Zephir

You can always explain some phenomena by many alternative ways. In this sense, here's no need of Aether, by the same way, like here's no need of strings or spin loops concepts. But how to interpret easily the fact, the light is spreading through vacuum in waves, if not by inertial environment concept? For example, the inertial particle system can explain the concept of strings or spin loop as a density fluctuations, similar to those, which appears in dense condensing supercritical fluid. You can say, the behavior of strings is principally different, but this is just an conjecture. Such analogy was never considered seriously. After all, isn't the concept, the Universe is formed by interior of massive dense object one of mainstream science concepts? If yes, why I'm collecting the infractions for pointing such apparent connections all the time? Why the scientists, like the Laughlin, Susskind, or many others can publish the peer-reviewed speculations about it freely, while I'm banned/censored/moved to pseudoscience threads on the anonymous forum full of layman BS, when considering such possibility? The only explanation is, the so called "real science proponents" are heavily frustrated by the possibility of such scenario, which they were refuted for whole their wasted life without understanding of the subject... The final stage of their conceptual crisis and confusion can be demonstrated by the fact, they've tendency to censor even the opinions of mainstream science authorities by the same way, like some Holy Church fundamentalists are denying different parts of Bibble!

The luminiferous Aether is massive environment by definition. Such environment can behave like thin gas, surrounding/penetrating the movable objects. Or it can behave like very dense matter, from the density fluctuations of which the observable objects are created. The M-M experiment has refuted only the thin Aether concept, which is irrelevant to luminiferous concept in fact. Because the light can be of very high energy density (the gamma and cosmic radiation in particular), it's evident, the luminiferous aether must be very dense stuff, with higher energy density, then the energy density of most energetic light to be able to spread the light in waves. Surprisingly enough, the dense Aether model was never considered seriously, until now in connection with black hole models of Universe. Here are many others, less or more abstract models of Aether, which are considering many insintric Aether properties (like the vector fields, etc.). These models have nothing to do with original inertial Aether concept, though, being based on ad-hoced concepts.

This is just an alibi of yours. All concepts, I mentioned above (the birefringence of vacuum, the quantum foam and BH structure, birefringence of vacuum, Kerr solution of BH, etc.) were supported by links and they're well established in mainstream science. If we'll discuss the black holes, for example, will we required to link all articles, from which the concept of black holes was composed originally?

OK - this is full right of yours, but please consider, every post of mine is archived and it can be used as an evidence of forum admin trolling later. It's good to know for society, who is playing the role of retarded inquisition after Galileo times, as it can spice the CV of such person and it will make the behavior of such people more responsible. Lord Kelvin (1895): "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible".

Never say never...;-) You way of thinking is quite correct, but the large black holes can appear by gradual merging of smaller ones. Only tiny particles can evaporate (nearly) completelly during such merging (the lightest ones, like the neutrinos can still escape). But the true is, the probability of such merging is the lower, the more the Universe has expanded. Therefore we are facing the conceptual problem of the formation of the giant black holes at the centers of gallaxies by accretion, because the matter should evaporate even before reaching of event horizon into accretion radiation. The AWT is facing this problem by assumption, the matter of such gallaxies has evaporated from central white holes (so called the quasars) instead, but many other possible scenarios are possible here, too. BTW The idea of yours isn't very new one, I explained it before years and it was even presented in mainstream press by Tanmay Vachaspati. Technically, whole the classical model of black holes, as follows from steady state Schwarzschild's solution is misleading, because the collapse of such BH into central singularity would require more time, then the Universe life time allows. Most probable solution is, every BH is containing many daughter singularities of different level of nested hiearchy, which will appear as a daughter black holes or Universe generations from internal perspective of such BH or like the nested foam from outer perspective.

I don't think, such approach violates the forum topic - on the contrary. In the high energy conditions (i.e. the presence of strong gravitational or even electromagnetic fields) the vacuum is becoming birefringent. Which basically means, single space-time event can establish two or more consequences depending on the polarization of light, which is mediating such event at distance. This can be interpreted as manifestation of quantum fluctuations in time arrow on cosmological scale back and forth or even the existence of multiple time dimensions . In the presence of extremely strong gravitational field, such plurality can even lead into formation of multiple event horizons of black holes, which is common for so called Kerr solution of rotating black holes. My explanation is just related to mechanism of such phenomena, which follows from the way, by which the energy is spreading through quantum foam forming the vacuum. If such foam gets more dense, the path of energy spreading becomes more and more fragmented. Note that the axion hypothesis of vacuum birefringence was excluded. Therefore we can interpret the presence of multiple event horizons of black holes as a manifestation of new generation of quantum foam, which gets more dense toward the black hole interior, where it's forming a new generation of vacuum (you can consider the foam model of black hole interior of Kip Thorne). In general, I'm not using any speculations, which never appeared in mainstream physics before many years - but the problem is, you simply don't know all the theories, which directed me to such conclusions. My intention is to reconcile these theories, not to introduce a new ones. The problem is, if you know the physics just from introductory math courses of relativity and quantum mechanics in textbooks, you don't know about experimental or conceptual background of these models. Therefore your stance is similar to stance of Holy Church toward Galileo, because the Holy Church didn't know, what the Galileo knew - so that every idea of his was considered as a pure speculation by Holy Church. Therefore, if you would be more experienced with contemporary mainstream theories and ideas, you would consider my explanations a much more smoothly, because you would be able to realize some peer reviewed reference of each such "speculation". This is the analogy of surface tension of different concepts in causal space-time. Two mercury droplets will bounce on the air during collision, but under water they've a much lower surface tension, so they can connect more smoothly. Therefore many seemingly incompatible concepts will be reconciled by society just after the society will become more knowledgeable, too. The question is, whether somebody, who knows all motivations of his explanations should be considered as a troll instead of people, who don't know about them, so they're calling such explanations "the ridiculous speculations"? Where is the exact boundary between scientifically supported skepticism and the pathological one, following from ignorance? If nothing else, before you'll start to troll here about my trolling again, try to ask me, from where/whom such idea follows. You may be surprised at times.

Accepted by who? What prohibit us to consider the quantum chaos and uncertainty as a result of local Lorentz symmetry/invariance violation? Can you refute such perspective by consistent way?

While the Farshight's answer was consistent rather with quantum mechanics, instead...;-) Is it correct, after then - or should he be crucified anyway?

Farsight, such stance depends on the observational perspective used and this can be always dual. You can build working theory based upon concept of time dilatation by the same way, like upon concept of light slowing with the same results. For example, the gravitational lensing can be interpreted as a result of space-time curvature under constant speed of light by the very same way, like it can be interpreted as a result of variable speed of light inside of invariant space-time.

OK, I've no problem with this - but WHY? Because of God or something? We're in the Pseudoscience topic about wave nature of Universe and I'm just proposing the explanation, based on real system, why the Universe appears composed of waves. Where such explanation should be presented, if not here? After all, what did you expected from such topic? Did you expect, somebody will start to explain it from oficial science point of view? Maybe some scientific theory of Universe waves exist, which we don't know at all? Or did you expect, the people will start to talk off-topic here, to avoid the answer of that question? Sorry for these questions - I'm just trying to understand the way of your thinking, which I've found quite interesting. Why nagging doesn't work.

Why not? Why the animation or video of chaotic system with undulations isn't the proof of concept, how the waves appears in chaos? Why not? This is how the theories are currently proven - by simulations of arbitrary things. Why not? Do you have a better explanation, why the Universe is composed of wave(s)? Why my thread was closed and the others not? Have the authors of Bibble Code done the same things? Characteristics of Pathological skepticism: 1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt, 2. Double standards in the application of criticism 3. The making of judgements 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

Why not? The density fluctuations of gas are undulating, i.e. they're behaving like waves. It's easy to simulate by using of computer. What I'm supposed to do? You have a simulation, animation and a real system video as an illustration of this concept. Maybe a TV show with Britney Spears? Is the above explanation less relevant to reality, then the thread about Bibble Code, for example?

By my opinion the Universe is chaotic system, but because even the chaos has its rules, every particle, which will violate such rules (for example the statistic rule of normal distribution) must return to the "normal state" of chaos less or more lately. Therefore every violation of chaos is elastic, so it can behave like wave. Of course, the common chaos isn't very chaotic, the significants fluctuations from normal chaotic state are rather rare. But only these fluctuations are visible for us by the same way, like what we can see inside of condensing vapor are just the irregularities (the rest of fluid appears transparent), i.e. it's just a elastic chaos violation, what remains are visible for us. It's because we are formed by these gradients too, so we can interact with them. From this the anthropocentric illusion follows, the observable reality is composed of undulating waves ("strings") and it's driven by predictable laws nearly completely. If the chaos wouldn't contain irregularities, we couldn't interact with it at all. Therefore even the number distribution in random math series is supposedly the result of biased anthropocentric view of reality. Can we propose the completely random numeric sequence at all? What we know, every sequence of natural numbers is full of mutual dependencies.

