Zephir

I'm afraid, such concept is much more difficult to understand with compare of the torsion deformation of elastic massive environment (even at the multidimensional case on the right):



Why do you suppose the 2D circle and 3D sphere for energy spreading?
For example, my model explains the difference between uncharged and charged particle oscillations (see the above comparison).

What the model of yours can explain? What I'll obtain, if I will start to believe in it?

Zephir...
you said

In order for space to be uniform in all directions, there has to be connections that are similar between similar “spots.” PACKING IS THE KEY WORD.
The only shape that can do that is a HYPERBOLIC Stellated Tetrahedron/stella octangula/Self-Dual Polyhedron /Tetrahedron 2-Compound.
SEE 2 D PICTURE
MMC just said

QUOTE

What the model of yours can explain? What I'll obtain, if I will start to believe in it?

Not very consistent speculation, indeed...

Here is my promised presentation. It’s a long post.

I will post a link from Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
And from ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY to this thread.
Also, I will repeat this post in my thread.
This will be called:
JAL’S INTERPRETATION AND PROCEDURES
(Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure to be used for HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata ).
This does not need to be the only interpretation or procedure. I’m sure that there will be others.
If there are suggested improvements, I will make the edits.
If the interpretations and approach are rejected I will delete this posting.
Some links and references will be imbedded in the text.

JAL’S INTERPRETATION OF PROTOSIMPLEX
As some of you expected, I will use circle packing to illustrate the 2 dimension of R6.
When we have obtained a 2 dimensional structure, I will post/edit my interpretation and procedure for our 3 dimensions or R12, which will be sphere packing.
The Metron, is the combined smallest possible unit that can be used.
It is a 2 dimensional surface. This unit is also projected into our 3 dimension.
The way that the Metron is structured/assembled at the 2 dimensional level to make R6 will affect what happens at our dimensional level.

In order to reach down to the level of the metron it is necessary to quantize space time.
1. First level of quantizing spacetime.
I use the densest compaction known to obtain a smooth uniform structure of a 2 dimensional sheet. The results are that we get the 6 directions/dimensions/kissing numbers/R6. That then becomes a unit of 2d spacetime which can communicate with other units.
What we want to do is put a lot of these units together and see what happens.
If we look at a unit of 2 dimensional spacetime and lay a grid over it (see first illustration, modified from Zephir) then all we would get when trying to build a Cellular Automata would be rows of dark/off cells.
This is agreement with observation. Spacetime appears smooth and uniform everywhere at this level.
We would not get anywhere by building a Cellular Automata.
However, If we were building a peer review paper, I would do a “run” for the record.


2. Second level of quantization
Here is where appears the Metron and R4
It should also tell you something about what we can do later, concerning the size of an quanta of space versus the size of a quanta of time. Compare what I said about a unit above with what you see now.
This second illustration is based on a soliton. Just remember that a soliton of energy is not a rigid structure.
The following illustration is wrong because the Metron would not be occupying all four positions at the same time. It is cyclying from #1 #2 #3 #4.
As long as it does not cycle farther than 2 pi then the structure is stable.
It is at this level that we can make a Cellular Automata. It is at this level that we can see how information can flow from one place to the other place in 2d. (This is the motherboard.)

What are the rules that must be incorporated into the program so that we get meaningful results?
1. There should be only one metron in each circle (R4).
2. With one metron in each circle (R4) it is possible to evaluate how they will combine and create a stable structure that will produce a sheet/membrane of R6.
Will someone please tie down Ed Witten until we actually make his membrane.
I can just picture him dying to get to his pen to describe how a string can vibrate to make a Metron and to make the resulting membrane. We haven’t even look at (R12) 3 dimensions yet. That’s when we will have the LQG and Knot people scrambling for their pencils. I’m not worried. There will be plenty of bread and molasses for everyone.

This section is reserved to enter the edited rules needed to make the Cellular Automata.


I would expect that the R6 2 dimensional structure would stabilize with the following illustration imbedded in it. This might help in setting up the rules.


Does the above illustration make you want to take out your pencil to calculate the relationship between a quanta of space, a quanta of time and a Metron? Wouldn’t you like to know what it could look like as a R6 sheet?

PROCEDURES
1. We need at least 3 people willing to make a “production run”. You got to let us know who you are. A PM or posting will do the trick.
2. These 3 people should be able to describe the rules that they will use and be able to explain to us dummies how they relate to what the metron is doing.
3. I would recommend that the “production run” start at the simplest and work their way up to more complexity.
4. The simplest would be to limit the movement of the metron to a distance of pi. This is equivalent to saying “round and round they go”.
5. The next step would be to make a “run” where the Metron goes no more than 2pi. Why 2 pi? This allows the Metron to travel linearly and still be within a R4 structure.
6. Travelling farther than 2pi is where we get broken symmetry and “particles?”
7. After everyone is satisfied with a 2d sheet then we can start on 3d.
8. After we are satisfied with the 3d structure we can try to input the variables from Heim's Particle Structure that affect the production of particles such as the constants. I expect that Mrs. SUSY will be keeping an eye on us.

This is only one possible approaches that could be used.
At the end of the day, there should result some publishable results. Maybe I’ll get mentioned in the acknowledgements for inspirational contribution.
Okay, …. let’s get the show on the road!
simple jal

QUOTE (PNeilson @ Apr 6 2006, 04:30 AM)
All of us in this forum already know all about it.


Sorry, but you can ignore my post, after than - or not? I've explained my stance to jreed, which obviously didn't know anything about it - not you. After all, this is a dynamic forum, most of posts or even thread topics are repeating again and again in other or deeper consequences. If you have some problem with this, you can visit some static web site...


QUOTE (PNeilson @ Apr 6 2006, 04:30 AM)
... know all about self promotion....


But this isn't some "self promo", it's a presentation of theory. Wake up, Paul - you'll never learn about me. Please, let me decide the proper strategy alone...

BTW You've told me, CA just might explain wave particle duality in a way that you can accept. So, can you explain his wave particle duality, after than? Did CA explain for example, the photon concept? Can you interpret such explanation by own words? Can you explain, why the photon behaves like wave or particle?

Or you simply believe, you've understood the CA explanation?

BTW You cannot be my friend - I even don't know you, Paul - you've just a few submissions here...
Please wake up: this is just an anonymous forum - no less, no more.

QUOTE (PNeilson @ Apr 6 2006, 06:44 AM)
...don't take this personally when we try to stay on topic...


Don't afraid, I'm taking anything personally, I'm sufficiently assertive. On the other hand, I can expect the same stance from you. I suppose, in anonymous environment, such emotionless stance is better than relationship based on proclaimed friendship, which doesn't exist in fact.

Zephir...

QUOTE
Of course if you think that you have all of the right answers then you'll enjoy sitting back and laughing at us working our arse off to just getting to your answer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
Furthermore, for the material world, Rp with p = 6, there exists a hyperspace with n = 12, containing R6 as subspace, which in turn contains the subspace R4 (<--that is us).
QUOTE
While the ** are always bounded by geodesics, their area remains constant in a deformed lattice. The metronized state function then describes the projection of a deformed R6-lattice into any Euclidian reference space (<-- that is us) ,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenge will to make a visual of the dynamic of a 2d surface from the metrons. The ultimate challenge will be to to have a visual dynamic 3d structure which can produce the results obtained from the formulas.
How do we go about doing a visual of a METRON to create a 2d surface then a 3d environment that reproduces the mathematical results?
Zephir....sit back .... and at us wasting our time in my thread.
jal

QUOTE (jal @ Apr 2 2006, 05:52 PM)
Zephir....sit back .... and ... at us wasting our time in


Hi, Jal - are u able to dispute without advices, what I should do or what I shouldn't to do?

I really don't think so....

Guest_mike Posted: Mar 2 2006, 05:57 PM
Hello !
To All: the name of this topic is "Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory". Please stop all offtopic posts (aether, private theories etc). Such discussions can decrease reputation of this thread.
If someone have his own theory, he might start his own thread.

Thanks, Mikhail.

lancis Posted: Mar 3 2006, 11:33 AM
Greetings,
Usually, I do not post on boards like these, and thus saw no point in registering.However I do enjoy reading some of the topics... This topic is one of them, and aether wave theory is not one of them.

will314159 Posted: Mar 4 2006, 05:20 AM

Oh Zephir you just won't take a hint and you just won't quit with the aether theory posts.

I admit it is very interesting and you hav got nice graphics and nice animations. But we all have the LINK to your thread. And we can all go there if we CHOOSE.
You are a very good EVANGELIST. It's a good thing you are not trying to proselytize to a religion.

But here we wa want to READ ABOUT
Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory

What part about Heim don't you understand.
Personally I am not interested right now in Heim engineering, I'm still working on grasping the physics of it all.

I don't think the Heim mass problem is solved although we are far far traveled along the path thanks to Spony than when we started.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAL






Hal Porter Posted: Apr 2 2006, 07:07 PM


Unregistered









Zephir:
What is it you don't get.

People have tried to tell you, incredibly politely, to stick to the subject of this thread, Heim theory. Heim theory is not Aether Wave Theory.

You keep trying to entice the discussion over to the subject of your obsession, Aether Wave Theory.

I, for one, don't have the time to scroll through your crap.

Actually, Aether Wave Theory might NOT be crap, but your behavior is so rude that I presume it to be worthless. So if you want to entice us to examine your views, the most efficient way to achieve that result would not be to alienate a potential audience.

If you have anything to add to a discussion of Heim Theory, great. If not, bug off.

And your "It's a free country" type comments are certainly misdirected. This is a place to dialog on Heim Theory, not Aether Wave Theory. Your discussions of the latter verge on vandalism, since they inhibit the discussion. Were you physically present and consistently trying to twist the conversation around the way you do here, you would soon be physically excluded from the group, at best.

So grow up and stick to the subject.

Or if that's too much, then face they truth: You are a petty, self-aggrandizing vandal. Your ideas are probably worthless if not totally crackpot, and if they're not, your total lack of social empathy, much less social skills, render the rejection of any worthwhile ideas you may have almost inevitable.

So play by the rules of the game; it is your only hope to rescue the tatters of your reputation from group contempt.

Get it now?

I would think most of us are angry to have to confront such an issue when considering such an intellectually demanding--and for so many of the contributors--time-consuming problem. You are forcing yourself on us; this is ... not polite....

Hal Porter

Thank you, jal for good-hearted bringing of my poor stupid topic to more prominent position in forum, again..
Nobody is prohibited in discussion about other subjects here, after all.

Here is my promised presentation. It’s a long post.

I will post a link from Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure Theory
And from ENTROPY-POTENTIAL ENERGY to this thread.
Also, I will repeat this post in my thread.
This will be called:
JAL’S INTERPRETATION AND PROCEDURES
(Burkhard Heim's Particle Structure to be used for HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata ).
This does not need to be the only interpretation or procedure. I’m sure that there will be others.
If there are suggested improvements, I will make the edits.
If the interpretations and approach are rejected I will delete this posting.
Some links and references will be imbedded in the text.

JAL’S INTERPRETATION OF PROTOSIMPLEX
As some of you expected, I will use circle packing to illustrate the 2 dimension of R6.
When we have obtained a 2 dimensional structure, I will post/edit my interpretation and procedure for our 3 dimensions or R12, which will be sphere packing.
The Metron, is the combined smallest possible unit that can be used.
It is a 2 dimensional surface. This unit is also projected into our 3 dimension.
The way that the Metron is structured/assembled at the 2 dimensional level to make R6 will affect what happens at our dimensional level.

In order to reach down to the level of the metron it is necessary to quantize space time.
1. First level of quantizing spacetime.
I use the densest compaction known to obtain a smooth uniform structure of a 2 dimensional sheet. The results are that we get the 6 directions/dimensions/kissing numbers/R6. That then becomes a unit of 2d spacetime which can communicate with other units.
What we want to do is put a lot of these units together and see what happens.
If we look at a unit of 2 dimensional spacetime and lay a grid over it (see first illustration, modified from Zephir) then all we would get when trying to build a Cellular Automata would be rows of dark/off cells.
This is agreement with observation. Spacetime appears smooth and uniform everywhere at this level.
We would not get anywhere by building a Cellular Automata.
However, If we were building a peer review paper, I would do a “run” for the record.


2. Second level of quantization
Here is where appears the Metron and R4
It should also tell you something about what we can do later, concerning the size of an quanta of space versus the size of a quanta of time. Compare what I said about a unit above with what you see now.
This second illustration is based on a soliton. Just remember that a soliton of energy is not a rigid structure.
The following illustration is wrong because the Metron would not be occupying all four positions at the same time. It is cyclying from #1 #2 #3 #4.
As long as it does not cycle farther than 2 pi then the structure is stable.
It is at this level that we can make a Cellular Automata. It is at this level that we can see how information can flow from one place to the other place in 2d. (This is the motherboard.)

What are the rules that must be incorporated into the program so that we get meaningful results?
1. There should be only one metron in each circle (R4).
2. With one metron in each circle (R4) it is possible to evaluate how they will combine and create a stable structure that will produce a sheet/membrane of R6.
Will someone please tie down Ed Witten until we actually make his membrane.
I can just picture him dying to get to his pen to describe how a string can vibrate to make a Metron and to make the resulting membrane. We haven’t even look at (R12) 3 dimensions yet. That’s when we will have the LQG and Knot people scrambling for their pencils. I’m not worried. There will be plenty of bread and molasses for everyone.

This section is reserved to enter the edited rules needed to make the Cellular Automata.


I would expect that the R6 2 dimensional structure would stabilize with the following illustration imbedded in it. This might help in setting up the rules.


Does the above illustration make you want to take out your pencil to calculate the relationship between a quanta of space, a quanta of time and a Metron? Wouldn’t you like to know what it could look like as a R6 sheet?

PROCEDURES
1. We need at least 3 people willing to make a “production run”. You got to let us know who you are. A PM or posting will do the trick.
2. These 3 people should be able to describe the rules that they will use and be able to explain to us dummies how they relate to what the metron is doing.
3. I would recommend that the “production run” start at the simplest and work their way up to more complexity.
4. The simplest would be to limit the movement of the metron to a distance of pi. This is equivalent to saying “round and round they go”.
5. The next step would be to make a “run” where the Metron goes no more than 2pi. Why 2 pi? This allows the Metron to travel linearly and still be within a R4 structure.
6. Travelling farther than 2pi is where we get broken symmetry and “particles?”
7. After everyone is satisfied with a 2d sheet then we can start on 3d.
8. After we are satisfied with the 3d structure we can try to input the variables from Heim's Particle Structure that affect the production of particles such as the constants. I expect that Mrs. SUSY will be keeping an eye on us.

This is only one possible approaches that could be used.
At the end of the day, there should result some publishable results. Maybe I’ll get mentioned in the acknowledgements for inspirational contribution.
Okay, …. let’s get the show on the road!
simple jal

Zephir:

I have tried to refrain from posting any comments on your replies, but now I have to say something. Your ideas are wrong. Read Feynman's third volume of "Lectures on Physics". The interference of particles can't be explained with any kind of matter field theory, and that includes aether waves, if there is an aether. Electrons are POINT PARTICLES. They impact on a screen and are seen as point particle impacts, not as a matter wave field which would spread out. Yet the interference pattern from two slits is seen as the pattern after many electron impacts have been recorded. Feynman says "In reality it (two slit interference ) contains the only mystery". Please stop confusing the issue with all these pictures and explainations involving concepts such as aether waves, nested dimension etc that nobody can figure out. Many intellegent people have tried to understand how particle interference can happen, and so far none have been successful. I don't think you're the first. It's been said that if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you haven't studied it enough.

I'm sorry for having to add this criticism to the postings, but incorrect ideas should be corrected.

Hi, jal,

try to imagine the dodecahedron created from such vortices (torsion deformations of vacuum EM lattice). It could be nice structure of vacuum foam, isn't it?




Well, and neutrinos are a point particles too, so we have a two different points, here. For example, all stars with exception of Sun and some closest supergiants are appearing like punctual objects - but it doesn't mean, they're punctual.

You can dispute such objection with superstring and/or LQG theorists - I'm not so sure, if they will be very happy with you... After all, you can imagine the electron as the tornado vortex in space, if u want - but how large is diameter of such vortex?

I will not discuss with you until and only after you have edited deleted your posts from my threads.

NOTICE TO ASPIRING CANDIDATES OF KNOWLEDGE- KEEP THIS QUOTE IN MIND

JAL

JAL, not sure who your endless co-posters have been, I got a notice from editors?

Your nine, three by three red spheres packed tightly into a square box, then the hexigon box holdiing seven red spheres, your mimimum packing space, the six into the corners of the hexagon, and one sphere in the middle, that is apparent visually.

Next consider going two dimensional, say a projection onto the bottom of the two boxes, of what?

Parallel light, maybe if spheres are hollow, flattening, but then that would widen them.

Parallel something, this gets messy, where or how do we simplify from three to two dimensions, forgetting time that it takes to do this construction?

If you have been dialoging with Zenith, back several layers he wrote to proposed ethers, or was it Reality Check? You determined questions addressing packaging methods seem justified, especially when contrasted to Zenith's coiled coils shaped like doughnuts.

In the spirit of unification of two or more conjectures, consider these, at least, two ether models, or three models with a combo of the two, give it a catchy name here, triplet aethers (don't inhale too long):

#1) Model G-strings connect all "dot" masses in "our" (measureable) universe following the Higgs Particle of QED via Sheldon and Salen.

#2) Model Triplets of quarks and subquarks, and subsubquarks, a balanced conjecture recently name by Hans Dehmelt (circa 1986-96) on Nobel Prize winning measurements on a single positron vibrating at about 60 MegaHertz inside a vacumm in a magnetic Pennings Trap, measuring the positron, named Pricilla, for months it's gyromagnetic ration out to 2.0000... sixteen places.

The Nobel Prize speech nor the essay published did not explain how he postulated his model of the electron from the positron, but it is an astounding conjecture:

the electron is a flat equal lateral triangle (felt) with vertices of 1/3 charges, themselves smaller, maybe more dense yet, 1/3 charges of the 1/3, that is each sub-sub charge is 1/9;

and the three 1/3 charge vertices are each matter and antimatter such that they appear to us at a distance the 1/1820 th of the neutron or proton mass.

