Zephir

I think, you may be interested about Aether Wave Theory. Do you know, the first article of Albert Einstein in sixteens was dedicated to Aether Theory? It may still be necessary for ab-initio explanation of constant speed of light, strings, brane structure of vacuum and fundamental particles, the postulates of GR and QM and so on. Most of human knowledge remains based on ad-hoced postulates without further reasoning.

This is the formation of fluctuations from fluctuations inside of condensing supercritical fluid - the probable mechanism behind all this complexity observed by AWT

Inside the another, even larger Universe, and so on... Power of conformity, addition, There's a 20% Chance we're living in the Matrix

I've no problem with the rest of your post. On the contrary, the AWT makes the evolution an virtually universal paradigm. Not just the people or creatures are evolving, but even the stars and elementary particles are all under the same mechanism of evolution, based on random mutations and selection. This is pretty strong concept and every evolutionist must be pleased by such conclusion. But. Such smooth causal evolution considers an existence of virtually unlimited amount of inertial matter and energy at the same time. Exactly this matter, which we are believing, it cannot evolve from anything else. Such matter and energy must be created. And such immense amount of matter can be only created by omnipotent being. So what? We can see, the evolution and creation are both undeniable dual concepts of reality understanding. They cannot be separated each other. The evolution can never replace the creation concept. It requires it on the background, instead. The more evolution, the more creation will be required. The AWT just makes such conclusion crystalline clear.

I can understand you, but this is what the "lack of feedback" means. In capitalism and money saving environment such approach is somewhat luxurious.

You told ".. (Darwin's) theory has grown to become more accepted because rigor was applied to it..." This is factual nonsense. Every math is based on logic, if this logic isn't working, then the whole math model cannot work as well. Therefore the development of formal model cannot make the underlying logic more or less valid. This is the consequence of causual hiearchy in derivation of complex logic from the simple one. In fact, such derivation can just introduce another mistakes, this is the reason, why we are trying to have theories as simple, as possible. But from your stance follows, you're don't believing so. The blind reckoning of math models in theories is just a sort of false belief.

I'm not requiring you to trust anything. If you don't believe, the AWT concept is relevant view of reality, you can disprove it. If you believe so, you can use mine arguments or to collect other ones. Is up to you, if you'll believe more logic, or the math, which is based on such logic. But please, don't try to make an illusion, the people are believing in evolution just because it has some math built-in recently. This is simply BS. The people are believing in logic, and the math cannot change the logic, on which it was applied - or it would become a circular reasoning. The predicate logic is even fundamental base of math rigor. If some theorem doesn't fulfills the logical rules, it's considered as a conjecture. The contemporary scientists are adhering on math, because they're believing, it enables them to cover a logical holes in their theories before publicity. Such approach is a sort of new theology. But you cannot reveal a logical errors in theories by using of math, but only with by using of logic again. Believe it or not, the logic always goes first and it has last speech. For example, who cares about beauty of geocentric model and the complexity of its mathematical predictions, if it doesn't fills the trivial logic of Venus phases or stellar parallax? If the logic isn't working, whole the math based on it is wrong as well, sorry. And this is why I'm using a logic in my reasoning. And this is why the scientists are calling for math, although the math can just support the underlying logic, it can never deny it. Literally speaking, they're under naive hope, the math derivation of Venus phase can changes the logic in Venus phase sequence and/or it will scramble the complexity of the subject enough to cover the problem in logic before publicity. The contemporary scientists are sort of druids or medicinmans of modern era. They don't like to use a simple words, a simple explanation, the simple refusal of their theories the less. On the other hand, they're using a quite simple arguments against concurrent theories very often: "This logic lacks the math, therefore it's not science, therefore it doesn't belongs into the realm of scientific discussion at all." Can you see the problem here? By such approach you can refute even the Darwin's or Galileo's arguments immediately. How is it possible, the contemporary intepretation of proclaimed "scientific" method can lead to refusal of arguments of these guys without problem? Something is rotten in the kingdom of Denmark... So, if you're missing some math in AWT, try to refute its simplest logic first. After then you can ask for some more complex logic and try to refute it again. But not vice-versa, due the Occam's razor principle.

