Aether Displacement

[mpc755]

...the properties of this aether are getting more and more complex all the time. Now all objects moving at constant velocity are all at rest with respect to it.

The state of the matter, as far as I have been discussing, has always been at rest with respect to aether when the matter is moving with constant momentum. I can see the confusion I have caused. I am trying to avoid applying the idea of motion to the aether. I am trying to stick with discussing the aether in terms of its state with respect to the matter. I want to convey the idea of matter having constant momentum at the same time this affects the state of the aether, but I do not want to convey the idea of the matter having constant momentum through the aether. I am trying to convey the state of the aether as its state of displacement along with the aether's connections with the matter being responsible for the associated aether pressure. Aether pressure exists in two forms. One is the aether pressure associated with momentum. The other is the aether pressure associated with displacement.

In terms of 'at rest' and momentum, an object with momentum has a certain amount of aether pressure associated with that momentum but the pressure associated with constant momentum is the same on each and every nuclei which the matter consists of. Think of each nuclei having an associated aether pressure in which it exists being applied equally to every part of the nuclei determined by its momentum. If the nuclei has greater momentum, then the nuclei has a greater associated aether pressure being applied equally to every part of it. That is why atomic clocks 'tick' slower the greater their momentum.

The issue I think is with my use of the term 'at rest'. 'At rest' usually applies to 'not moving through'. I am not using 'at rest' in this way. Einstein said the idea of motion may not be applied to the aether. Einstein's definition of motion is the aether does not consist of particles which can be separately tracked through time. I am trying to adhere to Einstein's concept of motion to stay away from saying objects move through the aether. I am using 'at rest' to address the objects state with respect to the aether.

This is probably off topic but it might help explain this concept I am trying to convey. The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places. This means the state of the aether with respect to the Earth's surface is the aether is at rest, or almost at rest, with respect to the Earth's surface. With this definition we can say the embankment is more 'at rest' with respect to the aether than the moving train is. The train is less 'at rest' with respect to the aether than the embankment is. There is a greater aether pressure associated with each nuclei which is the train than each nuclei which is the embankment. But what I am having difficulty finding the right words for is since the train is moving with constant momentum each nuclei is 'at rest' with respect to the aether in terms of the associated aether pressure on the nuclei is constant and being applied equally to every part of the nuclei. But at the same time the aether pressure on each nuclei on the train is greater than the aether pressure on each nuclei on the embankment.

A question occurs. You say that the overall aether pressure increases with momentum, but that this does not create a gravitational potential. Why not?

Because the pressure is centered on each and every nuclei in the matter. Each and every nuclei is displacing the aether based on its momentum (Each and every nuclei is also displacing the aether based on its mass, but we are discussing momentum for now). The aether is displacing back on each and every nuclei which is the matter. The center of the mass of each nuclei is the center of the aether pressure associated with momentum. Each and every nuclei is at rest with respect to the aether even though the aether pressure on each nuclei is greater the greater the nuclei's momentum.

When accelerating the aether pressure is not equally distributed towards the center of the mass of each and every nuclei. When accelerating the aether pressure exerted on the nuclei in the front of the direction of travel is greater than the aether pressure exerted on the back of the nuclei. This is equivalent to the aether pressure associated with gravity. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is greater on the 'top' of the nuclei pushing the nuclei towards the center of mass of the object.

A second question; is this pressure constant on the train in all directions?

If the train is moving with constant momentum then the aether pressure associated with the momentum is constant on each and every nuclei which is the matter which is the train.

You have hit a high water mark of confusion now. In the grammar I learned sometime ago, there is a big difference between "moving" and "at rest". You seem to be unable to effectively explain when your theory means one, and, when it means the other.

I think you have finally thrown me off the track of having any hope of understanding what you are trying to say.

I was using the term 'at rest' incorrectly. I was using the term 'at rest' to refer to equally applied aether pressure. When an object moves with constant momentum the aether pressure is the same on every part of every nuclei the object consists of. The faster an object moves with constant momentum the greater the pressure on each and every nuclei the object consists of, but the pressure is still equally applied to each and every part of each nuclei.

