I can willingly answer to clear and meaningful question. Please do not want me to explain what what physical space is… see eg Wiki.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:53 amHow do 'you', "cerveny", define the word 'space'?Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 3:40 pm Do not confuse physical / real space (the only reality) with mathematical space (idea). Empty physical space = aether, has a regular 4-D structure and grows (condenses / crystallizes) by velocity of ~c from the "future". Structural disorders / defects of physical space (=elementary particles) manifest as matter.
And, is it different to 'real space'?
Also, from the way 'you' have written here, 'you' and 'I' SEE things VERY DIFFERENTLY and have two VERY DIFFERENT views, and as such will NOT understand each "other".
Unless, OF COURSE, you begin to answer my clarifying questions, posed to 'you'.
Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
I do NOT want you to explain what physical space is.Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 6:57 pmI can willingly answer to clear and meaningful question. Please do not want me to explain what what physical space is… see eg Wiki.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:53 amHow do 'you', "cerveny", define the word 'space'?Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Jun 19, 2021 3:40 pm Do not confuse physical / real space (the only reality) with mathematical space (idea). Empty physical space = aether, has a regular 4-D structure and grows (condenses / crystallizes) by velocity of ~c from the "future". Structural disorders / defects of physical space (=elementary particles) manifest as matter.
And, is it different to 'real space'?
Also, from the way 'you' have written here, 'you' and 'I' SEE things VERY DIFFERENTLY and have two VERY DIFFERENT views, and as such will NOT understand each "other".
Unless, OF COURSE, you begin to answer my clarifying questions, posed to 'you'.
What I want you to explain is in what I wrote above.
And, what is so UNCLEAR and MEANINGLESS in my questions above?
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
There is only one real (physical) space. If any part of it has a regular (smooth) internal structure, it apears empty (vacuum / ether). If a part of its internal structure is disturbed by structural defects (*) and related stresses, it is manifested as matter in spaceAge wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 3:34 amI do NOT want you to explain what physical space is.Cerveny wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 6:57 pmI can willingly answer to clear and meaningful question. Please do not want me to explain what what physical space is… see eg Wiki.Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 20, 2021 12:53 am
How do 'you', "cerveny", define the word 'space'?
And, is it different to 'real space'?
Also, from the way 'you' have written here, 'you' and 'I' SEE things VERY DIFFERENTLY and have two VERY DIFFERENT views, and as such will NOT understand each "other".
Unless, OF COURSE, you begin to answer my clarifying questions, posed to 'you'.
What I want you to explain is in what I wrote above.
And, what is so UNCLEAR and MEANINGLESS in my questions above?
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_defect
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
If that is what you BELIEVE is true, then THAT IS what you BELIEVE is true. And, just like you BELIEVE this is true, so to do some people BELIEVE that there is only one real God, while "others" BELIEVE there is not.
Okay, if you say so.Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:57 pm If any part of it has a regular (smooth) internal structure, it apears empty (vacuum / ether). If a part of its internal structure is disturbed by structural defects (*) and related stresses, it is manifested as matter in space
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_defect
But what is the (physical) part, which is in between and separates the two smallest particles of the Universe?
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
We should realize that "things" cannot be infinitesimal. Time is not slow enough to be posible created / stabilized/ localzed/ constituted infinitely small "things". It cannot be said that there is no more space between the particles, but there is no time to place something more Inside/between condensing structure elements (replicating particles into new Planck’s time layers) of physical space… (sorry for bad English)Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:23 amIf that is what you BELIEVE is true, then THAT IS what you BELIEVE is true. And, just like you BELIEVE this is true, so to do some people BELIEVE that there is only one real God, while "others" BELIEVE there is not.
Okay, if you say so.Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:57 pm If any part of it has a regular (smooth) internal structure, it apears empty (vacuum / ether). If a part of its internal structure is disturbed by structural defects (*) and related stresses, it is manifested as matter in space
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_defect
But what is the (physical) part, which is in between and separates the two smallest particles of the Universe?
Elementary particle with a spin can be ego 4-D screw dislocations: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sch ... _270761961
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
Well considering that 'we', or more correctly 'I', was NEVER NOT realizing that 'things' can NOT be infinitesimal. So, this would mean that ONLY 'you', here, was thinking that 'things' can be infinitesimal, to begin with.Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:29 pmWe should realize that "things" cannot be infinitesimal.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 1:23 amIf that is what you BELIEVE is true, then THAT IS what you BELIEVE is true. And, just like you BELIEVE this is true, so to do some people BELIEVE that there is only one real God, while "others" BELIEVE there is not.
