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
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
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
Dear Cristi
Thank you for your reply. Indeed you may classify me with those who believe in the aether. But there is a philosophical difference with Maxwell's view. Maxwell had a Newtonian notion of space, he believed that space existed as a vessel or container for bodies, and independent of them. Therefore, he also believed that the aether was filling space. In this sense space was for him something with no material properties. This belief can be still found today. Some physicists believe that space exists (or a background) and they fill it with the Higgs field or any other, certainly the context is quite different but the idea is almost the same. In contrast, I am saying that the aether, the vacuum, the space, the ubiquitous field are the same thing. I am not filling nothing. The notion of field that I have in mind is just a state of that subtle matter in the sense of Maxwell and some of this kind. On the other hand, currently most physicists think of a field as a quantity that varies in space and time and carries momentum and energy with independent reality of matter (of the standard model) and space and time. This notion is the legacy of mainly Oliver Heaviside and Einstein.
You: 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.
I: Yes I have an internal representation, and my argument is simple: Since I am saying that space is made up of matter, I cannot say, "so on" (please see the paradox of Aristotle in my essay). Matter cannot be made up of another thing, it is just made up of matter and that is it. I am considering matter as a primordial entity or substance.
You: 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.
I: I definitely agree with this paragraph. O. Heaviside said almost the same as you. He mentioned that one could only make conjectures of the nature of that primordial substance (aether) but one could never know its real nature. Believing or not in that substance has many implications in the logical consistency of a mathematical model that, in spite of its limitations, the model could be a better approach to reality than others, like for instance general relativity.
You: 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.
I: Well, yes and no. This is why I have emphasized that one should be coherent as much as possible in both ordinary (baggage) and mathematical language (points c and f of my essay). Strictly speaking the Big Bang model says that there is a beginning of space and time and the question "what was or happened before the Big Bang?" is not legitimate. It cannot be asked. In this sense there is a contradiction with my essay. If one appeals to the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology it may not be the case.
You also argue that one can play with the coordinates and change the scale of time to the past infinity, but if you do this you will probably contradict the observations based on nucleosyntesis, etc. and the whole model will be in problems.
As an ad: Very recently I have been analyzing the physics of the Special Relativity (SR) and Maxwell electrodynamics. And I think I have found a serious paradox that clearly suggest that electrodynamics is not compatible with SR concerning the exclusion of a privileged frame. As you may recall electrodynamics was formulated to be valid in a privileged frame of reference. Right now I am working in this paradox that if I succeed, it would make us entertain the validity of SR. If you are interested in this we may keep in touch to discuss these matters beyond this forum.
Israel
Dear Israel,
Since my essay is available, I hope you will understand why the question of SR vs. Ritz is of rather marginal interest to me. I consider just one argument of Ritz still valid: Future does not act back on the past.
I agree with you. The word vacuum must not be interpreted as just nothing. Guericke demonstrated the pressure of air, not an absolutely empty space. Nonetheless, I would be cautious equating field and aether. While the latter is thought to be a medium, electric or magnetic fields can be superimposed. They can even be taken away.
What about TEM and longitudinal em waves, the latter do not propagate faster.
Anyway, I expect you taking issue concerning my admittedly rather indirect support for uncommon ideas.
Regards,
Eckard
Dear Dr. Perez,
Thanks again for visiting my essay "Steps Resulting From Digital Reality" (subtitled "Science Out Of The Straitjacket: Rethinking General
Relativity, E=mc2 ... and String Theory"). Just as Oskar Klein prepared a quantum version of Theodor Kaluza's 5-dimensional spacetime in 1926 and Leonard Susskind wrote a string-theory version of Gerard 't Hooft's holographic principle in 1995, I had a dream that I was writing a quantum or string-theory version of your essay in 2011. Well, that may not be the case, but it prompted me to get out of bed and type a few of the points on which our essays agree and disagree.
