The Case for The Aether (resurrected)

[Grumblenuts]

Also obvious nonsense, the "Higgs Boson":

According to Physicist, Simon Singh, an episode aired in 1998 showed Homer drawing up an equation that is very similar to the mass of the ‘God Particle’ and that the equation predicted the mass of Higgs boson. It is quite amazing according to Singh that Homer was able to make the prediction, 14 years before scientists made the discovery.

What's truly amazing is when you Google "atom smashing" (images) Higgs boson crap from 2013 or prior is practically all you find. Hey, we "discovered" the Higgs boson again! What's that make it now, 13 times? Six years have apparently gone by without CERN producing a newsworthy image. And this famed Professor Higgs simply had to be an idiot to begin with for being so unaware that he was just renaming The Aether after himself. Oh, oh, I know Mr. Kotter, it must be a "particle"! Wowsa, what a "discovery"! What BS. So they made a big splash with that news to appease all worried about the billions upon billions spent on this Olympic Texas vs Switzerland atom smashers race and... nothing. No more to see here folks. Corporate profits remain safe for billionaire investors. Now go back to sleep.

 

[Grumblenuts]

And now for the so-called "Laws of Thermodynamics"!

Zero: "if two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third one, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
One: "also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system"
Two: "the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time."
Three: "the Entropy of a system approaches a constant value as its temperature approaches absolute zero.

There obviously being no such thing as "an isolated," "closed," or "ideal" system," these "Laws" clearly apply only in realms of fantasy. Each presents a textbook example of Wishful Thinking fallacy: "When the desire for something to be true is used in place of/or as evidence for the truthfulness of the claim. Wishful thinking, more as a cognitive bias than a logical fallacy, can also cause one to evaluate evidence very differently based on the desired outcome." Not that these are dumb statements. They're just way oversold as can easily be seen by looking each one up individually at Wikipedia. No sooner is the absolute "Law" asserted, the inevitable list of caveats (excuses, exceptions) begins. Taking the third for example, it would make perfect sense to say things tend to get less active as they approach absolute zero degrees. As a "Rule" (of thumb) that would serve nicely. Calling such things "Laws" is just begging for a fight which is stupid. More on this later..

 

[Grumblenuts]

Following logically from the previous, here are some statements or axioms one can make regarding energy:

1. Energy never changes from one form to another.
2. Energy is Aetheric dipoles (potentials) being created and dissipating back to their default state.
3. Energy is always created and destroyed.
4. Energy is work (in work's verb sense).
5. Energy in any cyclic process (involving waves or rotation) regauges, or in other words, creates and dissipates dipoles (potentials) cyclically.

More on inertia next..

 

[Grumblenuts]

Acceleration = change in speed per unit of time.
As a mass accelerates more Aether per unit of time is encountered, locally increasing The Aether's relative density.

More (somewhat redundant) axioms:

Inertia is The Aether's reACTION to mass acceleration(*).
Inertia acts to resist acceleration(*) locally.
Inertia is a property of The Aether and not of mass.
Inertia results from mass acceleration(*) changing The Aether's relative local density.
Inertia is therefore The Aether acting to diminish the created dipole, ie return to its local default density
Inertia acts to reduce any local dipole created by accelerating(*) mass.
(*) - (or deceleration)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The CERN team has done a fabulous job of confirming and measuring the Higgs Boson.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Their confirmation and measurement of unique spark patterns that reappear whilst smashing protons into one another was "fabulous"! Especially for those shelling out the billions in hopes of some smashing result. Having nothing to report would have indeed been quite dull by comparison. Someone would have likely been shot or otherwise sacrificed to the boson god.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Hilarious how the mass units are provided in terms of volts, mass is energy, energy is momentum,.. everything is really just energy except we insist upon everything also being a wave and, most importantly, a particle! Everything is anything we want it to be or say it is at any given moment. Yet we* constantly pride ourselves on our precision and attention to detail!

* - quantum mechanics - thanklessly repairing, tweaking, and tweeting the atom's "standard" image, all up in your grill, every damn day

 

[Grumblenuts]

Why does it matter? One may well ask and I'll get to that next, but why do I care so much is the really confounding question? I still don't know. All I know is that my 7th grade introduction to physics ripped my guts apart. I recall being simultaneously fascinated and disgusted nearly every damned day. The teacher sucked of course but it went way beyond that. I sensed more than understood that I was being taught fundamental lies for no conceivable reason, both in class and within the textbooks themselves. Thankfully, it got better after that. I grew less naive about the nature of people and the world in general, got some much better teachers, and easily aced all related courses. Still, I never accepted what I was being taught. Didn't know why exactly. Just didn't make sense to me.

