Zephir

...it was 30% solution of spirit, supposedly...

As you can see, the superfluid nested condensation covers both the unparticle concept, both the fractal geometry concept, both process physics concept, both the string net liquid concept by simple Newton theory based concept. If some model of reality covers concepts of two or more other models at the same time, it's evident, which one is more fundamental and less ad-hoced one. Try to think about it.

This may be good just for scientists, while the Aether theory is for good even for the rest of people. Yep, I'm gradually improving these ideas, so they may become useful for these people conversely. The purpose of AWT is just to make the reality understandable even without math.

By my opinion, all the above concepts/theories are ad-hoced (i.e. less or more correctly guessed without understanding of their true nature), while just the Aether wave theory remains strictly physical from its very beginning. What do you think about it?

If we add the 30% solution of spirit in water into concentrated solution of sodium chloride, most of salt will precipitate as well. How is it possible, if the solution consist mostly of water and the spirit has no ions? Hint.

This is quite logical & meaningful stance, 'cause every complexity appears as a meaningless chaos from unconscious observer perspective... Do you know about the unparticle physics, process physics or constructal theory? Did you hear about string net liquid concept of vacuum? Do you think, some logical connection exists here? Or do you believe, all these concepts are totally meaningless and unrelated each other?

The discussion of opened question is exactly, what the science is. But just because these questions are opened, you can call every answer as pseudoscience. From this approach we can deduce, the real purpose of science is to deal with pseudoscience. Anyway, we can see, the obstinate endeavor can have an opposite result at times, if the scope is exaggerated. Well, where is the exact boundary between classical physics and the quantum one? We can analyze it by studying of dense particle system condensation, for example during isothermic compression of gas. We can model such situation by system of particles, where the density increases gradually toward the center due the gravitational pressure. At it's very beginning, the behavior of particle fluctuations can be described as a Boltzmann gas and it fulfills the Fermi-Dirac statistics of colliding particles. We can see, the energy is spreading via longitudinal waves, therefore it fulfills Galileo transform (the speed of sound waves depends on the environment motion). As the density of gas increases, the shape of the same fluctuations will become flat and the energy spreading through such foam will obtain a transversal wave character, where waves are fulfilling Bose-Einstein statistics (the waves can penetrate mutually). The spreading of such waves will fulfill a Lorentz transform - the speed of such waves doesn't depend on the motion of environment, which remains completely chaotic with respect of such waves. The important aspect of foam behavior is, it creates a density fluctuation during spreading of waves because every foam gets more dense during shaking. Therefore every wave will spread as a less or more pronounced wave packet (dense blob) through such environment, so we can consider these blobs as a new generation of particles. We can even observe such phenomena experimentally during slow condensation of supercritical fluid. On the above animation we can see, the newly created fluctuations will form a sort of metafluid, the particle of which are formed by fluctuations of original fluid (a sort of 2nd-order phase transition). So you can see, despite the lack of formal math, I'm not bullshitting you and the behavior of such system remains a realm of "classical physics", despite its complexity. But the behavior of resulting fluctuations is quite nontrivial by now. Every fluctuation here is formed by tiny undulating vortices here and the energy density will become similar to real quantum wave, being formed by undulations of undulations - even at the quite elevated temperature (the phase transition of liquid carbon dioxide sample presented above occurs at the human body temperature, i.e. some 310 K), so it can serve as an rudimental model of real particles in real vacuum. By Aether theory the behavior of real vacuum differs just by degree of nested condensations, where it can be a virtually unlimited number (currently I've no meaningfull mechanism developed, how to limit such number - if you found/derive any, it will become a "2nd Aether theory revolution").

Nice experiment, but you've just precipitated a portion of sodium chloride back again. Feel free to use your product in the kitchen again.

Try to describe the trivial fact, the Earth is revolving around the Sun. Just by using of math.

This is just an unsubstantiated belief in the opposite. A highly unscientific approach so to speak... We simply don't know about it, that's all. But we should realize, even the simplest complexity should follow a certain set of simple rules, to be able to be considered as a complexity. We aren't required to care about things, which we can never observe by definition. By my opinion, the Universe is as huge, as clever are the creatures, which are observing it. The rest of complexity is simply a chaos. Try to imagine the experience of mice in the house full of people. BUBBLE feature is desperate , isn't it? Who has designed this?