When accelerating or under the effects of gravity the aether pressure is not equally applied to every part of the nuclei the object consists of.

Einstein stated, "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places". The more the aether is connected to the matter the more at rest the aether is with respect to the matter. The aether connected to the matter which is the surface of the Earth is more at rest with respect to the Earth than the aether in the upper atmosphere is at rest with respect to the surface of the Earth.

[mpc755]

The aether I am describing is a material thing with mass.

Since the aether is a material thing I have no problem saying it is displaced by matter. I have no problem then figuring out the other properties such as the aether must 'displace back' or there is no momentum. I have no problem with the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. All of the properties I just mentioned seem to be related and even if I am incorrect they will all crumble as a house of cards together. Motion seems different. With motion the aether seems to lose its 'one something' nature.

I'm trying to describe a state of increased aether pressure associated with constant momentum at the same time allow for there to be momentum.

In previous posts you have written that your aether is superfluid helium then take out the helium. You have written that your aether is not matter.

Now, you write that your aether is massive.

Which is it?

Matter and aether are different states of the same material. I have named this material mather. Mather has mass. Matter and aether have mass.

[mpc755]

Holy Moly. I have finally got caught up and worked my way through this interesting thread.

Thread Starter, I admire your scientific curiosity and your perseverance. You do need to work on your coherence of your ideas and your clarity of presentation.

Some time back I have reached the conclusion that there must be a medium, an aether, to serve as an absolute reference frame and as a medium for light in its wave mode. Your presentation here significantly fails to agree with my spec. for an aether. I have, before now, been wrong more often than right about many things. you can't hit a home run if you don't go up to the plate and swing the bat. Keep swinging the bat.

As Jupiter moves in its orbit the aether which exists in front of Jupiter's path does not disappear. When the matter which is Jupiter occupies space previously occupied by aether, the aether does not vanish. The aether is displaced by the matter which is Jupiter.

The aether 'displaces back'. The aether applies pressure towards the matter which is Jupiter. How do we know the aether applies pressure towards the matter which is Jupiter? Because light from distant stars reaches us from where Jupiter was in its orbit (i.e. Jupiter does not leave a void in its wake).

My biggest swing is the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.

[CANGAS]

In my personal tentative conclusion re properties of Aether; it is absolutely motionless and fills the entire universe. It is the medium for light in the wave mode. Light travels at a speed relative to Aether which is determined by the Maxwell Wave Equation. Aether has very little or no interaction or contact with matter, even charged particles. Solid bodies move through Aether with complete ease, with no displacement. Like solids do in Supersolid Theory.

My Aether conclusion is based upon my prior conclusion re invalidity of Special Relativity. While I have done some work concerning the nature of gravity, I have been concerned about the possibility of a Unified Field Theory, not the possibility of whether Aether is a causal agent for gravity (or other fields).

Of course, it is entirely possible that an ether exists which is much more like your concept than mine. I am not entertaining an ongoing study of ether except as it might pop up in contemplation of a Unified Field Theory. And, I am working on a UFT secondarily after other work not critically related to it, but, which I personally regard as much more important to my own interest.

Who knows. Perhaps there is an Aether which is the medium for light waves, and also, another ether which displaces and makes gravity as you visualize.

[CANGAS]

CANGAS: Quark star. Interesting concept. what happens to electrons? To make neutron star, atoms are squashed into constituent electrons and protons (and of course indigenous neutrons). Electrons and protons are squashed into neutrons. To make quark star, neutrons in neutron star are processed into constituent electrons and protons. Protons are processed into constituent quarks. Then, electrons and quarks get squashed into all quarks? How? Electrons and quarks both have exalted status of being fundamental particles. Has some theorist invented a scheme demoting an electron to being some kind of quark? How to get electrons to vanish to result in all-quark star?

cinci: Well obviously the electrons would still be there or you would have the most positively charge object I can imagine. The difference between this and a neutron star would be that the volume usually associated with a neutron would be reduced by causing the quarks to be free and to mingle with the electrons. The overall charge would still be neutral. Since, at the moment, both quarks and elecrtons are considered to be point particles, I suppose they envision a quark-electron gas or liquid where the particles must be bumping ito each other with very high velocities and that energy prevents further collapse. Or maybe some quark-electron beastie forms. I haven't seen anything about what they think about this.

