A Return to Absolute and Realist Physics

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Whining has no effect on me.

Peddling long ago discredited hypotheses and claiming to turn modern physics on its head with it is what charlatans do. I have no inclination or obligation to be a peach about it.

a reply to: delbertlarson

Thanks delbertlarson.

I don't think i can help you any further.

So, i'm gonna sit on the side and watch for a while,

I came to ATS with an idea similar to the OP.

I pm'd Arbitrageur as soon as i was able.

One of the first questions was. How do you prove something in science?

He was cool. Provided me links. And. I've not really spoken to him since.

This is the flip side of the status quo.

There are good truthful people who work within it.

It pays their mortgage.

I do understand.

But. The status quo must go.

Here on ATS. I see the same names continuously trying to offer advice and provide useful links. Why do you bother?

You continue to ignore the scientific method.

You should have stopped doing it long ago.

I've even misnamed a cartoon link to see if people read links. They don't.

Yet you continue. Why?

Good truthful people. That's why.

Well. For all you headbangers out there. Who continually bang your heads against a brick wall.And, provide links to hope it helps.

I thank you sincerely. And. I appreciate it.

Don't stop it. Sometimes people do read the links.

So what happens now?

This thread is a weapon.

Please use it.

Do the right thing.

Lets make science real.

a reply to: delbertlarson
I watched the video over the weekend. Roughly the first half is a pretty good recap of some history and philosophical differences in approaches, then the second half gets into some technical issues.

Where the differences are only philosophical, I thought of an old video of Feynman discussing different philosophical approaches to a physics problem. He gives three specific examples of philosophically different approaches to explaining gravity, and then explains these approaches can end up in two different categories:

1. If they are not mathematically equivalent, then we can do experiments to see which approach nature chooses to take.
2. If they are mathematically equivalent, then there's no experimental way to scientifically decide which is correct.

Then he says something like if you like one philosophical approach over another (talking about case 2 apparently) you can beat that disease with training.

Feynman - Many Mathematical Representations and Resulting Paradoxes

So going back to Lorentz aether theory versus relativity, if they both make the same predictions, it's in category 2, but if you have an experiment to distinguish between them, which apparently you think you do, then it's in category 1. If you can't get funding to run the experiment, I doubt anybody here is going to be able to help with that. I think we discussed this before and I think we had a slight difference of opinion on the opinion of Lorentz. I had the impression even Lorentz eventually accepted relativity and abandoned the Lorentz aether theory, and you interpreted his comments differently, but ultimately that's not as important as the experiment and what it might show. Maybe if you got someone more influential interested in the experiment you might be able to get support for it.

Regarding your aether theory, I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of negative mass. I know it's a theoretical concept, and some other theoretical concepts are hard to grasp too, but even with its unintuitive aspects I still find relativity easier to grasp. If you ever do get some experiments performed that your theory explains better than relativity I would reconsider that maybe your theory is right and relativity is not. But without the experiments, here we are with your untested idea.

The rest of your proposals apparently similarly have consequences which fall into the same two categories Feynman described of scientifically indistinguishable philosophical differences, and those which may be distinguished by experiment. I noticed at 21:15 in your video you mention 9 of the 18 results your theory predicts have been found. The obvious question then is, what about the other 9 predictions? The video was long enough as it is so I can understand why you didn't add more detail in that format, but again if more experiments are needed to distinguish between models it would be important to know what they are. Are these results something that could be mined from the experiments running at the LHC for example? They made that data publicly available.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for taking the time to view my video and for your comments.

I watched the Feynmann video, and as usual he makes some good points. One objection that popped up was when he mentioned how things would only work for a 1/r-squared force, but not for other forces. I thought about the magnetic spin-spin force, which does exist in nature as well, but is not a 1/r-squared force.

On the importance of experiments, I readily agree. In my works I have proposed experiments to differentiate my work from that of the status quo. A group-velocity equivalent of Michelson-Morley to see if a physical length contraction exists; 18 predictions for HEP from the ABC Preon Model are given here ; clocks should run slow if immersed in electromagnetic fields if moving aether affects them in the same way as they are when they move through the aether. My high velocity quantum mechanical treatment predicts a Cosmological constant of zero, unlike quantum field theory.

