Aether = Space?

Are space and aether synonyms?

[FractalWoman]

There is one and only one Aether but there are three Aether modalities, Primary (resistance to change, inertia), Secondary (acceptance to change, vortex-antivortex pairs) and Tertiary (matter, atoms). Primary Aether is the white between the red dots in your image, Secondary Aether are the red dots (which are vortex pairs), Tertiary Aether (atoms) are unpaired vortex structures that displace Secondary vortex pairs creating pressure gradients in Primary giving the sensation of mass to the particles.

[RHODESY.]

There is no empty space but there is space or "Aether". Time, Space and Matter in all its forms is the oscillation and compression of various frequency densities. These variations in frequency and density make up all the elements of our universe. Aether is matter in its lowest possible frequency density, it is the connecting space between particles. Aether applies positive pressure "gravity" on matter while still being the grease, allowing eaze of motion, matter interactions and transmission of information throughout Cosmos.
Interactions and information are radiated through the aether via spherical waves with more and more waves and collisions canceling out sections of motion and the transference of information giving us varying perspectives of the timeline as we know it today

[FractalWoman]

Finally, the vortex-antivortex pairs would self organize into DNA like ropes between particles connecting all particles to all other particles, just like you are saying. :-)

[FractalWoman]

The units of the Aether are [kg m/s m/s m/s] which are the units of volumetric flow [m^3/s] and surface tension [kg/s^2]. All of the other units, inertia [kg], momentum [kg m/s] and energy [kg m/s m/s] are contained within the units of Aether [kg m/s m/s m/s]. The units of power and the units of force, are also contained. It is basically a superfluid and/or a BEC, NOT A SOLID.

[dehilster]

There are four at least four candidates for models of the universe: aether, lattices, particle models (that also can model light) and structure models. Aether models exist exclusively to give physicality to light. It is not the only solution.

[ryanqvincent]

Fascinating! Thank you for explaining this.

[ellebell]

Space is contained within the aether, no fields terminate in 'space'. Space is a an attribute of Magnetism, cetrifugal force and motion. The Aether is not full of particles. It is 'ponderable matter', a 'quasi frictional viscosity', an infinitesimal mass with infinite velocity (paradoxical stillness). It is in-compressible and friction-less. Aether in motion is magnetism and creates space. Aether under tension is Dielectricity and relates to the termination of space or what we call gravity. Or something like that. Cheers

[giakon]

I think the word 'space' used to indicate the black starry sky is one thing and the space that an object creates is another. the black space of the starry sky is the aether. I do not believe in the bumping particles.
The aether is the bulk of something, object, that connects everything. let assume that this object is the bulk of ropes.
is it possible to define how much aether or ropes the universe is made of? we do not know and i do not think that it is possible to define it, so it is indefinite.
it is like you in the middle of the water sea of the ocean at deep 500 meters and you are watch around, up down left and right... the aether is the sea water in this case.
so the sea water is an object like the black space in the sky.

[Markoul]

Aether is space. Imagine it as our universe is an aether drop on the floor. Many different separated drops on the floor are different universes. So as far at it concerns us *aether=space thus space is the same thing as aether*. Euclidian space is the volume of the aether medium we are all inside it (not on the surface) so it is a physical property of the aether. Of course from a frame of reference outside our universe observing many possible other universes including ours someone can say that space is not a physical property but a man made attribute characterizing whatever contains all these universes.


Therefore coming back to your very interesting discussion. If our universe is infinite the aether=space but if our universe is finite and the other universes existing, then *space is a container of aether*.


Personally I prefer the first hypothesis thus aether=space thus the man made attribute of space is actually the physical volume property of the aether. I don't care of the other universies (propably they are copies of ours) I want to understand first my universe. So assuming this everything in physics starts to get much simply and NOW that we established our physical reality (fish swimming inside water) we can do the maths to describe it. Not as SR and GR puts it, raising actions (i.e. motion) to physical objects!


As an end note, everything in our universe is made up of aether. Undisturbed aether is what THEY call as empty space thus nothing and all matter and energy in our universe are disturbances (i.e. 3D vortices and 3D waves) inside the aether universal medium (water). As soon as the aether gets disturbed (by whom, the hand of GOD?) matter and energy manifests itself as disturbances of the aether.


If this simple truth is not acknowledged by scientists, we will go nowhere further with physics in the future and we reached our limit as an civilization and it will go only downwards after that., sadly.


Also if our universe thus aether is finite, then it will have boundaries, something like a fish tank object that contains the aether medium. Could be equivalent to a human cell membrane. This closed sack membrane is completely filled with aether (infinite dense but also elastic, no free space) so in our universe, as far as it concerns because the practically infinite for us density of aether, space=aether.


I believe this answers your question?

[TheScmtnrider]

Folks think of these concepts in terms of the scale in which we exist and interact.

At any scale, perspective is limited to that scale. Objects and the space between them is perceived at that scale where interactions exist within that scale.

Who's to say how far that goes? The medium through which light waves propagate, magnetic force propagates, where gravity propagates, where the connections between sub atomic particles exist, is undetectable at our scale.

But there must be something through which those phenomenon move or influence, that is conducive to both motion and the transference of information.

Therein lies the conundrum.
Our scale is a limit. A level in a fractal which allows awareness of the scales immediately above and below, yet only very limited interaction is possible when fractaling down, and those cannot be measured or controlled.

This is the domain of conceptual physics and the reason its assertions can neither be validated nor falsified.

The answers reside in the ability to transcend the boundaries of scale, where we can directly interact with and manipulate, objects at that scale.

An atom bomb merely causes interactions at the sub atomic scale. A nuclear reactor and particle accelerator does so as well. We can manipulate the interactions but we cannot directly observe them nor individually control their behaviors.
We do not know WTF is really going on down there, we can only infer, based on our own conceptual understanding.

The relative size, distance between, and the orientation of the particles in an atom, were we able to assume the perspective of an electron, would be vast indeed. Any perception of our present scale would be impossible, only adjacent atoms and particles could be detected "visually". But it's likely that at that scale, similar interactions to ours with our sub atomic scale, could be possible at the next lower scale.

The answer to your question involves what exists in space at the next fractal down and below that, to god only knows how far down. For now, all we can do is poke at the adjacent fractal and watch. Applying our limited perspectives to the processes involved, using intuition to glean a sense of understanding.
Fact is, we don't have the technology for that...and would probably destroy ourselves if we did.

We will have to intuitively trip over the answer to find it which, is why theorhetical physics exists in the first place.

So whether it's the likes of Brian Cox, Thornhill, Einstein, Crothers or Bill Gaedy here, a conduit between scales must first be established so we can actually see what's going on and which affords us the ability to predict, interact with, and manipulate, objects and processes currently beyond our technology.

There's another conduit of interaction. Our own bodies. Specifically our brains and the mechanisms of consciousness, neurology and mind over matter. Tibetan Buddhist monks have been working on that one for what, about 14000 years?

But hey, what do I know. I dropped out of high school in my freshman year.
✌😁👍

Oh and Bill?
Thanks for not disabling the comments on this video!

[whitenightf]

How can you have a vacuum without a container? Is the Universe a closed system? Does space exist? Is it all Mind are we living in a Simulation?

[rickrolledtruth]

yup I'm here 2... LEARN HOW AETHER FLOWZ

[edinshealtiel]

INFINITY IS IMPOSSIBLE
THOSE WHO SAY THERE IS INFINITY OF SOMETHING DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT INFINITY IS

[JoeDeglman]

The problem is that you are forcing anyone with a model based upon the ether, into a box, by requiring them to incorporate an imaginary concept into their model, such as space, in order for you to listen to the model. Huygens was able to create a model without describing how it interacts with an imaginary concept such as space. We know sound can travel in the same way as light, and air is not a solid, so we can get light propagation without the ether being a solid, it can be a gaseous fluid.
First we get a model that we can use, then we can haggle over what we cannot see after we get a working model. If the ether is particles, neutrinos or photons, or some kind of gas, that pervade the universe than we will be unable to see anything beyond where the ether is, so our universe will end there, as we cannot see any photon or light emissions from beyond where the ether is.

So we have a model of the ether not based upon knowing exactly what it is, but based upon the things we can see it doing to matter and electricity. Once we get that in place we can study that, instead of working with particles colliders and gravity wave detectors. So it looks like perhaps Bill is coming around and knows that no other model out there can work without the ether, but is still on the fence about it. Just like the EU model and the plasma model, they do not work without the ether either, but they tried in vane to get around it by replacing the ether with electric gravity or replacing it with plasma, neither of which work.

[Markoul]

Your notion that you don't can have transverse underwater waves is wrong. Actually water waves either on surface or inside, are a combination of transverse with longitudinal waves... more info here:


Waves are an elasticity phenomenon of a medium and have nothing to do with its density. You can have still very large density and still have large wave propagation because the elastic properties of a material.


Aether is practically infinite dense but elastic. And so is undisturbed water which is very dense but elastic. Every time you disturb water in a region you mess up its density on that region.

[caroline]

aether is electric. result of rotating magnetic field

[edinshealtiel]

AETHER IS
THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER DOESN'T EXIST. SO IF SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST YOU CAN'T TRAVEL THROUGH IT ETC ETC JUST AS YOU CAN'T HANDLE A SPAGHETTI MONSTER BECAUSE IT DOESN'T