Yep, it's like the combining a pair of equations with different variables. A landscape of 10E+500 possible solutions will result under rigorous approach. The problem is, we don't know, which of dozen postulates of relativity and quantum mechanics are redundant or mutually incompatible. But we already know, they're incompatible in certain situations. Anyway, to believe, just the theory like quantum gravity will supply a final answer concerning the traveling in time is somewhat bold statement, to say at least. Here's no indicia for such statement. It's just an propaganda of particular theory without fuhrer reasoning. Why just quantum gravity, why not string theory or let's say, the Heim theory?

J. Bond [1956]: "Shaken, not stirred"

If so, why did you erased my post from here? Or do you expect, if you'll delete the foreign posts obstinatelly, you can expect some cooperation?

Only if the quantum mechanics and relativity (on which such theory is based on) will have the final say. For me is quite surprising to observe, how many quite bright people here are willing to believe in validity of different combination of mutually inconsistent theories. It's like the belief in Immaculate Conception concept.. The scientists already know, these theories are supplying an different results under rigorous derivations of different predictions (like the cosmological constant, for example) - so how do you expect to derive some unique answer by combining of these theories after then? It's virtually impossible to do so by rigorous way.

Use the pictures, instead. The equations doesn't illustrate the ideas, from which they were derived, making the explanation irreproducible and nonscientific by such way...

It depend, how far do you want to travell in time by such way. Just a few nanoseconds? No problem.

I'm just demonstrating different analogies and logical connections. Which analogies are accepted here - only those, which were published somewhere else already? Is the parroting of foreign ideas the only way of communication allowed here? We should realize, the question of origin and consciousness is pretty opened even in mainstream science, therefore every idea here should be presented as a pseudoscience and speculation. By such way, every speculation about opened questions should be considered as a pseudoscience and the "true science" has nothing to solve, after then... Such approach therefore denies the proclaimed scientific state of this forum. It has nothing to do with Galileo persecution, but tampering of science status in naming of his forum.

My idea is, the origin of life is just a continuation of complexity evolution of inorganic matter. The particles of matter are moving like amoebas through density gradients of vacuum foam, sniffing for food, while avoiding of obstacles. As such, they exhibit a quite conscious behavior, despite of their simplicity. The particle, which is moving through complex field of interactions between many other particles is basically solving the same optimization problems, like the people who are deciding, whether to buy a food or flowers first, when walking around street. Such decision requires to have certain intelligence. We can say, the elementary particles aren't so stupid, as they appear at the first sight, they're just perfectly adopted to live in their environment. By my understanding the elementary particles are like small living creatures, exhibiting a sexual dimorphism: the bosons are males, whereas the fermions are females. They've a genetic information encoded at the spiral structure inside body like other living organisms, they're tactile and sensitive to heat and mechanical stimulation like other critters. In general, the she-fermions are more communicative, usually rather attractive having mass, they love company and most of all they prefer to exchange the energy with bosons (...you know, womens..). Instead of this the bosons are a movable, just a bit slippery and volatile particles, they're don't like sitting' at place, moving instead like a regular lady killers from one she-fermion to another. Whenever the boson have a sufficient energy, it succeeded with female meeting and is allowed to transfer its energy and exchange the information with her. During such collision a new small particles can be born, often having the structure and property signatures of both the parents. Both kind of particles have appeared briefly after universe inflation like eukaryota due to spontaneous symmetry breaking of genetic information density with the close analogy of Precambrian species explosion as the result of sexual dimorphism evolution during Earth cooling (Cryogenian period). Until this time, just a single type of tiny particles have occurred, rather primitive one (so called "gravitons") which has behaved both as male, both as female, having breded just by division like bacterias and procaryota with exact biological evolution analogy. From this point of view it seems, the atom nuclei are rather globular colonies of such small creatures, like Globe animalcule (Volvox globator). In accordance with this I'd prefer the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis of life formation in the coacervate foam on the surface of prehistoric oceans. Another viable mechanism is formation of life inside of foamy structure of water clusters at relatively low temperature, but high pressure. This mechanism enables to move the beginning of life evolution to the cosmic space. The animation above is illustrating the conceptual similarity between nested foam formation during supercritical fluid condensation and the inverse micelles formation on the phase interface of different fluids. The biological membranes forming the tissue foam inside of organism are just a complex space-time branes, forming the vacuum.

