[Jerry]

I haven’t studied up much on the expanding earth theory. So is it heat that is largely responsible for the expansion? One of the main questions I’ve had since I had first heard of this theory, is how did the all encompassing abundance of water materialize? If the earth was way more “shrunk down” throughout the past, did water once cover the whole globe? Or did the water gradually materialize by the chemical process of Hydrogen combining with Oxygen?

[Jerry]

I would almost feel sort of bad to openly debate various ideas that Neil deGrasse Tyson has accepted, since to me, he is so likeable and charming. However, the truth is also important, so I would want to present alternate ideas politely. Some of my main disagreements with the Big Bang theory, I had already mentioned in detail in one or more of the other discussions within this same group on this site, if anyone is interested to read them. I think there were also other theories of which to account, that were involved with specific observations through the JWST, such as the suggestion that “newer” galaxies that were found that exist several billion light-years away, couldnt have possibly had the time to collect and grow to such enormous size. This does seem understandable, however, there exist many other types of evidence for why the Big Bang theory doesn’t seem possible, which is more convincing to me personally. What if someday those with alternate and possibly more accurate scientific theories may have the chance to present such ideas on a much larger scale? What if the Big Bang and other “final” or “settled” answers were brought up for further testing, of objective review and debate, by impartial individuals who highly prioritize observation and logical thought? This type of scientific approach does seem exceedingly more common over the past two decades or so. Just think of what we could accomplish into the future. Just a thought!

[Jerry]

Hi Andy! Thanks for your response! (Your thoughts printed in italics.)

The issue I’ve always struggled with is the concept of “physical objects.” What does that mean? The commonly accepted narrative laid out in the scientific dogma is that everything is made of energy. And that narrative permeates our global cultural knowledge base as a pseudo-fact, which we see in such things as Star Trek, or Star Wars, or ghost shows, etc.

Of course, countless words have multiple definitions. There seem inherent complications with giving the word “physical” a one and only conclusive definition. For instance, the particles protons, neutrons, and electrons combine to create atoms. It is often said that atoms consist mostly of “empty space”, though is this possibly the complete truth, since various waves, such as the Cosmic Microwave Radiation, may seem to permeate all of space that is currently observed? Could we consider these subatomic particles as “energy” though? Could these particles instead have more of a dense material structure? Actually though, electricity (which consists of electrons that flow through the ions that have “temporarily permanent” nuclei) is sometimes considered a type of energy. Typically, objects that we have the capability to apprehend through our senses, we consider “physical”. However, how to know for sure the reliability of our senses” is a complete other topic to discuss. 🙂

The idea of “Pure Energy” is casually tossed around in science and culture as if it’s a known scientific fact. We’re all made of energy, right? But you take a deep dive into the real science and what you discover is that there is 0 evidence for the physical existence of energy. None

What of “energy” released through atomic explosions? What exactly this type of “energy” consists of is definitely debatable. Actually, the phrase “pure energy” has been used to explain what the atomic bomb releases. Since all the other involved particles that compose the atom stay “in check” and don’t alter their structure, and may actually recombine into a variety of other smaller atoms, what of this “energy”, of explosions that generate massive levels of heat and light? This “pure energy” that is spoken of, doesn’t seem to have any type of “charge”, positive or negative. If this type of “pure energy” is actually released, where does it go when all the heat and light fades away? Does it regenerate into particles and atoms? Is that where these effects originated? If so, what exactly is the light and heat? Does the release of these diminish the level of particles and atoms present? Anyway, these ideas discussed thus far seem sufficient to converse for the current time, to ask more questions, and provide possible answers, and we could progress to the second half later, if that’s okay. Actually, however you want to approach this is cool with me. 🙂

• This reply was modified 1 year, 4 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

So, no mass means no quanta.

What is meant by “quanta”? That is what Einstein initially called photons, of the “packets of energy”, that I think he won the Nobel Prize for.

Quantum vacuum is absurd. Quantum ether is possible. They are afraid of the word ether. Therefore they are tricking.

How does the word “Quantum” apply or alter the usual definitions of these words? Who is afraid of the word ether? Who is tricking who? And how?

You say empty space between particles. So, you are also tricking and fooling only yourself. Empty space cannot exist as demonstrated by gravity.

I’m sorry, you’re sort of misquoting me, though I probably could have made myself more clear. If the ether didn’t exist, it would seem easy to picture (or even possibly find) empty space between particles. However, that wouldn’t seem quite as easy with a smoothly flowing wave. Also, why would (only?) gravity prevent empty space?

Preferred frame is just a mathematical tool for our calculations and cannot represent the ether. Instead, the ether must be represented by a velocity field, v, in that frame. Near Earth the ether is equal to the escape velocity, -11.2 km/sec. This ether representation means that we can use the Galilean transform and do a linear addition of v and c. We do not need Einstein’s nonlinear absurdities, as Einstein himself found when he said: “physics without an ether is unthinkable” after life-time studies of physics. Why accepting a young patent clerk stating: ” the ether is superfluous”?