The U(1) group is just an low energy representation of Maxwell's fluid. Try to imagine, you're jumping on thick elastic foamy mattres. Until the frequency of jumps remains low, every piece of foam will move in circles, it belongs into U(1) symmetry group. But if you'll start to jump more intensively, the situation will change: the elastic mattress will not undulate in toroidal way anymore and it will make an spiral-like twisted motion. This is because the torsion ring is behaving like gyroscope, as it's exhibiting a resistance against further motion. After then the elasticity of hidden dimensions will take place. This enables the light wave to undulate perpendicularly to the direction of wave spreading, i.e. to exhibit the spin.

Just a circle group can never become chiral, sorry. And the light wave can be chiral w-out problem: we can have left-handed photons and right-handed photons independently, sorry. Just show us some chirality on the example of U(1) transform...

Only for EM wave without spin. U1 cannot have a chiral symmetry.

Nope U(1) group only introduces singlets. But the Maxwell's equations are introducing spinor symmetry, bacause the light can have spin. Yep, exactly - the additional forth dimension is illustrated by red color here.

The Maxwell's model as such violates such case. It's easy to derive all these relativistic transforms, based on SU(2) gauge invariance from Maxwell's equations. After all, this is why the Lorentz transforms are named after Lorentz, not after Einstein, who just have used them for derivation of space/time dilatation. Everybody can see, in the dense elastic fluid the mechanical energy doesn't propagate in sound waves only, i.e. in longitudianal waves. The waves in fluid are always polarized. But the Maxwell's fluid is strange in every extent. It's not just "elastic fluid", it's infinitelly elastic one. It means, every piece of such fluid can be deformed by the same way, like the bulk, ad infinitum. We can observe this by formation of vortex rings in fluid. In just 3D fluid the spirallike vortex rings cannot exist, in vacuum can.

You're right, it's just an evidence, no less, no more. After all, this is how the physics is working in the last one hundred years. The simple evidences are both exhausted, both ignored. Just a few experiments can really prove the subject directly, the evidence in most cases remains mediated by many conceptual layers of experiment interpretation. For me the existence of Aether is evident from simple implication: "Energy is spreading in waves through matter in waves. The light energy is spreading in waves through vacuum, therefore the vacuum is matter as well" and I'm not required to prove anything else about it. But the science is claiming (without proof), such simple implication cannot serve as a direct proof of Aether. What else to do, after than? Of course, the number of direct evidences is limited. If you ignore them intentionally, then you're required to consider some other less or more derived correlations. You're right, as the SU(2) gauge group invariance is special case of gauge invariance (but the SU(2) group isn't the only result of Maxwell's theory, which is much more richer). This is why I'm saying. the Maxwell's theory itself cannot explain all properties of vacuum, the quantum properties in particular. Literally speaking, the inertial fluid cannot serve as an exact model of nested supercritical foam of AWT. Therefore the Maxwell's equations in its present state have no great meaning in AWT, they're supposed to be only special case of the solution.

I'm interested, how you can derive Maxwell's equations from special relativity? Why do you don't want to hear "they look just like the fluid equations so it must be a fluid"? How do you want to prove, some concept is equivalent to other, after then? After all, currently I've no reason to care about equations of some other theories. The mainstream science is saying, the Aether concept is inconsistent with postulates of mainstream theories. To disprove this I'm not required to derive anything, but these postulates.

Why it should be? Without Aether concept of nested density fluctuations such idea has no justification - if it would have, we wouldn't hunt for unparticles already. It's like the introduction of string concept - some the ad-hoced idea first, the experimental evidence sometimes later (if ever). Such guessing is not the optimal way, how the physics should develop for future. Especially if we have many much more logical concepts untested yet (the Aether and Heim theory as an examples). My personal feeling is, the unparticle physics was Aether Wave Theory motivated on the background anyway. By the same way, like the string net liquid hypothesis and many other recent concepts, which were introduced ad-hoc suddenly. They're all just an attempts of mainstream physics proponents, how to hide their motivation and how to avoid the Aether concept in the eyes of publicity. Einstein: "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources".. A pretty upright and pragmatic stance, to say it diplomatically...

