# Why is space-time speculative?

#### Guido

Registered Member
When I got across the term space-time, I thought it is just another term for the micro-vibrations in the ether. The vibration pattern are quantizing the ether to space units and to time periods. I know that absolute space-time cannot be measured because observation is based on matter. But isn't matter just modulations on the quantized ether? (Ether deniers call the quantized ether 'vacuum').
The modulations do change their space units and time periods with velocity. We cannot measure any changes when our references change as much as our values. It's the principle of relativity. But there are changes, if we have references of some matter and take the space units and time periods from matter with a different velocity. I thought, it confirms that space-time is generated by the modulated micro-vibrations called matter.
The ether was introduced to explain waves. The ether has no references which just means that no values can be assigned to the ether. Energy conservation requires that the ether must be filled with wave energy that cannot get less or more. Oncoming waves become vibrations and vibrations are arranging themselves into a lattice of wave pattern. Wouldn't gravity go into the direction where the wave pattern lattice gets more blurred? Non-mechanical people call the vibration forces 'electromagnetic forces'. It is known that the electromagnetic force carrier 'the photon' can change the different vibration modes of temperature and the vibration pattern of orbitals.

Note: This question is also posted on the Physics Forum but the background information to my question was perceived as a fringe theory. I cannot see that my background information disagrees with the standard model. However, my physics education comes mostly from the Internet.

The ether was introduced to explain waves.
As I understand ether was thought to exist because it was thought light required a medium to travel in

IT DOESN'T

Light is quite capable of traveling in a vacuum

The space, as in the three dimensional region between planets and other heavenly bodies, is considered to be close
---------
But no vacuum is perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are a few hydrogenatoms per cubic centimeter at 10 fPa (10−16 Torr).
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Vacuum
---------------

Certainly the pressure of the vacuum of interstellar space is lower than that which can be obtained on Earth

Also you might like to consider the following
1/ Through the vast vast distances light travels much of it bumps into those few atoms which exist in space and becomes absorbed
A few bump into Earth and we see dim stars
If those few atoms did not exist in space we would have a much brighter night sky

If ether existed we would have a black sky

2/ If you have a old style light bulb you might remember it has a vacuum inside the glass. When the filament is heated enough to produce light, how do you think the light excapes the bulb, with no ether inside the bulb?

So much more to say but coffee time here

Also you might like to consider the following
1/ Through the vast vast distances light travels much of it bumps into those few atoms which exist in space and becomes absorbed
A few bump into Earth and we see dim stars
If those few atoms did not exist in space we would have a much brighter night sky...
Really?! That's interesting Michael! Seems to be at odds though. With the fact that astronomers can observe perfectly bright and clear images of galaxies that are perhaps millions of times more distant than stars 'only' thousands of light years from us. Might that suggest your 'absorption' theory needs tweaking? Massively tweaking.
Perhaps best to check on data relating to scattering/absorption of light by atomic or molecular hydrogen. Might have payed to check before instructing a newby here.
If ether existed we would have a black sky

2/ If you have a old style light bulb you might remember it has a vacuum inside the glass. When the filament is heated enough to produce light, how do you think the light excapes the bulb, with no ether inside the bulb?
Well, I'm no ether theory fan myself, but you do seem to have some odd presuppositions of how an ether (any variant evidently) is supposed to work.
Concerning your avatar logo Michael - is it in fact possible to underestimate your analytical capabilities? Just asking - politely.

Last edited:
With the fact that astronomers can observe perfectly bright and clear images of galaxies that are perhaps millions of times more distant than stars 'only' thousands of light years from us. Might that suggest your 'absorption' theory needs tweaking?

Astronomers have put a large telescopic in space. You might have heard of it. Called Hubble. Apart from being a little bit bigger than eyeballs it takes longer exposures

Also
--------
However, recent observations increasing the lower bound on the number of galaxies suggest UV absorption by hydrogen and reemission in near-IR (not visible) wavelengths also plays a role.[16]

--------------

you do seem to have some odd presuppositions of how an ether (any variant evidently) is supposed to work.

I note you didn't answer the question of how light excapes through the glass light bulb with no ether but that's OK

Please enlighten me how ether is supposed to work (supposed to work? is that supposed to be"a theory" of how ether works?)

Also what equipment is used to detect ether (or its effects) and what measurements are used in describing ether?

Always willing to be corrected and learn

Astronomers have put a large telescopic in space. You might have heard of it. Called Hubble. Apart from being a little bit bigger than eyeballs it takes longer exposures

Also
--------
However, recent observations increasing the lower bound on the number of galaxies suggest UV absorption by hydrogen and reemission in near-IR (not visible) wavelengths also plays a role.[16]

--------------

I note you didn't answer the question of how light excapes through the glass light bulb with no ether but that's OK

Please enlighten me how ether is supposed to work (supposed to work? is that supposed to be"a theory" of how ether works?)

Also what equipment is used to detect ether (or its effects) and what measurements are used in describing ether?

Always willing to be corrected and learn

You need a etherometer, of course. Most places that carry a standard firmament detector should have them as well.

You need a etherometer, of course. Most places that carry a standard firmament detector should have them as well.
Of course how could I not know that

You don't happen to have a good address of a quality Woo Woo shop with a reasonable decent etherometer?

And do you happen to know if they carry anything in the Pixie Dust range?

Cheers

Astronomers have put a large telescopic in space. You might have heard of it. Called Hubble. Apart from being a little bit bigger than eyeballs it takes longer exposures...
Indeed. But being far away hence faint in absolute terms is a very different creature from being lost in the 'fog' owing to an absorbing medium twixt between here and there.
Also
--------
However, recent observations increasing the lower bound on the number of galaxies suggest UV absorption by hydrogen and reemission in near-IR (not visible) wavelengths also plays a role.[16]

You like to make me work hard Michael? By not bothering to point to the relevant sub-heading 'Brightness'. Well anyway, that section covers a hypothetical universe that you might like - a fixed size globe that eventually reaches thermal equilibrium with stars that have an infinite capacity to keep shining. In that fantasy universe, hydrogen partially ionizes. Then and only then is it strongly absorbing/scattering of light. Sorry - a fantasy universe very different from our own. Well it was for a brief stretch like our own - in the early universe following the BB - prior to the recombination era: http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/recombination.htm
Alas, long gone are those youthful days. And btw the rest of that quite good article demolishes your idea - sorry.
I note you didn't answer the question of how light excapes through the glass light bulb with no ether but that's OK

Please enlighten me how ether is supposed to work (supposed to work? is that supposed to be"a theory" of how ether works?)
Dear Michael....Maybe a good place to start is boning up on the general ideas behind 'modern aether/ether' theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
Also what equipment is used to detect ether (or its effects) and what measurements are used in describing ether?
See that's it methinks. With your medical background, you will be used to the ether that knocks folks out - the kind that can be sucked out of a light bulb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diethyl_ether
The aether/ether some physics types take seriously is really not like that at all. All pervading - unsuckable out of anything.
Always willing to be corrected and learn
Phew - that's great news and a personal relief. Wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of a resentful, angry - Baboon? Nasty critters those. Really nasty.[/QUOTE]

The aether/ether some physics types take seriously is really not like that at all. All pervading - unsuckable out of anything.
All pervading???? BUT Unsuckable??? out of anything????

Ok your telling me it does not exist. Got it

My standard for deciding if something existed or not was "if it cannot be placed in a place where it could be weighed measured sliced and diced" it didn't exist

Standard Mk Two - It has to have a instrument, which can detect the what ever it is, somebody is claiming exist. It can be any size say from a pen size electric circuit detection screwdriver to CERN

Louis de Broglie, "If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory."[10]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

------------

So again what equipment has indicated the presence of ether?

It is coming across as being evasive when I have asked in other post (unconnected with this one) asking what is god detection equipment called. One poster comes back to similar questions "god just is"

My tolerance with Ping Pong is about ,3 before the iggy button comes into play

All pervading???? BUT Unsuckable??? out of anything????

Ok your telling me it does not exist. Got it...
Not got it. Didn't tell you it doesn't exist. Modern aether's aren't like some kind of tangible gas. Lorentz invariance guarantees that. Argument from (your) credulity notwithstanding.
My standard for deciding if something existed or not was "if it cannot be placed in a place where it could be weighed measured sliced and diced" it didn't exist
Might be prudent to readjust what I'll take to be standard Mk I.
Standard Mk Two - It has to have a instrument, which can detect the what ever it is, somebody is claiming exist. It can be any size say from a pen size electric circuit detection screwdriver to CERN
'Aether detection' these days comes down to testing for subtle predictions of this or that theory that may for instance lead to 'beyond standard model' particle physics. AFAIK this is indeed what is checked for at say CERN. So far, afaik no such BSM evidence exists, although plenty of initial claims are occasionally made and later fizzle.

Louis de Broglie, "If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory."[10]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
de Broglie was correct there. Although some physicists - one on this forum I believe - actually do believe violation of Lorentz invariance does occur and could be detected in principle.
So again what equipment has indicated the presence of ether?

It is coming across as being evasive when I have asked in other post (unconnected with this one) asking what is god detection equipment called. One poster comes back to similar questions "god just is"

My tolerance with Ping Pong is about ,3 before the iggy button comes into play

An imho worthwhile tip dear Michael. It might do wonders for your personal character development if instead of hunting only for cherry-picked passages seemingly backing your prejudiced outlook, allowance is made for the possibility of having to honestly adjust an outmoded worldview. Cheers.

An imho worthwhile tip dear Michael. It might do wonders for your personal character development if instead of hunting only for cherry-picked passages seemingly backing your prejudiced outlook, allowance is made for the possibility of having to honestly adjust an outmoded worldview. Cheers.
OK byeeee. You exceeded my tolerance by a wide margin

OK byeeee. You exceeded my tolerance by a wide margin

Oooh. OK. Hope I haven't just invited future vengeful stalking. But weathering such - heaven forbid it were to manifest - might be good for MY character development.

There is no need to argue because people got different conceptions of the ether. The ether that I referred to is completely without matter even without energy. Because energy is needed to quantize the ether to vacuum, the ether without energy is without time and no space units can be assigned to it. But the vacuum does contain a variety of energies: The ground state of the vacuum refers to 'quantum mechanical harmonic oscillators'. The zero point energy seems to be the average energy above ground state and the so called vacuum energy seems to be the deviation from the zero-point energy. But I will have to check out. I regarded the ether together with the ground state energy of the vacuum as the quantized ether. I got the message that I should use the word vacuum instead of quantized ether and should avoid the word ether when ever I can.

There is no need to argue because people got different conceptions of the ether. The ether that I referred to is completely without matter even without energy. Because energy is needed to quantize the ether to vacuum, the ether without energy is without time and no space units can be assigned to it. But the vacuum does contain a variety of energies: The ground state of the vacuum refers to 'quantum mechanical harmonic oscillators'. The zero point energy seems to be the average energy above ground state and the so called vacuum energy seems to be the deviation from the zero-point energy. But I will have to check out. I regarded the ether together with the ground state energy of the vacuum as the quantized ether. I got the message that I should use the word vacuum instead of quantized ether and should avoid the word ether when ever I can.

Did this come from the Million Monkey Shakespeare Experiment???

You know the one where they have a million monkeys on a million computers typing at a million strokes a minute trying to reproduce the works of Shakespeare

If it's not it's a great imitation

Is there not enough nutrinos to be called an eather.
Alex

Good God Almighty. Can no one here reason any longer? Is it because of NCLB, or Obama? Maybe it's Trump!

Has anyone asking these ill-formed questions and then arguing about the answers they get even passed high school?

Has anyone asking these ill-formed questions and then arguing about the answers they get even passed high school?

I would question if they even graduated above finger painting

Energy is one of the most difficult words to explain because people have often completely different views about energy. Energies may be categorized into the energies of Newtonian motions, the energies of temperature, the energies of matter, the energies of dark matter which most people consider as part of the vacuum energies. Most energies are time generating but the photon does not generate time. Pure kinetic or potential energies do not seem to generate time. The natural system of units got only one base unit. It is the unit for energy. All other units can be derived from the base unit. I am not a supporter of the natural system of units because it hides information. The natural system of units implies that everything in our universe is energy except for the ether.
The easiest way to picture energy is thinking on vibrations. Imagine that all vibrations are stopped and time cannot be generated anymore. But we cannot stop the vibrations because energy is conserved.
Energies can also be categorized into absolute energies and energy differences. Technical people extract work from the difference between energies. Just try to extract work-energy from ambient temperature and you may realize that it fails. But if you got a spot that is colder or hotter than ambient temperature, you can get work out of it till the spot has equalized to ambient temperature. The work that you get out of it is what most people regard as energy.

Energy is one of the most difficult words to explain because people have often completely different views about energy. Energies may be categorized into the energies of Newtonian motions, the energies of temperature, the energies of matter, the energies of dark matter which most people consider as part of the vacuum energies. Pure kinetic or potential energies do not seem to generate time. The natural system of units got only one base unit. It is the unit for energy. All other units can be derived from the base unit. I am not a supporter of the natural system of units because it hides information. The natural system of units implies that everything in our universe is energy except for the ether.
The easiest way to picture energy is thinking on vibrations. Imagine that all vibrations are stopped and time cannot be generated anymore. But we cannot stop the vibrations because energy is conserved.
Energies can also be categorized into absolute energies and energy differences. Technical people extract work from the difference between energies. Just try to extract work-energy from ambient temperature and you may realize that it fails. But if you got a spot that is colder or hotter than ambient temperature, you can get work out of it till the spot has equalized to ambient temperature. The work that you get out of it is what most people regard as energy.

Mostly wrong

Energy is a property of matter

That's it

I think we are done here

A few extra points to make

Energy is one of the most difficult words to explain
NO it is not
because people have often completely different views about energy
Judging by your reply that is correct. Also correct most of them are wrong
Energies may be categorized into the energies of Newtonian motions, the energies of temperature, the energies of matter, the energies of dark matter which most people consider as part of the vacuum energies.
I didn't think I could be surprised with any crap which turns up on a Science forum. This proved me wrong
Most energies are time generating but the photon does not generate time.
NO and NO
I am not a supporter of the natural system of units because it hides information
I knooow. Who's is in this day and age?

I'm tired of this stupidity

Lump the rest together and file under "Never to be opened"

I'm tired of this stupidity
Lump the rest together and file under "Never to be opened"