So why does it matter? It matters because actually possessing a fundamental understanding of what genuinely drives everything we encounter on daily basis would obviously be very helpful to us all... in stark contrast to all the bullshit we've been taught, so encouraged to assimilate and brainlessly defend year after year since. What bullshit? Good question. How's this.. What is a particle? I mean in terms of say "Particle Physics".. Wouldn't you agree that if your chosen field of study or employment begins with "Particle" then you should be able to explain exactly what you and your peers mean when they use of the term "Particle"? Is that really too much to ask or am I just making too much sense? Now check this out:

In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a subatomic particle with no sub structure, thus not composed of other particles. Particles currently thought to be elementary include the fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, antiquarks, and antileptons), which generally are "matter particles" and "antimatter particles", as well as the fundamental bosons (gauge bosons and the Higgs boson), which generally are "force particles" that mediate interactions among fermions. A particle containing two or more elementary particles is a composite particle.

Everyday matter is composed of atoms, once presumed to be matter's elementary particles—atom meaning "unable to cut" in Greek—although the atom's existence remained controversial until about 1910, as some leading physicists regarded molecules as mathematical illusions, and matter as ultimately composed of energy. Soon, subatomic constituents of the atom were identified. As the 1930s opened, the electron and the proton had been discovered, along with the photon, the particle of electromagnetic radiation. At that time, the recent advent of quantum mechanics was radically altering the conception of particles, as a single particle could seemingly span a field as would a wave, a paradox still eluding satisfactory explanation.

Via quantum theory, protons and neutrons were found to contain quarks—up quarks and down quarks—now considered elementary particles. And within a molecule, the electron's three degrees of freedom (charge, spin, orbital) can separate via the wavefunction into three quasiparticles (holon, spinon, orbiton). Yet a free electron—which is not orbiting an atomic nucleus and lacks orbital motion—appears unsplittable and remains regarded as an elementary particle.

Around 1980, an elementary particle's status as indeed elementary—an ultimate constituent of substance—was mostly discarded for a more practical outlook, embodied in particle physics' Standard Model, what's known as science's most experimentally successful theory.[4][6] Many elaborations upon and theories beyond the Standard Model, including the popular supersymmetry, double the number of elementary particles by hypothesizing that each known particle associates with a "shadow" partner far more massive, although all such superpartners remain undiscovered. Meanwhile, an elementary boson mediating gravitation—the graviton—remains hypothetical.

I've hopefully removed all the links and citations for the sake of clarity so check the link above for those. Consider first the part I've highlighted in red. Notice how the last bit "matter ultimately composed of energy" conflicts with what precedes it in no logical way? Not sure what fallacy that is but it's definitely bullshit. Regardless of whether atoms exist, matter could still be "ultimately composed of energy." Duh! Why go there? Why do that? Clearly because modern physics has long deemed The Aether taboo. But that still doesn't explain it because you'll easily find the same boobs describing matter, energy, and particles as synonymous all over the place. They insist on having it every way at once. Matter ultimately composed of indivisible matter, particles, energy.. whatever! Just not The Aether, Please! The green bit certainly doesn't clarify anything! Thank goodness they just threw in the towel around 1980, opting for "a more practical outlook" with 61 to hundreds of "fundamental particles" including not only the purely theoretical, but the "undiscovered" and "hypothetical" as well! So much more "practical" than having just The Aether, neutrons, and protons, of course!

I mean one could still theoretically smash known particles of mass together: protons and neutrons.. then note how these sparks form recognizable patterns. One could still even name those obviously energetic, sparky patterns things like quarks, electrons, beta particles, muons, bosons,.. Hell, all kinds of nonsense, even attribute shit like spin, charge, mass, orbital motion, whatever to these clearly unique Aetheric expressions of pure energy. Kid yourselves all you want. Just don't try to convince (lie to) the general public that you've ever actually "observed" a mass "particle" smaller than a proton or neutron. Because all the genuine evidence has pointed to there being no such thing all along.

 

[Grumblenuts]

From “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916, page 50.

“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory of itself is unable to give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.”

Here even Einstein argues against this notion of electron particles diving in and out of or orbiting the nucleus as depicted in the Bohr atom model. His reasoning after the comma though just exposes his wanton ignorance of the quite healthy, established electrical science of his day. No wonder he still pushed his stupid theory which utterly destroyed the advancement of electrical science for at least the next century.

