# Thread: The Best Ether Theory

1. Ether Theory Postulates

1. The Ether is an elastic medium which supports the propagation of longitudinal waves.

2. The Ether is the only thing which exists. Everything is made of waves in the Ether.

3. The wave speed of the Ether is constant and is equal to the speed of light, c.

Structure and Dynamics of the Ether.

The Ether can be thought of as a 3 dimensional grid of lines that obeys Hooke's Law. If a line is shorter than its equilibrium length, it experiences a restoring force that will extend the length of the line. That force is proportional to its length. If a line is longer than its equilibrium length, it will experience a restoring force which contracts the length of the line. That force is proportional to its length. Thus, energy is always conserved because the Ether is perfectly elastic and no losses can occur.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Firstly, the Ether does exist, I have always stressed this.
Barring empirical evidence in support of your claim, I'm going to have to dismiss this one as a "figment" as well. Feel free to prove me wrong with evidence.

4. What method do you use to get past the findings of the Michelson & Morley interferometer? I usually find that is the brick wall which my aether theories slam into.

5. Originally Posted by kojax
What method do you use to get past the findings of the Michelson & Morley interferometer? I usually find that is the brick wall which my aether theories slam into.
The michelson morley experiment is actually the easiest thing to resolve with this Ether theory. Light travels at a constant velocity, c, with respect to the Ether. Any body that moves through the aether contracts in the direction of its motion, so the speed of light will always be the same for them, even though it actually is not. The speed of light only APPEARS to be same in each frame of reference, this is because matter contracts as it moves through the Ether, and this contraction becomes more severe the faster matter travels through the Ether.

6. Didn't you post an hypothesis on the ether before? If this is not new then I'll merge it with the old thread.

7. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Didn't you post an hypothesis on the ether before? If this is not new then I'll merge it with the old thread.
FYI - Janus created this as a thread split since it was offered to another discussion and was desperately off-topic and not inline with accepted science.

8. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by kojax
What method do you use to get past the findings of the Michelson & Morley interferometer? I usually find that is the brick wall which my aether theories slam into.
The michelson morley experiment is actually the easiest thing to resolve with this Ether theory. Light travels at a constant velocity, c, with respect to the Ether. Any body that moves through the aether contracts in the direction of its motion, so the speed of light will always be the same for them, even though it actually is not. The speed of light only APPEARS to be same in each frame of reference, this is because matter contracts as it moves through the Ether, and this contraction becomes more severe the faster matter travels through the Ether.
So what would you propose as the mechanism that causes matter to contract? Not saying that you necessarily need one. SR doesn't really have a mechanism either. Lorentz contraction is just necessary in order to make it all add up.

9. Originally Posted by kojax
So what would you propose as the mechanism that causes matter to contract? Not saying that you necessarily need one. SR doesn't really have a mechanism either. Lorentz contraction is just necessary in order to make it all add up.
The true beauty of this theory is that there is a mechanism which explains why matter contracts as it moves through the Ether. In fact, this one simple mechanism actually explains All physical phenomena. My theory is being published next year, so you can get all the details then, I will send a copy of it to anyone who is interested. I dare say that this theory will become almost instantly famous.

10. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by kojax
So what would you propose as the mechanism that causes matter to contract? Not saying that you necessarily need one. SR doesn't really have a mechanism either. Lorentz contraction is just necessary in order to make it all add up.
The true beauty of this theory is that there is a mechanism which explains why matter contracts as it moves through the Ether. In fact, this one simple mechanism actually explains All physical phenomena. My theory is being published next year, so you can get all the details then, I will send a copy of it to anyone who is interested. I dare say that this theory will become almost instantly famous.
Well, if it is a secret theory, then there's really no way for us to discuss it, is there?

11. Originally Posted by kojax
Well, if it is a secret theory, then there's really no way for us to discuss it, is there?
Because my theory has not been published yet, we can not discuss it in great depth. However, I would like your opinions on the postulates listed above.

12. Originally Posted by Waveman28
The Ether exists. Here are my postulates:

1. Light always travels at a constant absolute velocity (c), through the Ether.

2. Matter has an absolute velocity with respect to the Ether.

3. When matter moves through the Ether, it contracts in the direction of its motion. The faster it is moving, the more it contracts. Frequencies also slow down for moving matter. Because of these 2 factors, matter's absolute speed through the Ether cannot be determined.
It looks like you only disagree about the causal argument of relativity. Since relativity is basically just an attempt to add a mechanism to observation, I think that's what you're going to need if you want to exceed it. You may need to explain what causes matter to physically contract.

Also, it would help to have some good thought experiments. Like: what would happen if you were on a spaceship traveling toward Proxima Centauri at a significant fraction of C? Would it be possible to use any outside objects as references to determine the proper distance between you and the star? (Since those objects would not have contracted with you?)

The main frustration that will always plague theorists is that Velocity = Distance/Time. If we can't ever agree on what the accurate distances are, or what the accurate times are, then how can we ever agree on a common velocity?

13. are you reading posts and deciding that you would like to make a post on the same exact subject?

14. Originally Posted by kojax
It looks like you only disagree about the causal argument of relativity. Since relativity is basically just an attempt to add a mechanism to observation, I think that's what you're going to need if you want to exceed it. You may need to explain what causes matter to physically contract.
Yes you are correct. ALL physical phenomena have a cause and a mechanism through which this cause acts. Thus Special Relativity is a failure in this sense because it cannot explain the cause of the phenomena. Because of this, it needs to be replaced. This theory does have a mechanism for length contraction and clocks slowing down.

Also, it would help to have some good thought experiments. Like: what would happen if you were on a spaceship traveling toward Proxima Centauri at a significant fraction of C? Would it be possible to use any outside objects as references to determine the proper distance between you and the star? (Since those objects would not have contracted with you?)
This theory basically has the same outcomes as Special Relativity, the difference is that it does not contain absurd postulates and is much more logical. For example, we know that if two objects are travelling directly at each other at almost light speed, they are obviously travelling towards each other at almost twice the speed of light. However we also know that the speed of light is observed as being the same in all inertial reference frames, so rather than saying light always travels at c in every reference frame, it is more logical to explain why the observer is being fooled into thinking it does.

The main frustration that will always plague theorists is that Velocity = Distance/Time. If we can't ever agree on what the accurate distances are, or what the accurate times are, then how can we ever agree on a common velocity?
I dont understand what you mean here.

Originally Posted by gravityguru
are you reading posts and deciding that you would like to make a post on the same exact subject?
What?

I have also updated the main Post so It now contains my Ether theory model of the Atom.

15.

16. Originally Posted by gravityguru
http://www.thescienceforum.com/Contorted-Aether-21475t.php
This is nothing like that at all. This is actually simple and logical.

17. What do you mean with "an absolute speed relative to ether". An ether that is without motion ? How do you estimate you,re own speed relative to that ether for instance ?

18. What do you mean with "an absolute speed relative to ether". An ether that is without motion ? Without motion relative to what ? How do you estimate you,re own speed relative to that ether for instance ? It may be logic and simple for you but certainly not for me.

19. "The Ether exists. Here are my postulates:

1. Light always travels at a constant absolute velocity (c), through the Ether. "

This is like saying "Light travels through invisible cats, thus there are invisible cats"

You cannot use a concept that you are trying to prove the existence of, in a postulate meant to prove the existence of it.

20. What do you mean with "an absolute speed relative to the ether".
I mean that light only travels at a constant speed relative to its medium (which is named the Ether).

