swansont Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 Aether was assumed to be a medium that freely penetrates through matter; and that it was stationary (sort of like Newton's master frame). It was not assumed to be stationary. That was a conclusion drawn from the observation of stellar aberration. Light deflection from distant stars, owing to the motion of the earth.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) . So not a subject for scientific study as such? (if we cannot relate to it then we cannot make measurements that describe it) By the way this "ultimate expanse of Nothingness" sounds suspiciously like we are cling filming our ether and maybe double wrapping again to be sure .Yes but remember , I was not talking of our Universe . I was referring to .. Beyond our Universe ... The mind boggles , beyond our Universe . One needs to come to terms , in your own belief system , what lays beyond ? But certainly if is in the scope of our :- Universe , with all the things ' astromically , cosmologically, worldly , including the unknowns of dark , energy and dark matter ' This mixture of listed things , I have every optimism, that the Universe is spread with some form of 'grid' , that can include amongs all the fields, matter, waves, forces , energy , electro-magnetism, mass . This intrinsic matrix , backdrop, that for want of a better word .. Medium .. I believe is spread from one end of the universe to the other . But beyond , 'the Universe ' ... I have my ideas , but that is outside of the content of this thread. And I do not expect any of the above listed things to necessarily be present . Mike Edited July 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
geordief Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 . Yes but remember , I was not talking of our Universe . I was referring to .. Beyond our Universe ... How is that different from the "outer universe" ? Does your "universe" have a boundary?
swansont Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 . I am not convinced of that . No evidence of any medium , does not necessarily mean , that there is not one . It could mean there is one , but we have not discovered it yet ? And in fact there is more likely to be something rather than nothing ? We are faced with a lot of maths symbols and geometric figures . But in themselves they are just maths and geometry . They might well be predicted geometry , which Says that something is , or is not a certain shape , or should be a certain shape , but surely that is not a real entity, until it is actually found , and I don't think anything has been found yet ? I suppose if I could believe a maths formula or a geometric point is as good as it is ever going to get , then I must concede we will never know . You aren't convinced, but then, what would it take to convince you? It seems nothing will, which means you aren't engaging in science. If there's an aether, you should be able to devise some kind of model that describes how it behaves and give us ways to test this model.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) You aren't convinced, but then, what would it take to convince you? It seems nothing will, which means you aren't engaging in science. If there's an aether, you should be able to devise some kind of model that describes how it behaves and give us ways to test this model. .I agree with the idea , that a model and test should be necessary , and made possible , if we , I am , to insist that a " medium of some sort is present in the universe. I will have to think how the model is constructed, the test made possible . ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- It is to be an ENABLER. The model is the ENABLER , ( who's function is to ENABLE the particular phenomenon ( say ELectro- Magnetic , GRAVITY, WAVE)etc , to travel through the medium . By thus Achieving ( MODELING the MEDIUM .) The model can be described in grater detail and function. In order to test the model , what will be necessary will be to test the thing being enabled . Thus by inference the thing being enabled will prove the existence of the enabler ( namely the medium ) In principle ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Mike Edited July 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Professional Strawman Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 It was not assumed to be stationary. That was a conclusion drawn from the observation of stellar aberration. Light deflection from distant stars, owing to the motion of the earth. Yes, that's correct. It was a conclusion.
geordief Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) . I agree with the idea , that a model and test should be necessary , and made possible , if we , I am , to insist that a " medium of some sort is present in the universe. I will have to think how the model is constructed, the test made possible . ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- It is to be an ENABLER. The model is the ENABLER ... Achieving ( MODELING the MEDIUM .) ( who's function is to ENABLE ) in order to test the model , what will be necessary will be to test the thing being enabled . Thus by inference the thing being enabled will prove the existence of the enabler ( namely the medium ) In principle ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Mike The model and test seem to have gone up with a puff of ether. Edited July 15, 2016 by geordief
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 15, 2016 Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) COMBINED MODEL FOR CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM BEHAVIOR WITHIN THE . " ENABLING MEDIUM " So the suggested model is :- There is a supportive " MEDIUM " which exists in the capacity of an ENABLING SYSTEM . This ENABLING System is composed of particles some 10 to the minus. 18 the size of a conventional atom . These quantum particles exist and represent themselves as a Quantum Grid , arranged in a background 3 dimensional matrix . The particles are derived from loop quantum gravity " Ashketar Loops" This supportive quantum gravity matrix is devoid of time . Overlaid on this universe wide " MEDIUM " and acts as a supportive ENABLING system to :- Including the Conventional , Classical , Relativistic Einstein general theory of Gravity. Complete with conventional space time fields , supporting MASS, ENERGY, ELECTRO MAGNETISM , and other forces . This combined quantum and classical Model is what I am proposing for testing purposes. Where the classical systems are ENABLED by the quantum grid , as a MEDIUM . In other words the loop quantum gravity timeless system Working at a 10 to the minus 18 size of atoms act as a QUANTUM ENABLING MEDIUM to the Classical Systems of the Standard Model . Working at Atomic level . Levels and specifications . . --------------------////--------------------////----------------- To understand what model I am suggesting here : In many spheres of endeavour , for example " speech therapy " , on speaking with a speech therapist . A client who is having difficulty in " Speaking " . An ENABLER, , who is another person , a speech therapist will provide assistance . This is referred an ENABLING . Perhaps an inspector may look to the one who is experiencing particular problems , to inspect if the work being done by the ENABLER is working . In this way the Inspector is able to have an insight , as to the nature of the therapist and his/ her work . So as a Model , or example of an ENABLER . Here we have the main body , being the human with a speech problem . Their improvement depends on the ENABLER . Who is only realy inspected by the effectiveness of their work as a speech therapist by being inspected as to the results or improvement to the Client . So the model applied to the proposed state of the Universe. The nature of the " enabling medium " is inspected and tested by testing the improvement in the client , provided by his/her ENABLER. Mike Edited July 15, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) . And here is a picture of the ENABLER . . ( Enabling the Granular Structure of Space ) care of Carlo Rovelli Mike Edited July 16, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
ajb Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 You know that thsi picture is just for artistic effect? By itself that picture tells us nothing.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) You know that thsi picture is just for artistic effect? By itself that picture tells us nothing..Yes I appreciate that , except it is Carlow Revelii ' s summation of how his research has led him to comprehend the possible state of things at the 10 to the - 18 of the size of a single atom . If it could be proved that " loop quantum gravity " particles DO exist at this very fine grain of existence ? I will walk around in the sunshine and reflect on the matter in the swimming pool to see how this relates to the model I suggested ,in the previous post about .:- ENABLER AS A MEDIUM As my argument was :- That you do not need to ' get at ' the ENABLER , because if you take my model as good , we just need to make the inspection (test ) and see the effect at the atomic level , rather than the loop level ( at 10 to the - 18 ) . Mike Edited July 16, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
ajb Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 Yes I appreciate that , except it is Carlow Revelii ' s summation of how his research ... But it is not a summation of his research - it is an 'artistic impression' of this. The 'emabler' is a spin network in your picture, I guess. I am not sure how that sits with you - I mean you now ask what *is* a spin network, what is it made of, what enables the spin network to exist?
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 16, 2016 Posted July 16, 2016 (edited) But it is not a summation of his research - it is an 'artistic impression' of this.The 'enabler' is a spin network in your picture, I guess. I am not sure how that sits with you - I mean you now ask what *is* a spin network, what is it made of, what enables the spin network to exist?.No , just for the moment , I am prepared to accept that both Lee Smolin and Carlow Revelli, have done a good job on pushing Loop quantum gravity forward . The maths on Lee Smolin 's Wikipedia site are utterly daunting . For the moment I am accepting that a fuzzy network of billions upon billions of '.. Ashketar ' Loops are making up this bedrock , quantum foundation to space time , in the way they propose. I am assuming that this bedrock consists of something tangible . Whatever that means at that level . Unfortunately , you mathmatisians seem to be happy with pure maths and geometry , posing as some form of reality. I need substance , whatever that is at a fundamental level . For the time being , I can but only accept that ' something is there that has this characteristic of Grid , quantum , and I would go on to say an ENABLING MEDIUM ., ! Which could of course make up to be a very ,very substantial, TOTAL . AMOUNT of ENERGY And /Or MATTER , whether they ( Rovelli and Smolin) are saying this is the missing ( DARK ENERGY and /or DARK MATTER ) , I am not sure if they are? This I am proposing is the Bedrock Basis of the universe. All that follows is built on this bedrock . This foundation Enables the classical universe to exist ( where possibly the Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist ) . This classical universe , the one we know and love and see , possibly derives its , existence, shape , spread characteristics, FROM the enabling foundation medium, by some means or other. So rather than being a " something" , which may or may not exist . It becomes the bedrock Grid and facilitator. ENABLER. I am happy now , for the time being ! While sitting in another model medium ( water , I tried two experiments ) 1. A surface wave but with strong sunlight shining through Remarkable likeness to images of galaxy distribution throughout the universes? This one even more interesting this time I made an underwater impact with my whole hand ( sudden sharp pulse sideways underwater . I could feel the three dimensional wave pulse , underwater with my other hand , . Although the illumination was not direct , the resultant 3 dimensional wave did produce an image plus a rather perculiar object , which I cannot quite work out what it is ( unless It is some form of void ) shadow .* However this experiment does illustrate the ease and requirements of Energy to have a medium , in order to produce waves . Mike * no plug hole any where near ( it was at the far , other end of the pool ) Edited July 17, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 19, 2016 Posted July 19, 2016 . Carlo Ruvelli , calls on our human Consiousness , as a final source of understanding of the Universe . As human observers , he says we stand at a very important position , in understanding the Universe by our observation of it . He recommends both Spinoza the Dutch philosopher and Lucretius as esteemed philosophers , who help us understand the importance of human Consiousness in beeing the important observer of the Universe. As such we command an important postition in the understanding of the universe . He recommends both Sinoza and Lucresius as philosophers of repute in this endeavour . Mike
disarray Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) Mike: I do not pretend to be a professional quantum physicist, so I am out of my depth when it comes to discussing waves and water mediums (pun intended). However, I find it easy to follow pretty much everything that you are saying since I share your philosophical/poetic streak. To some mathematicians, such cosmic soul-searching seems inane: "The glory of mathematics is that we do not have to say what we are talking about" Richard Feynman It does seem that the "Being" of space, along with its inelucatably concomitant bedfellows (e.g., energy, forces, gravity) is something that can be said to have "Existence" in itself, not only from a linguistic standpoint but also from a physics one. I suggest this primarily on the basis of two widely accepted concepts: First, that there is nothing (no "space" or "spacetime"...nothing at all) that is supposedly "outside" of the universe (again, both from a linguistic and physics standpoint). [i am putting aside the speculative possibility of a multiverse and other universes here]. Secondly, that space is expanding at a speed near, at, or beyond the speed of light. Conclusion...Some "thing" is expanding. "Nothingness" on its own does not expand. I am not sure whether the idea of spacetime as a medium is necessarily what is meant by "aether," and the issue may have more to do with whether there are some sort of absolute coordinates (Forgive, or rather, tolerate my ignorance). In any case, there are those scientists who take the pragmatic stance that "for all practical purposes," the universe not only can be best understood, or only ever understood, in terms of a mathematical framework, but also, taking it a step further, the universe may ultimately be nothing more than mathematics, in some sort of neo-Platonic manner of speaking. Thus gravitational waves are not ripples in a medium like waves in water, but are perhaps just ripples in the mathematical construct of spacetime. In short, we might just cut to the chase and say that said ripples are just (predictable) effects of, and in, both 'mathematic reality' as well as our mathematical model of the 'mathematic reality' of the universe. In short, we have our own numbers modeling the intrinsic numbers that constitute (at bottom) literally all of reality (which is the universe). If this be the final answer that physicists are wont to give us, should we not retort that if that is the case, then, in the manner of the Ancient Greek philosophers (e.g., Pythagoras, who is reputed to have said that "Geometry is knowledge of the eternally existent.... Number is the within of all things."), then the medium that we seek is none other than "numbers" themselves. If so, what this ultimately means, at least for me, would be that the particle theory of nature, espoused by such physicists as Victor Stenger, seems less convincing than Brian Greene's musings: "How is it possible that mathematics "knows" about Higgs particles or any other feature of physical reality? Maybe it's because math is reality...Perhaps if we dig deep enough, we would find that physical objects like tables and chairs are ultimately not made of particles or strings, but of numbers." http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_consciousuniverse257.htm Similarly, philosopher, James Ladyman of the University of Bristol says that, "These are very difficult issues, but it might be less misleading to say that the universe is made of maths than to say it is made of matter." Ultimately, the medium of math, so to speak, may be the end of the line, as far as looking for some ultimate medium. It is the medium forming the backdrop to every other medium, as if water, for example, was just a sub-medium of the mega-medium of the math of spacetime. We can't look any further because there ain't any medium that is a substrate medium of spacetime. Given that we are used to sub-mediums such as air and water having tactile qualities accessible to our senses, we naturally feel reluctant to accept that the mega-medium of spacetime is so....well, darn ethereal. To say that spacetime or that reality is ultimately just numbers says nothing else, really, than that reality is not only (sometimes amazingly well) organized, but organized in a way that our own number system(s) replicates it with astonishing precision (which should not be that great of a surprise given that life forms mimic their environment), and that its "turtles all the way down" until one gets to the bottom turtle, which is, not surprisingly, so elusive (aka, immaterial, abstract, insubstantial, gossamery, diaphanous, evanescent, ethereal) that it seems to not have, or indeed, doesn't have any (particular) qualities at all.....How could it be elsewise? Edited July 20, 2016 by disarray
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) Mike: ...........Thus gravitational waves are not ripples in a medium like waves in water, but are perhaps just ripples in the mathematical construct of spacetime. ...........".and that its "turtles all the way down" until one gets to the bottom turtle, which is, not surprisingly, so elusive (aka, immaterial, abstract, insubstantial, gossamery, diaphanous, evanescent, ethereal) that it seems to not have, or indeed, doesn't have any (particular) qualities at all.....How could it be elsewise? [/size]. Well, I must say your points are very eloquently put ! So , I suppose :- If the string theorists win , at the bottom are little strings, ? If the Loop quantum gravity win there are minute loops? If the mathematicians win there is just Maths and number? If the God fearing win ,then there is God given micro miniature 'star dust' ? Perhaps the " star dust " is some beautiful ' Lucretian ' seed or granuals of ' Everthing , including Consiousness, all bundled together , drifting about in my ' much sort after Enabling Medium ? We can but dream . Mike Edited July 20, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
disarray Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) Mike, Speaking of bundles, I gather that some mathematical constructs favor the "bundled" approach and others suggest that time, for example, might exist independently of forces, matter/energy. Admittedly as a lay person, I prefer the notion that the basic ingredients, whatever they might be, are inherently present from the 'beginning', so that there is no such animal as time or space without "force," etc. If so, the concept of a universe that is pure space and nothing else would be an oxymoron. Much like the proverbial acorn with its DNA potential just waiting around for rain, one might picture the Higgs Boson field just waiting around for some perturbation or density fluctuation giving birth to mass. But speaking of Lucretius, it is amazing that he can relate that "it is hard to believe that anything in nature could stand revealed as solid matter" over two thousand years ago. In any case, it does appear that the initial "forces," including gravity, came rather bundled together circa the Big Bang, does it not: Edited July 20, 2016 by disarray
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) Mike, Speaking of bundles, I gather that some mathematical constructs favor the "bundled" approach and others suggest that time, for example, might exist independently of forces, matter/energy. Admittedly as a lay person, I prefer the notion that the basic ingredients, whatever they might be, are inherently present from the 'beginning', so that there is no such animal as time or space without "force," etc. If so, the concept of a universe that is pure space and nothing else would be an oxymoron. Much like the proverbial acorn with its DNA potential just waiting around for rain, one might picture the Higgs Boson field just waiting around for some perturbation or density fluctuation giving birth to mass. In any case, it does appear that the initial "forces," including gravity, came rather bundled together circa the Big Bang, does it not: ? Quite so ! The new flavour on this model , which I find intreaguing. Is that in my reading of Carlo Rovelli 's dissertation on all this. That in the very bedrock granuals of everything . Although there is present all the things , like particles forces, etc THERE is NO TIME characteristic showing up . No connection of what we conceive of the passing of time . NO TIME . Not really sure what the significance of this is , though I do get a glimpse of how I perceive time , is being in relation to much bigger things , like a day , related to the sun and earth cycles , etc . But down there, or back then , there is or was no Sun , to break up a day into day, hour , second etc da de da Mike Ps this has echoes of when instead of an overseer saying " you have three days , to complete this project " rather the overseer says " no worries , ' Do it , In your own time '. . . Edited July 20, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Markus Hanke Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) I should reiterate again here that what physics does is make descriptive models of the universe; it does not concern itself with the question of whether these models are the "ultimate truth" or not, only with whether or not they are valid in the sense of being good descriptions. Physics is to the universe what Ordnance Survey is to Ireland - a way to find as accurate a description ( map ) as possible. So, if String Theory turns out to be "true", then that means only that it is a good model. If LQG turns out to be "true", then that means only that it is good model. And so on, I think you get my drift. Of course it is permissible to go on and keep asking in what way a description is "the truth", but then you are no longer doing physics. Such questioning should be encouraged of course, if for no other reason than philosophical and metaphysical curiosity, but I also think it is fairly important to keep the boundaries of ( and delineations between ) the various domains of enquiry in mind. Certain domains permit certain types of questions to be asked, but will fail to answers others outside that domain - e.g. you can ask a physicist how clocks in different places are related, and he will be able to answer you, but if you ask him why an ideal clock reads time, then you will likely not receive a satisfactory answer, because in physics that is simply how it is defined to be. Likewise, a philosopher can write you an entire treatise on the question of what time is, yet he will generally be unable to calculate for you even the most simplistic of clock relationships. That is because these two domains of enquiry have different aims, ask different questions, and use different methodologies. Likewise, for the discussion at hand, there needs to be a cut-off point where we quite simply have to say "it's a valid model because it agrees with all available empirical data", and be content with that, because it achieves exactly what physics sets out to do in the first place. If we keep asking "but why is that so", then eventually there will come a point where no further answer can be given. That is not a failing of physics, but rather a manifestation of the fact that all domains of enquiry are limited in scope. Just my own two cents' worth P.S. I do not mean to suggest that we shouldn't question models in physics - far from it, since that is an essential part of the scientific method. All I really mean to say is that it is important to realise that there are questions that physics quite simply cannot answer within its own domain. Edited July 20, 2016 by Markus Hanke 1
disarray Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) what physics does is make descriptive models of the universe; it does not concern itself with the question of whether these models are the "ultimate truth" or not, only with whether or not they are valid in the sense of being good descriptions. Physics is to the universe what Ordnance Survey is to Ireland - a way to find as accurate a description ( map ) as possible. So, if String Theory turns out to be "true", then that means only that it is a good model. If LQG turns out to be "true", then that means only that it is good model. Likewise, for the discussion at hand, there needs to be a cut-off point where we quite simply have to say "it's a valid model because it agrees with all available empirical data", and be content with that, because it achieves exactly what physics sets out to do in the first place. If we keep asking "but why is that so", then eventually there will come a point where no further answer can be given. That is not a failing of physics, but rather a manifestation of the fact that all domains of enquiry are limited in scope. Markus. I have perused your website on relativity, and I defer to your superior understanding of Relativity, and I take your point here, but I don't think that a discussion about whether space(time) is essentially mathematical or physical in nature, or a discussion about the basic constituents of the universe is necessarily idle speculation or asking for an unanswerable "why" or based on a presumption that one can get beyond models to some ultimate reality. For example, according to G.S. Sandhu, the physical discovery of gravitational waves suggests a return to a more physical approach to understanding space. Relativity is a wonderful model, but a paradigm is a paradigm is a paradigm, and we need not assume that there may not be some further breakthroughs regarding the compatibility of Relativity and quantum theory, in our understanding of gravity, or in our understanding of the nature of space and time (and whether it or they needst be 'bundled' with other items). Edited July 20, 2016 by disarray
imatfaal Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 Relativity is a wonderful model, but a paradigm is a paradigm is a paradigm, and we need not assume that there may not be some further breakthroughs regarding the compatibility of Relativity and quantum theory, in our understanding of gravity, or in our understanding of the nature of space and time (and whether it or they needst be 'bundled' with other items). The mistake is assuming that paradigm shifts occur from without science whereas they are always driven from within science. Blue sky thinking and out of the box imagineering are marketing speak - but they create nothing but copy. Scientists must be able to say but how do we test that... and therein lies the reason that why questions are not investigated - because as soon as the empirical method is used the question becomes "what model can I create that explains not only that which we know, does not contradict the other models we are sure of, but also explains a tiny bit of what we are asking 'why?' about?" 