Ether Theory?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:19 pm

uwot wrote:
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.

Points and lines are points and lines. Intradimensional and extradimensional are intradimensional and extradimensional. A point directed into itself, is a point directed into itself, and while not a foundation for modern physics provides a means to understand certain conceptual problems. The 0d point concept, as a spatial and geometric foundation for physics, does not work for describing a theoretical ether. The foundations of a specific field, in this example physics, causes and inherent structure to form from them. Axioms determine the outcome.

Take for example, when I studied philosophy years ago in college, many of the tests I would not study for except for 15 minutes before the test. The reason? The axioms each philosopher premised his/her philosophy on can only be confingured in so many ways. Remember a few axioms and the rest of the philosophy puts itself together. I got higher grades then people who would be studying this for weeks. Axioms for the foundation for specific fields, and affect their outcome. Foundations are everything, and what we understand of many modern problems within physics, mathematics, philosophy, ethics, etc. are foundational ones.


Getting back to the point of physics, the language of physics is not universal either, as the definitions are in a constant state of flux. Particle and fields are often times interchangeable, etc.

Most physicists cannot follow eachothers arguments and the movement from one field to another, chemistry, etc., has some inherent language barriers. The modern sciences are not set up for a universal metaphysics. The only common factor, is basics of arithmetic and geometry, which must be extended further in order to understand any common unifying median.

Take for example the concept of "particulate". A particulate is merely a part of something, or a fraction. Considering, the premise of all existence as rooted in space, what we understand of "particulate" is a universal form. An atom for physicists, "x" animal from "y" herd for zoologists, "x" element of "y" molecule for chemists, "x" logistic fact for logician/mathematician. Particulate, in these respects is merely space as "part", "fractal", "partiality".

Considering the nature of language, is composed of a continual process of individuation, many definitions exist as relation to other definitions and what we understand of an inherent word is its usage. The argument, oftentimes prescribes the meaning for that usage.



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?

Space folding upon itself as space.


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

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:11 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:19 pm
uwot wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:37 pm
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?
Space folding upon itself as space.
OK. So what is 'space'?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:08 am

uwot wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 7:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 6:19 pm
uwot wrote:
Wed Dec 20, 2017 12:37 pm
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?
Space folding upon itself as space.
OK. So what is 'space'?
We know that that "space" constitutes at its root "what". It also constitutes the nature of "who/when/where/how/why". It is in these respects that "who/what/when/where/how/how" can be observed strictly as "degrees" of space or the "curvature" of space.

From this we may observe that "what" is strictly space "curving" upon itself as an degree of ethereal stability. In a seperate respect it is an observe of "flux" or "motion" as "the apeiron".

The nature of this duality between ethereal stability and apeironic flux further synthesizes into "being as the median of observation", from which we observe the nature of "what" and "space" and there corresponding definitions through "curvature".

At its root space is the foundation of axioms as a universal median that forms observation.


viewtopic.php?f=16&t=22624&start=90

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

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:31 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:08 am
At its root space is the foundation of axioms as a universal median that forms observation.
Simple yes or no: in your view, is space some sort of material/physical stuff?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:33 am

uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:08 am
At its root space is the foundation of axioms as a universal median that forms observation.
Simple yes or no: in your view, is space some sort of material/physical stuff?
Space is the foundation for matter as folds (lines as dimensions) which continually relate through a 0d point. Physical material is moving space.

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

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:33 am
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:31 am
Simple yes or no: in your view, is space some sort of material/physical stuff?
Space is the foundation for matter as folds (lines as dimensions) which continually relate through a 0d point. Physical material is moving space.
I can't say I'm any the wiser. However you are using the words, they make no sense to me.
Can you answer this one with a simple yes or no? Is there any such thing as space that isn't moving?

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Greta » Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:15 am

uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:08 am
At its root space is the foundation of axioms as a universal median that forms observation.
Simple yes or no: in your view, is space some sort of material/physical stuff?
I vote yes! :) What we call "space" is just like us, only more thinned out. After all, to a neutron star's perspective we ourselves are space, or at best a cloud.

Also, do we count virtual particles occurring in a vacuum due to Uncertainty as "physical"? It would seem so, no matter how short-lived...?

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

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:30 am

Greta wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:15 am
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:31 am
Simple yes or no: in your view, is space some sort of material/physical stuff?
I vote yes! :)
Gets my vote too. I think that is the most plausible way to interpret quantum field theories.
Greta wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:15 am
What we call "space" is just like us, only more thinned out. After all, to a neutron star's perspective we ourselves are space, or at best a cloud.
Good point. I'd never thought of that.
Greta wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:15 am
Also, do we count virtual particles occurring in a vacuum due to Uncertainty as "physical"? It would seem so, no matter how short-lived...?
Fine by me.

Dubious
Posts: 1523
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Dubious » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:55 am

uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:31 am
...is space some sort of material/physical stuff?
Just an inquiry but if space is indeed "material/physical stuff" it would have to be the most tenuous least dense material there is since everything seems to be "contained in it". If true wouldn't that, in some sense, give more credibility to the old ether theory which the Michelson-Morley tried to prove existed? The fact they couldn't only proving the near intangible viscosity of space? It would seem to me if space is indeed material then "spooky action at distance" becomes less abstract.