I have read that some theorist believe that what we call elementary particles may have structure but only appear to be points to us because we can't "see" anything so small. Their reasoning is that since these partcles have more than one property, there must be some structure albeit very small structure. If that were the case then there may be a volume associated with them that prevents further collapse.

Go here for a picture of a suspected quark star: http://images.google.com/images?sourcei ... CCAQsAQwAw

Here is what wikipedia says: It is theorized that when the neutron-degenerate matter which makes up a neutron star is put under sufficient pressure due to the star's gravity, the individual neutrons break down into their constituent quarks, up quarks and down quarks. Some of these quarks may then become strange quarks and form strange matter. The star then becomes known as a "quark star" or "strange star", similar to a single gigantic hadron (but bound by gravity rather than the strong force). Quark matter/strange matter is one candidate for the theoretical dark matter that is a feature of several cosmological theories.
*****************************************

Very interesting.

A plausible way to have an extremely dense (and massive) object which is essentially electrically neutral. And which is not a Black Hole in the Relativity kind of way.

The missing matter problem is not a problem of not having enough mass at the center of the galaxy. In fact, more mass at the core just makes the problem worse. There must be a great amount more mass out toward the periphery to solve the situation. Galaxies having a mass problem need to have a lot of neutron stars and quark stars and Black Holes or whatever out at their edges or beyond. Or, they need to upgrade to a better Gravity Theory.

What does Thread Starter aether gravity do to solve missing mass problem?

[cincirob]

CANGAS: Very interesting. A plausible way to have an extremely dense (and massive) object which is essentially electrically neutral. And which is not a Black Hole in the Relativity kind of way.

cinci: Black holes are not products of relativity per se. Any theory of gravity will produce an event horizon given sufficient mass. General relativity just happens to be the best theory of gravity at the moment. The idea of a singularity is more of a materials problem as no one really knows what happens when the pressure becomes great enough to overcome the structure of neutrons. If quarks and electrons cannot be squeezed out of existence, then the whateve happens inside the event horizon might not result in a singularity at all. It's just that in the past physicists assumed that what went inside the event horizon had no chioce but to continue to be reduced in volume....maybe not.

I get a little non-plussed by their explanations. It seems to me that general relativity says there isn't any space inside the event horizon even though the think appears to occupy a volume outside the event horizon. Perhaps that is the genesis of the singularity idea. They say things like the inside of the hole is time-like which sort of indicates no physical space. Most now think it's possible that quantum mechanics takes over when the volume gets very small, but there isn't supposed to be a volume there anyway, it's just "time-like" in there, whatever that means. At the very least they are interesting beast to discuss.

[CANGAS]

CANGAS: Very interesting. A plausible way to have an extremely dense (and massive) object which is essentially electrically neutral. And which is not a Black Hole in the Relativity kind of way.

cinci: Black holes are not products of relativity per se. Any theory of gravity will produce an event horizon given sufficient mass. General relativity just happens to be the best theory of gravity at the moment. The idea of a singularity is more of a materials problem as no one really knows what happens when the pressure becomes great enough to overcome the structure of neutrons. If quarks and electrons cannot be squeezed out of existence, then the whateve happens inside the event horizon might not result in a singularity at all. It's just that in the past physicists assumed that what went inside the event horizon had no chioce but to continue to be reduced in volume....maybe not.

I get a little non-plussed by their explanations. It seems to me that general relativity says there isn't any space inside the event horizon even though the think appears to occupy a volume outside the event horizon. Perhaps that is the genesis of the singularity idea. They say things like the inside of the hole is time-like which sort of indicates no physical space. Most now think it's possible that quantum mechanics takes over when the volume gets very small, but there isn't supposed to be a volume there anyway, it's just "time-like" in there, whatever that means. At the very least they are interesting beast to discuss.

