Dear Pierre

Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments.

2. Point N° 7: "And a ruler is a material object we use to compare and delimit a particular length, without M, space would be meaningless too, for there would be nothing to relate the sizes. For such reason space itself should be a material continuum even if there were no ponderable objects to refer".

Space could exist without M, but such space would be irrelevant from within the void because space serves to locate matter. Matter here is first of all a set of points. Points precede lengths. Points can be singular, referential. You seem to behave in an affine space (with length-like concepts) as if you were in a purely vector space (not relying on reference points).

Well, from my view space is made up of matter, therefore matter serves to locate matter. My view of space is as a material continuum which follows the laws of fluid mechanics. And I think that points do not precede length. A length is not constituted of points, but of infinitesimal lengths. This is so because a point is adimensional, that is, its length is zero. Therefore something that has a length cannot be constituted of things that do not have length.

3. Point N° 10: "In a similar way to the points of a circumference in which any arbitrarily chosen point can be the beginning of the circumference, in the same way occurs with the universe, the beginning or end is mere convention to delimit two major events".

The lesson in this illustration of a circumference seems to be that the universe has no beginning. I disagree.

A circumference is a derived notion, the underlying notions being the reference point and any relative point. Thus, the circumference is a set of points emerging from a reference point. The beginning of the circumference is the center. Thus, the lesson of your illustration is that the Beginning can give way to new entities of which He is not direct part.

The use of a circumference was just to try to express an analogy so the reader understand my ideas. Please do not take it literally. Sometimes it is hard to express what one feels and thinks because we all humans have different educational and social backgrounds and levels of sensations. For instance, 30 celcius degrees may be for you hot but for others not.

The main idea here is that what I did suggests that the universe has no beginning of time. If you do not agree with this I would be grateful if you let me know your arguments.

4. N° 12: "It follows that the universe must be infinite in extension". Here you say the universe is infinite. I agree because if our thinking allows us to perceive infinity, there could also be One with the ability to materialize what we merely aspire to reach. Power precedes intelligence.

Well in fact, I have followed the principle of induction to conclude that the universe must be infinite, but since, so far, I cannot prove it, I leave it as a fundamental problem to be solved. I think that it is more important to understand what we mean by "infinite".

5. N° 13: "From the previous reflections it follows that there is only one universe." There could be a spiritual universe next to a physical universe with no obvious link between the two universes.

In paragraph 13, I also said in parenthesis "or of whatever nature" this includes a spiritual universe. If a spiritual universe exists it must either interact or have some influence with the physical one, otherwise it would be meaningless for humans; and like the mathematical universe, it is just invented by my being. So, if one considers that a spiritual universe exists it must be part of the physical universe or viceversa, therefore there is only one universe, possibly made of two parts the physical and the spiritual. When you say "with no obvious link" you may be saying that the interaction is not simple and direct, that under certain requirements one can have access to the spiritual universe.

It is possible for a given entity to switch states without motion. Geometric conformations of molecules show the same molecule in different states. We cannot obtain one conformation from another conformation through motion. Such molecular states just happen to be. Therefore entities could switch states from one reality to the other without necessarily moving.

Yes, you are right if you conceive motion as an act of changing position of an object as time goes by. But in this case I am referring to the wider concept of movement or motion, i.e., as the act of changing, no matter if what changes is position or a state, or whatever.

Good luck in the contest

Israel

Point N° 7:

"Well, from my view space is made up of matter, therefore matter serves to locate matter. My view of space is as a material continuum which follows the laws of fluid mechanics. And I think that points do not precede length. A length is not constituted of points, but of infinitesimal lengths. This is so because a point is adimensional, that is, its length is zero. Therefore something that has a length cannot be constituted of things that do not have length."

Let us assume a length is not constituted of points, but of infinitesimal lengths. Let us consider two such infinitesimal lengths. An obvious operation would be to place one length next to the other, the result being a new length. The question then arises: where does the first length end and where does the second length begin? It is safe to say the first length ends where the second one starts, because the lengths are contiguous. Therefore, the end of the first length is the beginning of the second length. The two lengths intersect. The intersection has no length because the two lengths are contiguous. Thus the intersection of two contiguous lengths is a point. Here, points are part of lengths. In other words lengths are made up of points. Therefore something that has a length can be described relative to some reference: points.

