What is Dark Energy? FEB 05, 2024. By Chelsea Gohd.

[Age]

The whole weakness of mainstream physics lies in the idea that the aether is something in some kind of (ideal) space. But the aether is that (real) space, I think.

And elementary particles are defects in the structure of physical (real) space (of aether), I think.

The whole weakness of mainstream physics is that it ignores the vacuum
as the source of the material world. .

And, it appears what is also ignored is the very thing that is the source of what is some times referred to as 'the vacuum'.

By the way, as 'the vacuum' is the source of the 'material world' so to is the 'material world' the source of 'the vacuum'. The two co-exist together eternally NOW, and, infinitely HERE, and do so because 'IT' could not be any other way. (Again as can be, very easily and very simply, shown and proved to be an irrefutable Fact.)

. Maybe 20 years ago I was talking to a physicist
(he was about 35 years old). I was trying to explain how important the vacuum is. ...
He looked at me from his tall height and said "My grandfather was a physicist,
my father is a physicist, and I am a physicist and vacuum is nothing."
I wanted to object, to say that quantum physics is based on vacuum,
but looking at his proud face, I said nothing.

Does this have any relevance, here?

If yes, then what and how, exactly?

[Cerveny]

The whole weakness of mainstream physics lies in the idea that the aether is something in some kind of (ideal) space. But the aether is that (real) space, I think.

And elementary particles are defects in the structure of physical (real) space (of aether), I think.

The whole weakness of mainstream physics is that it ignores the vacuum
as the source of the material world. ... Maybe 20 years ago I was talking to a physicist
(he was about 35 years old). I was trying to explain how important the vacuum is. ...
He looked at me from his tall height and said "My grandfather was a physicist,
my father is a physicist, and I am a physicist and vacuum is nothing."
I wanted to object, to say that quantum physics is based on vacuum,
but looking at his proud face, I said nothing.

Maybe his grandfather was A.E. :)

[Cerveny]

And elementary particles are defects in the structure of physical (real) space (of aether), I think.

The whole weakness of mainstream physics is that it ignores the vacuum
as the source of the material world. .

And, it appears what is also ignored is the very thing that is the source of what is some times referred to as 'the vacuum'.

By the way, as 'the vacuum' is the source of the 'material world' so to is the 'material world' the source of 'the vacuum'. The two co-exist together eternally NOW, and, infinitely HERE, and do so because 'IT' could not be any other way. (Again as can be, very easily and very simply, shown and proved to be an irrefutable Fact.)

. Maybe 20 years ago I was talking to a physicist
(he was about 35 years old). I was trying to explain how important the vacuum is. ...
He looked at me from his tall height and said "My grandfather was a physicist,
my father is a physicist, and I am a physicist and vacuum is nothing."
I wanted to object, to say that quantum physics is based on vacuum,
but looking at his proud face, I said nothing.

Does this have any relevance, here?

If yes, then what and how, exactly?

Matter is just a damaged/deformed part of (physical/real) space. The undistorted part of space (with undamaged structure) cannot normally be "seen", but it can be polarized, for example electrically, magnetically or gravitationally, I think

[Age]

The whole weakness of mainstream physics is that it ignores the vacuum
as the source of the material world. .

And, it appears what is also ignored is the very thing that is the source of what is some times referred to as 'the vacuum'.

By the way, as 'the vacuum' is the source of the 'material world' so to is the 'material world' the source of 'the vacuum'. The two co-exist together eternally NOW, and, infinitely HERE, and do so because 'IT' could not be any other way. (Again as can be, very easily and very simply, shown and proved to be an irrefutable Fact.)

. Maybe 20 years ago I was talking to a physicist
(he was about 35 years old). I was trying to explain how important the vacuum is. ...
He looked at me from his tall height and said "My grandfather was a physicist,
my father is a physicist, and I am a physicist and vacuum is nothing."
I wanted to object, to say that quantum physics is based on vacuum,
but looking at his proud face, I said nothing.

Does this have any relevance, here?

If yes, then what and how, exactly?

Matter is just a damaged/deformed part of (physical/real) space.

Can you REALLY NOT YET RECOGNIZE and SEE the CONTRADICTION in your claim, here?

What you are implying is that there is just ONE SINGLE PIECE of 'physicality', ONLY. Which is ABSURD, in the EXTREME. AND, to make things MORE CONTRADICTORY and MORE CONFUSING, here, you cal this IMAGINED 'ONE SINGLE PIECE OF physicality' 'space' of ALL THINGS.

