MOVED: aether hypothesis

[lbarracuda]

Hi,

This seemed the most appropriate place to post a long standing idea I’ve had on the paranormal [ejaos.net/paper.html (http://ejaos.net/paper.html)]. I have little idea on how to test it (or even if it is testable) but I would greatly appreciate any thoughts you guys may have on it.

The paper is on my website which discusses both the reasons I think the aether exists along with the philosophy I can derive from it. The presentation is kinda me centric which sucks from a abstract Buddhist point of view, but with it being a personal idea based on personal experiences I couldn’t really see any other way of doing it.

Finally, I’m not really interested in arguing anything other than the suggested science as I feel it’s the only constructive thing we can do - however if anyone sees a problem or contradiction in the philosophy itself then naturally I would be happy to address that.

Thanks in advance.
lbarracuda

[Cuddles]

A light cone is not a physical thing, it is simply a representation of a photon's evolution in space-time. You seem to have jumped from assuming variable values of e0 and mu0 are possible to assuming that they are present everywhere at the same time that normal values also exist. This simply does not make sense. If variable values are possible there are only two possibilities. Either space has these values everywhere, or there exist areas space-time in which the values are different from other areas. It is possible that your ideas would be valid at a boundary between areas with different values of e and mu, but it is not possible for your theory to be valid everywhere, as you suggest, because this would require space to have two different values for e and mu at the same time. Nothing you have said suggests this is the case. Also, I am not sure what you mean when you say they can take values below unity since neither e0 are mu0 are unity in the first place.

It is also apparent from your site that you believe this "aether" to be some kind of spirit world similar to many other beliefs in spirits and ghosts, yet the aether presented in your paper is nothing of the sort. I also find it very interesting that the reasons you give for believing in the aether are not only fairly standard reasons for belief in the paranormal that are easily explained by by the real world, but you even give sensible explanations on your site, yet you give no reason for having rejected them and accepted the paranormal instead.

[lbarracuda]

A light cone is not a physical thing, it is simply a representation of a photon's evolution in space-time.

Have I said differently? I use them because they can show my version of the aether clearly with superluminal speeds existing within the concentric areas.


You seem to have jumped from assuming variable values of e0 and mu0 are possible to assuming that they are present everywhere at the same time that normal values also exist. This simply does not make sense. If variable values are possible there are only two possibilities. Either space has these values everywhere, or there exist areas space-time in which the values are different from other areas. It is possible that your ideas would be valid at a boundary between areas with different values of e and mu, but it is not possible for your theory to be valid everywhere, as you suggest, because this would require space to have two different values for e and mu at the same time. Nothing you have said suggests this is the case.

I humbly disagree, the whole idea is based upon this notion (two different values for e and mu at the same time) the stated mathematics, figure 7 for example, makes no sense if you read it any other way.


Also, I am not sure what you mean when you say they can take values below unity since neither e0 are mu0 are unity in the first place.

In the centimeter-gram-second system (CGS) these values are unity so I stated that in order to avoid arguments about there ‘real’ nature.


It is also apparent from your site that you believe this "aether" to be some kind of spirit world similar to many other beliefs in spirits and ghosts, yet the aether presented in your paper is nothing of the sort.

I think/inductively believe that consciousness is fundamentally linked to superluminal energies and that electromagnetic interactions between these two speeds (c and c+) may account for some of the ‘paranormal’ activities reported. If this were to be the case the aether suggested would supply a place for consciousness to retreat to upon death - something which I think explains the ‘spirit world’ you have inferred from my website.


I also find it very interesting that the reasons you give for believing in the aether are not only fairly standard reasons for belief in the paranormal that are easily explained by by the real world, but you even give sensible explanations on your site, yet you give no reason for having rejected them and accepted the paranormal instead.


Philosophically I see myself a empirical sceptic, I know that any claims about the real world are very hard to back up philosophically, so when addressing these strange, empiric experiences I’ve had, I made sure I wasn’t overly biased by the 21st centuries ‘sensible explanations’ to them. Scientifically I find this perfectly acceptable as it can only serve to enrich our knowledge if it moves towards a testable stage so I don’t think I’m doing anything too strange in following this idea this so far.

Thanks again for replying.
lbarracuda

[median]

I know that any claims about the real world are very hard to back up philosophically, so when addressing these strange, empiric experiences I’ve had, I made sure I wasn’t overly biased by the 21st centuries ‘sensible explanations’ to them. Scientifically I find this perfectly acceptable as it can only serve to enrich our knowledge if it moves towards a testable stage so I don’t think I’m doing anything too strange in following this idea this so far.


Could you unravel this statement a bit more, please? :)

By the way, welcome to the forum.

[Araneus]

Could you unravel this statement a bit more, please? :)

I think it's an example of the appeal to other ways of knowing (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_o.html).

Or in other words, "I find the explanations provided by science to be boring and inconsistent with what I want to believe, therefore I will grant myself licence to make stuff up by claiming that science is just an oppressive conformist establishment and I am thinking outside the box."

[lbarracuda]

I know that any claims about the real world are very hard to back up philosophically, so when addressing these strange, empiric experiences I’ve had, I made sure I wasn’t overly biased by the 21st centuries ‘sensible explanations’ to them. Scientifically I find this perfectly acceptable as it can only serve to enrich our knowledge if it moves towards a testable stage so I don’t think I’m doing anything too strange in following this idea this so far.


Could you unravel this statement a bit more, please? :)

By the way, welcome to the forum.




Thanks for the welcome median but I’m just here to discuss the science - I don’t want to get involved in long justifications and debates that accomplish little. I’ll make sure not to invite such philosophical curiosity in future posts. ;)

[median]

I don’t want to get involved in long justifications and debates that accomplish little. I’ll make sure not to invite such philosophical curiosity in future posts.

Fair point

So let me get this straight.

You propose that aether exists on the basis of modifying some universal constants. Is there evidence that they can be modifiable? And isn't this a bit circular; the existence of aether being based on modified constants which goes on to justify the existence of an aether


Another more scientific way to verify any presence of a subtle aether would be through the use of electromagnetic energy over a greater area. Using figure 8's interaction model it is hypothesised that high frequency electromagnetic discharges can create enough subtle energy throughout an area to be detected similarly to the original Hertz electromagnetic wave detection experiment. Detection of this new electromagnetic phenomenon would open up a whole new spectrum of information for examining, allowing for all of the possibilities briefly discussed next.

I think greater detail is needed. What form of EM energy are we talking about?

[lbarracuda]

So let me get this straight.

You propose that aether exists on the basis of modifying some universal constants. Is there evidence that they can be modifiable?

Observation is the first part of creating any scientific hypothesis so there’s this (http://www.ejaos.net/aether.html) along with the mathematics in my paper which logically (at least to my eye) seems to be ok.


And isn't this a bit circular; the existence of aether being based on modified constants which goes on to justify the existence of an aether

Science does not rely on a priori rationalist arguments but empiric observations. If the aether exists and is testable the hypothesis may become the theory until a better one is found.




Another more scientific way to verify any presence of a subtle aether would be through the use of electromagnetic energy over a greater area. Using figure 8's interaction model it is hypothesised that high frequency electromagnetic discharges can create enough subtle energy throughout an area to be detected similarly to the original Hertz electromagnetic wave detection experiment. Detection of this new electromagnetic phenomenon would open up a whole new spectrum of information for examining, allowing for all of the possibilities briefly discussed next.

I think greater detail is needed. What form of EM energy are we talking about?


Weak, low permittivity and permeability energy that interacts with standard electromagnetism as described.


Thanks for all the feedback so far. O0

[median]

Observation is the first part of creating any scientific hypothesis so there’s this (http://www.ejaos.net/aether.html) along with the mathematics in my paper which logically (at least to my eye) seems to be ok.


You seem to have had a wide range of experiences, some more similar in nature than others. I see you have considered other possibilities but how exactly do you arrive at the idea that these some of these may not be correct?

For example, the neurological argument. Have you considered examining this in greater detail? It might eliminate some of the pieces of evidence. What you are left with might strengthen or conversely weaken your argument.

What you seem to have done is had personal experiences which through coincidence (perhaps) you have made suppostions on how these may have occurred. Has anyone else you know had similar experiences?
Can anyone else corroborate these events?

[lbarracuda]

You seem to have had a wide range of experiences, some more similar in nature than others. I see you have considered other possibilities but how exactly do you arrive at the idea that these some of these may not be correct?

For example, the neurological argument. Have you considered examining this in greater detail? It might eliminate some of the pieces of evidence. What you are left with might strengthen or conversely weaken your argument.

Dude your wandering - that isn’t focusing on the suggested science. All those events may have conventional, reductionist explanations - which I don’t deny - but just to accept that blindly when there could be other explanations is, in my view, poor science indeed.


What you seem to have done is had personal experiences which through coincidence (perhaps) you have made suppostions on how these may have occurred. Has anyone else you know had similar experiences?
Can anyone else corroborate these events?


…We could dispute the evidence all day long and not agree, or we could challenge the science and agree. I know which one I prefer. :)

[median]

Dude your wandering - that isn’t focusing on the suggested science. All those events may have conventional, reductionist explanations - which I don’t deny - but just to accept that blindly when there could be other explanations is, in my view, poor science indeed.


But your explanation seems to favour the complex. It rests on a supernatural assumption.
Science is all about keeping explanations simple
You state that conventional explanations may suffice but then seemingly disregard them, out of hand?

Furthermore you then alter constants on an ad hoc basis. Is there any evidence that they are as mutable as you propose? Any references?

As you imply, chap, maybe I am just not 'getting it' but would you agree that if the science is based upon poorly defined concepts then we are off to a shaky start

[lbarracuda]

But your explanation seems to favour the complex. It rests on a supernatural assumption.
Science is all about keeping explanations simple


You keep dragging this to philosophy. Science is not about keeping things simple, but is instead about creating hypothesises and testing them. Explanations are as simple or complex as they need to be. You cant just apply Occam's razor to an idea which still may have merit without thoroughly investigating it first.



You state that conventional explanations may suffice but then seemingly disregard them, out of hand?

I repeat - "but just to accept that blindly when there could be other explanations is, in my view, poor science indeed."


Furthermore you then alter constants on an ad hoc basis. Is there any evidence that they are as mutable as you propose? Any references?

As far as I know the hypothesis is unique. I’ve given you all the references I have and I can find no reason why they cannot be treated in the way stated.


As you imply, chap, maybe I am just not 'getting it' but would you agree that if the science is based upon poorly defined concepts then we are off to a shaky start


I agree entirely, and please - no more philosophy.

[lbarracuda]

MOVED: aether hypothesis

Alright that’s insulting, to go behind my back without reason or warning and place me in the pseudoscience section is quite uncalled for. Never once did I say the aether was right or reality. It was just an idea looking for some falsifiability.

I'll respond to private emails but I'm done here on these forums with the admin.

lbarradua - out.

[median]

Sorry you feel that way, Ibarracuda.

In the field of science, ideas are questioned and as things go, the case for prosecutor and defence is heard.
It was felt, that since all objections made by yourself were classified as philosophical that it seemed you were not answering the questions put to you.

For reference, your post was relegated to the pseudoscience for legitimate reasons

From wikipedia: Classification of a pseudoscience


Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.[19]
to make use of operational definitions. (i.e. a scientific description of the operational means in which a range of numeric measurements can be obtained).[20]
Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor)[21]
Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess boundary conditions (well articulated limitations) under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.[22]


If at any point you feel you wish to return to actually debate the issues, or clarify your ideas then I am sure we would be more than willing to accomodate.

Regards

Median

[Dr B]

There is no reason for the discussion not to continue here in its rightful place. But to generate a nonsense idea for something that does not exist is hardly science.

There have been extensive investigations of Kirlian photography by scientists (see the review by Barry Singer as a starting point - late 1990s I think). Your paper does not cite any of this or the studies Singer draws upon. You need to do this first - otherwise it makes your website and Kirlian ideas largely redundant.

The discussion above is entirely cordial and professional and we all hope it remains so. Feel free to come back and make a reasoned case for your position anytime. O0

[Cuddles]

Well, it seems he's gone, but I'll answer this anyway.


Have I said differently? I use them because they can show my version of the aether clearly with superluminal speeds existing within the concentric areas.

Yes, you have said differently. Your whole theory is based on there being a physical boundary between areas with different values of e0 and mu0. You represented this with a light cone, with the interior being normal and the exterior having lower values, but since the light cone is not a physical thing this simply doesn't translate to what you appear to think it does.


I humbly disagree, the whole idea is based upon this notion (two different values for e and mu at the same time) the stated mathematics, figure 7 for example, makes no sense if you read it any other way.

Yes, your whole idea is based on it, but simply saying it does not make it true. While assuming e0 and mu0 can be variable may be a valid hypothesis, saying that there can be two different values in the same place simply doesn't make sense. e0 and mu0 are fundamental properties of spacetime, for there to be two values in the same place would mean there must be two spacetimes in the same place. You are assuming a lot more than you seem to think you are.


In the centimeter-gram-second system (CGS) these values are unity so I stated that in order to avoid arguments about there ‘real’ nature.

Fair enough, but cgs is rarely used in real science.


I think/inductively believe that consciousness is fundamentally linked to superluminal energies and that electromagnetic interactions between these two speeds (c and c+) may account for some of the ‘paranormal’ activities reported. If this were to be the case the aether suggested would supply a place for consciousness to retreat to upon death - something which I think explains the ‘spirit world’ you have inferred from my website.

So basically you are guessing at conclusions based on your personal beliefs. As I said, nothing on your website suggests a conection between the aether and a spirit world. Even if your assumptions about e0 and mu0 are valid, your conclusion still doesn't follow from the maths. What you believe is irrelevant, you said you came here for a scientific discussion. Can you offer any support for your ideas that isn't based soley on faith?


Philosophically I see myself a empirical sceptic, I know that any claims about the real world are very hard to back up philosophically, so when addressing these strange, empiric experiences I’ve had, I made sure I wasn’t overly biased by the 21st centuries ‘sensible explanations’ to them. Scientifically I find this perfectly acceptable as it can only serve to enrich our knowledge if it moves towards a testable stage so I don’t think I’m doing anything too strange in following this idea this so far.

Logically, an "empirical sceptic" would want actual evidence for something before they accept it. You appear to have accepted the existence of a spirit world in direct contradiction to all available evidence. Even more, it seems you have actually looked at the evidence and are wilfully ignoring, as is clear from reading your examples of "experiences". Finally, it is obvious from reading more of your website that you have absolutely no understanding at all of quantum physics, and quite possibly the same for relativity. I recommend you learn a lot more about these concepts before attempting to come up with more theories on the nature of spacetime.