Ether Theory?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:00 pm

The majority of theorists who premised their work and theories on the Ether premised it on an axiom where the Ether has some degree of movement in it. This movement, implies a lack of stability, which in turn eliminates it as the theoretical ether. If the ether is non-movement, and I want to emphasize "if" considering we are talking theory to a degree, then how can physics ever prove or disprove it?

This is considering physics is premised on the study of movement, which by nature is relativistic.

The question I pose is: What are the axioms, or proofs, required to argue for or against an ether?

uwot
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:33 pm

If ether theorists include some degree of movement, it's probably because Michelson-Morley et al, have demonstrated quite clearly that there is no static 'luminiferous aether'.

This is Einstein on aether: "We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether."

Aether is not a word that is used a lot by physicists. Robert Laughlin, a physicist who shared the 1998 Nobel Prize, explains:

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum…The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

So it really depends on what you mean by 'ether'; some people describe the Higgs Field as 'ether'. Fundamentally, the question is the oldest one in philosophy: What is the universe made of? The thing about quantum fields is that you only know they are there because of the effect they have; which is what physicists measure and quantify. It is quite possible to do world class physics and treat fields as if they work by magic, or spooky action at a distance, and in practise, most physicists do. But as the Higgs Boson shows, if you hit a field hard enough, you can break a bit off.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:33 pm
If ether theorists include some degree of movement, it's probably because Michelson-Morley et al, have demonstrated quite clearly that there is no static 'luminiferous aether'.

Would physics be able to prove a purely static dimension, since is it founded on the observation of movement?

This is Einstein on aether: "We may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether."

Aether is not a word that is used a lot by physicists. Robert Laughlin, a physicist who shared the 1998 Nobel Prize, explains:

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum…The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."

The ether, in these respects is observed as 0 dimensional point space. But is vaccuum unity or absence of it?

So it really depends on what you mean by 'ether'; some people describe the Higgs Field as 'ether'. Fundamentally, the question is the oldest one in philosophy: What is the universe made of? The thing about quantum fields is that you only know they are there because of the effect they have; which is what physicists measure and quantify. It is quite possible to do world class physics and treat fields as if they work by magic, or spooky action at a distance, and in practise, most physicists do. But as the Higgs Boson shows, if you hit a field hard enough, you can break a bit off.

But what holds together the field from which the piece is broken off? If the ether is a universal median by its very nature, they by default it constitutes not only the tools but the intellects that attempt to "individuate" it. The ether would in effect be breaking itself apart.
Would the ether, by nature, constitute a pure 1 dimensional field of strict information?

uwot
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:02 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm
Would physics be able to prove a purely static dimension, since is it founded on the observation of movement?
Not sure what you mean by dimension. The luminiferous aether was a hypothetical static medium, i.e. it was supposed to be some actual 'stuff'. Michelson-Morley type experiments would find evidence for such a field, if it existed.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm
The ether, in these respects is observed as 0 dimensional point space. But is vaccuum unity or absence of it?
Well, as Laughlin says: "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether." By which he means that it is some sort of stuff. Again, you seem to be using dimension and substance interchangeably.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm
But what holds together the field from which the piece is broken off? If the ether is a universal median by its very nature, they by default it constitutes not only the tools but the intellects that attempt to "individuate" it. The ether would in effect be breaking itself apart.
That's one way of looking at it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm
Would the ether, by nature, constitute a pure 1 dimensional field of strict information?
You need to define your terms a bit. For all I know the answer is yes, but the question could mean anything.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:18 pm

uwot wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:02 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm
Would physics be able to prove a purely static dimension, since is it founded on the observation of movement?
Not sure what you mean by dimension. The luminiferous aether was a hypothetical static medium, i.e. it was supposed to be some actual 'stuff'. Michelson-Morley type experiments would find evidence for such a field, if it existed.

