screwstrip

Nice censorship

Wait a second. I was saying that mass had to do with compression because mass couldnt be at every point in space. But I also said that there could never be absolute consistency. Can someone help me out on this? Reason I ask is because either it's a contradiction, or it has something to do with the speed of light and maybe the size of the electron, unless mass is something else but I can't imagine what. Requiring discrete amounts of compression so it doesnt become fractal could do away with the problem but then I'm basically saying it jumps instantaneously and that's really ugly. If mass is compression what is rarefaction? They have to come in equal parts and occupy some volume. As compression increases volume also increases? Maybe rarefaction is volume! And the two together define density? I still don't see how this connects with the speed of light though. I think the speed of light is the rate at which compression happens.

Some thoughts to go along with this: k starts out at 0 when there is no compression because mass is 0 and inceases from there Having to act through distance and time may be related to how charge and gravity drop off at r^2 For the electron instead of hooke's law newtons law F=ma might apply because if it is a spherical standing wave it is undergoing constant acceleration.

It's actually hard to know what's what in this case because there are so many variations. The site http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website3/Index.htm says Lorentz transformations are sufficient to explain relativity. I haven't looked into it myself. But for now my heads about to implode so I'm gonna take a break and reflect a little more because maybe this does lead to a dead end with so much opposition. I'll try to organize the points into another post like I did before and continue working like that. Thanks.

See my first post. Suppose the aether has a stiffness of k and force is applied which causes a displacement of X, but now this displacement isn't really attached to anything so it continuous to propagate as a longitudinal wave propagating through distance which acts through units of time. I think this matches the units of h. Through units of time is a little hard to understand, but think of it like how you're traveling through time right now. I figure that mass has to show up somewhere. The medium can't have mass intrinsically because if every point has mass then we'd be dealing with a whole lot of infinity. I'm trying. According to this model they are. Absolute consistency means no compression anywhere. But for that to happen every point would have to "know" where every other point was at every point in time.

Then what am I doing? Is physics not about testing nature? I'm testing nature through the looking glass of the aether.

Exactly what I am trying to do.

See my previous post. If you think I'm crazy or just flat out wrong so be it. I give you permission not to comment.

We'll get to those eventually but don't you have a single thought or feeling (besides it being incomplete) on what I've said before. This includes: The wave explanation of the photoelectric effect Mass as the measure of compression The medium being infinite, continuous, and compressible The finite speed of light as the reason behind why absolute consistency is never achieved Electrons are said to be spherical standing waves. Don't be afraid to look at the site I provided! http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website3/Index.htm Why waves have a finite speed is still troubling. I think infinite is just unreasonable but why it should be a certain value is concerning. Same with the size of the electron, etc. Planck's constant might have some sort of connection. I was also thinking Planck's constant might be related to Hooke's law, but again really need comments!

Long way off before a mathematical model. Can you please comment on what I've proposed so far?? Part of the reason why I'm here. You could either help or offer criticism. But saying I can't do it or it can't be done because of this or that doesn't do much.

Let me rephrase: It has to be something. And yet I hear all the time that physics is incomplete. If your explanations can explain the medium (which this whole thread is supposed to be about) then list its properties so I can be on my way. And I don't know about you but a wave nature of light makes a whole lot more sense than particles. How do they have those properties, or better put how can those properties be explained?

How about if it explains things that are already testable? i.e. photoelectric effect as above. What fills that distance? Or maybe since you all like math so much try adding 0 to itself. What differentiates fields from other fields and virtual particles from each other?

The site I was using mentions Lorentz transformations but I haven't investigated that in depth yet. It's mostly about the interpretations. For example take the view of two particles floating in "empty" space. Well if space is empty of everything what really separates the particles? Technically youre saying space is nothing, therefore nothing separates the particles. If it is the same thing could you explain the properties of the medium for me. I've heard about the book and might have even read it, I'll take a look. I don't care whose theory it is, or even what theory you want to call it, I just want to understand it!

I've been using logic and I think that works fine too.

Alright, sorry. If one were to assume that space was filled with a medium and that medium could explain all natural phenomena what would the properties be of that medium and how would it operate? Yep. I assumed it was compressible because of the longitudinal component in the hypothesis of how light works and the supposed spherical standing wave structure of the electron. We'll see what happens. But before things get more complicated I would like to make a couple of proposals. First is that the amount of compression might represent mass. Second is a little more convoluted but to explain why the medium is moving rather than static maybe the finite speed of light has something to do with it, meaning for it to be static it would have to be consistent or "smooth" throughout, never achieving absolute consistency.