Returning briefly to that one quote from Wikipedia above: "the atom's existence remained controversial until about 1910, as some leading physicists regarded molecules as mathematical illusions, and matter as ultimately composed of energy." Notice "physicists" bashing "illusions" based in math. Funny, because that's the basic job description of every "theoretical physicist" like Einstein. Unlike experimental physicists like Faraday, Newton, and Tesla who carefully studied and documented verifiable natural phenomena before speculating upon its basic structure or guiding rules. Doubly funny though because, as noted before, math is real. Whether any of us are aware of how to apply it or not, it accurately describes and predicts reality every day like nothing else. To the contrary, it's been the theoretical physicist who's regularly relied upon "illusion" or self-delusional "thought experiment" to describe reality, and often proudly so.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.”

EP Dollard:

Forces of another kind, you mean the dielectric lines of force, removed from obscurity by the Faraday – Thompson concept of induction? Every electron is a motional terminus of a quantity of dielectric lines of force, these lines contracting and stretching like rubber bands, giving motion to the terminus electron. The thermionic electron contracts, pulling the electron, the cathode ray stretching, pulled by the electron. In the former case the lines of force are dissipated, in the latter case the line of force are projected, both cases the electrons assume ray like motion, with non participating lines of force filling the voids, directing the electrons. Hence, it is the electrons travel in straight lines, that is, rays.

These facts have been known from the initial invention of the “Vacuum Tube” by Sir William Crookes, leading to the extensive experimental work into atomic science by J. J. Thompson, and Nikola Tesla. It is here seen that the so-called electron is only a shadow, its apparent physical mass is only an electrical momentum. There is no rest mass to an electron. It is given here the electron is no more than a broken loose “hold fast” under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Are we to believe that Einstein had no prior knowledge of the most prominent theoretical and experimental work of his time?

Professor Dollard explains electricity and more(3.5 hrs):

 

[sakinago]

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..

WTF. This is almost as bad as flat earth theory. Get off of YouTube and actually read some real science. We have observed gravity lensing, time dilations, and more recently gravity waves that Einstein theorized (but moved away from later on). Space-time and relativity, despite being such a counterintuitive theory, is one of the most heavily proven theories in physics out there. You’re article is purposefully using misleading language with things like saying “relativity claims to explain gravity”, when it does no such thing. It explains how it interacts with spacetime, but doesn’t explain what gravity actually is. It attacks physicist for not understanding things like dark energy to discredit them, but doesn’t give an alternative explanation for the observable expansion. Just like a kid making fun another kid for not knowing what a certain sexual term means, when they don’t know themselves. We’ve spent probably a half a trillion dollars and a full century testing relativity, and keep coming up with results that confirm it. Unless you want to believe that hundreds of thousands of physicist over countless years have all been apart of some super elaborate cover up, stfu and actually read the science your talking about. You’re out here talking about black holes and “counter space”, when you don’t even realize that black holes only exist if the theory of general relativity is true.

There’s a reason why ether was the first theory we came upon, it’s because it makes sense with how we observe ocean waves interact...but the experiments and math don’t add up. Yea, Tesla’s energy tower would be cool, but if we had it, we’d never have developed computing. So how does ether account for things we have observed like gravitational lensing, and time dilation?

 

[Grumblenuts]

It has not been my intent to anger you nor diminish your clearly massive ego. I can only try to help you by pointing out where you appear to make sense and where you don't.

misleading language with things like saying “relativity claims to explain gravity”, when it does no such thing.

I feel your pain,.. nevertheless from the internet (OMG!):

General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present.

It explains how it interacts with spacetime, but doesn’t explain what gravity actually is.

So you interpret "to explain gravity" as "what gravity actually is" rather than "how it interacts with spacetime" - fascinating. Pick nits like this a lot?

Unless you want to believe that hundreds of thousands of physicist over countless years have all been apart of some super elaborate cover up, stfu

Countless years? Stfu? Wow, you've really got anger issues! You know you really don't have to read this topic nor respond to it at all. Not seeing anyone pointing a gun at your head from this angle..

You’re out here talking about black holes and “counter space”, when you don’t even realize that black holes only exist if the theory of general relativity is true.

Dollard nicely explains why that's nonsense in the video I just posted. Want to really learn something? That's a great place to begin.

