Zephir

The Aether isn't quantized by its true nature, it's just chaos in infinite number of spacetime dimensions. You can imagine it as an infinitely dense particle system, similar to black hole interior. But such particle model is just a tool, which enables to imagine its behavior and to simulate it in real time, i.e. with finite precision.

The AWT goes deeper, then the axioms of math. For example the Peano algebra is limited just to the countable units. The Aether particles aren't required to remain countable. When two Aether particle will collide, the result can be a single particle, therefore 1 + 1 ≠ 2 here. Therefore you can forget everything, what you've remembered about math. Therefore you cannot even compile any formal math model about it, the physical model the less. After all, from this the quantum uncertainty follows.

Nope, many things cannot be measured, just observed. We can observe, whether the Earth is moving around Sun or not. We cannot measure it, this information is given by discrete boolean logic. But it's still is information about system, so we cannot neglect it. How do you want to express the fact, the Earth is moving around Sun and not vice versa by formal math?

If so, we should consider/dispute the AWT from the same perspective.

The Lattice Boltzman model is using colliding particle system. Here's no math, just probability rules for distribution of particle speed. Such rules follows just from random walk model, not from some ad-hoced model. The particle are colliding while keeping the laws of momentum conservation, that's all.

The particle system of infinite mass and particle density. So dense, so it forms a homogeneous system.

What I can do is the computer simulation of dense particle system. I can introduce some perturbation into it and to observe, how the perturbation would propagate through system depending on the particle density. But frankly, the character of longitudinal and transversal wave spreading is well known from Victorian era, it's not necessary to analyze it again and again.

By Popper's methodology of science the scientific theory can be only disproved, not confirmed. Therefore it's a speculation, i.e. the subject of belief.

No problem, every theory is speculation by its very definition. You should know that, this is classical physics. The above animation explains it clearly - it illustrates the evolution of Aether gradients with density. The energy is spreading between black dots of due the principle of least action. I.e. by along shortest path available.

If not, why did you said, "now you want to switch sides"? If we would think by logical way, we could reveal the vacuum structure before many years. If the Aether is spreading the waves of high energy density, it means, it must be even much more dense, then the energy density corresponding the shortest wavelength of gamma radiation. And such environment should spread this light in transversal waves all the time to maintain Lorentz invariance. Here exist the only one material structure, which is able to fulfill both these requirements at the same moment.

You told me, the MM-experiment has refused the Aether concept, isn't it true?

The math tell us, when Aether will use the transversal waves for energy spreading, then the Lorentz invariance follows from this model by simple way. So that the MM-experiment, which has confirmed the Lorentz invariance leads to the transversal model of light, not the refusal of Ather. And this is the end of the whole story. Nope, you're just heavily scrambled and don't understand both the underlying physics, both the math models, which were used in derivations Maxwell's Aether theory of light. It's not so big problem, because many Aetherists were scrambled as well. The Maxwell didn't realize, the energy density of light isn't sufficient for violation of constant speed of light. He didn't know about X-ray, the gamma rays the less. But as somebody have spoken previously, today is different physics. And nothing prohibits us to understand whole these apparent paradoxes perfectly. But you should become familiar with AWT model. You can develop it's formal model if you want, but for comprehension of contemporary physics you'll need to understand it deeper, then the pure math enables.

You don't know, how the constant speed of light follows from Maxwell's equations? You don't know, how the Maxwell's equations were derived from transversal model of polarizable Hertz waves? So what all this math is good for? It's just you, who is ignoring the math, not me.

I can say as well, the math coincidence doesn't says, whether the Earth is revolving the Sun or vice versa, because we have a perfect math model for both situations.

Calculate maybe, but to explain? You guys are all scrambled. From the Ptolemy's times we are all knowing, to compute something doesn't mean, we're understanding the subject. You're just filling variables in regression curves of different complexity, that's all. Can you explain by your math, why just the longitudinal model of Aether wave spreadin was considered in interpretation of MM-experiment, if we KNOW, the Maxwell's model was derived for transversal wave spreading?

Nope, what you're measuring is always some physical artifact or phenomena. You boys are completely mathematized. While I'm pretty sure, you cannot explain anything real by your math, in fact. The situation is very simple, though. In inertial environment we can have a two kinds of waves: the longitudinal and the transversal one. If the wave spreading is longitudinal, then the Aether environment would behave like gas, and the MM-experiment will be positive. If the waves will remain transversal, then the result of MM-experiment will remain always negative. Both environments are real and we can met with them in Nature.

Yep, but all these ways were found experimentally. The Maxwell's equations are just an formal regression of this fact. They doesn't explain, why they're working by their way. You don't know, why the magnetic field is phase shifted from the electrostatical one. You just have the equation, which is describing it. If you interpolate few point by curve, u will obtain a regression function. But this curve doesn't say about the way, these point are working. At the case of Maxwell's equation the punishment is obvious: you cannot explain the quantum phenomena or spin by such way. So you should choose the different model. You should ask, how they're differing physically. Because what are you measuring is not math, but physical reality.

Just the thin Aether, which should behave like reference frame towards the moving bodies. Not like the underwater with respect to surface wave spreading.

The Aether foam is behaving like undulating urethane mattress. Therefore every deformation in one direction leads to the reciprocal deformation in those perpendicular one, shifted by half-period. Easy to understand for everybody. And you, how can you explain this stuff? I mean really explain, not just to describe by using of equations, which were compiled just from this experimental evidence. Was the dense aether concept ever considered in interpretation of MM-experiment? If not, how can you say the above? If so, why they're denied so quickly? By Popper's methodology every theory should be considered wrong. Your stance is violating official scientific methodology. And I'm not even saying, they're wrong, I'm just saying, you cannot explain their postulates.

If so, why are you spending time here? Somebody, who is interested about how the field theories are working can find inspiration, while for you such topic is meaningless. Can you explain the turbulence or multiparticle condensation in full just by math? Can you explain the Victoria falls by using of math? If yes, who can understand and to use such explanation for further predictions?

What is real science, after then? The finding of more complex arguments, when those simple are relevant enough? Because you can get more money for longer time, when keeping the physics more difficult to understand for publicity? Do you know, how the witchmans and Holy Church are working? Do you know, why Holy Church has denied the Galileo or Darwin?

OK, how to define the order of Venus phases by mathematical way? You should be able to do it, or such reasoning cannot serve for validity proof of heliocentric model at all. You can prove only, such derivation exist in literature.

Does it mean, the sentence "The Earth is revolving around Sun, because of shape of Lunar craters and sequence of Venus phases" is insufficient for confirmation of heliocentric model from the contemporary physics perspective? I'm afraid, the string theorists would be quite happy, if they could prove their theory so easily.

Does it mean, the claim: "The Earth is revolving around Sun, because of shape of Lunar craters and sequence of Venus phases" doesn't belong the physics? Then Galileo wasn't physicist and he should be burned like crank.

Basically yes, because the scope of AWT is limited just by semantical rules. For example the physicaly relevant definition of existence - try to find some without dictionary.