of dipole magnets. The field perpendicular to the dipole is inverse distance cubed and gravity evolves from the atomic magnetic force. But this causes an interpretation problem for the STOE which I have been thinking about. Perhaps your model has a solution. Your “Onium Theory (OT)” seems to derive the properties of particles larger than the electron. I have yet to read these papers. The STOE has yet to consider the structure of larger than electron particles. But considering them to be structures of electron, neutrinos, and photons in the STOE may be viable.
In your Big Bang video(s), have you considered the Quasi Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) which uses a creation field at the center of spiral galaxies? (no Big Bang) It uses the General Relativity field equation and is a derivative of the Steady State Model by the same people (Hoyle, Burbidges, and Narlikar).
I asked to present the following video on CNPS, but Dave apparently rejected it (no reply). So, I posted it on CNPS under aether discussion and on YouTube. I was to write a paper to cover this video. The video was to elicit comments for correction in the coming paper. I’m contemplating a “discussion” on RG but think it will get few answers because the model is too “beyond standard physics”. So, comments are appreciated.
As you may know I’m interested on positively developing a new model of the universe. I find it interesting/sad that I’ve found more fruit from the “Dissadent” / amateur/ physics community unapproved models. I submitted the “replace Special relativity” thought video to CNPS and YouTube. My idea was to gain comments in order to address a few of the problems of the model. I have received no comments. However, I have noted on YouTube from “physics unapproved” model which help. I hope to publish a paper based on the video and coments soon.