The problem is, if I answer by more clear & conscious way, I would receive warning, because the mainstream science doesn't know answer, so that every unique way means, I'm forced to propose some personal theory. But the thread with my personal theory was locked, even in Pseudoscience thread, which is full of informational garbage. The mainstream science proponents apparently wants to keep their informational monopoly by the same way, like Holy Church - even at the era of Internet. Any idea?

I answered this question here. You can see the vacuum as a system of many virtual particles, where the perturbations are propagating. After then only the periodic response has a chance to propagate at the distance, the chaotic fluctuations will compensate less or more soon undeniably. But we can see as well, the particles are chaotic clusters filling whole Universe, so we can interact just with the subtle deterministic portion of each chaos. We cannot realize the chaos by using of limited set of states/numbers, which is fully aperiodic. Even in most random system some dependencies should exists: for example the clusters of the similar numbers are the more sparse, the more these numbers are similar - this is the apparent dependence, on which Perlin noise function is based.

Because the sum of waves is the steady-state solution of multicomponent systems. The chaotic systems tends to compensate mutually, so they will not survive the Universe evolution.

You can try to check the DHMTL applet or AVI video for understanding of the subject.

...the string theory is using the strings of arbitrary number of dimensions (3, 5,...). Don't expect, you'll ever understand the string theory terminology.

It's a particle gas in infinite number of dimensions. It's simply the extrapolation of the condensation sample bellow to the infinite mass and energy density. Can you model it? After then you can increase both pressure, both temperature and you can extrapolate this model to the infinity. I don't care, how you'll able to do it, if at all.

I can do many logical derivations from this model as well. And it can be modelled by particle density or even random numbers distributions. We can derive the postulates of relativity and quantum mechanics by this model by illustrative way. After then we can use the classical models without logical steps in nature understanding.

These fluctuations are insintric. If you cannot assume, the Universe can obtain some specific values, then you're required to consider all meaningful values at the same time, collapsed into tiny place. After then the distribution of visible artifacts will correspond the distribution of regularities (i.e. the gradients) in such chaos. By the same way, like the distribution of chaos in supercritical vapor of very, very high density. You can imagine, these fluctuations are formed by people in dense crowd. If such crowd will become very large, then the spatial distribution of density fluctuations will not be dependent on the people behavior. Such fluctuations will behave like fluctuations in supercritical vapor. So we can imagine the formation of meta-particles just from human crowd. These meta-particles will agglomerate with scale perspective and under certain limit they'll start to behave like new intelligent creatures. The nature of original fluctuations will remain completely hidden, after then.

This is a deeper question. I presume, because we are inertial creatures, what we can interract with are just the inertial states. Therefore I'm saying, the Aether is massive stuff, simply becuase we are massive as well. But in principle the particle of Aether can form whatever you can imagine. Even the physical theories or memes are particles of Aether. For example, the fluctuations of ideas in causual space-time are exactly the same, like the fluctuations of inertial particles, they're all by principle of least action driven. Yes, but I'm not required to start the computer to be able to imagine the behavior of this stuff. Well, at least up to certain level. Some conclusions can be derived simply from logic. For example the structure of E8 Lie groups can be derived from this model by illustrative way: Such structure has a behavior of soap foam, because it gets more dense after introducing of energy by the same way, like soap shaken inside of closed vessel. Such behavior leads to the quantum behavior of vacuum and particle-wave duality. Every energy wave, exchanged between pair of particles (i.e. density fluctuations of foam) is behaving like less or more dense blob of foam, i.e. like gauge boson particle. Every boson can exchange its energy with another particles, including other gauge bosons, thus forming the another generation of interacalated particles. Therefore the E8 Lie group solves the trivial question: which structure should have the tightest lattice of particles, exchanged by another particles? And such question has even perfect meaning from classical physics point of view! Such question has a perfect meaning in theory, describing the most dense structure of inertial particles, which we can even imagine, i.e. the interior of black hole.

Some aspects of Aether we can imagine or even study in real life. For example the aggregation of Aether particles into more complex ones. What you can see is the temporal formation of hypersurface, i.e. the surface composed of many other surfaces which are having the structure of foam.

The aether particles are simply density gradients of another aether particles by definition.

The Aether doesn't contain any particular model of energy spreading. The Aether is simply stateless chaos. But what we can see from the chaos are just a causual gradients of states. What we can see from condensation of supercritical vapor isn't the vapor density, just the gradients of Aether density.