The Big Bang is Wrong

[Eodnhoj7]

If all being began as a unified form of 1 dimensional space, then the only option is the Circle. This circle in turn manifested that point, as an approximation of the circle, which in turn formed the boundaries of curves, lines, etc. we see today. The big bang would be the geometric equivalent of the circle, as a universal ether, reflecting upon itself to form all points, curves, lines, etc. that form the spatial elements of reality we observe today.

It is said that the universe is probably flat although, if the universe is many times larger than we know, then we could not detect the curve.

Curvature can exist in flat space, we can observe this simply in a painting.

The big bang is fundamentally an observation of the beginning of flux, where before there was only stability, and as a beginning of flux it has an end point considering all flux is unstable. In this respect the big bang could be observed as having happened and potentially happening various times...a heart beat of God so to speak.

Careful with those Einstein-style God metaphors ...

[Viveka]

The AEther. ...

The whole point of a 'gravitational wave' is that it is a ripple in SpaceTime which presumably is this "AEther" so are you now saying a gravitational wave has been detected?

No. I'm saying that the AEther has been detected. The interferometer is basically a new positive on the old Michelson-Morley negative. That means that Einstein is wrong, and the Michelson-Morley results stands rectified.

[Viveka]

Also, where did the singularity come from? Nothing?

You might need to read Lawrence Krauss's work.

Why don't you present an argument instead of telling me to read someone's work? Or at least give a synopsis of what his work is and what it entails for my argument.

[Arising_uk]

No. I'm saying that the AEther has been detected. The interferometer is basically a new positive on the old Michelson-Morley negative. That means that Einstein is wrong, and the Michelson-Morley results stands rectified.

You apparently don't understand that Einstein believed in an aether? SpaceTime is an 'aether'.

How do you explain that it was a short-event if you are proposing that it is detecting this 'AEther'(whatever the hell that is)? As presumably this 'AEther' would be on all the time.

[Viveka]

Curvature can exist in flat space, we can observe this simply in a painting.

If a space is curved then it isn't flat. If a space is flat, it isn't curved. This is simple logic.

[Viveka]

No. I'm saying that the AEther has been detected. The interferometer is basically a new positive on the old Michelson-Morley negative. That means that Einstein is wrong, and the Michelson-Morley results stands rectified.

You apparently don't understand that Einstein believed in an aether? SpaceTime is an 'aether'.

How do you explain that it was a short-event if you are proposing that it is detecting this 'AEther'(whatever the hell that is)? As presumably this 'AEther' would be on all the time.

Learn more.

"[the Michelson-Morley Experiment] compared the speed of light in perpendicular directions, in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter through the stationary luminiferous aether ("aether wind"). The result was negative, in that the expected difference between the speed of light in the direction of movement through the presumed aether, and the speed at right angles, was found not to exist; this result is generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the then-prevalent aether theory, and initiated a line of research that eventually led to special relativity, which rules out a stationary aether."

[Arising_uk]

I know what the experiment was meant to test and what it showed. What I don't understand is what you mean by "AEther" and why you think a short-event detection means it has been detected rather than a gravitational wave passing through SpaceTime which is Einsteins 'aether'.

[Viveka]

I know what the experiment was meant to test and what it showed. What I don't understand is what you mean by "AEther" and why you think a short-event detection means it has been detected rather than a gravitational wave passing through SpaceTime which is Einsteins 'aether'.

No modern standard model astronomer or physicist calls Einstein's general and special relativities an 'aether.' They were meant to supplant just that, an AEther.

[Eodnhoj7]

Curvature can exist in flat space, we can observe this simply in a painting.

If a space is curved then it isn't flat. If a space is flat, it isn't curved. This is simple logic.

I am pondering admitting to being wrong on the posts on this thread, considering an argument presented about the nature of the Point in the general forum. The reasoning being is that the "point" is equated to, in this thread, an absence of structure or "zero" as non-being. I am not sure this is possible. This perception, of the point as zero dimensional, was taken in response to some discussions I have been having with some physicists.

However, this point as zero dimensional was founded on the premise of the theory of relativity being right (in regards to my usage). Evidence is starting to abound that Einstein may have been wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridainepa ... 5a75fa103f
http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... 73a78e48b5


Tesla's interpretation of the Aether (with his proof of understanding found in his inventions as the manipulation of matter)
https://www.quora.com/What-was-Teslas-o ... -mechanics

Assuming my present argument on the seperate thread is right, I resign from this argument and consider the mentioned points null and void.

[Arising_uk]

No modern standard model astronomer or physicist calls Einstein's general and special relativities an 'aether.' They were meant to supplant just that, an AEther.

You're not answering my question, why do you think a short-term event is not a gravitational wave and is a detection of this 'AEther'?

[Eodnhoj7]

No modern standard model astronomer or physicist calls Einstein's general and special relativities an 'aether.' They were meant to supplant just that, an AEther.

You're not answering my question, why do you think a short-term event is not a gravitational wave and is a detection of this 'AEther'?

Because it is "unified" through ever present causality as an extension of 1 universe. Causality is everpresent as a unifying median and any percieved changes are strictly structural extensions of that same cause for effect is just approximate cause. This nature of Cause is synonymous in definition to Aethereal Space.

Time is a deficiency in structure because it is inherently unstable. A gravity wave is strictly an observation of flux within timespace that exists if an only if there are particle relations. These particles are simply "fractals" and not things within themselves and in these respects are not stable as they are not whole.

The problem is that flux exists if and only if their is stability. The Aether would have to be source of this stability and the flux we observe is strictly a deficiency in observation for time is relational; therefore time is particulate flux and a gradation of being...not being in itself.

[Viveka]

No modern standard model astronomer or physicist calls Einstein's general and special relativities an 'aether.' They were meant to supplant just that, an AEther.

You're not answering my question, why do you think a short-term event is not a gravitational wave and is a detection of this 'AEther'?

I've told you a million times. Because an AEther and Einstein's theories are diametrically opposed, and the result was positive, which thereby disproves Einstein and affirms an AEther. If the interferometer could rotate like the Michelson-Morley experment, that would further disprove Einstein and confirm an AEther, just like the Sagnac Effect. The short-term event is there because it does not rotate.

[davidm]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridainepa ... 5a75fa103f
http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... 73a78e48b5

You first link does not open for me; the second refers to an article from 2011!

The experimental results reported in that article were later found to be flawed. Neutrinos do not travel faster than light!

There is NO evidence against Einstein's relativity as of Oct. 26, 2017 (today)!

Also, there is no aether or AEther, either.

Spacetime is NOT aether (or AEther, whatever the hell that is supposed to be. Is there supposed to be some bogus significance to the first two letters being rendered upper case?)

[Viveka]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridainepa ... 5a75fa103f
http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... 73a78e48b5

You first link does not open for me; the second refers to an article from 2011!

The experimental results reported in that article were later found to be flawed. Neutrinos do not travel faster than light!

There is NO evidence against Einstein's relativity as of Oct. 26, 2017 (today)!

Explain the Sagnac effect using Relativity.

Also, there is no aether or AEther, either.

Spacetime is NOT aether (or AEther, whatever the hell that is supposed to be. Is there supposed to be some bogus significance to the first two letters being rendered upper case?)

AEther is doubly capitalized because the original spelling used a single letter hat looks like an A and an E together.

[Eodnhoj7]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridainepa ... 5a75fa103f
http://www.news.com.au/technology/scien ... 73a78e48b5

You first link does not open for me; the second refers to an article from 2011!

The experimental results reported in that article were later found to be flawed. Neutrinos do not travel faster than light!

There is NO evidence against Einstein's relativity as of Oct. 26, 2017 (today)!

Also, there is no aether or AEther, either.

The Aether is strictly unifying and unified space. To argue against the Aether would be to argue that existence is not unified.


http://www.businessinsider.com/physics- ... ng-2015-11
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... elativity/


Einstein made up a number for his strict math only calculations.
Einstein needed to proved dark matter, but no observable evidence as been found for it. It has not been directly observed.

Relativity is an argument for a deficiency in matter and resulted in the view of matter being definitionless today. Physics studies matter:

https://www.bing.com/search?q=physics&q ... 8DD6D9490E

However is has observe matter strictly as "definitionless" as a bunch of "volumeless points" of "zero dimension" (as all points are of zero dimension in modern science).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter


In these respects, modern physics is an argument against definition, as it observes only "deficiencies" in structure (dark matter, black holes, etc.) which are not a "things" in and of themselves but absences.

PHYSICS STUDIES MATTER AND YET SAYS MATTER HAS NO DEFINITION. Who are you to day what is true or false when you cannot define your own field?

Spacetime is NOT aether (or AEther, whatever the hell that is supposed to be. Is there supposed to be some bogus significance to the first two letters being rendered upper case?)

****Light manifests as particle-wave, therefore it is unstable in itself as it is continually fluxing. It has to be probabilistic by nature because it fluxes as a particulate or "fractal". The nature of light as a particle-wave proves it is inherently unstable.

In regards to proof for the Aether, Tesla's inventions show much evidence for his understanding of the physical properties of the universe and he argued for the ether (or Aether).

The Ether can never be observed by the physicists because it is "unified space". Modern physics is based upon the study of particulate or "parts". It only exists if it can be brokened down and measured. The ether cannot be broken down.