Aether Theory
Discussion group for modern aether theory.
Organizer:
- Organized by
-
-
The falling ether
-
The falling ether
-
Jerry
I write at the bottom of this list.
The effect in the measuring arm in MMX is caused by ether wind on 2 antiparallel transverse forces in light causes a second order reduction of 2-way light speed. The separation between atoms in a crystal is controlled by 2 antiparallel longitudinal forces between the atoms and this causes reduction of inter-atomic spacing of the same magnitude. So, a real effect is compensated.
John-Erik
-
David
Potier started a debate between 1882 and 1887 that light (in conflict with the wave model) takes a different way in the reference arm due to transverse ether wind. This mistake gave us the idea that observed light direction was believed to be reduced by a factor 1/GAMMA. This opened the way for the absurd idea of time dilation. It was not observed that in coherent systems mirrors are used to define c – not c+v.
The mistake was that orientation of wave fronts is assumed to be tilted in the reference arm in MMX. Such tilting was also in error assumed for stellar aberration. However, stellar aberration is independent of ether wind, but instead caused by observer motion, since light has a finite speed. Copernicus told us to compensate for position in relation to Sun, but he forgot to tell us that we also should compensate for velocity in relation to Sun. Such a compensation explains pulsar aberration as a Sagnac effect, that can be united with an existent ether.
So, Potier long time ago made a mistake that we still are suffering from in our belief in individual ageing and the acceptation of the absurd Lorentz transform.
We do not need time dilation indicated only in atomic clocks and that behaviour has a classical explanation in the fact that bound electrons are moving forth and back in relation to the ether wind.
The transition from light particles to light waves is not yet finished since we not understand the wave model.
John-Erik
-
David, the link did not work.
The article is “How stellar aberration gave us individual ageing”.
John-Erik
-
I don’t’ know why but writing links, this site add a copy of it, and I must delete the second copy of it for let it work.
Good afternoon
Ing. MM
-
-
David
If you do not accept my ideas give me at least one argument.
With best regards from ________________ John-Erik
-
Marco
Bon apetite
John-Erik
-
Hallo @JoP ,
I was a littel busy because my chief was positiv to covid19 and I had to replace it…
I think we have the same idea of aether but different behaviour of exchanging motion and energy.
I re-read your article and I understand better what you mean for aberration (in gravity field, right?) but I don’t find where you connect “absorbing ether particles” and “aberration”.
The only difference between our model is in my next image.
-
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by Marco.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by
-
-
This image si OK, but is not visualized, you can download it and visualize on your device.
-
-
Consider 2 aetherons (green & light blu arrow) moving near a planet, and these, for Coanda effect, are deflected (in this example) of 90° around it.
the effect of these aetherons can be the same of 2 aetherons absorbed by planet.
They such planet while they turn 90° then they pull away in opposite direction with null effect ortogonally initial direction.
This excess of aetherons near surface of planet can expain the Allais anomaly you have alredy argue in your “http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=About_the_Wang_Eclipse,_Part_4”.
Best regards
Ing. MM
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by Marco.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by
-
-
Marco
Absorption versus aberration.
Absorption instead of collision means that gravity (instead of moving is emerging inside matter). Therefore, no aberration. Fatio’s model was therefore refuted in error.
Newton’s model demands perfect spherical symmetry. So, application to not spherical bodies must be done by using the model on small volume elements and then integrate. After that it is easy to see that Newton and Fatio can be united. Newton probably thought about integration but did not observe that this idea leaded to unification with Fatio.
John-Erik
-
Here’s the issue I have with ether. What are they made of? And then what are those made up of? And then what are those made up of? And so on, and so on, and so on.
There is no depth to the redundancy in the answer, because [0] < ∞ < [1]. We’re in the middle, not on the ends.
Ether is most likely true, as you say, but ultimately everything would have to be made from something else.
I would suspect ether particles would exist at a much higher energy than anything we could define (or imagine) within our range of physics, and that energy just keeps rising and rising and rising the further down we go trying to define what everything is made of. What I mean by that is our limits of motion exist between 0 and 1. Those are relative limits within our range of comprehension. The total universes limit is [0] and [1]. That’s a real physical limit that can never be reached in either direction somewhere will beyond us. Ether is probably out of our physical range of motion and would only be indirectly detectable to a very limited point.
Ether is bottomless pit, but it also must be an endless journey in the opposite direction. The further out we go from the center the lower and lower the energy gets. We could be some other universes ether particles for all we know.
I don’t consider light speed a serious or real limit of velocity, but it is a limit to us at any given moment in time. There are no real constants in the universe. Constant change is the driving force, in my humble opinion.
I’m not sure if ether leads us away from understanding the universe we are immersed in, or brings us closer to understanding the universe we are immersed in. Can’t decide.
I’m a big picture kind of person. I’m stepping outside the total universe and looking at it from afar.
-
Andy
You said that we cannot detect the ether. I think that you just now are feeling the ether wind’s effect in your ass/bottom. I regard ether as important and has capacity to explain:
- Gravity
- The illusion of Big Bang
- The illusion of Pioneer anomaly
- The illusion of quanta in light and energy – only quanta in ether.
- Compton effect by waves in light.
- Continuous hydrogen radiation – no jumping.
- Black-body radiation with light waves.
If we only can respect the wave model.
