Dear Emmanouil,

It is true that empty is a dangerous word in nowadays physics. The question is that EM waves need to have a vacuum with electromagnetic properties as a permittivity and permeability with different values than zero. Another thing is how such values can exist providing electric and magnetic dipolar polarizations of it. Casimir effect shows clearly that empitiness has a limit in the real (physical) vacuum that we can reach.

If you concern that 'empty space' is so empty that has strictly specified attributes for a whole set of physical behavior, then you can accept your 'quoted statement'.

It has been proven with the zero point vacuum quantum fluctuations that space is not empty. So we have to reconsider this old statement and dogma and abandoned it if necessary although the consequences will be severe for previous long time established theories...

Is aether coming back to hunt us?

After all, waves were and always will be distortions in a medium.

Isn't your question in contradiction with your own statement that "It has been proven with the zero point vacuum quantum fluctuations that space is not empty." ?

From what I understand, the zero point vacuum quantum fluctuation concept is not proven. Just the axiomatic foundation of QFT.

Other axiomatic foundations also are possible that do not require any ether. Such as this one for example:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

From this other foundation, EM photons are entirely self-sustaining and need no underlying medium to propagate in vacuum.

Dear André Michaud,

Thank you for your valuable input. Interesting research of yours in the link you provided. I will study it and come back to you.

Kind Regards,

Emmannouil Markoulakis

TEI of Crete

Since photons are gauge bosons thus force carriers and considered as particles which through their motion are considered as waves therefore their duality in nature. However, if the statement that they don't need any underlying medium for them to behave like waves, a stationary not moving trapped photon should still emit waves? There are currently research techniques to slow down photons even at a almost hold although I am skeptic about these. A photon brought to a hold stops to exists... Why?

Dear Emmanouil,

Note that from this other foundation, the virtual photons (bosons) that are force carriers in QFT do not exist from this new foundation perspective, but are replaced by the progressive Coulomb interaction stemming from Maxwell's first equation (Gauss equation for the electric field).

Free moving energy in space (light for example) does not propagate as a wave but as localized EM quanta that are self sustaining in the same way that an electron can be made to move in a straight line when immersed in equal density ambient E and B fields, whose intensity determine the velocity of the electron.

In simple terms, from this perspective, localized EM photons self sustain their own velocity and default straight line motion from their own internal mutually inducing E and B fields.

Just like it was difficult for me to finally understand the QFT approach, it may be difficult from your QFT trained perspective to clearly see what I meant.

I think that the way to do it is to fall back to Maxwell's original theory and equations, on which both QFT and this other foundation are grounded.

If interested, The Conclusion of the paper previously referenced tries to compare both foundations, and the following paper explains the origin of new foundation from Maxwell as a grounding premise:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

Best Regards

André

Thank you for your input Sir.

A first read and I am impressed of the novelty of your approach. This will keep me up many nights at late to fully grasp it, thank you.

Please accept my sincere congratulations.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil,

Thank you for your appreciation.

If you wish to really understand in depth this new foundation, the following unpublished index into the series of related published papers may be of help. All papers are available online:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Unification%20Theories/Download/2460

Best Regards

André

All of us:

Everyone (myself included) has kept the notion that while light has some incontestable wave aspects, there are also particulate aspects - like its ability to move through Space vacuums - little "photons" that carry the EM energy. But then I realized that space vacuums have never been established to exist on a Quantum Level. Not in the laboratory or in Intergalactic space. Simply the ongoing dynamic (though very slow) nature of Star formation, Variable Stars, Nova's, Supernova's, Seyfert Galaxies and Quasars all confirm there is no quantum level vacuum in space. Also the CMB, cited as evidence of the leftover radiation from a Big Bang billions. But it is also a signal that would come from a very disperse gas cloud of Hydrogen at 2.7260±0.0013 K throughout our reality. Another piece of evidence: the Hubble Constant. We have no direct observation of actual movement in inter-galactic space, we are reasoning it entirely from the Red shift that could also come from any EM signal happening when it moves through any medium. Some of the energy of that shift would heat up the medium - to the "molten lava" temperature of 2.726K that we currently observe.

I hope I can entice anyone on this ResearchGate page to take a quick look at my paper:

Frequency Decay through Electromagnetic Radiation Absorption and Re-Emission by Inter-Galactic Dark Matter as an Alternate Explanation for the Hubble Constant[http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=67680].

I admit, it is in a fairly low level professional magazine:

Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology[http://www.scirp.org/journal/jhepgc/ ].

It is only 5000 words (I also admit it only has 23 ref's) but its arguments are very fundamental.

It also offers a very direct argument again the Aether loonies (pardon me, that's rude, I should say Aether alternate theory promulgators). It might even be enough to move some of them to dismiss the idea of an Aether, but they could claim victory in their insistence on EM needing a medium to transmit. Resolving the discord between two contesting theories by finding a compromise that accepts principles from both sides is not unheard of in Science.

I hope someone reading this has an open mind. I have professionally published 2 other papers on expansions of Relativity that do not contest the theory at all, but add argument as to its validity. Perhaps the most fundamental addition||confirmation of Einstein's postulates is in

The Relativistic Space-Time Perspective[http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=72654].

It adds to Einstein's equations by rewording them for distortions as they would be observed from the moving object - time slowdowns time would distort velocity from the perspective of the Relativistic body. It is in Journal a little higher than Journal of High Energy Physics Gravitation and Cosmology

Journal of Modern Physics[http://www.scirp.org/journal/JMP/]

David Grant Taylor

[email protected]

@David: I agree with you insofar that the background noise is not a certain proov of a so called "big bang".

It cannot be expected that electromagnetic radiation (photons) cross the universe billion years without any influence of interstellar matter or other radiation apart from unknown interactions. The result is red shift.

The empty space resp. the vacuum has no "hidden properties". If so, than it would have so many different properties to declare all the observations about the reality. Only the matter in its different forms is the carrier of properties and all the laws of motion in the broadest sense.

If a photon propagate in 'empty space' this space is no longer empty. We have to assume that the physical space appears only when matter is present. Matter is not only 'material matter' it is also 'energetical matter' as the second half of matter. Space in itself does not exist - only in mathematics.

We have to expect a slowdown in speed of moving objects especially of radiating moving objects like stars and galaxies caused by the Doppler-effect. It is impossible that the galaxies move with a high or even increasing speed. The uneven emission of energy leads to a momentum which decelerates the movement.

Thesis The Deceleration of moved Energy emitting Objects by the Dop...

Dear Readers,

Thank all for your invaluable expert info.

Nevertheless, my last question is still on. Why photons fall apart (no light) when they are stopped from moving? Why there is NOT a static photon in nature? That should not happen if they were particles (even for force carrier particles).

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Emmanouil,

Photons do not "fall apart" when they are stopped from moving.

The virtual photons of QFT and QED that combine force intensity + related energy at any distance between two particles, must not be confused with real electromagnetic photons that are made of only electromagnetic energy. The first do not move because they are only mathematical concepts, while the second physically exist and can move only at c.

The only way an electromagnetic photon can be stopped, is typically by it being absorbed by an electron stabilized on an orbital in an atom. What happens is that its energy is communicated to the electron, which then has enough energy typically to jumps to a metastable orbital farther away from the nucleus or even completely escape from the atom if enough energy has been communicated by the photon.

Electromagnetic photons are unable by structure to move at any other velocity than c (the velocity of light). They are made of electromagnetic energy, that can be communicated to massive elementary particles, which then can move faster as a function of this added energy.

Best Regards

André

Dear André,

Thank you for your explanation.

You couldn't clarify it in a better way.

This is exactly what I was hopping to get as an answer namely that these are mathematical constructs and have no real physical substance, I just had not the courage to say it since this is not my immediate discipline. It is just energy flow that can behave as particles but it is not.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Sorry for all the references to my papers. Just make it simple: matter and energy have both particulate and wave aspects to their reality. Start with the one that is easiest to understand (if you accept the uncertainty principle): matter particles. Quantum physics, Nuclear Physics, Atomic physics all agree gigantically on this point: matter is particulate. We believe we have determined is the smallest particulate aspect of matter to be the Quantum particle.

Just consider this: if the finest ruler you have is one divided in inches, how accurate is any measurement you make of an object 0.1 inches wide? There is always going to be an uncertainty about that measurement, and that uncertainty will lead to more uncertainty about how that object interacts with other objects. You could say that aspect of the particle is wavelike. The waves that move through that medium of 0.1" particles are going to be even more uncertain, but there will be a particulate aspect to their interactions with matter particles. Just think of a wave made in the 0.1" marbles crashing on a dock. The energy transferred to that dock from the peak of the wave will be particulate in a sense because there will be moments when there is a pressure rising to a maximum put on the dock. That pressure will recede to zero, then increase to another another particulate force, though this will be much less because there will be less water supporting that force - the trough of the wave. When the waves stop (i.e. their velocity drops to zero) there will be no more energy in the waves. Will will label the waves "water-ons" because they are the particulate aspects of water waves. When the waves stop, the particulate measurement of those water-ons will be impossible. The waves they are part of don't exist any more. They had a particulate aspect to their makeup, but that does not mean they are particles. Measurement of the particles in the will be uncertain because we can't go below 0.1". That inaccurate measurement will multiply as soon as we add more marbles, because they won't be perfectly adjacent to one another. They are being jostled around by the waves. We might be more accurate if we could absolutely stop those wave aspects to an absolute zero, but when we do, there won't be anything to measure so we would be uncertain. As well, if we wanted to make the measurements of the marbles perfectly accurate, we would have to move so close to them the ruler was touching the particles. We could not move the ruler close enough to touch them, because the ruler would have to stop at exactly the moment it did touch them. If it didn't, it would jostle the marbles and make the measurement uncertain. And we can't be absolutely certain because our ruler measures to a tenth of an inch.

Even worse if those marble weren't made of glass, but of foam rubber. We're fairly sure that Proton||Neutron||Quantum particles aren't made of perfect, in-varying subatomic glass because of the varying degrees of force compact them to an uncertain degree. We know for sure if Neutrons Stars are not made of perfectly symmetrically aligned neutrons, because they couldn't be. Quite aside from the extreme dense normal matter and plasma state matter that most scientist believe is on the rim of Neutron Stars. The Neutrons themselves aren't at absolute zero, and their movement makes their locations uncertain. Particularly if there are other forces interfering with the EM we use to measure them: Gluons, x|y Bosons, w|z Bosons and even Gravitons (we know gravitons affect the transmission of light).

So, if we had all the data to an infinite accuracy, we could determine that the particulate aspect of an EM has moved to an absolute zero velocity and has zero mass. But we can never determine anything to an infinite accuracy in a Quantum reality, so the particulate aspect of energy, Photons (Bosons generally) we can only say that their mass approaches zero as they slow. Boson maximum speed is light speed, but they can be slowed by any number of factors. Again remember, Bosons are the particulate aspect of energy wave transmissions and Quantum uncertainty is the wave aspect of matter particles. Doesn't mean that they are then different aspects of the same thing. e=mc^2 is a way of showing the relationship between matter and energy, but it doesn't mean they are the same thing. Even if we think we have turned them into pure energy when we collide an electron and a positron, because they just could have degraded into a lower quantum level we are not able to detect.

We can be fairly sure those factors exist in interstellar/intergalactic space, both because we could never measure or create a Planck level vacuum because of our uncertainty in measuring and containing the nuclear||quantum level particles. We also directly observe evidence of a higher-than-quantum level of interstellar/intergalactic matter. The increasing level of redshift the farther away an object is (the Hubble Constant) is evidence of that, parallel to the way sunlight turns red when it travels through a greater thickness of atmosphere at Sunset. The CMB signal that might be the leftover of a Big Bang, but could also be emitted by an extremely diffuse cloud of Hydrogen gas at 2.725K that is throughout our reality. The additional evidence we have for that is the dynamic activity of the formation of new matter bodies we observe everywhere.

If you want to see these arguments with a more scientific tone and less like the ranting I have been doing . . . again, please go to my paper

Frequency Decay through Electromagnetic Radiation Absorption and Re-Emission by Inter-Galactic Dark Matter as an Alternate Explanation for the Hubble Constant at [http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=67680].

It's in The Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology [http://www.scirp.org/journal/jhepgc/]. I promise, it is academically/professionally referenced and the equations are never more that quadratic equations. A little simpler than Special Relativity, but the most sophisticated mathematic tool used in that was very simple Binomial Theorem.

Dear Emmanouil,

Yes. It is unfortunate that the difference between "virtual photons" and real electromagnetic photons is not clarified in most reference works. This contributes to an unnecessary state of confusion in the community.

As he defined "virtual photons" in the 1940, Feynman took care to caution about the necessity not to confuse virtual photons with real EM quanta. Apparently to no avail, forcing everybody to painstakingly come to this conclusion on their own, as you did.

Best Regards

André

Everybody:

I'm not sure, but I think I am agreeing passionately with Andre. "Virtual Photons" are not different from real EM Photons, they are the particulate aspect of a real EM Photon. There is some evidence that virtual particles of any kind could take place, but that does not mean they came from nowhere. Uncertainty and Quantum mechanics mean that we will sometime be unable to observe the formation of any Boson. The very foundation of the Uncertainty Principle is not that particles come from nowhere, it is that we are occasionally unable to observe the events that lead to their formation. The pronouncements made by the bigger fans of the Uncertainty Principle are that it means a genuine fluctuation in energy. We are unable to perfectly observe all the events that both lead to and proceed from an apparent Quantum fluctuation. So the saying that Quantum Fluctuation is absolute proof of the uncertainty of matter||energy conservation are ignoring the fact that the data they are basing that postulate is UNCERTAIN data.

A man certain of uncertainty

David

I think that 'virtual photons' and all other 'virtual particles' are window dressing. Photons representing (electromagnetic) energy. Huge amounts of energy are released at particle decays and interactions and energy is also accumulated within particles, nuclei, matter. As we know can energy transform according to E=mc2 immediately to matter and matter to energy. The decay energy resp. reaction energy can arise as radiation (photons) or as additional particles. Otherwise particles can decay during the reaction into additional energy. If you analyse the particle decays you can see: If much energy is released less particles result and vice versa. A good example are the kaons.

Also vacuum fluctuation is not caused by vacuum. If you look at the experimental setup you can see that the absence of matter (gas) allowed interactions between the material within the vacuum chamber. The cause of the so called 'vacuum fluctuation' is the internal energy of the fronting materials, espacially of the 'electron gas' as part of the material. ('Electron gas' to the current understanding.)

Sometimes I get very depressed, and think that some things are out of the intellectual capacity of humans and awareness and scope and meant never to be truly discovered.

Maybe because when we finally find out where we living in and what we really are... we get kukooo!

Do the microbes maybe are aware where they live and what they really are looking from our plane of existence down?

Dear Professor Volodymyr Krasnoholovets ,

Very interesting hypothesis. Thank you for sharing it with us.

From a philosophical point of view, nature teaches us that nothing is really empty, so logic dictates why should space be any different? It's there all around us, we just can't understand it.

Also nature is teaching us that waves occur in a medium.

Ancient Greeks came to fundamental truths from simple observations derived directly from nature. Why we should do otherwise? Are we smarter than the ancients Greeks when we strip us from today's tools. I don't think so.

If nature is holographic in essence why should be space fundamentally be any different than the space for example between a nuclei and its orbiting electrons?

I know this is not more scientific talk but sometimes we need to momentarily revert to philosophy to gain wisdom, knowledge alone will not get us anywhere.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Classical electrodynamics is valid in large distance scales compared to atomic length scales. In atomic and subatomic scales we need to consider quantum electrodynamics (QED) where interactions are mediated by photons in "free space". Then there are purely quantum effects such as the zero point energy of harmonic oscillators. This concept is important because quantum fields, near local minima, behave as tiny harmonic oscillators, which now "fill up" empty space. The zero point energy is then interpreted as the vacuum energy, a purely quantum concept having no classical analog.

I may be expressing myself badly here, and I apologize - BUT! We have never established anywhere in our reality is a Quantum level vacuum. The ongoing formation of stars, the reactions happening when stellar groups collide, the interstellar "clouds" that both radiate light and interact with one another when they collide, these are all SCIENTIFIC evidence that the Space we call "vacuum" is not an absolute vacuum at all. It is a very low-pressure body of Gas - let us call it an Approaching-Planck-Level-Vacuum [APLV]. Think about the Inter-collision of interstellar Groups. These Stellar Groups are like giant cubic baseball field that all have one shining bright baseball SOMEWHERE within it. If it is a stellar system like ours, there are some smaller little bearings floating around as well, like the planets. There is also dust everywhere. Finally, there is very low-pressure gas. It is everywhere. Some say we have no evidence of an APLV being everywhere. Though detecting the NON-existence of something even thinner than interstellar gas in something as Big as Stellar sized Baseball field is one of those unanswerable questions. It is unanswerable it because we have very direct evidence that it DOES exist: the CMB. What everyone insists is the leftover of the BIG Bang. It is a signal that is the same given by gaseous Hydrogen at 2.725K. After all, we KNOW that interstellar space is a Planck level vacuum. Well, we don’t actually. If it were a Planck level vacuum, the atoms would not interact with one another. On the very odd time, two would hit each other a speed high enough to cause a chemical reaction. Very rarely, because the overwhelming majority of those Hydrogen atoms are a far too low a temperature to incite a reaction - you do need a match to start a fire - and a hydrogen molecule would form. But even that compound wouldn't be stable in a ABSOLUTE vacuum. Just by chance, the electron exchange that keeps the compound together would misfire, and the compound would break down. Then exactly the same amount of energy that was produced in the hydrogen molecule reaction will be absorbed by the break down

That APLV is even thinner in Inter Galactic space. Nevertheless, Galactic growth, stability, decay is something we observe all around us. In addition, we do have very direct evidence of there being an APLV in inter-Galactic Space - the Hubble Constant. For more than eighty years, we have found that the smaller the image of an intergalactic object is the bigger the redshift.

ONE of the causes for a Redshift is for the object to be moving away. In parallel to how the horn on a train gets deeper after it passes you. The train comes out of the tunnel, its horn blasting and getting higher and higher until it gets right beside you. Then it changes tone and gets deep and deeper as it pulls away. Part of that is the Doppler effect. Though the reason it gets keeps getting deeper is not just Doppler distortion - it is not accelerating away faster and faster. It is because the sound signal is going through a greater and greater amount of air. At every step through that air, it puts a tiny pulse of kinetic energy on each molecule. Part of that loss of kinetic energy is the lowering the intensity - the volume - of that sound signal. Though it does mean that there is less energy in that pulse, so the frequency of the pulse goes lower.

What do trains have to do with Universe expansion? Well the biggest one is what I just described. Velocity is not the only cause for frequency shift. Another cause would be the amount of matter that any signal has to go through. That will mean that part of the energy will accelerate the velocity of the molecular/atomic/nuclear/sub-nuclear particles of that matter and decrease the frequency of the signal. That is why the Sun is Red when it is rising||setting and yellow when it is high in the sky. The lower the angle when any signal enters a given thickness of any medium, the farther it has to go to reach the bottom||end of that medium. The farther away anything is in Space, the greater amount of Quantum level hydrogen it has to pass through. Whatever level of hydrogen is passes through, the signal will redshift – the lower the level, the smaller the Redshift. If the distance is one Megaparsec||Mpc (1 million parsecs, 3262 ly) the redshift of the signal is what it would be if it was moving away at 70km/s. 2 Mpc and the shift will be one for the signal source travelling 140km/s, 3 Mpc it would be 210km/s . . . and so on. The Universe is a very Big Place, so signals can redshift a fantastic amount. Current thought now is that the only redshift we have to consider is what would come from an Expansion of the universe at a Hubble constant rate. By that constant, an apparent light speed redshift would happen if the object was approximately 4.283E3Mpc or 13.97 Billion ly. Try using a direct reference: currently the farthest observed object is the GN-z11 at 13.39 billion ly. Its Redshift is what would come from an object moving at 2.9505E9m/s - very close to the speed of light. That Time distortion for an object moving at that velocity is about 5.64. So the light emitted from that object would be moving a c/5.64 – or about 5.3113E7m/s. It would be impossible to know how long it would take to move 13.39 billion ly’s, because while it move at 5.3113E7 when it was first emitted the instant it encountered any matter, that matter would absorb it and re-emit it at whatever Relativistic distortion it was under. It might speed up if that particle of matter were going slower, or slow down even more from a more shifted particle. No matter what velocity that particle was moving; the frequency would lessen as the EM signal passed on to the next particle. It would slow down by an even greater fraction whenever it encountered inter-Galactic||stellar clouds. All of these slowdowns (even the Cloud slowdowns) would be in Quantum amounts. Though the fastest that EM signal would be c. If it left the moving body and entered a non-moving body of gas - say the ‘cosmos-sphere’ of our Reality. It would shift back to its normal speed. Though if the Universe were expanding, even though it were going at c at that particular point, the distance between that point and another would increase by 70 kilometers for every second it took to get to that other point. So another increase in the time it took to move closer to our observation point.

We do not currently know how much all of these factors would reduce the velocity of the EM signal because we do not have confirmable data on any of them. Still, we can say absolutely that the signal would never travel towards us at a velocity greater than light speed. Because of the expansion, it might wind up separating from the body it were emitted from at greater than the speed of light, but that expansion would increase the distance it had to go and so effectively lower its rate of travel towards us – and slow down.

But lets leave all those other details out, because I’m obviously too fussy, and since we just don’t have to use them: GNz-11 is 13.39 billion light years away from us, so it took a minimum of 13.39 Billion years for the light signal from it to travel here. If you accept the Universe is 13.8 Billion years old, then the GNz-11 object moved 13.39 billion LY’s in 410 years million years. That works out to approximately 3.366*c – or about 10,090,564,846m/s. Maybe the estimates we have made for the age of the Universe are off a little.

Dear David Taylor,

Thank you Sir for your valuable input and sharing your views with us. The misleading pseudo axiom "empty space" or "vacuum of space" used blindly in many disciplines of science and engineering today has produced many so called by mainstream "established theories". However, these can not be 100% true or valid since they are based in false assumptions or axioms. One of this wrong axioms is I submit the above.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

TEI of Crete

Dear all,

I am starting to believe that the ether and dark matter are one in the same.

The expansion of the universe has been calculated to be accelerating when logically it should be decelerating. If the speed of light is dependent upon the density of the transmission medium then light is taking longer to travel across intergalactic space where it has lower density. Such a situation can change the distance calculation appreciably enough that a deceleration can be seen as an acceleration.

The second key reason that the ether exists is in the nucleus. If the photons exchanging the Coulomb force are missing in the nucleus, the exchange photons will not exist and the Coulomb force would be effectively turned off and the protons would not repel each other. The phenomenon is also present when charged particles are fired at each other; they repel each other until they are very close and the force stops.

These two examples depend only on the existence of an ether and that the speed of light scales with the ether's density. The variation in the ether's density also leads to an explanation for a variation in space-time. I have published one paper that introduces a concept for the properties of the ether that can describe the above. I also have another paper in review that will extend the idea further (and correct the photon model to one that predicts the energy to be proportional to frequency).

The published paper is available from ResearchGate and at

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.79084

Also try these Keith:

Vision-Space: The painter, reality and the real – Part 2 https://youtu.be/hbFtIIHOQ9Y

Vision Space and dark matter http://youtu.be/MGZFpKDMOak

Dear Professor Keith Lyon ,

Thank you and all for the provided links. I will include them to my reading list.

The official mainstream position according to SR on these matter is that ether does not exists but dark matter and dark energy are very real but they don't know what they are! yeahh right!... So if you don't know what something is how can you compare it with something you say it does not exists but you actually don't know anything about it?!!

All these illogical patterns in today's mainstream science status quo specially in physics cosmological astrophysics department emerged because no real big effort has been put to review these dogmas axioms anachronistic assumptions, relics of 200 years ago and more.

These relics are fully embedded in today's science and act as weights and barriers for progress if taken seriously by any scientist.

The problem is that mainstream science has become very inflexible (much much more then 200 years ago) and is not willing to get rid of these obsolete and today proven wrong old axioms assumptions. How many papers have you seen reviewing Einstein's SR and GR the last decade published in top journals? zero.

There is no effort to review, refine and discard parts which are not agreeing with current data. So these little statements of the old are dictating our research for the truth and forcing the angle from which we see the cosmos today but with eyes 200 years old really.

Take for example this "waving of nothing" nonsense, or the Copernican principle "we are not special" although all data points to the contrary, how all these affects our research angle and leads to fault conclusions. So yeah you are 100% right all they did was to replace ether with dark matter. The research is destined to fail because it is based on wrong assumptions.

They can not accept ether because that would mean the end of SR.

There must be a new movement created inside the science community to identify these faults of the past and sweep them out if we really like to progress and take man to the stars.

Until then we are stack in an endless loop.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Dear Professor Keith Lyon ,

I have read your paper:

Keith G. Lyon (2016) Dark Matter: The Source of Space and Time. Journal of Modern Physics,07,920-927. doi: 10.4236/jmp.2016.79084

http://file.scirp.org/pdf/JMP_2016052614283682.pdf

And I submit it is as long I remember, the best, most inspiring and useful paper I have ever read outside my immediate discipline.

This is science at its best. My deepest and most sincere,

Congratulations Professor!

This is the breakthrough science I'm talking about that will take us to the stars. It is a pity, this theoretical research paper should be the front page of Nature Magazine.

Sincerely yours,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Greece

Dear John Jupe ,

I have watched very carefully your youtube videos and followed your astonishing very precise and also philosophical approach analysis of the problems of conceptual science today in regard to our perceived reality.

Actually my recent publication demonstrates this I believe. It is all about seeing the invisible, an example of conceptualized reality with regard to our perceived reality:

You can find it in RG:

Article Real Time Visualization of Dynamic Magnetic Fields with a Na...

also in arxiv: https://tinyurl.com/yc2sjolt

Also as a highlighted article reportage in Elsevier, reporting about our research (good to understand quickly what my research is all about) :

https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-magnetism-and-magnetic-materials/highlighted-articles/seeing-the-invisible

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil Markoulakis

Technological Educational Institute of Crete

Slightly ahead of you Emmanouil - I have listed your paper on the Vision-Space project as I agree. However I struggle with detail as I just don't have the background.

Could the proposed magnetic off-load from EMR be into the cell nucleus of Muller cells triggering nuclear speckles?

" I have listed your paper on the Vision-Space project as I agree. However I struggle with detail as I just don't have the background. "

Thank you Sir, I most honored.

"Could the proposed magnetic off-load from EMR be into the cell nucleus of Muller cells triggering nuclear speckles?"

This is a very good hypothesis. Since the retina consists also off retinal ganglion cells (RGC) the type of neuron located near the inner surface (the ganglion cell layer) of the retina of the eye, and are supported and work closely with the Muller glia they will react to electrical stimuli thus induced magnetic stimuli caused by the electromagnetic wave reaching the retina thus visible light. The eye IS A electromagnetic machine in order to perceive electromagnetism. It couldn't be anything else.

So yes if you want a direct correlation with my experiment on my research, I believe since more than 70% of our body tissues and even more for the eye is fluids, yes Muller cells an neurons can behave electromgnetically like the superparamagnetic nanoparticles suspended inside on a carrier fluid consisting thus the ferrofluid inside my lens in the experiment (ferrolens).

The nuclear speckles you are discussing are similar to the ferrofluid vibrations I observed in my experiments which are reacting accordingly to the electromagnetic stimuli.

Also notice that specially in migrating birds their eyes are much more sensitive to magnetic fields fluctuations than ours (ours are more sensitive to electric charges more like an electric impulses vision not so much as a magnetic vision). Thus we can say that these birds have a kind of magnetic vision which allows them to actually see in color and distinguish the magnetic poles of the earth's magnetic field specially during sunrise and and sunset times for orientation purposes.

I hope I was helpful.

Emmannouil

Dear All,

The omnipresent aether medium is coming back in science today with new proof of concept experiments and and as an alternative theory to the Copenhagen interpretation fallacy: The theory now contradicting the establishment and gaining ground over time is an old theory namely the the pilot wave theory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ (pilot wave theory)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZPVp0NGEYY (Nassim Haramein explaining)

http://dualwalkers.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave_theory. (biased view) Elementary particles and quanta of energy are all manifestations of these same omnipresent medium (aerher), in the form of vibrations, condensations, waves, and in general distortions of this aether universal dark (i.e. we can not detect it yet but only can see the effects of interaction with it like EM SNF WNF and Gravity).

Emmanouil Markoulakis

TEI of Crete

No material medium is required to be present for energy to be stored in a field. Therefore, energy is present and can propagate even in a vacuum. It can be characterized based on the inductive and capacitive properties of the medium.

All these explanations are superfluous if there is a medium present after all.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_happens_when_a_2004_Nobel_Laureate_announces_openly_in_public_the_Triumph_of_the_Aether

The theories about elektromagnetic waves and therefore also the initial question contain two speculative assumptions not to say errors in thinking:

First: Space exists self-sufficient. (An universe without any matter would not be an empy space. There were nothing, neither space nor time.)

Second: Electromagnetic radiation itself is matter. (Electromagnetic energy turns into material matter by pair production and vice versa by annihilation into energy. Matter has to be defined in two forms: energetical matter and material matter.)

The question is not relevant. Matter caused space and time. Physical space is not the same as the mathematical space. Only this space exists as an idealised empty space. Furthermore the reinvention of the ether is a relapse into earlier times.

Dear Sovan Mohanty,

You wrote:

[SM] "No material medium is required to be present for energy to be stored in a field."

Current ideas about quantization and fields may be due for an update?

[SM] "Therefore, energy is present and can propagate even in a vacuum."

Old ideas about the vacuum may be overdue for an update?

[SM] "It can be characterized based on the inductive and capacitive properties of the medium.

Given that the space between the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies appears to be pervaded by at least three hard-to-detect media, if those media are characterized by variation in their permittivity and permeability, we may need to accommodate regions of space characterized by variation in their local speed for photons.

Nigel

Dear Nigel Nunn Sir,

Thank you for your response. I agree with you. But I believe there is nothing called 'old ideas' but the appropriate terms may be the 'different ideas'.

I’ve just came to this question after thinking about light. I would like to share a quote from a book i am reading. We dont know what light actually is, only how it behaves.:

By the end of the 1920s, through the efforts of Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, De Broglie, Pauli, Dirac, and others, Quantum Mechanics had become a well-verified theory. It gradually became evident that the concepts of particle and wave, which in the macroscopic world seem so obviously mutually exclusive, must be merged in the submicroscopic domain. The mental image of an atomic par- ticle (e.g., electrons and neutrons) as a minute localized lump of matter would no longer suffice. Indeed, it was found that these “particles” could generate interference and diffraction patterns in precisely the same way as would light (p. 412). Thus photons, protons, electrons, neutrons, and so forth—the whole lot—have both particle and wave manifestations. Still, the matter was by no means settled. “Every physicist thinks that he knows what a photon is,” wrote Einstein. “I spent my life to find out what a photon is and I still don’t know it.”