My understanding of Black Hole with Event Horizon: External observer sees time go slow close to EH, and at precise location, time is seen to stand still. Infalling objects slow to a complete stop at EH. Infalling objects hang in mid-air (joke) and never move again so they never move across EH. Everything piles up at EH. However, before gravity got strong enough to make an EH, plenty of stuff was already inside the periphery of the neutron (or, quark, depending on your persuasion) star.

Before your post, I was unaware of an interpretation which meant that GR says that interior of EH has no space but only time. I am totally unable to comment before doing a lot more study on that specific issue. I had somehow always skimmed over the "timelike" phrase without visualizing an absence of space. I had naively presumed it meant that space was there but time was frozen (to an exterior observer). And, I had presumed that a point like observer (to be safe from excessive tidal forces) who was moving through, and into, the EH, would see things in good old "proper" space and time.

Thread Starter must confront these issues and satisfactorily answer them, if he wishes to uphold Relativity and furnish a new aether based gravity theory.

P.S. Belatedly noticed your comment re Event Horizon and Relativity. Event Horizon is result of rubber rulers and crazy clocks exclusive to Einstein Relativity. Black Hole was discovered to be result of Newton Universal Gravitation many, many, years ago, but Event Horizon is exclusive to theory(s) which incorporate variable spaces and times.

[cincirob]

CANGAS: My understanding of Black Hole with Event Horizon: External observer sees time go slow close to EH, and at precise location, time is seen to stand still. Infalling objects slow to a complete stop at EH. Infalling objects hang in mid-air (joke) and never move again so they never move across EH. Everything piles up at EH. However, before gravity got strong enough to make an EH, plenty of stuff was already inside the periphery of the neutron (or, quark, depending on your persuasion) star.

cinci: That is an accurate description of what a distant observer would see, but the object is supposed to really pass through. That vission is caused by the time dilation effects. But even if you consider that to be real, anothe effect would be the contraction in the direction of motion which would have the object's thickness in the direciton of motion approach zero and at some point near the horizon quantum effects would take over and the mass in question cold "tunnel" through. In Leonard Susskind's book, Black Hole Wars, he gives a very detailed description of the near-horizon effects that I wouldn't try to repeat here. By the way I saw a show just tonight on the cable Science Channel that went through the ideas expressed in that book. Interstingly it added another chapter. Susskind's book ended with him winning the war (about the destruction of information in a black hole) with Hawking. But since the book published, Hawking returned with a theory acknowledging he was wrong about the destruction of informaion but rejucting Susskind's explanation of it with a different idea.
*****************************

CANGAS: Before your post, I was unaware of an interpretation which meant that GR says that interior of EH has no space but only time. I am totally unable to comment before doing a lot more study on that specific issue. I had somehow always skimmed over the "timelike" phrase without visualizing an absence of space. I had naively presumed it meant that space was there but time was frozen (to an exterior observer). And, I had presumed that a point like observer (to be safe from excessive tidal forces) who was moving through, and into, the EH, would see things in good old "proper" space and time.

cinci: Perhaps that is what it means, but my thinking was always that if space becomes ever more contracted as it approaches the event horizon then it goes to zero at the event horizon. It's probaly not the exact mathematics, but if length contraction is L = Lo(1 - (v/c)^2)^.5, L appoaches zero when v approaches c.
*****************

CANGAS: Thread Starter must confront these issues and satisfactorily answer them, if he wishes to uphold Relativity and furnish a new aether based gravity theory.

P.S. Belatedly noticed your comment re Event Horizon and Relativity. Event Horizon is result of rubber rulers and crazy clocks exclusive to Einstein Relativity. Black Hole was discovered to be result of Newton Universal Gravitation many, many, years ago, but Event Horizon is exclusive to theory(s) which incorporate variable spaces and times.

cinci: Whether or not you subscribe to relativity, Newton's theory would predict a "surface" where the escape velocity is c and therefore a region from which nothing could escape. The effect of gravity on clocks shouldn't be in dispute at this point in history whether you attribute it to relativity or something else so there should be noticeable effects based on whatever you believe.
*******************************

[mpc755]

In my personal tentative conclusion re properties of Aether; it is absolutely motionless and fills the entire universe. It is the medium for light in the wave mode. Light travels at a speed relative to Aether which is determined by the Maxwell Wave Equation. Aether has very little or no interaction or contact with matter, even charged particles. Solid bodies move through Aether with complete ease, with no displacement. Like solids do in Supersolid Theory.

First off 'solid' bodies are not solid. They consist of nuclei surrounded by aether. Secondly, what happens to the aether the solid bodies move through? You say solid bodies move the Aether with complete ease, with no displacement. How is this physically possible if the aether is a material? Is isn't. The aether occupies three dimensional space. The 'solid' body occupies three dimensional space. As the body moves into three dimensional space occupied by aether both the body and the aether do not occupy the same three dimensional space simultaneously. The aether is displaced by the matter. You need to take your thought process to the next level. You need to resolve what happens to the aether which existed in the three dimensional space now occupied by the body. Saying "Solid bodies move through Aether with complete ease, with no displacement" is physically impossible.

My Aether conclusion is based upon my prior conclusion re invalidity of Special Relativity. While I have done some work concerning the nature of gravity, I have been concerned about the possibility of a Unified Field Theory, not the possibility of whether Aether is a causal agent for gravity (or other fields).

Of course, it is entirely possible that an ether exists which is much more like your concept than mine. I am not entertaining an ongoing study of ether except as it might pop up in contemplation of a Unified Field Theory. And, I am working on a UFT secondarily after other work not critically related to it, but, which I personally regard as much more important to my own interest.

Who knows. Perhaps there is an Aether which is the medium for light waves, and also, another ether which displaces and makes gravity as you visualize.

Aether Displacement is the most correct unified theory to date. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. The associated aether wave a moving particle has is the reason for the observed behaviors in double slit experiments.

[mpc755]

CANGAS: Quark star. Interesting concept. what happens to electrons? To make neutron star, atoms are squashed into constituent electrons and protons (and of course indigenous neutrons). Electrons and protons are squashed into neutrons. To make quark star, neutrons in neutron star are processed into constituent electrons and protons. Protons are processed into constituent quarks. Then, electrons and quarks get squashed into all quarks? How? Electrons and quarks both have exalted status of being fundamental particles. Has some theorist invented a scheme demoting an electron to being some kind of quark? How to get electrons to vanish to result in all-quark star?

cinci: Well obviously the electrons would still be there or you would have the most positively charge object I can imagine. The difference between this and a neutron star would be that the volume usually associated with a neutron would be reduced by causing the quarks to be free and to mingle with the electrons. The overall charge would still be neutral. Since, at the moment, both quarks and elecrtons are considered to be point particles, I suppose they envision a quark-electron gas or liquid where the particles must be bumping ito each other with very high velocities and that energy prevents further collapse. Or maybe some quark-electron beastie forms. I haven't seen anything about what they think about this.

I have read that some theorist believe that what we call elementary particles may have structure but only appear to be points to us because we can't "see" anything so small. Their reasoning is that since these partcles have more than one property, there must be some structure albeit very small structure. If that were the case then there may be a volume associated with them that prevents further collapse.

Go here for a picture of a suspected quark star: http://images.google.com/images?sourcei ... CCAQsAQwAw

Here is what wikipedia says: It is theorized that when the neutron-degenerate matter which makes up a neutron star is put under sufficient pressure due to the star's gravity, the individual neutrons break down into their constituent quarks, up quarks and down quarks. Some of these quarks may then become strange quarks and form strange matter. The star then becomes known as a "quark star" or "strange star", similar to a single gigantic hadron (but bound by gravity rather than the strong force). Quark matter/strange matter is one candidate for the theoretical dark matter that is a feature of several cosmological theories.
*****************************************

Very interesting.

A plausible way to have an extremely dense (and massive) object which is essentially electrically neutral. And which is not a Black Hole in the Relativity kind of way.

The missing matter problem is not a problem of not having enough mass at the center of the galaxy. In fact, more mass at the core just makes the problem worse. There must be a great amount more mass out toward the periphery to solve the situation. Galaxies having a mass problem need to have a lot of neutron stars and quark stars and Black Holes or whatever out at their edges or beyond. Or, they need to upgrade to a better Gravity Theory.