The ether has large capacity as I have said in many articles.<div>The are no speed limits in the universe. Einstein suggested a not linear addition of velocities and this predicted infinite mass for a certain speed. This singularity proves that his theory is absurd. Einstein used speed limit to cover up for his error.
With best regards from ______________________ John-Erik
</div>
-
John,
“You said that we cannot detect the ether.”
What I said precisely was, “indirectly detectable to a very limited point”.
What I meant by that precisely is, there is no depth to the limits of aether particles. And what I mean precisely is, whatever we can detect indirectly isn’t even scratching the surface of what actually exists well beyond any detection.
[0] < ∞ < [1]
We’re in the middle.
So yes, I see aether.
However, I’ve also been known to say, contemplating infinity is a useless exercise on a mental treadmill.
What’s most important to understand is how our universe works, anything more or less is a redundant math problem. 0<∞<1<∞<2<∞<3…..
I see the machine.
-
Do not think too much about infinity
-
Here’s the rub John.
And I’ve said this for quite a while, but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
Our numbering system was never intended to define the universe. It was invented for commerce and construction, NOT science. That it worked for the universe is purely coincidental. We’re treating the universe like an accounting problem or a building.
I don’t think people appreciate the significance of that statement.
Before Hubble, our universe was infinite. That’s the way everyone understood it. Steady State. Cantor viewed our numbering system as a representation of the universe, and sought to find god in infinity. I won’t go into the absurdity of all that.
The rest of academia viewed the universe as a “static” infinity. And that contradicts the meaning of infinity. Static is a finite term. Olber’s paradox is a striking example of a fundamentally incorrect assumption about an infinite universe. And this is still how we view an infinite universe today.
The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite
number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright
rather than dark.First, imagining infinity as static invalidates the concept of infinity. Next, claiming infinitely old suggests there was a beginning point, invalidating infinity, because mathematically we define infinity as “a number greater than any countable number or quantity”. That’s still a finite value.
The entire concept of infinity is completely misunderstood, and I trace that back to our numbering system.
We used redundant logic to develop a system that could handle any value. It was designed without end. We know that, because we invented it. That’s not the way the universe works.
Like any math problem, we need to weed out redundancy in the variables to get down to the core problem. 0<∞<1<∞<2<∞<3, is a redundant logic problem. Looking at this logically, ∞ always falls between whole numbers. We’re just raising the magnitude of the problem, and in the process we aren’t seeing the core problem.
0<∞<1
That’s the core problem that our numbering system stems from, and that’s all the universe needs.
Existence is absolute. So…
[0] < ∞ < [1]
That’s the universes numbering system that ties into mathematics. Everything else we created is redundant nonsense. The minimum condition for a universe is [0], and the maximum condition for a universe is [1].
We are neither. We’re in the middle.
Our universe is infinite.
But…
[0] < 0.1 < 0.2 < 0.3 < 0.4 < 0.5 < 0.6 < 0.7 < 0.8 < 0.9 < [1]
Our relative perspective of the universe is probably more like.
0.4 < ∞ < 0.5
0.4 = 0
0.5 = 1
C is somewhere in the middle of those two points.
Everything between [0] and [1] moves.
Infinity is dynamic, NOT static.
Finite is static. It sits on the end points of a line segment. We’re the line in between those two end points, but see our own version of 0 and 1 in the process. Planck length for example, I view as a relative limit. It’s a moving target, like everything else. It’s not real, but it is real enough to us from a relative standpoint. It is a limit, but it’s not finite fundamentally.
Anyway, no one seems to see it, strangely enough. They’re completely satisfied with Cantors archaic theological interpretation of our numbering system. Go figure.
Your aether John, is probably more like, .0000000000001 to an atoms .00001. Matter exist on a changing line segment, mathematically speaking.
-
<div>The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.</div>
An infinite universe can’t age, because it never had a beginning. This woefully misguided concept of an infinitely old universe is still prevalent today.
Every moment the universe exists, it is a new universe. And every moment it exists, it is a dead universe.
Time runs in opposite directions. Expansion leads to the beginning, and contraction leads to the end. There’s no rewind button, obviously. It’s a continuous loop, moving in circles. Our universe is running clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time. Our universe is ageless.
The universe recycles.
We never finished contemplating the meaning of an infinite universe. Once our technology developed far enough along that we could see past our galaxy, we stopped thinking. We stopped imagining. We decided the universe was finite at first glance, and that was that. We spent the next 100 years proving it to each other in science and the general population at large. 100 years wasted on Big Bang.
We were wrong.
It’s another flat Earth, geocentrism, or heliocentrism mentality all over again. These things are really hard to move past as a society.
-
You know John, I can predict the future. We all can, and we’ve been doing it for decades, we just don’t know it. Contraction leads to the future, and expansion leads to the past. Clockwise and counterclockwise motion. Acceleration and deceleration.
When we peer inward into atoms, what do we see? High energy.
When we peer outward into the cosmos, what do we see? Low energy.
That’s our future, higher energy. Our past was low energy. We move from a high mass low energy state, to a high energy low mass state.
I do not think light travels at C. It dances back and forth between expansion and contraction.
C is an acceleration curve. We cannot create motion. We can only take advantage of motion already present in the system. And that’s why we can’t accelerate a particle to C. We cannot accelerate to a velocity that doesn’t exist yet. It will exist for us in a moment, but there is a timing delay.
Acceleration is not about “infinite mass”. That applies to rockets or propulsion systems.
-
I’ll take a stab at our universal limits.
As I suggest, “mass-less” particles don’t actually travel at C. C is an acceleration curve. Light for example, gets drug just behind that curve, flipping back and forth between positive and negative or expansion and contraction. It looks constant to us, but that’s about it. The acceleration curve stretches all the way to [1] and all the way back to [0]. The expansion and contraction waves we’re tuned to can only sustain their form to a point at a specific acceleration or deceleration rate. Acceleration outpaces some waves, or the waves can outpace the acceleration curve, so they break off and dissipate into the substrate of space. Some are probably latching onto the next higher acceleration curve, out of our range.
That’s what the “quantum foam” is all about. Those little random pops of existence are the last gasp of recognizable matter to us before those particles dissipate into expansion and slow down, or zip off into a higher energy state beyond our range of motion.
In short, we can only see so far into the universe before the waves break down and become unrecognizable to us. Webb will reach a physical limit looking backward in time, as we have a physical limit of C looking forward in time. The energy looking back will become to low for us to see, and the energy looking forward will be too high for us to see.
But I’m getting into a math problem now. Someone will figure it out, precisely.
I think it would be interesting to accelerate a telescope outward. That might in theory enhance our visibility backward in time. Not sure.
-
“his equations told him that the universe could not stay static: It had to either expand or contract. Einstein chose to ignore what his mathematics was telling him.”
And that’s the key mistake science made in the early 1900’s. No one imagined the universe could expand and contract at the same time. Wasn’t even considered an option. Einstein added lambda to force a static steady state universe to coincide with the popular dogma of the times, and threw it out on Hubble’s observation. Science added it back in 1998 to explain expansion and acceleration.
“When a genius such as Einstein makes a
mistake, it tends to be a “good mistake.” It can’t simply go away
— there is too much thought that has gone into it. So, like a phoenix,
Einstein’s cosmological constant made a remarkable comeback, very
unexpectedly, in 1998.”Mainstream scientists are so “star struck” and “awed” by Einstein, that the man can’t even make an honest mistake when he clearly makes mistakes like any other human being on the planet.
All of science and academia were so entrenched in a steady-state static infinite universe, all other possible scenarios were ignored. When Hubble made his new observation, that all galaxies were moving away from each other, they ran with expansion while completely casting aside the possibility of contraction. Then in 1931 Georges Lemaître came out with the Big Bang Theory from theology, and the rest is history. We’ve been stuck in the rut ever since.
They had a scientific theory supporting expansion, and an observation by Hubble, and Einstein supporting it all.
The problem was, and still is, scientists view matter as something sitting within space, and space is the universe to them. Matter just happens to be there aimlessly floating around for no apparent reason and is made of some mysterious energy they call mass.
Reality is, matter is half of the total universe, and the space we move around in is the other half of the total universe. But, everything is made from space, because, [-e] = [+e]. e=space.
Infinity is not static.
I see the machine…
-
Andy
.<i style=””>..the universe could not stay static…
Yes it can, but not with Einstein’s gravity. And we do not need the cosmological constant either. We must accept Fatio’s interpretation unitid with Newton’s.
John-Erik
-
I just looked at Fatio for the first time. At first glance it seems like a plausible concept. Don’t know. Need to wrap my head around that. See how it could fit into what I imagine is going on. Gravity is tough to see. My instincts lean towards a contraction wave. It’s simple and clean and fits. In all my years of poking around it’s the first time the name Fatio has come up honestly.
Of course we don’t need lambda. Einstein said it was a mistake, and I have no reason to doubt him on that. That would be a fools errand for me. He should know, it’s his math. He forced the math intentionally to make it a static steady state which coincided with the common sentiment of the times. He admitted that. He threw it out, and some 70 years later scientists drug it back out. It was wrong when Einstein created it, and it’s wrong now.
I think his original work was probably closer to the truth. The universe cannot remain static. That makes sense to me.
I disagree with a static universe. That is not what we observe, and as I’ve stated, finite=static. It breaks with logic. Makes no sense. It was wrong 100+ years ago, and it’s wrong today. We do not live in a static universe. Our universe is dynamic. That’s what we observe.
I most definitely would have to disagree with a static universe.
I don’t know if you’ve read anything else I wrote. That’s the way I see it.
-
Andy
You said: “Infinity is not static”.
I say, that the universe is static at a large scale. (Without the cosmological constant.) Since we can see only very small cosmological blue shifts. The large red shifts are illusions, since we do not understand the wave model. If Newton had listened to Fatio he would observed an important completion needed in his model. Einstein’s gravity is absurd.
With best regards from _____________ John-Erik
-
“I say, that the universe is static at a large scale.”
That begs to question. If we’re dynamic at a small scale, then all the variables we use to observe the universe must be dynamic. How can we know the true meaning of distance or velocity?
Large has no meaning without small to compare it to.
As near as I can imagine, the universe is dimensionless on a fundamental level. Without matter the value of the universe is [-e]+[+e]=[1]. There are no definable dimensions in a single point value. It’s just 1 thing. Scale has no meaning unless something else exists to compare it to. The only comparison value to [1] is the absence of [1], which is [0].
How big the universe is an extrapolation of how small we view something within it. A meter at its core fundamental level is a length of platinum sitting in a vault in France. The entire scale of the universe is based on length of atoms strung together in a line segment. If we’re dynamic locally, then the universe must be dynamic at any larger scale, because we’re basing scale on a dynamic value fundamentally.
“Large” doesn’t mean anything on a fundamental level, but it does mean something on a relative level.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by
-
“The large red shifts are illusions”
And I think that’s really what’s at issue. We base physics on the illusion of reality, which is a relative perspective all the way down to motion and scale, not the fundamental reality that we’re built on. Illusion is our reality, because without it nothing would make sense. Illusion isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Color is an illusion, for example, thankfully. Our mind and body has incredible environmental sensors and processing capabilities. Everything we observe isn’t necessarily fundamentally real. We’re fooled into a static reality of comprehensible physical dimensions and benign casual motion. Fundamentally an infinite universe is dimensionless, and a fundamentally dimensionless state cannot be considered static. It doesn’t make sense, because there are no definable dimensions to claim static.
-
Andy
The Hubble constant is also in error
John-Erik
-
“The Hubble constant is also in error”
I’m not sure it’s in error, but it’s most definitely not known precisely. I do not consider it fundamentally understood in the least bit.
As I suggest, expansion is always in decline, and contraction is always on the rise. Expansion waves decelerate in the outward direction, and contraction waves accelerate in the inward direction. The actual net difference is mathematically 0 as near as I can imagine, and that’s as static as the universe can get. The larger something within the universe can be, the smaller something else can be. The line between [0] and [1] extends further inward and outward in the process. That’s infinity. Wedged between two finite values.
The acceleration we see in Redshift is us moving inward at an accelerating rate, or C. C is an acceleration curve, NOT a static velocity. It’s the great illusion of motion, which is universally occurring between [0] and [1] at a constant rate of change.
-
This is how motion is fundamentally being defined. The faster something goes, the slower something goes, and vice versa. At rest means nothing without motion. Slow means nothing without fast, and fast means nothing without slow. The two extremes are continually redefining the meaning of motion, but motion itself is fundamentally defined by the opposite extremes of motion. [0] is a dead stop. That’s real. [1] is instantaneous. That’s real. True instantaneous motion in our universe is NOT possible. And I can prove that one mathematically. Not that I would bother, because it should be self evident to anyone that understands what I’m talking about. And if someone needed a formula to see it, then they do not understand what I’m saying. Me explaining it mathematically would serve no purpose in someone else understanding the problem.
-
Andy
Cosmological constant, as well as Hubble constant, are as much in error as is possible, since they both do not exist.
Big Bang as well as Pioneer anomaly are illusions by the same reasons.
With best regards from ________________ John-Erik
-
Big Bang as well as Pioneer anomaly are illusions by the same reasons.
The big bang we are in complete agreement on. Never happened.
As for the Pioneer anomaly, it seems to me there are so many plausible explanations that no single conclusion can be drawn. Unfortunately, it’s a corrupted experiment in long range travel, because it lacks data. The RTG generates heat which becomes a force in propulsion, and it doesn’t sound like anyone knows precisely where that heat was dissipating. And then we have the possibility of being hit by micro meteors from any angle or moving through an unknown debris field or dust cloud. That technology is very old an very limited. I wouldn’t trust anyone’s conclusions. The answer is, no one knows. It’s useless information that can only lead to conflict. We do not know enough about the environment it was traveling through.
Cosmological constant, as well as Hubble constant, are as much in error as is possible, since they both do not exist.
I would agree with this, but only in so far as, they’re just math problems to describe an unknown or misunderstood observation. Lambda was an admitted blunder. Hubble is a mathematical model derived through observations. They’re trying to pin down an expansion rate based on the observation of the Redshift.
Lambda is being used to explain acceleration on top of expansion.
Obviously, in my view, no one is right. We’re expanding and contracting simultaneously, exactly as Einsteins original math suggested. He ignored it because it didn’t fit the commonly accepted view of the moment, and then Hubble came along and his original work didn’t look so bad. What he missed was that the universe could expand and contract at the same time. Expansion is always in decline, and contraction is always on the rise. That’s the way it’s always been and always will be. C is an acceleration curve.
I think eventually science will come to realize there is more than one thing going on. Expansion is an outward force, and contraction is an inward force. Expansion is deceleration, and contraction is acceleration. That’s what defines physical motion.
And they say it again in this article. “Einstein’s work suggested that gravity would cause it to do one or the other.” Those were field equation in space, and not necessarily applying specifically to what we view as gravity. Why can’t the universe do both at the same time? As I suggest, contraction manifests in matter, and expansion manifests in the space we traverse. It’s all space. Mass=Space, because e=mc^2. [-e]+[+e]=[1]. space=[1].
Albert Einstein, the famous German-American physicist, came up with the cosmological constant, which he called the “universal constant,” in 1915 as a means to balance certain calculations in his theory of general relativity.
At the time, physicists believed the universe was static — neither
expanding nor contracting — but Einstein’s work suggested that gravity
would cause it to do one or the other. So, to mesh with the scientific
consensus, Einstein inserted a fudge factor, denoted by the Greek letter
lambda, into his results, which kept the cosmos still. -
Andy
You provide a lot to the concept Falling ether. But you do not say anything about it. What do you think about it? You seem to not even have read the article. A falling ether equal to the escape velocity is hitting a celestial object not moving in relation to an observer and generates blue shifted light in ether’s frame, ether motion on the surface of the body is away from observer and creates a red shift. Totally this means a red shift of second order and this explains way we only see red shifts, almost. Therefore, the Hubble constant is also wrong. You can see more details in How Newton’s gravity gave us Big Bang.