An ether that is without motion? Without motion relative to what?
I am postulating that everything in the universe (including the universe itself) is made of the Ether. The Ether is a wave medium. So the ether itself is the ideal frame of reference. Absolute motion is relative to it, not the other way around.

How do you estimate your own speed relative to that ether for instance?
You cant. This is because matter will undergo a physical contraction as it moves, which will cancel out any observed speed difference between you and the Ether, which makes being at rest the same as traveling in linear motion, in accordance to the theory of relativity.

It may be logic and simple for you but certainly not for me.
My apologies if it is a bit hard to understand, I am going to release some video's later on this year which will help people understand my theory better. But for the moment, words are all ive got......

Originally Posted by marcusclayman
"The Ether exists. Here are my postulates:

1. Light always travels at a constant absolute velocity (c), through the Ether. "

This is like saying "Light travels through invisible cats, thus there are invisible cats"

You cannot use a concept that you are trying to prove the existence of, in a postulate meant to prove the existence of it.
Its not like that, because we know that all waves need a medium, so why make an exception for light? Im saying that the Ether exists because it is necessary in order for light to exist, and we know that we cannot detect absolute linear motion, so i'm also explaining why we cannot compare our velocity to the Ether, in accordance to the current theory of relativity.

21. "we know that all waves need a medium, so why make an exception for light?"

It is exceptional in it's wave-particle duality.
Also, we do not know that all waves need a medium. There is a specific type of wave that travels through a medium, these are called "mechanical waves." It may be that all waves are mechanical waves, but that remains to be determined.

22. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
"we know that all waves need a medium, so why make an exception for light?"

It is exceptional in it's wave-particle duality.
Also, we do not know that all waves need a medium. There is a specific type of wave that travels through a medium, these are called "mechanical waves." It may be that all waves are mechanical waves, but that remains to be determined.
In this theory, particles do not exist. In general, it has never been proven that particles exist. They are a concept that was developed thousands of years ago (by aristotle I believe), which was nonetheless a very successful idea which has enabled us to progress to where we are now. So in saying this, I refute wave-particle duality on the grounds that particles simply do not exist. They just dont explain anything. Thus only waves exist, and all waves need a medium because thats what a wave is: a distortion that propagates through a medium. What I am trying to do is restore logic to science. And yes you are correct: all waves are mechanical waves.

23. ok so ive been procrastinating posting anything here because i feel that your own thoughts on aether are very close to mine. it was a selfish thought because i wanted any due credit for anything that was discovered. But as ive been reading and doing research i have come to the conclusion that the theory of aether has long since proven itself even though the math didn't quite work out the way they wanted it to.
before we can start, ground rules have to be laid into place to give us a playing ground or else anything would be possible. by creating more rules we can narrow down and decide what is possible and true and what is not. It's the definition of science/math. So to begin, here are some rules.
1)there is only one thing in existence, matter.
2)there is only one form of energy, movement.
-in order for there to be movement there has to be time.
--assuming both rules 1 and 2 we conclude that anything that happens has to be explained in some way by matter moving.
3)based on rules 1 and 2 light is a movement through a medium of matter.
--aether has to exist because a wave cannot travel through nothing.
4)our universe exists of 3 dimensions:up and down, left and right, and back and forth.
inside of this 3 dimensional realm exists time.
this is quite literally the laws of physics. any other rule made is an extension of these ground rules. Now that we know the rules, now we can play.
wikipedia says that many tests have been performed to test the theory of aether. the rules for the experiment are as fallows:
1) if there is an aether there it should have drag on any objects moving through it including any waves traveling through it.
2)earth is traveling at 108,000 Km/hour(67,108 mph) in its orbit around the sun.
3)the difference in the speed of light should be a fringe shift of 4% IF aether is holding still.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michels...ley_experiment

--the Michelson and Morley experiment was said to be the greatest failed experiment ever. however, they were under the assumption that the aether was holding still. the data said that, "the measured velocity was approximately one-sixth of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit". i see it as saying that the aether was moving 5/6 the velocity of earth rotating in the direction of earths orbit. and this is why i think that. if you stir your coffee with a stir stick the coffee begins to swirl with the rotation of the stir stick. the coffee does not hold still. after a while the coffee will be spinning at almost the same rpm's as the stir stick. thus the coffee is moving relative to the stick. since the coffee is moving relative to the stick, the coffee exerts very little drag on the stick. so if the aether is a liquid like medium than it would also be moving/churning. notice that all the planets orbiting our sun are all traveling in the same direction. notice that the rotation is the same in every solar system. aether is relative to itself. imagine how closely packed the majority of matter on earth is. main point is that aether is moving and churning. and its relativity is based on its movement.
[/u]

24. ok, waveman, if there are no particles, how come things that we erroneously refer to as particles act completely differently than things we refer to as waves?

Take for example a ray of electrons, neutrons, protons, etc, or a single photon.

why do these function completely differently than electromagnetic waves?

it seems you accused me of making an exception to the rules for light, but from my perspective you are changing all the rules on account of light.

25. Originally Posted by gravityguru
ok so ive been procrastinating posting anything here because i feel that your own thoughts on either are very close to mine. it was a selfish thought because i wanted any due credit for anything that was discovered.
In a thread you made on this forum, you said that the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the Ether did not exist: http://www.thescienceforum.com/ether...ium-22126t.php
So it seems that our ideas about the Ether are completely different.

Before we can start, ground rules have to be laid into place to give us a playing ground or else anything would be possible. by creating more rules we can narrow down and decide what is possible and true and what is not. It's the definition of science/math. So to begin, here are some rules.
1)there is only one thing in existence, matter.
Wouldn't it be wiser to simply say only one thing exists: the Ether?
2)there is only one form of energy, movement.
This actually cant be right. Ive looked into this before too and I found that there are only 2 types of energy: Kinetic and Potential. Other wise, if you throw a ball up into the sky, it slows down due to gravity, thus it loses energy, which violates conservation of energy, the most fundamental law in science.

In order for there to be movement there has to be time.
Why? In my theory, time doesn't exist.

Either has to exist because a wave cannot travel through nothing.
Correct! You are smarter than 99% of other scientists who think that there can be waves without a medium.

4)our universe exists of 3 dimensions:up and down, left and right, and back and forth. Inside of this 3 dimensional realm exists time.
Our world is 3D. Thats it. There are no other dimensions. Time is not a dimension. It doesnt exist.

1) if there is an either there it should have drag on any objects moving through it including any waves traveling through it.
Why? What if the objects are made of the medium itself, then it wouldn't make any drag at all.

The Michelson and Morley experiment was said to be the greatest failed experiment ever.
I dont know why they say that, it was not a failure, I think it was the most important experiment ever. It showed that as matter moves through the Ether, it contracts. This was a very, very important discovery, we found another property of matter.

so if the aether is a liquid like medium than it would also be moving/churning.
In my theory, the Ether is elastic.

By the way, you have a funny way of spelling "Either". Usually it is Ether (my preferred choice) or Aether.

26. Only one thing exists : ether. Change the word ether to allah, god etc whats is different?

You,re asking people to believe who mostly are not the believing types.

Our world is 3D. Thats it. There are no other dimensions. Time is not a dimension. It doesnt exist.
This I also don,t believe 3d you have a shape the universe has no shape cause a shape builds outside and inside. So of the three ist must be one too much and then of time one too little. Then you have four dimensions as in C^2.

Then change C^2 to C transversal and C longitudinal (Ct * Cl) C^2 is no longer scquare bit it can deform in a way a scuare in math can change in a rectangle and still the surface (the square) stays constant. Any wave has a transversal and a longitudinal (pulsating) component even if one component can be almost unnoticable.