We can imagine, we are trying to observe the laser jet in fog. If the atmosphere would be completely homogeneous, we would see nothing. If the atmosphere would be turbulent or foggy, we wouldn't see anything meaningfull again. Therefore the observation of reality at distance (both in time, both in space) requires always inhomogeneous space-time in proper ratio. Such inhomogeneous space-time is curving the path of causal energy spreading, so we can say, after passing of certain radius the same space-time event will affect both past, both future like the spreading of energy along nested Klein bottle. This is quite common behavior of nested foam, where every energy spreading will approach us again in dispersed form after passing less or more distant path.

This follows from the Hamiltonian character of mass/energy flow along geodesics. We can see, the matter is spreading through spacetime by the same way, like the energy is spreading through inhomogeneous space with surface gradient, which brings an idea of Kaluza/Klein, the space-time is flat brane and the time is the dimension of this brane normal to the spatial dimensions. After then we can imagine a looped gradient of time, which enables closed cyclic history of Universe. From AWT follows, the time gradients would have a structure of nested foam, by the same way, like the space-time gradients. so that the history of Universe evolution can be cyclical in certain aspects, but it will never repeat completely (every Universe generation will remain slightly different from the previous one). If the number of Universe generation will increases the number of degrees of freedom (6N) inside of field of N particles, which are forming it, then so called spontaneous symmetry breaking will occur undeniably, which ensures, the history of Universe in each part will never repeat quite exactly. This gives us an clue, how the size of Universe observed is related to the age of each Universe generation by fractal way, so that our Universe has no single past of future from sufficiently distant perspective. We can say, the space of Universe is formed by all Universe histories. We can observe the branching of time coordinates in quantum chaos in micro-scale or in foamy structure of dark matter streaks, which are polarizing the CMB at the distance. Such birefringence basically means, each space-time event propagates along multiple paths through vacuum foam, thus causing a multiple consequences in different distant areas of space-time. The multiple event horizons of rotating black holes belongs the same perspective. Because both gravity lensing, both Brownian noise are effects of multiple time arrows, we can say, we can observe the splitting of time coordinates even by naked eye under proper circumstances, so that the multiple past or future of Universe is observable for us in certain extent! We just aren't accustomed to to call it so.