The Pioneer anomaly seems to be a constant change and not caused by collision and the engines were turned off. The radial ether wind (escape velocity) from Sun is v·r<sup>-1/2</sup> with v equal to 42.4 km/sec and is expressed in astronomical units. So, 2-way light speed becomes: c<sub>2</sub>/c=1-v<sup>2</sup>c<sup>-2</sup>=1-2·10<sup>-8</sup><sup>·</sup>·r<sup>-1</sup>. This increase in c<sub>2</sub> simulates a decrease in the speed of the space station. See also No Big Bang – no Pioneer anomaly.
With best regards from ____________________ John-Erik
-
I don’t know much about the isotopes used in the RTG for pioneer, other than it being radioactive. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it still remains warm long after the power button is switched off. The heat generated from the isotope could create a subtle propulsive effect, no matter how insignificant. And then we aren’t certain of the environment it was traveling through. I don’t believe we had a lot of external sensors taking continuous readings.
It’s not about whether you’re right or wrong, it’s about the debate that follows. I have no idea who is right or wrong from where I sit and no way to confirm either side of the argument. Everyone seems genuinely sincere in their point of view with plenty of math on the table. I can’t use anyone’s opinion as a result. It doesn’t do me any good.
I don’t know if there is anything there. No clue.
Falling ether. I don’t think it’s incorrect, but I’m still wrapping my head around the mechanics. Ether was discarded long ago in favor of Einsteins empty space. From my point of view there is no such thing as empty space. Space is split into two forms of energy derived from its motion. Empty space isn’t the way to imagine it. Matter and space are fundamentally the same thing. e=mc^2.
What I’m struggling with is imagining an ether wind and why that would cause gravity. In my view there is only two directions of motion, inward or outward. That’s it. That perfectly coincides with the concept of falling ether, but not so much with the concept of ether wind in the outward direction. I imagine wind on our planet, or solar wind, and falling ether just doesn’t seem to coincide with conventional wind mechanics as we understand it. Conventional winds are mostly positive in nature. Meaning, they move primarily in the outward direction. I’ve never seen winds blowing anything together in a gravitational manner of sorts.
This is the total universe.
[0] < ∞ < [1]
It is a 1-dimensional scalar. Space on it’s own is dimensionless. What brings dimension to space is motion. No motion, no energy, no dimension. [-e]+[+e]=[1].
We move in the direction of high energy, because, we start motion at 0 and move towards 1 along the scalar dimension at an accelerating rate. We refer to that as C, which I’m calling an acceleration curve. The acceleration is constant, so from our relative perspective the velocity appears constant or static.
As we move from 0 to 1, mass contracts from 1 to 0. We are continuously moving to a higher state of energy with a diminishing mass. We have all the distance we need to work with, because scale is irrelevant in an infinite universe, and because space fundamentally lacks dimension. Scale is a relative perspective because we’re derived from motion, and dimension is derived through motion.
Ether is a low mass high energy state. That means it is much more focused on the inward direction of motion. From our perspective it may not even show much outward motion. It would just appear to be a sea of motionless particles from our perspective, possibly. Any outward motion would be insanely high. I also consider the possibility that there are “mass-less” ether particles and mass ether particles. Ether is essentially the next level down in matter and motion. Same physics as us basically only smaller and faster.
I’ve started using funnel mechanics to imagine this inward motion. Imagining the mechanics in my mind of course.
I am considering the possibility that the vacuum in space is the ether wind. From a perspective of pushing things together in a gravitational manner, I think it’s more like pulling them together from the center of mass between them. The wind would be the cause, but with slightly different mechanics possibly. Image the inward motion between two objects. That inward motion would become increasingly more linear between the two objects as they came closer together.
Still wrapping my head around it John.
I’m liking it. Gravity isn’t something I have been able to pin down in my thoughts. I’ve largely ignored thus far.
It would look a lot like the Fatio graphic I gleaned from Wiki. As near as I can imagine of course.
-
-
-
-
“The are no speed limits in the universe.”
But there is a relative speed limit. I think colliders have proven that fairly well over the decades. Understanding what that means is the tricky part.
To understand it, you have to look at the REAL maximum velocity, and the REAL minimum velocity.
[1] is the maximum. That would be instantaneous motion between two points. Nothing can exceed that limit without arriving at B before leaving A. So, yes, there is definitely a logical limit of motion that cannot be exceeded.
And there is a logical minimum, [0]. Going past [0] would constitute negative motion, which is utterly absurd to consider. Something either moves or it doesn’t, period.
Motion is absolute.
We exist in a non-absolute universe, or ∞.
Contraction waves accelerate from 0 to 1. Expansion waves decelerate from 1 to 0.
Matter can slow it’s inward acceleration to very near 0, but it can’t go past it, because it would no longer be a contraction wave. It would flip to an expansion wave. It would no longer be accelerating inward, it would decelerate outward to to 0.
Motion is a continuous loop as near as I can see.
0<1>0<1>0<1
When matter accelerates in the positive direction, or outward, its mass expands as it loses kinetic energy.
0|–O——–|1
When matter accelerates in the negative direction, or inward, its mass contracts as it gains kinetic energy.
0|——–o–|1
But the speed of light is an arbitrary assignment, and really slow in the whole scheme of things.
0|—–o—–|1
We view the universe center out, always. Matter is always in an accelerating state no matter where it sits between 0 and 1. The speed of light is always rising as we continuously gain kinetic energy in the contraction process.
We cannot created or destroy motion. We can only transform it from one state to another, or alter it’s natural course along the scalar dimension. In other words, we can only manipulate motion already inherent in the system. We can’t add or subtract from it. We aren’t really accelerating as we think we are. We aren’t running fast, or jetting across the world. We’re moving an acceleration curve back and forth relative to everything else. When we move in the positive direction, we reduce acceleration in the negative direction.
Light looks like a fixed point of reference, or constant, but it’s not.
I’m not sure how we get around it, but I’m sure someone will figure it out. The point is, motion is not what it appears to be. We have been overly concerned with our outward motion relative to other things in the universe, and frames, and blah blah blah. We’ve never bothered trying to understand what it means on a deeper level. We’ve taken the limits of motion set by Einstein verbatim, and completely ignored the logical limits of [0] and [1]. The logical limits are 0 and 1. That’s real, Einstein is relative. Quantum entanglement shows us we’re missing something very fundamental. That’s occurring on the logical limits of motion, without any explanation in science. I can explain it with this understanding pretty easily. Particles become bound on the scalar dimension.
1—-0—-1
They communicate in the mirror image of each other, which is exactly what we observe.
-
There is no real point source
-
-
-
SRT predicts that atomic clocks change frequency f’/f or T/T’ as :
[1-v(orb)^2/c^2]^1/2
GRT predicts in the same way:
[1-v(esc)^2/c^2]^1/2
So, orbiting and escape velocities change clock speed in the same way. Therefore, we can unite predictions for SRT and GRT although the theories are very different. We just have to accept the idea that the radial ether wind has the same speed as the escape velocity. We get one theory instead of two.
GRAVITY is explained.
v(esc)^2 is proportional to 1/r. So, 2-way light speed is increasing with r and this can cause an illusion that space station speed is decreasing with range. At 1 astronomical unit away from Sun we have escape velocity equal to 4.24 km/sec in relation to Sun.
PIONEER ANOMALY is explained.
v(esc) towards a celestial body causes blue shift in the ether and v(esc) away from observer creates a red shift. So, together we get a red shift of second order [proportional v(esc)^2] although we have not assumed motion of observer in relation to object. Body motion is an illusion and we have only ether motion.
BIG BANG is explained.
With best regards from ______________ John-Erik
-
John,
I have little doubt that you’re correct. Seriously, I think you’re right.
However, what science has lacked is a truly fundamental understanding of motion. Why are all these “aether” particles moving? Where are they headed? Why do massless particles travel at an apparent maximum velocity of C? Why is there an arbitrary limit of motion? Why is C so dismally slow? What exactly is motion? Why and how does anything move?
Sure, we understand the basic mechanics of walking, or a combustion engine, or a rocket, etc, but that doesn’t explain motion. Why are all these particles in motion on the quantum level? What’s making everything move as we observe?
That’s what I’m trying to understand, and trying to explain.
Acceleration and deceleration is the constant. The difference between that constant motion is C, which is an acceleration curve. C is the point between acceleration and deceleration. It’s a change in direction of motion from inward to outward, or outward to inward. Motion is inherent in the universal process, or machine. We don’t move as we think we do. We are manipulating motion curves relative to other things. That’s why C never changes no matter how fast we go, because that point always lies between acceleration and deceleration.
Imagine you have a car with unlimited power. When you hit the accelerator you have a range of acceleration to choose from all the way to 1, but you’re already in motion. As long as you’re pressing the gas you’re accelerating. Take your foot off the gas and acceleration now flips around 180 degrees and becomes deceleration. C is that middle point.
Matter is accelerating inward at a constant rate of change, and space is decelerating outward at a constant rate of change. We view the universe from C out in both directions. C is always C no matter how fast we appear to be traveling. Red shift aside.
And that’s where mass gain with acceleration comes into play. When we move in any direction we’re traveling in the outward direction We expand. We’re essentially pulling the gas pedal back a little, reducing the amount of acceleration. Traveling past C would be a change in the direction of motion, where matter would flip from inward negative contractive energy, to outward positive expansive energy.
Time follows space. It expands and contracts with motion, altering the frequency we’re tapping into to make clocks work. Frequency is changing with motion. It’s a timing problem.
That’s motion fundamentally.
We’re already in motion acceleration to [1], while mass and time is winding down to [0] in the process. The higher (smaller) the frequency the faster the observed rate of time. Everything is bound to motion.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by Andy.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by
-
A little correction…😉
There is a “comma” error:
Escape velocty of Sun at 1 UA is 42 Km/s instaed of 4.2 Km/s
-
-
To all
The support for RT comes from atomic clocks. GRT effect is normally described as due to the gravitational potential, but this potential is related to the escape velocity. So, instead we can express GRT-effect as due to escape velocity. Then we find that we can unite GRT and SRT, since the equation:
(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2=f’/f
can in both cases describe the clock effect if we use in GRT v equal to v(escape) 11.2 km/sec on Earth and 5.5 km/sec in the GPS satellite. In SRT we can use the same equation and state instead that v is equal to v(orbiting) about 0.3 km/sec on Earth and 3.9 km/sec in the satellite. So, we have united the effects of SRT and GRT,although the interpretations are very different in RT.