27. ok ghrasp that was childish. the idea that there is only one form of matter is plausible. imagine a dense mass of aether spinning at a very high velocity. the velocity of it spinning allows it to stay together. the pressure of aether pushing in on it causes gravity. all atomic mass in existence can be explained by a few fundamental shapes moving at high velocities. and gravity is easy to explain. imagine trying to hold open a vacuum of space in the middle of a pool of water. the pressure of the water trying to collapse back in on itself is what causes it. so the velocity allows it to not recombine with its medium and gravity keeps it from flying apart. see, atoms explained using mechanics only.

the main point of my last post was to point out that the Michelson and Morley experiment produced results that were 1/14 of what they expected them to be. the reason for the small difference is because the aether is moving with us. like a drink being stirred. the planets orbiting the sun are stirring the aether in our solar system. the atoms on our planet are stirring the aether around our planet. the aether should be moving at almost the same rate earth is. so the data was actually correct. they were just looking at it from the wrong point of view. but in order to redo the experiment we would have to take a space ship outside of our solar system accelerate to a significant speed(60,000mph) and conduct the experiment where the aether isnt traveling relative to us.

28. by the way, i made no post on the thread you specified. this is the first post i have made any reference to the Michelson and Morley experiment. that was ghrasp that made that post, not me.

potential energy is not energy, it is the possibility of energy. energy is when something happens. potential energy is the amount of movement that will happen. when a bicyclist sits at the top of a hill he is not exerting energy relative to the hill. only when he starts riding down the hill is the energy released. only when he starts moving. even with pressure, the act of one medium moving into the less dense space of another medium is still movement. movement is the only energy. potential energy is like time lines, they dont actually exist, its just there to help us see the math.

aether may be elastic, but it is still churning like the ocean. think of the north atlantic current. anything traveling in the current is relative to the current. if something is traveling at the same rate as the current the water exhibits no drag on that something. even though that something may be traveling relative to earth, it is holding still relative to the current. the current of aether orbiting the sun is rotating with the earths orbit. the aether surrounding the earth is rotating with the earth. everything on earth appears to be holding still because earth is traveling relative to the aether surrounding it.

29. Originally Posted by Waveman28
I dare say that this theory will become almost instantly famous.
Are you serious?

30. by the way, i made no post on the thread you specified. this is the first post i have made any reference to the Michelson and Morley experiment. that was ghrasp that made that post, not me.
Yes, grasp seems to have lost the plot a bit.

potential energy is not energy, it is the possibility of energy. energy is when something happens. potential energy is the amount of movement that will happen. when a bicyclist sits at the top of a hill he is not exerting energy relative to the hill. only when he starts riding down the hill is the energy released. only when he starts moving. even with pressure, the act of one medium moving into the less dense space of another medium is still movement. movement is the only energy. potential energy is like time lines, they dont actually exist, its just there to help us see the math
.
Thats plain wrong really. The definition of energy is the ability to do work. Gravitational potential energy has the ability to do work, thus it energy. Kinetic energy (motion) has the ability to do work, thus it too is energy. Its as simple as that.

aether may be elastic, but it is still churning like the ocean.
Why? My Ether is simple, it is elastic, completely motionless, and it succeeds at explaining all physical phenomena. Theres no reason it should be made more complicated.

think of the north atlantic current. anything traveling in the current is relative to the current. if something is traveling at the same rate as the current the water exhibits no drag on that something. even though that something may be traveling relative to earth, it is holding still relative to the current. the current of aether orbiting the sun is rotating with the earths orbit. the aether surrounding the earth is rotating with the earth. everything on earth appears to be holding still because earth is traveling relative to the aether surrounding it.
I still dont like the idea of over complicating the Ether, it just doesnt need to be. My stationary Ether in its current form works perfectly, everything in reality is a wave in this Ether.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Are you serious?
Indeed. When I release this theory later on this year, many people will have to eat their words.

31. Waveman, your ideas intrigue me as they sound extremely similar to my own ideas that I am attempting to piece together in a theory. But, as is expected from scientific minds, belief is not something so easily thrown around. I have quite a lot of questions for you but to ask them all at once would not be frugal. Instead, I have only a few questions for you at the moment:

At one point in time, it was apparently decided that the ether did not exist, though to my knowledge it has never been disproven. Your theory seems to be drawing from your pre-conceived concepts of the ether. Since, to my knowledge, the theory of special relativity is (at least in part) based on Lorentz' transformations in his own theory of the ether, how does your own theory differ from that of Lorentz' so as to render Einstein's adjustments unnecessary?

The true theory of everything, in my opinion, will be so perfect that its' validity will be impossible to question; do you think that your theory would have convinced Einstein in such a way? Do you think that if Einstein had been aware of your theory prior to his own, it is convincing enough that he would have agreed with it and never created his own theory?

Also, how does your theory work with the observations of quantum mechanics, especially the unexplained phenomena such as wave-function collapse and quantum entanglement?

32. Originally Posted by schiz0yd
At one point in time, it was apparently decided that the ether did not exist, though to my knowledge it has never been disproven. Your theory seems to be drawing from your pre-conceived concepts of the ether. Since, to my knowledge, the theory of special relativity is (at least in part) based on Lorentz' transformations in his own theory of the ether, how does your own theory differ from that of Lorentz' so as to render Einstein's adjustments unnecessary?
The predictions of special relativity are correct. However, that theory does not explain the physical cause of the phenomena. This theory explains all physical phenomena in a consistent, logical way using a single mechanism: the Ether. This theory states that as matter moves through the Ether, it contracts in the direction of its motion which makes it impossible to determine your absolute speed through the Ether. This is much more sensible and logical than an absurd space time transformation offered by special relativity.

The true theory of everything, in my opinion, will be so perfect that its' validity will be impossible to question; do you think that your theory would have convinced Einstein in such a way? Do you think that if Einstein had been aware of your theory prior to his own, it is convincing enough that he would have agreed with it and never created his own theory?
I agree with you, the true theory of everything should make absolute perfect sense and be impossible impossible to contradict. My theory when released, will certainly fit this criteria, it is so simple, logical, elegant and irrefutable. If Einstein was around when this theory is release, he certainly never would have bothered to make Special Relativity. You should also look further into einstein, his theory was not original, he actually copied most of it from Henri poincare, but that is another story.

Also, how does your theory work with the observations of quantum mechanics, especially the unexplained phenomena such as wave-function collapse and quantum entanglement?
I am completely opposed to quantum Mechanics. Entanglement does not exist, wave function collapse does not exist, and heisenbergs uncertainly principal is wrong. We do not yet have the technology to measure these quantum ideas properly, so we have no reason to think that they are correct at all.

33. Originally Posted by Waveman28
the true theory of everything should make absolute perfect sense and be impossible impossible to contradict. My theory when released, will certainly fit this criteria, it is so simple, logical, elegant and irrefutable.

I am completely opposed to quantum Mechanics. Entanglement does not exist, wave function collapse does not exist, and heisenbergs uncertainly principal is wrong.
I am swayed towards accepting your theory purely because you display such a powerful modesty. I simply cannot conceive how anyone so modest could be less than 100% correct.

34. this reminds me of the Albert Einstein days. do you think that he was the only one trying to get credit for their own theory? no. the credit goes to the person that does the successful experiment and shows valid proof that their theory is the correct one. Einstein also had help from others and he spent an entire life time learning to figure out how the universe worked. he made it far but there is still farther to go. but you're going to have to learn most everything he did and more to do so. and that involves listening to others; that they are saying something means that they see something you don't. you should be apt to see their way as well as your own. so my advice is that we use this science forum to work together and figure out a valid experiment with the math behind it. we need to figure out a valid set of rules that can, by themselves, explain everything in our known existence. we then need to figure out how to fund the experiment and the final step is conducting the experiment. only then will we ever get credit for anything. something else worth thinking about is a format for posting. so we are all conducting our ideas back and forth in a similar fashion. keep in mind that we are trying to prove a 130+ year old theory. lots of people have taken it on faith that its not true. so the evidence needs to be that much more convincing.

35. no matter how well you know and see something someone else will always know and see something you didn't. that is why it is crucial for others to completely display their ideas so that others can tell you what might potentially be wrong. its like having several people proof read your English assignment before turning it in. make sure the rules you are displaying are understandable. we will then use the process of elimination to rule the rule valid or invalid. we should keep notes. somewhere where we can post the rules that we all agree are valid. after enough time we should be able to use the list of rules we have to create an experiment.

36. Originally Posted by gravityguru
this reminds me of the Albert Einstein days. do you think that he was the only one trying to get credit for their own theory? no. the credit goes to the person that does the successful experiment and shows valid proof that their theory is the correct one.
Well if that were true, surely we'd be talking about Eddington's theory of relativity rather than Einstein's! There's no hard and fast rule on who gets credit for new scientific knowledge. Watson and Crick are commonly cited for the discovery of DNA as the genetic material, even though this was suggested by Avery, MacLeod and McCarty a decade earlier. Perhaps this was because they simultaneously confirmed an hypothesis and made a novel discovery which was fundemental to that confirmation (the double helix structure). Eddington, by contrast, was merely confirming a much more detailed, more rigidly testable hypothesis. Not to mention of course that Eddington, as a great admirer of Einstein, desired no credit, whereas Watson and Crick wouldn't have credited their own grandmothers even if they'd done every last experiment.

37. so when it comes down to it, knowledge should be found for the sake of finding it, not for the recognition of finding it. and the person doing it not for the reputation is usually the victor.

If and when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

38. Originally Posted by TheBiologista
Originally Posted by gravityguru
this reminds me of the Albert Einstein days. do you think that he was the only one trying to get credit for their own theory? no. the credit goes to the person that does the successful experiment and shows valid proof that their theory is the correct one.
Well if that were true, surely we'd be talking about Eddington's theory of relativity rather than Einstein's! There's no hard and fast rule on who gets credit for new scientific knowledge. Watson and Crick are commonly cited for the discovery of DNA as the genetic material, even though this was suggested by Avery, MacLeod and McCarty a decade earlier. Perhaps this was because they simultaneously confirmed an hypothesis and made a novel discovery which was fundemental to that confirmation (the double helix structure). Eddington, by contrast, was merely confirming a much more detailed, more rigidly testable hypothesis. Not to mention of course that Eddington, as a great admirer of Einstein, desired no credit, whereas Watson and Crick wouldn't have credited their own grandmothers even if they'd done every last experiment.
That is so true!! I think we tend to give credit to the person who reduces an idea to a testable state, not necessarily the person who tests it.

If Einstein just said : "It's all space-time curvature!!" instead of proposing a mathematical model that exactly quantifies what that space-time curvature ought to be doing if it exists, he'd just be another crackpot to us.

39. exactly. the thing we need to figure out the most is the math for our theories. and doing so will also help you form the theory. two heads are better than one. many are even better. so lets start crunching numbers.

40. i honestly have no idea where i should start.

41. Originally Posted by gravityguru
i honestly have no idea where i should start.
Great to see you have plenty of enthusiasm towards mathematically expressing the behavior of the Ether, but I have already supported my Ether mathematically. The equations can be found in the OP.

42. ok, so the biggest question screaming at me with your theory is, how can matter move through the aether if the aether is stationary? because if aether separates for molecules to move through it, than that means aether is not holding still, but it is moving. churning like the ocean. so, the question, how can matter move through aether if it is stationary? i see it like this; ice is stationary, water is fluid. you can not move through ice. you can move through water. it makes more sense for aether to be moving. and also look at this; matter is to ice as aether is to water. the only way for there to be a unified theory is if there is only one variable. aether is the smallest building block of matter. aether's shape, density, and how its moving determines what it is. take a photon for example. its the simplest of movements. its spinning. holding its own energy like a tornado would. quarks, leptons, and bosons are all aether moving in different shapes and densities. this would allow for a math system with one unified way of explaining it, kinetic physics.

43. think of the aether as individual particles. think of what they do when they make a wave. they bounce off of each other to turn around and bounce off of the particles on the other side of them, and then back again. if there is a point that has less particles in it than another space adjacent to that space, the particles in the more dense space will travel through the empty spaces before bouncing again, thus naturally keeping an even spacing of particles. this also gives the aether energy. its moving. logic dictates that over a long enough period of time the energy will randomly collide in a form which is mathematically stable; elementary particles. the reason i am saying this is because you are saying that there is some unseen phenomena that is causing the aether to want to stay in its own fixed coordinates. i say it makes more sense if the only factors in existence are how much it weighs, how big it is, and how fast it is moving. i can not for the life of me see any other math that can be done. note that time is based upon how fast it is moving. that is why time is relative to aether.

44. Originally Posted by gravityguru
ok, so the biggest question screaming at me with your theory is, how can matter move through the aether if the aether is stationary?
The Ether is only stationary in its equilibrium position, sections of it move as a wave passes through. After these waves pass through, it returns to being stationary. That is what a wave is, a transfer of energy with no net movement of the medium.

i see it like this; ice is stationary, water is fluid. you can not move through ice. you can move through water. it makes more sense for aether to be moving. and also look at this; matter is to ice as aether is to water.
This is a misunderstanding on your behalf. Matter is not a separate thing to the Ether. It is not like a ball moving through water. Matter is waves in the Ether itself.

the only way for there to be a unified theory is if there is only one variable.
That is quite true, that is why physics today is way off course, it has a separate theory for every phenomena. The only way for there to be a "theory of everything" is by having one thing that exists which has properties. This is the Ether.

take a photon for example. its the simplest of movements. its spinning. holding its own energy like a tornado would.
Photons do not exist.

think of the aether as individual particles. think of what they do when they make a wave. they bounce off of each other to turn around and bounce off of the particles on the other side of them, and then back again.
No. Points in the Ether never touch. They do not bounce off each other. It is an elastic medium. They experience a force which is directly due to one factor: the distance between the other points.

i can not for the life of me see any other math that can be done. note that time is based upon how fast it is moving. that is why time is relative to aether.
You are not thinking straight. You do not understand time well.

45. Originally Posted by Waveman28
i see it like this; ice is stationary, water is fluid. you can not move through ice. you can move through water. it makes more sense for aether to be moving. and also look at this; matter is to ice as aether is to water.
This is a misunderstanding on your behalf. Matter is not a separate thing to the Ether. It is not like a ball moving through water. Matter is waves in the Ether itself.
I think you could make th epoint that after the object has moved through the water the water is still there.

46. If the ether is all there is, then what could have possibly caused the first wave(s) in it?

Also if the ether is all there is, and everything that exists is just a form of ether, then there would be no distance between ethereal particles or whatever you call them, and so there would be no potential wave; a wave in water is caused by a transmition of energy, this transmition occurs because kenetic energy pushes against the magnetic bond between water molecules; so your ethereal wave needs to have two forces, one causing the ether to become denser or less dense, and one causing the ether to return to neutral; since distance would then be a measure of these ethereal particles, and there is no "space" between them, unless your going to make a super/sub-ether theory to explain whats going on in between different points of ether...

if that's too much of a rant to understand, i'll be thinking of a clearer way to say it

47. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
If the ether is all there is, then what could have possibly caused the first wave(s) in it?
That does not matter. The answer to this question may be beyond our knowledge. The goal with this theory is to explain all physical phenomena in the universe in a consistent, logical way using a single mechanism. Explaining how our universe works is all that matters. There is no point trying to explain why the universe is how it is, or how it came to exist. No theory can ever do that.

Also if the ether is all there is, and everything that exists is just a form of ether, then there would be no distance between ethereal particles or whatever you call them, and so there would be no potential wave; a wave in water is caused by a transmition of energy, this transmition occurs because kenetic energy pushes against the magnetic bond between water molecules.
That doesn't really make much sense. Elasticity is simply a fundamental property of the Ether.

Your ethereal wave needs to have two forces, one causing the ether to become denser or less dense, and one causing the ether to return to neutral
No, there is only one force. The force on a point in the Ether is totally dependent upon the distance between its surrounding points. The restoring force and the force which causes the next point to move are the same force.

48. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by marcusclayman
If the ether is all there is, then what could have possibly caused the first wave(s) in it?
That does not matter. The answer to this question may be beyond our knowledge. The goal with this theory is to explain all physical phenomena in the universe in a consistent, logical way using a single mechanism. Explaining how our universe works is all that matters. There is no point trying to explain why the universe is how it is, or how it came to exist. No theory can ever do that.
I'm not trying to ask how it works or why it works, I'm asking WHAT could put motion into something that is by definition, the only thing that exists.

If nothing CAN, than nothing HAS, so your theory is bunk. Something needs to be able to put energy into the ether to make a wave in it; thus there is something other than the ether involved; and it is not what you propose it to be; either that or 'wave' is the wrong concept to use to explain what is happening, maybe it was chosen for its imaginative simplicity and not because it is truthfully what is happening in the ether?

49. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
I'm not trying to ask how it works or why it works, I'm asking WHAT could put motion into something that is by definition, the only thing that exists. If nothing CAN, than nothing HAS, so your theory is bunk. Something needs to be able to put energy into the ether to make a wave in it; thus there is something other than the ether involved; and it is not what you propose it to be; either that or 'wave' is the wrong concept to use to explain what is happening, maybe it was chosen for its imaginative simplicity and not because it is truthfully what is happening in the ether?
Well, we could say that when the Ether begun to exist, it was not in its equilibrium position. Some points in the Ether were at a distance which would exert a force, so waves were there since the Ether existed. As soon as the Ether came into existence, waves began propagating through it.

50. The Ether is only stationary in its equilibrium position, sections of it move as a wave passes through. After these waves pass through, it returns to being stationary. That is what a wave is, a transfer of energy with no net movement of the medium.
ok, so let me try this again. how are the aether particles (or points) holding each other equally away from each other. are they connected. maybe like a slinky toy and are springing back to position. main point. you are saying that the aether particles want to be equally separated. explain in some way KINETICLY how they hold each other. if you can not than that means you need to think some more on your theory. there is no way to explain them holding each other apart except using weight and speed. this is why i am saying it makes more sense for aether to be free floating particles rather than stationary ones.

(PS. the early stages of my aether theory were of a stationary medium just like yours. i have ruled out the stationary part. also note that i have had the same theory for years now but up until a couple of months ago i had no idea what aether was. yet i had landed at it being the correct theory without knowing of its existence.)

51. Photons do not exist.
just as a friendly piece of advise, don't blatantly say something doesn't exist when everyone knows for a fact that it does. i cannot fathom the reason you said this. of course photons exist. i can see. that's more than enough proof.

52. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by marcusclayman
If the ether is all there is, then what could have possibly caused the first wave(s) in it?
That does not matter. The answer to this question may be beyond our knowledge. The goal with this theory is to explain all physical phenomena in the universe in a consistent, logical way using a single mechanism. Explaining how our universe works is all that matters. There is no point trying to explain why the universe is how it is, or how it came to exist. No theory can ever do that.
I'm pretty sure you said the whole point of this theory was that GR and QM didn't explain why things work and that your theory did. Did you change your mind?

53. Indeed magi, I was going to point that out, but I'm trying to stick with critiquing one point at a time.

Well, waveman, you explain how the ether can be in motion from it's origin on without external forces, however unsatisfactorily. You ignored, or overlooked my other point, my major point: what is the distance between ethereal particles measuring? non existence? if ether is all there is, then there can be no distance between ethereal particles; thus no change in density, thus no waves.

54. next time you are next to water try stirring it as fast as you can with a stick. observe how the water has a rotational wave instead of a linear one. drop something small like a pebble in to see how it moves and where it goes. it may give you a good insight on gravity.

55. remember, a liquid cannot be compressed.

56. @Waveman. You are saying there are no particles in your theory. How do you explain the photoelectric effect without photons? After seeing this as evidence for photons, how do you explain the wave/particle duality.

57. Originally Posted by gravityguru
remember, a liquid cannot be compressed.
Water can.

58. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
Indeed magi, I was going to point that out, but I'm trying to stick with critiquing one point at a time.

Well, waveman, you explain how the ether can be in motion from it's origin on without external forces, however unsatisfactorily. You ignored, or overlooked my other point, my major point: what is the distance between ethereal particles measuring? non existence? if ether is all there is, then there can be no distance between ethereal particles; thus no change in density, thus no waves.
I'm mainly concerned with consistency and rigor. If the theory is consistent and rigorous, it can be tested like any other scientific theory. If it is not consistent or not rigorous, it's not a scientific theory at all.

There's nothing particularly inconsistent or vague about having space filled with or made up of a lattice of points (by itself). Whether or not the rest of the theory holds up, or whether or not it matches observations is another question.

59. Originally Posted by gravityguru
Photons do not exist.
just as a friendly piece of advise, don't blatantly say something doesn't exist when everyone knows for a fact that it does. i cannot fathom the reason you said this. of course photons exist. i can see. that's more than enough proof.
What we see is light. Just because you see light, it does not mean that light is made of streams of particles called photons. I am not saying that light does not exist, I am saying that light is made of waves.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster
I'm pretty sure you said the whole point of this theory was that GR and QM didn't explain why things work and that your theory did. Did you change your mind?
GR and QM do not explain what is really happening in reality and they lack a physical mechanism, amongst many other things. My theory can explain how the universe works, from a mechanical point of view, which actually explains what is really going on. That is the whole point of my theory, to explain things realistically.

Originally Posted by marcusclayman
Well, waveman, you explain how the ether can be in motion from it's origin on without external forces, however unsatisfactorily.
How was that an unsatisfactory explanation?

You ignored, or overlooked my other point, my major point: what is the distance between ethereal particles measuring? non existence? if ether is all there is, then there can be no distance between ethereal particles; thus no change in density, thus no waves.
Your looking into this philosophically, which is not a problem in itself, but your philosophical argument is simply not right. Yes, the Ether is all that exists. Distance is just an arbitrary measurement, it is the concept of how far apart two points are. Nothing can measure non-existence, I dont know what you are trying to get at with that idea.