I already linked a few publications of peer-reviewed experiments, which are using massive photon concept, but you have ignored them completely without reading. The problem is, you're applying biased criterions of what "established physics" is and what's not. For example, the string theory is using many such formalism, i.e. tachyons, Lorentz symmetry violation (which is tightly related to massive photon concept, by the way), etc. and it's allowed to talk about it here. But the string theory wasn't proved yet experimentally by the same way, like the massive photon. :confused: By such way, many people tends to believe in some theory, just because of massive propaganda in media, while other theories/concepts are ignored, even if they're of same relevancy or even proposing the same concepts by more intuitive ways. I don't like such approach, because it makes the physics biased and religious gradually. My only criterion of truth is logic, as simple logic, as possible by Occam's razor criterion. If you'll use such approach, you cannot fall into belief and to use a biased criterions. Nope, the bosons in BE condensate aren't supposed to interact mutually, from this superfluidity and superconductivity arises. These bosons are formed by interaction of fermions instead, for example by Cooper pair production. We can see this as low energy analogy of photon production by pairing of fermions and anti-fermions. But you're right at the point, whenever some distinct particle exists. it behaves like fermion as well. Just because of finite curvature of space-time, which is forming such particle. Therefore is some boson exists as a distinct particle, it violates the Lorentz symmetry less or more later. Therefore every rule in the nature is of limited scope, even the sufficiently small photons can create another fermions during materialization of radiation, We can say, every fermions can create bosons and these bosons can create another generation of fermions under sufficiently low/high energy density conditions, from this the gauge group theory arises. As I explained previously, the gauge symmetry group, for example the Lie E8 group can be interpreted as a tight structure of particles and intercalated gauge bosons and gauge bosons formed by mutual interactions of these bosons recursively like the nested structure of kissing hyper spheres, sitting at the kissing points of another hyper-spheres. From this structure the Lizzi Garret theory arises, by the way. Nope, the pair production always requires pair of particles in its beginning, not just the single one. I already linked Feynman diagram of it above. Can you explain, why is it so? The Aether theory can. I'm here just for explanation of existing physics by way, which everybody can understand, not for promotion of some private theory. The Aether theory is not mine, it's very old one and I'm totally independent on it, in fact. I can use whatever else theory in my explanations, because I know mainstream physics well, but these theories aren't simple, consistent the less. They were designed to compute particular aspects of reality by schematic way, not to explain them. While I appreciate such approach in quantitative predictions, such formal theories cannot serve as an effective tool for consistent understanding of reality, but the thorough description of it. This is not the very same job: you can combine the equations for years, but you'll never understand the connections behind it. I'm just here to demonstrate, the contemporary understanding is biased, because the mainstream science is looking for MOST EXACT description of reality systematically, not for MOST SIMPLE one. Unfortunately, such approach violates the Occam's razor criterion or even causality logic in its consequences, because we cannot have an exact and simple description of reality at the same moment - these criterions are exclusive mutually. We can see the above by pronounced way at the case of string theory, as the most advanced example of "formally exact" approach known so far. Such "exact" approach leads to the landscape of 10E+500 equivalent solutions, i.e. it's becoming as vague, as the most trivial philosophers in its consequences. If you'll understand this, then you'll understand the motivation of all "crank attempts" to explain reality. These cranks aren't in contradiction with mainstream physics, they're just using a dual strategy. Of course, the most robust and vital strategy is in connection of simplest ideas with most advanced math. Believe it or not, the belief is undeniable part of scientific description of reality. Every theory is based on ad-hoced postulates and it's using concepts, which appears the more strange and counterintuitive, the more complex or logical such theory is. The Aether theory is no exception. While the Big Bang theory relies on belief in giant explosion of "nothing", the Aether theory makes such concept more intuitive by introducing of phase transition concept, well known from common situation. But such logical explanation brings and ad-hoced belief in even more incredible amount of matter at its very beginning, then just a single Universe requires. Only God can create such incredible amount of matter, in fact. We can see, the logic and exactness is always balanced by requirements based on belief. The more exact or logical description we'll develop, the more belief it requires. It's not "it is strawman crap", but the immanent part of our multicomponent reality: you can explain the existence of every object by logical way just under introduction of many smaller objects on the background at the price. Maybe some clever guy will defy this paradigm by some even more smart approach, but currently I don't see any way, how to avoid the belief in our description of reality. Please note, the more belief, the more distant future we can predict - so we can say, the religious nature of people is a sort of evolutionary adaptation, in fact. For example, it's not so easy to understand, why is it so important not to consume all food supplies before start of winter, but the fast introduced by different religions helps to accept such rule by primitive people. By such way, even the scientific prejudice against belief and religion in general can become a sort of religion from certain perspective. The Aether theory is based on pluralistic approach consistently, the most stable and atemporal is the system of two balanced paradigms (relativity vs. quantum mechanics) political parties (democrates vs. republicans), etc. due the formation of branes, which are enabling further evolution of more complex structures.

Not to discover, but describe. This is not the same. In general, the consecutive logic of formal math rigor isn't good for description of multicomponent heavilly paralelized nature of reality, where every object is composed of many others by recursive way. Therefore, the formal logic will always remain an approximation of fuzzy reallity. Indeed, the same can be said about causality itself - even the best description of reality will fall into quantum uncertainty following from Goedel theorem for countable sets. Until these sets will remain finite, we cannot use the finite number of rules (postulates, axioms) in their description. Does it mean, the math is deadly wrong and the intuitive approach is better? Not at all, they're just the dual parts of the same reality, which is both deterministic, both chaotic by equal ways. We should learn them both and/or to specialize and cooperate. The Aether foam model illustrates, how the stochastic particle field with paralellized energy spreading cooperates with predictable density fluctuations (1D manifolds, where the energy spreads as a consecutive wave) by tight and predictable way. This is because every chaotic system contains an insintric causality in the multinomial distribution of its density gradients. If we cannot observe them as a chaos, we couldn't observe them at all. Therefore every reality appears exactly like the human creatures itself, because if it wouldn't appear so, we couldn't interract with it. Such insight makes every observable reality a bit antropocentric. Currently, the theorists doesn't cooperate with free thinkers (and vice-versa) very much, but I hope, the situation will improve gradually. We will be forced to behave exactly by the same way, like the reality, which we are all trying to understand - or we could never understand it completelly.