However, we now have a possibility to unit also the theories. All we have to do is to assume v to represent velocity in relation to the ether in both cases. So, we only need a radial ether wind equal to the escape velocity. We need a falling ether.
SO, WE GET ONE MODEL INSTEAD OF TWO.
With best regards from __________________ John-Erik
-
Clarification
GRT states that frequency change (inverse to time change) is:
f’/f=T/T’=(1-2GM/rc^2)^1/2
Escape velocity is:
v(esc)=(2GM/r)^1/2
Therefore:
f’/f=[1-v(esc)^2/c^2]^1/2 ——————— 11.2–>5.5 km/sec
SRT states that:
f’/f=[1-v(orb)^2/c^2]^1/2 ——————— c:a 0.3–>3.9 km/sec
EFFECTS OF SRT AND GRT ARE UNITED AND ASSUMING A RADIAL ETHER WIND EQUAL TO THE ESCAPE VELOCITY MEANS THE THEORIES ALSO CAN BE UNITED.
With best regards from ________________ John-Erik
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by John-Erik.
-
Hallo @JoP ,
I agree your approach to unify SRT and GRT, I haden’t noticed this relation 👍.
I don’t understand one thing:
why you consider the v(orb)= 0.3 km/s on earth ?
The other value is coherent with the real measurable values, but I don’t know what velocity you consider on earth…
Best regards
Ing. MM
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by
-
The falling ether explains:
- Atomic clocks
- Gravity
- Big Bang
- Pioneer anomaly
CLOCK DILATION – NOT TIME DILATION – due to ether-related motion.
GRAVITY IS ETHER MOTION
The radial ether from our sun means that 2-way light speed increases with range. This can simulate a decreasing space station speed in Pioneer I and II. ETHER MOTION – NOT BODY MOTION.A celestial body, not moving in relation to an observer can appear as red shifted, since the ether moving towards the body creates a blue shift and also a red shift in relation to the observer by moving away from the observer. Together these effects create a red shift of SECOND ORDER. ETHER MOTION – NOT BODY MOTION. No Big Bang.
The reason to our problems is that we do not understand the wave model.
Faraday was a devoted scientist and walked around with magnets and wires in his pockets. He studied the electromagnetic properties of the ether during almost his whole life, and his work was translated into math. Scientists walk around with an ether-specification on their T-shirt and declare that this ether does not exist.
With best regards from ________________________ John-Erik
PS
Not one single member will discuss my ideas in detail. It is time for me to stop writing.
DS
-
If aether falls, wouldn’t that affect light waves in aether?
-
David
Your question reviles that you do not know anything about my theory. You have not even observed that posts in some steps above explain your question.
The radial ether wind is caused by attenuation matter leading to fewer ether particles leaving a body. So, a small difference in the number of particles means a falling ether and therefore light moves down faster than up. This means that 2-way light speed is increasing with range. The escape velocity from Sun can therefore simulate a decreased space station speed. Pioneer anomaly (illusion) is explained by ETHER motion. Escape velocity at 1 AU from Sun is 42.3 km/sec, decreasing as r^-1/2. Easily tested.
The falling ether around a celestial body not moving in relation to an observer can cause a SECOND ORDER red shift. Ether motion towards the source creates a blue shift and motion away from the observer causes a red shift. So, together we have second order red shift. Big Bang (illusion) is caused by ETHER motion.
Gravity is ETHER motion.
Atomic clocks depend on speed in relation to ETHER tangentially (SRT) and radiallly (GRT). One ether model instead of SRT plus GRT.
I explained this a few days ago (see above) and I have explained it in more detail in many articles. Read some of the latest.
John-Erik
-
“The radial ether wind is caused by attenuation matter leading to fewer
ether particles leaving a body. So, a small difference in the number of
particles means a falling ether and therefore light moves down faster
than up.”I’m very interested in this concept John. I’m not following it entirely.
What exactly does “radial” wind mean? Is it circling bodies? Why exactly are there fewer ether particles closer to a body? Why would that cause fewer particles?
I suspect you’re suggesting either particles thin out at inverse square laws closer to a body.
I have some thoughts on the subject, but I’m not clear on the concept yet.
-
The reason I ask John, is because if I follow my reasoning, all matter must emit an equal but opposite expansive/repulsive energy as it contracts inward. That repulsive energy should attenuate out from the source, probably following inverse square laws. That energy is nothing more than tiny expanding ether particles traveling outward in the opposite direction of matter. But, opposite energies do attract. Some of those particles would probably loop back around as they slow and expanded to a relative state.
I could see a falling ether in that scenario.
-
I suppose it could also act as an anti-ether near the source.
-
I want to congratulate you @JoP for this great explanation, it is alligned on my model of gravity.
We differ only for the different transfert of energy and amount of motion between eather and matter.
Your approach is absorbtion and my approach is fluid dynamics like.
Great job
Ing. MM
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by Marco.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 8 months ago by
-
-
Andy
“Fewer” particles is an effect of attenuation by means of absorption.
“Radial” means motion in negative radial direction. Negative since those in positive direction have been attenuated.