Okay, if you say so.Cerveny wrote: ↑Mon Jun 21, 2021 2:57 pm If any part of it has a regular (smooth) internal structure, it apears empty (vacuum / ether). If a part of its internal structure is disturbed by structural defects (*) and related stresses, it is manifested as matter in space
(*) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystallographic_defect
But what is the (physical) part, which is in between and separates the two smallest particles of the Universe?
I just asked you; What is the (physical) part, which is in between and separates the two smallest particles of the Universe?Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Jun 22, 2021 8:29 pm Time is not slow enough to be posible created / stabilized/ localzed/ constituted infinitely small "things". It cannot be said that there is no more space between the particles, but there is no time to place something more Inside/between condensing structure elements (replicating particles into new Planck’s time layers) of physical space… (sorry for bad English)
Elementary particle with a spin can be ego 4-D screw dislocations: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sch ... _270761961
But you then replied with something about 'time' not being slow enough and saying that it cannot be said that there is no more space between the particles, which would ACTUALLY mean that there is the (physical) part between the smallest particles of matter, and that they would just be one and the EXACT same particle. So, I was then going going to ask you further clarifying questions, but you explained that that was just your "bad english", so I will leave it here for now.
Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.
Maybe my model of 4-D crystalising block of past, where its internal structural defects are demonstrated as elementary particles, seems crazy, but you can believe that it is the least controversial result of intensive logic analysis of available physics knowledge… I considered here mainly a rigidy limited spectrum of elementary particles, creation of sctrictly suplementar pairs of elementary particles, irregularity of some events (decay), discrete charcter and randomness of the quantum world (of presence), limited speed of everythig, conservation laws…
Rather than mathematical exhibitions, we need common sense
To understand reality, we must ask ourselves the following questions:
- What does it not allow so fatally to create other elementary particles or to have a different charge and spin?
- Why are particles generated only in complementary pairs?
- What absolutely total obstruction does not allow particles to move faster than light?
Then holistic logic lead us directly to the crystalizing aether…
- What does it not allow so fatally to create other elementary particles or to have a different charge and spin?
- Why are particles generated only in complementary pairs?
- What absolutely total obstruction does not allow particles to move faster than light?
Then holistic logic lead us directly to the crystalizing aether…
Re: Rather than mathematical exhibitions, we need common sense
The physical constants e, h are related to the lattice constants of the aether and the speed of its crystallization (growth of the past - incorrectly "expansion") is related to the speed of light c.Cerveny wrote: ↑Sat Jun 26, 2021 4:48 pm To understand reality, we must ask ourselves the following questions:
- What does it not allow so fatally to create other elementary particles or to have a different charge and spin?
- Why are particles generated only in complementary pairs?
- What absolutely total obstruction does not allow particles to move faster than light?
Then holistic logic lead us directly to the crystalizing aether…
As for gravitation…
Lattice structure of aether is deformed/stressed near the stronger structural deformations. That causes mutual attraction of affected clusters of aether - the mass is “gravitationaly” attracted. By this, I consider that antimatter is may be gravitationaly repulsed, because antiparticles must be a complementary defects (of the structure of physical space/aether) to the particles…
Lack of antimatter
I assume that antimatter is gravitationally repulsive, so we can not find clusters of antiparticles (antimatter) similar to ordinary matter in the Universe. However, most “unvisible” antiparticles are apparently associated with particles in the “stem-like” (super) particles that form the building "atoms" / "cells" of the aether / physical Space…
Re: Lack of antimatter
Well, a two second google search would have corrected you: https://www.space.com/matter-antimatter ... to-gravity
Re: Lack of antimatter
You can't believe everything, you can't measure something like that in the laboratory. Physicists have lost their sanity. Physics has been poisoned and paralyzed for a hundred years by Albert Einstein's misunderstanding of space and time, physics has become a faith ... Physical space is grainy and the future has a different structure and content than the past. Quantum mechanics "works" on their thin Planck boundary…uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 3:37 pmWell, a two second google search would have corrected you: https://www.space.com/matter-antimatter ... to-gravity
Re: Lack of antimatter
Why do you say that?
How do you measure that in a laboratory?
Re: Lack of antimatter
I'm so sorry and sad, but those who don't see it lack common sense or knowledge of physics or laboratory experience or deeper logic. Of course, I understand them and I apologize for this strict opinion ... Fortunately, they have an admirable confidence in mainstream physics, which for decades does not explain the nature of physical space or time, the quantum world or the future at all (; at least it understood "black holes";)