    Dear Israel,

    I enjoyed reading your essay, which shows that profound reasonings can be made without being prisoner of a particular mathematical representation of the Universe. I am interested myself in this aspect, and I developed a mathematical structure that can be used to say general things without being tied to a particular theory. Anyway, my essay is about something else.

    Best wishes,

    Cristi

      • [deleted]

      • Post #12

      "Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

      Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments."

      It is commonly agreed: c = d/t or c t = d

      Where d is relative to location (space), c is assumed constant and t is time. Therefore, there is a relationship between time and a given measure of space. If matter M is observed moving in a 3-dimension space, then there is variation of d (length-or-space-related variable) therefore variation of time t (since the speed c is assumed constant). If we force ourselves within a 1-dimension space to observe matter M, time viewed from the 1-dimension space could be immobile if we assume the movement happens within a 2-dimension hyperplane (in the 1-dimension space, we have: d = 0) and c is constant. Therefore, time in 3-dimension space is reference time because it can flow even when time in 1-dimension space does not flow.

      "Time is relative to space; thus your description of time is a description of relative or spatial time. There is also reference time, which can exist independently of space.

      Forgive me but it is not clear to me what you mean by "time is relative to space" and what you mean by "reference time" Could you please rewrite or extend your comments."

      It is commonly agreed: c = d/t or c t = d

      Where d is relative to location (space), c is assumed constant and t is time. Therefore, there is a relationship between time and a given measure of space. If matter M is observed moving in a 3-dimension space, then there is variation of d (length-or-space-related variable) therefore variation of time t (since the speed c is assumed constant). If we force ourselves within a 1-dimension space to observe matter M, time viewed from the 1-dimension space could be immobile if we assume the movement happens within a 2-dimension hyperplane (in the 1-dimension space, we have: d = 0) and c is constant. Therefore, time in 3-dimension space is reference time because it can flow even when time in 1-dimension space does not flow.

        Point N° 10

        "The main idea here is that what I did suggests that the universe has no beginning of time. If you do not agree with this I would be grateful if you let me know your arguments."

        Concerning the time when the universe began, I will quote a well circulated publication showing the universe was once a singularity.

        If there strong indication about this, I can say the universe started at that time it was a singularity. The circular reasoning saying "what happened before the singularity?" is not relevant. If you were asked about your birth date and you insisted upon knowing your complete genealogy in order to recognize the date given by your mother, such reasoning would be circular, exaggerated. In the same way a very small universe was the Genesis of significant developments.

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        "Evidence Pointing to a Beginning

        All the individual stars you see are in the Milky Way galaxy. Until the 1920's, that seemed to be the only galaxy. You probably know, though, that observations with larger telescopes have since proved otherwise. Our universe contains at least 50,000,000,000 galaxies. We do not mean 50 billion stars--but at least 50 billion galaxies, each with billions of stars like our sun. Yet it was not the staggering quantity of huge galaxies that shook scientific beliefs in the 1920's. It was that they are all in motion.

        Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched, indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an expanding universe!

        Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about our past--and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have started the process--a force powerful enough to overcome the immense gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

        Although most scientists trace the universe back to a very small, dense beginning (a singularity), we cannot avoid this key issue: "If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning."--Sir Bernard Lovell.

        This implies more than just a source of vast energy. Foresight and intelligence are also needed because the rate of expansion seems very finely tuned. "If the Universe had expanded one million millionth part faster," said Lovell, "then all the material in the Universe would have dispersed by now. . . . And if it had been a million millionth part slower, then gravitational forces would have caused the Universe to collapse within the first thousand million years or so of its existence. Again, there would have been no long-lived stars and no life."

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Dear Loty

          I agree with you that the ends of a length are points and that you can find infinitely many points in a length. Points only indicate where a length ends or where two lines intersect, that's all. But if you agree with me that a point is adimensional and that something adimensional has length equal to zero, then you are contradicting yourself by saying that a length is made up of things (points) with zero length. Thinking this way is the same reasoning of Zeno of Elea with his famous paradoxes like the arrow or the dichotomy. If you believe that lengths are constituted of points (of zero length) and that time intervals are constituted of instants (of zero duration) you will arrive at these paradoxes. Please take a look at Zeno's paradoxes.