Would you say your conception of ether is that it’s somewhat “fluid” and compresses and expands within given areas? Does anyone these days accept the ether that is “rigidly fixed and stationary”? Wasn’t that the type of ether that Michelson and Morley had originally searched for?

Also, since the experiments with the interferometer would always convey the “null” result, where the cause is one side or dimension of the apparatus that shortens, as well as all other objects at least within the vicinity. Though, how to know for sure if the null result instead actually attests that the ether simply isn’t there?

[Jerry]

Hi Juan! Thanks for your thoughts!

I’d say that if the universe is finite, as the Big Bang theory implies, there is obviously a central area. To consider how it is said that the universe within minuscule levels of microseconds after it suddenly started to exist out of nowhere, was only a few inches in diameter. And according to the theory, this “early universe” continues to expand to this day, allegedly around 13.8 billion years later. Why would the universe that started out incredibly small, have a center, though as it expands outward, would somehow lose the center? If the universe expands, wouldn’t it always continue as finite? However, how to define “universe” seems important. Does the accurate definition include only the physical phenomena that exists? Or would it also include the space it exists in, and the time it exists through?

<div>

There is the valid question of, “If the universe expands, what does it expand into?” So there is the further thought that, “if the universe expands into empty space, why isn’t that space also part of the universe?” To answer this, seems to require a clear definition of what “space” actually is. A large variety of possible answers seem available, so there’s obviously some disagreement. What if we were to actually theorize and debate which definition(s) seem most accurate? There seem many variables to consider. There is the idea that space has three, or sometimes even several more dimensions, that combine with time, to join into the “space-time continuum”, which was originated before the Big Bang theory had gained popular acceptance. Then after the Big Bang theory arrived, there was the process that you already mentioned, of how “space-time” warps and expands, while it brings with it, all the physical phenomena within the universe. There is also the type of space that I personally subscribe to, that is “empty”, or a void, that either is or isn’t filled with physical objects and their interactions. This type of space contains mass, energy, particles, waves, light, and gravity, though doesn’t cause or interact with them. All objects have to occupy space to exist.

</div>

You had mentioned Cartesian coordinate systems. How much would this differ with Galilean Relativity? I actually haven’t studied that much math through the years. I probably should though, even though so much is possible to effectively describe through words and concepts!

As a casual aside, have you ever questioned why Descartes’ ideas were called “Cartesian”, without the “Des”? Maybe the first part was somewhat of a surname? 🙂

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik. Thanks for your response.

“It is not up to me to define Universe.”

I would suggest that maybe it is, at least specifically for this example, since you mentioned the concept within your previous statement, and there seemed a definition that was implied. It seems important to have the same clear and consistent definitions with whomever we talk with, to avoid confusion and misunderstanding. We may agree upon the meaning of a given word that is already established and converse that way, or we may recognize the exact phenomena that is discussed and theorized, and arrive at our very own accurate definition through observation and logical thought.

“Mainstream talk about ‘quantum vacuum’. That is absurd. Vacuum is nothing and cannot be quantised.”

There is the idea that a vacuum or empty space doesn’t exist. We could look at this a variety of ways. One possible way to identify empty space is to realize it is mostly filled with physical phenomena. Of course, if this is the truth throughout the whole (and quite possibly infinite) universe, is literally impossible to know, since we couldn’t possible space travel around everywhere, or even look through the most gigantic telescopes to observe. We can always only see “just so far”, and then there’s infinity after that.

I wouldn’t too highly doubt the possibility that there could exist countless areas that extend light-years around that is completely empty and contain literally nothing. And if it were possible to adequately view such areas, it could seem conceivable to quantize them, simply by taking note of the surrounding areas and their distances relative to the areas that actually contain physical phenomena, such as even just waves and particles.

What of how we consider empty space that immediately surrounds us? It seems easy to picture empty space between particles, however, would waves entirely consume every minuscule area of space? Also, at what point would the presence of waves diminish and eventually fade away? This might seem impossible within our limited view of the observable universe, though who knows how things might work countless more light-years away?

“The question: is there a preferred frame? cannot be answered by yes or no. My answer is: a third option is a velocity field, since the reference can have different states of motion in different points in space.”

I again want to ask for your definition. What is a “preferred frame”? I looked it up and considering the definition there, a “preferred frame” seems dependent upon the ether. I don’t know if that was what you had intended to say though. Some of your last sentence seems similar to Galileo’s Relativity (the first postulate of Special Relativity), that “the reference can have different states of motion in different points in space.” Would you say you accept Galileo’s Relativity as valid? “That all inertial reference frames are equally valid”?

[Jerry]

I have a question though. Does anyone at all these days believe in a “fixed” and completely “stationary” ether? Wasn’t that the type of ether that Michelson and Morley originally thought they were trying to find the relative motions of the earth through?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

How exactly to defne “universe” though? There’s quite a few ways, and some of them don’t seem too comprehensible. Did you possibly mean that the aether either expands or contracts within different areas?

As a casual aside, doesn’t that seem sorta funny how the word “either” follows the word “aether” in that last sentence? Anyway, I’m possibly mistaken with that thought. How would you personally define the “universe”?

[Jerry]

Thanks, John-Erik!

“You can say that everything is in a free fall, since the equivalence principle means that ether wind tells matter how to move, and thereby converts ether wind into acceleration.”

We seem to have different viewpoints regarding the equivalence principle. How does the ether affect the inertia of objects? I don’t see how ether wind is converted into acceleration. Maybe the cause of an object’s acceleration, and even that a bit sounds outlandish to me. 🙂

“Tides are explained by the fact that different parts of our planet are falling a little bit differently due to the fact that Sun and Moon contribute in range dependent way.”

Does that mean the only factor that cause the tides is the Sun and Moon? Would other stars and planets “far away” or even relatively “nearby” also affect the ocean tides? Also, would the ether contribute to the effect of the tides at all?

The mistakes regarding MMX are described in details in many of my articles. You must read them, since I cannot repeat all details here.

Cool. What topic names should I look for?

• This reply was modified 1 year, 5 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi again, John-Erik.

What you wrote earlier reminded me of a few paragraphs I wrote a few years ago. It seems similar with what is focused upon, though more so asking questions without arriving at a specific viewpoint.

<font color=”#3d85c6″>What if for a given object, there is more than one seemingly dominant gravitational source? If both or all sources were to turn out as almost equal influences, ta<wbr>king into account the distance, density, velocity, etc., would the object travel somehow within a somewhat averaged out sum of those influences involved, of which wouldn’t appear to follow such a clear direction, or would the object inevitably fall directly and only towards the one with the highest influence, even if only slightly above all of the other influences? If so, does any of all the other gravitational sources affect the object at all? </font>

[Jerry]

<div>Hi John-Erik.
</div><div>

</div>

“Gravity from distant bodies is compensated due to the fact that we are in a free fall.”

Does this mean that literally everything is in free fall? Wouldn’t a free fall mean a given object is falling towards something specific? I haven’t ever heard that point of view. Interesting. Does this mean our sun and the stars always fall towards other large physical phenomena? And that this even applies to whole galaxies (even though their positions seem more “unfixed”)? Does this also mean they all accelerate, the same way all objects falling towards the earth’s surface?

“Only small effects from Sun and Moon cause tides. Therefore, we get in horizontal plane 0.46 km/sec at the Equator and zero at the poles, and in vertical direction we have an ether wind if 11.2 km/sec, causing gravity and equal to the escape velocity.”

What is it that mostly causes the tides? The ether? Also, if the level of gravity experienced is equal to the escape velocity, what of how (to consider yet again) objects accelerate towards the earth as they fall or “give in to” the effect of gravity? How to determine the escape velocity, if how fast objects fall increases from the “start” until when it lands? Would we choose the lowest or highest point of momentum?

MMX:s four errors:

1. Ether wind is 0.46 (not 30) km/sec in horizontal direction.
2. Assumed effect is compensated.
3. Assumed ‘half’ effect in reference arm does not exist.
4. Failure to fulfil prediction means no existing result (not zero result).
   

“All these ideas are described in many articles available on many
databases. Why do you not write my name on Google? This is described in
detail there.”

To consider the first one. Doesn’t the ether’s “position” constantly reorient itself relative to the earth? That a reading on the interferometer at a certain time, is inevitably different than what it is, say, a few hours later? I didn’t understand what you meant with the other errors. I’d have to learn exact definitions for the words and their intentions within this context. I looked you up on Google and found a few articles or essays that sounded quite compelling, though I haven’t read much of them yet.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

Does that mean that the velocity of light does vary when viewed within, say, our earthly frame, since here we experience a variety of different motions all at the same time? Such as how the earth spins, while it orbits the sun, while our solar system travels here and there throughout the galaxy.

If the velocity of light is determined by the position of the ether, it would seem inevitable that from the earth’s frame of reference, light would seem to go through a large variety of velocities, that light would constantly vary from our earthly point of view.

Also, what is your view of the results of Michelson and Morley’s experiment, if it does or doesn’t prove the constancy of c?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

How would you say the velocity of light works? Is it truly constant and always “clocks” at 186,282 m/s, regardless of however fast the light source, object in question, or observer travels?

or does the velocity of light vary, and is dependent upon however fast the light source, object, or observer travels?

or is the velocity of light relative to, or determined by, the position of the ether, whether it is stationary or if it is in motion within a given area?

[Jerry]

Also, a few quick questions.

It sort of sounds as though ether exists “within” or “throughout” objects, that it would almost seem the ether could “go through” objects, similar to how ghosts walk through walls in movies and such. If objects absorb ether particles, why would ether “push” and cause their lengths to contract?

How could the ether (whether it is “stationary”, in motion at a constant velocity, or if it accelerates) cause a red shift? Did you mean it is caused by gravity, or possibly “falling ether”?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

You’ve mentioned abberation at various times within the forum. I somewhat researched a few topics you’ve named a few times, with the Pioneer spacecraft and such, though wasn’t sure what you had meant. I looked up the definition, which said, “a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected.”

How would you describe the type of abberation that you picture?