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

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:39 pm

Dubious wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:55 am
Just an inquiry but if space is indeed "material/physical stuff" it would have to be the most tenuous least dense material there is...
Well, something's going to win that one.
Dubious wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:55 am
...since everything seems to be "contained in it".
I think one way of interpreting the big bang, is to assume that 'space' as some sort of material/physical stuff, started out as the densest, most concentrated material there ever was. Now, nearly 14 billion years later, it has spread itself out a bit. Rather than "contained in it", I think it is entirely plausible that everything is made of it; knots, whirlpools, ripples or some such.
Dubious wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:55 am
If true wouldn't that, in some sense, give more credibility to the old ether theory which the Michelson-Morley tried to prove existed? The fact they couldn't only proving the near intangible viscosity of space?
What M-M proved is that 'space' is not a static 'aether' that material objects move through. The closest we have come to demonstrating an aether, in my view, is that if you hit some very tenuous, hypothetical thing, like the Highs Field, hard enough, you can create a knot/whirlpool/ripple in it.
Dubious wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:55 am
It would seem to me if space is indeed material then "spooky action at distance" becomes less abstract.
I agree.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Greta » Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:35 pm

uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:30 am
Greta wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:15 am
What we call "space" is just like us, only more thinned out. After all, to a neutron star's perspective we ourselves are space, or at best a cloud.
Good point. I'd never thought of that.
It's a direct result of considering your concept of "big bang stuff".

Dubious
Posts: 1523
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Dubious » Fri Dec 22, 2017 12:33 am

uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 2:39 pm
Dubious wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:55 am
...since everything seems to be "contained in it".
I think one way of interpreting the big bang, is to assume that 'space' as some sort of material/physical stuff, started out as the densest, most concentrated material there ever was. Now, nearly 14 billion years later, it has spread itself out a bit. Rather than "contained in it", I think it is entirely plausible that everything is made of it; knots, whirlpools, ripples or some such.
If I'm not misreading then objects, instead of being contained in space, are merely densified regions of it. This makes sense if one assumes that space is indeed material, the objects 'seemingly' contained within it being actual derivations or condensations of it. Wouldn't that make String Theory also a version of this materialistic underpinning of space? Defaulting to my more limited abilities to think abstractly, I'd interpret the knots, whirlpools, ripples you mention as emergent entities of the BB and as such, at least generically, as units of space-time particles insofar as space-time remains a valid paradigm.

Until there's more resolution beyond hypotheses it's a subject where science to a great extent still remains in thrall to grand old intuition.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:19 am

uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:05 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:33 am
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:31 am
Simple yes or no: in your view, is space some sort of material/physical stuff?
Space is the foundation for matter as folds (lines as dimensions) which continually relate through a 0d point. Physical material is moving space.
I can't say I'm any the wiser. However you are using the words, they make no sense to me.
Can you answer this one with a simple yes or no? Is there any such thing as space that isn't moving?
Yes (positive), No (negative) , both/neither (neutral).

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1153
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:32 am

Greta wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:15 am
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:08 am
At its root space is the foundation of axioms as a universal median that forms observation.
Simple yes or no: in your view, is space some sort of material/physical stuff?
I vote yes! :) What we call "space" is just like us, only more thinned out. After all, to a neutron star's perspective we ourselves are space, or at best a cloud.

Also, do we count virtual particles occurring in a vacuum due to Uncertainty as "physical"? It would seem so, no matter how short-lived...?
A vaccum can be observed as a 0d point acting as a field, through a particle ever approaching zero. If a particle, is ever approaching zero ad-infinitum (or moving towards the center of a 0d point) the point, as having "nothing", in turn acts as a field effect. In these respects the 0d point observes a quantum field effect.

In a seperate respect, the particle exists as the line relating through a zero dimensional point. Considering the zero dimensional point is not a thing in itself but rather exists if and only if there are relations, the linear movement would in effect "individuate" to form further linear movements. We can observe this in the wave, with the particle merely being denser waves or wave with more individuation in it.

Take for example a line of x length. If the line as y seperations in it it observes a higher density than if it has a lower number of seperations as "z". The reason is that density implies a greater degree of relations, between the lines, as movement. In these respects density equates to relation as movement.

In these respects, ever approaching zero is an increase in movement as an increase in individuation. Ever approaching point zero in effect would be an increase in density as an increase in movement and relations. The 0d point, in turn acts as a median of movement in the respect it continually indivduates (multiplies/divides) material in a manner in which relations in increase. If I cut a piece of strict in 2 it relates more to the environment than if it is 1 piece. 3 relates more and than 2, and 4 more than 3...and so on.

In these respects the 0d point exerts a quantum field effect where division acts a form of relation and lines (particle-waves) that maintain a proportional nature are inherently connected the 0d point is the same regardless where it is observed. X and Y particle maintain a quantum effect, 9where one being affected affects the other) because they are proportional in seperation.

A line of X length with Z cuts may be longer than a line of Y length, because X is relative to A and Y is relative to b, however Y also has z cuts. Both
"X" and "Y" are proportional through "Z" with "Z" being the 0d point as a universal median.

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

Re: Ether Theory?

Post by uwot » Fri Dec 22, 2017 11:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:19 am
uwot wrote:
Thu Dec 21, 2017 10:05 am
Can you answer this one with a simple yes or no? Is there any such thing as space that isn't moving?
Yes (positive), No (negative) , both/neither (neutral).
Oh well, I tried.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest