The Case for The Aether (resurrected)

[Grumblenuts]

The original along with several days of all other content here having apparently evaporated into the Aether due to a server crash / reboot from old backup.. I'll try this again.. Perhaps even better! Time will tell..

In a seminal talk before the American Institute of Electrical Engineers (AIEE) in May 1891 at Columbia College in New York City, Tesla spoke these telling words: “Of all the forms of nature’s immeasurable, all-pervading energy, which ever and ever change and move, like a soul animates an innate universe, electricity and magnetism are perhaps the most fascinating. . .We know that electricity acts like an incompressible fluid; that there must be a constant quantity of it in nature; that it can neither be produced or destroyed. . .and that electricity and ether phenomena are identical.” – Nikola Tesla

- More -

Reading that "- More -" provides one a nice, appropriately snarky introduction to this topic, bringing all up to date. And Tesla, perhaps somewhat unwittingly, supplies an excellent Aether "model of everything" summary there. One hundred thirty some years ago and still way ahead of practically everyone.

Turns out "electricity and magnetism", or rather true "electricity" manifested through the ubiquitous dielectric / magnetic coupling of nature, is not only the most fascinating form of energy, but the only form ultimately driving the whole kit and caboodle.

Electricity, magnetism, light,.. Such terms likely mean something very different from what you and I were originally taught. We'll get to that.. hopefully.. this time..

 

[Grumblenuts]

gestalt

: something that is made of many parts and yet is somehow more than or different from the combination of its parts

Actual electrical energy is thus. To get a feel for what I'm talking about the following from "gestaltreality.com" seems a great place to start:

Reluctance motors and generators have been around for quite some time, but are generally speaking little known about. The thing about them that is unique when compared to AC and DC motor/generators is that the rotor does not have any windings and therefore does not have any current.

There are many different kinds of reluctance machines such as Asynchronous, Synchronous, Variable, Switched and Stepping. Now unless you have taken a motors course before these words may not mean much to you.

There are advantages and disadvantages to their design, but one unique thing about them is they dramatically reduce back-EMF due to their design.

Dyson for example uses reluctance motors in their vacuum cleaners to achieve speeds of up to 104,000 rpm!

See no windings on central shaft rotor.

The most important thing to understand is that Power and Energy are two completely different things.

• Energy is measured in joules as a finite quantity with no respect to time
• Power is measured in joules per second with respect to time

Theoretically you can derive an almost infinite amount of power from a small amount of energy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Tesla innately understood that electrical energy, being ubiquitous, should be made readily and cheaply available so that humans could quickly progress to a point where handling our basic, everyday wants and needs became such a trivial matter, with so minimal an impact upon our natural environment, that we could well advance as a species, and do who knows what I suppose, instead of just repeating our same mistakes and continuing to make a bigger mess of things. Commie, pinko notion? Hardly!

Tesla had created the electric power grid practically from scratch, grew bored with it and moved on. Edison meanwhile, had "invented a meter to allow customers to be billed for energy proportional to consumption, but this meter worked only with direct current" while Ottó Bláthy "invented the first AC electricity meter" thus permanently rendering electricity a consumer commodity to be delivered solely by capitalists. No more investment in Tesla's wacky notions necessary nor sought. However, when the nuclear power lobby needed a sales pitch, guess who they suddenly sounded like? :

Too cheap to meter describes a commodity so inexpensive that it is cheaper and less bureaucratic to simply provide it for a flat fee or even free and make a profit from associated services. It can also refer to services which it would cost more to itemize bills for the service than it costs to provide the service in the first place, thus it being simpler and less expensive to just provide it in a bundle along with other services.

Although sometimes attributed to Walter Marshall, a pioneer of nuclear power in the United Kingdom,[1] the phrase was coined by Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission

Now we have Trump: "They’re all back to work, and they’re going back to work. Clean coal, clean coal. Nobody thought that was going to happen so fast, either.”

 

[Grumblenuts]

So what is this thing we call "electricity" really? I'll just shoot from the hip here and perhaps find a need to correct myself later. Best I can tell, electricity is the means through which everything we consider energy gets exchanged, from the most minute to most gigantic interactions. All energy transfer begins and ends as a direct exchange with locally dipole polarized Aether which, being dimensionless field, fits within and between everything we consider substance, including protons and neutrons. Electricity is then any "potential" means to spatially alter local polarizations of the Aether. Lightning, magnetic attraction, all EMF (light, radiation), gravity,.. you name it. So-called "subatomic particles" (the ones we've vehemently theorized into existence but none has ever actually seen nor ever will), including electrons and photons, to which we often attribute some measure of "mass" or not depending on our mood. "Space" itself, being inherently dimensional as we commonly view it. All simply distinct forms or expressions of electricity or electrical energy. Your answer?

 

[Grumblenuts]

So what is magnetism? What is diamagnetism? What is dielectricity? What is electromagnetism?
Hell, this Duncan W. Shaw guy could have saved me a lot of trouble if only I'd noticed him earlier:

Despite considerable advances in the science of electromagnetism, the underlying behavior of electromagnetic phenomena seems to remain unexplained. Here are some examples. Why is magnetism at right angles to electric current? What physically constitutes magnetism? What is the nature of the constituents of electromagnetic fields? In another parallel area, how can entanglement be explained without resorting to instantaneous action-at-a-distance? Why is a wire that carries an electric current surrounded by a magnetic field? Is the nature of light undulatory or particulate? Why quantum theory cannot be explained with ordinary logic? Can we explain polarization? Dark matter? Dark energy? What is the root cause of quantization? This is not a complete list, but it illustrates the point that a broad underlying concept might be needed to explain the above phenomena. While present day science describes the practical effects of most of these phenomena, what actually underlies the phenomena remains unexplained.

Bingo! Read the rest. He lists many decorated scientists, past and present, who continue arguing for the Aether. Many maintain that the Michelson-Morley experimental results provide evidence for Aether rather than against. He even quotes Feynman arguing against typical Feynman:

Richard Feynman, in his Lectures on Physics, Vol. III,37 compared the mathematics of the phenomenon of interference of electrons with the mathematics of the interference of water waves in one-slit and two-slit experiments. He observed that the mathematics for each is the same.

Well that's probably going to get a bunch of people lost so I'll return to slow, logical progression mode next time.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Time to get back to basics by first listing some model presumptions that clearly need to be proven true by virtue of being the most logical and consistent conclusion reachable upon rigorous review of all the known components thus far. The only "model" that makes sense employing Occam's Razor. Starting at the big end:

The Aether:
1) Is a field that exists and has always existed because presuming there was only void at some point makes zero sense.
2) Space is a local manifestation of The Aether that contains all that we consider "matter."
3) The Aether logically extends beyond Space.

True Void(s):
1) Exist verifiably only in the form of "Black Holes."
2) Is a hole in The Aether, so also one in Space.
3) Is a window (or also "a hole") through the center of an extensive dielectric plane - a direct portal into counterspace.

The Universe (or Space):
1) Appears to extend infinitely in all directions through we conclude from observations that it must have expanded virtually from a spec some 13.8 billion years ago.
2) Having no clear reason not to, when we presume such a spherical Universe we arrive at a radius of 46.6 billion light-years.
3) Skin of expanding balloon proposals aside, it rather makes sense to presume the galaxies thin as they recede toward the farthest reaches or back in time.
4) Also that The Aether itself thins (grows less dense) toward that fringe while the galaxies themselves remain relatively fixed in size.

More tomorrow..

 

[SSDD]

Guess you don't realize how completely uninteresting your magical thinking is...The response you have received should clue you in.

 

[james bond]

Ermahgerd, not this again lol. See Einstein.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Perhaps a bit more today..

Counterspace:
1) Is inverse Space or the epitome of non-spatial.
2) Resides in the dielectric plane's center which bisects spatial bodies.
3) Thus "Black Holes" are really just thin, flat discs rather than being like three dimensional holes.

The Dielectric Field:
1) Is also bisected by the dielectric plane.
2) Appears hourglass shaped (when viewing strong magnets at least).
3) Converges inward (counter spatially) upon the hourglass neck or center from both sides.
As opposed to

The Magnetic Field:
Which, although also bisected by the dielectric plane,
1) Is toroidal or donut shaped.
2) Expands (spatially) from its center and axis.

So already considering a dipole analogy we can begin to see that:
1) Space uses and returns energy provided from counterspace.
2) Counterspace is inertial.
3) Or to make a very intuitive analogy - Space Ground.

In deep space we observe endless galactic, planar spatial bodies rotating about their axes of seemingly random orientation. Picturing these spatial bodies coming naturally coupled to their dielectric, non-spatial planes suggests to me then that perhaps the Universe is not spherically expanding, but more galactic or donut shaped. Maybe it's spinning? The odds for that though don't seem very good.

 

[SSDD]

So already considering a dipole analogy we can begin to see that:
1) Space uses and returns energy provided from counterspace.
2) Counterspace is inertial.
3) Or to make a very intuitive analogy - Space Ground.

Actually, we begin to "see" nothing and if you are in a mind for fantasy, you may begin to "intuit" the above...intuiting, however, is a far cry from empirical evidence. Little wonder you are on board the climate crazy train...pseudoscience seems to fit you to at T/

Tell me, do you surround yourself with crystals? How about tea leaves?...do you read them? Palmistry? Phrenology? Werewolves? Vampires? Fairies? What are your thoughts on them?

 

[Wuwei]

Actually, we begin to "see" nothing and if you are in a mind for fantasy, you may begin to "intuit" the above...intuiting, however, is a far cry from empirical evidence. Little wonder you are on board the climate crazy train...pseudoscience seems to fit you to at T/

SSDD your hypocrisy abounds. Your fake physics is every bit as bad. Your intuition in science is abysmal.

.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay, time to drill down to some of the real nuts and bolts. Fun, fun, FUN!

"There is no energy in matter except that absorbed from the medium." - Nikola Tesla

What Tesla meant by that is clear from the context. The Aether ultimately came first. All matter is surrounded by The Aether. Thus all matter necessarily interacts first (and last) with The Aether. On a large or small scale, this greatly helps us understand what's really going on around us. Denying The Aether is much like denial of AGW. False narratives are predictably spun and repeated ad nauseum to explain away everything otherwise easily explained by simple acceptance of The Aether. Language is usurped. Definitions of practically everything involved changed. Much completely turned on its head. Incredibly complex theories galore instead of simply accepting the rather empirically obvious.

Prime example is inertia. What is inertia really? Newton's First Axiom - .. That's correct. He didn't call any of them "Laws" because, being popular notions already commonly known and widely accepted in academia, he wasn't about to arrogantly proclaim them his or His "Laws" like Moses revealing The Ten Commandments, all written in stone or something. No, they were the mainstream theory of the time, mainly countered only by religious dogmatists. ..- of Motion, also now commonly referred to as Newton's "Law of Perpetual Motion" and "Law of Inertia":

Every object persists in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it.

Like most at that time, Newton presumed The Aether. So any argument that he was attempting to prove himself wrong here is clearly ridiculous. Nonetheless, he didn't hit the mark. A much better (not arrogantly presumed perfect) First Axiom of Motion might be:

The Aether preserves its overall state of equilibrium by resisting the acceleration of all bodies.

Bodies or "objects" meaning anything we commonly consider spatial, material, or subject to gravitational influence. This is a big improvement because it injects the fact in no uncertain terms that rate of change is the basic requirement whenever considering inertia. Also, while "state of rest" is obviously presumed relative to the observer's "inertial plane," the fact is there simply exists no such thing. In reality, from the broadest conceivable perspective, all is in constant motion relative to The Aether and "Space."

One might speculate "The Big Bang" resulted from all suddenly coming to rest in one spot. An intolerable state of affairs for The Aether, possibly even with just the tiniest speck of crud. Maximum dipole created. Matter all in one spot vs Zero matter elsewhere. Plus The Aether, being ubiquitous and dimensionless, can have no center nor spin.

In any case, this improved Axiom automatically applies whether bodies are viewed as being at rest or in motion. For any body being considered "at rest" (despite the above) it applies only as said body begins to move in relation to an observer. Again, a rate of change is required.

So what is inertia really? Why does it matter? Because from the above it can be easily deduced that INERTIA IS AN ACTION (a verb), not some weird lack of action (a noun). It is reaction to matter undergoing a change in motion, not any strange property of passive matter. The response of conservatives to liberals, if you will.

Combined with Tesla's quote above, we can deduce that inertia is a means through which The Aether provides and recaptures its energy much like an accelerating Tesla (vehicle) depletes a dipole (batteries being the most commonly provided examples) in The Aether which it then acts to restore while regeneratively braking. Much more to be said about inertia during or after discussion of Newton's Second and Third Axioms..

 

[Grumblenuts]

Newton's Second Axiom:

The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed.

Newton's Third Axiom:

To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

Those appear fairly obvious statements of easily observable fact. The Third can get a bit messy when things like impedance and phase angle vary, but whether those cases represent discrepancies seems all an argument of interpretation. I'll have to get to the so-called "Laws of Thermodynamics" eventually, but for now I'm determined to continue drilling way down to the very basics. The True Essence of Everything, if you will.