Also please note that I believe, as did Einstein, that the EPR experiments are an experiment that distinguishes absolute from relative theory.

Negative mass simply means if you push on it in one direction it moves the opposite way. I still suspect that it might be possible to rearrange the force laws with appropriate signs to get back to positive mass, but I spent some time on it and was not able to find out how.

For those 9 ABC predictions not yet found, most are at a higher energy than the Higgs. I suspect some will start popping up if HEP continues to search at higher energies. One however has not been found that is at a lower energy. There should be a signature at 69.6 GeV that is nearly identical to the signature for the Z, just at lower energy. Now, it may be at a low enough cross section that it has not been pulled out from the background, or perhaps it has been seen and explained away as some kind of Z events. But it should be there. I would have no idea how to go through all the data to look. Also, there are actually a countably infinite number of predictions, as HEP could produce more and more free preons as the energies go up and up. The 18 are the lowest energy free preon events that I could easily envision, and as I've said, 9 have been found already.

By the way, I sent the letter yesterday to Nima Arkani-hamed. On the envelope I added "Re: The Cosmological Constant Problem". I hope he opens and reads it, and of course I will let you know if he gets back to me.

As for Lorentz's views, I recall that you and I had differing interpretations. Lorentz may well have acquiesced to Einsteinian thinking toward the end of his life, but perhaps not. I guess the important point is that there is a way of thinking that is an alternative to relativity that we should reconsider, as I've shown that it leads to answers to many of the unanswered questions of physics today.

Thanks again for taking the time. I value your comments.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I watched the Feynmann video, and as usual he makes some good points. One objection that popped up was when he mentioned how things would only work for a 1/r-squared force, but not for other forces. I thought about the magnetic spin-spin force, which does exist in nature as well, but is not a 1/r-squared force.

He was talking about a specific example, not speaking in generalities, if I recall correctly. I think he then gave a 1/r-cubed example as a counter example which didn't apply to the specific case he was discussing, so when you mention another counter-example I think you missed his point that he already provided one to show it didn't apply in general. I'd have to re-watch it to confirm, but that's what I remember right now, I could be wrong.

Negative mass simply means if you push on it in one direction it moves the opposite way.

That may be one (very non-intuitive) aspect, but I don't think it's simple because that's not the only implication. There are several papers talking about unlimited unidirectional runaway acceleration without any energy source if a positive mass and a negative mass are near each other. This paper talks about what a great propulsion method it might be, but there's nothing simple about runaway acceleration in my mind.

Negative Matter Propulsion

There should be a signature at 69.6 GeV that is nearly identical to the signature for the Z, just at lower energy. Now, it may be at a low enough cross section that it has not been pulled out from the background, or perhaps it has been seen and explained away as some kind of Z events. But it should be there. I would have no idea how to go through all the data to look.

They offer the primary dataset and a reduced dataset. The primary dataset is huge:

Observing the Higgs with over one petabyte of new CMS Open Data

A petabyte is a lot of data. They also have reduced datasets that may tell you something but I don't understand that much about the reduction process or how relevant the data reduction would be to your area of interest. They do offer a lot of guidance online but I've only looked at some of their simpler examples and not tried to do anything like search for a new signal.

Here's a "Getting started" guide if you're interested:

Getting Started with CMS 2011 Open Data

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks again. It is through discussion that ideas spread and improve.

I am appreciative of the links you sent regarding the data published by CERN. However, I suspect a difficulty. Back when I was at the SSC the overwhelming amount of data was never recorded at all. Since the machines produce such enormous quantities of data, in order to be useful, "data cuts" were made on the fly that only kept a minuscule percentage of what was actually produced. I suspect this is still the case. If HEP researchers know what they are looking for they can tune the "cuts" to produce the relevant data. My hope has been that if the ABC Preon Model is taken seriously enough, the practitioners will tune the cuts to look for the free preonic events. I specify exact energies where they should occur, with sufficiently described decay channels that they should be able to do so. Unfortunately, I am a novice with handling the actual data. Nonetheless, I remain very grateful for the links and hope to dig a bit into them at some future time.

