PHILOSPHICAL PERSPECTIVE

.... my ideas on this point appear only as the shadow of a speculation,  or as one of those impressions on the mind which are allowable for a time as guides to thought and research. He who labours in experimental inquiries knows how numerous these are, and how often their apparent fitness and beauty vanish before the progress and development of real natural truth – Michael Faraday

 

Introduction In order to keep the conversation alive, a panel of curious individuals has been assembled to offer some stimulating questions. These are their idiosyncracies. Michael

 

	SARCI	Sees the irony in the way things are perceived and the way they really are, and is not shy to express his discontent. Has no shame, and his boldness is disturbing though refreshing.
	ALBI	Tried the all mathematical treatment first, but regrets it now. It seemed like such a good idea at the time, but he is a little surprised at all the difficulty caused by this. Spends most of his time trying to figure what time is really like.
	FAUSTI	Fausti has been bitten once by the force of dogma, now he hopes to probe the universe in an open and honest way. He is often skeptical about what is thought to be well known.
	HOMI	Questions all that is known, and how it is known.
	DEMI	Don't come to Demi with any half baked ideas or he will ridicule you to your face.
	NEWI	Needs to know the finest detail of the inner workings of all physics.
	ARCI	Sees the universe as arcs and spirals in motion, and that all mechanism can be known.
	GALI	Believes that the simplest mechanism is the best and most enduring.
	ARRI	Looks for the beauty in all things that can only be caused by will.
	SOCRI	Defends the right to express any idea no matter how unusual, even to death.
	PLATI	Seeks always to find the highest source for the phenomena investigated.

 ♦♦♦

 

DERIVATION OF ÆTHIC LAWS

…common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world, for each one thinks he is so well-endowed with it that even those who are hardest to satisfy in all other matters are not in the habit of desiring more of it than they already have--Rene Descartes

Unquestionably the Æther has become the most elusive and controversial scientific concept to be explored by mankind. It has become to science what reincarnation is to religion, an issue unanswerable to the general satisfaction of everyone. According to popular scientific opinion, the æther concept has failed, and other means to explain the physical world need to be explored. Proven to be mathematically superfluous by the new physics of the atomic age, the concept was scrapped and summarily abandoned to the pile of Obsolete Theories. However, being mathematically unnecessary is not equal to being nonexistent. Unfortunately this matter cannot be clarified by the current scientific method, since in this case the use of Observations and Experiments cannot provide convincing evidence. The nature of the æther is well concealed and too subtle to permit direct study, so that knowledge of its properties is a Theoretical Contemplation depending almost entirely on assumptions. Of course, to perform precise analyses and base Hypotheses on series of assumptions is a precarious business, since each subsequent assumption has a foothold only on previous ones. Colligating these assumptions produces little more than virtual foundations, which are easy targets to dismiss as worthless and unsubstantial. Undeniably such reasoning is vulnerable, but as the subject of study is masked by impenetrable levels and orders of time and physical scale which preclude the use of the usual utensils of dissection, there is no alternative but to employ the instrument most suitable to the task, the human mind and intellect.

Plato

...convinced of the ultimately harmonious structure of the universe, attempted the construction a comprehensive philosophical scheme to show the rational relationship between the soul, the state, and the cosmos.

PLATI:After all these years since the birth of relativity theory, is the aether still a necessary concept in science? If it did exist, what are the characteristics that reveals it to us. How and where did such a medium become energized?

Philosophically, an æther medium is a scientific necessity. Force or action must have a means of transmission across expanses of space, regardless whether these expanses are immensely large or incredibly small, so that a continuous chain of events is a nonnegotiable requirement to span distance. Without a substantive connection between the actor and the acted upon, communicative activity cannot occur. By definition an Æther medium precedes Physical Phenomena, it being the cause and source thereof, not the product of it. Antecedent to material phenomena, it must be assumed to be a separate  and prior Creation. Having both Form and Motion, it must be concluded that such parturition was ensuant upon the performance of intellective and Mechanical Work. Great or small, labor and effort are ultimately at the heart of all work, which must be purposeful, planned, and have specific end results or goals. Labor activity proceeds over time, and requires the input of thought and energy. Labor is conducted in a spatial location, has Logistical needs, time constraints and a lengthy list of considerations needing attention. All Projects share these basic needs. The physical universe is simply an immense and intricate undertaking conducted on stupendous scales of distance and time. Such enterprising operations may seem daunting beyond description, from our limited physically bound perspective, but cannot be denied simply because of magnitude and scope. Creation (construction) of a Universal Foundation Medium for Physical Reality is indeed such a mind boggling venture, and it is scarcely possible to begin to describe or even imagine such efforts without first battling incredulity, and to say that the beginnings of comprehension in this matter lie in Rational Faith is an understatement.

