Edward,

My short answer… Yes.

But aether cannot be made of particles or gravitons. Particle based aether theories have all failed over the years because those models can’t produce transverse (EM) waves, only longitudinal waves. This is why I developed my own theory of aether that is based on a model where the (a)ether is a tightly stretched dynamic foam. I have produced many computer simulations that show how foamy aether can carry transverse (EM) waves and longitudinal gravitational waves. It all started when I learned that the gravitational time dilation on the Earth’s surface is equal to time dilation one experiences when traveling at a speed equal to the escape velocity (11.2km/s). This was proof to me that aether (space) is experiencing an ‘inflow’ around massive objects like the Earth. You may find my site an interesting read:

https://peterhahn.ca

Cheers!

Peter Hahn

Dear Peter:

May I ask you why we need aether in the first place? To carry light wave (photon) right? Do we need a similar aether to carry electron? No. Why? Because electron is a particle. Then the question is what the difference is between photon and electron. According to Yangton and Yington Theory, photon is a free wu’s pair - the building block of the universe. Electron is a cluster of Yangton and Yington. Because both of them are spinning particles with polarization properties therefore they both have Wave Particle Duality. In other words, they both can move in space with wave and particle properties no need of any carrier. In fact, all properties of photon can be very well explained by Yangton and Yington Theory without aether and special relativity. As a result, aether doesn't exist and light speed is not constant! Also, SR is false!!

Edward

Aether ..is not even in our vocabulary...it is something that 900yrs ago made up.

science does not have explanation for many thing, such as Particle, mass, electron, positron, aether,..and so on...please read new thing not old and dead science ..please

Article Quantum Solar System

r3egards

Thanks Edward,

I got as far as Figure 3 in your attached article. If aether does not exist (as you say), then what is the physical mechanism that carries the ‘Gravity Force’ between Wu’s Particles? And what is the physical mechanism that carries your ‘Separation Force’? On the top right of Figure 3 you have a photon shooting off to the right. How does it ‘know’ that it should be going to the right? What is guiding it?

And if there is no aether to carry EM waves, how do you picture a 1MHz wave with a 300m wavelength in terms of a particle?

Dear Peter:

Here are the answers to your questions:

1. Graviton Radiation and Contact Interaction (see attachment) - Like photon, with sufficient thermal energy, gravitons can be radiated from the parent object. Once the emitted gravitons launched on the surface of the target object, they react with the gravitons on the surface of the target object to generate gravitational force which is realized as Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

2. Photon Radiation (see attachment) - Photon is a free Wu's Pair. With thermal energy, photon can be emitted from the end of the string structures (all subatomic particles made of Wu's Pairs). Because of random arrangement of string structures in the light source, photons are radiated in all directions.

3. Wu's Pair is a pair of circulating Yangton and YIngton Particles and Photon is a free Wu's Pair traveling in space. Photon's frequency is determined by its parent subatomic particles and their environment. Photon separation process involves two stages: (1) Separation, where photon gain its kinetic energy hv and Inertial Light Speed; (2) Ejection, where photon gets its Absolute Light Speed (a constant speed of 3x108 m/s on earth) no matter of frequency and the parent subatomic particles. This separation process is named Photon Inertial Transformation (different from Phonon Non-inertia Transformation).

Therefore, Equation of Light Speed can be represented as follows:

C' = C + V

Where C' is a vector of light speed observed at the reference point, C is the Absolue Light Speed, a vector of light speed observed at the light source, and V is the Inertia Light Spoeed, a vector speed of light source observed at the reference point.

In case the EM source is stationary to the reference point (observer) on earth, then V = 0 and C' = C. In other words, for any EM wave observed on earth, its speed is always 3x108 m/s.

Best,

Edward

Edward,

Thanks for the info.

Referring to Figures 1,2 of your first article, what is the physical mechanism that carries the ‘Force of Creation’ and the ‘Attractive Force’? You can’t just say there is a force; this is why you need an aether.

-How does the Yangton ‘know’ where the Yington is located?

-How does it know that it is a Yington and not another Yangton?

-What physical mechanism carries the + and – charge?

-How do they know that they should orbit each other.

-What determines the orbital speed?

-What’s stopping them from colliding?

You have a lot of forces without explaining a physical mechanism. They seem a bit contrived.

This is why I developed my Foamy (A)ether Theory (FET) which shows how things work by using real computer simulations without inventing forces.

Have you created simulations that show how the Yangton and Yington interact? I used ThreeDimSim. It’s and old program, but it still works on Windows 10.

However… we’re getting a little off topic I feel. Your original question was about ether wind.

FET explains how the ether wind works and shows it using computer simulations.

https://www.peterhahn.ca

Cheers

Dear Peter:

Yangton and Yington Theory is a scientific theory with an unprecedented concept that bridges two major but conflicting subjects Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity in modern physics. It explains and correlates almost everything in the universe, including space, time, energy and matter, as well as those objects and events from subatomic particles all the way to the boundary of the universe based on Wu’s Pairs.

There are many ambiguities in the modern physics. For examples: Is photon a particle or a wave? Is Schrödinger’s Cat alive or dead? Is there a unified field theory for all forces? Is string theory true? Is light speed constant? Does time change with speed and gravity? Is there a dark energy? What is dark matter? Is the universe really expanding? And accelerating? What is spacetime? What is the black hole? Is there a wormhole? Can we do time travel? So on and so forth. To answer these questions, we need a breakthrough in particle physics and spacetime. We need to know what the “God’s Particles” the building blocks of the universe really are and the actual meaning of spacetime.

According to Five Principles of the Universe (see attachment), Wu’s Pairs, a superfine Yangton and Yington circulating Antimatter particle pairs, are proposed as the building blocks of all matter. Force of Creation, the inter-attractive force between Yangton and Yington Pair, is the fundamental force of the string force and four basic forces complying with Unified Field Theory in the formation of all subatomic particles. String Theory is interpreted by the string structures of the elementary subatomic particles built upon Wu’s Pairs with string force. Furthermore, composite subatomic particles are composed of elementary subatomic particles by four basic forces.

Photon is a free Wu’s Pair escaped from a substance through a two stage separation and ejection process complying with Photon Inertia Transformation. Also, Vision of Light is studied and length contraction is explained. In addition, Equation of Light Speed is proposed as the vector summation of Absolute Light Speed and Inertia Light Speed to challenge Einstein’s Special Relativity and Velocity Time Dilation. Event Horizon is caused due to the competition between the two light speeds. Acceleration Doppler Effect is used to explain the redshift phenomenon and to derive the Hubble’s Law. Even more, Einstein’s Law of Mass and Energy Conservation E = MC2is revised by energy only transformation.

Gravitational force is induced from Force of Creation through the contact interaction between two gravitons. As a consequence, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, gravitational field and gravitational waves are caused by Graviton Radiation and Contact Interaction.

Single Slit Diffraction and Double Slit Interference are interpreted, as well as Photon polarization and Quantum Entanglement are studied and explained by Yangton and Yington Theory. Hidden Variables and EPR Paradox are proved with no concern of Bell’s Inequality. Also, conflicts of Superposition, Complementarity and Entanglement in quantum mechanics are discussed.

Space and Time are defined based on the circulation period and orbital diameter of Wu’s Pairs. In accordance to subatomic equilibrium and subatomic properties, Principle of Equilibrium, Principle of Correspondence and Principle of Parallelism are proposed as the foundation of Wu’s Spacetime Theories. Wu’s Spacetime and Spacetime Shrinkage Theories are derived to explain the phenomena of the Cosmological Redshift and the Gravitational Redshift. Also, Deflection of Light and Perihelion Precession of Mercury are explained by Wu’s Spacetime Theories. Furthermore, Einstein’s General Relativity and Gravitational Time Dilation are interpreted based on Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory. Despite the Dark Energy and expansion of the universe, Wu’s Spacetime Reverse Expansion Theory is proposed to interpret Hubble’s Law and the expansion and acceleration of the universe. In addition, Wu’s Spacetime Field Equation is derived in comparison to Einstein’s Field Equations, which can be used to predict the existence of Black Hole. Also, corresponding identical objects and events in large gravitational field observed on earth are studied. Finally all Einstein’s mistakes including his postulates and theories are discussed.

As a result, Wu’s Pairs and the Yangton and Yington Theory can be used successfully in derivation and explanation of many major physical phenomena and theories. A road map of the systematic derivations of the theories and correlations between the major physical phenomena and Yangton and Yington Theory can be shown in the attached diagram.

Best,

Edward

Gee whiz Edward…

That was a lot of rambling. I thought you were interested in other peoples’ answers to your question. However, it looks like you are more interested in touting your own theory.

Making up forces and particles to explain other particles is not progress. You still need an aether as a physical means of carrying all of the forces. I explain all of that on my site:

https://www.peterhahn.ca

Peter

Peter,

There is no aether period. It never exist and there is no reason why it has to exist. Both photon and graviton can be radiated from their parent objects via thermal energy. No carriers are needed.

Best,

Edward

Thanks.

Guess you didn't go to my website to find out that aether is the ONLY thing that exists.

Cheers and good luck with your theory.

Peter

Peter,

Just give me a simple reason why aether have to exist, despite that all the experiments of aether are inaccurate to prove the existence of aether especially as the carrier of photon. Keep in mind that many substances can slow down photon speed (refraction) but they are not photon carrier.

If the unknown particles found in those aether experiments can indeed cause time dilation and reduce light speed as they claimed, the only possible answer in my opinion is that those unknown particles are gravitons.

Best,

Edward

The noion aether does not exist in frames of contemporary science, but we must not think that our science can explain all structure of our world. when this period of time will come, people return to this notion. May be they will come use this substnce. Until aether exists as one of non-material manifestation of human bodies. The notion aether body is one of energetic (non-material) bodies of the human. But if to assume that we are only material bodies, aether body cannot exist. Some people can see this energy, but this argument does not exist in frame of material science. Conclusion: every knowldge corresponds to the determined time. The time of studies tthis energetic substance will come later.

Yes. Exists. This is gravity. Proven 30 years ago and not disproved until now, but little is known. See ResGate/

"The time to study this energetic substance will come later" - dear Larissa writes. The value of the density of aether is found in the "Planck constant". A published article about this is in the ResGate

Edward,

Imagine two blindfolded astronauts floating in outer space. They are using a football to simulate the workings of a graviton. How do they ‘know’ in what direction to throw the ball? They can’t see each other. And how do they know how many footballs to throw? How do they keep track of how many they have thrown? How many footballs can they carry before they run out? How do they know if it is their football being returned.? And how do they know what direction the ball came from? How do they know how long the ball was in flight so they can determine distance? And when does getting hit by a fast moving football cause you to move towards the thrower?

And how do you reconcile that with GR so that the ball travels a curved path? And how does the football know that space is grainy at the Planck scale? This scene shows you how completely absurd and ridiculous the graviton model is!!! It will never work.

And insisting on using particles to explain forces still keeps you stuck with TWO theories. One to describe particle behaviour and one to describe the properties of space and time. You are no further ahead! This is why we have failed to unify GR with QM. You cannot have two theories to explain the fundamental structure of reality.

This is why I discovered that a tightly stretched, expanding foamy aether is the underlying structure of reality where so-called particles are distortions of the foam. This means there is only one substance, therefore only one theory. I describe this very well on my website which contains many simulations of how this all works.

https://www.peterhahn.ca

Regards

Peter Hahn

Peter,

Here are the answers to all your questions:

How do they ‘know’ in what direction to throw the ball? They can’t see each other. (radiation is in all directions)

And how do they know how many footballs to throw? (it is proportional to their mass)

How do they keep track of how many they have thrown? (no need)

How many footballs can they carry before they run out? (Their whole mass, but don't forget they also receive gravitons from other objects in the universe)

How do they know if it is their football being returned.? (No return)

And how do they know what direction the ball came from? (The surface area that generates gravitational force)

How do they know how long the ball was in flight so they can determine distance? (They don't know the distance, distance is measured by the third party observer)

And when does getting hit by a fast moving football cause you to move towards the thrower? (Each contact interaction between the incoming graviton and the surface graviton cause a unit of gravitational force which moves a tiny distance of target object towards the parent object).

And how do you reconcile that with GR so that the ball travels a curved path? And how does the football know that space is grainy at the Planck scale? ("Space" and "Time" doesn't change, only the "Dimension" (Length) and "Duration" of an object or event (Corresponding Identical Object or Event) can change with "Wu's Unit Length" and Wu's "Unit Time" (Wu's Pairs are the building blocks of all matter in the universe) dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. In addition, subject to the unit quantities used for the measurements, which are dependent on the local gravitational field and aging of the universe of the reference point, the amounts of unit quantities can vary with measurements. As a result, light deflection is due to the reduction of light speed (resulting from the increase of Wu's Unit Length lyy because absolute light speed is proportional to lyy -1/2) caused by the massive gravity (see attachment))

This scene shows you how completely absurd and ridiculous the graviton model is!!! It will never work. (This is your opinion which I don't agree at all)

Best,

Edward

Larissa Borissova : Until aether exists as one of non-material manifestation of human bodies. The notion aether body is one of energetic (non-material) bodies of the human.

Actually, there is also an alternative (material) interpretation of the concept of ether, as a vector field of accelerations of moving matter, which forms both vacuum and fields and particles. True, here it is necessary to choose the right space in which matter moves, but if I am not mistaken, then the seven-dimensional sphere is the most suitable choice.

Dear Igor,

Naturally, a 7-dimensional sphere is most suitable to describe the non-material (energy) world. But it is impossible to study this world by methods used in the material world. The human body is the state of maximum concentration of energies in the energy world. All the layers (spheres) possess their own frequences (vibrations), where aether possesses a minimum frequency. Aether frequencies is most close to human perception, but all the layers are non-material, therefore we must study them by other methods than the methods of contemporary science. We must study the energy world by other methods than the material world. In other wrds, we must study time as a non-mterial sbstance which creates our material world and this process continues all the time when our material world exists. Time is the same power which creates the material world including humans (consciousness + material body). Our consciousness belongs to the energy world but the body is related to the material world. It is impossible to study the non-material world by methods used now. Aether is the first step on the new way of science. Physical vacuum is one of the manifestations of the energy world in material space.

Dear All,

Not only does ether not exist, there is also exists nothing unproven.

Do you think ether exists? Great, deduce the mechanism by which electromagnetic waves propagate, deduce the wave equation, and show it.

That's what a scientist would do.

Now I tell you what a sing-mornings magufo would: He would say the first stupidity that occurred to him without proving anything just because it seems to him that it should be so.

Sergio,

"deduce the mechanism by which electromagnetic waves propagate"

Foamy Ether Theory (FET) has that mechanism that not only shows how EM waves propagate, but Gravitational Waves as well.

Computer simulations are shown on my website:

https://www.peterhahn.ca/the-photon

FET has allowed me to build a device that actually 'Generates Gravitational Waves'.

Preprint Design for a Gravitational Wave Generator

Cheers,

Peter

Dear Larisa,

It seems to me that despite the invisibility of moving matter and the unobservability of extra dimensions, it is wrong to call this world non-material.

Sergio Garcia Chimeno >>Do you think ether exists? Great, deduce the mechanism by which electromagnetic waves propagate, deduce the wave equation, and show it.

Maxwell's equations are just a differential condition for the local minimality of the vector field of accelerations of matter in the Minkowski space. If you are interested in formulas, then take a look at the collection of articles called "MATHEMATICAL NOTES ON THE NATURE OF THINGS"

For easy access I give the link

Research Proposal MATHEMATICAL NOTES ON THE NATURE OF THINGS

Dear Peter:

I have checked your website. Your ether and wrapping rubber band model is too complicate to understand. In my opinion, particle model is still the simplest and easiest way to understand the physical world. A spinning polarized particle such as photon and electron has both particle and wave properties (Wave Particle Duality) can be easily realized and used to explain the wave-like properties. Unfortunately, some leading scientists insisted of their pure wave models which have created many mysteries and conflicts in science history such as Aether, Complementarity, Superposition, and Quantum Field Theory in the last millennium.

Best,

Edward

Dear Peter Hahn and Igor Bayak ,

Specify exactly where the wave equation is, so anyone can check if it has been deduced correctly and then affirm the existence of ether without any doubt.

Sergio Garcia Chimeno See the section on _minimum flows and surfaces_ in the article on parallelepipeds or the section on _dynamics of vector fields_ in the article on the application of vector field algebra. I will only note that the first source deals with differential forms of Euclidean spaces, but the Hodge star operator is well defined in Minkowski space, so it will not be difficult to draw the details for this case as well. However, you shouldn't think that physicists might be interested in this. Physicists are not interested in theories that can be dispensed with. Now, if the theory gave new experimentally testable predictions, it would be interesting to them.

Dear Mr Peter Hahn

I liked your view of gravity, although I do not agree on everything (for example, it concerns the nature of time). But this is not a place for discussion.

If you are interested, then you can find out the density not only of the medium carrying light, but also of the same medium in which gravitational waves propagate. The density of the ether is contained in the "Planck constant". This is one of my last published works. You can see her here in Res. Gate.

Good luck to you

Dear Igor Bayak ,

I have seen the section 'minimum flows and surfaces' (page 71) and I have not found it, I have also seen the section 'dynamics of vector fields' (page 43) and I have not found it.

Have you deduced the wave equation, yes or no?

If so, tell me exactly what page it are on please

Sergio Garcia Chimeno , Perhaps you are right (that I was lying), the derivation of Maxwell's equations is not there, but the second source contains an integral equation for the acceleration field, the localization of which leads to Maxwell's differential equations.

Dear Igor Bayak ,

Obtaining Maxwell's equations from electric and magnetic fields is already known in classical physics. That doesn't prove anything.

What I am referring to is that whatever they believe that ether is, those who defend it even in the 21st century, they must obtain the wave equation from there.

Sergio Garcia Chimeno >>What I am referring to is that whatever they believe that ether is, those who defend it even in the 21st century, they must obtain the wave equation from there.

However, you did not notice that the differential condition for the local minimality of the flow of matter (ether) d*dφ(x)=0 is exactly one equation from the system of homogeneous Maxwell equations in the Lorentz gauge d*dAi(x)=0. As for the physical meaning of the vector potential A(x), this is the increment in the angle of rotation (twisting) of the vector of accelerations of matter during the differential movement of the point x in the Minkowski space.

Igor Bayak @ Sergio Garcia Chimeno

I am following your discussion. Please explain: what equations are you talking about - Maxwell or Maxwell-Hertz?

If you are interested, the ether, its density, is contained in Planck's constant.

Without entering into a debate, I would like to note that the words "...to is that whatever they believe that ether is, those who defend it even in the 21st century" are very imprudent.

The physical essence of Planck's constant was not clear to Max Planck himself. In order of magnitude, Planck's constant h is equal to 10-34 with its dimension [J · s]. But if the dimension of Planck's constant is written in the CGS system, using not joules, but ergs, then, expressed in the appropriate units, it looks like this: h [g · cm2 · s − 1] and Planck's constant is exactly 0.662607015 x 10 - 26 g cm2۔ s − 1, that is, h = 0.6626 070 15 x 10 -26 erg˖ s, and by multiplying the Planck constant by the numerical value of the frequency of oscillations of a photon or its rotation, we obtain the value of the photon energy, expressed through the energy of the vibrational or rotational motion of a substance with a density ρ = 2x0.662607015 x 10 -26 [g / cm3] or ρ = 1.32521403 10 -26 [g / cm3] ≈ 1.3 x10 -26 [g / cm3]. This coincides with the density ρ ≈ 1 x 10 -26 g / cm3 of the spatial medium (dark matter, ether), obtained by the author 30 years ago from astrophysical and geophysical data.

Проблемы исследования Вселенной • 39(1) • 2020 • 40–49

Vladimir A. Lebedev , Personally, I try to find Maxwell's equations in the differential equation for locally minimal flows of matter in 8-dimensional space with a neutral metric. As for the Planck constant, in the concept that I adhere to, it is the diameter of the great circle of the seven-dimensional sphere.

Dear Igor Bayak ,

"However, you did not notice that the differential condition for the local minimality of the flow of matter (ether) d*dφ(x)=0 is exactly one equation from the system of homogeneous Maxwell equations in the Lorentz gauge d*dAi(x)=0. As for the physical meaning of the vector potential A(x), this is the increment in the angle of rotation (twisting) of the vector of accelerations of matter during the differential movement of the point x in the Minkowski space."

No, if it is not written, surely I have not noticed. On the other hand, I find it quite difficult to believe that a flow of matter derives in some Maxwell equation, am I creating electric or magnetic fields when I use a hose?

The next comment, I already chatted with you on one occasion why more than 4 dimensions are not necessary, I am happy to see that at least you have already dispensed with the torus that I do not know how many dimensions inscribed in a sphere of many others.

Dear Vladimir A. Lebedev ,

You are taking the value of a constant expressed in [g cm2۔ s - 1] and you call that erg, I don't know what it is, but hey.

Then you multiply by 2, I don't really know why, and the value is more or less close to an amount expressed in [g / cm3] that I don't know where it comes from either.

Irrefutable proof without a doubt.

Answering your other question, any wave must follow the wave equation to be considered as such (d ^ 2 O / dt ^ 2 = c ^ 2 d ^ 2 O / dx ^ 2) Maxwell's equations for electric and magnetics fields meet this condition and can be derived to obtain it.

The problem is that any wave needs a medium to propagate and a field is not a real propagation medium since a change in the particle that generates it produces an automatic change in the field regardless of the distance.

Hence the search for Ether.

The problem with this search is that, some 200 years later, they continue to appear illuminated, contributing particles, fluids, networks, points, etc. As if no one had thought of that in those 200 years. Obviously without demonstrating anything and it seems that without taking into account that a "continuity" of matter is being requested for a wave that is not of matter.

Sergio Garcia Chimeno, In vain did you believe in the sufficiency of three or four dimensions; for a complete picture of the world, we will definitely need additional dimensions. And the tori should not be abandoned, they will be needed when constructing a group of gauge symmetries (this is discussed in https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_application_of_the_gyroscope_group_of_movements_on_a_sphere). As for the question of the dynamics (evolution) of the flow of moving matter, Maxwell's equations are a consequence of this dynamics, and not vice versa.

Gerges Francis Tawdrous

Aether wind is gravity centered so it could not have been observed by Michelson Morley. I believe there is much evidence for its existence, and that it controls as much of the motions of the observable universe as does gravity.

Background Aether Field Flow:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&hl=en#d=gs_md_cita-d&u=%2Fcitations%3Fview_op%3Dview_citation%26hl%3Den%26user%3D7ONCj-kAAAAJ%26citation_for_view%3D7ONCj-kAAAAJ%3Ad1gkVwhDpl0C%26tzom%3D420

https://www.liquidgravity.nz/vertical_michelson_morley_experiment.html

Dear Robert,

Totally agree.

Now the question is, where is that medium?

Anyone who claims to have found it will have to prove it, don't you think?

And with words it is shown very little, the best way is to obtain the wave equation so that other people can verify it, right?

Well, as you can see, many words and few demonstrations.

Dear Sergio Garcia Chimeno

"You are taking the value of a constant expressed in [g cm2۔ s - 1] and you call that erg, I don't know what it is"

You confess that you do not know elementary things. This is the first thing. Therefore, it is pointless to discuss with you. Second: if you do not understand something, then read about it in the textbook, and if you have questions to the interlocutor, read his answers in his articles, they are available here in Res.Gate. The discussion is over.

Farewell.

I wish you success in learning new things for you.

follow

Although nearly all in quantum physics today know that aether exists as the ZPF, and/or in the form of one background field or another. But "none dare call it aether." If you are a practitioner in mainstream physics and use the word aether in an intended journal paper, the paper probably won't get published because of your use of the word aether alone.

The best buzz word for the aether today is the "Quantum Substrate" IMO, or its acronym QST.

And in classical mechanics, almost everyone dispenses with aether. Although the field of accelerations of matter in Minkowski space could well replace the concept of the ether wind.

Dear Igor Bayak.

It's not a matter of the mechanics involved to make the correct calculations. It's the BS verbiage involved with QM. The ZPF, the Higgs field, hypothetical dark matter, gravitons, etc. Aether is real!! Its existence has been known for certain by some including Einstein, since the 1930's. But few dare call it aether because the word "aether" denies the validity of the prime concept of Special Relativity -- a preferred reference frame.

Forrest Noble >> But few dare call it aether because the word "aether" denies the validity of the prime concept of Special Relativity -- a preferred reference frame.

But the special theory of relativity denies the preferred frame of reference, and the concept of the aether wind, on the contrary, assumes the possibility of choosing the vacuum direction of the vector field of accelerations of matter (i.e., the direction of the aether wind) in the Minkowski space.

The STOE suggests the aether or similar thing exists. It is the thing that matter warps and those warps direct matter. In addition to General relativity, this scheme shows how photons (matter particles) form interference patterns and can explain the

Interference Experiment with a Transparent Mask Rejects Wave Models of Light

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93056

which no other model explains.

But, the "wind" part of the question is the issue - NO WIND. That is, no matter particles of aether. Aether acts solely by it's gradient. The matter closely around the Michelson-Morley and Miller experiments were static , therefore, there was no carry along of the photons. So, the real issue is the Michelson-Morley and Miller experiments DID measure a small value where the STOE expects a zero value.

see

Replace Special Relativity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX9ToS_kgrw

aether story is belong to stone age.

https://www.growkudos.com/publications/10.18686%252Fag.v3i1.2010/reader

https://www.growkudos.com/projects/take-nothing-for-granted-revisiting-principles-of-modern-physics

Javad: "aether story is belong to stone age."

I think you are out to lunch on that one!

You obviously haven't read about 'Foamy (A)ether Theory".

It shows how a foamy ether can be used as a Theory Of Everything!

Particles are just distortions of the foamy ether.

https://www.peterhahn.ca

If empty space is completely covered with point-like objects, then the combination acts as a sticky medium. The change of behavior occurs when the set of point-like objects changes from countable to uncountable.

Read https://vixra.org/abs/2106.0028

John Hodge

I think you will find that an experiment at microwave frequencies would duplicate the results of the paper you quote, as would a simulation using an electromagnetic simulation code. Perhaps you think microwaves are not waves, and that electromagnetic simulation codes do not agree with wave behaviour.

The results you show do not seem to me in any way to contradict the wave property of light but agree with the kind of things I saw with a long career of designing and building and using microwave antennas.

I think you would see the same results with water waves.

Malcolm White

Then do the experiment. Be sure to block ALL the energy going thru the 2nd slit and that the interference pattern does NOT change in the fringes (only the center is blocked if the "nail" blocker is positioned correctly) - if the blocker is inappropriately positioned, it may cause fringes which because of the different distance from the mask can cause different fringes.

Do the experiment in microwaves if you wish. Otherwise just conjecturing does not overrule experiment.

If empty space is covered by point-like objects then strange things can occur. As long as the coverage concerns a countable amount of point-like objects, then all these objects are still surrounded by empty space. Cantor and other set theorists discovered that when the set of point-like objects is no longer countable, then no empty space surrounds the point-like objects. In that condition, the behavior of the coverage changes drastically. The coverage changes into a sticky medium that counteracts any deformation of the medium by sending the deformation in all directions away in the form of a shock front until it vanishes at infinity. Without actuators that deform. the medium, nothing happens. Differential calculus explains the behavior of the sticky medium in detail. See: https://vixra.org/abs/2106.0135

No sticky media. This is abstract mathematics.

In real physics, the Universe is densely packed with quanta of space [1].

[1] . https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.9404

Space is not quantized. It can be covered by number systems that are navigated by coordinate systems. If the coverage includes irrational numbers, then the coverage becomes deformable.

I would like to imagine a real Universe filled with numbers ...

The Universe is formed not by numbers, but by real physical quantities. The numbers only describe them on paper.

To negate the quanta of space, it is necessary to refute work [1] and at least read it. [1]. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.94040

Valentyn Nastasenko

Point-like coordinate markers that relate to members of a number system can form a coverage of bare space. Together with the number system, the coordinate system enables the navigation of the space coverage.

All of these are mathematical descriptions.

Of course aether wind must be defined. Aether, when defined as the Zero Point Field, is gravity centered. There wouldn't be little or no aether wind relative to the Earth, but it is what accelerates the exterior stars in our galaxy and others. Its most rapid velocities are on the exterior of the galaxy and it decelerates while spiraling inward, transferring its momentum to galactic matter while progressively losing its momentum. That;s why spiral galaxies have a flat rotation curve. Dark matter is just a fantasy.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:d1gkVwhDpl0C

The etheric wind is gravity. This was proven 30 years ago, but so far few people know about it. And those who found out, they are afraid to believe and be convinced of this.

It will be the same here.

This is an interesting question.

Preprint A Heuristic View on the Composition of Space

Preprint A New View on the Composition of Matter

Many concepts that are in use are not yet fully developed. Examples are the concept of a continuum, number systems, coordinate systems, vector spaces, Hilbert spaces, stochastic processes. The concept of a continuum relates to the continuum hypothesis. Several number systems exist, but each of these number systems exists in several versions. Coordinate systems relate to number systems but what is that relation? Vector spaces are coverages of empty space. What is the difference with the empty space and what is the difference with number systems? What is special to Hilber spaces? What is their relation to our universe? What is the role of stochastic processes?

What is the difference between time and progression? Why is the arithmetic of spatial dimensions different from the arithmetic of real numbers?

If we talk about aether, what are then the properties of this aether and what is the difference with the above-mentioned continuum? How does aether fit in a vector space?

For inspiration, read "Sticky Space Coverage"; Preprint Sticky Space Coverage

Vladimir A. Lebedev

The etheric wind is gravity.

And the ether itself should be replaced by a relict gravitational field.

Vladimir,

A downward, accelerating flow of foamy ether IS the Gravitational Field.

You can't just say the word "field" and expect your explanation to be complete.

Field of what???

https://www.peterhahn.ca/gravity

Hans,

'If we talk about aether, what are then the properties of this aether ?'

Because mathematics is a pure fabrication of the human mind, it can only approximate empirical observations and is therefore unable to provide any kind of a deep foundational explanation of underlying structure. What's desperately needed is an actual physical working model that emulates reality... like Foamy Ether Theory.

https://www.peterhahn.ca

The properties of the aether is a tightly stretched, expanding foam. Gravity is an accelerating downward flow. Waves and so called particles are distortions of the foam.

When answering a specific author, take the trouble to read his scientific articles. Otherwise, the dialogue becomes empty chatter, which is observed here. ... and more - you need to be able to read. Even my three lines are misread.

So what is your definition of Ether? Because in my published paper I found a new absolute and constant for the universe and can replace the Ether in Newton's laws and therefore I found that Newton's laws are not wrong and that it is like general relativity a special case in a general law

Mohamed Said

I agree with you: Newton's laws are correct. In research You have attracted the fifth dimension. Is the fifth dimension necessary to understand the essence of the gravitational constant in Newton's law? Sorry, I haven't read your article. Have you been able to determine the structure of the gravitational constant in the framework of classical physics? Thank you all the best.

I have the honor to send you my simple paper and I want your opinion if it is useful in solving contemporary physics problems or not? For example, instead of a lame equation called the Lorentz transformation equation, we have 3 equations to replace it and more flexible in the solution. I really don't know why physicists refrained from it and are they really quivering to accept an out-of-the-box thought? When insisting on unrealistic words!!! Before I answer your questions, allow me to ask you to read my paper, as you may find answers to the questions you have in mind. I hope to hear from you later. Greetings

Mohamed Said

Thank you for your reply. I'll take a look at the article. But for now I think that there is nothing about the gravitational constant in it. About Lorentz transformations: thirty years ago, four types of coordinate transformations were published (in fact, I know six types), preserving the form and physical essence of the Maxwell-Hertz equations during the coordinate transition from immobility to motion. One of them corresponds to classical mechanics. Others - to relativistic mechanics (Lorentz), the rest - to other scholastic mechanics. Everything was obtained in the usual three-dimensional Euclidean world with the addition of, of course, time. Until all the terms of Newton's equation are explained in detail in the framework of classical mechanics, going beyond this framework is useless. All the best

I understand there are attempts to understand coordinate transformations, and you think you know 6 type of them, but does one of them solve the problem of particles after the speed of light? In fact the answer will be no, and this is the difference between what you know and the transformation equations for the fifth dimension in my paper published in the Journal of the American Institute of Physics. You will find the solution to the speed of particles before and after light speed and more realistic than the lame Lorentz equation,,,, Greetings

You have a very correct definition for the Lorentz Equation. I like. It's really shabby. Greetings

Dear Mr, Vladimir A. Lebedev

I did not mean to offend, because I believe that any human thought should be respected, but that equation, which formed the philosophy of physics more than 120 years ago, was carried by scientists more than it could bear, and we now have 3 equations in a fifth dimension that do not contradict that equation. The transformation of the fifth dimension = 1, the Lorentz equation is present, and I do not know why scientists are trying to make it valid when it hinders a correct understanding of the problems of contemporary physics, and we have now the alternative.

In my paper INFINITY THEORY THE F IF TH D IM ENS ION SPAC E-T I ME, I found a new speed to be the absolute speed in the universe, which is 100 C power2 , that is, what light travels in a year that speed travels in a second. Based on it, I calculated the age of the universe as 15.8 billion years, and the diameter of the universe as 6.4 power 26 meter. Greetings

Mohamed Said: "I calculated the age of the universe as 15.8 billion years..."

...... and what happened to the Universe before that? And if we assume such a circulation of matter in nature: ether flows into baryonic matter, turning into it during a phase transition (gravitation and accumulation of nuclear energy), and at the same time, baryonic matter supplies energy to space (thermal radiation), and also, in the form of explosions, matter supplies ether into space (behavior of "black holes"). It turns out the circulation of matter in nature: the ether passes into nucleons, and they - into the ether. As on Earth: water (seas and rivers) turns into steam, and steam, becoming water, feeds seas and rivers, the age of which does not depend on this process. The problem of the age of the universe also disappears.

To all discussion participants!

Entering into a dialogue with an opponent, please, familiarize yourself with his works, articles, books (at least minimally). They are on the pages of the RG. Don't just listen to yourself.

To all discussion participants!

Entering into a dialogue with an opponent, please, familiarize yourself with his works, articles, books (at least minimally). They are on the pages of the Res.Gate. Don't just listen to yourself.

Dear Mr. Vladimir-Lebedev if I said an opinion about what preceded the Big Bang, you would not be happy with my answer, but I strive to put a solution to the problems of the universe, such as its age, diameter, shape, and the materials it contains, and to solve the problems of contemporary physics, which we see that the four dimensions are completely insufficient to give us those answers, so why not move a step instead Regarding equations that are no longer valid in general terms, we can see what the transformation equations for the fifth dimension give us. If they are correct and they are correct, then why not deduction from them and not from a lame equation called the Lorentz transformation equation, regards.

"...if I said an opinion about what preceded the Big Bang, you would not be happy with my answer..." - Bravo! On the contrary - a brilliant answer!

To all discussion participants!

It is senseless to solve the problems of gravitation and other cosmological problems without solving before that exactly (in the physical sense) Newton's equations of universal gravitation. Until the researcher finds out for himself the physical meaning of the gravitational constant (and this is not just a coefficient of proportionality, but the center of connection of the density of space -aether-, the density of baryonic matter with Kepler's law - all this is indicated by the dimension of the constant), all efforts of the researcher will simply be a solution to the problem not related to reality. Still (I repeat once again) one should be interested in the already solved problems in this direction. They are solved in a very unexpected way and make it possible to understand the physical meaning of the Planck constant, the Sommerfeld constant, the mechanism of the Hubble constant, the "Pioneer effect" and other "puzzles". Take an interest! And if you find solutions to these problems (they are published), try to find their critical negation. I wish you success!

Where is the true physical meaning of the Planck constant and the gravitational constant published?

And also the "Pioneer effect" and Newton's exact equation of universal gravitation?

О конст. Планка - статья на русском в "Проблемах исследования Вселенной" т.39 (Конец 2020 - нач 2021)

On Radiation Energy Constant, Equivalence of Mass and Energy and Density of the Universum Environment

https://scicom.ru/files/journals/piv/volume39/issue1/piv_vol39_issue1_06.pdf

Но чтобы проще понять подход, посмотите популярные статьи (не сочтите за легкомыслие) для заинтересованных читателей: "Возвращение к классике..."

Всё (почти) на русском есть на моей странице в Res Gate за 25-30 лет....

Thank you.

All,

In my opinion, aether wind is nothing but a graviton flux (graviton radiation) which can be generated from an object like EM radiation.

According to Yangton and Yington Theory, graviton has a string structure made of Wu's Pairs which can generate gravitational force between two gravitons as they coming together side by side.

Graviton Radiation and Contact Interaction can be used to explain Newton's Law of International Gravitation and Gravitational Wave.

Large gravitational field (heavy graviton bombardment) can cause the increase of Wu's Unit Length (diameter of Wu's Pair) and Wu's Unit Time (circulation period of Wu's Pair). In other words, for the corresponding identical object or event, the dimension of the object (space) is getting bigger and duration of the event (time) is getting longer. This can be used to explain Einstein's General Relativity and Gravitational Time Dilation, as well as Mercury Perihelion Precession and Light Deflection.

Since Aether Wind can cause Time Dilation (assuming the experimental results are correct), it is therefore proposed that Aether is nothing but the graviton itself.

Edward Wu

"...Aether Wind can cause Time Dilation"... ОК!

You have explained what Aether is. Thank you very much. Now we know. Can you explain now what "Time" is?

Vladimir A. Lebedev

1. What is Space?

According to Yangton and Yington Theory, it is proposed that “Space” and “Energy” (“Matter” is a cluster of energy) are cogenerated simultaneously from “None” (nothing – no space, time, energy, or matter) at Singularity in Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago. They can coexist in the universe for long time until the recombination and cancellation of each other in either the black holes under massive gravitational force or in Wu’s Pairs after trillion years aging of the universe, such that they could eventually go back to None [59].

Space is an absolute quantity. It doesn’t change with anything at all. Space provides room to place and distribute energy and matter (a cluster of energy). An object composed of matter occupies certain amount of space known as “Dimension” (Length in one dimension and Volume in three dimensions) and takes a defined position in space known as “Location”. The space (length) between two objects or points is called “Distance”. A three dimensional Cartesian system with three perpendicular axes defined by a unit length at a reference point is used to coordinate the position of an object (or point), also to correlate the positions between two objects (or points) in space.

2. What is Time?

Once “Space” and “Energy” (and “Matter”) are generated from “None”, “Time” is automatically formed to reflect the sequence of changes of the distribution of energy and motion of matter in space. Time is also an absolute quantity. It doesn’t change with anything at all. Time is continuous because that the circulation of Wu’s Pairs is continuous. The process changing the distribution of a group of objects is called “Event”. The period of time proceeded in an event between two stages is called “Duration”.

3. Dimension and Duration

Space and Time are absolute quantities. They don’t change with anything at all. However, for a corresponding identical object or event under a constant temperature and pressure, in other words, the structure of the corresponding identical object or event is fixed, the dimension and duration of the corresponding identical object or event can still change with the local gravitational field and aging of the universe. It is because that Wu’s Unit Length (lyy) and Wu’s Unit Time (tyy) of Wu’s Pairs in the subatomic particles of the corresponding identical object or event can be changed by the bombardment of gravitons due to graviton radiation and contact interaction, as well as the shrinkage of Wu’s Pairs caused by aging of the universe in accordance with CMB.

Furthermore, subject to the unit quantities used for the measurements, such as normal unit length (meter) and normal unit time (second) of a reference object or event, or Wu’s Unit Length (lyy) and Wu’s Unit Time (tyy) of a reference subatomic particle at a gravitational field and aging of the universe, the amounts of unit quantities of the object or event can vary with the measurements.

Edward Wu

Since your space is finite, the problem you are solving must have a purely particular solution that is of limited interest. For example: If space is limited, then Cartesian coordinates are limited.

In your understanding, space is a natural phenomenon. The movement of matter and energy in space is a natural phenomenon.

Is time a natural phenomenon?

“Time” is automatically formed - where is it formed? Where and in what way does it "reflect" the spatial movement of matter and energy? If time is measured by movement (change) - and this is absolutely true! - is there time where there is no movement?

An event is one of the descriptions of a matter motion state. Duration is The period of time. "Time is also an absolute..."

You define time in terms of time.

But what is TIME?

Vladimir A. Lebedev

Time starts from the generation of the first Yangton and Yington Pair by the 3rd principle of the Five Principles of the Universe, in which "The temporary Something must be a pair of Antimatter particles with an inter-attractive force such that they can attract and destroy each other immediately after the formation". Time was discrete in the beginning, it didn't become continuous until the first Yangton and Yington circulating pair was formed by the 4th principle of the Five Principles of the Universe, in which "From Something to permanent matter there must be an external energy (Big Bang explosion) to cause a constant continuous circulation motion between the two Antimatter particles so as to avoid them from recombination and destruction".

In my opinion, time began from the moment of the occurrence of the Big Bang, and in my opinion, the explosion and its aftermath were firmly designed, and you can reject that hypothesis, but you will not find a solution after that to the problems of bodies and time in the universe unless you deceive the reader, as the professors at the university say to their students that the photon has no its mass until they are consistent with the lame Lorentz equation, and I don't know how they dare say that when light bends because it is attracted and has mass whether you like it or not, regards

In my opinion, time began from the moment of the occurrence of the Big Bang, and in my opinion, the explosion and its aftermath were firmly designed, and you can reject that hypothesis, but you will not find a solution after that to the problems of bodies and time in the universe unless you deceive the reader, as the professors at the university say to their students that the photon has no its mass until they are consistent with the lame Lorentz equation, and I don't know how they dare say that when light bends because it is attracted and has mass whether you like it or not, regards

One gets the impression that apart from Wu pairs and other Wu elements, nothing exists in the material world.

However, the quanta of the space of the Universe, which are formed by the waves of the gravitational field, have long been substantiated on the basis of traditional physical principles [1], [2], [3], [4]. These works were preceded by earlier Russian-language works of 2012-2017 [5].

[1] Nastasenko, V. (2021) Quantum of Space of the Universe—Correction of Previous Mistakes. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 9, 565-576.

https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2021.94040

[2] Nastasenko, V.А. (2019) Definition Form and Parameters of Quantum of Space of the Universe. International Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1, 42-45.

https://doi.org/10.18689/ijcaa-1000111

[3] Nastasenko, V.А. (2019) Refinement the Form and Parameters of Quantum of Space of the Universe. Journal Cosmological Astronomical Astrophysics, 1, 62-66.

https://doi.org/10.18689/ijcaa-1000115

[4] Nastasenko, V.А. (2019) New Quantum of the Space of the Universe and New Opportunities for the Development of Quantum Physics. Journal Cosmological Astronomical Astrophysics, 1, 71-76. https://doi.org/10.18689/ijcaa-1000117

[5] Nastasenko, V.A. (2012) Obosnovaniye parametrov minimal’nogo kvanta prostranstva Vselennoy [Ground of Parameters Minimum Quantum of Space of Universe]. Scientific Bulletin KhDMA, 1, 285-297. (In Russian)

Ultimately, [1] quantum of the space of the Universe (aka graviton, since it is formed by waves of the gravitational field) is presented in the form of a quark and a virtual quark, which flow into each other and support rotation due to the exchange of excess and missing energy, which ultimately does not lead to its costs and losses. Since these are 2 different interconnected states, they fit perfectly into the states of Yin and Yang, to use Wu's terminology. It is impossible to deny the thousand-year-old Chinese wisdom, but it must be projected onto the modern knowledge of the material world.

Valentyn Nastasenko

According to Yangton and Yington Theory, All matter are made of Wu's Pairs (Yangton and Yington circulating pairs). Graviton is a string structure made of Wu's Pairs. When two gravitons come together side by side, attraction only force can be found between the two gravitons, which is named gravitational force.

Like EM radiation, gravitons can also be emitted from substances. Graviton Radiation and Contact Interaction Theory can be used to explain Newton's Law of Universal Gravitational Force and Gravitational Field. Since graviton is not a polarized particle, it is not a wave. As a result, Gravitational Wave is nothing but a fluctuation of gravitational flux (radiation).

Have you read my article [1]?

[1] Nastasenko, V. (2021) Quantum of Space of the Universe—Correction of Previous Mistakes. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, 9, 565-576

It is indecent to see only yourself.

Edward Wu

SPACE in your understanding is a repository of matter and energy. It is clear.

But what is TIME?

Are you able to answer this question or can you only speculate about what you are not able to determine? I see you only "Time starts..." "The temporary Something..." "Time was discrete in the beginning..."

If you can continue to speak only in this style, there is no point in leading the discussion before.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

As I mentioned before in my answers to this question and other related questions, time is the recording of the sequence regarding the changes of the distribution of energy and motion of matter. Time can't exist alone without energy and matter. In addition, time is continuous due to the continuous circulation of Wu's Pairs and also time is irreversible because of the increase of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics). I hope this answers your question.

Edward Wu

Now I see something similar to an indistinct definition:

"...time is the recording of the sequence regarding the changes of the..."

... "record" in what? Where? By whom, what and how is it recorded? Is this "recording" a natural phenomenon or not?

And about the changes - that's right.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

What do you mean by ......"record" in what? Where? By whom, what and how is it recorded? Is this "recording" a natural phenomenon or not?

Because "One object can't coexist at two places in one time", therefore an object moving from A point to B point must follow a sequence. This sequence is "Time". Recording is done by any reference event such that "Same Time" can be defined. Of cause both the sequence and recording are natural phenomena.