A dimension would equivocate as space as form. The 1 dimenional line, 0 dimensional point, 1D point (I argue) exists as "space" through direction (ie intradimensionality, extradimensionality, etc.) That is the problem I see with some of these theories, I am not sure the Ether would be able to "do" anything without be relativistic in nature...and unstable in these regards. The ether, I argue, would have to be intradimensional as self-mirror in order to exist. If this is the case, and the Ether is both universal and contains all information as a stabilizing median, what we understand of the physical universe is merely an approximate of it.

I am trying to find a way to look at the ether outside of these terms, and I do not believe it is possible without leading to contradiction.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm
The ether, in these respects is observed as 0 dimensional point space. But is vaccuum unity or absence of it?
Well, as Laughlin says: "The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether." By which he means that it is some sort of stuff. Again, you seem to be using dimension and substance interchangeably.

Dimension is space, as space is form through limits (ie lines, points (as particle waves), etc.) I am not sure space and dimension can be seperated. On a seperate note, substance can be argued as space folding upon itself to form further space, with the expansion of space merely being size as relation.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm
But what holds together the field from which the piece is broken off? If the ether is a universal median by its very nature, they by default it constitutes not only the tools but the intellects that attempt to "individuate" it. The ether would in effect be breaking itself apart.
That's one way of looking at it.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm
Would the ether, by nature, constitute a pure 1 dimensional field of strict information?
You need to define your terms a bit. For all I know the answer is yes, but the question could mean anything.
Considering the ether composes everything, along with 1 Dimension, then yes you are technically right.

I am trying to argue against my own argument that the ether is a 1 Dimensional point, composed of ad-infinitum points, which mirror intradimensionally ad-finitum as a causal unifying median. The point is self-caused, contains all realities as a single moment, and acts as an ever present median of space. The point, mirroring itself, extends through a -1 dimensional line as a structural extension of the ethereal point itself. In these respects the point is never truly seperated, while simultaneously mirrors itself ad-infinitum through an ever causal act. This -1d line, as approximation of the ethereal point, is fundamentally randomness as a defieciency in structure and not a thing in itself.


User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:50 pm

It appears the point, as infinite center, can act as a field whether as a 0d or 1d nature.

uwot
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:00 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:18 pm
A dimension would equivocate as space as form.
Could you have another go? I have no idea what this means.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2971
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Greta » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:12 am

Einstein:
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether".
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum..."
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ous-aether

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am

uwot wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:18 pm
A dimension would equivocate as space as form.
Could you have another go? I have no idea what this means.
What we understand of reality, is merely dimensions of space. These dimensions are limits, which form further limits, as "direction". Take the line for example, it is strictly a direction between two zero dimensional points, with the line itself being the relation of the zero dimensional points.

These zero dimensional points are not things in and of themselves but absence of "being" as continual movement. Movement is a deficiency in structure as it implies a seperation.

The relation of lines, as spatial dimensions of direction, in turn forms the various forms and movements we see. The particulate wave, movements of stars, etc are merely the relation of spatial dimensions, all stemming from "1" as direction. Relativistically we see this as the line, as extradimensional in nature (directed away from itself). Etc.

In a seperate respect, under a theoretical ether, we would see this as a 1 dimensional point relfecting into itself as "intradimensional".

In these respects what we understand of dimension is spatial limit as "direction".

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:45 am

Greta wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:12 am
Einstein:
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an aether".
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum..."
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ous-aether
Considering all matter is strictly movement towards point zero, and gravity is an everpresent "medium" within relativity, what we understand of physical gravity is merely movement towards center as "point zero" or "vacuum". The 0d dimensional point is an everpresent medium of vacuum space, which exists as perpetual movement resulting in gravity. The 0d point is the the gravitational center of substance as movement.

The 0d point, however does not solve the problem of stability as it is absence of structure as movement. The vaccuum, I would argue, and so do some other physicists would be observed as apeironic space:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology)

Take the 5 minutes and read this, it provides a foundation for what we understand of the 0d point and how we percieve movement.

Reality as 1d ether (pure being) and 0d apeiron (pure chaos) being the dual to the ether as an approximation of it observes a synthesis between stability as unity and movement as multiplicity to synthesis as a third element: Dimension as limit and no limit, which provides the foundation for space as "direction".