There’s a reason why ether was the first theory we came upon, it’s because it makes sense with how we observe ocean waves interact...but the experiments and math don’t add up.

You've clearly confused QM theories with The Aether.

Yea, Tesla’s energy tower would be cool, but if we had it, we’d never have developed computing.

Internally argue much? Me too, but I try not to do it so publicly.

So how does ether account for things we have observed like gravitational lensing, and time dilation?

Instead of gravity warping space, The Aether is "warped" (made locally more or less dense than usual by objects (masses) which produces the same lensing affects now widely being attributed to "dark matter."

 

[sakinago]

It has not been my intent to anger you nor diminish your clearly massive ego. I can only try to help you by pointing out where you appear to make sense and where you don't.

misleading language with things like saying “relativity claims to explain gravity”, when it does no such thing.

I feel your pain,.. nevertheless from the internet (OMG!):

General relativity (GR, also known as the general theory of relativity or GTR) is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915 and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present.

It explains how it interacts with spacetime, but doesn’t explain what gravity actually is.

So you interpret "to explain gravity" as "what gravity actually is" rather than "how it interacts with spacetime" - fascinating. Pick nits like this a lot?

Unless you want to believe that hundreds of thousands of physicist over countless years have all been apart of some super elaborate cover up, stfu

Countless years? Stfu? Wow, you've really got anger issues! You know you really don't have to read this topic nor respond to it at all. Not seeing anyone pointing a gun at your head from this angle..

You’re out here talking about black holes and “counter space”, when you don’t even realize that black holes only exist if the theory of general relativity is true.

Dollard nicely explains why that's nonsense in the video I just posted. Want to really learn something? That's a great place to begin.

There’s a reason why ether was the first theory we came upon, it’s because it makes sense with how we observe ocean waves interact...but the experiments and math don’t add up.

You've clearly confused QM theories with The Aether.

Yea, Tesla’s energy tower would be cool, but if we had it, we’d never have developed computing.

Internally argue much? Me too, but I try not to do it so publicly.

So how does ether account for things we have observed like gravitational lensing, and time dilation?

Instead of gravity warping space, The Aether is "warped" (made locally more or less dense than usual by objects (masses) which produces the same lensing affects now widely being attributed to "dark matter."

I’m open to alternative theories in physics, I think multiverse/string theories are convenient cop-outs. But ether theory died when general relativity came around. I’m not confusing anything with QM, other than what we absolutely know as to how photons behave (and it isn’t in an ether). They’re particles, that behave like waves. You haven’t explained why we see time dilation occur with astronauts in the ISS, who’ve been whipping around the earth at 17,000 mph for months. If you wanna say ether does that too, than ether is indistinguishable from spacetime. We’ve also seen gravity waves from two colliding black holes billions of light years away warp our own space on earth. So yes gravity does effect space, and in turn effects time. Einstein’s theory predicted black holes, which they were considered possible, but maybe not likely up until the 50s. Turns out they’re real, so I guess it was just dumb luck that Einstein’s theory just happened to mathematically prove black holes?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I don't think I've actually gotten around to explaining gravity yet, but I'll give you the short version since you've brought it up.

ether was the first theory we came upon, it’s because it makes sense with how we observe ocean waves interact

Somewhat, but not really. Water analogies are probably our best tool for understanding it though. To consider The Aether like water then we must first fully immerse ourselves in it. The common 2D QM surface wave analogy is indeed misleading and nearly total crap. Not only must we fully immerse ourselves, but the water itself must extend endlessly in all directions (3D) with no surface nor bottom. Thus we have no weight nor buoyancy without adding more ingredients. Denying the existence of water might then be an equally attractive notion if we could survive such a condition. Now we will experience weight and buoyancy if put ourselves close to the Earth or some other large mass due to the Le Sage effect. The Aether being somewhat displaced by our mass never gives up trying to get in just as actual water increasingly pushes on you from every direction the deeper you immerse yourself. The Aether pushes on both you and the Earth from all directions. However, being in close proximity to the Earth mathematically produces a significant net push toward one another. That is gravity.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I’m open to alternative theories in physics, I think multiverse/string theories are convenient cop-outs.

Good, and dunno about "cop-outs" but definitely misguided and often seemingly complex for the sake of complexity, i.e. dazzling everyone with BS to try and substantiate ongoing funding and continue having something to publish.

But ether theory died when general relativity came around.

Thankfully, not true. Tried like hell, sure.

I’m not confusing anything with QM, other than what we absolutely know as to how photons behave (and it isn’t in an ether). They’re particles, that behave like waves.

You're entitled to your opinions. Me mine. What "we absolutely know" not so much (from either of us).

You haven’t explained why we see time dilation occur with astronauts in the ISS, who’ve been whipping around the earth at 17,000 mph for months. If you wanna say ether does that too, than ether is indistinguishable from spacetime. We’ve also seen gravity waves from two colliding black holes billions of light years away warp our own space on earth. So yes gravity does effect space, and in turn effects time. Einstein’s theory predicted black holes, which they were considered possible, but maybe not likely up until the 50s. Turns out they’re real, so I guess it was just dumb luck that Einstein’s theory just happened to mathematically prove black holes?

Indeed I haven't gotten to everything I wish to here yet. But I will try to address those things when I have more time..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Their confirmation and measurement of unique spark patterns that reappear whilst smashing protons into one another was "fabulous"! Especially for those shelling out the billions in hopes of some smashing result

Silly, specious character assault. Empty, worthless point.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Must check it out next time I'm in Indiana. Such a fun fort!

 

[Grumblenuts]

You haven’t explained why we see time dilation occur with astronauts in the ISS, who’ve been whipping around the earth at 17,000 mph for months. If you wanna say ether does that too, than ether is indistinguishable from spacetime.

Einstein wasn't wrong about everything. The math does indeed work out the same for time dilation. A returning moving clock will read slow compared to any fixed clock at the starting point because increased movement through The Aether (or any movement through denser Aether) takes up more time than sitting relatively still. For the record, Einstein never actually argued against existence of The Aether. Post Michelson-Morley he convinced himself that The Aether was an unnecessary consideration. To his credit, he subsequently doubted that presumption for the rest of his life. Unfortunately, doubting himself privately did nothing to repair all the damage he caused. Also, it was Maxwell, a true genius, who first spotted the 1/c^2 proportionality common to multiple physical relations such as mass and energy. And it seems Einstein found ways to take credit for the work of others more than that once. Perhaps that was his "special" genius.

We’ve also seen gravity waves from two colliding black holes billions of light years away warp our own space on earth. So yes gravity does effect space, and in turn effects time. Einstein’s theory predicted black holes, which they were considered possible, but maybe not likely up until the 50s. Turns out they’re real, so I guess it was just dumb luck that Einstein’s theory just happened to mathematically prove black holes?

What they label a "gravity wave" is clearly an unusual pulse of varying Aetheric density. You should expect any big explosion or collision of matter in space to transmit such pulses through The Aether, eventually reaching us, especially given The Aether creates (and destroys) all matter, space, and gravity to begin with.

 

[sakinago]

You haven’t explained why we see time dilation occur with astronauts in the ISS, who’ve been whipping around the earth at 17,000 mph for months. If you wanna say ether does that too, than ether is indistinguishable from spacetime.

Einstein wasn't wrong about everything. The math does indeed work out the same for time dilation. A returning moving clock will read slow compared to any fixed clock at the starting point because increased movement through The Aether (or any movement through denser Aether) takes up more time than sitting relatively still. For the record, Einstein never actually argued against existence of The Aether. Post Michelson-Morley he convinced himself that The Aether was an unnecessary consideration. To his credit, he subsequently doubted that presumption for the rest of his life. Unfortunately, doubting himself privately did nothing to repair all the damage he caused. Also, it was Maxwell, a true genius, who first spotted the 1/c^2 proportionality common to multiple physical relations such as mass and energy. And it seems Einstein found ways to take credit for the work of others more than that once. Perhaps that was his "special" genius.

We’ve also seen gravity waves from two colliding black holes billions of light years away warp our own space on earth. So yes gravity does effect space, and in turn effects time. Einstein’s theory predicted black holes, which they were considered possible, but maybe not likely up until the 50s. Turns out they’re real, so I guess it was just dumb luck that Einstein’s theory just happened to mathematically prove black holes?

What they label a "gravity wave" is clearly an unusual pulse of varying Aetheric density. You should expect any big explosion or collision of matter in space to transmit such pulses through The Aether, eventually reaching us, especially given The Aether creates (and destroys) all matter, space, and gravity to begin with.

Oh how convenient, ether behaves exactly like space-time, I suppose ether is also effected by gravity like space time is?

 

[Grumblenuts]

I suppose ether is also effected by gravity like space time is?

Funny, I've explicitly addressed that question already for you. What's "convenient" is presuming to comment without even bothering to read.

More to come..