[Jerry]

Hi again!

How is it through zero dimensional “point particles” that further dimenions contructed could explain string theory, quantum mechanics, entropy, and gravity? What is a “point particle” exactly? Did you mean something other than observable (or detectable) particles such as, say, protons and electrons? If they’re zero dimensional, how to know they physically exist? If a “point particle” is one miniscule point of something in particular, such as with a dense physical structure, it’s already three dimensional by itself. Or is it possible that point particles consist of somewhat of a “flowing wave or cloud”? If so, what is this composed of? energy? If so, what is “energy” exactly? Is the proton and electron composed of energy? Or is it that they radiate energy? Does energy always involve a “charge”? If so, what is the “pure energy” which is allegedly released when the atom is “split”? Is it possible all energy inevitably boils down to “mechanical energy”? Please let me know your thoughts.

[Jerry]

Hi Graeme. Interesting thoughts.

I would personally say that “dimensions” couldn’t exist separately. The original and the only currently accurate definition for dimensions identifies how objects have height, depth, and width. So it is the physical structure of objects that the three dimensions describes. One dimension by itself, such as a line, or two dimensions, such as a plane, isn’t real, or only exists as theoretical. Also, time doesn’t seem to meet the same conceptual qualifications as the three physical dimensions.

All physical objects seem to exist in open area of empty space, yet the aether, the space-time continuum, and other possible mediums have been theorized to exist, which propagate particles, waves, and even objects. The main phenomena I think aether seems at least somewhat plausible to explain is the “action at a distance” effect. This doesn’t apply only to “entangled particles”, yet also to gravity, electromagnetism, and possibly various other “fields”. However, since the alleged aether is invisible, and impossible to physically detect, it’s composition or structure is impossible to know. Sorry about the tangent. lol

[Jerry]

I had a conversation earlier with a friend about experiments with the eclipse, and it somehow led to this question.

[Jerry]

About half a year ago, I wrote a similar post about last year’s eclipse. Also, John-Erik provided some of his ideas and answers about the effect. They’re available here to read if anyone is interested.

Thanks!

[Jerry]

Update!

Apparently, there’s currently much available documentation online about the Allais effect. Why there wasn’t last year is a mystery to me!

[Jerry]

When I read about previous experiments of the Allais effect, one thing that I didn’t find is the idea of having a lead square on top, or around the sides. I had the thought of attaching a pendulum to a very secure frame, where the pendulum set in place could stay there, without the slightest swing. I had the idea for three of these. One of them placed with only a secure frame, one with a lead square on top, one of them with a lead square on top, as well as the sides. And with people to monitor each of these to see if there were differences in the possible motions of the pendulums.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Here is a response by Salih, who posted this on the “activity feed”. He said I could “copy and paste” his response here in the aether theory group.

Dear Jerry,

These questions are very appropriate and justified. First of all, scientists who defend the existence of ether need to prove this concretely with an experiment. Unless this is proven, scientific interpretations and philosophical thoughts about the ether will not be able to reach a real conclusion.

Many astronauts went into space. He also did a spacewalk. During this walk, couldn’t they fill a bowl with ether and bring it to the world? However, this is a very simple method to prove the existence of ether. Why has this method not been used until now?

Moreover, in my opinion, since the existence of the ether will eliminate Newton’s principle of inertia, the speeds of the planets will gradually decrease due to friction with the ether. This is contrary to the perfect cycle of the universe.

Therefore, unless the defenders of the ether can concretely prove the existence of the ether, all their theories and philosophical views on the ether will not mean anything.

Best regards

Salih

[Jerry]

Hi Salih. Thanks for your thoughts.

I definitely agree with your first paragraph. I have to admit, that even though I often debate the existence of the aether, I don’t completely disbelieve that some type of medium that permeates the universe could possibly exist, though I would currently say it does seem improbable. To prove or find adequate evidence that something is there that propagates light, gravity, and possibly all physical phenomena would seem a good first step.

I don’t know if you were joking with your second paragraph. If an astronaut were to collect some aether in a bowl, it might spill when they bring it to earth! 🙂 The idea that I think most aetherists accept is that the aether exists everywhere!

I hadn’t heard that the existence of the aether would eliminate Newton’s principle of inertia. It would seem something to consider, if there is indeed a very slight “push” (possibly the same or similar to “friction”) of the aether that would cause objects to shorten in the direction of their motion. Some aetherists don’t accept the idea of length contraction though.

Many of the possible answers to questions I asked in my original post above, would turn out in disagreement with each other. It would seem a positive step if aetherists could look for common ground about this mysterious medium. Salih, you mentioned that evidence through experimentation is a way to find out and understand more about the aether. Would you, or anyone else, possibly have any ideas for such experiments?

Thanks.

[Jerry]

A quick thought. Why wouldn’t Newton’s law of inertia “stay intact”? If the aether exists, why wouldn’t it act as what Newton called “another outside force”? Such as how “an object at rests tends to stay at rest, and an object in motion tends to stay in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force”.

[Jerry]

It’s interesting that you consider the dimensions as actual atomic particles. I hadn’t ever heard this before our conversation here. If zero, one, and two dimensions can’t exist by themselves or separately, what of how throughout the universe there exist countless “free” protons, neutrons, and electrons that don’t combine to create an atomic structure? Would you consider these separate dimensions?