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2971
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Greta » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:45 am
The 0d point, however does not solve the problem of stability as it is absence of structure as movement. The vaccuum, I would argue, and so do some other physicists would be observed as apeironic space:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology)

Take the 5 minutes and read this, it provides a foundation for what we understand of the 0d point and how we percieve movement.
I started but the 5 mins reading is going to need a fair bit of reflecting afterwards. Will be multitasking for a few days so if I forget to get back on this, by all means remind me. It does all seem interesting, and I generally agree with the idea of unbounded space.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:03 pm

Greta wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:45 am
The 0d point, however does not solve the problem of stability as it is absence of structure as movement. The vaccuum, I would argue, and so do some other physicists would be observed as apeironic space:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apeiron_(cosmology)

Take the 5 minutes and read this, it provides a foundation for what we understand of the 0d point and how we percieve movement.
I started but the 5 mins reading is going to need a fair bit of reflecting afterwards. Will be multitasking for a few days so if I forget to get back on this, by all means remind me. It does all seem interesting, and I generally agree with the idea of unbounded space.
Yeah it is real interesting. To summarize it all, what we understand of relativity, as the study of physical space, is the study of the apeiron as space rooted in a 0d point.

uwot
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:18 pm

Looks like you have summed up Pre-Socratic philosophy in two posts, Eodnhoj7. Here's something I wrote for the magazine on that stuff: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches It puts it all in chronological order. For the benefit of anyone trying to follow this, it's basically like this:
1. The Milesians. Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes.
Thales usually gets the credit for being the first philosopher. He was the first to hammer a wedge between religion and science, by rejecting mythological explanations and seeking natural causes. One of the Milesians' main concerns was what the universe is made of. Thales thought it was water, Anaximenes thought it was air and other philosophers argues for earth or fire. Anaximander had one of the most brilliant insights of all time. He pointed out that we cannot know the actual nature of the Greek elements, we only know that by their properties; which he gave as hot/cold and wet/dry. The fundamental point is still true today. Although we can say that water is made of oxygen and hydrogen, and that the atoms are made of quarks and electrons, we don't know what those are made of. Anyway, Anaximander believed that these properties inhered in some infinite/unbounded stuff he called the apeiron.
2. The Eleatics. Parmenides and Zeno.
Not content with only knowing the properties, Parmenides claimed that you could know the nature of things by thinking hard enough about them. The plan was to come up with something that was undeniably true, and logically construct a description of the universe, based on this solid foundation. He started well enough by pointing out that there is something. It is logically flawless, since it cannot be said, without it necessarily being true. His next step was to argue that, therefore, there is not nothing, which in one sense is not controversial, but he took it to mean that is no nothing anywhere; at which point, everything went pear shaped. Since there is no nothing, the universe is infinite and static, because, said Parmenides, movement requires an empty space to move into.
3. The Pythagoreans. Pythagoras (obviously). Philolaus. Archytus.
They agreed that there is some unbounded, or unlimited, stuff, but didn't particularly care what it is. What they were interested in, is the ways that unlimited stuff is limited-by shapes, sizes, proportions, amounts; mathematics, in other words.

Anyway, as I'm sure you realise, you have started with the Pythagoreans:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
What we understand of reality, is merely dimensions of space. These dimensions are limits, which form further limits, as "direction". Take the line for example, it is strictly a direction between two zero dimensional points, with the line itself being the relation of the zero dimensional points.
Then:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
These zero dimensional points are not things in and of themselves but absence of "being" as continual movement. Movement is a deficiency in structure as it implies a separation.
Which, in essence, is what Parmenides said was impossible, despite the fact that it quite clearly happens.
Anyway, back to Pythagoras:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
The relation of lines, as spatial dimensions of direction, in turn forms the various forms and movements we see. The particulate wave, movements of stars, etc are merely the relation of spatial dimensions, all stemming from "1" as direction.