“Energy” is risky since we do not how much energy is flowing to and from the ether. Instead clock effect from gravity potential I prefer velocity (more concrete).
“Anti-ether” seems absurd to me. What do you mean by that?
All your questions are already explained much better and several times on the posts above on this discussion. Read!
If you really is interested you also must read some of my latest articles.
With best regards from _________________________ John-Erik
-
I am with you on the ether John, but it’s not a line of thought I’ve followed much over the years. I know that might seem a bit odd considering the level of importance you place on it. I’ve been looking at the universe from the outside looking in. I suppose you could say I’m looking at it from [1], and you’re looking at it from [0]. In the middle lies everything else.
There is very little doubt in my mind that I have found a correct path in understanding the universe. However, I am a layman John. I’m not pretending to be someone with the same set of skills as you or anyone else. I see and explain things differently. It takes me a lot longer to get to a point because I explain it in plain English. I imagine the mechanics. I consider the universe more machine like, but a machine with an endless supply of energy that fuels it. It’s not perpetual, it’s persistent. In that sense our universe cannot be static, and I think that’s a key difference between our views.
I think this is the most reasonable assumption to make about the universe.
[0] < ∞ < [1]
We’re in the middle.
The two ends can never be reached. If it did the machine would shutdown.
My best analogy is a simple single pole light switch.
In the off ([0]) position there would be absolutely nothing. Obviously that’s impossible to achieve, so it can only be viewed from a potential standpoint. It’s real, but impossible. And I think that’s what makes it so confounding for science. We can calculate the universe all the way back to [0], as in a possible big bang, but that’s not at all the way it works. That is only a potential reality that has never and will never exist. Mainstream science keeps hitting the rewind button looking at the same problem over and over again.
In the on ([1]) position space would be everywhere at once. It would be a motionless static void. An equilibrium would be achieved, or a perfectly balanced state. And obviously, that doesn’t exist or we wouldn’t be here. Like [0] it’s real, but impossible. And that’s where science imagines a heat death. We’re just going to expand into oblivion. Mathematically it works out to an extent, because it is possible mathematically like the big bang, but it’s wrong. Mainstream science keeps hitting the fast forward button looking at the same problem over and over again.
This all ties into your ether John. As I said, I think you’re right. But I need to see it in my mind.
Anti-Ether might be an absurd line of thought. I don’t know. Still working on it.
This is where I’m struggling with the ether.
There’s always more in either direction, because there is no finite end to the universe, only a potential to a finite end. There’s more above [0], and there’s more below [1]. Falling occurs in two directions. The majority of what we can see falls inward, and everything we can’t see falls upward. There is an equal and opposite to everything.
If what we recognize as matter is absorbing ether particles, where is that ether heading? And what’s the medium for ether to exist in?
When we look out into space at the vastness, there is an equal and opposite vastness in the opposite direction, inward. Outward is where we were, and inward is where we’re headed.
My thought on anti-ether is that there is a steady flow of expansion particles flowing outward from matter. And that’s what is pushing my bottom up right now as I sit in this chair.
There is only two forms of energy. Expansive, or repulsive energy, and contractive , or binding energy. Push/pull. That’s all the mechanics the universe can manage. A simple push or pull. What differentiates the effects of the pushing and pulling forces is bound to scale and velocity.
No matter where we are in the universe…
[0] < ∞ < (us) < ∞ < [1]
There’s always more.
You’re looking at, us to [0].
[0] < ∞ < ether < us < ether < ∞ <[1]
The flow of ether particles must be two way, and must also oppose each other in the process.
There is only two basic things going on fundamentally, expansion (+energy) and contraction (-energy).
[0] — acceleration —> [1]
[1] — deceleration —> [0]
[1] — mass contraction —> [0]
[0] — mass expansion —> [1]
Mass = Space
Space = Time
That’s it.
It’s a very simple machine fundamentally. Understanding it mathematically and manipulating it, very complex. Extremely difficult. And that makes proving anything extremely difficult. People hold on to what they think they know, without exception.
I love that quote by Mark Twain.
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
I don’t believe anything John.
false < unknown < true.
What we know about the universe is mostly unknown, with a few mathematical facts sprinkled in to confuse us. 1+1=2 is a mathematical fact. What that means exactly is open to interpretation.
-
And to be very clear, a static infinite universe is a violation in the laws of physics. It invokes the concept of perpetual existence, so everything contained within a perpetual static infinite universe would be perpetual in natural. That’s not what we observe, and it violates the laws of physics.
And that is exactly why steady state failed, and big bang rose to the top of the heap.
We’ve been imagining the wrong infinite universe.
A static infinite universe is a perpetual motion machine.
The Big Bang is also violating the laws of physics as we understand them. The big bang is gaining energy over time. Its an overunity machine.
The universe is persistent. It gains as much energy as it loses over time through expansion and contraction. It is 100% efficient. What changes is its scale of magnitude over time. The higher the scale the smaller the scale. Change is the constant. Our universe is dynamic. It is not infinite in extent, it is infinitely changing in extent in both directions over time. That’s the net result from the input energy. That input comes from motionless space beyond the observable universe we are immersed in, and the output is a change in extent. The scale changes. There was never a beginning or end.
This is the way I view the universe fundamentally.
I’m following the laws of physics, not violating them.
-
-
