Zephir

Tiny cluster (droplet) of neutrons could destroy the Earth as well.

Maybe yes, maybe not. We should decide first, if it can be true. This is what the scientist is supposed to ask for. Absolute reference frame was observed already by Doppler shift of CMB.

My threads were closed pretty quickly so far. The absolute reference frame is still pretty weak due the immense mass/energy density of vacuum. The higher density of environment, the more is the transversal character of waves pronounced. The spreading of tiny waves (so called the capillary waves of wavelength bellow 1.7 cm) at the water surface is driven by surface tension nearly completely, the water surface is behaving like thin elastic membrane and the spreading of such wave is affecter by the underwater motion very slowly. The AWT approach is based on extrapolation of this behavior up to extremely high energy densities. Such object can experience dilation only at the presence of strong gravity field, which is behaving like sparse blob of more dense vacuum surrounding every massive object and slowing all phenomena, involving the transfer and exchange of energy. Simply speaking, the gravitational lensing is not optical illusion, it's the place, where all energy (including light) is spreading more slowly, so that the time is "slowing" here too. I can't understand, why people developing spacecrafts and computer programs are having so big troubles with understanding and acceptation of this simple, if not primitive model. Isn't the gravitational lensing a sort of optical refraction phenomena? Isn't every optical lens working by such way, just because the light is spreading more slowly inside it? If so, why is so difficult to understand, the light is really spreading more slowly inside of gravitational lens with respect to its neighborhood? This is no rocket science, but one of the most trivial and simple connections in physics at all. Why it makes so big problem to comprehend it in its full extent? It's as easy, as it is.

Just try to keep the subject, this is not social club. And the subject is Aether Wave Theory. You can read some of my previous posts here or in another forums to understand better the motivations of this concept. You're not required to agree with anything here, but you're always expected to support your stance by some relevant argument(s), so that the subsequent question "Why do you think so?" will never be necessary.

The question was "why the time slows down for object in motion". My answer was "this is because the vacuum is behaving like foam, which gets more dense during shaking due the object motion". When the object is dragged through inertial environment, it makes undulations in it by the same way, like ferret dragged through air. More dense vacuum slows down the energy spreading, therefore it slows down the local clock, relevant for this object. I.e. it slows down local time of object. I admit, you can still find many steps of such explanation ad-hoced at the first sight - but not out of the trivial logic of common human experience.

Did you understood for example the string net liquid model? Or spin foam concept of LQG theory? Can you realize, what can be explained by it? Well, and the AWT just explains, how to explain these models. The behavior of foam is well known and definitely more opened to intuitive understanding, then some abstract "string net liquid" or "spin foam". Do you consider these concepts void? If not, why the AWT foam? Is the "string net liquid" less abstract for you, then normal foam? This is perfectly true just at the case of Aether theory, which was abandoned before years due the trivial misunderstanding of dense matter behavior. The people are still very religious creatures, they tend to believe, not to understand. We can analyze the thinking of medieval era easily by the contemporary public stance attitude towards the Aether question.

Hi, swansont, I can understand you completely, but the question "why the time slows down for object in motion" cannot be answered by logical way without proposal of some proprietary model. Simply because the mainstream science answers follows directly from special relativity postulates, which aren't explained so far. So that every else answer is just a speculation. Or can you show me, how to explain this phenomena by "your way", i.e. at scope of contemporary theories? Unfortunately, as we can expect easily, the people are interested just about these answers, which the mainstream science has left unanswered. So it's just the problem of yours, if you're keeping such questions (which are even speculating about superluminal speed, which doesn't fall within respected mainstream theories) in mainstream science forum - not mine. I don't want make problems to anybody - I'm just presenting my point here like many others, because I believe, my approach is simple and it's able to explain a number of phenomena by consistent way.

Supposedly the temporal result of "subluminal speed" phrase, which was misspelled by spell checker and which I corrected later. Sorry for inconveniences. The AWT doesn't allow any object to move by superluminal speed either by the same way, like virtually no wave can move along water surface by higher speed, then the speed of surface water waves allows in fact and nothing strange is about from wave mechanics perspective. Therefore during photon collisions (where the mutual speed violates the light speed limit apparently) so called spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs under formation of new foamy phase with hidden dimension (i.e. the particle-antiparticles pair), which is analogous the foamy caps formation during surface wave spreading, when the speed of water wave exceeds the surface wave speed. So we can say, every particle of matter is the piece of more dense foam inside of vacuum foam, which is analogous to piece of foam flowing on the water surface after wave collision and breaking. If we consider this, then the time dilatation in vacuum doesn't differ from time dilatation, which can be observed at the water surface, where both time and space remains strictly derived from surface wave spreading, as this simple DHTML applet or animation illustrates. The only difference between the light spreading through vacuum and the surface wave spreading is, we have no reference wave for indirect observation of light spreading available (we cannot observe the light wave by using of another wave, like during observation of surface wave). We should realize, when observing the surface wave spreading by light wave, we have a two kinds of waves involved in experiment, while during light wave spreading in vacuum only one kind of waves is involved in experiment in fact, so that the perceived result of light wave spreading can never become quite equivalent to surface wave spreading. Under such consideration, the relativity phenomena doesn't differ from surface wave phenomena, until the surface wave remains solely by surface tension driven (which isn't the case of water waves longer then 1.27 cm). Therefore the simplest answer of question "why the time dilates for object in motion?" can sound "because we are measuring this time by the same wave, which is serving for motion speed measurement" - and no other assumptions are required, because every mechanical wave is behaving by the same way, in fact. When such wave is forced to move faster, it fragments itself into foam, i.e. into many curved surfaces, so that the constant wave speed is retained locally. Therefore every fast moving object in vacuum is generating a wave-like distortion of space-time around it, resulting into formation of less or move dense blob of vacuum foam around it, which A) slows down the energy spreading and the local time for such object B) makes such object relatively heavier (so called "relativistic mass") C) interacts with double slit and other obstacles under formation of flabelliform patterns as so called "pilot wave". Note that the relativistic mass increasing cannot be detected, when we will move together with object weighted, simply because the mass is relative quantity and our motion will increase our mass too by the same mechanism (we will be surrounded by dense blob of vacuum by the same way, like the object weighted, so we will not detect any difference in mass). From AWT follows, so called the "rest mass" of every massive object is caused by unidirectional expansion of Universe, when every object is moving "at place" and the massive objects are expanding slightly faster, then the vacuum. This expansion has many other predictable consequences, which belongs outside the scope of this topic. If you understood this model, try to derive some testable predictions of it. For example, we know, the surface wave speed depends on the depth, i.e. the proximity of other massive objects. Therefore the shallow waves have tendency to fragmentize itself into "particles", when approaching the coastal area. What will happen, if some fast moving object approaches the another massive object, where the local time goes more slowly already? In which device such effect is used?

Time slows down slightly even when the object is moving by subluminal speed and the contemporary physics has no explanation for this, because this phenomena is direct consequence of constant light speed postulate. Therefore every causal explanation goes beyond relativity and mainstream science as such (which even doesn't permit the motion by superluminal speed), therefore it cannot be answered by causal way in strictly mainstream science forum, where the only relevant answer is the derivation of time dilatation from Lorentz symmetry postulate. The Aether Wave Theory (AWT) provides a simple explanation based on assumption, the vacuum is behaving like dense foam, composed of dynamic network of nested density fluctuations, similar to density fluctuations of condensing supercritical fluid (the AWT considers, the Universe is formed by interior of giant dense fluctuations of Aether, similar to black hole). Such foam gets more dense temporarily after introducing of energy by the same way, like soap foam during shaking. Furthermore, the object, which is moving fast through vacuum creates so called deBroglie wave around it, which spreads by luminal speed, it's perpendicular to motion direction and it's making the vacuum surrounding the particle more dense. The formation of such wave is analogous to wave, created above fast moving fish, swimming beneath the surface. This wave is making the vacuum more dense around object and inside such vacuum the energy spreading is slower, therefore the time slows down by the same way, like inside the vacuum near massive object, which is more dense too (compare the gravitational lensing phenomena). This explanation is close to Bohm's "pilot wave" interpretation of quantum mechanics and it's the reason of many other phenomena, for example the formation of flabelliform pattern during so called double-slit experiment and other quantum mechanics and relativity phenomena.

At first, just because you're member of staff, you're not required to have an absolute truth in everything. Believe it or not, I'm providing you a valuable feedback of your activities here. Your stance is demonstrating, how even the feeling of power deforms the behavior of some people toward totalitarian, arrogant and confronting behavior. If it's pissing you, it can serve as an evidence, it targets the problem, but this is not purpose of my posts. Just try to think about it. While I accept your stance concerning the activity benchmarks, I'd like to point out, I didn't provoke "Phi for All" at all, as he visited this thread spontaneously with OT post first by the same way like you just with apparent intention to provoke a confrontation. You guys are full of testosterone. What purpose this forum is supposed to serve for? Is anybody here interested about new ideas at all?

