movement question

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />an aether of "absoluteness" of outer space is not needed logically at all. "absolute space fabric" or "aether" is a mode of thinking based upon einsteinian spacetime, which is not necessary nor is necessarily actually existing.</font><br /><br />I agree with you 110% on this concept, bonzelite. Another way to look at it is, that the fabric of spacetime is the Universe's ultimate magic act. It APPEARS that galaxies are moving away from each other in opposite directions. But is the spacetime fabric expanding? NOT! How can nothing expand? It just fills in with more space, which was always there to begin with. Talk of an aether is just plain foolish. CASE CLOSED. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

although this is a bit more obtuse: <br /><br />"the knot (matter) is not a rope and the rope (aether) is not a knot although the first depends for its existence on the second (knot depends on there being a rope as matter depends for its existence on there being aether)"<br /><br />this is getting back to the aether being nearly if not exactly like spacetime, as it is a physical structure --undefined as "traditional" matter-- having ripples, waves, otherwise impinging traits akin to a "substance." this aether can even kinda sorta exhibit traits of all known states of matter whilst not being any one of them in particular.<br />~~~~~~~~<br /><br />yes, it will dissapoint you initially because my aether will not be immutable and will be able to stretch (be under tension) for example as it is definitely some sort of substance, ie. it is something physical but not in the sense of being matter, that no<br /><br />matter is always something discrete, of limited extent, it is a thing (albeit sometimes huge 'things' like stars) - something that you can move around and touch it or poke it in some way but with aether we are immersed in it like a fish is immersed in water, it can swim around other fish and boats and what not but typically takes water for granted - sort of as we take the whole universe for granted and as we live in space and move through space (which is itself a property (attribute) of aether) <br /><br />if aether was a matter, you could place a marker in it demarking absolute location but we know it can't be done, yet it is definitely something physical that allows it to be have some propeties similar to those that matter has (as opposed to it being some etherial ghosty stuff, some philosopher's logical necessity underpining material existence)<br /><br />in that 'knot on a rope' analogy, I didn't mean that as some concrete and poetical description how matter arises from the aether, instead it is an attempt to illustrate by analogy and in general terms how matter depends <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I agree with you 110% on this concept, bonzelite.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />agreeing on so many percents is very non-scientific like, no good scientist would ever agree with anybody on anything over hundred percent and even very seldom on the one hundred... things are just not that simple in nature as anybody who ever tried his hand at figuring it knows<br /><br />methinks a little humbleness would behoove you <br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

van, lighten up. i did with you. <br /><br />he's enthused about my idea and agrees fully. i often say that i agree 700% when in full accord. <br /><br />btw, i'd like to read your paper in full, poetic or not <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="orange"><br />in that 'knot on a rope' analogy, I didn't mean that as some concrete and poetical description how matter arises from the aether, instead it is an attempt to illustrate by analogy and in general terms how matter depends existentially on aether...</font><br /><br />i fully understand your idea as presented in the posts. it makes far more sense in poetic simplicity than spacetime. <br /><br />however i posit that matter depends existentially on no matter, ie, nothingness; the nothingness gives material it's identity and material gives the nothingness an "identity" apart from material. <br /><br />in other words, if you continue looking for some type of material structure beyond the material structure, you're constantly questing for more material behind that material, and so on and so on. there could then be an infinite amount of "hierarchal states" of structural material forever more discreet and diminishing.<br /><br />so going a bit astray from your aether idea into modern cosmology as it is accepted, we have a bona fide scientific movement searching for gravitions and other contrived particles that are sworn to "must be there" when no such things will be found. <br /><br />

 

[vandivx]

<font color="yellow">in other words, if you continue looking for some type of material structure beyond the material structure, you're constantly questing for more material behind that material, and so on and so on. there could then be an infinite amount of "hierarchal states" of structural material forever more discreet and diminishing.</font><br /><br />that's true enough as you put it but I don't see void as solution to stop the infinite regression<br /><br />if I am right in what I have in mind about my idea of aether of absolute space, then it is really stuff for deep future when physics will have progressed far beyond what we have now, the idea is so new even if it has been around for centuries, the old guys simply couldn't swing it (that slang expression says it best) and so it had to die and I am not sure if I can rescue it so early again<br /><br />I said it is something physical but not matter, matter means protons/neutrons/electrons, in short it means particles (that vegetable produce in my analogy) whereas the aether means not these but that from which they can arise (the field soil) which makes that aether substance different from matter although it remains something physical<br /><br />obviously we will never be able to tell what it is, at most we can give it a name like aether and its not really important what you call it IMO because it is unique existent that has no couterpart in existence, ie., one of a kind which means it can't be really likened to anything else that we have encountered elsewhere and all that matters is that we agree on some name by which we will refer to it, like aether<br /><br />of course once you have 'something' as opposed to nothing, one can naturally always ask what is that stuff you propose made of and one can propose another layer that would explain why this layer next to our existence behaves as it does, like one could propose some sub-aether but that is either stuff for deep future or lunacy, I have hands full with the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[fr33dom]

If the universe was a void going on infinitely in every direction, how could you prove that the universe existed except for the locality of the ship? Instead of space ship engines acclerating you would be turning off and on a gravity generator, since you cant go anywhere, since its all nothing. YOu would probably get really board and start turning the gravity on and off making it like there was an ocean under a boat so you didnt go crazy in nothingness

 

[chembuff1982]

if the universe were moving all directions (d) at a rate of delta a (change in acceleration) for all directions, how could you really predict if something would move or not? The universe pulling at all directions would not all move in sync, therefore creating an effect like riptides moving whatever that object is in space around. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You may be a genius, but google knows more than you! </div>