          Dear Pierre

          First I would like to make very clear something about my proposal. I shall try to be as clear as possible and I hope we do not have semantical problems. In the last part of the introduction of my essay I say:

          ...And I think that another way of growing our understanding of the universe cannot only be attained by abstract theories and experimental observations but by philosophical reasoning as well.

          I must warn the reader that the proposal to be developed in the following pages does not stand somewhat allied to the established corpus of physics,but, however, it can be of great aid to get to the bottom of some of the most

          fundamental puzzles in physics.

          So, what I did was essentially based on "common sense" and my own experience in life and physics, but no more. Unfortunately, the size of the essay is limited and I had to fit this requirement, so many other important things were not published. I did a very deep reflexion of the universe and the essay was developed to be independent of any of theory (i.e. Newtonian dynamics, quantum mechanics, general relativity, string theory, electrodynamics, etc.) and any assumed or established experimental result. In this sense, I got rid of some of the prejudices that some of these theories create in our minds. Like for instance, the idea of the existence of atoms, the principle of energy conservation, the principle of relativity, the principle of equivalence, etc. So I started analyzing what I feel and observe from real life. What has been written there is pure philosophy that I expect most of the readers agree with. I am not being bias following a particular principle or approach from an established physical theory but by following only the laws of logic (the principle of no contradiction, induction, etc.).So, based on this, my reasonings led me to conclude that the universe has no beginning and no end in time and that space must be made up of something. If these conclusions contradict the Big Bang theory or the principles of Quantum Mechanics or General relativity. Then we only have two options, or my reasonings and principles are wrong or some of the principles of these theories are wrong. I believe that if we really want to make a revolution in physics we have to make a radical change, this is why I proceeded like this.

          Therefore when you speak of the beginning of time and the Big Bang you are basing your arguments not on your own conception of the universe but on the conception imposed by the cosmological models which are essentially based on the general relativity. This being said, I would like to make a comment about the following paragraphs you wrote and that I believe they suffer from the same pathology:

          Astronomers discovered a remarkable fact: When galactic light was passed through a prism, the light waves were seen to be stretched, indicating motion away from us at great speed. The more distant a galaxy, the faster it appeared to be receding. That points to an expanding universe!

          Even if we are neither professional astronomers nor amateurs, we can see that an expanding universe would have profound implications about our past--and perhaps our personal future too. Something must have started the process--a force powerful enough to overcome the immense gravity of the entire universe. You have good reason to ask, 'What could be the source of such dynamic energy?'

          These two paragraphs are essentially based on the general relativity and the astronomical observations based on the constancy of the speed of light and therefore in the red shift. The red shift can be caused by the receding of light sources but under other theories can only be caused by the presence of a material medium concentrated between the source and the observer. Therefore under the current accepted theories (accepted does not mean they are correct) the universe appears to be expanding and accelerating. Under other theories, which most probably you do not know because they are not widely known, the universe appears to be static (see for instance the steady model of the universe of Fred Hoyle, there are more approaches which I can provide you if you are interested, or you can check them yourself at wikipedia in cosmological models).

          So, if you have gotten my view, I think you should reconsider your own conception of the universe letting aside any theory and any external influence. Thus, in the case of the Big Bang, it is senseless to ask: What happened before the singularity? Because under the cosmological model there was no time before the singularity. But it would be legitimate to ask: What caused the explosion? In this question, if we believe in the principle of causality (or the principle of sufficient reason, the cause precedes the effect), it is implicit that there must have existed something before the singularity to cause the explosion, because it is a common belief that something cannot happen by chance, if this were the case, then the principle of causality would be wrong.

          I hope you have understood these points. Please feel free to make a comment.

          • [deleted]

          • Post #17

          Dear Israel,

          My essay will support your opinion concerning the point/line issue. Are you aware that Loty's position corresponds to presently mandatory mathematics?

          Thank you for the link you gave to me elsewhere. Did you already comment on Peter Jackson's essay? Aren't his ideas in part similar to yours?

          Eckard

          Dear Israel

          I am impressed and inspired by your excellent essay, which may be no surprise as I found it almost the precise philosophical equivalent of my own, rather more mundane and down to earth offering.

          I agree with almost all, though may now be able to add an interesting 1.3 to your Universe derivation options. Actually this has similarities to the 'big crunch', and it is that it is effectively recycled. I can expand if you wish but it's part of the below;

          Your reference to Hau & Quiang was very helpful as I'd failed to find and cite their work, which is very remiss as you'll see if you can find time to read my essay (2020 vision).

