sci.physics.electromag

On 11 =D0=B0=D0=BF=D1=80, 19:34, Laurent wrote:
> On Apr 11, 6:03=C2=A0am,vps137 wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 11 =D0=B0=D0=BF=D1=80, 14:02, "Szczepan Bialek" wro=
te:
>
> > > U"vps137" napisal w wiadomoscinews:6b6162e4-71be-4d=
f4-8e7d-d8b90916d531@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > > On 11 =C3=81=C3=90=C3=92, 00:09, "Szczepan Bialek" w=
rote:
>
> > > >> Do not you know that in 1925 Michelson and Gale detected the moveme=
nt of
> > > >> the =C2=A0Earth?
> > > >Yes, I know.
>
> > > But the most of the society don't take into account it and guess that =
MMX
> > > and MGX gives null result.
>
> > > So you know that the MMX and MGX gives the same result (0.46 km/s for =
the
> > > equator) because at noon and at midnight they measure the same.
> > > Do you know that the star aberration, MMX and MGX are evidences that t=
he
> > > Solar System is a rotating disc?
> > > S*
>
> > Yes, I saw different values of MMX, from 30 to 8.4 km/s. (f.e. Consoli
> > & Costanzo,
> > 2003). While the most said it is far below the accuracy and set it to
> > zero.
> > About Solar System rotation I have been never =C2=A0heard, but it is in
> > full correspondence
> > with my picture of the star and galaxy formation, published in
> >vps137.narod.ru/article3a.html.
> > The solid body rotation of =C2=A0the our galaxy seems to fix already as
> > well. It extends up to 5 times more
> > then the radius of galaxy.
> > Valery S.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> There are two schools of thought; one says the Aether is immaterial,
> the other sees it as a dynamic fluid, or particulate in nature... like
> matter.
>
> These days space is seen as grainy, but space and empty space are two
> different things. Leading cosmologists picture the universe as a
> bubble floating in empty space. This is where Alan Guth's 'false
> vacuum' comes from. Like Einstein said, there is no absolute space,
> space is an extension of matter. Space is not primary, nor
> fundamental, it does not exist by itself, it is a product, just as
> matter and time are products. Space is dynamic, it fluctuates, it
> tells matter where to go and matter tells it how to curve. Empty
> space, on the other hand, is primary. See, there is empty space then
> there is material space, a mix of ZPR and CMBR particles. Einstein's
> spacetime is packed-full of photons, that is where Inflation, the Big
> Bang, etc., all come from.
>
> Aether and matter are two different things and if you were to stop the
> motion within matter it would go back to being just flat empty
> space... or Aether.
>
> You can not call this vortex an Aether particle, as if the Aether had
> turned into something else. The Aether is supposed to be immutable and
> eternal, the vortex is simply an artifact, an apparition of sorts, it
> does not matter how small a particle may be. It could be 10^-58 cm
> (the so-called Kolmogorov particle), still, when you reduce yourself
> to the size of that particle what do you get? More empty space. The
> field is not the ultimate irreducible reality. Aether and fields are
> two different things. The Aether was before there were photons... or
> quanta... or information.
>
> There are fields because of these qualities of the Aether, which are
> administered or directed at the Aether level. Rules followed by
> fields, not by the Aether. The Aether acts like a traffic light
> directing energy flows as self-organization takes place. The Aether
> tells fields how to behave. It holds and imparts the laws that matter
> follows as it organizes itself through a process similar to the
> process cell automata follow, where a system can reach great
> complexity as it follows a small set of rules, these rules being the
> four fundamental forces of Nature.
>
> The Aether itself is not observable, you can not say - here, lets take
> a look at this chunk of Aether! - because it is immaterial. Real but
> not in spacetime, hence, not directly observable. This is why the MMX
> (the Michelson-Morley experiment) failed so miserably. But you can
> measure its effects; things like inertia, gravity, magnetism,
> electricity... etc.
>
> From the MMX results, we should conclude that the Aether is immaterial
> and directly unobservable. Now, if there was an empty space,
> independently from the universe, before there was matter, is it not
> the classical vacuum immaterial and directly unobservable too? Can we
> take a direct measurement of something which is not matter? The only
> thing proven by the MMX was that they did not understand the Aether's
> nature. You want to measure drag caused by the Aether? Just measure a
> moving object's momentum... or measure the force needed to accelerate
> any object... that is Aether caused drag!
>
> --
> Laurent

I would agree with your estimation of the eather. The traditional
eather really doesn't need neither in classical physics, no in quantum
mechanics and astrophysics. But it had only three dimensions. It is
not sufficient to describe all phemonema in the nature and therefore
it failed. And the way to "save" eather is to endow it additional
dimension. It mustn't be the temporal dimension as in SR or as many as
in standart
models where they are compactified. The most simple model is 4D
euclidean space..
Then you will not be right when you say that the aether is immaterial
because the eather will be the single matter. Then all may to consider
as consists from the eather. But one hardly can imagine that such
eather, or better to say medium, fills all infinite space. Therefore
we are to accept that it is only in the closed regions, universes. The
light in this picture is the surface waves and all we see and feel is
the eather, more correctly the 3D surface of eather. Because of the
surface tension the universes must have spherical form. And they must
move in space and collide with eath other. In our Universe we see the
result of the collisions as stars and galaxies. And as all other
things too.

Valery S.