So is there more to it than that any shape and any movement can be describe by lines mapped on a 3D grid?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
Relativistically we see this as the line, as extradimensional in nature (directed away from itself). Etc.
Do you mean "relativistically"? In what sense?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
In a seperate respect, under a theoretical ether, we would see this as a 1 dimensional point relfecting into itself as "intradimensional".
That really depends on the properties you ascribe to this "theoretical ether". And frankly, all bets are off when it comes to intradimensional.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
In these respects what we understand of dimension is spatial limit as "direction".
Well, up/down, left/right, back/forward are what we understand as spatial dimensions anyway.
From what I gather, you are trying to interpret Anaximander in a Pythagorean light. Nothing wrong with that. The usual interpretation of Anaximander is that he perceived the apeiron as the primary substance; the stuff which everything is made of, and that it is spatially infinite, rather than being zero dimensional. Dimensions are all very well, mathematically, but if a physical object has less than three spatial dimensions, can it actually exist?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1102
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:14 pm

uwot wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:18 pm
Looks like you have summed up Pre-Socratic philosophy in two posts, Eodnhoj7.
The great irony, is that I figured out much of the subject in my head prior to reading the pre-socratics. Reading them only justified much of my theories, along with giving further detail (such as apeiron).


Here's something I wrote for the magazine on that stuff: https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Ph ... d_Branches It puts it all in chronological order. For the benefit of anyone trying to follow this, it's basically like this:
1. The Milesians. Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes.
Thales usually gets the credit for being the first philosopher. He was the first to hammer a wedge between religion and science, by rejecting mythological explanations and seeking natural causes. One of the Milesians' main concerns was what the universe is made of. Thales thought it was water, Anaximenes thought it was air and other philosophers argues for earth or fire. Anaximander had one of the most brilliant insights of all time. He pointed out that we cannot know the actual nature of the Greek elements, we only know that by their properties; which he gave as hot/cold and wet/dry. The fundamental point is still true today. Although we can say that water is made of oxygen and hydrogen, and that the atoms are made of quarks and electrons, we don't know what those are made of. Anyway, Anaximander believed that these properties inhered in some infinite/unbounded stuff he called the apeiron.

To build off that point, and it is a good one, the elements are strictly dimensions of movement. What we understand of the physical universal is a four dimensional matrix of movement, reflecteded in solid/earth, liquid/water, gas/air, plasma/fire. At their root these four forms observe the degree of movement which manifests itself in the form of a universal wave function rooted in triangulation.

2. The Eleatics. Parmenides and Zeno.
Not content with only knowing the properties, Parmenides claimed that you could know the nature of things by thinking hard enough about them. The plan was to come up with something that was undeniably true, and logically construct a description of the universe, based on this solid foundation. He started well enough by pointing out that there is something. It is logically flawless, since it cannot be said, without it necessarily being true. His next step was to argue that, therefore, there is not nothing, which in one sense is not controversial, but he took it to mean that is no nothing anywhere; at which point, everything went pear shaped. Since there is no nothing, the universe is infinite and static, because, said Parmenides, movement requires an empty space to move into.
I would extend that point, that while Parmenides is technically correct about the nature of "nothing" what we understand of "multiplicity" is merely negation as relations through particulate. In these respects the apeiron would be the foundational space, relativistic in nature, that exists dually as the limit of Ethereal space, which in theory would reflect Parmenides one.


3. The Pythagoreans. Pythagoras (obviously). Philolaus. Archytus.
They agreed that there is some unbounded, or unlimited, stuff, but didn't particularly care what it is. What they were interested in, is the ways that unlimited stuff is limited-by shapes, sizes, proportions, amounts; mathematics, in other words.