You're not required to apply biased criterions to my ideas, which leads to such discussion undeniably. I'm presenting here my ideas like others and I'm not interested, if you're considering them as a scientific theory or not. I'm only interested, if you can invalidate them by some relevant logical arguments. Even nonscientific theories can exist without problem and labeling them nonscientific doesn't disprove anything. I've a much to say about topic subject, as I already did. Do you want to discuss the theories of life origin? If not, what are you doing here at all? Why I should introduce another topic?

We are in the thread name "EXPLORING the Origin of Life and Conscience". No formal deductions are expected here, because even the subject has no formal description developed yet. Galileo has proposed his heliocentric model with only qualitative proofs. By your fabricated criterions (where we can found the evidence of it?) the heliocentric model would be hypothesis. Einstein has proposed his special relativity theory in 1905 without any proposal, how such theory can be tested experimentally in his time. By your fabricated criterions it simply means, it was just a hypothesis. BTW, the first test of special relativity was based on muon decay by Rossi and Hall in 1941 - until then, no experimental evidence of STR was given. As you can see, your criterions were falsified by two most significant examples of scientific theories at all. Why? Such example are demonstrating pretty well, how some mainstream science proponents converted into close minded sectarians, who are fabricating criterions, which wouldn't allow even Galileo or Einstein to present their findings as scientific theories! The Characteristics of Pathological skepticism: 1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt. 2. Double standards in the application of criticism 3. The making of judgments without full inquiry 4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate 5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks 6. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof 7. Pejorative labelling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science." 8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof 9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims 10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence 11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it 12. Tendency to dismiss all evidence 13. Organized skepticism tends to be automatically pathological The bolded criterions will apply even to your case, ladies (..and gentlemans).

I'm the no-one. The whole problem is, inside the dense fluid just the very subtle density fluctuations can be observed. Therefore every dense fluid will behave like empty environment with nearly no obstacles, i.e. like boson condensate, or super-fluid. While such dense super-fluid is behaving like very thin gas from relativity theory perspective, it's still very dense environment from the quantum mechanics theory perspective. Both theories are dual - it means, they're describing the same reality from the very opposite sides of it. The math isn't good tool for realizing this, because it becomes singular less or more suddenly at the moment, we are switching these perspective mutually. By AWT such experience is the consequence of the nested foam structure of vacuum, which is serving nearly exclusively for inertial energy and (thus) information spreading. If we place some pot into soap foam with light bulb, then the light bulb will flow over whole volume of foam, no matter if it will sit just inside of pot or not. In foam mediated geometry the outer and inner perspective makes no difference, therefore we are observing our Universe both from inside, both from outside at the same moment. For example, the CMB of 3 K in temperature can be intepreted as a Hawking radiation of black hole, whose lifespan is about 150+ GYrs, i.e. exactly those, which is attributed to our generation of Universe. It should mean, our Universe appears like tiny dark (mem)brane, which we are observing both from inside, both from outside at the same moment. Such perspective appears strange, but the AWT enables to understand it at least partially. We are all density fluctuations covering a few hiearchy levels in the scalar field of nested density fluctuations, which we are living in. Here's an infinite number of hiearchy levels hidden both above the hyper-cosmologic scale (the pasts) or bellow the sub-Planck scale (the futures), which they're interconnected mutually in distant perspective. So we can always have an anthropocentric feeling, we are living exactly in the middle of Universe existence. It's a sort of "lighted fog" illusion: if you would bear a lanter in the dense fog, then you'll get the illusion, you're walking exactly in the middle of the visible area all the time, no matter how long you'll walk through such fog.