First, we both believe "... some of the most fundamental problems in modern physics might turn out to be fictitious." I'd say dark energy and the multiverse are the most prominent examples. Maybe you'd like to hear my thoughts on these. Before I go any further, I should acknowledge your materialistic view of the universe and warn you that the next paragraph disagrees with this view -
DARK ENERGY - Page 180 of "The Grand Design" says "Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative." Since there was no gravitation in our universe prior to the Big Bang (we didn't even have a universe), this sentence can be combined with the "backward causality" (effects influencing causes) promoted by Yakir Aharonov, John Cramer and others to explain that gravity's negative energy gives us no reason to think that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere - as Professors Hawking and Mlodinow put it "Bodies such as stars or black holes* cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can." Maybe it's only playing with words, but I'd regard gravity as repulsive instead of attractive (its energy would then be positive like matter's and the universe could be more than a vast collection of the countless photons, electrons and other quantum particles within it; it could, as #8 (in my essay) proposes, be a unified whole that has particles and waves built into its union of digital 1's and 0's (or its union of qubits - quantum binary digits). And the article "Gravitation" by Robert F. Paton in World Book Encyclopedia 1967 agrees that gravity is repulsive - "Einstein says that bodies do not attract each other at a distance. Objects that fall to the earth, for example, are not 'pulled' by the earth. The curvature of space time around the earth forces the objects to take the direction on toward the earth. The objects are pushed toward the earth by the gravitational field rather than pulled by the earth." Repelling gravity would cause the universe to expand - as astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) confirmed in 1929 - and adding repelling gravity by continual "creation" (actually, recycling) of matter via the small amount from a preceding universe which is used to initiate expansion of its successor (or by dreaming and our brains using negative energy and antiparticles in them to do work effortlessly and to accomplish feats that would be thought of as miracles while we're awake) would cause it to expand at an accelerated rate - this acceleration was discovered in 1998 by observations carried out by the High-z Supernova Search Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project, has been confirmed several times and is claimed to be caused by mysterious "dark energy".
Regarding "our brains using negative energy and antiparticles", I'm reminded of Professor Roger Penrose's ideas on microtubules and the quantum functioning of the brain. However, my own ideas are inspired by the previous page of "The Grand Design". On p. 179 of "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow (Bantam Press, 2010) it's stated
"One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive ..."
and "... if the energy of an isolated body were negative ... there would be no reason that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere."
The only problem with those sentences, in an "everything is everywhere and everywhen" universe, is the word isolated. There can be no such thing as isolated in our cosmic-quantum unification. Does this mean you and I (plus all things in time and space) are a union of both positive and negative energy, able to display both separateness/solidity (isolation) as well as the potential to appear anywhere and everywhere? Page 179 also says "(the positive energy of a body) means that one has to do work to assemble the body." Does this mean the positive component of the Cosmic-Quantum Union refers to an actual computer performing work by sending out the binary digits of 1 and 0 (in hyperspace) while its negative component refers to the universe being like a dream, and to binary digits that are transmitted by "telekinetic independence from technology" (see the end of #9 in my essay). In 1928 English physicist Paul Dirac (1902-84) proposed that all negative energy states are already occupied by (then) hypothetical antiparticles (particles of antimatter) - "Workings of the Universe", a book in the series "Voyage Through The Universe", by Time-Life Books 1992. This has ramifications for the subatomic particles called mesons which bind protons and neutrons together to form the atomic nucleus, in much the same way that gluons are said to bind together quarks which are said to be the constituents of protons and neutrons. Mesons are always composed of a quark-antiquark pair i.e. of a positive energy-negative energy pair. So when we're dreaming and our brains are using negative energy, they're not merely using a much lower degree of positive energy to do work but the antiparticles in them are receiving greater expression, allowing us to do work literally effortlessly and to accomplish feats, like appearing "anywhere and everywhere", that would be thought of as miracles while we're awake.
Writing these views is not intended to merely transfer my essay to this page, because THEY ARE NOT PART OF MY ESSAY. I had intended to include them but as you point out "Unfortunately, the size of the essay is limited". For example, I do agree with you entirely that the universe is infinite and eternal. However, I don't need to go into long explanations here since my reasons for believing this can be found within my essay.
Also, you tell me that "Time travel is not possible ..." My essay goes into a lot of detail explaining how to travel into both the future and the past. Neither future nor past can be altered (a blow to our belief that we have the free will to shape the future) and my explanation of travel to the past requires re-interpretation of the concepts of "multiverse" and "parallel universes". It also requires the ability to travel billions of light years INSTANTLY. This sounds like pure fantasy, but I outline an approach based on electrical engineering, General Relativity, and Miguel Alcubierre's 1994 proposal of "warp drive" that makes it logically possible (personally, I think it's not only inevitable but our descendents are doing it right now ... that's how a person thinks when he or she is totally believes non-materialism and cosmic-quantum unification are "done deals".
Good luck with your essay,
Rodney
Dear Cristi
I made a little mistake. In the first paragraph of my last replied I wrote:
...I am not filling nothing.
The correct is: I am not filling anything.
Sorry
Israel
Dear Eckard
I agree with your first paragraph. As to the second one concerning aether and field, I can say the following:
Maxwell had a Newtonian notion of space, he believed that space existed as a vessel or container for bodies, and independent of them. Therefore, he also believed that the aether was filling space. In this sense space was for him something with no material properties. This belief can be still found today. Some physicists believe that space exists (or a background) and they fill it with the Higgs field or any other, gravitational, electromagnetic, etc., certainly the context is quite different but the idea is almost the same. In contrast, I am saying that the aether, the vacuum, the space, the ubiquitous field are the same thing. I am not filling anything. The notion of field that I have in mind is just a state of that subtle matter in the sense of Maxwell and some of this kind. On the other hand, currently most physicists think of a field as a quantity that varies in space and time and carries momentum and energy but above all with independent reality of matter (of the standard model), space and time. This notion is the legacy of mainly Oliver Heaviside and Einstein.