The undistorted part of space (with undamaged structure) cannot normally be "seen", but it can be polarized, for example electrically, magnetically or gravitationally, I think

Okay you have SHARED 'your view' and what 'you think', but WHY are you doing this?

What are you trying to ACHIEVE, here?

And, if what you 'think' does NOT align with what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct, then do you WANT TO HEAR this?

[Cerveny]

And, it appears what is also ignored is the very thing that is the source of what is some times referred to as 'the vacuum'.

By the way, as 'the vacuum' is the source of the 'material world' so to is the 'material world' the source of 'the vacuum'. The two co-exist together eternally NOW, and, infinitely HERE, and do so because 'IT' could not be any other way. (Again as can be, very easily and very simply, shown and proved to be an irrefutable Fact.)



Does this have any relevance, here?

If yes, then what and how, exactly?

Matter is just a damaged/deformed part of (physical/real) space.

Can you REALLY NOT YET RECOGNIZE and SEE the CONTRADICTION in your claim, here?

What you are implying is that there is just ONE SINGLE PIECE of 'physicality', ONLY. Which is ABSURD, in the EXTREME. AND, to make things MORE CONTRADICTORY and MORE CONFUSING, here, you cal this IMAGINED 'ONE SINGLE PIECE OF physicality' 'space' of ALL THINGS.

The undistorted part of space (with undamaged structure) cannot normally be "seen", but it can be polarized, for example electrically, magnetically or gravitationally, I think

Okay you have SHARED 'your view' and what 'you think', but WHY are you doing this?

What are you trying to ACHIEVE, here?

And, if what you 'think' does NOT align with what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct, then do you WANT TO HEAR this?

Unfortunately, my story is not intended for stunted schoolchildren, worn out by a century of foolish relativity, who have failed to overcome the fact that physical space is made up of a full and granular aether and the future does not yet exist...

[Age]

Matter is just a damaged/deformed part of (physical/real) space.

Can you REALLY NOT YET RECOGNIZE and SEE the CONTRADICTION in your claim, here?

What you are implying is that there is just ONE SINGLE PIECE of 'physicality', ONLY. Which is ABSURD, in the EXTREME. AND, to make things MORE CONTRADICTORY and MORE CONFUSING, here, you cal this IMAGINED 'ONE SINGLE PIECE OF physicality' 'space' of ALL THINGS.

The undistorted part of space (with undamaged structure) cannot normally be "seen", but it can be polarized, for example electrically, magnetically or gravitationally, I think

Okay you have SHARED 'your view' and what 'you think', but WHY are you doing this?

What are you trying to ACHIEVE, here?

And, if what you 'think' does NOT align with what is IRREFUTABLY True, Right, Accurate, AND Correct, then do you WANT TO HEAR this?

Unfortunately, my story is not intended for stunted schoolchildren, worn out by a century of foolish relativity, who have failed to overcome the fact that physical space is full and grainy and the future does not (yet) exist...

Okay. But,

1. This has absolutely NOTHING AT ALL to do with me.

2. So, if so-called 'physical space' is FULL and GRAINY, then what is 'it' FULL and GRAINY WITH, EXACTLY?

Also, you have failed to overcome the fact of what the Universe ACTUALLY CONSISTS OF, EXACTLY. Also, you VERY RELATIVE view, and perspective, of 'future', although completely IRRELEVANT here, now, IS ALSO False and Wrong, from MY PERSPECTIVE.

Now, if you would like to have A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT the Universe is ACTUALLY MADE UP OF, and HOW the Universe ACTUALLY WORKS, then let 'us' proceed. But just CLAIMING that 'space' is just 'physical' and/or 'real' is NOT helping you AT ALL, here.

There OBVIOUSLY exists BOTH:

'matter', which is OBVIOUSLY 'physical', so we can call 'this thing', and 'this part' of the Universe, 'physical matter'. AND,

A 'space', which OBVIOUSLY HAS TO BE between and around 'the physical parts', within the Universe, otherwise there would only be one infinite piece of matter.

Now, can you fathom and comprehend this IRREFUTABLE Fact?

Either way you can NOT REFUTE NOR DENY this in ANY Truly LOGICAL WAY. As you WILL PROVE me True, here.

[Cerveny]

I apologize for my previous rather personal post, but I insist on the opinion that the only thing that really, measurably exists is the "aether", which has a regular structure, where it’s disorders are manifested as elementary particles. The elements of this "crystalline" structure can be understood as "milestones" mediating the "metrics. What leads me to this?
1. the phenomenon of annihilation (smoothening of complementary types of structural defects),
2. the strictly discrete structure (ZOO) of elementary particles,
3. the strictly discrete values ​​of charge and spin of elementary particles
and also the fact that infinitely fine "things" can only exist in mathematics.
The aether is elastic, its tensions are manifested as a physical fields. It does not expand but crystallizes from a non-causal "future

[socrattus]

I apologize for my previous rather personal post, but I insist on the opinion that the only thing that really, measurably exists is the "aether", which has a regular structure, where it’s disorders are manifested as elementary particles. The elements of this "crystalline" structure can be understood as "milestones" mediating the "metrics. What leads me to this?
1. the phenomenon of annihilation (smoothening of complementary types of structural defects),
2. the strictly discrete structure (ZOO) of elementary particles,
3. the strictly discrete values ​​of charge and spin of elementary particles
and also the fact that infinitely fine "things" can only exist in mathematics.
The aether is elastic, its tensions are manifested as a physical fields. It does not expand but crystallizes from a non-causal "future

The shift to relativity
Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light,
which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

[Noax]

The shift to relativity
Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light,
which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

I cannot directly rag on that since the quote is an English translation of a 1912 paper in German, but it is wrong as stated.
It perhaps suggests either that all light moves in the same direction, or that the direction of motion of a given light pulse is frame independent, but both are incorrect. The speed of light is the invariant, not the velocity. This principle became apparent after the Michelson–Morley experiment failed to detect the aether, as has every experiment since, making it pretty weird that Cerveny insists that "the only thing that really, measurably exists is the aether".
Detection of it would constitute a local test of being stationary, which is exactly what Michelson–Morley was attempting to measure.

[attofishpi]

The shift to relativity
Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light,
which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

I cannot directly rag on that since the quote is an English translation of a 1912 paper in German, but it is wrong as stated.
It perhaps suggests either that all light moves in the same direction, or that the direction of motion of a given light pulse is frame independent, but both are incorrect. The speed of light is the invariant, not the velocity. This principle became apparent after the Michelson–Morley experiment failed to detect the aether, as has every experiment since, making it pretty weird that Cerveny insists that "the only thing that really, measurably exists is the aether".
Detection of it would constitute a local test of being stationary, which is exactly what Michelson–Morley was attempting to measure.

Is there any point in 3D space where no matter exists?

[Noax]

Is there any point in 3D space where no matter exists?

Unsure how that relates to my text you quoted. Lots of qualification needed for that question.

1) A point in space is a timelike abstract worldline. Any such line must pass through regions where matter is sufficiently hot and dense that light cannot penetrate it. So that answer is reasonably 'no'. So for the rest, we'll assume a physical point in spacetime (an event) instead of an abstract point in space.

2) The statement presumes counterfactuals: that an unmeasured system (say the local spacetime at some randomly selected event) is in some meaningful state despite not being measured. The universe has been shown to be non-classical, and that suggests that the counterfactual principle is not likely the case. But we'll assume it anyway, leading us to:

3) It depends on your definition of 'matter'. Quantum field theory suggests that the universe is pervaded by a relatively small number of fields, and the fundamentals of matter are disturbances in these omnipresent fields. Whether all the fields happen to not be in a sufficiently disturbed state or not at our chosen event has to do with your threshold of how disturbed it must be, but the answer seems likely 'yes' then. They've made some pretty hard vacuum in labs on Earth, but still more dense than in deep space where dark matter dominates. Thing is, there's all sorts of radiation anywhere in deep space. You can see stuff in all directions from any vantage point. The vacuum in a lab is in a box that blocks much of that radiation. Stuff still gets through, like neutrinos for instance, but those are not omnipresent.

[attofishpi]

Is there any point in 3D space where no matter exists?

Unsure how that relates to my text you quoted. Lots of qualification needed for that question.

1) A point in space is a timelike abstract worldline. Any such line must pass through regions where matter is sufficiently hot and dense that light cannot penetrate it. So that answer is reasonably 'no'. So for the rest, we'll assume a physical point in spacetime (an event) instead of an abstract point in space.