Anyway, as I'm sure you realise, you have started with the Pythagoreans:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
What we understand of reality, is merely dimensions of space. These dimensions are limits, which form further limits, as "direction". Take the line for example, it is strictly a direction between two zero dimensional points, with the line itself being the relation of the zero dimensional points.
Then:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
These zero dimensional points are not things in and of themselves but absence of "being" as continual movement. Movement is a deficiency in structure as it implies a separation.
Which, in essence, is what Parmenides said was impossible, despite the fact that it quite clearly happens.
Movement can be observed as the limit of "unity" as approximation. What we understand of movement is approximation. The ethereal point, reflecting itself ad-infinitum, would maintain a -1 dimensional line as a structural extension between the 1 dimensional points as "point". This -1 dimensional line, in itself, is imaginary and not a thing in itself but rather a deficiency in "dimensionality". As a deficiency, through approximation of the points, the -1 line would be synonymous to "randomness" as a dual to the "causal 1D point".

The foundation for the apeiron stems from the 1D point reflecting the -1 lines as a 0d dimensional point equivalent to "absence" of reflection. The -1 line in turn relates through the 0d point, as the 1 dimensional line as an inversion of the non-dimensional nature into an extradimensional one.

From this inversion, as approximation the apeiron is founded through dimensions of the 1D extradimensional line as relations of the 0d point. In these respects, 1 acts as an individual unit, that exists as a particulate composed of relations to further particulate under a cycle of perpetual movement.

The ether in a separate respect is "1" as totality through intradimensionality, with its limits expressed as "randomness" through linearism conducive to a negative dimension as -1.

This duality between Ethereal stability and Apeironic flux manifests a triadic element of synthetic space where reality is composed of dimensional limits as direction of space through 1 as unity and multiplicity. 1 is a dimensional limit which exists as "direction". 1 as a simultaneous center point observes a negative neutrality where 1 as center point is "possible limits" through "no-limit". In these respects 1 as dimension is both limit and non-limit.



Anyway, back to Pythagoras:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
The relation of lines, as spatial dimensions of direction, in turn forms the various forms and movements we see. The particulate wave, movements of stars, etc are merely the relation of spatial dimensions, all stemming from "1" as direction.

So is there more to it than that any shape and any movement can be describe by lines mapped on a 3D grid?
There is always more to everything that can be observed. To answer your question, I am working on a form of relativistic math where multiplication and division are observed through the relation of 1 dimensional lines that observe a dual "actual" and "potential" nature. It is real simple, as a gradeschool student could learn it, however it gives a different perspective into observing the nature of movement and time. I would post it, but I can't get the pictures up and the way equations are presented on this forum...well...suck. I can barely understand what I post with the way they are presented.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
Relativistically we see this as the line, as extradimensional in nature (directed away from itself). Etc.
Do you mean "relativistically"? In what sense?
The line as extradimensional in nature exists if and only if it relates, as what is extradimensional implies a movement outwards. However in a complete vaccuum, all movement is technically intradimensional (as observe through the ether), as moving into the void is really moving inwards...as thier is nowhere to move in a void. To get back on point, the 1 dimensional line acts a particulate where 1 exists through a form of individuative multiplicity as "units relative to units". In these respects the 1 dimensional line is measured through the relation of other 1 dimesnional lines as structural relations of the zero dimensional point (which cannot exist in itself, except through the line as movement).

The line, as it acceleration through the manifestation of size as relation, eventually cycles through itself to form further lines through which it relates. In simple terms the line eventually divides through the 0d dimensional point, with the 0d dimensional point acting as a perpetual field (in theory equating to dark matter) that manifests perpetual movement through individuation. The 0d point as ever present in one respect, and infinite in center through the line as ever-approaching zero, in turn allows the 0d point to act as a quantum field in its own right. I call this the "point-field" effect.

As the line continually approaches zero it eventually individuates into a "Y" effect where it manifests "relation through duality" (we can observe in quantum mechanics the necessity of two as a foundation measurement conducive to flux. 2 is polarity.) which causes the line:
Considering the 1D line extends ad-infinitum from the center of the 0d point towards the center of the 0d point, and the 0d dimensional point is maintained as constant. Approaching center ad-infinitum the line folds inwards in infinite directions through the 0d point-field effect. The line is forced to divide by folding into itself as a cessation direction, and forms into two -1d lines. This cessation of direction occurs at the center of the 0d as absence of dimension.