On the other hand, I have read your essay. I can see we have some points in common, particularly, what you mentioned in a previous post about the idea of adimensional points. As I told sometimes these things become a prejudice quite hard to get rid of it. I also agree with the idea of the infinite quantities, this is a problem that dates back to Aristotle and it has not been appropriately solved. I think your work emphasizes theses issues that I am sure it could shed light on the nature of numbers, points, etc. In fact, I have been studying the problem of infinite quantities, you may be interested in seeing the surreal numbers, that apparently solve the seven indeterminacies and say something about the division by zero.
Best Regards
Israel
Dear Rodney
Thank you for your comments. I would like to say something about them.
[In relation to Dark Energy] Based on the Newtonian theory of gravitation, the gravitational force is considered to be attractive. Based on General relativity there is no gravitational force but a curvature of space-time. And if one bases one's arguments on other theories, one will probably conclude that the gravitational force is in reality neither a force nor a deformation of space-time but a flow around the earth (see the World of Descartes), or any other thing. Thus, if Dark energy or the gravitational force are attractive or repulsive, that would depend on the theory one uses. I assume you are basing your arguments on General relativity and quantum mechanics.
As to time travel, first of all, I would like to know the onthological notion of time you have. Once one has a notion of time one can discuss if time travel is possible or not. I have exposed my notion in my essay and I have given some reasons to you why time travel is not possible. But I have not seen your notion with your own words. You quoted what others say. Please tell me in some sentences what you understand by time.
Kind Regards
Israel
Dear Israel,
Let me briefly add something concerning my understanding of the notion field. What about your comment on my essay, I will reply there as to just once answer questions, which others might share with you.
To me a stationary electric field as well as a magnetic field can either attract or repel. I am in position of switching them on or off at will. Gravity is also stationary but always attracting at least on earth. I see abundant indications conforming my suspicion that negative energy, backward causation and the like go back to unjustified generalization of mathematical results. Electromagnetic fields are also peculiar: They propagate always forward even if they appear as standing waves for instance due to repeated reflection from end to end in a waveguide. In all, I see various possible fields that can fill what you seem to understand as the field. Correct?
Is it a too naive shot of mine in the dark to consider the electromagnetic result of all actually superimposed photon fields their own aether?
Regards,
Eckard
Hi to both of you,
Dear Rodney,
Are you serious??? The relativity never says that it's possible to travel in time.The concept of space time is a concept of evolution, relativistic.
The only thing you can, is the check of the internal duration of your motion system,we can thus go in theory in the future but we can't return at home.Thus why??? Furthermore the technology is so not possible and useless.
The past can be seen only by interpretations of our datas and analyzes,we see our past in the stars, there also it's just a problem of human evolution, we are indeed young at the universal scale.
I understand your confusions just in seeing your methods.You use too much theories without real phsyical senses.The multiverses, the strings,the reversibilities of time.....all that is false and implies, thus in your line of reasoning, many confusions as this time travel.The rationality is the sister of our foundamentals. Our constants are our constants!!!
Best Regards and good luck for the contest.
Steve
Dear Eckard
I am sorry but I am afraid that I did not understand well what you mean in your first paragraph. Could you be please more clear and explicit.
As for the second. I recommend that you read the below attached papers. C. Christov exposes from a different perspective how particles and fields can be unified in a simple and conceptual theory (solitons). He also explains what a charge is within this context and gives a better account of what this ubiquitous field is. I believe that this will give you a wider idea of what I understand by such field.
With respect to the propagation of electromagnetic fields, very recent studies show that they do not always propagate forward. This forward propagation only occurs in the radiation zone. Budko has shown experimentally and theoretically that in the near and intermediate zones fields propagates inwards. Please take a look of his paper.
As for your last question, I am not sure if I understand it well. But if I do, I might say that the aether was the medium for the propagation of waves, just like air is the medium for the propagation of sound.So there is no problem if waves superposed this is allowed by the theory no matter if the aether exists or not. If you think of photons this is the quantum version of a wave, but the principle of superposition also applies. Please do not get confused, the aether was the medium, i.e., the substance that filled empty space... with this idea in mind, today people think similarly, space is empty and they fill space with fields (electromagnetic, gravitational)... this is why I say that the aether is the field, but it is only one that causes the electromagnetic and gravitational effects.
Kind Regards
IsraelAttachment #1: 1996CChristov_WorldScientPub_Proc_Discrete_out_of_Continuous.pdfAttachment #2: 2009NVBudko_PhysRevLett_102_020401_ObservationNegativeVelocity.pdf
Hi Steve
I think that your previous post was aimed to Rodney, am I right?
best regards
Israel