What is gravity?

Stay tuned!

 

[Grumblenuts]

From Wikiquote:

Gravity or gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all things with energy are brought toward (or gravitate toward) one another, including stars, planets, galaxies and even light and sub-atomic particles. Gravity is most accurately described by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which describes gravity not as a force but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy; and resulting in gravitational time dilation, where time lapses more slowly in lower (stronger) gravitational potential. However, for most applications, gravity is well approximated by Newton's law of universal gravitation, which postulates that gravity causes a force where two bodies of mass are directly drawn (or 'attracted') to each other according to a mathematical relationship, where the attractive force is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

As usual, the math gets tweaked until it fits the observations. Now forget observations! Let reality be the most popular interpretation of what that same math now speaks to theoretical physicists.
From Tesla (at age 82!):

“I have worked out a dynamic theory of gravity in all details and hope to give this to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies.

“Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still very self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves.

“Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible -However, even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for them and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion.”

So bloody obvious it boggles the mind. Yet everyone just continues shrugging it off like lemmings following one another off a cliff. . "Beats me!" "Above my pay grade." 'Not my problem!"

 

[Grumblenuts]

Alright, the following disclaimer feels appropriate at this point. I'm no super genius but I've learned a thing or two over the past sixty odd years to help me put this and that together to better understand how things like gravity work at their most basic level. I don't know that I'm right. I just know that since no one has yet compellingly challenged what I'm about to say I have no sound basis to think otherwise as of yet.

Two complementary, interdependent fields exist at the most basic and broad levels. Electricity and magnetism. They exist for the same reason everything and anything does. Geometry. Specifically geometric incommensurability. I have no idea who Joseph P. Kaufman is but he's produced some excellent quotes (and the image looks kind of familiar ):

All of Nature follows perfectly geometric laws. The Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Peruvian, Mayan, and Chinese cultures were well aware of this, as Phi—known as the Golden Ratio or Golden Mean—was used in the constructions of their sculptures and architecture
...
Examples of fractals are everywhere in nature. They can be found in the patterns of trees, branches, and ferns, in which each part appears to be a smaller image of the whole. They are found in the branch-like patterns of river systems, lightning, and blood vessels. They can be seen in snowflakes, seashells, crystals, and mountain ranges. We can even see the holographic and fractal-like nature of reality in the structure of the Universe itself, as the clusters of galaxies and dark matter resemble the neurons in our brain, the mycelium network of fungi, as well as the network of the man-made Internet
Joseph P. Kauffman

From Wikipedia:

In mathematics, two quantities are in the golden ratio if their ratio is the same as the ratio of their sum to the larger of the two quantities. The figure on the right illustrates the geometric relationship. Expressed algebraically, for quantities a and b with a > b > 0,{see link for images}

The golden ratio is also called the golden mean or golden section (Latin: sectio aurea). Other names include extreme and mean ratio, medial section, divine proportion, divine section (Latin: sectio divina), golden proportion, golden cut, and golden number.

Mathematicians since Euclid have studied the properties of the golden ratio, including its appearance in the dimensions of a regular pentagon and in a golden rectangle, which may be cut into a square and a smaller rectangle with the same aspect ratio.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I often ask people about probability in this context. At one point in that video the guy notes that we still can't actually "see" any of these supposed "sub-atomic" particles. We (the institutional "we") rely on math to declare or "observe" such things as real with little debate. So whenever I say, for example, "Electrons are bullshit!" many a knee jerks violently in defense of the scientific status quo. Yet Schrödinger was describing electrons as probability clouds back in 1926. So we now lack any terms to describe what electrons actually are or do other than "electrons" which is a damned shame since no such "particles" have ever demonstrably existed. What electrons are credited with is simply mathematical, not material reality. Conversely, when asked whether probability is real or man made, people tend to yawn first, say math always gives them a headache next, then communicate in various ways their belief that it's a product of some brainy, nerdy people way back or something. Never dawns on them that a coin flips the same on average whether anyone's there to see the result or not. Math is only discovered by us, not invented. The math is real. Unfortunately, the interpretations are often way off and fairly obviously so.

So what are electrons, photons, gluons,...
What is gravity, damn it!?

Getting there.. Don't worry..

 

[Grumblenuts]

A bit about gravity. Picture The Aether as a loose three dimensional grid or net composed of extremely extensible and compressible nylon fiber. It can and does easily stretch and compress almost everywhere locally, but it has a default density. As with any spring that can be both stretched and compressed that always returns to its default length whenever there's nothing causing it to deform. So what is gravity? It's The Aether attempting to return to its default density wherever some bit of matter displaces some of it. Similar to the buoyancy of a rock placed under water, only in the reverse direction. The buoyant force acts upward making the rock lighter while gravity continues PUSHING the rock downward exactly as it would without the water. That's right. Pushing. No novel concept at all. Counterintuitive for sure though which may be why physicists have generally have spit at the notion, though Newton and Einstein remained highly neutral.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Actually, we begin to "see" nothing and if you are in a mind for fantasy, you may begin to "intuit" the above...intuiting, however, is a far cry from empirical evidence. Little wonder you are on board the climate crazy train...pseudoscience seems to fit you to at T/

SSDD your hypocrisy abounds. Your fake physics is every bit as bad. Your intuition in science is abysmal.
.

Wuwei, SSDD always comes off like a farcical, paid troll. Earns no response. But please do expand upon anything I've presented here that you've found "as bad" as SSDD's pathetic attempts to deny AGW. In each instance please include anything you find more compelling and why. Thanks.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What makes the most sense, not just because some big shot may have said so, but actually considering the information currently available to us? That is what I'm always most interested in hearing about and discussing.

So again, no one still having ever seen any of these so-called "sub-atomic particles" (not including neutrons and protons), Occam's Razor says they're not really "particles" at all since a simpler explanation plainly exists that has yet to be seriously challenged.

Joseph Larmor:

so far as theories of the ultimate connexion of different physical agencies are allowed to be legitimate at all, they should develope along the lines of a purely electric aether until critics of such a simple scheme are able to point to a definite group of phenomena that require the assumption of a new set of properties and that moreover can be reduced to logical order thereby: a charge of incompleteness without indication of a better way, is not effective criticism in questions of this kind, because, owing to the imperfection of our perceptions and the limited range of our intellectual operations, finality can never be attained.

But wait, there's la more:

Possibly the only sound procedure is the one which recommends itself on purely philosophical grounds. From remote ages the great question with which, since Newton's time, we have been familiar under the somewhat misleading antithesis of contact versus distance actions, has engaged specul ation,-how it is that portions of matter can interact on each other which seem to have no means of connexion between them. Can a body act where it is not ? If we answer directly in the negative, the spacial limitations of substance are to a large extent removed, and the complication is increased. The simplest solution is involved in a view that has come down from the early period of Greek physical speculation, and forms one of the most striking items in the stock of first principles of knowledge which had been struck out by the genius of that age. In that mode of thought the ultimate reality is transferred from sensible matter to a uniform medium which is a plenum filling all space: all events occur and are propagated in this plenum, the ultimate elements of matter consisting of permanently existing vortices or other singularities of motion and strain located in the primordial medium, which are capable of motion through it with continuity of existence so that they can never arise or disappear. This view of physical phenomena, which was no doubt suggested by rough observation of the comparative permanence and the mutual actions of actual whirls in water and air, was quite probably, even at that time, not the mere idle philosophizing which has sometimes been supposed. It at any rate involves the fundamental consequence that the structure of matter is discrete or atomic—that contrary to d priori impression matter is not divisible without limit: and it perhaps enables us to form some idea of the line of development of those views on the constitution of matter which, as Democritus and Lucretius described them, were considerably ahead of anything advanced in modern times until the age of Descartes and Newton. The same doctrine was prob ably the ideal towards which Descartes was striving when he identified space and matter, and elaborated his picture of the Solar System as a compound vortex.

These so-called "sub-atomic particles," including electrons, are really distinct geometric patterns of electromagnetically coupled energy, some appearing to possess mass while others don't. Electrons don't "occupy" valence shells. They are the shells. Their specific geometries are limited to what's allowed by The Aether due to its own geometric properties. Thus "quantization." Likewise, the speed of transverse wave propagated, electromagnetic light through space is also limited by the geometry and density of The Aether. Longitudinally propagated waves, on the other hand, travel much faster. But, ssshh, no one's allowed to talk about those.

 

[Grumblenuts]

For more about how the electron became a real Santa Claus, read this (pdf), especially the part titled: "Third Commandment, Idolization of the Electron"