The 1D line divides into 2 lines, and considering it maintains no spatial relations to any relative lines other than itself, as it is in the center of the 0d field it self relates and seperates. At the center of the 0d point the 2 lines cease to be extradimensional and inverts to a -1d state where it ceases direction at zero point. As absence of direction, the line approximates back into the Ethereal 1d point as we can see in:
-1d≈-1d →1d

Appearances first indicate this statement to be contradictory as the 1d point exists at the center of the 0d point, and further implies the center of the 0d point to be the 1d point. However this is not the case if the 1d and 0d coexist in the same locality as separate dimensions. Considering the center of both 1d and 0d points extend ad-finitum, the 1D line folds into itself as 2 1d lines with the 0d point as center. In these respects, at 0d center the 1D line forms a “Y”, ?with each branch of the “Y” forming ad-finitum further “Y”s as the “Y” effect. These infinite “Y”s in turn relate to form the foundations of waves as the 0d point is composed of infinite 0d points through the apieron. Through the 0d point-field effect these infinite “Y”s form the wavelength into a 1D line again at the micro scale proportional to a larger 1D line.



To split into further "Y"'s resulting in the wave movement (as through the 0 dimensional point, this branch effect while resembling a tree from our perspsective, is actual curved into a linear relation embodies in the wave function [which is really a microscopic or macroscopic, view of the foundation of the line being multiple lines relating).





Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
In a seperate respect, under a theoretical ether, we would see this as a 1 dimensional point relfecting into itself as "intradimensional".
That really depends on the properties you ascribe to this "theoretical ether". And frankly, all bets are off when it comes to intradimensional.
It is the only viable option and intradimensional nature allows for "movement as no movement". The ether is a 1 dimensional point, the glues reality together ad-fininitum. In many respects it is all reality as a complete absence of time. Everything that ever was, is or will be exists as 1 perpetual never changing moment.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:36 am
In these respects what we understand of dimension is spatial limit as "direction".
Well, up/down, left/right, back/forward are what we understand as spatial dimensions anyway.
And they are qualitative duals of "1" as positive and negative. Up/right/forward as positive, down/left/back as negative. Both duals synthesize as vertex, horizon (or amplitude, I am still working on this), and depth. 1 qualitatively exists as a triadic structure of dimension as direction.

You have to keep in mind, in a seperate respect, that an intradimensional or extradimensional nature observes all directs at once. So in these respects, intradimensionallity and extradimensionality are duals. One observing stability, the other movement. As dimensions, they manifests "limit" as "direction".


From what I gather, you are trying to interpret Anaximander in a Pythagorean light.
Actually I am saying anaximander, parmenides and pythagoras were all right in different respects.

Nothing wrong with that. The usual interpretation of Anaximander is that he perceived the apeiron as the primary substance; the stuff which everything is made of, and that it is spatially infinite, rather than being zero dimensional.
Matter at its fullest is zero dimensional. You can equate zero dimensionality to an interpretation of dark matter as pure movement. Pure movement, would be hyper "dense", as space would be folding upon itself to such a degree that multiplicity would be synonymous to chaotic movement.

Dimensions are all very well, mathematically, but if a physical object has less than three spatial dimensions, can it actually exist?

Can each spatial dimension exists without the other as 3 in 1? Are the three spatial dimensions not simultaneously unified dimensions in themselves as all are equal as 1 in 3?

What we understand of dimensionality is a proportionality between 1 and 3 as alternation.

uwot
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:37 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:14 pm
The great irony, is that I figured out much of the subject in my head prior to reading the pre-socratics.

Which is very commendable and I congratulate you. The problem with working it out by yourself, can be that you use terms that make sense to you, but which mean different things in the generally accepted language of physics. The result is that it is extremely difficult for others to follow your argument.
The fundamental Pre-Socratic question is: What is the universe made of? How would you explain that to someone who has very little knowledge of science or maths?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests