# Thread: To the Ether theorists

1. In an attempt to be open minded, I want to walk through some actual math associated with an Ether theory, but before I can do that, I need to have an actual theory to work with.

Relativity can be boiled down to just two assumptions:
1. The laws of physics are the same everywhere
2. The speed of light is constant

Alternately, #2 could be "There is a universal speed limit" which can be shown to be the same as the speed of light.

From those two assumptions all of the details of time dilation, length contraction, spacetime, etc can be derived. Therefore, I propose that any Ether theory should begin by clearly stating its assumptions.

The simplest set of assumptions that would be consistent with the observations made to date would be:
1. The laws of physics are the same everywhere
2. The speed of light is constant
3. An absolute rest frame exists

Does anyone who supports the existence of Ether disagree with this set of assumptions? If so, what alernatives would you offer?

2.

3. Firstly, it is good to see somebody approach the Ether with an open mind.

Relativity can be boiled down to just two assumptions:
1. The laws of physics are the same everywhere
2. The speed of light is constant
Surprisingly, both of those assumptions are wrong, well actually they are just not specific enough. These two assumptions are the assumptions of Special Relativity, so if you use these as your foundation for a theory, you will just end up deriving Special Relativity again.

The postulates for my Ether theory are these:
1. Light travels at a constant speed with respect to the Ether. This speed is the fastest possible speed. The speed of light appears to travel at this speed to moving observers.

2. The laws of physics appear to be the same in all inertial frames of reference.

These are two very important differences from Special relativity.

From those two assumptions all of the details of time dilation, length contraction, spacetime, etc can be derived. Therefore, I propose that any Ether theory should begin by clearly stating its assumptions.

The simplest set of assumptions that would be consistent with the observations made to date would be:
1. The laws of physics are the same everywhere
2. The speed of light is constant
3. An absolute rest frame exists

Does anyone who supports the existence of Ether disagree with this set of assumptions? If so, what alernatives would you offer?
I disagree. I like the fact that your postulates are very clear and concise, but they are unfortunately wrong. This is not simply because they are not the same as my postulates, I too approach physics with an open mind, which has allowed me to come to the best conclusion as to how the universe works. I have explored all avenues of the Ether and I have arrived at the most logical and correct theory.

I have offered alternatives above which you can question further if you wish. My thread titled "The best Ether theory" also contains information and postulates regarding the Ether.

My Ether theory also has strong mathematical support. Surprisingly, they are absent from my thread because I do not know how to put up mathematical symbols into my posts!!

4. There's a tex tutorial stickied in the Math section.

And, yes, I know those are the assumptions of relativity. I stated that.

Anyway, your post in the other thread assumes too much too soon. I'm trying to boil it down to a simpler set of assumptions that I can make sense of.

For example, the assumption that "Light travels at a constant speed with respect to the Ether" presupposes the existence of something called the ether. I'm trying to back up before that and properly define what you mean by the ether.

Do you consider the ether to be an absolute rest frame, or can the ether move? Actually, a better way of asking is, what properties does the ether have, and over what scope can these properties change?

5. 3. An absolute rest frame exists
Does this have to be true necessarily?

I have my own little hypothesis about a possible aether. In it I envisage the aether as consisting out of points with randomly fluctuating distances from each other. The average distance tends towards zero and in the unlikely event that a volume of aether averages significantly above the total average, then the tendency to tend towards zero for the total volume can impact upon this region (if you can make any kind of sense from that). The tendency of this anomalous region to revert back to close to zero average separation is what energy is. In this idea the universe started when a very big region (within infinity) at huge odds and in a single instance (whatever that might be) suddenly averaged significantly above zero and all matter and energy we see now is this clock winding down back to zero.

Matter consists out of different configurations of this aether in the form of geometric topologies, which represent an area of lower density (higher average separation between the points of the aether). Gravity is represented by density gradients that surrounds matter or areas of higher energy. The fundamental particles are not simply stationary topologies, but oscillating regions that "bend" in on itself, rebounds and "bends" the other way. Different types of bend-rebound oscillations are responsible for the fundamental forces, each causing a signature fractal (associated distortion of the aether) that reduces in size with distance from the source. Each fractal is causally linked to the source and interacts only with similar fractals of other particles. All interactions happen at the speed of light, i.e. is tied to a fundamental property of the aether (not sure what this might be yet, maybe to the average speed of the change between distances between points in the aether). Inertia is caused by resistance of the aether to deformation. Particles with mass inflate due to this resistance during acceleration (gains mass) and flattens in the direction of travel also due to this resistance. Massless particles only exist as density anomalies without complex topology and propagate indefinitely in the form of solitons until re-absorption. Inertia is experienced because of a density gradient that exists between the part of the particle facing the direction of motion and the trailing part. When the acceleration stops, the deformation in the front is balanced by the reformation at the back and since there is no friction, the particle keeps moving in the same direction until acted upon.

There it is in a nutshell (fitting, as it is nuts and naive). :?

6. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
There's a tex tutorial stickied in the Math section.
Ah, excellent. Thanks for pointing that out.

And, yes, I know those are the assumptions of relativity. I stated that.
So, why are you doing that? We already have the theory of Special Relativity.

Anyway, your post in the other thread assumes too much too soon. I'm trying to boil it down to a simpler set of assumptions that I can make sense of.
No it doesn't assume too much too soon. I proposed some acceptable hypothesis, and then I have examined those hypothesis to ensure that they are valid, which they are. This is what all theories do, propose an explanation and then find out if the explanation works.

For example, the assumption that "Light travels at a constant speed with respect to the Ether" presupposes the existence of something called the ether. I'm trying to back up before that and properly define what you mean by the ether. Do you consider the ether to be an absolute rest frame, or can the ether move? Actually, a better way of asking is, what properties does the ether have, and over what scope can these properties change?
1. From many experiments, we know that light is a wave. All previous experiments also showed that all waves propagate through a medium. Thus, light too should require a medium. After all, that is what a wave is: A propagating distortion in a medium. The Ether really is not a big assumption at all, it is an illogical assumption to assume a wave does not require a medium.

2. The Ether is a fundamental elastic medium which supports the propagation of mechanical longitudinal waves. This is the definition of the Ether found in my theory. The Ether does not move, it is completely stationary and thus is an absolutely reference frame. What happens from the Ether's point of view is what is really going on in reality. The Ether's properties do not change over time.

Now for my equations regarding relativity:

Alpha is the speed to speed of light ratio.

Beta is the contraction factor.

Gamma is the increasing factor.

So to determine how much an object contracts as it moves through the Ether, or with respect to another object one must simply use this equation:

Where stands for rest length and ' stands for moving length.

7. You are confusing analogy with reality. A light wave is analagous to a sound wave, it is not the same as a sound wave. If we had first recognised that light involved variations in an electromagnetic field we should, by your reasoning, now propose that sound involved variations in a phonic field. Thus your argument is fundamentally flawed because of a false premise.

8. Originally Posted by Ophiolite
You are confusing analogy with reality. A light wave is analagous to a sound wave, it is not the same as a sound wave. If we had first recognised that light involved variations in an electromagnetic field we should, by your reasoning, now propose that sound involved variations in a phonic field. Thus your argument is fundamentally flawed because of a false premise.
The word 'wave' immediately means that something must be waving, otherwise it would simply not be a wave. Yes, sound waves and light waves are obviously not the same thing, but like all waves, they have one fundamental thing in common: they both require a medium.

9. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
You are confusing analogy with reality. A light wave is analagous to a sound wave, it is not the same as a sound wave. If we had first recognised that light involved variations in an electromagnetic field we should, by your reasoning, now propose that sound involved variations in a phonic field. Thus your argument is fundamentally flawed because of a false premise.
The word 'wave' immediately means that something must be waving, otherwise it would simply not be a wave. Yes, sound waves and light waves are obviously not the same thing, but like all waves, they have one fundamental thing in common: they both require a medium.
Says who? In sound waves, it is the the gas particles that move and produce the variation of gas pressure in time. With light, it is the electromagnetic field itself that varies in time. So, the electromagnetic field is the medium. What you are suggesting is that an electric or magnetic field needs an additional medium to which it is bound. Do you also propose that there cannot be an electric or magnetic field without a medium, i.e. your ether?

Light and sound have only in common that we have organs that can detect them. That does not mean that both phenomena are actually similar. The only similarity lies in the fact that they are periodic in time. Not even the form of the waves is the same: sound waves are longitudinal, light waves are transversal.

10. Originally Posted by Waveman28
The word 'wave' immediately means that something must be waving, otherwise it would simply not be a wave.
Oh, come on man! Get serious for a moment. That response is what I would expect from an uneducated, angst ridden, socially inept, fourteen year old.

The use of the word 'wave' can mean that when first described the phenomenon is thought to have involved something waving. It can also mean that when first described it was thought that the phenomenon was analagous to a wave. It can also mean that some aspect of the phenomenon has some of the characteristics of a wave.

None of these possible reasons for applying the word wave require that the phenomenon have a medium to operate from.

11. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
There's a tex tutorial stickied in the Math section.
Ah, excellent. Thanks for pointing that out.

And, yes, I know those are the assumptions of relativity. I stated that.
So, why are you doing that? We already have the theory of Special Relativity.
I was doing that as the lead-up to my question.

Originally Posted by Waveman28
Anyway, your post in the other thread assumes too much too soon. I'm trying to boil it down to a simpler set of assumptions that I can make sense of.
No it doesn't assume too much too soon. I proposed some acceptable hypothesis, and then I have examined those hypothesis to ensure that they are valid, which they are. This is what all theories do, propose an explanation and then find out if the explanation works.
You are making too many hidden assumptions in your stated assumptions. I'm trying to step back and work things through from the beginning. Or at the very least, you don't define your terms clearly enough.

My basic question, for now, is what fundamental properties do you ascribe to the ether?

Originally Posted by Waveman28
For example, the assumption that "Light travels at a constant speed with respect to the Ether" presupposes the existence of something called the ether. I'm trying to back up before that and properly define what you mean by the ether. Do you consider the ether to be an absolute rest frame, or can the ether move? Actually, a better way of asking is, what properties does the ether have, and over what scope can these properties change?
1. From many experiments, we know that light is a wave. All previous experiments also showed that all waves propagate through a medium. Thus, light too should require a medium. After all, that is what a wave is: A propagating distortion in a medium. The Ether really is not a big assumption at all, it is an illogical assumption to assume a wave does not require a medium.

2. The Ether is a fundamental elastic medium which supports the propagation of mechanical longitudinal waves. This is the definition of the Ether found in my theory. The Ether does not move, it is completely stationary and thus is an absolutely reference frame. What happens from the Ether's point of view is what is really going on in reality. The Ether's properties do not change over time.

Now for my equations regarding relativity:

Alpha is the speed to speed of light ratio.

Beta is the contraction factor.

Gamma is the increasing factor.

So to determine how much an object contracts as it moves through the Ether, or with respect to another object one must simply use this equation:

Where stands for rest length and ' stands for moving length.
Yes. That's the standard Lorentz transformation.

And the idea the light doesn't need a medium isn't an assumption. It follows from other assumptions.

These are topics for later though. For now, can we focus on a part of the universe containing nothing but the ether?

Originally Posted by KALSTER
3. An absolute rest frame exists
Does this have to be true necessarily?
That's what I'm trying to ask. Is there any agreed-upon definition of the word ether? What most scientists mean when they say it is equivalent to an absolute rest frame. I get the impression that that is not what Waveman means though.

12. Sorry, my post loaded twice.

13. Originally Posted by Dishmaster
Says who? In sound waves, it is the the gas particles that move and produce the variation of gas pressure in time. With light, it is the electromagnetic field itself that varies in time. So, the electromagnetic field is the medium. What you are suggesting is that an electric or magnetic field needs an additional medium to which it is bound. Do you also propose that there cannot be an electric or magnetic field without a medium, i.e. your ether?
I am saying that light is not made of electric and magnetic fields. It is a mechanical wave in the Ether which induces such fields in matter when it interacts with it. There is actually no reason at all to believe that light is made of electric and magnetic fields, because the only way to detect light is with an antenna or some other device which is made of matter, thus light may simply induce such fields in matter, without actually carrying electric and magnetic fields all the way.

Originally Posted by Ophiolite
Oh, come on man! Get serious for a moment. That response is what I would expect from an uneducated, angst ridden, socially inept, fourteen year old.

The use of the word 'wave' can mean that when first described the phenomenon is thought to have involved something waving. It can also mean that when first described it was thought that the phenomenon was analagous to a wave. It can also mean that some aspect of the phenomenon has some of the characteristics of a wave.

None of these possible reasons for applying the word wave require that the phenomenon have a medium to operate from.
We live in a physical universe, the things that we witness are things that physically exist. Thus, waves are simply propagating density variations in these things that exist. Waves are not just an analogy, they are real. Something MUST be waving, or else there would be no wave. And what is waving is something that physically exists. This is a medium.

Originally Posted by MagiMaster
You are making too many hidden assumptions in your stated assumptions.
Such as?

I'm trying to step back and work things through from the beginning. Or at the very least, you don't define your terms clearly enough.
Good. This is what I have also done, start fresh from the beginning and work from there. I have actually done a complete revision of the history of physics, and I have found a number of errors which have been passed on, thus causing alot of todays theories to be fundamentally wrong. I have defined my terms very clearly and simply. In fact, I have actually created a set of pure dentitions for all the terms used in my theory. Definitions are indeed extremely important.

My basic question, for now, is what fundamental properties do you ascribe to the ether?
1. Elastic
2. 3 dimensional
3. Isotropic
4. Homogeneous.

And the idea the light doesn't need a medium isn't an assumption. It follows from other assumptions.
Ok. Please just tell me that you dont think that waves can exist without a medium.

That's what I'm trying to ask. Is there any agreed-upon definition of the word ether? What most scientists mean when they say it is equivalent to an absolute rest frame. I get the impression that that is not what Waveman means though.
The Ether is indeed an absolute frame of reference, but that is not the main point. Many people think that this is all the Ether is and they ignore everything else. The Ether is more than just that. First and foremost, the Ether is a medium. The Ether is the universe. Everything in the universe gains it properties from the dynamics of the Ether.

14. I can tell you that whether or not I like the idea of light not requiring a medium, the assumptions from which it follows are not so easy to dismiss. But that's completely beside the point for now.

Are these all the properties you attribute to the ether?
1. Elastic
2. 3 dimensional
3. Isotropic
4. Homogeneous.
5. An absolute rest frame

So by 3 and 4, the ether is the same everywhere, but by 1 it can be distorted? So are 3 and 4 just statistically so?

From these properties, it sounds a whole lot like gelatin, if you ignore that gelatin is made of matter.

15. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Are these all the properties you attribute to the ether?
1. Elastic
2. 3 dimensional
3. Isotropic
4. Homogeneous.
5. An absolute rest frame

So by 3 and 4, the ether is the same everywhere, but by 1 it can be distorted? So are 3 and 4 just statistically so?

From these properties, it sounds a whole lot like gelatin, if you ignore that gelatin is made of matter.
I will elaborate further.

1. Elastic: If the Ether is distorted, a restoring force will act to bring back the distorted section of the medium into equilibrium. In doing so, this will also exert a force on the neighbouring sections of Ether, displacing it from its equilibrium, which in turn will experience a restoring force, thus creating a wave.

2. The Ether is simply a 3 dimensional entity.

3. Isotropic: The Ether's properties do not change depending on the direction.

4. Homogeneous: The Ether in its equilibrium state is homogeneous. Obviously it is not when it contains waves, but the point is that it is naturally homogeneous. That is how waves exists, the ether will exert a restoring force in order to bring itself back into equilibrium, to achieve homogeneity.

5. Because everything is made of waves in the ether, it only makes sense for motions of these things to be compared to the medium which it is made of. Surely, the speed of a wave should always be measured with respect to its medium. This is the reason that the Ether is a so-called "absolute reference frame", because it is the what everything is made of, so it is the only reasonable one.

6. Another point is that the transmission speed of the Ether's waves is constant: the speed of light, which is the fastest possible speed.

My Ether must have a physical mechanism. I propose that the Ether is made of regularly spaced "points" like a grid.

This image shows a 2 dimensional cross section of how my Ether's mechanism works. Each point is connected to 26 other surrounding points (8 in this 2-dimensional example). When these points are displaced from their equilibrium position, they exert a force on these surrounding points which is directly proportional to their displacement.

Amazingly, this mechanism can explain all wave phenomena. It is especially good at explaining diffraction and the inverse square law, which have surprisingly never been properly explained.

16. Actually, mainstream physics has an explanation for both of those, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Waveman28
My Ether must have a physical mechanism.
What is the physical mechanism of that physical mechanism? What are the points and lines made of? They can't be made of ether since the ether is made of them.

I'm trying to discuss the ether, which according to you is fundamental and is what everything else is made of. It can't be made of anything itself.

Anyway. According to your description, the ether is a 3D scalar field, where that scalar can be associated with density. If something pulls on an area, the density decreases, and areas of higher density push back. Does that sound about right?

Although I suppose I should ask, do you think that at the most fundamental level the ether is a discrete field or a continuous one?

17. What is the physical mechanism of that physical mechanism? What are the points and lines made of? They can't be made of ether since the ether is made of them.
"Made of" wasn't really the right phrase to use, I should have said that the Ether is a fabric like I described. It is not made of that fabric, it is that fabric.

I'm trying to discuss the ether, which according to you is fundamental and is what everything else is made of. It can't be made of anything itself.
Yes, your right. I corrected myself and said that the Ether is a fabric, not made of fabric.

Anyway. According to your description, the ether is a 3D scalar field, where that scalar can be associated with density. If something pulls on an area, the density decreases, and areas of higher density push back. Does that sound about right?
That is correct.

Although I suppose I should ask, do you think that at the most fundamental level the ether is a discrete field or a continuous one?
Good question. This is one of the things I have not yet decided upon. The thing is though, it doesn't seem as though it will make much, if any, difference to the dynamics of the Ether either way, so it probably isn't really that important. However, my opinion is that it is discrete in nature.

18. It will make a great deal of difference.

Discrete it is then. BTW, do these points move, and in what ways, if any?

How far apart are these points when they're at rest?

Do the points sit in a perfect cubical lattice while at rest? If so, are the diagonal connections as strong as the orthogonal connections?

19. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
It will make a great deal of difference.

Discrete it is then. BTW, do these points move, and in what ways, if any?

How far apart are these points when they're at rest?

Do the points sit in a perfect cubical lattice while at rest? If so, are the diagonal connections as strong as the orthogonal connections?
Beautiful questions, the kind only the truly intelligent and interested would ask.

Do these points move, and in what ways, if any?
Yes, these "points" do get displaced from their origins of equilibrium. They can do so in any direction, and this direction depends on the influence of their surrounding neighbours.

How far apart are these points when they're at rest?
The distance between 2 points would be extremely small. I obviously cannot give any meaningful answer to this question at this point in time because I simply cannot know for sure.

Do the points sit in a perfect cubical lattice while at rest?
Yes. This also suggests that the shape of the universe may be a giant cube. Also, a very interesting concept arises because of this. The points which are on the edge of the Ether do not have any influence from one side, so this may be the simple cause of the expansion of the universe.

Are the diagonal connections as strong as the orthogonal connections?
Firstly, the amount of force that is exerted on a point is proportional to the distance between it and the other points. Here is an important thing you need to know: two points can never touch, as two points get closer and closer, the amount of force needed to push them closer becomes higher and higher, requiring an infinite amount of force to get them to touch. Thus, symmetrically, two points can never exceed twice the usual equilibrium difference either, the further two points are pulled apart, the more force is required to pull them further, requiring an infinite amount of force to double the usual distance.

Continuing on from this, the relative distance between two adjacent points is 1, the distance between two diagonal points is and the distance between two orthogonal points is . So, what this means is that two adjacent points that are 1/2 a unit away, will exert the same force as two diagonal points which are units away and also the same force that two orthogonal points that are units away will exert. The amount of force is a ratio that depends on the relative distance.

20. Waveman,

You,re "aether-picture" reminded me of this painting (the second from the left).

http://www.mondriantrust.com/neoplasticism2.html#

21. Waveman, how does your hypothesis differ from mine?

22. Originally Posted by Ghrasp
Waveman, Your "aether-picture" reminded me of this painting (the second from the left).
It does bear a strong resemblance to that picture indeed. That is a very good representation of the physical layout of the Ether.

Originally Posted by KALSTER
Waveman, how does your hypothesis differ from mine?
In many serious ways. I only just realised what you wrote on the first page, and yes your hypothesis does seem to bear a slight resemblance to mine. Here are what the main difference seem to be:
1. You said that your ether consists of points which exist at randomly fluctuating distances from each other. Also, apparently these distances average out to be zero, which is a bit weird to say the least in my opinion.

My Ether is completely deterministic. The points of my ether are always at a fixed distance from each other and this distance determines the force that is exerted on the other points that surround them. Also, I have fully outlined the dynamics of how my Ether works in terms of its fundamental elastic properties. Everything else in the theory is simply built upon this, everything in the universe can be explained by this one fundamental property, nothing else needs to be introduced.

2. Your theory allegedly involves some sort of complex topology that determines the properties of the objects in your ether. My theory does not involve any sort of topology analysis at all.

3. I'm not going to bother listing any more differences in this post, because as we can already see, our theories are completely different. The only real similarity seems to be that our Ethers are obviously both an absolute reference frame (which I am assuming your is).

23. It does bear a strong resemblance to that picture indeed. That is a very good representation of the physical layout of the Ether.
Take notice that it is made in 1918.
Later work the diagonals where left out as being painted but they,re still there as imaginary lines off course and sometimes in lozangicques (the canvas turned 45 degrees) and the regularity of the grid also absent. This work is from Paris but later work was made at Manhattan

Without the diagonals a resonating type of resemblance comes in with "an aether" (the artist referred to it as "dynamic ecquilibrium") out of relations and interactions between electro / magnetic fields/forces.

But both discrete as well as non discret/unlimited in opposite directions, constantly relating perpendicular.

One field/or force being discrete in the direction/orientation the other field is endless.

The endlessness in the horizontal direktion lies in that horizontal the stripes and bordering planes are meant to be seen as running through outside the canvas (as in painting a horizon or a grass field suggests this also).
In vertical direction I think the geometrical lines (that border black from white and black and white from colour etc so lines distinguished from stripes) might be intended to be seen as running through endlessly (up and down) (paintings are not meant to be interpreted though).

In you,r picture also leaving the diagonal stripes away the lines - relations are not gone. So maybe they could be unnessary.

24. You said that your ether consists of points which exist at randomly fluctuating distances from each other. Also, apparently these distances average out to be zero, which is a bit weird to say the least in my opinion.
It only tends towards zero for any sufficiently large volume. The amount matter and energy in our universe is made up out of the average deviation from zero and the tendency of this average to move back to an equilibrium point is what explains entropy. The average distance within our universe (a local anomaly within an infinite expanse) is significantly above zero.

My Ether is completely deterministic. The points of my ether are always at a fixed distance from each other and this distance determines the force that is exerted on the other points that surround them. Also, I have fully outlined the dynamics of how my Ether works in terms of its fundamental elastic properties. Everything else in the theory is simply built upon this, everything in the universe can be explained by this one fundamental property, nothing else needs to be introduced.
I don't quite understand. If the distances in your aether don't vary, how does anything happen within it? How do points exert forces? If elasticity accounts for forces, how is the initial deformation accomplished?

2. Your theory allegedly involves some sort of complex topology that determines the properties of the objects in your ether. My theory does not involve any sort of topology analysis at all.
How do you envisage particles then? If they are represented by waves, then how do they stay stationary? How do they sustain themselves?

The only real similarity seems to be that our Ethers are obviously both an absolute reference frame (which I am assuming your is).
I recognize that my hypothesis implies this, though I am open to listening to ways that this is not necessarily required. Ultimately an aether theory has to accommodate relativity and quantum mechanics, or at least explain what they describe.

25. Edited to remove evidence of an intoxicated spiel.

26. Lol. I am not entirely sober at the moment, but it has been a while since I've been as drunk as you are at the moment. I haven't played Halo with any seriousness before and my favourite Pokemon is Wabafet (I like the way he says his name). We'll speak again tomorrow.

27. Originally Posted by Waveman28
.....not even the almighty Ophiolite, who is an amzing time lord.
You apparently did not receive the pm detailing the error in my current title. It should read Time lard, not Time Lord. Thus, I am an aged piece of fat, rather than a former citizen of Galafrey.

28. Waveman, be very careful. Your replies are starting to contradict themselves. Above all, a theory must be self-consistent.

I assume the second of these must be a typo:
- Yes, these "points" do get displaced from their origins of equilibrium. They can do so in any direction, and this direction depends on the influence of their surrounding neighbours.
- The points of my ether are always at a fixed distance from each other and this distance determines the force that is exerted on the other points that surround them.

But more importantly:
- Isotropic
- A perfect cubical lattice

I'm fairly certain a cubical lattice cannot be isotropic. The axes me be indistinguishable from each other, but lines off axis would behave differently. I'll refrain from asking more questions until we can sort this bit out.

(Also, orthogonal means neighbor along an axis, and diagonal is everything else. There's no english word for "off by 1 step along each axis", though it's occasionally refered to as triagonal.)

29. Originally Posted by Waveman28
mate first of all, ill let u know that i quoted the entire post because i simply could not be fucked disecting it into small parts. I am bloody drunk, and i will probally end up editing this post some time later on when im in the mood. I read wh at you wrote, but i cant remember it in full detail, the full details are being stored in my sub consious. All you need to you is that that the Ether exists, it is simple, it is amazing, and also that I am making an amazing video that explains absoluely eberything anout the ETHER that is going to be very interseting to watch. their is no better way to learn thatn to watch a video. they say that a picture is worth a thousand words, which is true, but a video is worth a million. grasp is wrong, i like grasp, but he idea of getting everyone to help make an ether theory is pure bullshit, my ether theory is perfect and no one will ever be able to beat it or proveit wrong. not even the almighty Ophiolite, who is an amzing time lord. Unfortunately, i have shown that time does not exist, it is just an arbitary measurement. which by defintion means that ophiolite is a lord of something which regrettably does not exist. HOPEFULLY FOR HIM THERE IS A NEW RANK ON THIS FORUM WHICH WILL ACTIVATE WHEN HE REACHES 6000 POSTS. ooops sorry for caps lock, didnt realise. Just before i end, what is your favourite pokemon and why? also, do u like playing Halo?
Perhaps you should refrain from posting whilst drunk. The mixture of profanity and inanity has no place on this forum.

30. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Waveman, be very careful. Your replies are starting to contradict themselves.
They actually are not. I was explaining to KALSTER a separate issue and now you seem to be cross-referencing posts.

I assume the second of these must be a typo:
- Yes, these "points" do get displaced from their origins of equilibrium. They can do so in any direction, and this direction depends on the influence of their surrounding neighbours.
- The points of my ether are always at a fixed distance from each other and this distance determines the force that is exerted on the other points that surround them.
What I mean by "fixed" is that the points are always at a definite distance from each other, not a randomised distance, as is the case with KALSTER's idea.

But more importantly:
- Isotropic
- A perfect cubical lattice

I'm fairly certain a cubical lattice cannot be isotropic. The axes me be indistinguishable from each other, but lines off axis would behave differently. I'll refrain from asking more questions until we can sort this bit out.
Isotropic means that a materials properties are the same in all directions. The Ether is elastic in all directions, thus it is isotropic. An opposite example is a spring, it is stretchy in one direction, but not in the other, thus it is not isotropic.

(Also, orthogonal means neighbor along an axis, and diagonal is everything else. There's no english word for "off by 1 step along each axis", though it's occasionally refered to as triagonal.)
Yes, there is no english word for it, so i just chose orthogonal for it and used adjacent for the other.

31. Well, orthogonal is an English word that already has a different meaning.

Also, the points of your ether can't have a fixed distance but can still move. You could say they have a fixed distance while at rest though.

And no, the elasticity of your description of the ether is not isotropic. Even averaged over an area, you should still be able to tell the axes apart from the diagonals.

32. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Well, orthogonal is an English word that already has a different meaning.
I know, but who cares? You know what im referring to.

Also, the points of your ether can't have a fixed distance but can still move. You could say they have a fixed distance while at rest though.
Yes, they have a fixed distance from each other while at rest. As I said though, that statement you have picked on was simply a separate reply to kalster making a distinction between randomness and definite, the Ether is not random in any way, it is completely deterministic. I know that something cant be fixed and move as well, that would be a complete and obvious contradiction, but that is not what I was saying.

And no, the elasticity of your description of the ether is not isotropic. Even averaged over an area, you should still be able to tell the axes apart from the diagonals.
Yes thats true, but your missing the main point: the ether is elastic in all directions, its properties do not change based on direction, thus in this way it is isotropic. A cubic lattice itself obviously cannot be isotropic, but this is not what is being referred to, this statement is referring to the properties of the ether, not its structure. The Ethers properties are isotropic.

33. Look, if we're going to communicate, we have to agree on what words mean. If you mean something different when you say "orthogonal" or "isotropic" than what I understand the words to mean, you're failing to get your point across.

And no, the elasticity of the ether you described will not be isotropic, no matter which definition of isotropic you use. Homogeneous yes, but not isotropic.

34. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Look, if we're going to communicate, we have to agree on what words mean. If you mean something different when you say "orthogonal" or "isotropic" than what I understand the words to mean, you're failing to get your point across.
Yes, but this case was different because there was no word for what I was trying to explain so I had to use an existing word that had the closest meaning to what I was trying to say.

And no, the elasticity of the ether you described will not be isotropic, no matter which definition of isotropic you use. Homogeneous yes, but not isotropic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropy Read the first line. Precise definitions depend on the subject area. Depending on how we define isotopy will indeed affect whether or not we can use it to describe my Ether. I guess it probably would be better to just stick with homogeneous and forget about isotropy because it seems to be confusing too many people. In some ways, the Ether is not isotropic, but as I said, it depends what you are referring to. Its structure certainly is not isotropic, and that is very important. So, ill drop the idea of the Ethers properties being isotropic for the sake of simplicity, because in this context, homogeneous has the same meaning.

35. Diagonal is closer in meaning than orthogonal, in this case.

Anyway, we have the properties:
- Composed of a perfect, homogeneous cubical lattice of points while at rest
- Points exert a force on each other proportional to the inverse distance between them.

A few questions:
- Do points beyond the 26 neighbors exert any force on a point?
- When a point is displaced, it should begin to wave back and forth as it gets near one side, then the other?

36. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Diagonal is closer in meaning than orthogonal, in this case.
Yes, but diagonal is already taken up and it does not have a synonym, whereas orthogonal and adjacent are synonyms so I used one of them to represent the so-called "triagonal".

Anyway, we have the properties:
- Composed of a perfect, homogeneous cubical lattice of points while at rest.
- Points exert a force on each other proportional to the inverse distance between them.
Correct.

Do points beyond the 26 neighbors exert any force on a point?
No.

When a point is displaced, it should begin to wave back and forth as it gets near one side, then the other?
No. For example, if a force is exerted on a single point, it will just undergo one oscillation about the equilibrium position due the the forces acting on it by the surrounding points.

37. Just don't use the word orthogonal then. It means something very specific and you can't just change it arbitrarily. Use triagonal if you have to as it has no set meaning, or use long diagonal, which is what a lot of people use.

There's nothing in your description so far that'd stop a single point from oscillating. As it moves one way, it should transfer energy in that direction, slowing down, but it would either keep going in that direction, or move back. There's nothing that'd force it to stop completely.

38. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Just don't use the word orthogonal then. It means something very specific and you can't just change it arbitrarily. Use triagonal if you have to as it has no set meaning, or use long diagonal, which is what a lot of people use.
Ok, I wont use the word "orthogonal" any more to represent the long diagonal, as I have said though, I simply did not know what to call it because I had not heard of the term "triagonal" before. In future I will call it the triagonal.

There's nothing in your description so far that'd stop a single point from oscillating. As it moves one way, it should transfer energy in that direction, slowing down, but it would either keep going in that direction, or move back. There's nothing that'd force it to stop completely.
Thats wrong. Ok, lets do a very simple example to show you what would happen if a single point moved. For simplicity, consider a straight line of points such as this one below:

. . . . . . . . . . . .

If the first point is pushed forward towards the second point, a restoring force will act upon the moving point which will cause it to accelerate in the other direction. The closer it gets to the next point, the stronger the acceleration. Now, after a small delay (which is the Ether's transmission speed), the next point will experience a force which is proportional to the distance between it and the other point, which will accelerate it away from the other. So at this stage, both of these points are being accelerated away from each other because the distance between them is less than what it is in equilibrium. Now, the second point will be moving towards the third point, and the first point is moving back to equilibrium so at some stage, the distance between the first and second points will be greater than what it is at equilibrium so the restoring force will cause them to accelerate towards each other. This slows down the speed of the first point which was accelerating towards its equilibrium position and this acceleration will become slower and slower because the 2 points are now moving back towards each other. So the points will return to their equilibrium position without continuously oscillating, they only undergo one complete oscillation.

39. Hmmm.... what is "force" in your theory? Are there separate forces? How do they interact in the Ether? Why is there a need to have the ether fixed (i.e. why is there a 'restoration force')? Is there a mechanism for these forces to occur? What kind of mechanism does this?

40. Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
Hmmm.... what is "force" in your theory?
Force is the term used to refer to the acceleration of a point in the Ether due to the influence of surrounding points.

Are there separate forces? How do they interact in the Ether?
No. There is only one existing force, which is the acceleration of a point in the ether due to the distance between it and its surrounding points.

Why is there a need to have the ether fixed (i.e. why is there a 'restoration force')? Is there a mechanism for these forces to occur? What kind of mechanism does this?
The Ether has a restoration force because it is elastic. Elasticity is a fundamental property of the Ether which cannot be further explained. However, we can still understand this property, and if we accept and understand it, it can be used to explain all physical phenomena in the universe.

41. I have a dynamo on my bike with a lamp. If i go cycling in the dark with the dynamo on the energy from me goes to the lamp. Simple. This implies "em waves" there i electric field pulsation and induction round the wire (magnetic field) one goes with the other.

If em radiation goes through vacuum then why do I need to connect all these wires ?

42. Originally Posted by Ghrasp
I have a dynamo on my bike with a lamp. If i go cycling in the dark with the dynamo on the energy from me goes to the lamp. Simple. This implies "em waves" there i electric field pulsation and induction round the wire (magnetic field) one goes with the other.

If em radiation goes through vacuum then why do I need to connect all these wires ?
I made a thread called "Post here if your drunk" in the trash can. You might want to put this kind of stuff in there.

43. Originally Posted by Waveman28
There's nothing in your description so far that'd stop a single point from oscillating. As it moves one way, it should transfer energy in that direction, slowing down, but it would either keep going in that direction, or move back. There's nothing that'd force it to stop completely.
Thats wrong. Ok, lets do a very simple example to show you what would happen if a single point moved. For simplicity, consider a straight line of points such as this one below:

. . . . . . . . . . . .

If the first point is pushed forward towards the second point, a restoring force will act upon the moving point which will cause it to accelerate in the other direction. The closer it gets to the next point, the stronger the acceleration. Now, after a small delay (which is the Ether's transmission speed), the next point will experience a force which is proportional to the distance between it and the other point, which will accelerate it away from the other. So at this stage, both of these points are being accelerated away from each other because the distance between them is less than what it is in equilibrium. Now, the second point will be moving towards the third point, and the first point is moving back to equilibrium so at some stage, the distance between the first and second points will be greater than what it is at equilibrium so the restoring force will cause them to accelerate towards each other. This slows down the speed of the first point which was accelerating towards its equilibrium position and this acceleration will become slower and slower because the 2 points are now moving back towards each other. So the points will return to their equilibrium position without continuously oscillating, they only undergo one complete oscillation.
To test this, I made a little simulation, and the points don't stop moving. The point that is initially displaced does stop moving pretty quickly, but then all the other points are still moving, so it starts moving again.

44. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
To test this, I made a little simulation, and the points don't stop moving. The point that is initially displaced does stop moving pretty quickly, but then all the other points are still moving, so it starts moving again.
I made a simulation to test this too, and mine works perfectly. What equations are you using as the basis of the simulation? This is important, because computers must use one in order to yield any results. There are a lot of other important issues as well that can affect if the simulation will work or not. You should make sure that the points themselves can not move faster than the transmission speed, or else there will be a "shockwave" effect, and the points will never fully return to their equilibrium position.

Also, how many points in the line did you make? Because there are factors which will contribute to the wavelength of the wave in your test medium and if the test medium itself is not physically big enough to sustain a single wavelength, then this may be another reason the points dont stop moving.

In short, you have to ensure all the factors in the simulation are correct and that there are no anomalies.

45. Guys, if we're going to start throwing around claims of simulations done then we're going to need to start posting some equations or source code, or some sort of reference... And by 'we', I mean you two guys!

46. @Waveman, I used what you described.
- Points on a line. Each point gets two forces, one from each neighbor.
- The forces are inversely proportional to the rest distance, which, BTW, is exactly the description of a spring.
- Nothing else. You never said anything about speed limits, etc, but they keep moving no matter what the speed is. If you displace them less, they move slower, etc. BTW, how would you express a speed limit?
- Oh yeah, I made the endpoints fixed, but the same thing would happen with other types of edge conditions. Making the line longer will play down the effect of the edges anyway.

I can make the simulation available, if anyone really wants it, but it's really nothing special. Point being, what's been described so far does not work the way you said it should. Either you've left something out, or... something, I don't know.

47. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
@Waveman, I used what you described.
- Points on a line. Each point gets two forces, one from each neighbor.
- The forces are inversely proportional to the rest distance, which, BTW, is exactly the description of a spring.
- Nothing else. You never said anything about speed limits, etc, but they keep moving no matter what the speed is. If you displace them less, they move slower, etc. BTW, how would you express a speed limit?
- Oh yeah, I made the endpoints fixed, but the same thing would happen with other types of edge conditions. Making the line longer will play down the effect of the edges anyway.

I can make the simulation available, if anyone really wants it, but it's really nothing special. Point being, what's been described so far does not work the way you said it should. Either you've left something out, or... something, I don't know.
Have you declared the equilibrium distance? That is important, it should be in the hierarchy somewhere and then all the points can inherit this property. I think you must be making a mistake somewhere, which is understandable after all because you have put no where near as much time into studying waves as I have. So from that perspective, you are already doing an excellent job. You should put the simulation up so I can analyse it and show you what you are doing wrong.

Another issue that may be inducing error in your program is how you actually initiate the wave. This proved to be a problem for me when making mine. What you need to do is make a medium that by itself, does nothing. Then you need to be able to click a button which gives the first particle an acceleration, so in other words, my simulator works in real time, its not "pre-rendered". Once you have initiated the wave, the medium reacts according to its properties. It sounds as though your simulator is not operating in real time.

To make my simulator work, I made a modification of Hookes Law which takes into account the stretching limits and the transmission speed of the Ether. Lastly, as you should be able to tell by now, I do know what I'm talking about. I have put a huge amount of time and effort into my simulator and my theory. I do have a strong knowledge of waves and mediums.

48. No, I can't tell yet if you know what you're talking about. I'm working on it though.

Anyway, yes I declared the rest distance, and yes it's real time. Everything sits perfectly still until I displace a point. I do that by clicking one of them to move it sideways a bit. I can easily change that to introduce a velocity though.

You didn't really answer the question about how you add in the "modification of Hookes Law which takes into account the stretching limits and the transmission speed of the Ether." If you want me to understand this, you're going to have to provide some mathematics.

My point still stands though. When you say the first particle has come to rest, the other particles are still moving, so what's stopping the first particle from moving again?