This simply means, we would never be able to measure the mass of photon directly. Which effectivelly means, when weighting some photon, we will be always forced to weight some other system (like the photon resonator), as you pointed out correctly above. And I've nothing against such stance. But the fact, we cannot never measure the photon mass directly effectivelly means, you cannot never prove, the photon has no rest mass at the same time. Therefore your argument can be interpreted by symmetric way. The true is, the formally thinking people have trouble with concept of mass of photon, because it will make their simple equations singular. But this is just a problem of formal math, not the reality, which gets into singularities quite often. As I explained above, every localised object is required to have rest mass due the non-zero space-time curvature, which defines the shape of such particle. If we apply this on the photon rest mass problem, we can decide, the only photon, which can stay reliably at rest is the photon, whose diameter is comparable with diameter of observable universe, so it cannot move inside it. The effective energy of such photon corresponds the rest mass of photon after then. Such rest mass is incredibly tiny (bellow 10E-50 kg), but it's definitelly non zero, because the observable Universe isn't of infinite diameter due the limited speed of light and the age of observable Universe generation. Such approach violates no direct photon rest mass measurement, simply because of limited sensitivity of experiments. It just puts a lower limit for the photon rest mass. If we prove later, the Universe is older, then the estimation of rest mass of photon will decrease correspondingly. I'm just describing exactly, what I can see. No less, no more. And this is not about some conspiracy at all. The people like you are speaking for himself by the same way, like me. Neverthelles, the intersubjective thinking affects the thinking of individuals by tangible way - the human society is a sort of colony, a metarorganism. The community stance affects the behavior of individuals subconsciously. At the moment, you cannot justify your stance, or even delete my posts without reasoning, I know exactly, what I'm supposed to think about it. This is normal defensive behavior of religious people. Please, don't use "strawman crap" labelling without reasoning. I can say exactly the same about many posts of yours without problem, because our stances are just dual, not in contradiction. Do you understand, what the stance duality means? Bellow is the animation of gravitational lensing. Stance A: You see, this is clear evidence of Lorentz symmetry violation in vacuum! Everybody can see, the light is moving more slowly through vacuum near massive object.. Stance B: Nope you troll. Everybody can see, the light speed remains exactly the same along whole path of photon motion. The photon is just moving along longer path in curved space-time near massive object. Now try to decide, which stance remains more correct, by now? In general, the "local" perspective, which fits the existing observations better is usually less suitable for general predictions and vice-versa. But this is everything, what we can say about their validity in general.

In general, the consecutive logic of math language isn't a tool of imagination, but description. In fact, the rigor of math isn't supposed to allow multiple intepretations - on the contrary, it was designed to be an WYSIWYG tool ("what you see is what you get"), i.e. as exact and specific, as possible. The paralellism of perception mediated by array of pixels can serve as an opposite, therefore the pixel pictures are good, if you wanna to explain some concept by illustrative way, but not to describe it or to replicate (i.e. to publish), because the single picture can be understood/interpeted by many ways by different people. Another example, where the photons are manifesting their mass is so called materialization of radiation. During this the pair of photons interacts mutually under formation of new massive particles. We can interpret such process easily as a result non-ellastic Compton collision of photon pair, during which their mass remains at place. By my opinion, the pair production violates even the zero rest mass of photon assumption, as the particles without rest mass (i.e. those fulfilling the Bose-Einstein statistics) can never interract mutually. The incorporation of this process into QFT formalism will therefore make a quantum field theories operating in 3D+T spacetime non-renormalizable, because in this moment the same place will switch its formal model suddenly.

You cannot prove some claim by math, which claims exactly the same... These Jehovah's Witnesses are quite naive in their arguments at times... But we should understand, why even photon has its mass. It's not just because some equation will become simpler (i.e. by Occam razor criterion). This is mainly because the photon is localised particle. For example, we can follow the path of gamma ray photons inside of spark chamber or Spinthariscope with high precision. What does it mean? If something contains an distinct energy in restricted space, it deflects a spacetime at the same time by GR due the equivalency of energy density gradient and space-time curvature (Ricci tensor). And such deflection is caused by inertial mass by GR.