Hypothesis of a Cosmology Based on a Foundational Medium

We both agree aether exists where particles of matter do not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, no. So far, post #2 and post #18 are supporting definitions for the Foundational Medium Hypothesis model. However, if you were reading carefully the responses that I have been making to the few participants, you should see enough to realize we don't agree on that.

Look at it this way until I post the detail of the hypotheses that describe the foundational medium, waves traversing the medium, and the nature of particles ... The medium is everywhere including in and around particles, and particles are composed of wave energy traversing the medium. So particles and aggregate objects do not displace the medium in my model, they are standing waves with inflowing and out flowing wave energy components. Those wave energy components are nothing more than pressure waves that traverse the medium, synchronized into standing waves.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aether and matter are different states of the same material.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sort of, but I think you are not agreeing that partilces are sustained by inflowing and out flowing waves in the medium. Test your model against this statement about Newton's bucket from a post I made elsewhere recently:

"Newton's water filled bucket spinning in deep space which was intended to spin in the practical absence any gravitational effect, if also it were to be out there in the absence of the medium itself, would disappear into space. There would be no medium to carry the waves that establish and maintain the presence of the particles that make up the bucket or the water."

Ask yourself this, would the particles of Newton's bucket still be there if your surrounding aether wasn't there?

 

As far as we know there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of aether and matter. So, your question is pointless. You're asking if there were truly a void in space would particles of matter exist in such a void. Space is not a void. Space consists of aether and particles of matter.

Ask yourself this, in a double slit experiment does the particle travel through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether through both?

Every time detectors are placed at the entrances, anywhere within, or at the exits to the slits the particle is always detected entering, traveling through and exiting a single slit. This is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit.

 

I still have a lot of definitions to post and supporting hypotheses to discuss before you have enough information about my model to understand my model of a photon and how it traverses space. But when we get there, I hope to show that my photon description is consistent with the two slits experiments and the photoelectric effect. Clearly photons act as both waves and particles based on those two observational experiments. I think I can explain both sufficiently with my model of the photon and the foundational medium through which its standing wave pattern moves at the speed of light in response to a directional imbalance between the inflowing wave component and the out flowing wave component. But I don't want to get off on that tangent yet.

 

Quantum Wave

Don't forget to think at least three dimensions

I think your on the right track with medium

But makes up the medium. , that's the question?

There is a medium, no doubt

 

Just to get you on board with what I have so far posted, see posts #2 and #18. In post two I describe the three dimensions of my model. It is worth saying to you now that there are no hidden dimensions as one might find in other alternative cosmologies but there is a foundational level of order below the "fundamental particle" level of the Standard Particle Model of QM. The "fundamental" particles of QM are said to have no internal composition, but in my model particles are composed of complex standing wave patterns. I will be presenting some other definitional posts regularly but slowly enough to allow some discussion of them as I go.

I posted my time hypothesis this morning. Time certainly can be seen as a dimension but in my model the time dimension simply passes at the same rate everywhere (see post #18 for more detail). I will probably wait until tomorrow to go on to the next definitional hypothesis. Thanks for viewing.

 

First thanks for the post numbers , it really saves alot of time and we can get to the point

No hidden dimensions , doesn't bother me

Later on the quantum thing

 

If it has no characteristics then why is it an aether theory?

I thought you just said it wasn't going to have any characteristics.

Actually it can't, when you get to the Planck Scale it would take an infinite amount of energy to detect anything smaller than that. So then with a lack of infinite energy at our disposal, we could never divide space infinitely. You would only be able to divide space up into at least 10^-33 cm.

???

What does the aether do in a vacuum that shows that it is not actually empty?

Wasn't everything in your theories supposed to lead to quantum waves? Why bother saying that there can be no vacuum, but if there was, light could not transverse it? It is like your just talking about stuff that would never happen or would be an impossibility anyways. You should have just left it at no characteristics, but then why even say that there is an aether?

 

Prof.layman

There is a medium, he is correct in this

 

I don't think anyone would care to comment on it anyways, so then it would be a waste of a new thread, and I don't think we need another aether thread. I thought it was on topic because you said that the aether travels along with matter. I think if that was true it would make calculations like this possible, because so far they have not. It seems it is beyond anyones ability to describe this type of equation where there is curvature of light in acceleration. There is no acceleration time dialation formula. But it is easy to derive if the photon doesn't curve in a gravitational field that is accelerating.