60. Originally Posted by CrimsonViper
@Waveman. You are saying there are no particles in your theory. How do you explain the photoelectric effect without photons? After seeing this as evidence for photons, how do you explain the wave/particle duality.
Thats correct, particles do not exist. Everything is made of waves in the Ether. Now, the photoelectric effect can be easily explained with waves, and they can explain the phenomena much better than particles as well. First of all, ask yourself this: How can an electron "absorb" a photon? This has never been explained. In my theory, there are no illogical concepts such as "absorption". The "quantized" properties of light are actually due to the electrons in the structure of the atom, not the light itself. After all, the electrons are there for both the "emission" and "absorption" of light, so why should the so called "quantized" properties be attributed to light? The electrons are held in fixed positions around the nucleus of an atom. These positions are due to the wave diffraction pattern that emanates from the nucleus.

Electrons are held in these periodic zones where the amplitude is low. If an electron gains enough energy, it can jump from one zone to the next, and doing so, they release a "quantum" of light. The "quantum", is just an amount of energy which is equal to the amount of energy required to get the electron to move to the next zone. That is why light appears to be quantized, but it is actually the atomic structure that leads to this phenomena.

61. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
I'm pretty sure you said the whole point of this theory was that GR and QM didn't explain why things work and that your theory did. Did you change your mind?
GR and QM do not explain what is really happening in reality and they lack a physical mechanism, amongst many other things. My theory can explain how the universe works, from a mechanical point of view, which actually explains what is really going on. That is the whole point of my theory, to explain things realistically.
I don't get it. Ignoring that GR and QM are inconsistent with each other, I can't see any substantive difference in the power of either these or your theory to explain how the universe works. If you mean that the English description of your theory is easier to understand, that's not really a valid criticism.

62. What we see is light. Just because you see light, it does not mean that light is made of streams of particles called photons. I am not saying that light does not exist, I am saying that light is made of waves.
ok, so we are having a case of mis-communication. i never said photons were particles. i never said they were not waves. this is a photon ( http://www.spiralwishingwells.com/gu...whirlpool2.jpg ) the water in the photo is the aether. the mealstrom is the photon. imagine this mealstrom moving in a direction. aether will go in the front side and aether will come out the back side. after the photon has traveled through some aether, that aether returns (relatively) to its original position. that is the characteristic that makes it a wave. the particles move to transfer their energy to the next particle and then they return (relatively) to the same position. this can be done in a circular fashion, not just in a linear fashion. so light are mealstrom waves traveling through the aether.

so you asked how an electron can absorb a photon. imagine this mealstrom traveling at high velocities towards an object slightly larger than the photon itself. when the mealstrom hits the object, the photon is going to grab the object and throw it, transferring all the kinetic energy to the electron. the photon is gone and the electron now has its energy.

the math involved for this demands individual, free moving particles to form the waves. if the particles are not free moving the math will not work out.

63. Originally Posted by gravityguru
ok, so we are having a case of mis-communication. i never said photons were particles. i never said they were not waves. this is a photon ( http://www.spiralwishingwells.com/gu...whirlpool2.jpg ) the water in the photo is the aether. the mealstrom is the photon. imagine this mealstrom moving in a direction. aether will go in the front side and aether will come out the back side. after the photon has traveled through some aether, that aether returns (relatively) to its original position. that is the characteristic that makes it a wave. the particles move to transfer their energy to the next particle and then they return (relatively) to the same position. this can be done in a circular fashion, not just in a linear fashion. so light are mealstrom waves traveling through the aether.

so you asked how an electron can absorb a photon. imagine this mealstrom traveling at high velocities towards an object slightly larger than the photon itself. when the mealstrom hits the object, the photon is going to grab the object and throw it, transferring all the kinetic energy to the electron. the photon is gone and the electron now has its energy.

the math involved for this demands individual, free moving particles to form the waves. if the particles are not free moving the math will not work out.
Well, photon does mean a particle of light, so that could easily confuse people if you use it in your own way. That theory also seems very weird and far fetched to say the least.

64. now imagine this, photons are the simplist of movements, rotating on a single axis(x). what about the other things in existence. surely there is more than one way aether can move. what about spinning on 2 axis(xy). what about spinning on all 3 axis(xyz). our reality has 3 dimensions, therefore it has 3 axis. thats funny. there are 3 types of elementary particles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle ). quarks, leptons, and bosons. we have already determined that bosons are spinning on one axis(x). we only have 2 more to match up. i would say since it takes more than one quark to make a proton and electrons are elementary particles themselves, it makes sense for the electrons to be complete(rotating on all 3 axis) and quarks to be rotating on 2 axis.

you can clearly see the instability in a rotation on a single axis. a rotation on 2 axis increases the stability squared. and a rotation on all 3 axis increases the stability cubed. when it is rotating on one axis the aether is moving into and out of the particle as it travels. when you rotate it on 2 axis the aether no longer moves into and out of the particle. it then becomes its own ecosystem.

65. does it sound any more far fetched than your own?

66. remember, you can not travel through a rubber band. but you can travel through a pool of jello. both are elastic. but one is solid and the other is liquid. the jello can be stirred, completely rearranging all the molecules and still retain elasticity. the rubber band can not. if we think about why it is elastic we will find that it is because of the currents in the aether caused by the rotation of the particle. the currents are pulling each other in. in order for this to happen you have to have very small particles for the current, aether.

in order for something to be elastic it has to be made of smaller pieces. so what you are proposing is that aether is made of yet even smaller pieces.

67. Originally Posted by gravityguru
does it sound any more far fetched than your own?
Yes. Far more. My theory is not far fetched at all. What is far fetched about a uniform elastic medium? Such things already exist in reality and are fully understood.

68. it still leaves a 'how?'. how is it elastic?

69. Originally Posted by gravityguru
it still leaves a 'how?'. how is it elastic?
It is elastic because if the tension in the Ether is distorted from its equilibrium value, it will exert a restoring force which brings that section back into equilibrium, which will distort another section of the Ether, hence making a wave. That is what elasticity is, a fundamental property.

70. you have an object that weigh's 1 gram and it is traveling at 10 meters per second. it collides with another object with the same weight that is sitting still. the first object will transfer all of its energy to the second object. now the second object is traveling at 10 meters per second and the first object is standing still. all of the mass and all of the energy are clearly accounted for.
what i am getting at is that there is matter. the matter is moving. there is nothing else in existence. so how can the base building block be elastic using just this?

71. explain elasticity using one rule. when something bumps into something else that something else moves in the direction it was bumped. i dont know how much more i can dummy this down before it sounds retarded. explain elasticity using the rule of matter moving. you keep philisophically side stepping this question. i want you to actually imagine the physics of particles doing nothing but bounce off of each other. because thats the only thing in existence. elasticity is the act of them pulling each other back into a certain position. how can this happen by particles bouncing off of each other. i am not saying this because i think i am always right. i am saying this because i see an obvious hole in your theory and i am pointing it out to you. isnt that why your posting things here. to get someone elses opinion. so someone else can see it from a different angle than you do. i am saying that elasticity is a property of many particles moving together. it can not be a base property.

72. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by marcusclayman
"The Ether exists. Here are my postulates:

1. Light always travels at a constant absolute velocity (c), through the Ether. "

This is like saying "Light travels through invisible cats, thus there are invisible cats"

You cannot use a concept that you are trying to prove the existence of, in a postulate meant to prove the existence of it.
Its not like that, because we know that all waves need a medium
Do we know that all waves need a medium? That's never been proven.

Originally Posted by Waveman28
so why make an exception for light?
Because it appears light can propagate without a medium?

73. Also, you say all that exists is the ether, and everything we see is just composed of waves in the ether.

If all that exists is the ether how can there be travelling waves? Travelling waves need energy to propagate. In your own words, "why should ether waves be any different?"

You can think that energy is simply a particular type of ether wave but then you have the problem of what is causing the energy ether wave to propagate? Another energy ether wave?

How can energy supply energy to energy?

It doesn't add up. On top of this you believe QM is wrong?? QM was born out of observation and experiment.

74. Originally Posted by sox
Do we know that all waves need a medium? That's never been proven.
Yes we do know that all waves need a medium, for two strong reasons. Firstly, up until the discovery that light was a wave, every other wave required some form of medium: sound waves propagated through air, water waves obviously required water, surface waves traveled across a material, earthquakes were vibrations in the ground, and so on. So all observations showed that waves need a medium. Secondly, waves require a medium by definition: something must be waving. How can nothing wave? Nothing cant do anything, because it is nothing. Something MUST be waving. Having a wave without a medium is a complete absurdity.

Also, you say all that exists is the ether, and everything we see is just composed of waves in the ether. If all that exists is the ether how can there be travelling waves? Travelling waves need energy to propagate. In your own words, "why should ether waves be any different?"
Travelling waves are just distortions that propagate through the Ether. A wave is not a separate entity to the medium, the Ether is still the only thing which physically exists. Secondly, energy is just a measurement, albeit a very important one. Energy does not exist, it is just a way of describing the properties of the Ether. The law of conservation of energy is totally correct, it is arguably the most fundamental law in science. This law is a consequence of the Ether being a perfectly elastic medium, its waves can never die out.

You can think that energy is simply a particular type of ether wave but then you have the problem of what is causing the energy ether wave to propagate? Another energy ether wave?

How can energy supply energy to energy?
You seem to have a misunderstanding about what energy is and its relation to waves. So just forget about energy for a minute. The Ether is an elastic medium. Elasticity is a fundamental property of the Ether. This property is what allows waves to propagate through it, and these waves are just tension variations in the ether. So if a point in the Ether has a tension which is higher than its equilibrium value, then it will move back towards its equilibrium to lower the tension, which in turn will raise the tension of the next point and so on, thus making a wave.

On top of this you believe QM is wrong?? QM was born out of observation and experiment.
Yes QM is wrong. It certainly does make some accurate predictions in many cases, but it is actually fundamentally flawed. This is because it makes many absurd postulates in order to explain phenomena, such as things being able to be in many different places at the same time. This is nonsense. Wave particle duality is nonsense, how can something be two completely different and unrelated things at once? There are an exhaustive amount of weird and illogical ideas present in QM. I admit that it does contain mathematical support which can yield reasonable results in predictions, but the theory itself simply does not explain what is really going on in reality. It does not explain things in a proper mechanical way, it has no underlying mechanism.

75. you have failed to describe the underlying mechanics for your elasticity. something can not just be elastic. something must be doing something in order for elastics to happen. HOW IS IT ELASTIC????????

76. sidestep this question if you want, but the only way you are going to get credit for anything is if you have a complete mathematical document that uses real numbers and real data (mass, density, etc). i am not talking about those couple of equations you have on the first page. they dont even have examples with them. im talking about a 1,000 page book that explains everything. even this will not be enough. you are going to need actual scientific data from real experiments. these experiments will most likely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. what you are proposing will take 10 or more years to prove. several years of schooling is required before you can even do some of the math. yes coming up with a valid theory is one thing. proving it and getting credit is an entirely different matter. and lastly, this theory of aether is hundreds of years old. you are not its creator. and neither am i. this makes it even harder to prove because everyone has already accepted it as a dis-proven theory. that means the data from the experiments has to be that much more convincing. so crunch some numbers. show me how the aether is elastic using real numbers worked through all the proper equations. here is a start. calculating the modulus of elasticity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastic_modulus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visco-elastic

77. photons are the medium through which light waves travel

light waves are the interaction of photons, just like waves in water are the interaction of water molecules

water doesn't need some other medium for a wave of water to travel through, just itself; neither does light and it's respective waves

78. Originally Posted by gravityguru
What i am getting at is that there is matter. the matter is moving. there is nothing else in existence. so how can the base building block be elastic using just this?
You are using the word elastic out of context. This is a huge misunderstanding on your behalf. My Ether does not consist of particles which bump into each other. You are thinking of elastic collisions, which is totally different to an elastic material.

explain elasticity using the rule of matter moving.
See? Your barking up the wrong tree. Your trying to get me to explain elasticity using your misguided idea of what elastic means. The Ether is not matter, it does not work by the means of moving matter that bumps into each other.

I want you to actually imagine the physics of particles doing nothing but bounce off of each other. because thats the only thing in existence.
I want you to stop imagining particles that bounce off each other, that is a useless concept that cant really explain anything. And no, particles do not even exist, so they certainly cannot be the only thing which exists.

elasticity is the act of them pulling each other back into a certain position. how can this happen by particles bouncing off of each other.
Exactly, it cant happen by particles bouncing off each other, hence my theory does not say that it does. As I said before, bouncing particles are useless, forget about it.

79. Repeating things like 'particles don't exist' doesn't make it any more true. More importantly it doesn't prove your argument, if it is indeed true.

80. i think im done arguing with you waveman28.

Exactly, it cant happen by particles bouncing off each other, hence my theory does not say that it does. As I said before, bouncing particles are useless, forget about it.
you blatantly said it yourself. your theory can not happen using matter moving. so i suggest you find a new theory because matter moving is all there is. and the only way for the universe to quantify everything is if everything is made of individual particles. it can not have a quantity unless it has individual pieces. pull your head out. you are accepting these absurd ideas as facts. how can something be elastic? how can things be quantified in a universe so neatly organized? the answers to these questions prove your theory wrong.

81. Originally Posted by gravityguru
your theory can not happen using matter moving.
My theory does not say that it does. My theory is about waves in a medium.

So i suggest you find a new theory because matter moving is all there is.
That is a major misconception you have there.

and the only way for the universe to quantify everything is if everything is made of individual particles.
Why on earth do you think that?

it can not have a quantity unless it has individual pieces.

How can something be elastic?
Elasticity is a well known and frequently observed phenomena. Elasticity is a fundamental property of the Ether which means that if it is stretched, it will contract back and vice versa. What is so hard to understand about that?

82. stretching implies a lessening of density, contracting implies an increase of density

density is mass/volume mass

if you lessen the density of something, you are increasing the amount of empty space within the volume you are measuring; according to the ether theory there is no such thing as empty space, so you will have to define elastic according to your own technical mumbo jumbo if you hope for anyone to understand without being initiated into the cult you would otherwise start in your later years due to the depression of being misunderstood on something you understand as being so simple

83. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
Stretching implies a lessening of density, contracting implies an increase of density. Density is mass/volume.
Yes that is indeed correct. However the ether is different, because the Ether itself has no "mass". "Mass" is a concept applied to objects that arise due to the properties of the ether. Mass is not fundamental. So when applied to the Ether, the concept of density loses its meaning.

if you lessen the density of something, you are increasing the amount of empty space within the volume you are measuring
Yes, but the Ethers density is not being changed. As I said before, the concept of density applied to the Ether has no meaning. With the Ether, the length of the interconnecting lines is what is being changed, not the density. So in other terms, the length and tension are changing.

According to the ether theory there is no such thing as empty space
If the Ether is finite in size (which it most likely is), then outside it lies literally nothing.

84. "So when applied to the Ether, the concept of density loses its meaning."

I understand that. Thus the concept, or more specifically, the definition of 'stretching' loses it's meaning as well. Many concepts/definitions loose their meaning, that is what I was getting at. So you will need to devise a technical vocabulary complete with new concepts and meanings before you try to explain all of this to anyone.

Also, lines are what exist between two points. And you keep saying that there are no points according to your theory.

85. If anything is finite, then there are points. Unless a universe goes on for infinity, it is but a point within the nothingness beyond.

86. Originally Posted by marcusclayman
I understand that. Thus the concept, or more specifically, the definition of 'stretching' loses it's meaning as well.
The meaning of stretching actually remains intact to some extent when applied to the Ether. A rough definition of stretching is that an object is becoming more spatially extended in a particular direction. This is what is happening in the Ether, the Ethers interconnecting lines are changing length. Thus, the tension in these lines change as well, and the tension dictates the rate of change of the lines length.

Many concepts/definitions loose their meaning, that is what I was getting at. So you will need to devise a technical vocabulary complete with new concepts and meanings before you try to explain all of this to anyone
.
That is true, but the good thing is that most definitions will only be in need of a slight modification.

Also, lines are what exist between two points. And you keep saying that there are no points according to your theory.
A "point" doesnt really exist. How can something with no dimensions exist? A "point" is just a concept, albeit a very useful one at times. You cant just think of a line as something that connects two points, a line is just, well, a line. It's a continuous length of something. It doesnt even need to be involved with points, if that makes sense.

87. A rough definition of stretching is that an object is becoming more spatially extended in a particular direction.
stretching implies a lessening of density, contracting implies an increase of density
aren't these two statements the same?
we are not necessarily trying to prove your theory wrong waveman. we are trying to understand how your theory is supposed to work, but all you keep doing is making statements.
for example:
The meaning of stretching actually remains intact to some extent when applied to the Ether.
How? all you have given us are statements we have to take on faith. tell us how the ether is stretching.
this is like me telling you the sky is blue. you ask how. i say because the sky is blue. which is not the answer. the answer is the sky is blue because of the way the air makes the light refract as its entering our atmosphere.
explain things!!!! please! im with marcusclayman. ether simply cannot exist unless it has mass. because if it had no mass things like stretching wouldnt be able to happen.
i think your biggest downfall is thinking that the ether has no mass and is not individual particles. not to be rude but your theory is considerably absurd. my advise is to go and take several college classes in science and then reform your idea.

88. knowledge is power. seek all that you can get and take nothing for granted.

89. Elasticity is a well known and frequently observed phenomena. Elasticity is a fundamental property of the Ether which means that if it is stretched, it will contract back and vice versa. What is so hard to understand about that?
elasticity is not a phenomena. we know exactly how it works. it is like pulling two magnets apart and then letting them come together again. plastic deformation accurs when you pull those two magnets far enough apart that their magnetic fields are no longer touching. this is what happens to atoms. the only difference is that there are billions of atoms all doing this to each other. when you pull some of the atoms too far, other atoms move to that location thus reconfiguring the original structure. main point is that there has to be more than one individual particle working together in order for this to happen. there has to be particles!!!!!! there has to be mass! and there has to be density for elasticity to happen!!!

90. if you hope for anyone to understand without being initiated into the cult you would otherwise start in your later years due to the depression of being misunderstood on something you understand as being so simple
isnt this like the definition for how cerial killers, sex offenders, etc.... become who they are?
lol

91. Originally Posted by gravityguru
Aren't these two statements the same?
They aren't. And I know your not trying to just prove me wrong, but there is a flaw in your way of thinking when it comes to the fundamental nature of science which is the reason behind your current inability to understand my theory.

We are trying to understand how your theory is supposed to work, but all you keep doing is making statements. For example:
The meaning of stretching actually remains intact to some extent when applied to the Ether.
How? all you have given us are statements we have to take on faith. Tell us how the ether is stretching. This is like me telling you the sky is blue. you ask how. i say because the sky is blue. which is not the answer. the answer is the sky is blue because of the way the air makes the light refract as its entering our atmosphere.
explain things!!!
This logic disintegrates at the most fundamental level, which is the level my theory is on. I'll tell you why. Lets take your example of explaining how the sky is blue. It is indeed because of the way the molecules in the atmosphere refracts incoming light from outer space. Now that this is known, I can further ask: "But how does the atmosphere's molecules do that? Which then leads to another explanation. Now that this is known, I can further ask how that next mechanism works, and so on and so forth to no end. On the fundamental level, you cant ask "How does that work" because it is simply a fundamental property. Otherwise, there would be an infinite series of explanations.

My theory on the Ether doesn't really contain postulates, it contains axioms. Axioms are a fundamental establishment. Trust me, elasticity cannot be explained. However, just because we cant explain the cause of elasticity, it doesn't mean that we dont understand what it means, and this is why it is an axiom of the theory. If you think elasticity can be explained, just try. After a while, you will realise that it is a fruitless task.

Please! im with marcusclayman. ether simply cannot exist unless it has mass. because if it had no mass things like stretching wouldnt be able to happen.
Says who? I have already shown that mass is not needed for elasticity. They are completely unrelated.

I think your biggest downfall is thinking that the ether has no mass and is not individual particles. not to be rude but your theory is considerably absurd. my advise is to go and take several college classes in science and then reform your idea.
Your biggest downfall is this strange worshipping of the word "mass". Everything you bring up revolves around the concept of mass. My Ether theory is not absurd in the slightest. It is the most fundamental and logical theory that has ever been constructed. It can explain the entire universe with an incredibly simple elastic medium. How is that absurd? People should be rejoicing about this. Learning about science and the way the universe works will never be same, it will be incredibly simple, even children in primary school will be able to understand it.

92. come up with a valid science experiment that proves your theory. i want to see how it works and what the dependent and independent variables are. this should better illustrate to us what you are trying to say.

93. if i were you i would be thinking about a lattice work of strings tied together. something similar to how a sheet is. describe how the vibrations in the sheet can act like different masses that we know of. give proof and examples. SHOW US MATH! nothing is more convincing than math that works out. dont just give us equations. show us real variables being applied to equations and showing what the result is. maybe even describe why the equation is being used.

94. similarly, im trying to decide right now what the best method for spinning balls of water, under water, at extremely high rpm's.

95. Originally Posted by gravityguru
if i were you i would be thinking about a lattice work of strings tied together. something similar to how a sheet is. describe how the vibrations in the sheet can act like different masses that we know of. give proof and examples. SHOW US MATH! nothing is more convincing than math that works out. dont just give us equations. show us real variables being applied to equations and showing what the result is. maybe even describe why the equation is being used.
Once again, you illustrate your obsession with Mass! I am actually interested in hearing your definition of mass. Mass certainly is important, but it is one of the least understood concepts in all of science.

96. because i see ether as individual particles, i consider them the only mass in existence. sand left in a rock tumbler long enough will make the grains of sand all the same size. so that means that the ether particles are the same size. these particles are moving. this is energy. how they are moving (by themselves and together) determines what kind of elementary particle they are.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle )
there are 3 different ways anything can spin:
on one axis
on two axis
on three axis
there are three groups to which everything in known existence are in. the quantity of particles, the ratio between speed in different axis, and how many axis, determines what group and what particle the elementary particle is.

97. mass is any particle that has volume and exhibits kinetic movement with other particles like itself.

98. part of the reason i am stuck on particles is because there is no other way of explaining magnetism besides convections in a body of particles.
if you have an idea about magnetism...

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement