[David Finkelstein]
Ordinarily the idea of wave conflicts with the idea of crystalline microstructure. Does Ross still think that there is a continuum underlying space-time? (I don’t.)
If space-time has the disorganisation of a fluid, then it has a temperature.
The speed of waves is the mean thermal speed of the fluid particles, divided by the square root of 3.
This also implies the dispersion and attenuation of waves in the fluid, increasing for wavelengths approaching the interparticle spacing from above. We see neither for light from the stars. So the temperature must be low. But the temperature must be high to account for lightspeed.
Another argument in the same direction: Fluids do not support transverse waves, crystals do. Light is a transverse wave. Therefore the ether is a crystal.
Newton went through a similar line of thought and inferred a hot crystalline ether. His arguments seem valid to me, except that heat can now be replaced by zero-point motion; Newton did not have the quantum theory. The crystal can be as cold as we like without slowing light down.
There are holes in both arguments that need to be probed. If the particle spacing is small enough, perhaps dispersion and attenuation would not have been detected yet. If photons are vortices they can be transverse even in a fluid; but this suggests that photons have a rest frame, a breakdown of relativity of a kind that has not been observed.
Analogies with fluids are tempting but fall apart under closer scrutiny. For example, a fluid has a temperature–a measure of the amount of random motion of its particles. But because the grains in a sandlike medium just sit around, their temperature is *effectively zero*.
Vibrating the tray imparts motion to the grains, but a *highly ordered* one that cannot be directly translated into temperature.
In the case of oscillons, the trays are vibrated to the degree that the motions of the particles become random and in all 3D directions. Hence, there is a direct analogy to a fluid and the temperature can be defined. The temperature is the average KE of the particles of the fluid. The same applies to the aether, but the temperature is of course vastly higher. The wavelength of spacetime is on the order of E-35 meters, and the fluidic nature manifests at substantially below that since that scale is the scale of the spacetime “cells”, analogous to the hexagonal cells in the vibrating trays of sand or beads.
I wonder if “quarks” are not, in fact, electrons arranged in such a way that you cannot see anymore their electron nature?
According to Ross, quarks are made of muons.*
3 muons per quark, but each is at a different phase angle. i.e., one quark might be 0, 90, 270 degrees. For a nucleon such as a proton, the 9 total quarks add up to 2 at each phase angle, and 3 at one of the four phase angles. For a proton, the 3 muons have a 0 degree resonance are thus “positive”. Neutrons have the 3 muons at either 90 or 270 degrees, and anti protons at 180.
Each muon can couple to one of four possible spacetime resonant phase angles. 0, 90, 180, or 270 degrees. For nucleons, you will have 2 at each of those resonant phase angles, and the 9th muon sets the net phase of the total resonance. For the proton, that 9th muon is at 0 degrees phase angle since I defined 0 to be positive, and thus 180 is negative and 90 and 270 are “neutral” charge phase angles. Note, two phase angles for neutral resonances, not one.
Note: “Debut” du Cosmos,selon Finkelstein:
“Particles are small defects in the crystalline order. Very likely the crystalline vacuum is a condensation of a less ordered one prevalent earlier in the current expansion. The condensation corresponds to Guth’s inflation. I can’t go farther back until my theory develops further. I am skeptical about a true beginning. Singularities aren’t beginnings but merely breakdowns of the theory.”
[Ross Tessien]
Two points. First, you don’t see attenuation if the waves are being pumped. You only see attenuation if you launch a sound wave into a medium such that the sound wave is dispersed. If you go look at the oscillons, they are waveforms and they do not disperse, because they are being pumped.
The pumping comes from the standing waves permeating the ocean, which we call spacetime. And, in such a case, spacetime would, one would think, damp out too. And that would be detectable as changes in wavelengths of emitted radiation from quasars. But, spacetime is being pumped too. The source of energy pumping spacetime is the mass to energy conversion taking place in stars. When a fusion reaction takes place, the resulting “particles” which are really solitons, are accelerated apart via emission of aether in bursts that are in cadence with the resonances of the individual solitons, and with spacetime, locally.
Thus, m is not equivalent to E. E is equivalent to m times c^2. But that is the “action”. The reaction heats spacetime.
The universe is a huge ocean of aether that is in a state of saturated vapour, in a sense. Fusion reactions are a continuation of the “boiling” away of the aether trapped in acoustic solitonic resonances that we call particles. That boiling, pushes the rest of the universe away from the region of exothermy.
The action imparted on matter is observed outside of our sun, and results in the net red shift of C IV ions, the net blue shift of Ne VIII ions, the inertial acceleration of matter of all different masses and all different mass to energy ratios in events known as coronal mass ejections, it results in the jets outside of t-tauri stars, and the flaring of Flare stars such as Orionis.
So yes, the aether ocean has a temperature, but no, we should not expect that the solitonic resonances trapped by the spacetime standing wave structure should degrade in wavelength any more than we should expect that so long as we continue vibrating a table of beads, Oscillons will persist. They are pumped solitonic resonances.
Fluids do not support transverse waves and EM is a transverse wave.
But, fluids do support standing wave structures. And, standing wave structures IN fluids, DO support transverse waves as has been demonstrated. In the same Oscillon web pages, you can see some of the patterns of standing waves that manifest as a result of the support of transverse waves in the “fluid” composed of the beads.
A crystalline aether will fail to account for all of the astrophysical and cosmological observations I mentioned above. Crystalline aethers do not allow flow. And without flow, there cannot be any expansion of the aether, and hence, no expansion of the universe. You cannot create new “empty space” in a solid aether so you are forced to assume that the entire universe is expanding in a single crystal. But that means that your crystal is discontinuous because a solid that changes volume, needs to spread the mass centers out so that they are further apart and occupy a greater volume. It turns into a mess. But the key problem is the failure to account for the emission of mass from mass to energy conversion reactions.
The MM experiments did in fact detect relative motions, as have subsequent studies. The problem is, they didn’t detect the magnitude of aether flow they expected. But, they assumed that the aether was stationary and the earth was in motion. This is a silly assumption of the aether is a fluid. The aether will be rotating along with the sun.
If you look at the geometry of the solar wind and the solar magnetic fields mapped out in 3 space around the solar system, it takes on the geometry of a ballerina skirt sort of helix, spiraling away from the sun, along with the rotation of the sun and of the planets. The velocity vector of the aether flow is coming out of the sun, rather than the direction that the previous physicists thought.
The problem is that the earth is made up of aether vortices, or solitons. So it is the earth that is the aether wind blowing around the solar system, and not the other way around. this point was not appreciated by the previous investigators.
For the most eye opening facts, read up about coronal mass ejections. The matter is accelerated away from the sun out to 12 or so solar radii. In other words, the acceleration is NOT from simple heating of the ions. But, the fact that the acceleration is inertial means that it is NOT proportional to the charge states, nor is it proportional to the charge to mass ratio of the ions. The acceleration is proportional to the MASS of the ions.
Only the gravitation potential is supposed to couple to mass, not EM fields. Hence, the SOHO scientists are in quite a quandary right now because they have no idea of how to explain the accelerations. It IS possible to explain the accelerations via certain RF heating techniques. But, you need a different frequency of interaction for each ion such that they all accidentally wind up with just the right velocities. And, even when they adopt that notion, they then run into the problem that there is no manner to get such a field structure from convection of matter inside of the sun.
A neutron beam shot through a changing magnetic field will split into two different beams.