As for the link on negative mass, this leads to another story. I actually met Bob Forward back in the late 1980's. The Rand corporation sponsored an anti-matter conference back when I was a professor at UCLA. My task was to design a system to produce a milligram of antiprotons. I suggested parallel beams of electrons and positrons to do "electron cooling". Electron cooling is the process by which ions have their velocities improved, and my Ph.D. thesis was on electron cooling of antiprotons for Fermilab, a process that was put into place at Fermilab many years after we demonstrated the technology. The problem to get to milligram levels of antimatter was that if you did electron cooling alone you'd run into space charge limits on the electron beam. But by interspersing positron beams the space charge limit could be overcome. They only wanted an existence proof, not a real design, so I provided that. Bob Forward had an idea for propulsion using antimatter, and he needed that source. From there, he had some ideas of cooling beams into gases and then forming antimatter ice droplets that would be slightly charged (I think that was the idea) so you could keep them in place and then use them as a fuel. I believe his dream was getting to the next star. One of the dreams I have as well. Anyway, you'd electron-cool and decelerate the antiprotons until you could put them in a Penning trap filled with positrons, then magnetically cool until they formed neutral anti-hydrogen, then it gets murky to me, then you get the anti-hydrogen ice. It was Bob's (and other people's) idea - not mine! I just helped it along with the electron cooling.

On his paper concerning anti-mass that you reference my thought was different than what he states. He states that

arc.aiaa.org...

negative mass repels all other types of matter, both positive and negative, whereas a positive mass attracts all other types of matter, including negative matter.

My thoughts were more along the lines of just putting -m in the gravity law. If you do that, negative mass attracts negative mass. But again, the whole reason I put negative mass in was so that the equation would work out simply, and once done I had a physical model for Maxwell's equations. Both a video derivation (something like an hour total, broken into approximately ten minute pieces) and the paper itself appear on my website, which I've finally put in a signature. (Please take a look if you have time.) I think you will agree if you look through it that the math is all correct.

I have long wanted to dispense with negative mass, and perhaps someone looking with fresh eyes could do so. The problem is this: a charged particle in free space just drifts - no force. That is our assumption in accelerator design and it holds well. So, if that charge has a drag force from one type of aether, it must have an anti-drag force from the other type of aether to balance the force to zero. Now, one type of aether could go one way and the other type go the other way, but that led to problems in the Maxwell derivation. Negative mass left both types going the same way, and then Maxwell came out quite elegantly.

There is much more to say, but that's probably enough for this installment. Thanks again so much for taking some time on this.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks again. It is through discussion that ideas spread and improve.

I am appreciative of the links you sent regarding the data published by CERN. However, I suspect a difficulty. Back when I was at the SSC the overwhelming amount of data was never recorded at all. Since the machines produce such enormous quantities of data, in order to be useful, "data cuts" were made on the fly that only kept a minuscule percentage of what was actually produced. I suspect this is still the case.

As I mentioned they have the primary dataset and reduced datasets. The primary dataset would take at least 125 x 8 terabyte hard drives to hold all the data, Wasn't it unthinkable to have that much data back when you were at the SSC? The primary dataset even includes data when the detector isn't "on", so part of their advice to have less data to work with is to only consider the data when the detector is "on", so it sounds to me like the primary dataset doesn't leave much out.

Analysis of the collision data

The data are collected by the detector and processed through the HLT. From there, the HLT paths are designated to live inside a specific "Primary dataset" (PD). This is the "quantum" of the computing infrastructure. PD's are distributed in entirety to T1's and T2's, so accessing them is the primary mode that you will be using to access the data. The Primary Dataset Working Group (PDWG) is a good resource for you to keep up to speed with the PD's and their deployment.

There are quite a lot of random triggers that occur when the detector is not taking data, and so to account for this, the best practice is to only run on luminosity sections where the detector was "on". This webpage is constantly updated with "good run lists" in a JSON format that correspond to the "DCS bit" being on, and the detector taking data. By using this "good run list" in your CRAB jobs, you will alleviate strain on the resources and run only on the data that is interesting for you for physics analysis.

My thoughts were more along the lines of just putting -m in the gravity law. If you do that, negative mass attracts negative mass.

What about the interaction between negative mass and positive mass? Do you still predict runaway acceleration without any energy source as Bob Forward describes? I can imagine some bizarre things, but that's more bizarre than I can wrap my mind around.

I have long wanted to dispense with negative mass, and perhaps someone looking with fresh eyes could do so. The problem is this: ...

