Nature of Aether

[ks]

For the entirety of the model you treat aether as a particle. Is this the correct way to read the DE model? If so, what properties does this aether particle have.

[JRowe]

Aether is not a particle, nor is it composed of particles. I may use analogies involving particles to describe it, but they strictly illustrate principles, no more.
As the fabric of space, there is no real way to say that aether has volume, or mass, or anything commonly used to describe particles.

I'm not sure what it is you mean by saying I treat aether as a particle; beyond the analogies, all I do is use the universal law mentioned, which applies to energy also. Certainly, some matter may behave similarly when subject to the law in question, but that's to be expected; they're both affected by the same governing principle.

Thank you for the question, I hope this answer helps.

[ks]

The issue I have with understanding the model is that all the other behavior that you use as analogies require a particulate nature of medium. If aether is not a particle, then why is it a valid to assume that it will behave like one? Furthermore, you say that aether flows from high to low. In dispersion systems there is a rate at which the substance will disperse (rate of dispersion). Is there a value like this for aether?

[JRowe]

Where do I assume aether will behave like a particle?
The analogies provide a way to visualize what's going on; trying to picture the behavior of space itself is incredibly difficult without having something more concrete to think of. I do explain specifically what governs it movement, however.
Yes, there is a rate of dispersion for aether, inasmuch as rate can be defined in this case. It depends solely on the difference between adjacent concentrations, though without further resources all I can really offer is speculation as to its value.

[ks]

Here's the thing: if aether is not a particle, then what does concentration even mean in this case? Concentration requires the existence of a particle (yes even in the case of heat).

[JRowe]

In the case of heat it's just the concentration of energy, not the concentration of particles (after all, heat can exist in vacuum). Then you get light and sound, etc.
A concentration just measures how much of something there is in a given 'area.' I hope it's clear intuitively how this applies to space, the only tricky thing is defining an equivalent to 'area.' It's easier to just define by comparison.

Let's say you have two stretches of space that connect A to B in a straight line. Without curvature of any sort, you can measure the straight line distance between those two points. In a high concentration, there is more distance. There is more space in what ought to be the same 'area.'

[ks]

You aren't quite right about heat. Heat is energy, but this energy is due to (edit: kinetic or potential) energy in particles. Heat in a vacuum is due to photons carrying this energy. This is a very important physical effect, one that it appears you do not fully understand. I would suggest you devote more time to energy transfer theory.

[JRowe]

Calling photons particles is questionable in itself, but regardless there is a difference between energy, and the transfer of energy. Certainly, practical applications of energy do strictly rely on matter because, well, we're matter, matter and the effects on matter is all we can ever detect or be concerned about. If there was no interaction with matter we'd know nothing about it.
Energy and matter aren't the same thing. Heat isn't due to kinetic energy in particles, said kinetic energy is a consequence of the heat. Energy is imparted, causing movement.
Another good example would be pressure systems, such as those that govern weather. They certainly rely on particles, but particles themselves don't equal pressure systems. Energy is something different and distinct at play. It is the dispersal of the energy, not the matter, that governs what happens.

[ks]

I really can't say anything else except "you're wrong." In fact apparently I was wrong too. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

An object cannot have heat because heat by definition is the transfer of energy. Quoting from the page itself "Heat is a consequence of the microscopic motion of particles." quoting from you "Heat isn't due to kinetic energy in particles." Huh...

Going back to aether, you have just stated that aether has energy ("It is the dispersal of the energy, not the matter, that governs what happens"). So what kind of energy? Kinetic? Potential?

[JRowe]

I didn't say aether has energy, I was strictly talking about your post (which didn't exactly mention aether), to clear up the disagreement. I was just talking about how energy and matter are two different things, both of which have the tendency to try to even out, rather than it purely being a property of particles.
As far as heat goes, that swiftly becomes semantics. If you're talking about the subjective heat we feel, that's not the same as the energy that causes said heat, though equally both could be called the same thing.

[layered]

Well I'm a bit confused now.

JRowe, are you saying that heat is *not* energy? Rather, energy is one thing, and it causes heat, which is another thing?

[Boo Long]

Isn't the whole premise of this site just a hypothesis not a theory?

[JRowe]

May 31, 2017 12:17:29 GMT layered said:

Well I'm a bit confused now.

JRowe, are you saying that heat is *not* energy? Rather, energy is one thing, and it causes heat, which is another thing?

Again, that gets into semantics. Heat energy is certainly energy, but when you say you feel heat you're talking about a transfer of energy. It's the unavoidable issue with language; words being used for subtly different purposes.
This isn't especially relevant though.

May 31, 2017 14:12:38 GMT Boo Long said:

Isn't the whole premise of this site just a hypothesis not a theory?

I provide the evidence for the model and it is supported by countless experiments. If you want to debate this then start a thread with what your objection is, though honestly it feels like a pointless topic. Whether you want to call it a hypothesis, a theory or a model none of that deals with the relevant subject of how well DET holds up and describes the real world, and whether or not it does so better than RET.

[layered]

May 31, 2017 18:09:24 GMT JRowe said:

May 31, 2017 12:17:29 GMT layered said:

Well I'm a bit confused now.

JRowe, are you saying that heat is *not* energy? Rather, energy is one thing, and it causes heat, which is another thing?

Again, that gets into semantics. Heat energy is certainly energy, but when you say you feel heat you're talking about a transfer of energy. It's the unavoidable issue with language; words being used for subtly different purposes.
This isn't especially relevant though.

Maybe, but semantics is essential in physics. When you define a term it's as if you've defined a mathematical variable. These terms need to work logically, on their own, informing the writer through the rules they represent, rather than vice-versa.

But I do completely agree that energy moves from high to low concentrations in natural situations just as particles do. The picture of aether seems reasonable to me. But you need to bring some real math into it. When you describe how aether flows, even in part 2 of the outline, rather than asking people to believe your intuition (and, surely, you yourself believing it blindly, in a sense), you could...well I'm sure you know...show it.

[JRowe]

The mathematical expression of what is essentially diffusion in this case is a nonlinear partial differential equation in three dimensions plus time. I'm not ashamed to admit that's beyond my ability; if you know anyone who's capable of that and won't reject anything connected to FET on principle please point them my way.
As it is, however, pure logic will be more convincing than numbers in this situation, precisely because it's so complex. If I give the partial differential equation that governs diffusion and could walk through all the explanations and solutions, and present a mathematical model for the end result, it would mean even less to 99% of the readers of this site. Accessibility is key when, ultimately, I just need to get word out. More likely, it would repel people because it'd come across just like I was trying to bamboozle, and hide the logic away behind what was either advanced math or gibberish. The only people who could tell the difference or follow the reasoning would generally be able to derive the math for proof or disproof, and I await any contact from them.
Math can help formalise logic, but it works to complement and increase detail, not to replace. Even if I had the partial differential equation and solution I wouldn't give it in the overview, simply because it wouldn't help explain or make clear what was happening to the people that read this site. It's something I'm eager to develop, but as it is I believe the model and its contents will follow from basic logic, as given.