• [deleted]

  • Post #25

Mark,

I am with you on most of your explanations. Yes, similar to hole-flow theory but it isn't a complete absence of the aether, the amount remaining depends on the wavelength. Where GR utilizes observers comoving with positive density particles that make up a perfect fluid, I would use observers comoving with reduced density waves in a perfect fluid. It is a classical gauge theory of GR, sort of like a photographic negative of particles.

As for the hyperspace, what is this hypothesis required to account for that one simple aether universe can't?

Hi Jeff,

I mentioned hyperspace for two reasons. First, I wanted to convey the idea that the fundamental building blocks of our universe, and others like it, are aether waves; the physics constants c and h are characteristics of those waves. Second, hyperspace is a fun idea that might even be true. Hyperspace is a way to beat relativity by traveling faster than light, without time travel or any of that impossible stuff. Sure you could travel fast enough, faster than light, to see your own light image jumping into hyperspace; but you can't stop it. You can't stop yourself from jumping into hyperspace.

If there were aether waves with a speed of light characteristic, then there would be no distance and no progression of time. Is it possible to make the aether waves of our space-time cease to exist inside of a 55 gallon drum? Or some suitable volume? I don't know.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #27

James,

Ah, I see, you are looking if there are any openings in our physics which might allow for things which are currently considered impossible. I wouldn't call it hyperspace, but the concept of concentrating vacuum interests me since it might have some of the same characteristics you are looking for. I have no idea how it could be done but since it should change some of the parameters such as permeability and permissibility, travel might appear faster than light to an outside observer watching a traveler enter and exit such an area.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I've thought about hyperdrives for a while and this is what I think needs to occur. First, we must discover the gravity drive; a gravity drive is an opto-electronics device that can generate an acceleration field equivalent to gravity. In other words a device that can curve space-time. In my essay, I descrescribe such a device.

Second, such a device must generate an acceleration field from a curved surface that is stronger than the event horizon of a black hole. In other words, the acceleration at the event horizon of a black hole is,

[math]a = \frac{v^2}{r} = \frac{c^2}{r}[/math]

If you build acceleration field generators on a spaceship that can create acceleration fields stronger than this, from a hemisphere with a radius smaller than r, then the spaceship will enter hyperspace.

Am I describing it clearly?

Jason Wolfe

8 days later

  • [deleted]

  • Post #29

Hi Jason,

Missed your reply earlier. Only thing I can definitively state is that I don't know. Not countering anything you are stating but before we tackle something like this I would feel much more comfortable knowing exactly what mass and inertia are. Mass plays a pivotal role in the Schwarzschild radius, and it seems it would be helpful to understand the equivalence principal in order to be able to predict the effects you are proposing. I think we are missing something very foundational.

Regards,

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

The only building blocks I am using are aether medium waves that obey

[math]c = \lambda f[/math]

Mass is of course made of particles; each particle has a unique frequency signature or fingerprint. That way, when a particle and antiparticle annihilate each other, gamma rays are released. A particle is just a composition or cluster of aether waves, a cluster of aether waves frequencies. There is energy content that excites those aether waves across a range of frequencies.

Inertia is just the tendency of matter to continue to occupy the same set of aether waves as it moves through space. The reason that we feel acceleration and deceleration of an automobile, for example, is because when we slam on the breaks or apply the gas, we are forcing the particles of our body, of everything in the car, to change to another set of aether waves. Aether waves are things that extend across space. Inertia is when we travel along the same set of aether waves. We feel a force when we change to another set of aether waves.

    Hi Jeff,

    The whole idea of aether waves is that I wanted to be able to say something about the properties of space and time from a mechanistic point of view.

    Wave-functions are just mathematic solutions for quantum systems; wave-functions are not considered to be physically real objects. Just because I can't physically touch a wave-function doesn't mean that it can't be something that carries the ontological properties of space and time.

    If the vacuum of space was made of wave-like objects that acted like quantum waves, then it would be no surprise that we have to use wave-functions in the QM mathematics that describes quantum systems.

    What about special relativity? After all, it is pretty strange that all inertial frames observe the speed of light (vacuum) to be the same. So I followed that logic. If wave-functions, however unphysical, are somehow responsible for the characteristics of space, then such waves should obey the speed of light (somehow). We're talking about waves.

    [math]c = \lambda f = \frac{1}{sqrt{\epsilon_0 \mu_0}}[/math]

    is a wave equation. Why not let aether waves embody the characteristics of light such as the permitivity and permeability of free space? Then, we let the wavelength of these aehter waves (which behave like wave-functions) express the existence of distance in space.

    Likewise, we have a whole range of frequencies. Why not let the frequencies of the aether waves cause the progression of time in an inertial reference frame?

    • [deleted]

    • Post #32

    Jason,

    If I don't answer, please leave a note in my thread so that I get an email. Not a big fan of this forum format since it doesn't seem possible to subscribe to someone's thread.

    You and I are thinking along the same lines. To me the easiest way to tackle this is through known errors in equations and once those are corrected to understand how we have been missing the wave equations within them. But first we need to understand why General Relativity can be so accurate in producing answers, but yet still be so incorrect. The only way I know to do this is to invert the equation so that instead of solid "particles" moving within a void, the stress energy tensor describes waves moving within a solid. From that point we can figure out wavelengths and how waves embody the characteristics of light such as the permitivity and permeability of free space, as you state and I agree with. Easy formula switch but the conceptual changes will take a while to intuitively understand, however without doing this first I think we are fighting an uphill battle.

    I added a small sketch to my thread to help better explain what I mean, let me know what you think.

    Jeff

    19 days later

    Hi Hoang,

    Thank you for taking the time to read my essay.

    You asked: "Does there need to be a particle with mass for everything have volume? If so, then why the mass of everything change when moving from the Earth to the Moon? Higg boson is lighter by the Moon's gravity is weaker than of Earth?"

    According to the famous equation E=mc^2, mass is just stored energy. This stored energy can be released in a particle-antiparticle annihilation event. When that occurs, both particles are converted to photons (gamma rays).

    The mass of something, let's call it mass m, is the same on the Earth, the moon, in space, everywhere. What changes in the acceleration of gravity. The gravity on earth is 1g, so the force that a mass exerts on a scale is F=mg. On the moon, the acceleration of gravity is much less (approximately 1/6), so the force of gravity is F = (a/6)*m = ma/6.

    Again, thank you for reading my essay.

    Best wishes,

    Jason Wolfe

    Dear Jason,

    I think the aether medium is made not only of waves (photons and neutrino) but also of charged particles. With this is possible to explain the electrical force and gravity. The structure of medium is found in the Theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter (my essay).

    Sergey Fedosin

    Jason,

    You bring an interesting point. Question: Have the permittivity and permeability been ever measured in other than Earth's gravitational field, say near Sea Level?

    Vladimir

    Hello. This is group message to you and the writers of some 80 contest essays that I have already read, rated and probably commented on.

    This year I feel proud that the following old and new online friends have accepted my suggestion that they submit their ideas to this contest. Please feel free to read, comment on and rate these essays (including mine) if you have not already done so, thanks:

    Why We Still Don't Have Quantum Nucleodynamics by Norman D. Cook a summary of his Springer book on the subject.

    A Challenge to Quantized Absorption by Experiment and Theory by Eric Stanley Reiter Very important experiments based on Planck's loading theory, proving that Einstein's idea that the photon is a particle is wrong.

    An Artist's Modest Proposal by Kenneth Snelson The world-famous inventor of Tensegrity applies his ideas of structure to de Broglie's atom.

    Notes on Relativity by Edward Hoerdt Questioning how the Michelson-Morely experiment is analyzed in the context of Special Relativity

    Vladimir Tamari's essay Fix Physics! Is Physics like a badly-designed building? A humorous illustrate take. Plus: Seven foundational questions suggest a new beginning.

    Thank you and good luck.

    Vladimir

    Hi Jason,

    Glad to see you in another contest. I worked for Tektronix a few years back, in large screen CRTs.

    Yes, the world does change.

    I like your presentation, and would like it even better if you got rid of the Aether and have a type of wave that just connects masses without any substance in between.

    However it still desirves a high rating.

    Best of Luck,

    Don L.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #39

      Hi Jason,

      With not many days till the end of community voting I would really appreciate it if you could take a look at my essay. If you feel able to give some thoughts on it that would be helpful. It is a very different offering from last years. Much easier to read. I hope it is also enjoyable and a bit surprising, as well as methodically presenting a solution to the set essay question.

      I haven't forgotten your meteoric "last minute rise" up the ranking in last year's contest. So I remain hopeful of some reshuffling of positions "late in the day".

      Kind regards Georgina

      Hi Don,

      It's pretty amazing to meet someone else who worked at Tek. I hope you've moved on to bigger and better things.

      The aether is meant to express that the vacuum of space and the geometry of space-time are "something", a medium of some kind, as opposed to the scientifically accepted "nothingness". The Michaelson & Morley experiment struck down "aether particles" and "aether winds" and paved the way to special relativity (which is accurate). SR and GR are very accurate mathematical descriptions of physics. But space and space-time are not made out of mathematics; they are made of some kind of medium which has properties. Such a "fundamental medium" is obviously not made of atoms or particles. In my view, this fundamental medium is made of that which wave-functions are meant to describe.

      Thank you for looking at my paper. Good luck in the contest.

      Jason Wolfe

      Hi Georgina,

      It is always good to hear from you. Yes, I will read your paper and evaluate its elegance.

      Good luck to you in the contest.

      Best wishes,

      Jason Wolfe

      After studying about 250 essays in this contest, I realize now, how can I assess the level of each submitted work. Accordingly, I rated some essays, including yours.

      Cood luck.

      Sergey Fedosin

      Hi Jason ,

      I don't know if you have yet read the essay by Benjamin Thomas Solomon. His interest is interstellar travel and I thought that since you two have that interest (and determination) in common, you might be able to have some fruitful discussion. I told him I would mention his essay to you.

      Hi Georgina,

      Sure, I'll take a look at Benjamin's paper.

      Jason

      Hi Vladimir,

      If you change the permittivity, you change the electric field strength and the voltage. We've sent probes beyond the earth's gravity. If the permittivity was changing, it would mess up the circuitry in these probes. Since there are probes (satellites) that still work beyond earth's orbit. then the permitivity isn't changing.