PLATI: If the Universal Medium was energized before the existence of physical forms of matter, then wouldn't there be an entirely separate era of time that preceded the suns and galaxies? Does this indicate the existence of phases in the evolution of the Universe?

The scope of such endeavors are so gigantic and extensive that countless billions of years have elapsed since their initiation. Not only the arduous task of production of inestimable numbers of absolutely identical particulate units, and the energizing thereof,  but also the incalculable period of time required to allow this massive ocean of energy to settle into satisfactory conditions of absolute equilibrium, stability and order. These are the labors of a Founding Epoch. Any descriptions of patience are inadequate and fall far short of properly characterizing the persistence and resolution necessary to carry out such a mission. At the conclusion of the Founding Epoch physical reality exists only as a potential condition, a featureless and vacant reality that is the primal gift from the Creator to the most ancient Pioneer. Such a promised land was a frontier with a day and hour of commencement known only to the earliest founders in extreme antiquity. In that now distant day of inauguration great vows were cast, proclamations made and hopes voiced. The dust which comprises our very being is the fruit born of those early dreams and labors.

SOCRI: How is it possible that the aether theory is still being discussed by some scientists when it has been considered philosophically dead for almost a century? What is the state of our knowledge about this subject?

It is beyond the scope and purpose here to present a complete and comprehensive Paradigm intended to sweep away all others before it, but rather to lay Heuristic groundwork that hopefully may contribute to reasonable future investigations. It is the hope that younger and more fertile minds take this vision, however pitiable and meager it may be, to new heights of clarity. Although neglected and emaciated, the æther theory is hardly dead, to which much of the recent resourceful texts on this subject attest. Much sincerity and conviction can be gleaned from these articles, although the substance of each should be eyed critically. Sincerity and truth are brothers, but are not one and the same.

ARRI: There being stages in the evolution points to guided and directed reality, how can reality be manipulated on such large scales? What regulates things on the microscopic level?

 The perspective held herein is that the Universe is both Mechanistic and Universally Planned. Mechanistic, in that individual particles of pre-matter in the physical universe substratum  are seen as in motion traveling along physical trajectories depending on the outcome of probabilistic chance encounter events that determine future courses of action by statistical means. All interactions are encounters taking place in the form of physical contact at relative (and absolute) velocity during which momentum is redistributed and direction of motion modified. Universally Planned, meaning that there exists Intelligence, capable of manipulating conditions within that mechanistic substratum to foster or enhance desirable probabilities, producing natural phenomena not possible by chance factors alone. The simplicity, elegance and beauty of the physical universe is the only true evidence of the great purpose and imagination underlying its construction, revealed in a magnificent ongoing endeavor called Nature. Things cannot simply spring magically into existence, but it must be assumed that in some as yet unfathomable way, resources of time, materials and labor are used to construct and fashion and thereafter to maintain and uphold a physical reality. The suggestion that natural things spring instantly and effortlessly into existence from nothingness is clearly nonsense, and unworthy of time and energy to discuss and refute.

…furthermore, the view that electromagnetic fields and waves do not require an underlying medium within which they propagate contradicts the apparently seamless regularity and symmetry of nature. Since all other waves do require a propagation medium, this conspicuous anomaly attributed to electromagnetic fields and waves is the only known exception. Indeed, this singular fact, by itself, implies that our current understanding of electromagnetic wave propagation, field action, and nonmaterial energy per se is less than complete—Williams

FAUSTI: Most scientists don't study the aether, but seem preoccupied with precise measurements, and need data to feed their formulas. Wouldn't all that calculating have long since shown how things really work? Are mathematical means the only valid way to describe physical reality?

The trend of science for the last century has been to simply quantify and measure, not to describe and understand, the goal being to put Science to work for mankind, and reduce all effects and phenomena to manageable constants and variables. Emphasis on practical and technological aspects is understandable but nevertheless deplorable if the result is blindness to true principles. The incentive to move beyond workable formulas is non-existent when utilitarianism directs the course and prevails over sound philosophical reasoning. Mathematical proofs can be applied to mathematical formalisms, by defining one constant in terms of another, substitution of terms and reducing algebraically, a circular logic often with marvelous results, but the beginnings and endings of these methods can become vague and untraceable. While virtually any observation can be explained in mathematical terms by grotesquely stretching and distorting Parameters, the validity of attached theories are not proven simply because of achieving best fits. Mastering the formidable skills of higher mathematics deserves praise for those who have so persevered, but whether such education also supplies the imagination and capability to correctly visualize physical processes that underlie the mathematical relationships cannot be automatically assumed. Often good mathematicians are able to develop their skills so highly because they are untroubled by the physics required to support the mathematical mechanics. Description of phenomena using expedient mathematical formulas, employing precise but vaguely understood constants of proportionality, discourage deeper investigation, and do a disservice to science. Solving equations and producing real number answers proves nothing but to demonstrate the great flexibility and dexterity of mathematical devices, which can convincingly describe unrealistic or improbable situations and non-realities. It is premature to affix detailed mathematical descriptions to causes while they are still poorly understood, and far better to advance to a clear and unequivocal mental picture that the mind is able to embrace and course in its entirety.

…to explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. `Tis much better to do a little with certainty, and leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things--Newton

SOCRI: How can this subject be discussed in the current world that is dominated by the scientific method and the need for falsifiability? What can we learn from the discoveries of establishment physics? Is there any hope to turn science in a more positive direction?

The format used in Æ THEO RÆM is not that of scientific formalism, but of the scientific editorial, where the reasoning is based on common sense and engineering judgment, not on allegiance to existing philosophies and dogmas. Commonly this is called Protoscience, and forms part of Alternate Cosmologies. The labors of many astronomers are gratefully appreciated, who have systematically made and documented observations, though regrettably their conclusions must often be ignored. Facts of observations stand, despite the caliber of interpretations attached thereto. The development and construction of many wonderful instruments is applauded that extend and magnify vision, despite the belief that these shall never discover their intended objective. Such mechanical marvels would probably never exist had the simple elemental nature of the universe become a generally accepted fact. Their presumption to discover certain universal facts in support of current patchwork cosmologies is unimportant, since the observations themselves are useful to those willing to sift through and analyze the data. The present treatment does not corroborate existing cosmological belief systems, but urges major re-evaluations and basic course changes instead, common and sensible practices when one has wandered down dark and blind philosophical alleys. Once errors are discovered, it is better to turn back to continue the journey on more productive highways, since further groping in darkness is both futile and embarrassing. Greatly preferred is to suffer the label of being lost, an unfortunate but comprehendible condition, than to further persist in folly and risk the brand of stupidity.

HOMI: Is all useful knowledge about this subject found in textbooks or are there other sources? Are books on particle physics useful to study the aether?

Putting unfamiliar concepts into succinct and felicitous words is a difficult task, and conceptual treasures are often concealed in clumsy and awkward wording, so that to judge unsophisticated presentations as indicative of unworthiness is prejudice. Dismissing imperfect concepts without scrutiny is unfair to the authors simply because their command of language does not match their insight and sincerity. Progress towards a workable compendious concept representing the truth, irrespective of the source, is the ultimate goal.  Much here has been borrowed from many informal sources, both ancient and contemporary. If others see their concepts paralleled may it be viewed as vindication not Plagiarism, as often flawed but interesting gems were uncovered buried beneath mounds of overburden. These gems have been polished sufficiently to evaluate their merit, but not enough to see all the facets. Furthermore the notion is rejected that there are ‘physical laws of which we are unaware’, or that the laws of physics break down at extreme conditions. It is believed that the current scientific community has probed the depths of High Energy Physics to such an unnatural and extreme degree that only short lived distortions of normally persistent phenomena are being observed, which do not point to additional laws, but are merely misinterpretations of the results of destructive processes. Not one of these experiments has liberated a single permanent particle other than the three familiar ones, namely the electron, proton and neutron. Certainly in a universe where time is measured in billions of years, particles that disappear from view in microseconds must be considered freaks. The tabulation and naming of the shattered remnants of these bizarre experiments is pointless and misleading, and generating a plethora of quaint nomenclature for such wreckage is nothing less than sophisticated obscuration.

 ♦♦♦

 

paradigm RECONSTRUCTION

…a number of difficulties must be removed before this situation can be reversed. The major obstacle is the current socio-economic dynamics in which the physics establishment, controlling education and research, is supported through political means. This hampers a change for two reasons: the academic leadership is not eager to change a lucrative situation, and the students are indoctrinated to follow the tradition and prolong the status-quo --- Frank Meno

HOMI: How do you agree on terminology if this subject is unsupported by mainstrean science? Are all aether theorists in agreement? Is it worth the effort to try and convince established scientific community their support of the current dogma is flawed?

Virtually no organized research has been conducted in Æther Theory for a century or more, and consequently reputable reference materials for disciplined study are unavailable. When the immobile and rigid æther of Hendrik Lorentz was abandoned, developing alternative æther concepts fell victim collaterally, abruptly terminating all avenues of investigation in those directions. This also means that there is no consistent or cohesive theory, no consensus, and no real forum where the merits of various concepts are openly debated and discussed. A peer review process for this type of subject merely allows one speculator to review and criticise the work of another. A recent resurgence by a dedicated few has kept the concept alive, and has engendered an underground of theoreticians that valiantly inch the study forward. This underground intellectual society consists of widely divergent talents and backgrounds, from disgruntled scientists and armchair philosophers to disenfranchised mainstream astronomers and religious scholars. Without organized or legitimized centers for academic study, expected side effects are that many of these individuals could easily be classified as strange or even loony. Many ideas put forth in this theoretical area are hybrids, unable to distance themselves from current dogma in many crucial areas. Insurmountable fundamental disagreements exist between these diametrically opposed views such that it is impossible to simply splice together the best parts of each. Admittedly, many formulas and mathematical techniques derived or developed from existing theories are useful, and though based on incorrect perceptions of physical causes and may fail to deepen understanding of material reality, they are practical definitions in the Empirical sense. It would be unwise to discard that which is helpful and constructive to both perceptions. Certainly, many disciplines are served well by their current methods and techniques, and probing deeper below the surface would only provide marginal benefits. Apperception has poisoned Æther concepts in the eyes of members of the scientific establishment, and they are unable to shelve Vested Interests  and beliefs long enough to tender objective evaluations. They are caught in the throes of intellectual senility, lulled into complacent smugness by years of unchallenged public acceptance. To hope that they would cast off and abandon a lifetime of labor and loyalty in the service of their theories for the sake of Intellectual Honesty is futile and unrealistic. These elder statesmen of the current Dogma are poor targets for reformation. There is, instead, a greater need for clear verbal descriptions that plant healthy seeds of comprehension in more youthful and unspoiled minds. The youth of today has been Brainwashed in these matters, being completely Indoctrinated from early on into the Standard Model which they are forced by the educational system to accept completely without question. The aftermath of a century of neglect in the study of the æther cannot be cleared away overnight, but it could indeed take another century to reestablish the æther concept to its rightful place as truth.

These sub tenets are like the many small strings that the Lilliputians used to hold Gulliver down, that taken together are a mighty restraining force. The purpose of most of these sub tenets was specifically to bolster the parent (Big Bang) theory, and they will fall by the wayside as will inevitably the theory that gave them birth.

SOCRI: What will it take to reverse the direction science has taken, and what holds science back making these necessary changes?

The monumental task of reeducation requires the dismantling of formidable edifices constructed by establishment science. Not only does this require realignment of the academic and scientific communities, also reforming of public opinion. The intense campaign of public promulgation has reduced the concept to widely distributed exoteric nonsense. When Galileo lived there were but a handful of books espousing the Ptolemaic concept of an Earth Centered Universe, whereas today, there are literally thousands of books that repeat and reiterate the current Doctrine of an Expanding Universe, and countless more elaborating the sub tenets in great detail. Entrenched philosophy does not yield passively to the well-chosen word, because the inclination is to defend territory at all cost. Sadly, this re-education has many aspects of military operations, where strategies and points of attack are important. Excessive use of mathematics to accomplish this reinstatement is counter productive and substitutes poorly for a clear mental image. Establishment science has much more at stake than fear of mere loss of the intellectual property of a hypothesis, or concern over Professional Embarrassment or threat of Falsification. An entire interlocked way of life and Group-Serving Bias has emerged surrounding establishment theories running the gamut from massive government research programs for powerful corporate entities to the very livelihood of the scientists and their families.

It would not be inappropriate to draw a parallel here with David and Goliath, armed with nothing more than the stone and sling of words, against the bulk of popular acceptance and armor of entrenched establishment, finding and striking the exposed temple of vulnerability of this false behemoth shall not be an easy undertaking.

♦♦♦♦