49. Anyway, yes I declared the rest distance, and yes it's real time. Everything sits perfectly still until I displace a point.
Good. That aspect is correct then.

I do that by clicking one of them to move it sideways a bit. I can easily change that to introduce a velocity though.
That needs to be changed, that may be your source of error.

My point still stands though. When you say the first particle has come to rest, the other particles are still moving, so what's stopping the first particle from moving again?
Nice pun at the start. What you are not taking into account is the fact that the transmission speed is not instantaneous. There is a delay between when a point moves and when the next point experiences a force. So when the first point has returned to its equilibrium position, it has already experienced all the forces on its round trip, but the second point which is still moving has not yet received all of its round trip forces yet because of the delay.

PS: What program are you using to create the software to test my theory, and what language are you using?

50. I'm just using a program called GameMaker for expediency. It's great for rapid prototyping. Rest assured it's Turing complete. If I needed something with more horsepower, I'd use Java, or C++ if even that wasn't enough.

How do you calculate when a point feels the force? How is the speed limit and transmission speed calculated? What transmits this force?

Also, that doesn't really answer why the first point won't start moving again. It just says it'd be delayed.

51. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
I'm just using a program called GameMaker for expediency. It's great for rapid prototyping. Rest assured it's Turing complete. If I needed something with more horsepower, I'd use Java, or C++ if even that wasn't enough.
I used game maker ages ago in high school, and I used to make mini cartoons using Flash MX, ah good memories. Although, I am not too sure whether or not it would be suitable for this sort of situation.

How do you calculate when a point feels the force?
That is a very important question which may be another reason you are getting incorrect results. This is actually somewhat a subjective question as well, in some cases, as long as the origin of force, or the force delay, is consistent, it should be ok. In my first scenario, I started off by making the force the point feels as it moves instantaneous, but the force it transfers to its neighbour has a small delay.

How is the speed limit and transmission speed calculated?
Its not calculated, you define it. You can make it to be whatever you like. Whatever you set the transmission speed as, it becomes the fundamental transmission speed of the medium. The "transmission speed" is the same thing as the delay between the force acting on the points. If a point moves, there will be a small delay between when its neighbour starts moving.

What transmits this force?
What you have to understand is that we are on a fundamental level here. The transmission of this force is simply a fundamental property of the Ether.

Also, that doesn't really answer why the first point won't start moving again. It just says it'd be delayed.
I think you need to research wave motion. You don't seem to understand it thoroughly, which is fine because even I get confused sometimes. There is a relationship between the distances, forces and velocities of the points. It works out that the points return to equilibrium because as the distances change, the forces change and hence the velocities change, allowing them to return to equilibrium and you get a sinusoidal wave propagating throughout the medium. Just visualise a sine curve, that is what is happening.

52. When I visualize a sine curve, there's far more than one cycle.

And Game Maker (now in version 8) is perfectly suitable to this application. Any Turing complete language would be, as long as you don't mind the running speed.

As for the propagation delay, what code do you use? You say you don't know how far apart these points are, and that the delay can be anything, yet you say you know everything there is to know about this. I need numbers and formulas if you want me to understand this.

Anyway, so not everything is made of the ether. The forces that move the ether are another fundamental in this system?

53. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
When I visualize a sine curve, there's far more than one cycle.
Well, just try to visualise one cycle, its not that hard! And also, visualise the amplitude of the sine wave cycle diminishing as it goes, because there is a transfer of energy taking place.

And Game Maker (now in version 8) is perfectly suitable to this application. Any Turing complete language would be, as long as you don't mind the running speed.
As for the propagation delay, what code do you use? You say you don't know how far apart these points are, and that the delay can be anything, yet you say you know everything there is to know about this. I need numbers and formulas if you want me to understand this.
I do know everything about this, I said that how far apart the points are does not really matter, because distance is just an arbitrary measurement. You can make the distance whatever you like, as long as it is the same for all of them. If you make the points a certain distance apart, you can call that distance whatever you like. We define distance.

Anyway, so not everything is made of the ether. The forces that move the ether are another fundamental in this system?
No. Everything is made of the Ether. Force is not a physically tangible thing, it does not physically exist. Force is just a word used to describe what the Ether is doing. It is describing a property of the Ether.

As for the propagation delay, what code do you use?
For this, all you need to do is create a timer and place these equations in a loop with the timer:

Influence(x) = Force(x - 1) + Force(x +1) - 2*Force(x)

Slope(x) = Slope(x) + Influence(x)

Force(x) = Force(x) + Slope(x)

54. There's nothing saying how points move in those formulas, nor their rest distance. What else is going on? Do you just use the standard F=ma, and Euler integration to get the new positions?

And by distance, I mean what is the distance compared to something like a meter. In the computer, we can of course define how big a unit is, but in the real world, it will be some constant compare to an existing standard.

Also, I am visualizing a full cycle, and things continue to move no matter how I visualize it.
- The first particle starts moving.
- Shortly, the neighboring particles start moving.
- The first particle gets close to one of them and slows down, then reverses.
- The other particles pick up speed as they get closer/farther from the first.
- The first returns to its starting position.
- The other particles are still moving, meaning there are still forces being generated (after propagation delays).
- The first particle starts moving again.

But rather that try to visualize it, can you give me the formulas you use in your simulation so I can just test it?

Edit: Yeah, tested it and the points just fly off as soon as one starts moving.

Edit again: Actually, it kind of works if you add a *dt to the second two steps, but things still keep moving.

55. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
And by distance, I mean what is the distance compared to something like a meter. In the computer, we can of course define how big a unit is, but in the real world, it will be some constant compare to an existing standard.
In reality, there would be a huge amount of points in a meter. My estimates so far suggest that there would be at least 2.0 x 10^24 in a meter.

Also, I am visualizing a full cycle, and things continue to move no matter how I visualize it.
- The first particle starts moving.
- Shortly, the neighboring particles start moving.
- The first particle gets close to one of them and slows down, then reverses.
- The other particles pick up speed as they get closer/farther from the first.
- The first returns to its starting position.
- The other particles are still moving, meaning there are still forces being generated (after propagation delays).
- The first particle starts moving again.
Your missing some steps in that:
-The first point starts moving
-The first point starts decelerating
-The second point starts accelerating
-The first point starts accelerating back towards its origin
-The second point starts decelerating
-The third point starts accelerating
-The second point starts accelerating back towards its origin
-The first point starts to decelerate
-The second point starts to decelerate
-The first point returns to its origin and is stationary
-The second point returns to its origin is stationary
-The difference in these two times is exactly equal to the Ethers transmission delay.

Edit: Yeah, tested it and the points just fly off as soon as one starts moving.
You must have done it wrong.

Edit again: Actually, it kind of works if you add a *dt to the second two steps, but things still keep moving.
That's good news, it seems as though you are getting closer to the correct simulation. If you like, you can send me the code and I can show you where you have gone wrong. The code I gave you should work perfectly when placed in a proper loop.

56. The code isn't easily transmissable as a whole unless you have GM8. On the other hand, the main loop is just:
Code:
if(fixed)
exit;

influence = prev.force + next.force - 2*force;
slope += influence/room_speed;
force += slope/room_speed;
Where 1/room_speed would be dt, and prev and next are the neighboring points. All start at 0, and clicking a point raises force to 4.

From there, I calculate the new position as normal for a point with forces being applied.

Also, where in this is a propagation delay?

In reality, there would be a huge amount of points in a meter. My estimates so far suggest that there would be at least 2.0 x 10^24 in a meter.
Yes, that's what I'm asking. For you to claim to know all the details, you should know this one too. It's kind of an important one.

Edit: Actually, it'd be easier if you sent me your code. You've already got it written, where as I don't even have all the information.

57. Edit: Actually, it'd be easier if you sent me your code. You've already got it written, where as I don't even have all the information.
The equations which dictate the behaviour of the Ether can be found in my thread "The Best Ether Theory". We should probably discuss this in my thread as well, because your original appeal "To the Ether theorists" has been smothered by our continuing discussion of my theory. On the other hand, I seem to be the only person on this entire forum that actually believes the Ether exists. Nobody else realises how important the Ether really is.

Anyhow, I will post the equations below:
Influence(x+1) = {Energy(x) + Energy(x+2)} / 2 - Energy(x+1)
Inertia(x) = Inertia(x) + Influence(x)
Energy(x) = Energy(x) + Inertia(x)

Once you have used these equations in your program to replicate the waves in the Ether as I have done in my own program, you can say that you have tested and replicated my theory, and verified that my theory is valid and correct as I have explained.

58. If you're the only ether theorist, then you're who I'm talking to. If you want others to believe in it, the burden of proof is on you.

Anyway, there's nothing in the other thread that isn't in this one, although you've changed your equations. I'll try the new ones as soon as possible, but there still seems to be a whole lot missing from your description (like position) and the propagation delay.

Also, your equations make no reference to time. Do you consider time to be discrete too?

Edit: Yep, doing exactly that, it simply explodes, although nothing is moving since I can't figure out how to get position out of your equations. Watching the energy change though, it rapidly heads for infinity.

Edit again: Small bug fixed. It doesn't head for infinity. Basically, you can't simply put those three lines in a loop, since you want the previous step's energy for all the points, not just the first one. Now that it doesn't explode, it just wobbles around chaotically.

59. As I understand it till now "things seem to fit" inside a system you have but how does it relate to outside that system. Where is a possible use for this theory. I haven,t got a clue for that. Maybe you have and then some might be interested. Any theorie only has value when it can be used in pratice as sort of a tool to work with. This does not imply that working without any theory should be impossible but for a theory only a possible use in practice offers the possibility to test it,s value (not even if it,s true; just the value ... no more no less). To me it seems as if you are testing all this inside the realm of computer with animations, films as proof for a theory without any connection to the real world. It can be my limited perception based on lack of information about what you,re theory is all about but that,s my impression.

60. @Ghrasp, no, theory doesn't need to show how it will be useful. Someone else will figure that out later. Theory only needs to show that it works. Simulation is a good first chance to show that a theory works or not. It'll never be enough on its own though.

61. I was not referring to a practical use but to a (possible) relation outside theory including the animations as the animation seems to be just an illustration going with the theory it can,t funktion as proof for the theory. I,m also not asking for the results of a test but a possibility, potential for testing. And or how would or could it change my views without needing me to accept anything as a premisse at forehand (that,s not my cup of tea).

If you make a computerimagination going from a theory (a set of dynamic mathematical formula,s) the animation will always proof the theory because it follows it. That makes that any "proof" is at the same time without meaning for someone else.

The whole of maths and illustrations still can be interesting though for example in the film animation industry it could be usefull as a tool. But I havent seen any of these animations yet where can we see these ? As long as I haven,t seen them (maybe I missed this ?) I have no clue what this is all about. Everytime the animations are said to proof the theory and the theory will proof the animations ? It makes no sense as it is to logic. It,s so logic that it becomes stupid again. The logic is within a closed system of maths and ilustrations going round and round meaning a constant cirkle-logic in the argumentation. Cirkle logic is not exactly logic it,s just thinking that goes round in cirkles captivated.

62. That was a very incoherrent post and very hard to understand.

I think your point was something like... actually, I don't know what your point was, but the animations are just a way of visualizing the math. The math and how well that matches up with reality is all that's important. To that end, if the simulations don't even come close to matching up with reality, that's good evidence against the theory. If they do, it's good reason to continue working on it.

As for you seeing the animations, none have been posted yet. If you're really interested, I could post mine, but it still seems like I don't have all the details yet, so it wouldn't be very informative.

63. The math and how well that matches up with reality is all that's important. To that end, if the simulations don't even come close to matching up with reality, that's good evidence against the theory.
If you see the animation as "proof" for the theory here because "it looks like real" then Donald duck "proofs" that ducks use words ?

64. Where did I say proof? I said that the math is all that matters. The simulations are a good first-crack at visuallizing the math.

65. Originally Posted by Ghrasp
The math and how well that matches up with reality is all that's important. To that end, if the simulations don't even come close to matching up with reality, that's good evidence against the theory.
If you see the animation as "proof" for the theory here because "it looks like real" then Donald duck "proofs" that ducks use words ?
No offence dude, but that is a TERRIBLE comparison.

66. No offence dude, but that is a TERRIBLE comparison.
Not taken as offence every comparison is always "terrible" as the both parts of it are never similar. But a simulation is a comparison also. For that same reason seeing "a wave" in a computersimulation is a terrible comaparison. A simulation is never what it simulates. The simulation of a duck is not a duck. You can simulate as technical and mathical advanced as you like the simulation will always stay what it is : a simulation.

For the same reason the simulation is in accordance with the maths behind it the simulation will be in accordance to the working mind behind it trying to simulate things.

While no wave in nature will ever be similar to another wave (or tries to simulate another wave) it,s useless trying to simulate waves.

67. No. It is a terrible comparison, because Donald Duck is NOT a simulation of a duck. And as far as ducks go, they are VASTLY more complicated than a wave in a uniform medium. The variables aren't as many as you seem to think.

68. Donald Duck is NOT a simulation of a duck.
He looks real. There are Donald Duck movies also.

69. Donald Duck looks like a real duck to you?

70. Yes doesn,t he then to you ? Same type of feet, mouth, feathers, his name..children, an uncle, a girly duck. I certainly can,t imagine Donald Duck being created by someone who never saw a Duck.

71. He looks recognizably duck-like, but he doesn't look like a real duck, nor is he meant to. He is not a simulation of a duck, that is something that tries to recreate the behavior of a duck. If you think simulation just means "it looks kinda like it" you need to go read a dictionary or something...

72. Simulation is the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs, or process
So why is donald duck not a simulation do you see a duck as a thing maybe ?

An animation simulates something but isn,t what it simulates. Again there are many formulations of science where something has to proove itself in reality. One cannot just exchange reality there by an animation no matter how perfect it may look.

Hence again the question how this aether theories relate to reality and or to current scientific concepts and ideas (like magnetism, electric fields etc. I,ve not yet found even a suggetion of such a relation. If you think the proof may be in something as a 3-d simulation. 3-d in an animation is not really different then 2-d it only looks different. One could make a donald duck movie in 3-d without a problem. It,s illusion like old masters in painting could create illusions of depth.

73. Donald Duck is not a simulation of a duck because it's not trying to be. It's trying to be a parody of a duck (more or less).

And no one (but you) ever said a simulation is trying to replace real experiments. I said it's a first shot at understanding stuff, and in some simpler cases it can be a very good first shot.

74. Parodies are always on people in the case of donald duck it is in a fablelike manner.
Donald duck is a charicature of a duck in such an obvious way that it even becomes a parody on figurative art.

To make such a parody with help of charicatures the original funktions as example.The artist uses obvious simularities that funktion as press buttons to experiences in you,re mind.
I wonder if waveman uses such pressbuttons.

75. I take a break from posting for a few days and when I return we have gone from discussing my Ether theory to an argument about Donald Duck.....
Can there be anything more unrelated?

76. Originally Posted by Waveman28
I take a break from posting for a few days and when I return we have gone from discussing my Ether theory to an argument about Donald Duck.....
Can there be anything more unrelated?
I think there is a close tie in ..... both are Mickey Mouse.

77. Or mini-mouse ?

Waveman, When you,re work is not fysics is not a problem (at least not to me) it can still be science and even be a good thing. But you have tried putting other developing ideas and realms of science aside to favor your's. I would (not should) not do that. Different ideas can exist at the same time and there can even be conflict between them conflikt is part of live so why would science need consensus it,s only boring.

You,re ideas shouldn,t need that. If you,re math and animations only are fascinating and original it,s enough for science (like math) just not for fysics but is that a problem. I would not try to jump over you,re own shadow.

78. Ghrasp, I think you've gone beyond "off the deep end." Your point doesn't hold water. No cartoon is meant to simulate reality beyond some possibility that it makes some vague psycological points. A computer simulation of a wave in a homogenous medium is valid physics as it tries to recreate every detail it can.

Anyway, Waveman, back to the original topic, the equations you gave me don't work like you describe them working. The original point continues to vibrate at decreasing amplitudes, but never stops. Nor does there seem to be any propagation delay anywhere there.

79. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Anyway, Waveman, back to the original topic, the equations you gave me don't work like you describe them working. The original point continues to vibrate at decreasing amplitudes, but never stops.
I'm afraid that may be an error on your behalf.

Nor does there seem to be any propagation delay anywhere there.
In this case, we do not need to specify the propagation delay. Because these equations are placed in a computer loop, the propagation delay is determined by your computers processing speed. However, if you want, you can declare another variable which dictates how fast the computer will calculate the equations, thus changing the propagation velocity.

80. If it's an error on my behalf, it's due to my lack of information. I've entered the equations you gave exactly as you gave them and they do not work like you describe.

As for the delay, you consider time as discrete too? In that case, each step in the simulation is equivalent to one quantum of time in the real world? This imposes limits on the spacing and timing of things, since I assume the waves still propagate at c.

However, this won't properly generalize to 3D, but I'll get to that later. It may be that fixing some of what isn't working would change this.

81. Magic-master I realize we got a little off-topic with this. But it is essential for all my reactions here to understand that cartoons are simulations.

Seeing them as simulations is based on the similar background of cartoons and 3-d visualisations. Cartoons base on old perspective art. Donald duck is unthinkable without famous renaissance painters like carravaggio. Some of them (caravaggio) used camera obscura technicque to create a -3d effect. The approach of those artists and what there work was valued for was simulative. Photography came from camera obscura, film and also 3-d animations. The approach to immitate things (which means simulate) is the same. There is a difference but this is what all these things have in common.

Anyway I think I made clear what I mean and that should be enough for now. If you consider a cartoon not simulative and I do doesn,t even matter much in this as long as the similarity between a cartoon and a scientific 3-d animation is clear. You can point at differences but does won,t take the similarities away.

82. My basic point is that the differences mean that a cartoon is not a simulation. I didn't say there are no similarities, but there are important differences. The word simulate in a scientific context is very different from the word immitate in an artistic context. If you can't understand that, you're beyond help.

(BTW, who is Magic-Master. Magi is an old word for wise man, but I chose the name based on an optional boss from an old game.)

83. Maybe the following better explains my questioning.
There is another similarity with a comic and a simulation that is very basic.
That is about what makes the dynamics.
A film is a secquency of static pictures.
A Donald Duck story is more or less the same only you have to move you,re eyes from one picture to another and the "steps" between pictures are bigger. The film only moves the pictures for you in one constant rhytm.

Each picture in itself is static. It can be played in slow motion or high speed like in early comic films just as well.

On film nothing you see ever (on not one of the pictures) really moves relative to anything or filmic (?) space.

In reality everything moves in it,s own rhytm and dynamics.
filmcamera,s make stills. Film (or tv) takes everything together in it,s own rhytm and creates an artificial dynamics.

Same way the math in this case will be related to the dynamics of how the medium works. Or the whole simulation wouldn,t work.

84. Originally Posted by Ghrasp
Magic-master I realize we got a little off-topic with this. But it is essential for all my reactions here to understand that cartoons are simulations.

Seeing them as simulations is based on the similar background of cartoons and 3-d visualisations. Cartoons base on old perspective art. Donald duck is unthinkable without famous renaissance painters like carravaggio. Some of them (caravaggio) used camera obscura technicque to create a -3d effect. The approach of those artists and what there work was valued for was simulative. Photography came from camera obscura, film and also 3-d animations. The approach to immitate things (which means simulate) is the same. There is a difference but this is what all these things have in common.

Anyway I think I made clear what I mean and that should be enough for now. If you consider a cartoon not simulative and I do doesn,t even matter much in this as long as the similarity between a cartoon and a scientific 3-d animation is clear. You can point at differences but does won,t take the similarities away.
Come on Ghrasp, this garbology belongs in the trash can.

85. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
As for the delay, you consider time as discrete too? In that case, each step in the simulation is equivalent to one quantum of time in the real world? This imposes limits on the spacing and timing of things, since I assume the waves still propagate at c.
Yes, I think "time" is discrete. So yes, each step in the equation does indeed represent a quantum of time in the real world, which is an interesting concept.

However, this won't properly generalize to 3D, but I'll get to that later. It may be that fixing some of what isn't working would change this.
You might need to elaborate on this further, I dont quite get what you mean.

86. In that case I wish you luck with you,re scientific career, you,ll need it....a lot.

87. Originally Posted by Waveman28
Originally Posted by MagiMaster
As for the delay, you consider time as discrete too? In that case, each step in the simulation is equivalent to one quantum of time in the real world? This imposes limits on the spacing and timing of things, since I assume the waves still propagate at c.
Yes, I think "time" is discrete. So yes, each step in the equation does indeed represent a quantum of time in the real world, which is an interesting concept.

However, this won't properly generalize to 3D, but I'll get to that later. It may be that fixing some of what isn't working would change this.
You might need to elaborate on this further, I dont quite get what you mean.
Well, I'd really like to get the 1D case out of the way first, but basically, if you tune the timing and the distances so the waves move at c in 1D (which makes good sense), the waves will travel faster than c along the long diagonals in 3D (or vice versa if you tune it to the long diagonals). The other possibility is that time isn't discrete and the forces transmitted are delayed just so ( and can't be fit into a discrete time step).

Anyway. I've plugged your equations in exactly as given, and they still don't work like you say they should. Is there something I'm missing?

88. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Well, I'd really like to get the 1D case out of the way first, but basically, if you tune the timing and the distances so the waves move at c in 1D (which makes good sense), the waves will travel faster than c along the long diagonals in 3D (or vice versa if you tune it to the long diagonals).
The wave speed is universal, there is a longer delay for a longer distance. This means that it takes longer for the effect of a distortion to reach the diagonal point than it does to reach the adjacent point. I should point out that the "point" concept (an array of points in a lattice) is just an analogy. The best way to look at it is a series of lines that looks like a grid. These lines intersect at the points we have been referring to. So when the Ether is distorted, the lengths of these lines are changing (which is the same as the distance between the points changing), thus the tension changes, and the tension is a force which acts to restore itself. This was shown in the image I posted a while ago of that grid which included diagonal lines.

The other possibility is that time isn't discrete and the forces transmitted are delayed just so ( and can't be fit into a discrete time step).
You are indeed correct. There are two possibilities as to how the ether transmits its waves, time is either continuous or discreet. I have explored both avenues and so far it turns out that discrete is the best way to go.

Anyway. I've plugged your equations in exactly as given, and they still don't work like you say they should. Is there something I'm missing?
Perhaps gamemaker itself could be the culprit?

89. Time cannot be discrete if there are things with a delay of both 1 and . It's mathematically impossible. Therefore, either time is not discrete or the delays are not as you specified.

Anyway, no. Game Maker is a programming language like any other. The problem is with either your equations or your description of the equations. Either your equations don't work or you're not describing them in a way I can understand (although they seem simple enough).

Edit: Yep. Java gives the exact same numbers, so it is most definitely not GameMaker's fault.

90. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Time cannot be discrete if there are things with a delay of both 1 and . It's mathematically impossible. Therefore, either time is not discrete or the delays are not as you specified.
Actually, it is not impossible. The Ether could produce a rounding error each step, which is then compensated for in the next step.

Anyway, no. Game Maker is a programming language like any other. The problem is with either your equations or your description of the equations. Either your equations don't work or you're not describing them in a way I can understand (although they seem simple enough).
This is baffling me, I have gotten them to work perfectly. I will put my simulator up on the internet soon so you can download it for yourself and study it.

91. No. For things to work, the rules can't be changing every step. If there's a rounding error in one step, it's only going to get worse in the next step. (And while you can make rectangles with integer diagonals, I think it has been proven impossible to make boxes with all sides/diagonals/long diagonals integers.)

Let me repeat the equations to make sure I understand what you wrote (I'll abbreviate the names though):

If you agree that those are correct, then I can't see how I could be implementing them wrong.

Also, I hope you plan on posting the source code, since I can't learn much new otherwise.

 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