[Jerry]

Hi Andy.

I only have a quick minute, so I’ll say only this for now. A “void” or “empty space” isn’t physical at all. It is the complete absence of anything physical. Also, motion doesn’t cause time to occur. Time exists independently of anything physical. If there were literally somehow “nothing”, time would inevitably exist. So would space.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Thanks again for your response!

I would agree that “space is dimensionless”, since it isn’t physical. I didn’t understand your next few statements though. That “space is all there is physically, and that there’s no reason for any else to exist.” (and more).

My view is that time and space aren’t physical at all. I’m unsure of what you meant about “perceptual” there (with time). For the concept of “motion” to seem understandable, is to refrain from somehow seeming to separate it from the actual physical objects in motion. Also, “exist” and “occur” aren’t always antonyms. I would also offer the suggestion that time and space would continue to exist, if “motion”, or any objects in motion, or even stationary objects, didn’t exist. Just a thought!

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi Andy. Thanks for your response! I’ve watched your recent conversations with much interest.

My first question to you. Considering your sort of definition for “dimension”, why did Einstein “break the mold” when he claimed time a dimension? That is, if the term also applies to countless other areas? Within the realm of physics, the word “dimension” most typically applies to the physical dimensions of objects, the actual real three, plus the alleged fourth, and up to 28 or however many has been suggested by various popular scientists. Of course, the word “dimension” could also very well apply to the many polar opposites of other phenomena that exist. To possibly simplify things though, we could limit the definition specifically to physical dimensions, such as height, depth, and width.

You had some excellent points about how to know if physical objects have three dimensions. The way atoms often connect with gigantic collections of other atoms to form a given visible object, possibly doesn’t provide its own original “in tact” structure, since the atoms possibly don’t even physically connect with each other, that extremely minuscule spacial distances might exist between them.

I’ve heard a lot that “atoms mostly consist of empty space”. However, that doesn’t seem possible, since space isn’t physically there to exist with the protons, electrons, and neutrons. So atoms aren’t, at any level “composed” of empty space. For somewhat of a slightly similar visual example, if we were to consider a house, we typically don’t count the air (or empty space) within the house, as actually a part of the physical construction of the house, or of what all else exists, such as furniture, within each room. Just a thought!

Anyway, thank you for your recent activity with the threads you’ve been creating. I plan to respond much more. 🙂

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Jerry.
• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Wow. Is that your personal website? There’s so much there! It looks highly interesting. Could I ask around where my questions get answered? I plan to read this at some point though. Maybe today.

[Jerry]

Hi David. Thanks for your response.

I had to look up “circular deflection angle” and “orbital perigee precession angle”, and I don’t see how these concepts point to a variable aether density at all. Plus, using the flawed theory of General Relativity doesn’t seem to provide a point in it’s favor either. They seem more attributable to gravity, which General Relativity mistakenly says is caused by “curved space-time”.

You said that the aether doesn’t cover space, that it IS space, then you went on to say that the aether is a “sea of quantum rotating magnetic fields”. I hadn’t ever heard, except from yourself, that the aether is composed of magnetic fields. How does the magnetic field get there? Does each given area of space (or aether) have a magnet around the vicinity that produces it? Does that also mean that aether is composed of both positively and negatively charged particles? Such as how every magnet has two poles? Also, how could all of this exist, if it didn’t occupy empty space? How is it that something that has physicality is somehow the space itself?

I’ve actually heard a myriad of different properties and functions of the aether, even when presented as “modern aether”, many of which have seemed highly inconsistent with each other.

• This reply was modified 2 years ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi. I have a few questions. What evidence is there for the idea that the aether has various levels of density throughout different areas of the universe? If the aether is found as highly dense within a given area, what of the other extreme, where the aether isn’t dense at all? Is there ever areas of the aether that don’t “completely cover” the underlying empty space?

• This reply was modified 2 years ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi Ken.

Much of what you’ve said, when it hasn’t been what seems quite complex math, is what one of my main points was, that you mentioned above there, “asking the question “what is your velocity” without reference to another
reference frame is nonsense because you cannot define velocity in this
scenario. Also in this scenario, you cannot just assume that you are
not moving and are “stationary in your universe” just because you cannot
detect EMF signals (e.g. light or radio signals) from your universe“.

I have a question for you that I’m surprisingly unclear about. Is Special Relativity a theory you accept as accurate at any level?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

Would you say that one dimension of the interferometer is shortened by the ether? Does this, in your view, cause the shortening itself to appear undetectable, since any measuring device next to the apparatus is also shortened?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

Of course, you have stated your views for “falling ether”. When there isn’t much gravity within a given area of space, is the ether “stationary”? If the ether is so “fluid” and “un-fixed” that it is allowed to “fall”, how to understand its function and position within the universe? Is it possible to identify “how fast” the earth, sun, galaxy, etc. travels through the ether?

[Jerry]

Hi. I looked up “etherons” the other day, and couldn’t find a definition. Is that simply what is said to compose the ether?

Is the “falling ether” a push or pull? Does it somewhat “transport” objects to accelerate towards earth, or to any other high gravity field?

I read about the Pioneer anamoly, though the falling ether wasn’t mentioned as a possible cause. How could falling ether have that effect? How much of all ether, is falling ether? Is your view that all of gravity is falling ether?

Thanks!

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

I hadn’t read specifically those exact words before. Much of what you write is filled with technical terminology, some of which isn’t readily found on the internet. I could probably understand the ideas more if you could present them with detailed definitions of the crucial words. Some of the ideas may seem completely obvious to you, though maybe isn’t to everyone else.

Also, asked earlier, if it is possible to identify “how fast” the earth, sun, galaxy, etc. travels through the ether?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

How is gravity a small unbalance from spherical symmetry in flow? Could you please describe with slight detail what that means?

Also, I asked earlier, if it is possible to identify “how fast” the earth, sun, galaxy, etc. travels through the ether?

• This reply was modified 2 years, 1 month ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

You’ve mentioned the word “aberration” a few times. I looked it up and the definition is, “a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected”. Could you possibly describe the type of aberration you’ve spoken of? What exactly is the difference that the aberration causes?

Also, I might need to study up on “vector addition” and such related concepts. I looked up those terms. Is there a somewhat easy way to understand your second sentence there, of what Copernicus said?

Thanks!

[Jerry]

I’m sorry, John-Erik. I have to admit that quite a few times when I read through some of your posts, that there was terminology that I wasn’t familiar with. Could you possibly state the main points you want to convey, in “plain English”? 🙂 At least that you define the crucial words? Thanks.

[Jerry]

Hi Jan! Thanks for responding!

I thought it was particularly fascinating how when there is an excess of charges at one of the magnetic poles, a deficit at the other, that that causes an electric current.

I couldn’t find the answers to many of my particular questions. For instance, here was an observation and a question, “Why does the electrical current appear when the magnet is in motion, while the conductor is “stationary”, yet doesn’t appear when the conductor is in motion, while the magnet is “stationary”? How would this effect work if these two devices were to interact, say, traveling at a constant velocity in a vehicle on earth?”

Also, “If they were to travel at a constant velocity, couldn’t they artificially create the inertial conditions as if they were “stationary” elsewhere? What of how the earth spins and revolves around the sun? How to account for which device is “stationary” and which one is “in motion”? How fast does a magnet have to go, to create the electric current with the conductor? How does the magnet and conductor seem to “know” their immediate surroundings? and their positioning relative to each other, and if within close proximity? of which is “in motion” or “stationary”?”