#3) Felt G-strings, that is, the sides of the felts are the G-strings, which transmit the electromagnetic forces transversely along the multidimensional strings, that is the curling and the like that Zenith's elaborate visuals express, and the gravitational forces longitudinally.

The 1/3 rotations required of Zenith's square box to regular hexagons, nine spheres to seven, is ok, but it hides a simpler way, the felts, six of them, make a flat hexagon, in addition, the vertices being spinning 1/3 charge subquarks, the down strange bottom, add up to unity, likely so tightly bound by the sides (G-strings) that the electron and positron, except for asmmetry, are congruent.

Consider that a single electron felt would have it spinning vertices, in turn spinning 1/9 triplets align its magnetic field so as to be directed in space (vacumn?) as far as possible away from each others (uncertainity factored into this) and you get the 60 degree side of the felts comprizing the hexagon.

The beauty of these felts as building flats is their uniformiity and pi/3 magnetic positions.

Thus two same charged felts, say the electrons, can be wafered so their magnetic pi/3 magnetic vectors cancel, stay separted by the Pauli Exclusion Principle distance, maybe Roger Penrose's mathematically described quantum well.

Add to this Penrose's conjecture or proof (I have not read it) that five siced requalr tiles do not lay flat, that seems clear if visualised as forming five felts, a cap shape as opposed to the flat hexagon.

Look at a soccer or volleyball, hexagons surround pentagons, the hexagons have matching hexagons directly accross the inner space, the pentagons have corresponding matches too.

If regular felt pentagons don't lie flat, I suppose they would indent or outdent on a flat black hole surface, that could be considered the uncertainty or even connected to Hawking and Other's conjectures relating the BH area and temperture to the glancing matter radiation arround the BH.

This kind of matching of current theories with the felt G-strings seems powerful visual stuff.

Finally, Zenith eary, September 2005 puzzled at solid ethers and vacumns, or someone did, but consider that panio wire with weights at each end, laid over a block of ice, the wire melts with the pressure the ice, the weights pulls the wire down, gets through, the block stays in tact (I quess untill the melting warms up the ice block eventually and we can call it quits on the experiment repetitions numberes.

The aether is the G-string, make it as dense as you want that matches the performance of the neutrino, something like if a photon "bullet" or graviton were small enought it would not collide very often with electrons nor nucleons.

This last one is tricky. The Higgs particle if connecting to all other particles like Newton's G assumes, then mean the longitudinal and transverse movements of the G-string are in a sense "predetermined" to go just here they end up within our local electrons and/or nuclear triplets, but being there are so many G-strings from each electron~higg~positron wafers, the Z* of Penrose's thickness wafers of his "Road to Reality" text book, the unification of Albert Einstein wrote to is approaching from collective knowlege that science is supposed to give and the structure that appears to goven, that even small children instinctively behave as if it exists, whethere it does or not.

But anthopomorphically viewed, why not the two be blended with our minds, the gilia cells of our nervous sytems, spreading out their urchin spindles, their near speed of light communicators addiing to our neuron axion, those sodium/potassium ion signals near the speed of sound.

Isn't you consciousness show you that the axions alone seem to fall short of the clarity that may even be driving you to make demands we poster address your work.

packaging makes a difference.

Best, rmuldavin

Hi! Guest_rmuldavin...
Yes, packaging does make a difference.
I did not need to inhale.
If you have been reading my posts then you know.
Have you been following "HEIM's Metrons as Cellular Automata" and reading protosimplex?
You should post there.
I am sure that if we can get something going then when we get to "3d" that your comments/suggestions will apply. (Mrs. SUSY) This will be when the particle/constants will need to be included. If we cannot get an empty surface, we cannot hope to achieve anything.
That's what I mean't when I said " There will be enough bread and molasses for everyone". Read my suggested procedure.
Can you come up with a procedure?
Can you help with Cellular Automata? Do you want to give your help?
jal

I surely believe that photons, electrons and other 'so called' particles are merely made up of bundles of energy for which reason I have always been partial to the string theory and its many forms. This is the only logical possibility; I mean, if photons, electrons etc are particles, what are they formed of? On the other hand, bundles of energy can be considered as disturbances or vibrations in the ether or space-time.

For the latest news and buzz about quantum mechanics, astro physics, particle physics, computer hardware, software, hacks, tips, basic science.........., kindly visit 'e-Post' at:

http://e-post-e.blogspot.com/

The photons are wave pockets of light. The Aether Wave Theory explains the photon by the interference of light waves with its carrier waves, i.e. by the interference of light on the fluctuations of vacuum, the wavelength of which corresponds the Planck length. No other scientific theory is able to explain the photon existence and properties by such easy and intuitive way, by mu knowledge.



The average wavelength of vacuum fluctuation corresponds the Planck length (approximately 10-35 m). The interference pattern frequency corresponds the wavelength ratio, for example at the case of light of wavelength 10-9 meters (soft X-ray radiation) the corresponding photon size will be 10-9 x 10-9 / 10-35 = 10-17 meters (slightly above atom nuclei diameter range 10-18 m).

As the result, such light will not be scattered by the electron orbitals (which are much larger), but dispersed by the atom nuclei, thus forming the interference patterns as the result of X-ray diffraction, which can be used for determination of crystal structures, for example.

It means, the photon existence can serve as the indirect proof of Aether structure existence and the physical meaning of the Planck length and energy quantities.

Zephir,

This theory that you have been discussing regarding the aether is very similar to a theory I have been working on. Where can I read more about this?

Hello, Zach,

here you can found history of nearly all my posts here, supporting full text search. List of illustrations used is here.

Where we can found yours?

I haven't really posted it anywhere. I have just been working on it in a notebook I have. Maybe I will try to organize it sometime and post it. I haven't quite got to the point of explaining the strong and weak Nuclear forces and have just started to get into the electromagnetic forces. Is this your theory?

How would you describe gravity? What causes it and how does it work?

A nice experiment, demonstrating the fact, the standing wave of inertial environment can behave as solid matter. The tendency of standing wave to act by force against barrier causes the paper scrap to "levitate". You can click to tiny animation bellow to see the QuickTime video (8,2 MB) in original quality. The same principle is formin' the illusion of "solid particles" from standing waves of Aether.

Zephir, I admit that I haven't fully read your theory, but something you mentioned struck me. You say that a photon (as well as any other particle) does not exist as a particle but entirely as a wave that, because of other waves simulateously in the space-time fabric, appears to be transmitted as a packet.

Ok, that might be feasible.

However, you also said that a photon spreads out from each point so that it covers the entire area of the wave. If this were true, then if a single photon were sent through a double slit, the entire double slit pattern would appear slowly, but all at once on a screen. However, this was actually tried. What happens is that the pattern still appears, but it appears one point at a time and if the detector measures the energy, it measures that the single photon that arrives still has the same amount of energy that the single photon that left had. In other words, it's been proved that the photon does not actually split; it always has the same amount of energy in the same amount of space.

Your theory also seems to ignore the results of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. I suggest you look that up.

Do you have any response to this?

wow, this is hypothetical enough to compete with the String Hypothesis for the worst and ultimately the least supported theory ever. 12 dimensions? what is next? flying dimensions? Jesus Christ as the unifying force?

Hi all,
You are mixing up Photon with Quantum Entanglement: a quantum state of particles where if one is observed to be spin-up, the other one will be observed to be spin-down.
Also the results happen simultaneously not consecutively … if you see one result you can then predict what the other will be before you look at the result.
Also it is not exacting because there are many different interpretations to the results i.e.
It’s happening, but what is it that is happening?
Also it is known that there are many blackholes (sic) in these experiments.
--------------------------------------------

This is the effect of light being 2D.

It is much easier to see what is happening if you look at a portrait picture where the eyes are looking at you no matter where you stand in a room.
And even more amazing another person standing in a different position in the room states that the eyes are looking at them … obviously we are not amazed its just that the picture is 2D.

Now lets switch of the light in the room and switch it on/off quickly so that only 1 photon reflects off the picture … will only one of us in the room see the eyes looking at them or do you expect the photon to split?

No the photon wave will spread so that we will both sees the eyes in our own reference point at exactly the same time.

The photon is not doing magic.

<a href='http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/?s=covers' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>Did I, really? The model of spreading of photons as wave pockets inJava applet.




I'd prefer such interpretation, which works well even in explanation / interpretation of other phenomena. Concerning the Aether Wave theory interpretation of quantum entanglement, you're not required to read whole theory, you can use a full text search for some partial topic.

Emissions like strong lights will distort the gravity.

I think the spherical harmonics are the angular portion of the solution to Laplace's equation in spherical coordinates where azimuthal symmetry is not present. And there are three types of galaxies.
elliptical galaxy e.g. NGC4881 Three Dimension GM(<r)m/r*r = mv*v/r
spiral galaxy e.g. NGC4414 Two Dimension G'M(<r)m/r = mv*v/r
barred spiral galaxy e.g. NGC1300 One Dimension G"M(<r)m = mv*v/r
http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/galaxy/galaxy01.html

Yep, this is exactly what I mean, when I'm saying, the ability to predict/compute some phenomena doesn't necessarily mean the ability to understand it's nature.

Wait, I don't understand. I skimmed through this thread and all I saw were a bunch of pretty graphics. Zephir, do you claim to have the theory of everything? If so, what are you doing here on these forums showing your pretty graphics instead of writing for scientific journals like Science and Nature? And if you really have TOE, then shouldn't you be waiting in line at the podium for your Nobel Prize?

Waiting on podium is rather uncertain and ungrateful job as many a much more elaborated theories (like the Yilmaz's or Heim's theories of gravity) are still waiting for its acceptation. I offered my concepts to some journals for publishing, including the Nature (redactor Phill Ball), but without success. Some journals, like Science or Nature even doesn't accept the articles containing some the "prohibited" words, like Aether at all, which makes problem, as I insist on it, because of scientific priority of Aether concept.

But I've rather malicious idea: as the introducing concept of Aether Wave Theory (AWT) is pretty simple (i.e. the environment recursively formed by inertial waves, which can be easily understood on the base of everyday physic or simulated on common PC), it enables to understand the principles of relativity and quantum mechanic by scientific publicity or even laymans well even before such concept will reach the mainstream physic! The Goggle SEO optimization of this forum is pretty good, so my ideas are reachable via Internet a much more better way, then if I'd publish it in some sunken specialized journal, protected from publishing on Internet by fees.

Furthermore, the web pages are having a better possibilities for presentation of abstract concept (the videos, animations, etc.), than paper journal or even PDF. It's important, because the understanding of AWT doesn't requires the math formalism, or even some abstract thinking. My concepts is solely based on real physic analogies. The situation in presentation simply changed with the Internet existence, so I can use it.

Here's an another aspect, which is tightly connected with information explosion: the mainstream science has no lack of experimental data, but is missing the simple and consistent integration concepts, which are requiring some interdisciplinary insight. The Internet on-line community can be a quite useful to official science from this point of view, as the specialists have often no time, no ability to deal with some general problems and interpretations of theory.

Zephir,

I tried to look at your aether theory on your link, but as many times before I gave up to sort out some real continous theory (almost 400 pages and who knows how many postings) from it. Couldn't you post what you have presented to Science and Nature on a linked PDF-file, or make a new document which explains the WHOLE theory? To try again to piece together something from the posts on this forum is very difficult, it just touches on pieces of the puzzle here.

Nope, from the obvious reason: no mainstream journal accepts the materials published independently due the copyright for reproduction. Nevertheless, the introducing concept of Aether Wave theory (AWT) is pretty consistent and simple, so it can be expressed by the single sentence: everything is formed by the inertial waves of environment, which is recursively formed by another inertial waves and the mass density of such system is equivalent the total energy density in each moment and space element.

All my explanations here are just extrapolation of this leading concept. You can found the single page introduction of it here. Most of my posts here are just re-interpretation of contemporary physic in context of AWT concept to demonstrate, such concept is vital and valid - no less, no more.

If you like, it, you can accept it and make an thousands of new publication from it, but it's not my job nor interest, as I'm not professional scientist and nobody will pay me for it. Instead of it, I'd prefer to re-think such concept in even more deeper and general consequences - this is what I can and I can do it well.

After all, I don't understand fully, why I should involve in propagation of some usefull concept so much. For example, before some time the press news about Cellular Phone Charger Powered by Hamster and Wheel circulated the whole world without any author intervention. I suppose, the significance of AWT for physic is at least comparable, so I can expect the same maintenance...

So... you're not a real scientist, you have no publications (instead you have forum posts), you haven't performed any actual experiments to verify your "TOE", you haven't shown the math behind your TOE (to my knowledge), and you compare your TOE to a hamster-powered phone charger...

And you expect us to take you seriously?

Of course not - it's just the manifestation of your good will to understand the world on the level of my understanding. No less, no more.

I'm offering my free time for better understanding of reality for all people anonymously and I don't expect anything for it.

The math model is as easy, as the whole introducing concept:

If you're able to solve the wave equation of string in arbitrary number of spatial dimensions, where the mass density of string corresponds the energy density, you've got such model in it's complete state.

Zephir,

You claim that anyone with basic physics knowledge should be able to understand you, but I seriously cannot. You don't really explain what your theory is, you just use a bunch of sophisticated terms and sort of put them together without explaining any of it.

I seriously do not understand how there's 13 pages to this thread. Does anyone actually understand what he's saying?

If, as you claim, you're trying to be unselfish, yet you claim to have TOE, then ... you are being selfish. As you say, people want to know what TOE is. If you have it you should make some publications, show the math behind it, conduct experiments to prove your results, etc. Then people will listen to you.

So far all you have done is said a lot of nothing and put up a bunch of pretty animations. You're not going to get *anywhere* with this approach. As it stands, it does not seem like you have TOE.


P.S. I don't know that much about advanced theoretical physics (even less in the math), but I do know that this sentence of yours does not make sense (both grammatically and logically):

"The most of antimatter is contained in the so called dark matter (i.e. vacuum fluctuations with the low convolution levels)"

Dark Matter composes about 23% of the universe, while normal matter composes 4%. Obviously, if there's to be any symmetry, then there needs to be an equal amount of both. Finally, if Dark Matter were really composed of antimatter, then we'd be seeing a WHOLE LOT of explosions going on. (And uh yeah, just personally, I think Dark Matter is bullshit and doesn't exist).

isit'y,

Obviously you're more than one sandwich short of a picnic ...Good ol' Zeph's amazing considering he's Czech'n. A few odd gramma mistakes is allowed...No?
Try this experiment....attempt to communicate with Zeph' in his native language....to assist you with this task, see link provided.


Czech language for brain donors

Yes you're right, but that still doesn't make my point any less valid (I don't think at least).

Well, the true is, this thread isn't very illustrative for everybody, who want to know something about my theory. This is a reason, why I'm not linking it in my signature at all, and most of info about it is distributed into other topics. So if you really interested about Aether Wave theory, please use the link just submitted.

Concerning the understanding, here's a lot of guys with similar or consistent ideas, so I suppose, I've reached an understanding gradually and most of regular visitors of this forum understands the principle of theory at least.

The very new visitors should pass through searchable history of my posts here. You can start by this introduction and search for the unknown yet terms and concept here, until everything becomes clear.


But I'm not saying, the AWT is TOE, it's rather the big step towards the formulation of TOE. The recursive wave mechanisms describes well the observable Universe and is consistent with superstring theory, being a slight generalization of it, in fact. The main concept of superstring theory and AWT remains the very same, as the "string" is abstract of inhomogeneous elastic massive environment, which I'm using it too. Everything which was done by my is the conclusion, the material of strings is formed by vibration of another, more fundamental ones. Surprisingly enough, the superstring theory is missing such trivial assumption, being built upon the different ad-hoc string models. So I suppose, my concepts is the simplest way, how to understand the superstring theory as a whole.


Nope, because of the dark matter is very diluted, being formed just by slightly more dense vibrations of vacuum. It interacts with common matter even by more subtle way, than neutrinos. As you probably know, the neutrino is able to pass through whole earth globe without interaction and it carries a very little mass, so that the energy of annihilation will be nearly insensible. Due the large mass of Dark Matter such antimatter is sufficient for compensation of the whole observable deficit of antimatter..

I suppose, the Dark Matter existence is well proven fact by astronomic observations both in visible, both in microwave spectrum. All these inhomogeneities of microwave background radiation measured by spacecraft COBE and WMAP are the manifestations of streaks of Dark matter. The large distant galaxy clusters are exhibiting a strong gravitational lensing effects, which can be explained by the presence of dark matter surrounding its neighborhood. And finally, the shape of most galaxies (which doesn't correspond to Newton gravitational law exactly) can be explained by the gradient of vacuum density as well, by the same way as Pioneer anomaly in the scope of solar system. And in some rare cases it can be even observed directly as the spherical cloudy globule around galaxies, if it's being mixed with the particles of normal observable matter.



The explanation of Dark Matter in context of Aether Wave theory is quite simple. The AWT supposes, the vacuum isn't empty, weightless environment. Instead of this, it's extremely dense form of super-fluid matter, similar to fluid. Nevertheless, it's slightly compressible, like each matter. If you dip some large and dense object into fluid, the distribution of density of its changes. Such object increases the density of the closest neighborhood of fluid, which becomes more dense too, being compressible slightly and attracted by this heavy object. It results to the gravitational lensing effect, which we can observe at large distances arround such objects in cosmic space. It means, in context of AWT, the existence of Dark Matter is undeniable and it would be a quite strange, if we wouldn't observe it at all. and vice versa - the observation of Dark Matter can be considered as the strong evidence of Aether hypothesis.

Zephir,

Dark Matter is NOT a proven fact. That's a fact.

You still haven't addressed the symmetry issue I brought up.

And finally, your aether does not explain gravitational lensing or dark matter (at least the way you explained it there). If you put a ball in a bucket of water, the density of the water will stay the same, only it will be displaced. The only time the density of the water will increase is if the water is compressed by its container.

Furthermore, in the vastness of space, a galaxy would definitely *not* compress any "aether" just by being there. If there were actually any aether there, it would be displaced a whole lot by the galaxy (because the universe is so much bigger than a single galaxy). Furthermore, according to you, everything is made of aether, so that's like saying a bunch of water would displace a bunch of water and make it more dense (if I understand you). That does not make any sense, either way you look at it.

Oh:

But you did indeed say that your AWT can "explain all phenomena" when somebody asked you. That's sounds like a TOE to me...