I think many aether solutions people came up with had some kind of problems. The aether idea seemed to make sense in the days of Maxwell, if you didn't look at it too closely or try to define or measure its exact properties, it was when you got into the details that it was hard to make the idea work. Then there's Occam's razor and that's how it got the axe but as you say that's not proof it doesn't exist. Adding negative mass seems to make it even more complicated, so it doesn't exactly help with the Occam's razor issue. It's wise of you to have thoughts about dispensing with it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I started looking at the downloadable do-it-yourself CERN software. I think it is likely meant more for those in the field to have remote access than it is for a total outsider, but it is cool that it exists. What I'd like to look for is a bump in the production cross section of e+ e- and mu+ mu- events with an invariant center-of-mass energy of 69.6 GeV. That is the one missing preon signature that should already be in the data. There are other predictions as well, but the 69.6 GeV one should be pretty clean.

Generally, people either do the theory or they do the experimental reduction. I've done the theory. It would be most excellent if another participant here with some expertise could look into the experimental reduction. While I hope to have the time to poke around at it some day, it might be slow and error-prone if done by a novice like myself. A question to anyone reading this - can you assist? Or do you know of someone who can assist?

As for that negative mass situation. We are in agreement. I never liked it. If both components of the aether have positive mass, that, along with a new high velocity QM, might solve the cosmological constant problem. (However, if there is an aether, the whole cosmological constant issue might need a rework anyway.)

Indeed I again looked at my derivation to see if negative mass can be removed. If you scroll down to Eq. (11) at this link you can see where negative mass comes in. Below Eq. (11) we see k2/T0' getting set to a negative quantity, and that is what flips the sign of the RHS of Eq. (11). The RHS all comes about because of the proposed flow laws, so if we flip the signs in the flow laws for the negative aether case, Maxwell's Equations will still result. At least I think this is the case - I would need to go through everything to be sure. However, changing the flow force law might lead to that problem I identified before: that the drag force on a free moving charge would slow that charge down if there is no counter-balancing force. The original flow laws balanced things out in that scenario, I doubt that new ones will by themselves. On the other hand, that latter objection is really in the realm of the Lorentz force law, and perhaps what allows free motion is the way the aether gets disturbed, leading to a simple disturbance of charge and field that together flows without resistance. I've been banging my head against the Lorentz force law for months now and while I make good progress parts of it still elude me.

On both of the above points I wish to comment on how science advances. It is rare, if not non-existent, that a single individual advances physics alone. Even for special relativity, it was Poincare who proposed relativity, Lorentz who (building upon Fitzgerald, Larmor, perhaps Voigt) proposed equations, and Einstein made the biggest contribution by putting it all together. However, Einstein didn't do it alone. My work might be more like the Bohr atom, an extremely important first step, but not the end point that we desire to reach. Your continued commenting is helping me by pointing out ways to move things further along. It would be even better if more people joined in, and even better if other people would move things ahead without my direct involvement. (Such as finding the 69.6 GeV signal in the data, or working out the tweak needed to regain positive mass in the aether derivation.)

It is silence that kills ideas from taking root. Thanks so much for keeping these thoughts alive by your comments.

a reply to: delbertlarson

After the spectacular LIGO results, I think challenging relativity is 'singularly' unproductive.

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: delbertlarson

After the spectacular LIGO results, I think challenging relativity is 'singularly' unproductive.

Always most excellent to hear from you. I recall with great respect the discussion we had when I first came to this site.

Did you get a chance to watch the video?

The main point is that relativity began primarily as philosophy, not science. Einstein was influenced heavily by the philosophy of Hume and Mach, and referred to them frequently in his writings. Science, on the other hand, involves hypothesis followed by tests. For the special theory, relativity (first introduced by Poincare and later brought into full fruition by Einstein) was a philosophical departure from the prevailing absolutism that led to the identical Lorentz equations. Up to that point, there was no difference at all that could be tested - since the equations were the same. Hence, relativity began as simply a different philosophy. Several years after quantum mechanics (QM) became established, Einstein, along with Podolski and Rosen (EPR), proposed a thought experiment to see whether it was QM or relativity that would prevail experimentally. It was at this time, since tests were now theoretically possible, that relativity became a science (as it could now be tested.) Bell refined the EPR arguments, and Aspect, Dalibard, and Roger proved it was QM, not relativity, that had experimental veracity. (This assumes Einstein's fealty to realism, which I also embrace.)

For the general theory (GRT), what I propose is that we follow Poincare and Einstein in reverse. That is, we can as a first step accept the EQUATIONS of GRT, yet replace the philosophy with an absolute one. Namely, rather than taking the position that it is relativistic space and time (or spacetime) that is changing as a result of conditions, we can instead take the stance that it is rods and clocks that are changing due to conditions relative to an aether in accordance with the accepted equations, and we can also accept gravitational waves upon that aether. At that point, our departure is purely philosophical, not scientific. We interpret the evidence as rods and clocks changing, not a changing space and time, and we restore much of the classical paradigm (absolutism, realism, a physical luminescent aether, and the primacy of space and time in our physics). The one part of the classical paradigm that cannot be restored its lack of QM. Experiment is quite clear that we must accept QM as part of nature, and QM did not exist in the classical paradigm. (However, we are now open to a realist and absolutist QM.)

Of course, the above philosophical approach is just the beginning. Once we accept the premise that there can be another approach to physics, we can also look for a mechanistic underpinning (a real, absolute, physical model) for the GRT equations, with the hope that such an underpinning leads to close, but somewhat different (experimentally testable) equations. At such a future point, the philosophy would become science.

A return to absolutism and realism also leads to other physics possibilities as well, such as a new high velocity QM and real physical preons. (I believe there is already considerable evidence for preons, and further tests are already enumerated, making preon physics a scientific hypothesis, not just a philosophy.)

I hope you get a chance to think this over as I would welcome your further thoughts, as I do value them. For the moment we appear to disagree, and by fleshing out the origins of that disagreement we may both prosper. It is my opinion that challenging relativity could be enormously productive, and I strongly wish that other serious scientists would join in that challenge, as I believe it could result in a significant advance in our understanding of our world.

originally posted by: delbertlarson
At that point, our departure is purely philosophical, not scientific. We interpret the evidence as rods and clocks changing, not a changing space and time,

Rods and clocks changing is what it means to have changing space and time---how else is changing space and time measured?

The experimentally critical phenomenon is that this transformation applies to all physical substance, i.e. regardless of which field in the Standard Model, the substance come from. That's entirely unlike all the rest of physics, i.e. electromagnetism talks to charged and magnetized particles and not to neutral ones, similar strong and weak forces have their particular affinities and coupling strengths. But not gravity or changing spacetime---that effect works equally on everything. It's weird but apparently true.

and we restore much of the classical paradigm (absolutism, realism, a physical luminescent aether, and the primacy of space and time in our physics).

This sounds a bit like teleparallel gravity. en.wikipedia.org...

But it's still not classical.

The one part of the classical paradigm that cannot be restored its lack of QM. Experiment is quite clear that we must accept QM as part of nature, and QM did not exist in the classical paradigm. (However, we are now open to a realist and absolutist QM.)

Of course, the above philosophical approach is just the beginning. Once we accept the premise that there can be another approach to physics, we can also look for a mechanistic underpinning (a real, absolute, physical model) for the GRT equations, with the hope that such an underpinning leads to close, but somewhat different (experimentally testable) equations. At such a future point, the philosophy would become science.

In what way is GRT not mechanistic and a real physical model? LIGO demonstrated exact and detailed match to observed time series and polarization of gravitational waves in extreme astrophysical events. It's an astonishing prediction and nailed exactly.

A return to absolutism and realism also leads to other physics possibilities as well, such as a new high velocity QM and real physical preons. (I believe there is already considerable evidence for preons, and further tests are already enumerated, making preon physics a scientific hypothesis, not just a philosophy.)

I hope you get a chance to think this over as I would welcome your further thoughts, as I do value them. For the moment we appear to disagree, and by fleshing out the origins of that disagreement we may both prosper. It is my opinion that challenging relativity could be enormously productive, and I strongly wish that other serious scientists would join in that challenge, as I believe it could result in a significant advance in our understanding of our world.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Masterjaden

You're obviously incapable of understanding.

I understand just fine.

I understand that you think spacetime and aether are the same thing.

The aether is not necessary to allow wave propagation. Space time works as the medium.

Yes I understand that the aether isn't necessary. It's being sold as solid science here. It isn't.

Aether theory was abandoned in the 1920s for a reason.

Spacetime is not equivalent to or synonymous with aether.

Einstein acknowledged aether in his 5 May 1920 address at the University of Leiden on Aether and Relativity. So relativity doesn't replace aether, it just doesn't need it to explain the motion of ponderable media. A TOE however will.

....
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Link

a reply to: mbkennel

Rods and clocks changing is what it means to have changing space and time---how else is changing space and time measured?

In the original philosophy of Voigt, Lorentz, Fitzgerald and Larmor, rods and clocks did not always measure time and space. Rather, they only faithfully did so in a preferred frame at rest in an aether. Once they moved with respect to that aether they became affected by their motion and were no longer reliable measuring devices for "correct" space and time. In absolute theory, rods shrink absolutely as they move, but if we have correct rods nearby at rest in the aether we can measure the shrinkage. Real clocks slow their advance as they move, but if we have correct clocks nearby at rest in the aether we can measure this retardation. This is the absolute way of thinking. The famous problem of course is how to measure space and time when our rods and clocks may be failing us.

Relativity changed all that. As I understand the history, Poincare had an important contribution, but it was Einstein who fully embraced the notion that it wasn't just our physical rods and clocks that were being affected; rather, it was also space and time that were changing. This was the important step. While the equations are the same, the two ideas of absolutism and relativity are radically different. For the absolute way of thinking there is one space and one time. For Einstein, nearby to the same point in space we can have a triply infinite set of spaces and times - it all depends upon our motion through that nearby region.

In absolute theory, light was a wave upon the aether. Maxwell also assumed there was an aether and he and others spent considerable effort to come up with a physical underlying model for his equations. So the aether was more than just a single reference frame wherein rods and clocks could be relied upon. It was a real physical entity.

This sounds a bit like teleparallel gravity...But it's still not classical.

Teleparallel gravity is not classical. But I believe that absolutism, realism, a physical luminescent aether, and the primacy of space and time in our physics are classical concepts and my work returns to them. Einstein replaced the primacy of space and time with a primacy of equations and postulates, and from that step absolutism was replaced by relativity and the physical (ponderable) aether became superfluous. In relativity, Maxwell's Equations are accepted a priori with no need for an underlying physical medium. But Einstein held on to realism, and that was a central assumption of the Einstein, Podolski, Rosen paper confronting relativity with QM. Realism was later set aside due to the tests of Bell's theorem, but if we return to absolute theory we can once again fully embrace realism.

In what way is GRT not mechanistic and a real physical model?

By mechanistic and a real physical model I mean going back to the concept of an aether as a real physical entity. My thoughts may be somewhat different than Maxwell's and the original Lorentz thinking, but I believe they are similar. I believe that the aether is a real physical body. It has physical characteristics. It is a solid so that it can support transversely polarized waves. As rods and clocks move within it they are physically altered so that they no longer faithfully represent measurements of space and time. GRT is realist and mechanistic - but it is based on principles, not an underlying physical model.

LIGO demonstrated exact and detailed match to observed time series and polarization of gravitational waves in extreme astrophysical events. It's an astonishing prediction and nailed exactly.

I am not expert nor even very knowledgeable of the science of LIGO, but I always doubt claims of exactness in physics. From what I have seen, we can only measure to about one part in ten to the seven. Beyond that we usually start to have difficulty and rely on assumptions or definitions. And with astrophysics further doubts arise, as how can we be certain of sizes, distances away, velocities, and masses of such distant sources? My guess, being a complete novice, is that the experimental data might be a sine wave with some sort of overlapping envelope, and that the parameters are correlated to other observations happening at the time. I don't doubt that the agreement then is excellent. But the important point I am raising is that we can go ahead and even accept all the equations of GRT but still take the philosophical stance that they arise from an aetherial basis. Our challenge then is to see how those equations can be derived by proposing assumptions about the aether and see if such assumptions logically lead to the equations. Or even better would be if our assumptions lead to slight differences with GRT so that a test is possible. (But the assumptions of course must lead to equations consistent with all known experiment.)

Thanks again for your comments. I hope the above response makes my thinking on these matters clearer. If you see anything wrong, or anything unclear, please let me know. (It would also be helpful if you let me know if everything looks clear and correct.)

a reply to: glend

Thanks for posting Einstein's comment regarding the aether. My proposal is of course different from Einstein, as I am proposing a ponderable aether consisting of parts that can be tracked through time, a proposal that is much closer to the thinking of Maxwell.

a reply to: delbertlarson

I am proposing a ponderable aether consisting of parts that can be tracked through time, a proposal that is much closer to the thinking of Maxwell.

I don't have the brain to even comprehend the task you undertake. But it be funny if mass was compressed aether. If I lived back in Michelson-Morley time, I could have hit them over their heads with a bat remarking, I have found the aether that you said doesn't exist.

Good luck with your endeavours.

"Thanks for posting Einstein's comment regarding the aether."

I found the link to Einsteins comment on a paper proposing that light, red shifts when it enters and leaves gravity wells, explaining why 99% of the observable universe is in redshift. Hate to be a cosmologist if that's correct.

Physics as it is today got out of control because the math it is based on has fundamental flaws and does a bad job of symbolically representing actual reality. Specifically, math is terrible at representing distinct points of view, which is the fundamental way we all interface with existence. Math is generally done as if there is an external viewer / commenter looking at a scenario objectively from a distance. That is definitely not the way reality works.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Hi, thanks for commenting.

Physics as it is today got out of control because the math it is based on has fundamental flaws and does a bad job of symbolically representing actual reality.

The above sentence appears to assume an actual reality. I support an actual reality, as did Einstein. But, as mentioned in the video, Bohr and others were not realists, and it is the thinking of the non-realists that has dominated physics for many decades now. I don't think physics is at all "out of control", but I do think that the abandonment of non-local reality is a serious issue, and that if we return to realism we will answer many if not all of the major unanswered questions facing physics today.

Specifically, math is terrible at representing distinct points of view, which is the fundamental way we all interface with existence. Math is generally done as if there is an external viewer / commenter looking at a scenario objectively from a distance. That is definitely not the way reality works.

In my view, our thoughts about objective reality should first be stated in words, and then those words should be translated into math. The math should then logically lead to quantifiable predictions for tests, and experimental tests should tell us if the predictions are born out. That then should tell us if our thoughts, words and math are closely representing reality or not.

I believe that the present way of having only principles, math and experiments is missing the important steps of assuming an objective reality and preparing word-based descriptions of that reality prior to the formation of the math. A physical model should be possible to convey in words, and it is the lack of physical models that I see as the major problem in physics today. But I don't see any problem with the math itself - how else can we make quantifiable predictions to test against?

a reply to: delbertlarson

OK, I am impressed.

I am especially impressed by your observation that much of what passes today for physics is indeed philosophical rather than realist. Philosophy is fine, but it proves lacking when actual uses for the philosophical-based physics is desired.

I will need to dig a little deeper into your equations to make more constructive comments... the disadvantage of video is that it is becomes difficult to follow the entire path unless one does so blindly. However, you have done an exceptional job of showing the pathway you used to arrive at your conclusions, so a little research deeper into your work should be simple enough to accomplish.

i have done some work on the nature of gravity and its relationship to quantum entanglement and dark matter/energy... perhaps when I am at a more developed position in that work, we can discuss it. My conclusions thus far may assist you in furthering your work.

Thank you for a great mental stimulation!

TheRedneck

a reply to: projectvxn

Then they bring up long debunked garbage like the aether.

That is a common misconception of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Michelson-Morley assumed the aether being sought was unaffected by matter. It proved that such an aether did not exist. However, an aether could still exist which is affected by matter, as I postulate. Indeed, my postulation is that not only is the aether affected by matter, matter exists as a wave function trapped in the aether and also affects the aether itself in turn.

TheRedneck

a reply to: delbertlarson

Ok im unclear on something whats the point of adding a variable of a static aether? It causes additional math with zero benefits. All Einstein
did was show coordinates given by the Lorentz transformation are moving frames of reference with inertial coordinates.

It also made predictions that turned out to be wrong such as the aether wind, gave the wrong answer for simple problems like the transverse doppler effect. And don't get me started on elastic matter thats just overly complicated when o can just use points in SR.