I never interrupted the thread about foreign theory by such way, so your example is irrelevant. In thread about general concepts (like this one about time definition, where my above post was placed originally) everybody has the very same chance to present his personal opinion about subject. I can say easily the same about forum moderators. I'm just presenting my personal opinions here like others and you're not required to answer me at all. But the forum moderators learns us such behavior very actively, because they're practicing it in great extent. Btw The number of post of yours is 3500+, while mine is forty times lower. I'm not very sure, you're the right person to teach me not to overwhelm the threads by number of posts. Somebody could call such behavior a hypocrisy, don't you think? Anyway, it's just you, who is off-topic in this thread by now.

The Universe is universal by definition. But here are black hole models of individual Universe generations.

I've no problem with this, I'm just insisting on the subjective character of their stance, which violates the proclamativelly scientific state of this forum. The science has character of intersubjective consesus, therefore every subjectivelly controlled site, which is labeled as scientific is using such denomination unfairly.

This is just a subjective claim without any reasoning. My stance is, it's the most relevant explanation of time, which we have and it's fully consistent with general relativity model of space-time, the brane model in particular.

LOL, can somebody explain me, why these posts are deleted from here all the time? Isn't it clear for everybody, this will serve as an evidence of forum trolling for everybody a few years later?

By GR the time is one of dimensions of space-time, therefore we should explain the more fundamental concept first. Because many of us are allergic to AWT shortcut (I don't know why, it's theory like many others), I will not reference the Aether concept here, but we should realize a few trivial connections, which are quite general and independent to any particular theory. At first, the energy can spread through in two kinds of waves, the longitudinal and transversal one. The longitudinal waves doesn't spread through inhomogeneous environment by random ways, it always follows the path of maximal mass density, while the transversal waves are follows the path of maximal density gradient. For example, the waves at the water surface are mostly transversal waves, so they follow the water surface gradient. Is that clear? The light spreads in transversal waves nearly exclusively, so we should consider, every bit of energy is using some density gradient and we can use the water surface as an 2D analogy of space-time. The number of spatial dimensions of water surface is defined by degree of freedom for inertial energy spreading, i.e. the number of congruent directions, in which the surface wave can propagate without affecting the energy propagation in another directions. This makes the water surface model of two-dimensional space-time. And the time dimension is the direction, which is normal to the spatial dimensions. From the above description follows the recursive definition of time dimension for space-time formed by density gradient in high level space-time as a spatial dimension of high level space-time, normal to spatial dimension of given low level space-time. In fact, this concept is known quite well and understood from general relativity description of geodesics in 4D space-time as a Hamiltonian flow in 5D space-time, because we know, the matter waves are propagating through 4D space-time like the waves through 5D space following the Fermat principle of least action and the same formalism is relevant for Hamiltonian at quantum scale - so it will be a quite difficult for us to refuse it. The water surface model just makes the understanding of this concept more apparent, thats' all. Only those, who doesn't know all these connections call call it trolling. What follows from such definition of time? Well, a lot of connections. For example, if we realize our space-time as flat (mem)brane in hyperspace. The brane space-time concept is crucial for explanation, how the density gradients can form the 3D space by quantum foam. We can see, the time is in fact two dimensional quantity, because the flat membranes consist of two surface gradients with two conjugated time dimensions (1,2,3, 4). You can understand, why the heterotic brane theories are operating in E8×E8 gauge group and many other connections, why the Dirac called the antimatter as a matter living in the opposite time arrow and many other things, which we can dispute in details.

Well, we should learn something. Once again, the fact, somebody disagrees with mainstream ideas doesn't mean, he doesn't knows about them - on the contrary. For example, I know perfectly all the reasons, which lead the mainstream science to Aether refusal before one hundred years. Just because I know all of them, I can safely say, why these reasons were incomplete and/or wrong. Think logically: how can I disagree with something, which I don't know? I can say easily, it's just you, who is ignorant here, if you don't see my reasons of critique. But I don't saying this, I'm just asking you to substantiate your stance. The demagogic stance is typical for pathological skepticism: ...Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments Pejorative labeling of proponents as ignorants. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate... We should learn to distinguish the symptoms violating the dialectic, matter of fact discussion, which are prohibiting us in deeper understanding of reality. As a single rule, every sentence should be presented as a logical predicate: If - Then or Because - Then. What are you believing in is nice, but completelly irrelevant here - the important is, what can you support by some argument, no matter, how such argument appears trivial. What I can disprove is just the validity of implicate, without implication every claim is just an tautology without true value by its definition. It cannot be refused as such without consideration of further conditions/implications - so if the claim doesn't contain some implication, it cannot be considered as a falsifiable claim at all and it can be ignored safely. By Aether theory, just the causual conections are considered real in chaos. What you can see in supercritical fluid are just a density gradients, i.e. the groups of states, which are connected by some causual dependence in space-time. The rest of fluid is transparent for you, so you cannot see/interract it. Therefore, without some causual connection (i.e. implication) the space-time events or states cannot be considered reproducible and as such real. This is why the mainstream science requires the reproducibility during presentation of testable results and or opinions. The unsubstantiated claim cannot be reproduced, if we don't know, how did you arrived at it.