Well, back to physics. In fact, the connection between fluid vorticity and electromagnetism is known for years. Whole the Maxwell's theory was based on inertial fluid concept, which Maxwell has used for explanation of his displacement current concept. No wonder, Maxwell's equations are all isomorphous with Navier-Stokes equations. The most pronounced analogy we can met at the case of hydrodynamic analogy of Biot-Savart law. Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr.: If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Well, the vacuum is probably a dense fluid. Which fluid? A fluid composed of its own scale invariant vortices as a boson condensate. But this concept explains just a hydrodynamic properties of vacuum, its vorticity in particular, which can be described by tensor fields. Therefore it belongs into realm of relativity theory, the LQG and twistor theory in particular. For explanation of quantum mechanics properties of vacuum we are forced to adhere on foam model of vacuum. Only one real-life system covers both aspects of vacuum by analogy: its a condensing supercritical fluid, which can be described both fluid, both foam at the same moment. And this is where the AWT has started after one hundred years, when it was left abandoned by Sir Oliver J. Lodge, who had proposed it in 1904.

Well, my question still is, why the theories of other members are discussed in Classical Physics section whole months without maths and/or evidence, while my posts are receiving warning in few seconds? 2Klaynos: Thank you for your interest, but this was question for those, who gave me that warning, not for sympathizers. You cannot know about their reasons, which I'm asking for by now. Ludwig Börne: "When Pythagoras found out his famous theorem, he offered hundred oxes to the gods. From that times all oxes are shuddering when a new truth comes out in the light." Hitler has offered his utterances in his free time, too. Does it mean, we should be loyal with him? If not, where's the problem?BTW "They" don't run this site. This site is runned by server. These guys are just censoring it - this is not the same. It's surprising, how many people here are interested about "standard ideas", which they can read everywhere. Do you know about the signs of closed sectarian community? Such community doesn't grow spontaneously. It must be selected by careful long-term censorship of their members. Do you know the Lubos Motl blog, for example? Lubos is clever guy, but his blog is pronouncedly antialarmistic and all critical opinions are censored from there immediately with no mercy (..well, not so clever, maybe). No wonder, its regular posters are all anti-alarmists. This is simply how the mutations, selection and evolution works. And this is how I can distinguish every forum by its posters without any knowledge of their moderators. ________________________________________________________ Well, back to physics. In fact, the connection between fluid vorticity and electromagnetism is known for years. Whole the Maxwell's theory was based on inertial fluid concept, which Maxwell has used for explanation of his displacement current concept. No wonder, Maxwell's equations are all isomorphous with Navier-Stokes equations. The most pronounced analogy we can met at the case of hydrodynamic analogy of Biot-Savart law. Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr.: If something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. Well, the vacuum is probably a dense fluid. Which fluid? A fluid composed of its own scale invariant vortices as a boson condensate. But this concept explains just a hydrodynamic properties of vacuum, its vorticity in particular, which can be described by tensor fields. Therefore it belongs into realm of relativity theory, the LQG and twistor theory in particular. For explanation of quantum mechanics properties of vacuum we are forced to adhere on foam model of vacuum. Only one real-life system covers both aspects of vacuum by analogy: its a condensing supercritical fluid, which can be described both fluid, both foam at the same moment. And this is where the AWT has started after one hundred years, when it was left abandoned by Sir Oliver J. Lodge, who had proposed it in 1904.

Does it mean, the Darwin theory, which was based on good logic, but it had no math during two hundred years should be considered as a pseudoscience by such criterions? I like your arguments very much, because they're helping me to localize the problem. How we can challenge a science with using of scientific method? Every sectarian community is limited just because of its rules. It's like the attempt to challenge the Holy Church with using of a Christians theology...

My question was, why the theories of other members are discussed here whole months, while my post receives a warning in virtually few second period? Do you have some explanation of it - or should I explain this phenomenon alone?

Why? It's just another hypothesis about magnetic force... Why I received warning for it, while babbling about magnetic force caused by electrons is tolerated here whole week? Lets analyze this.

Analogy of Faraday-Lentz force and Newton-Magnus-Robbins force by AWT. The magnetic field transforms the vacuum into field of many tiny vortices, through which the charged particle with spin is moving along curved path, being dragged by vortex field.

Analogy of Faraday-Lentz force and Newton-Magnus-Robbins force by AWT. The magnetic field transforms the vacuum into field of many tiny vortices, through which the charged particle with spin is moving along curved path, being dragged by vortex field.