Naturally, just while 100-years-Einstein-events many readers told me, since Einstein existence of ether is refuted. Indeed, young Einstein ´eliminated´ ether as everyone knows. Unknown however mostly are elder Einsteins statements as he ascertained ether being inevitably existing. I refer to earlier chapter 01.01.04 ´All or Nothing´ and especially 01.01.05 ´Space and Time´, where I made comments on these aspects. Because these statements of Einstein are mentioned scarcely, I quote his speech of 5.5.1920 at University of Leiden once more:
´Summarizing we can say: based on relativity theory space shows physical qualities, so this means existence of ether. Based on relativity theory space without ether is unthinkable, because within etherless space not only motion of light could not exist, but no existence for measurements and clocks would be possible, so no physical space-time distances could exist. Ether however can not be thought to show properties like ponderable media, thus not to exist by particles moving through space and time, so common term of motions is not usable´. Ok, just that´s - or at least like that: ether is without any separated parts - however if that primary medium would not move within itself, no ´existence´ of secondary occurrences would be possible, whether of ´clocks´ nor of anything else.
Nebulous Space-Time-Bends
Only elder Einstein made statements so clear to understand. Younger Einstein loved to put (mentally) his followers into rockets and trains and dark lifts and most astonishing, many followers believed (and still believe) only relative subjective worldview is possible - even stationmaster has objective knowledge about resting and driving trains. Not all vehicles drive by light speed through space, nevertheless Einstein convinced many followers (and many still are convinced), space and time are connected anyhow - and in addition that space-time is bended by masses. He could not explain all attracting forces mentioned above, but he only claimed gravity to be effected by bended space (without any explanation, why and how masses could affect that bending).
Everyone knows this dented rubber-sheet, alongside which planets ´fall´ around sun, all times straight-ahead, however ´straight´ now means curved line. I doubt, anyone could achieve concrete imagination of ´spacetime´ nor could really understand Einsteins Relativity-Theories - because one can not understand wrong statements but only can detect points of false statements (like done by comprehensive literature of Einstein critics). Here for example some pictures concerning ´gravity by spacetimebending´ voluntary are arranged, picked up from websites of noted scientists. It´s up to readers to understand these visualisations, I only mention some questions:
- Like at previous rubber-sheet, grid of spacetime at all pictures is bended downward - why however or by which force however these sheets resp. grids are bended or pulled downside each masses?
- If planet or moon becomes some slower - will they fall down at tracks south of south-poles?
- Funnel downside-left represents strong bending into Black-Hole. Do masses affect gravity only into one direction or should many of these funnels be arranged all around Black-Holes?
- Is this possible to imagine resp. which bended lines would result by many overlaying funnels or thus can these imaginations of spacetimebends fit to reality at all?
Mind you: specialists had time for decades to visualize and demonstrate that critical aspect of Einsteins ideas by fitting and convincing pictures. For me, only best-known Einstein picture right side down is clear message: ´it was all a fake - and nobody got it!´ In spite of overwhelming evidence by famous scientists, most main-stream-physicians still refer to validity of relativity theories. Also I refer to Einstein - however to his late statements claiming real existence of real ether.
Four Dimensions
In that respect, report of 25. International Mathematics Congress at Madrid is interesting. Mathematician Grigori Perleman from St.Petersburg, occasionally called ´most intelligent man of world´, refused to take Fields-Medal - highly esteemed award - even he probably solved most difficult problem of mathematics: properties of surface of four-dimensional bodies (thus concerning space-time world-view). Probably he would have legitimate claim to reward of one million Dollars, offered by American Clay-Foundation for solution of ´Poincaré-Presumption´, which troubles experts since hundred years.
I always thought, mathematics as ´most clear science´ would have no problems with calculations at fictive dimensions as you like it. Obviously however, problems may not concern real relations of surfaces of fictive bodies. At the other hand it´s reassuring to learn, mathematics deny solution if much too fantastic fictions are put as axioms. So it also might be clear, Einsteins famous mathematic tricks can not represent reality (like disproved by many authors).
Nevertheless I agree with Einstein: bendings are most important, no real straight lines exist. At picture 04.02.02 at A is shown ´bended space´ (see bended X-, Y- and Z-coordinate) and Something within is moving from E to F at bended track. Relativity-mathematicians will like to calculate that ´uneven curve´ relative to each bends of space with its locations and accelerations.
However, I have problems already with idea, into which direction vector of inertia will show. Straight-ahead naturally - however here this won´t mean exact forwards but direction corresponding to all bends of all three dimensions same time (if time as fourth dimension is neglected, thus only three-bended-dimensions-space-problem is to solve).
When e.g. a comet comes near sun, it will cross spectrum of ´bended space lines´ towards inward. At its nearest point, just before crossing these space lines outward again, comet will move at section of circle around sun - i.e. also its inertia thus shows into direction of circle - and how should it ever be able to escape sun? On basis of previous pictures all comets will assemble somewhere ´down south of south-pole´.
Term Space
In English, common word ´space´ is synonymous with room, gap, place etc., at the other hand with emptiness and also used equivalent to universe. Analogue in German language, common word ´Raum´ (room) sometimes is used similar to term universe. Basically however Raum/room means something like living-, dining-, assembly-, class-room or hollow etc. In scientific sense, Raum/room is pure geometric term e.g. describing a volume.
In order to describe exactly bodies, shapes, places, distances, movements etc., right-angles coordinate-system is necessary. Zero point of that frame of reference can be chosen as we like it. Einstein is right: nearby everything is bended, especially tracks of movements. Only these fictive coordinates of abstract room (at B) must theoretically be thought to be absolutely straight - otherwise e.g. any real bended line could not be defined by comparison with theoretic straight lines.
So here terms room and space are used only by that geometric sense, as clear term for right-angled coordinate system. Within voluntary chosen section within that room/space resp. frame of reference, any location is simple to define by X-, Y- and Z-numbers. For figurative sense of ´space´ here exclusively is used clear and common term ´universe´. Descriptions here mostly need no numbers, but movements most are described by terms like left/right, frontside/backside, up/down, which all are related to that fictive coordinates resp. frame of reference.
At picture at B again is marked, Something is moving from E to F. This is graphic representation of a real movement. That Something must be real, otherwise no motion could be real. ´Room´ however is not real but exclusively a fictive term, only necessary for exact inspection or discussion or communication of real processes. That not-real room never can show ´energy´. Real within room only is that substance of ether. Energy is not real but fictive term, in reality existing exclusively as motions.
Many readers take offence at ´old fashioned´ term ether and suggest to use modern terms e.g. like ´space-energy´. Once more I state clearly: ´space´ is geometric, fictive term, analogue ´energy´ is only abstract collective noun. ´Space-Energy´ is combination of two fictive terms, i.e. an empty-word (which only can produce confusion and never ever can produce useful explanations). Analogue, room is not equivalent to ether, because room is something abstract, while ether is real concrete substance.
Term Time
At previous picture at C, again coordinates X, Y and Z are drawn resp. that ´room´ is marked by green, blue and red walls. Something (G) within is moving unsteady at uneven track. Diverse positions (easy to define by each value of coordinates) of that red point are marked. Aside at D, a clock is shown and movements of clock-hands are well known (and some positions while turning are marked at border of clock-face). Here at animation, red point takes position one by one (and each distance moved are marked). Aside of, animation shows diverse positions this ´clock-hand´ takes one by one.
Real are only these movements (and this animation is only graphic representation of). Movements of red point and motion of clock-hand are totally independent. Naturally, red point like clock-hand each are located at one determined position within space, at the following moving to next position. By this coarse animation, naturally it will take a while until coming to next position - however nowhere exists really something like ´time´.
Within our body and around our body, everything really is in motions (even it seems resting), however these motions need no ´room´ (previous fictive green-red-blue walls) to be real moving. Analogue, these motions need no ´time´ to be really moving. There is no time as real occurrence, but each time-measurement basically is some suitable motion. Finally and exclusively, if man wants to inspect ´speed´ or ´accelerations´ exactly, abstract term of ´time´ comes up.
These measures basically are only comparison between two independent movements. For definition of distance, fictive frame of reference called ´room/space´ is used and for definition of ´time´ most steady repeating event is used (lastly again based on any motion, which repeats moving distances of same lengths). Scales for distance and time, theoretic can be used as we like it - and this clearly indicates, ´dimensions of space and time´ are pure abstract - while all movements are real facts - and all movements logical imply something real which is moving.
´Scholarly dispute about time´ ended with that understanding, nevertheless new mysteries about nature of time come up on and on. Indeed, ´time´ is not constant, as same clock at different environment ´ticks´ other kind. Clocks are made of atoms, atoms are ether-vortices and their ´revolutions´ are depending on behaviour of surrounding ether. Already clock at mountain ticks faster than same clock at valley. Clocks of GPS-satellites must be back-calculated (however twenty times ´slower´ than formula of Relativity-Theory tell).
So it´s absolute fiction resp. totally inept trying to explain real processes of universe by pure abstract terms of space and time or even on its combination spacetime or even based on bended four-dimension abstraction.
Quantum-Theories
When Relativity-Theory does not work, worldview is based on second standing leg of physics, Quantum-Mechanics (resp. its following theory variations). Development and statements of that science are documented e.g. by Jim Al-Khalili at his book ´Quantum´, for example by these wonderful pictures. ´A guide for the perplexed´ subtitle promises.
Astonished one reads e.g. following sentences:
´At the one hand, Quantum Mechanics are bases for understanding world, at the other hand it seems nobody really understood what that theory tells´. Parodoxa of Quantum-Mechanics are demonstrated by famous example of double-gap-experiments, ´because no other experiment shows its riddles more expressive and wonderful´.
Naturally are explained Plancks investigations about quanta and Einsteins Nobel Prize for introduction of photons and explanation of photo-effect. As a result is stated, ´today wave-particle-dualism is assured without any doubt´, followed by statement ´physicians are still irritated by concept of photons´.
Schrödinger designed his famous ´wave-function´ and its interpretation was discussed by decades and still no agreement is reached. Heisenberg generated his ´unsharp-principle´, which allows only probabilities e.g. for location and impulse of particles, these also overlaying to ´superpositions´, which ´collapse´ only by observer. Schrödingers famous cat is still discussed, uncertain whether it´s alive or dead until someone looks into box - unbelievable useless loops of imaginations of these intelligent men. Today one accepts, based on ´decoherence´, an event becomes real by interactions also other kind - e.g. anvil functions as observer, but hammer still becomes hammer finally when hitting anvil.
Based on wave-function and super-position, author starts second attempt for explaining double-gap-experiments, finally establishing: ´we have a right for rational explanation, however up to now none was found´. Again and again he claims validity of quantum-theories, because mathematics are ´logical consistent, however problem is nobody can tell about facts by non-mathematic language´.
Bohr himself formulated: ´There is no quantum-world. There is only a quantum-physical description. It´s delusion to believe, subject of physics would be detection how nature works. Physics concern only what we can say about nature´. Rather hard disappointment for layman: physics is what physicians talk about nature - physics is not ambition to explain why and how nature works. So it´s probably true like Al-Khalili writes: ´some of most famous scientists of our time even admitted in public, nobody really can understand quantum-theories´. And these scientists really studied not only popular-scientific literature (like quoted here).
Despite of this admission, still ´particle accelerators´ are build and particles are bombarded by high-speed wave-particles in order to crack out most sub-elementary particles and to detect ultimate bases of material world. Hundreds and thousands of these ´quarks´ are detected - however these can not be brick stones of materia but are wreckage of destroy.
Zero-Point
At the very moment, ´Spektrum der Wissenschaft´ (German periodical ´Spectrum of Science´) published special script ´Vom Quant zum Kosmos´ (From Quantum to Cosmos) with diverse articles of famous scientists concerning these problems. Again hystory of Quantum-Theories is discussed, up to most new results. Here I will point out only one of these findings, concerning ´Bose-Einstein-Condensate´, cover picture of that magazine. Author of article is Graham P. Collins, editor of ´Scientific American´.
By common understanding, structure of materia withdraws observation based on ´unsharpness-principle´. At previous particle-accelerators, materia is ´bombarded´ by most fast flying ´particles´, so naturally no sharp picture of ´resting materia´ can result. Opposite, atoms should be ´calmed-down´ at its best, so sharp picture of structures could result.
Just this is achieved by ´atom-traps´, as possibilities for movements of atoms are limited at its best by laser-radiation and magnetic fields, so atoms are practically cooled down to minimum temperature. Atoms transmit into status of gas-like condensate - and photos really are to take of their ´quantum-vortices´, e.g. like cover picture shows that ´physical state of plasma´.
That article remarks: ´In August 2000 Wayne Hu of Princeton University and his team suggest, dark invisible materia, obviously more than ninety percent of masses of universe, could exist in shape of Bose-Einstein-condensate by particles of very few mass. If this daring hypothesis fits, most cold gases would be most widespread same time´.
Temperature at universe naturally is rather deep, because there are few ´particles´ to hit onto thermometer. Everywhere would be these ´gas-condensates´, which now are assumed to show rather few ´masses´ - because otherwise common calculations again would not fit, based on too much ´invisible resp. dark´ materia.
At these zero-point-experiments, condensates are to ´stir around´ by laser and diverse vortices-pattern can be produced - and directly documented by photo-pictures. Indisputable there are no ´hard parts´ to detect - and just at these condensates resp. by minimum temperatures anything hard or solid should ´crystallize´. Unmistakable Collins states ´classic idea of atoms as particles, which meet like minute marble, fail for interpretation of these experiments in total´.
At this background it´s really unbelievable, why researches still aim to find any ´particles´ or masses, as all experiments lastly show nothing else than movements. However these experiments do not show movement structures of atoms at all, but these pictures primary show motion pattern of atom-traps, i.e. their strong magnet fields in combination with laser radiations.
Ether and Movement
These condensates also are not identical with medium of these occurrences. So I can not accept suggestion of many readers to replace old fashioned ether by common term of ´Zero-Point-Energy´. Ether is primary real substance, which is in motion within itself. Temperature (no matter of zero-point or of suns surface) is measure of motion of secondary occurrences (so at level of previous ´marbles´). And ´energy´ anyway is only pure abstract term, not describing real facts.
Term of ´Zero-Point-Energy´ again is combination of abstract terms, sense-less and content-less empty word. This term really represents ´perplex astonishment of physicians´, below zero movements of ´material movements´ still exist motions on and on. This shows obviously, ´materia´ is only secondary occurrence, which can appear only at basis of a primary medium.
Who ever wants to talk about new worldview must refer to one - or preferably both - pillars of common physics, Einstein and Quantum-Theories. So do I, referring to Einsteins mature statements: space without ether is unthinkable, ether may not be assumed to exist by particles and ether shows no ´normal´ movements like material-world. In addition I refer to recent confirmations of Quantum-Physics, which could not detect any ´hard particles´ of materia even at most extreme situations - but only found steady movements in most diverse pattern.
Common physics stick at dead-end as long as sticking on particles and wave-particle-dualism. In addition, common physics stick at wrong ideas about movement-pattern, especially concerning ´waves´ - like discussed next chapter.
I am sorry these critics might upset some readers, however incomprehensibility and paradoxa of Relativity- like Quantum-Theories ´shout´ for understandable worldview. I won´t go on with critics but I will point out logic alternatives by simple words and clear defined terms. However, some geometric imagination is necessary to check complex movements processes within these three space-dimensions. I hope my simple pictures and animations will help to visualize and understand ideas and processes.
| 04.03. Light-Ether | Ether-Physics and -Philosophy |