Do you believe, I don't know mainstream science ideas? Just because I'm understanding the accepted ideas clearly, I able to find a holes in them. This is just a claim of yours. Try to prove, I'm violating these rules at first. You cannot know, what I'm thinking about. Just try to refute my arguments, or simply don't spread the speculations about my thinking.

Yep, the quantum uncertainty is the direct consequence of Lorentz symmetry violation at low scales. You can consider the quantum chaos as a fluctuation of speed of light, which mediates the information about subject of observation.

This is not strawman at all. If you want to express new ideas by using of math, you should prove, it's technically feasible (if not effective) in all cases.

OK, try to express the idea, the Earth is revolving around Sun and not vice-versa with math. Try to prove it with math. And the purpose of Holy Church is just to ensure the religion Working. Everybody can substantiate his stance by such self-referencing tautology.

This is a typical stance of people with analytical thinking, which are preferring to elaborate existing ideas. The creative people with synthetic thinking already know, the intuitive interpretation of idea ("the imagination") is the very first step during every new concept development. Of course, once the formal model is developed, the "interpretation" of phenomena isn't further necessary during application of equations. But such formal approach prohibits us to understand the subject deeper - it effectively freezes the state of its understanding. Well, by the same logic we can say, the Jesus Christ, Giordano Bruno or Galileo were jackasses, who limited certain people in spreading of their ideas. But how Galileo limited the Holly Church in spreading of Holy Church ideas, in fact? How the publishing of some book can limit the other people in publishing of their books? Therefore, if you don't want/like to follow my way of thinking, why simply don't ignore my posts? Maybe somebody else become interested about it. For example, if I find some formal discussion full of equations, I've no problem to ignore it completely. I've no need to remove it from thread or even ostracize its authors. We can met with the situation, even quite dumb posts of many posters here are usually tolerated in forum, while the thread of mine was urgently closed even in Pseudoscience section. As we can see, the stance of yours covers a deeper problem with my posts, then just "diluting of discussion". After all, I can say the very same about the posts of yours, because my position towards you is completely symmetrical.

This is just a conjecture of yours. Believe it or not, I'm always perfectly on-topic.

Everything, what I can say about it is just to repeat my previous explanation. The M-M experiment doesn't refute the dense Aether concept, where the light is supposed to spread along surfaces of density fluctuations of Aether in transversal waves, which is in good agreement with Maxwell's Aether theory of light, from which the Lorentz transforms were derived. The M-M experiment just excludes the thin Aether gas concept, where the energy should spread in longitudinal waves. The behavior of these two Aether models is completely different, in fact it's completely dual to say at best. Which effectively means, the single M-M experiment cannot refute both models at the same time. I'm usually demonstrating the difference between thin ("gaseous") and thick ("foamy") models of Aether by this animation, which emphasizes the paths of energy spreading during inertial environment condensation: If you can understand the subtleties of string theory, I guarantee you, you can understand the difference in behavior of thin and dense Aether models as well. I'll repeat it, until you understand this trivial thing, which belongs to classical physics of Victorian era, in fact. After all, only a few things in physics are as easy to understand, like this one. The repetition is mother of wisdom. Sorry for such approach, but you were apparently repeatedly assured about incompatibility of M-M experiment and Aether concept, so that the only way, how to reset such stance is to repeat the opposite by the same way. The Aether case just demonstrates the dangerous strength of inter-subjective belief and propaganda, which is able to virtually disable certain ways of thinking, so that even the most trivial connections are impossible to realize.

The Aether theory isn't mine at all and the original authors of this concept are always listed at the beginning of each forum (1, 2) dedicated the Aether concept. In particular, I'm strictly adhering on the concept of scientific priority, so I'm exclusively using the denominations, proposed by the scientists, who have introduced these concepts into physics first. The luminiferous Aether concept was proposed by Descartes and Huygens in 17th century. The concept of dense Aether comes from Oliver Lodge in 1904. The name of AWT comes from T.J. See, who spent a lotta time by development of Aether wave mediated concept of forces.