[Jerry]

Hi Graeme.

I can tell you’ve put much time, thought, and effort into your ideas, which I find admirable. I have a few questions though.

Thanks for defining “dimensions” at each level. Did you arrive at the concept of “zero dimensional point particles” by yourself, or that you’ve heard of it elsewhere? You mentioned that zero, one, and two dimensional particles don’t exist by themselves, though you stated that two one dimensional objects could interact into a higher spatial dimension, and so forth with dimensions that interact higher than that. How it is though, that “lower” dimensions could actually create dimensions of a step or two higher? And why consider one dimensional lines and two dimensional planes, as objects, or even particles? Also, if three dimensions is required to create a complete object, why should treat the existence of zero, one, and two dimensions separately?

Would you say you understand how string theory and higher dimensions work? Where to find and prove the existence of higher dimensions?

You mentioned that the proton is one dimension, the neutron is two dimensions, and that three is the structure of the atomic nucleus. What of electrons though? And other types of particles? or even quarks (which allegedly compose protons and neutrons) and leptons (which allegedly compose electrons)?

[Jerry]

Hi Graeme. Thanks for your extensive response!

One of the main concepts in your theory is “dimensions”. How would you define them? Why isn’t it only the three (of height, depth, and width) possible for something to physically exist? How could one or two dimensions create something real? And especially if there’s something with zero dimensions? How could these exist at all?

[Jerry]

Hi Salih. I had a bit of trouble following your thoughts.

You wrote

‘Energy mass and light mass’ I think there was a translation error. I have listed the basic elements that make up space. Namely, Empty space, relative velocities between masses and energies, constant speed of light c. Gravitational fields caused by energy, centrifugal force balancing them and time being equal to the amount of energy. Other physical events occur depending on these basic elements.

You listed some basic elements that you said “makes up space”, and the first one was “empty space”. Why isn’t that the only one? How would you define “space”? Why would any else of what you listed also qualify or contribute to the concept of “space”.

You wrote

“As we know, speeds are a relative law of nature. Let’s say it’s just the two of us in space. If we’re getting close to each other, we’ll never know. Are you approaching me? Am I getting closer to you or are we getting closer to each other? Or are you following me faster as I move away from you? We will never know this.”

I would agree. This is essentially Galileo’s original principle of relativity.

You wrote

If one of us leaves space, speed will no longer matter to the remaining person and will be at a standstill. As we approach each other in space, the ray of light coming from you to me will come out at 300,000 km/s and will see me as standing still. Likewise, the ray of light coming from me to you will come out at 300,000 km/s and will see you as standing still.

Here I come to the following conclusion; All the planets, stars and objects in space seem to stand still for the ray of light that comes out at a speed of 300,000 km/s from its source. The speed of light seems to be constant.

It is commonly thought that the velocity of light is constant. What evidence is there for that though?

You wrote

Simple explanation of the constancy of the speed of light

Let there be only an object of mass A and an object of mass B in space. Let them speedly approach each other and vice versa. As soon as we send a ray of light from the object with mass A to B, let’s remove the object with mass A from space. Mass B will now appear to be standing still for the ray of light. Velocities in space exist between objects. But for the ray of light they are immobile.

Why would the light that the first or second object emanates, cause the other to seem immobile or stationary? Does it only seem that way, or would you say it is that way?

You wrote

Objects A and B in space are accelerating towards or away from each other. As soon as we send a ray of light from object A to object B, let’s remove object A from space. For the ray of light, object B will still appear to be standing still. Here, the accelerated motion of the A and B objects or their uniform linear motion does not change the result for the ray of light.

An object that accelerates, is much different than one that simply travels at a constant velocity. You seemed to suggest that they’d have the same effect either way. If c is constant, wouldn’t the light that transmits by a source that accelerates, have a different value than one that is “stationary” or travels at a constant velocity?

You wrote

If the ray of light passes through the gravitational field of B object, it will deviate somewhat. This will negligibly affect the speed of the ray of light.

However, if c is constant, this discrepancy only occurs through the “viewpoint” of a lower gravitational area. Would you say this is a possible cause of the deflection of starlight, such as the 1919 experiment had allegedly proved?

[Jerry]

Hi Salih.

I mostly agree with what you’ve written.

What is “energy mass” and “light mass”?

Also, I couldn’t find your CNPS page.

Could you please send a link?

Thanks!

[Jerry]

Hi Salih.

How would you say the aether is different than the aether foundation?

It seems that collecting some aether in a jar with a lid, is much different than collecting some in a bowl. Of course, an aetherist might suggest that the aether would travel through the glass. If you understood the theory to mean that the aether doesn’t exist everywhere, where would it exist? Only in outer space or around the moon? I guess whatever you’ve read or whoever you’ve heard speak about the aether, might give a different idea or answer than what another aetherist might believe.

I hadn’t heard by any aetherist, or anyone else actually, that the aether would slow down objects that travel. Though, I’ve heard countless times how objects’ lengths would shorten as they travel through the aether. It does seem something to consider, given that length contraction suggests that the objects and the aether physically interact or influence each other. Different thought, though also similar.

I didn’t quite understand your second to last paragraph. Of mass, energy, space, the constancy of c (which page did you refer to?) How exactly would you define these terms? I’m interested.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by  Jerry.