          I belive it meets your a-f requirements. What I hope I can also do however is provide the key to proving your postulate, and the one matter you did not fully square up to - the constancy of 'c' irrespective of the motion of the observer, which is why AE had to 'stipulate' no 'M field' for SR.

          This allows both reality and locality, providing a quantum mechanism for SR, similarly to Hau, and also Stokes so long ago. I suspect you may be one of the few who may understand the discrete field model proposed. (which also leads to the recycled universe).

          I feel far less alone now. I'd very much appreciate your views.

          Many thanks,

          Peter Jackson

            Dear Pierre

            I am sorry but I do not understand what you mean. I am not sure under what theoretical framework you are founding your arguments. Is it in Newtonian kinematics? Special Relativity? General Relativity? N-dimensional manifolds?

            I do not know what to tell you.

            Dear Peter

            Thank you for your interest in my essay. I have read yours which appears quite interesting. I would like to be honest and remark some deep differences that I could not express in my essay due to limitations of size. I will quote the following paragraphs of your essay to make a comment.

            You: Yet we know light moves at c both across deep space and through galaxies irrespective of their motion.

            We must be clear that this does not require 'ether', that there is no 'absolute' space, and that the Principle of Relativity & postulates of SR all apply;

            The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames and the measured propagation speed of light is always c.

            I: In current accepted theories c is considered a constant but you may be interested in the following articles:(1) A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 35 898 (1911), (2) A. Einstein, Ann. Phys. 49 769 (1916).(3) Ye Hing-Hao and Lin Qiang, Chin. Phys. Lett. 25 1571 (2008).

            In (1) and (2), Einstein himself argued that the only way that light deflects is by varying the speed of the parts that constitute the wave front. In other words, that the overall index of refraction varies with position or space. But when Einstein used Riemannnian Geometry to develop general relativity he had to maintain c constant and assume that space had a dynamical geometry. But the opposite is also true, that space is fixed (flat geometry) and that the index of refraction (the speed of light) varies through space near great gravitational sources. Unfortunately, only few people, know the latter view.

            In the following article I explain why the speed of light is constant when it is experimentally measured. And in this one I make clear the issue about the ether.

            They will give you a quite different view of the physics. As you can figure out from my essay I conclude that space is material and therefore one can see it as a fluid or ether. So, this may contradict what you wrote in your paragraphs. I hope this did not disappoint you.

            In relation to the recycled universe, I think it is quite premature to consider that option since we have not understood pretty well the current laws of nature.

            You: I believe it meets your a-f requirements.

            I: Here I have a question, the "it" refers to your proposal and if so, one of that requirements (a-f) says that a theory makes testable predictions, I wonder what predictions your theory makes.

            You: What I hope I can also do however is provide the key to proving your postulate, and the one matter you did not fully square up to - the constancy of 'c' irrespective of the motion of the observer, which is why AE had to 'stipulate' no 'M field' for SR.

            You will find in my articles the answer to this paragraph. Also I have attached an article for a unified theory based on the idea that space is material, the theory is already developed but not widely known. Thank you again for your time.

            Please feel free to make a comment.

            Kind regardsAttachment #1: 2009CChristov_MathCompuSim_80_91_QuasiparticleNonProbab_WaveMechanics.pdf

            Dear Eckard

            Thank you for your comment. Yes I am aware of that. In fact, I used to be in that position, that is what one learns while in school and in the long term it becomes a prejudice which is really hard to get rid of it. This is why one must be critical about the perception of the word. What others do is most of the times reliable just to a certain extent.

            I have read Jackson's essay but although at first sight they appear similar at a deeper level may not. I have given some comments about this in my reply to Peter below. Please take a look.

            By the way, I haven't read yours, I've been looking for it; where is it?