2) The statement presumes counterfactuals: that an unmeasured system (say the local spacetime at some randomly selected event) is in some meaningful state despite not being measured. The universe has been shown to be non-classical, and that suggests that the counterfactual principle is not likely the case. But we'll assume it anyway, leading us to:

3) It depends on your definition of 'matter'. Quantum field theory suggests that the universe is pervaded by a relatively small number of fields, and the fundamentals of matter are disturbances in these omnipresent fields. Whether all the fields happen to not be in a sufficiently disturbed state or not at our chosen event has to do with your threshold of how disturbed it must be, but the answer seems likely 'yes' then. They've made some pretty hard vacuum in labs on Earth, but still more dense than in deep space where dark matter dominates. Thing is, there's all sorts of radiation anywhere in deep space. You can see stuff in all directions from any vantage point. The vacuum in a lab is in a box that blocks much of that radiation. Stuff still gets through, like neutrinos for instance, but those are not omnipresent.

Thanks. The quantum fields are what interest me the most. For me (call it a wackjob theory if u want), I think of all conceivable points in 3D space as either having an event or not, like something akin to a binary universe - event/no event. These events makeup the various fields that are in play and hence the particles that physicists are comprehending per the Standard Model. So, I believe that 'something' at a scale imperceptible to our analysis (below the Planck scale), is doing the required switching throughout 3D space that forms the effects of these particles of the Standard Model, and hence our reality.

[Age]

I apologize for my previous rather personal post, but I insist on the opinion that the only thing that really, measurably exists is the "aether", which has a regular structure, where it’s disorders are manifested as elementary particles. The elements of this "crystalline" structure can be understood as "milestones" mediating the "metrics. What leads me to this?
1. the phenomenon of annihilation (smoothening of complementary types of structural defects),
2. the strictly discrete structure (ZOO) of elementary particles,
3. the strictly discrete values ​​of charge and spin of elementary particles
and also the fact that infinitely fine "things" can only exist in mathematics.
The aether is elastic, its tensions are manifested as a physical fields. It does not expand but crystallizes from a non-causal "future

And, you are absolutely free to insist on absolutely any opinion of your choosing, but the opinions of you human beings and what you insist on does not necessarily have absolutely any relevance at all to what is actually True and Correct, in Life.

Also, you appear to be completely and utterly making 'complex' what is actually essentially 'very simple' indeed. That is; the Universe is infinite in 'size' and eternal 'temporally' and which consists of fundamentally nothing more than just 'matter' and a distance between and around matter. This 'distance' can also be referred to as 'space', itself.

Now, I do not have to 'insist' on this, nor is this 'an opinion', as this is simply just a Fact, which no one could refute.

[Age]

The shift to relativity
Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light,
which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."

I cannot directly rag on that since the quote is an English translation of a 1912 paper in German, but it is wrong as stated.
It perhaps suggests either that all light moves in the same direction, or that the direction of motion of a given light pulse is frame independent, but both are incorrect. The speed of light is the invariant, not the velocity. This principle became apparent after the Michelson–Morley experiment failed to detect the aether, as has every experiment since, making it pretty weird that Cerveny insists that "the only thing that really, measurably exists is the aether".
Detection of it would constitute a local test of being stationary, which is exactly what Michelson–Morley was attempting to measure.

Is there any point in 3D space where no matter exists?

Is there matter between the two smallest pieces of matter'?

If no, then there is a point/s within the Universe, Itself, where no matter exists.

But, if yes, then how are 'they' 'two pieces of matter'? If there was matter between the 'two smallest pieces of matter', then what is differentiating 'the two', exactly?

And obviously there is NOT just one infinitely compressed, and infinite in size, singular piece of matter, right?

[attofishpi]

I cannot directly rag on that since the quote is an English translation of a 1912 paper in German, but it is wrong as stated.
It perhaps suggests either that all light moves in the same direction, or that the direction of motion of a given light pulse is frame independent, but both are incorrect. The speed of light is the invariant, not the velocity. This principle became apparent after the Michelson–Morley experiment failed to detect the aether, as has every experiment since, making it pretty weird that Cerveny insists that "the only thing that really, measurably exists is the aether".
Detection of it would constitute a local test of being stationary, which is exactly what Michelson–Morley was attempting to measure.

Is there any point in 3D space where no matter exists?

Is there matter between the two smallest pieces of matter'?

It's both, there is and there isn't - it's binary - either there is an event or there isn't an event.