'Why?' questions are infinitely regressive - 'How can I show?' questions admit to a real-world answer. The other trouble - especially manifest in fora like this - is that the 'How can I show?' requires a background of many years previous study, serious hard graft, and an engagement with current knowledge and research colleagues. "Why?" questions most often merely demonstrate a reluctance to "make the hard yards" and learn what we currently know.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) This recent model , of a medium and a resultant image , is born out in evidence by the recent cosmological work . Namely ,:-. Here, waves are produced in a medium that has boundaries, namely the sides of the swimming pool . So in pointing to the evidence of cosmological distribution of galaxies. It would surely point towards two things . Accepting that this is 2D. But 3 D I have shown has similar types of results are possible from 3D .During the growth of the early universe, just after the recombination at 300,000 years out , when it was , much much smaller , say 1/4,000 th the size it is today , or maybe less if expansion is not linear. The borders of space may have been much nearer to the source of the spreading of space , and waves could have bounced back. These could have formed the concentration of early matter as patterns shown previously . This model does however require a medium . it would appear there are different levels of existence of the nature of the NATURAL cosmos . ( excluding any possible higher spiritual status . ) . But in the Physical Universe. :- 1 . Beyond space .....Nothingness. ABSOLUTLY Nothing . Maths is incapable of mapping this , because it is not there . 2. Space . ..not nothingness , occupying dimensions , capable of mapping by maths with all its geometry , coordinates, and if I understand it correctly may be at the source of possible ' strings ' of string theory ' or ' ' . Ashketars ' At the source of loop quantum gravity. But also including some form of medium which may contain a whole host of Fields, grid , grit, micro miniature particles, virtual and otherwise enough to make some form of lattice capable of ENABLING the Mass of (3) to follow No doubt this region includes the enabling dark matter . And also including the cosmological constant , dark Energy . 3. Massive bodies , more recognisable as stars, planets , asteroids , galaxies, and other mass and atom orientated particles . Mike Edited July 20, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
swansont Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 . Carlo Ruvelli , calls on our human Consiousness , as a final source of understanding of the Universe . As human observers , he says we stand at a very important position , in understanding the Universe by our observation of it . He recommends both Spinoza the Dutch philosopher and Lucretius as esteemed philosophers , who help us understand the importance of human Consiousness in beeing the important observer of the Universe. As such we command an important postition in the understanding of the universe . He recommends both Sinoza and Lucresius as philosophers of repute in this endeavour . Mike What does that have to do with the aether? Here, waves are produced in a medium that has boundaries, namely the sides of the swimming pool . So in pointing to the evidence of cosmological distribution of galaxies. It would surely point towards two things . Accepting that this is 2D. But 3 D I have shown has similar types of results are possible from 3D "Water waves need a medium therefore everything needs a medium" is inductive reasoning gone awry. .During the growth of the early universe, just after the recombination at 300,000 years out , when it was , much much smaller , say 1/4,000 th the size it is today , or maybe less if expansion is not linear. The borders of space may have been much nearer to the source of the spreading of space , and waves could have bounced back. These could have formed the concentration of early matter as patterns shown previously . This model does however require a medium . How do they bounce back? There is no container wall involved.
Markus Hanke Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 Relativity is a wonderful model, but a paradigm is a paradigm is a paradigm, and we need not assume that there may not be some further breakthroughs regarding the compatibility of Relativity and quantum theory, in our understanding of gravity, or in our understanding of the nature of space and time (and whether it or they needst be 'bundled' with other items). I am sorry if my post came across as saying that there should be no questioning of existing models, and hence no further breakthroughs and developments. It certainly was not meant that way, rather it seems I didn't explain myself carefully enough. Existing models must always be questioned and continuously tested, and precisely because of that there will be further developments in our understanding; any other state of affairs would be tantamount to total stagnation, which is not what we want. However, what I was trying to point out is that not all questions that can potentially be asked will lead somewhere meaningful in the context of physics - specifically the "why" type of question lends itself to infinite regress ( as imatfaal has pointed out ), since every answer you give can be followed by another "why", ad infinitum. There may well be a few layers of "why" questions that have meaningful answers, but you need to cut it off somewhere, or else you are no longer within the domain of physics.
Mike Smith Cosmos Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 (edited) What does that have to do with the aether?"......... How do they bounce back? There is no container wall involved.. Waves , signals , Bouncing back is the same way that signals down a transmission line . Can bounce back or be reflected from an open circuit or short circuit . Mike Edited July 20, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos
Recommended Posts