So then like you said the aether moves with matter so that the path of light is not curved you end up with a time dialation formula of

t'=t*sqrt(1-(vi + vo)^2/4c^2) where t' is the proper time.

If the aether did NOT move with the Earth then the equation would be something else, that did not form a right triangle in the light clock example. One side of the triangle would then be a curve, and then it would be much more difficult to derive. That explains why no one has done it yet. That would then be the instantaneous time, similar to Newtons instantaneous velocity. I think all you have to do is replace vt (distance the ship traveled) with (vi - vo)/2a.

If that was the only property of the aether than these equations would be correct or at least they could be correct on Earth, where the foces of Earths acceleration do not cause curvature in light.

Edit: forgot a squared term, lol

 

That's your mathematics

Are there others who disagree with you?

 

Not yet, still waiting to find out. I think it would be the correct equation for when spacetime is flat, or the acceleration was "flat". Then since spacetime is mostly flat it could be very accurate at normal everyday speeds. Or where acceleration doesn't cause curvature of light, like the M&M experiment no curvature was detected but the Earth is accelerating. So it is based off the results of the M&M Experiment, and not Einsteins idea that light curves that is emmited from an accelerating body. So then if Einstein is right and light does curve when it is emmited off of an accelerating body then it would only be a close approximation, and then become more inaccurate the closer the object comes to the speed of light. That is all of course assuming that the curvature of light would then change the amount of time dialation experienced.

I think the acceleration of the Earth acts as though there is no curvature, this is like saying that the acceleration is at rest relative to the aether. Then since we are accelerating with the aether, then when we emmit light it does not curve. So then when considering the acceleration of the Earth, it could be completely accurate according to experiment. For instance the curvature of light was not detected in the M&M experiment, and the equation describes a situation of the experiment not finding this curvature. The acceleration of the Earth did not cause the light rays in the experiment to bend. So then it could be an accurate description of the Earth's acceleration.

I tried talking about it in Physicsforums a while back ago but then I got banned because one of the moderators didn't understand that in the twin paradox, both twins are seen to age less from the others point of view. That is before they come back together. I sent him a dirty email saying how dumb he was because he never heard about this part of the theory and he was a moderator so then he banned me. They also said that you cannot post your own theories so I was forced to stop talking about it, so then the discussion just changed to the twin paradox and how little the moderator knew about it.

 

I did say it has volume, i.e. dimensions, and I said it because I want to express the concept of space that has dimensions that can be defined independent of the contents.

I'm distinguishing between the space and the contents, saying the space contains the medium. The reason for making a distinction between space and the medium is because space has dimensions that can be defined as fixed and a medium within those dimensions can be compressed or decompressed. The amount of the compression corresponds to the wave energy occupying that space which is a notable characteristic in my model. A change in wave energy can be derived by distinguishing between the volume of space and the changing pressure of the medium in that space, and that concept is useful in many ways when the only thing there is to work with in my model comes right down to a matter of pressure as represented by the wave energy in a volume of space. You need to know that there can be a variable amount of pressure in a space, and that there can be a change in pressure associated with a a volume of space as well as with a change in the volume of space. There are various other benefits of distinguishing between the volume of space and the contents of that space which hopefully you could appreciate.

You don't understand the implication of the statement; infinite divisibility. Your Planck comment leaves me wondering if and why you want me to invoke measures of the Planck regime into my model? I mentioned that I invoke all observations and scientific data, but I don't include theory unless I specifically say so; the Planck regime is in that theory category and I don't invoke it in my model. They are definitions of theoretical measurements and not observables.

Some alternative theories us one and two dimensional concepts, sometimes associated with manifolds and quantum weirdness that I don't invoke and that was my crude way of eliminating those things from my model.

Concepts are important to me and when introducing the model with definitions there might be a tendency to talk in irrelevant details, but I consider it a meaningful concept to distinguish between empty space and space filled with the medium because in the consensus theories space is relatively empty and yet light and gravity traverse it. The distinguishing feature of an aether hypothesis is that light and gravity traverse the medium. I thought that by saying that light and gravity could not traverse empty space in my model would help drive that point home.

I take it back if I said that, and I did say that I have posted definitional hypotheses in post #2 and post #18, and that you didn't have enough information to understand the model yet, and that I don't want to go off on tangents.

Prof.Layman
We are having a little trouble coming to a meeting of the minds on any of this aren't we. You insist on going ahead with your agenda on my thread and I insist on presenting as I have planned. The two agendas are at odds. Get your own thread or stick with me at my pace and quit saying I said this and that which are taken out of context or misrepresentations that you then seem to hitchhike your agenda on.

 

Look who ever banned you may not be the only one who didn't understand you , just saying

And stop these kind of emails it gets you now where fast

Just present your theory , don't get caught up in insults or whatever BS comes around

 

I think it worked for the cosmological constant, I believe I was chatting with some of the people that started working on it in the old myspace forums that got deleted. I kept telling them that there was scientist writing in books that claimed that there was a cosmological constant, and started the Planck regime.

I think I have said about all I had to say about my own aether theory. That is just changing one property of spacetime and then going ahead with the equations. If someone like river would like to discuss it in more detail then I will make a new thread, but I think I have already summed up the entire theory and what the consequences of that theory would be. So then that would let me not have to watch a new thread. I just don't think there is much more to say on this. I will let you do your own thing, and let you lead the discussion to where you want to go. As far as this tangant goes it is already solved, and done with. I think that is the only property of aether or spacetime that could be changed really. If you want to go on and on about other changes that is your peragotive. I don't think I would be able to say anything mathmatically about where that would end up or go. But if you would like to use my equations, your more than welcome to, let me know if you get any accurate result

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Glad to have been of service to you in getting that theory out there, even if I was a rather unwilling enabler,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Your comments about my space hypothesis did nudge me into some clarifications that were appropriate.

 

I was also shocked that they decided to use the planck scale to describe the cosmological constant. I would have to say that is something that I probably wouldn't have done myself. In Brian Greenes new book, he mentions talking to George Gamow the russian scientist that was talking to other people in scientific forums that found this to be a solution. So I think it may have been Brian Greene that introduced this concept from talking with George. It it may be a good way for a lot of energy just to affect the space and not everything around it. But, I don't think he went into much detail about it in the book. I don't have much more of an understanding of it that what he mentions in the book. The idea is rather scary.

 

Hypothesis: No Room for SR or GR in a Foundational Medium Model

In the Hypothesis of the Foundational Medium, there is no room for Special Relativity or General Relativity. Their math may be perfect, so its not that, but if there is an aether like the foundational medium of my hypothesis, then ...

1) Waves carry pressure in the medium and the pressure of the medium determines the velocity of waves traversing it,

2) Matter, light, and gravity are all effects of waves traversing the medium, and so all are affected by the pressure of the medium. Matter is composed of wave energy in standing waves, light wave-particles are all waves with particle and wave characteristics, and gravity is a directional imbalance in standing wave energy components.

3) As the pressure increases, light slows down relative to the medium, particles function slower, and the wave energy density increases as you approach mass, which accelerates the motion of objects toward mass.

4) The measurement of time with clocks of any kind, since they are composed of wave energy, experiences the same variability as light experiences in changing pressure environments; clocks slow down at the same rate as light slows down so the speed of light is always measured as invariant in a given energy density environment.

5) The acceleration of objects due to gravity is due to the increase in the pressure of gravity waves closer to massive objects. Objects move in the direction of the net highest wave energy density (pressure in the medium) and accelerate in that net direction as they approach due to the increasing pressure nearer the source.

Pressure is the effect of waves traversing the medium, i.e. waves compress the medium and so more substantial objects contain more substantial wave energy and exert more pressure. Particles have very high pressure contained in standing wave patterns relative to the surrounding medium, and as the pressure of the surrounding medium changes, the pressure of the standing wave patterns change correspondingly.

Though in my hypothesis of the Foundational Medium no perfect vacuum exists, my theory says that a perfect vacuum would be the absence of the medium. So using the special definition of a perfect vacuum invoked by this hypothesis, the correct statement would be that light will not traverse a perfect vacuum; nor would gravity.

For example, Newton's water filled bucket spinning in deep space which was intended to spin in the practical absence any gravitational effect, if also it were to be out there in the absence of the medium itself, would disappear into space. There would be no medium to carry the waves that establish the presence of the particles that make up the bucket or the water.

The fundamental particles of the Standard Particle Model, which are "fundamental" because they are defined to have no internal composition, do have internal composition in my model. The foundational medium and wave energy traversing it exists at a level of order below the "fundamental" level of the Standard Particle Model. Those particles are replaced by the Standing Wave Particle Hypothesis, where the "fundamental" particles of the standard model have an internal standing wave composition governed by quantum action that operates in the realm of the tiny, i.e. in that tiny realm between the fundamental level of the quantum physics model and the "foundational" level in my model.

Standing wave patterns have inflowing and out flowing wave energy components. The inflowing component is from across a distance and is directional from some source of out flowing wave energy, like other particles or objects separated by the medium in the space between them.

Particles composed of standing wave patterns in this model are continually refreshed by inflowing wave energy, and the process of quantum action that establishes and maintains the patterns also produces a spherical out flowing wave component.

Standing wave patterns are quantized and have high density spots at the internal intersections of the quantum waves that make them up. The number of high density spots in the standing wave pattern at any point in time represents the number of energy quanta in the particle.

Gravity is the directional imbalance between the directionally inflowing wave energy component of standing waves and the spherically out flowing component of quantum action.

There are natural limits that govern the amount of wave pressure that can be brought to bear on any point in the medium, and those limits establish the range within which particles form, function properly, and/or are negated and cease to function as individual particles.

Foundational Medium Replaces Spacetime

Space could be thought of as empty, but in my model it is filled with the foundational medium. Space is not the medium, it is based on the Space Hypothesis, and is where the medium exists. The reason for making that distinction is that as described in the Space Hypothesis, space has no characteristics except volume and it is potentially infinite in volume in three dimensions. However, the medium that fills it has to have certain characteristics to allow wave energy to traverse it, particles to be composed of standing waves, and gravity to occur, and that is where the Foundational Medium Hypothesis to be posted below describes the characteristics of what fills the space.

I'm distinguishing between the space and the contents, saying the space contains the medium. The reason for making a distinction between space and the medium is because space has dimensions that can be defined as fixed and a medium within those dimensions can be compressed or decompressed. The amount of pressure in a given space is variable. The amount of the compression corresponds to the wave energy occupying that space which is a notable characteristic in my model. A change in wave energy can be described by distinguishing between the volume of space and the changing pressure of the medium in that space, and that concept is useful in many ways when the only thing there is to work with in my model comes right down to a matter of pressure as represented by the wave energy in a given volume of space.


My Model and Spacetime

Spacetime superseded the light carrying luminiferous aether theory when experiments debunked the presence of a fixed medium through which light and objects passed. The ISU is about quantum wave action in an hypothetical foundational medium; an ethereal medium governed by the concepts of the hypothetical wave pressure mechanics described by the model, establishing the very intense presence of particles and gravity in a foundational medium to replace spacetime.

Though I don't invoke spacetime, I do replace the effects attributed to the curvature effect that the presence of matter and energy has in spacetime, with wave pressure and pressure differentials in the foundational medium; the standing wave components, the directional inflow imbalance vs. the spherical out flowing wave energy from particles, and the variable velocity of wave energy based on the surrounding net pressures of the energy environment. The premise is that changing wave pressure is the operative feature of the discrete quantum level, and quantum action operating in the foundational medium is the source of quantization where discrete incremental changes take place. That process of quantum action governs the massive containment of energy in standing wave patterns where energy is added and subtracted in quantum increments instead of in a continuous flow. It is the quantized containment of wave pressure and the inflow and out flow of wave energy that represents the energy of the particle, and the extremes of wave pressure contained within the particle.

The Foundational Medium Model makes no use of spacetime or the curving and warping of space by the presence of matter or energy, but does use spherically out flowing wave energy from standing wave patterns, i.e. particles, to "tell" the surrounding particles which way to move.