What does Thread Starter aether gravity do to solve missing mass problem?

Matter and aether are different states of the same material, the mather. Matter and aether have mass. The 'missing' mass is the aether. A black hole is aetherless. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by the massive object is great enough to cause all of the aether which existed surrounding the nuclei which is the matter to be displaced.

[CCC]

Most now think it's possible that quantum mechanics takes over when the volume gets very small, but there isn't supposed to be a volume there anyway, it's just "time-like" in there, whatever that means. At the very least they are interesting beast to discuss.

"Time-like", as I understand it, is how tachyons see the universe; that is, any particle moving faster than light. Which implies that, in at least some reference frames, time will run backwards inside the event horizon.

I'm not sure, though.

[CANGAS]

Thread Starter might have already covered this course. If so, I missed it.

Pressure. Displaced aether bodies are made to move to become displaced. How? Pressure is just another word for electric field and magnetic field. Pressure in a tyre is simply electric field of imprisoned air molecule having mutual repulsion against electric field of imprisoned rubber molecule. Or, of course, fields of air molecules mutually repulsing each other.

Your theory is described as pressure of aether bodies and nuclei, etc., as they displace and then fall back into place.

Electric field pressure? Magnetic field pressure? What is your description of how aether "pressure" is administered between your aether bodies and the passer-by atoms and such? Which of the known forces is it?

[mpc755]

Thread Starter might have already covered this course. If so, I missed it.

Pressure. Displaced aether bodies are made to move to become displaced. How? Pressure is just another word for electric field and magnetic field. Pressure in a tyre is simply electric field of imprisoned air molecule having mutual repulsion against electric field of imprisoned rubber molecule. Or, of course, fields of air molecules mutually repulsing each other.

Your theory is described as pressure of aether bodies and nuclei, etc., as they displace and then fall back into place.

Electric field pressure? Magnetic field pressure? What is your description of how aether "pressure" is administered between your aether bodies and the passer-by atoms and such? Which of the known forces is it?

My guess as to what electric and magnetic fields are is they are states of the aether. So to suggest Aether Displacement must be described in terms of electric or magnetic fields is putting the cart before the horse.

Matter and aether are different states of the same material. I call this material the mather. Matter is compressed mather and aether is uncompressed mather. Matter and aether have mass. Matter and aether occupy three dimensional space. Matter displaces the aether. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.

[mpc755]

"matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move"

Matter tells aether how to displace, and displaced aether tells matter how to move.

[mpc755]

You are in a space ship orbiting the Earth. The associated aether pressure on the atomic clock in the space ship is less than a comparable clock on the Earth and the atomic clock in the space ship ticks faster than the comparable clock on the Earth.

Your space ship is in a geo-synchronous orbit and orbits at the same rate at which the Earth spins.

You stay in the space ship for one complete orbit around the Sun. You are in as close to the exact same position with respect to the distant stars as you were when the experiment began.

From your view of the surrounding distant stars, the Earth and the Sun you determine 365 and 1/4 days have passed. This is in exact agreement with the atomic clock on the Earth.

You started the experiment on January 1st 2009.

You have two atomic clocks on the space ship. One was altered to remain in sync with the atomic clock on the Earth. The other atomic clock was not altered. The altered atomic clock says 365 and 1/4 days have passed since the beginning of the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock on the space ship says 370 days have passed since the beginning of the experiment.

What day is it and how much time has passed since the beginning of the experiment?

It is January 1st 2010 and one year has passed since the beginning of the experiment. The unaltered atomic clock was not modified to tick according to the aether pressure it exists in.

Do you insist it is January 6th 2010 because that is what the unaltered atomic clock states the time to be? If so, how do you account for the fact that you have not yet passed the point in orbit around the Sun where you were on January 1st 2009 and in fact you are as close to the exact same point in orbit relative to the Sun based on your measurements against the distant stars as you were on January 1st 2009 as you are going to be? How is it not January 1st 2010?