            Israel

            Dear Cristinel

            Thank you for your comments, I appreciate them. I would like to quote something that I wrote some posts above:

            I would like to make very clear something about my proposal. I shall try to be as clear as possible and I hope we do not have semantical problems. What I did was essentially based on "common sense" and my own experience in life and physics, but no more. Unfortunately, the size of the essay is limited and I had to fit this requirement, so many other important things were not published. I did a very deep reflexion of the universe and the essay was developed to be independent of any of the laws established by a particular theory (i.e. Newtonian dynamics, quantum mechanics, general relativity, string theory, electrodynamics, etc.) In this sense, I got rid of some of the prejudices that some of these theories create in our minds. Like for instance, the idea of the existence of atoms, the principle of energy conservation, the principle of relativity, the principle of equivalence, etc. So I started analyzing what I feel and observe from real life. What has been written there is pure philosophy that I expect most of the readers agree with. I am not being bias following a particular principle or approach from an established physical theory but by following the laws of logic (the principle of no contradiction, induction, etc.).So, based on this, my reasonings led me to conclude that the universe has no beginning and no end in time and that space must be made up of something. If these conclusions contradicts the Big Bang theory or the principles of Quantum Mechanics or General relativity. Then we only have two options, or my reasonings and logical principles are flawed or some of the principles of these theories are wrong. I believe that if we really want to make a revolution in physics we have to make a radical change, this is why I proceeded like this.

            I hope that you agreed. Please feel free to make any comment.

            On the other hand I have read your essay which was written quite coherently and intelligibly. However I do not consider myself a good theoretician. As stated in my bio I am more an experimentalist or philosopher than theoretician; and I am afraid I need more mathematical background to fully understand the technical arguments you have developed. Forgive me for not to provide you with an appropriate feedback.

            What is quite clear to me is your geometrical or topological approach to solve the problem. I can suggest you another approach from the theory of fluid mechanics, you may be interested, I have attached it below.

            Good luck in the contest

            IsraelAttachment #1: 1_2009CChristov_MathCompuSim_80_91_QuasiparticleNonProbab_WaveMechanics.pdf

            Dear Israel,

            You may say that your conclusions contradict General Relativity or Big Bang or Quantum Mechanics. My own experience taught me that often, but not always, what appears to be a contradiction at first sight, at a second, or third, or thousand sight may turn out to be just a way things complement each other.

            For example, if you think that your 10 contradicts the possibility of the Big Bang, then you may ponder on Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. Another possibility is that, even with the Big Bang as it is usually considered, the universe appears 13-14 billions years old in some proper time, but we can use a different time scale, a la Zeno, so that the Big Bang is moved in the past infinity. This idea is counterintuitive, but it becomes easier to grasp after playing a while with coordinate systems in the FLRW model.

            Best regards,

            Cristi

            Dear Cristi,

            I agree with your first paragraph. Sometimes things may be complementary and not contradictory, the degree of contradiction may depend on the principles one bases the theories or the arguments.

            As to the second paragraph I have taken a look of Conformal Cyclic Cosmology which is essentially based on the FLRW metric; the latter being one of the solutions of general relativity. This is what I mean by principles. Under other principles (different theories than relativity) other conclusions may be drawn. Unfortunately, they are neither known nor accepted. The fact that they are not known or accepted does not mean they are wrong. Perhaps you may be interested in knowing one of these approaches. It is attached in the post below where I replied to Peter.

            Kind Regards

            Israel

            Dear Israel,

            I see that you think that "space must be made up of something". This puts you in a good company, to name only Maxwell from the "classics", but also many contemporary physicists. In this line, I am aware of alternatives of General Relativity based on models from mechanics of fluid or elastic media, or with various kinds of ether. They may be true, or at least they may capture some essential features of the world.

            As a personal experience, by trying to grasp the idea that "space must be made up of something", I couldn't go beyond the conclusion that, if space needs to be made of "something", that "something" must be made in its turn of "something2" and so on. Knowing from your essay that you are aware of the pitfalls of circular reasoning, I assumed that you have an internal representation of this "something" which satisfies your own exigences, so I did not question your conclusion.

            Knowing that I am just a human being, with no capacity of knowing the true nature of things, I am happy to understand as much as I can from the relations between them. For me, these relations are logical enough when can be put in mathematical form. Even these relations I can't perceive as they really are, but only from my own limited, subjective viewpoint. And they require already much speculation, so going beyond them, to search the substance from which they are made, would be too much for me. I don't think we can study that substance, only our interactions with it, hence the relations. Please understand that I am just telling you what I am trying to do, and I am not implying that you should do the same.

            The two examples I gave you in my previous comment were not meant to appeal to General Relativity to contradict your conclusion that time is infinite, by contrary, I intended to show with them that even the Big Bang as it is understood in cosmological models based on General Relativity, is compatible with an infinite history.

            Best regards,

            Cristi

            • [deleted]

            • Post #26

            Dear Israel,

            My comment on the Christov article seems to be off topic, and it is rather a curious general question. Once more I got the impression that waves phenomena in quantum mechanics are often imagined like those known for acoustic monopoles.

            Since I am an electrical engineer, my picture of electromagnetic waves is different: Dipoles emit transversal (TEM) waves into a wave guide or in free space. Longitudinal em waves are limited to cables, and they propagate with a front speed of typically only 2c/3.

            From calculated em fields one could suspect that, as the opponent of emission theory are claiming, the motion of an emitting dipole does not move the field once it is emitted like a bullet. You already admitted that emission theories are possibly not yet mature enough. Maybe they were prematurely rejected?

            What about the question of vacuum, Guericke's experiments were the starting points of both steam engine leading to the first industrial revolution and electricity. I am only aware of two proven obvious facts about vacuum: There are forces at distance but no immediate action at distance. Correct?

            Eckard

            • [deleted]

            • Post #27

            Dear Eckard

            You: Since I am an electrical engineer, my picture of electromagnetic waves is different: Dipoles emit transversal (TEM) waves into a wave guide or in free space. Longitudinal em waves are limited to cables, and they propagate with a front speed of typically only 2c/3.

            I: Yes, here you are talking about electromagnetic waves that propagate in vacuum or free space (this vacuum can be seen as aether, or a material continuum, I hope you have checked my paper about the Michelson-Morley experiment and my essay) and electromagnetic waves that propagate through waveguides or wires. But if one assumes that space is material (an aether if you wish) you can see it as a fluid. On the other hand, from the theory of fluid mechanics, waves in a fluid can be compressional (longitudinal) or shear (transversal). For instance, if the fluid is a gas like air, we have longitudinal (compressional) waves for sound, that is, acoustic waves. By analogy, if we have a material space (aether), the theory of Christov predicts the existence of shear (electromagnetic) waves and compressional ("acoustic") waves. The latter waves (neither detected nor generated yet by any existing apparatus) should move faster than the speed of light but nevertheless with a finite speed. They could be a consequence of dark energy and dark matter. Since all current technology is electromagnetic-based this may explain why dark matter or dark energy cannot be directly seen.

            These "acoustic" waves have right now a similar status as electromagnetic waves used to have in the age of Maxwell (1863-1888). In its original version (I mean the treatise on electricity and magnetism by Maxwell) Maxwell's electrodynamics predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves but nobody had built an apparatus to detect them or generate them until the works of Hertz and Oliver Lodge.

            You: From calculated em fields one could suspect that, as the opponent of emission theory are claiming, the motion of an emitting dipole does not move the field once it is emitted like a bullet. You already admitted that emission theories are possibly not yet mature enough. Maybe they were prematurely rejected?

            I: Yes, emission theories (ET) are one possibility but to be honest ET have serious problems, since they do not predict the energy-mass relation, and experiments about the constancy of the two-way speed of light appears to contradict them. I do not believe that ET are correct. So far I have not seen more arguments that could convince me of their correctness, in this sense they are still not well developed. From my view, once the electromagnetic wave is emitted, the dipole does not affect in any way the motion of the wave, the traveling disturbance is independent of the source.

            What about the question of vacuum, Guericke's experiments were the starting points of both steam engine leading to the first industrial revolution and electricity. I am only aware of two proven obvious facts about vacuum: There are forces at distance but no immediate action at distance. Correct?

            Yes, I see immediate action at a distance as a synonymous of infinite speed of interaction. Physicists now know that vacuum is not total emptiness, please do not take literally. Vacuum is only a word to say that between to material particles of the standard model (what I called in my essay ponderable matter) there are not any other particle of the same nature; after the rejection fo the aether, physicists were forced to fill this "space" or "vacuum" with the notion of field. Imponderable matter is for me the aether, the space, the field, the vacuum, the spirit, the metacontinuum, call it whatever you like. But the idea is here that total emptiness is incoherence and that interactions among the discrete particles is finite conveyed by some substance that pervades the whole universe.

            Eckard

            Sorry, at the end I did not erase your name,

            Israel