Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

[Age]

We must accept the fact that the microworld has a quantum, discrete structure (just as it was when solving the “ultraviolet catastrophe”) and that there are only a limited number of its configurations (elementary particles)… and gravity is only a macroscopic matter

But what causes or creates 'gravity' is at both the so-called 'elementary particle' AND 'macroscopic matter' levels.

Unlike discrete electric charge and spin, elementary particles do not have any immediate “gravitational” characteristic, a gravitational “number”.

Are you ABSOLUTELY SURE of 'this'?

If yes, then HOW do you KNOW 'this' FOR ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY?

Also, and just by the way, WHERE, EXACTLY, does 'electric charge and spin' COME FROM, EXACTLY?

Gravity is only an indirect, secondary, “unintended” consequence of their “configuration”, of their way of irregularity of the aether structure.

DISREGARDING the 'aether structure' words, here, if gravity is an indirect, secondary, or so-called 'unintended' consequence of 'elementary particles', then as I just SAID and WROTE, 'what causes or creates 'gravity' is at BOTH the so-called 'elementary particle' AND 'macroscopic matter' levels.

The gravitational “field” is a dilatational stress in the elastic structure, in crystal lattice of the aether (let’s say of “space”) in the vicinity of accumulated structural defects, of inadequacies (of elementary particles, of matter…).

If you REALLY WANT TO SAY, and BELIEVE, 'this', then BY ALL MEANS PLEASE GO AHEAD and DO SO.

[Cerveny]

…
Also, and just by the way, WHERE, EXACTLY, does 'electric charge and spin' COME FROM, EXACTLY? V
…

Such fundamental and strict constants as e and h should be based on the parameters of the structure and dimensions (lattice constants..) of the aether crystal, I think...
I would say that e and h express a certain discrete quality, the configuration of the microsystem, and gravity is more of a phenomenological quantity, a quantitative expression, let's say, of the degree of deformation...
by the way, I never use the term EXACTLY

[Age]

…
Also, and just by the way, WHERE, EXACTLY, does 'electric charge and spin' COME FROM, EXACTLY? V
…

Such fundamental and strict constants as e and h should be based on the parameters of the structure and dimensions (lattice constants..) of the aether crystal, I think...
I would say that e and h express a certain discrete quality, the configuration of the microsystem, and gravity is more of a phenomenological quantity, a quantitative expression, let's say, of the degree of deformation...
by the way, I never use the term EXACTLY

And, if you EVER do come to understand things, here, EXACTLY, then, and ONLY THEN, WILL you START TO BEGIN TO ANSWER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, DIRECTLY.

So, ONCE MORE, 'what', EXACTLY, causes or creates 'gravity' is at both the so-called 'elementary particle' AND 'macroscopic matter' levels.

[Cerveny]

I certainly do not claim to know anything for sure. But from what I know, it logically follows that elementary particles/antiparticles must be some reversible local damage, rearrangement, "dislocation" of basic, discrete, periodic structure of physical space, ether. However, such a structure correctly excludes nonsense like BB and BH. The infinitely fine continuum of physical, i.e. real space is nonsense. If you had not flooded this thread, you would have easily found my opinions here...

[Cerveny]

Well, objections, arguments against continuous “real” space?

1. Emotional:
There can be no greater indictment of the mainstream than the Big Bang and the Black Hole. Both reek of degenerate simplification and resignation from logic and common sense.
2. Rational:
What are those infinitesimal points really made of, when in fact, due to their immeasurableness, they are not? An electron is composed of countless infinitesimal points? How does a point of an electron differ from a point of empty space? Can an infinitesimal point, or rather an (imaginary) “coordinate”, have some significant property, hairs? Can, for example, half of an electron already be lost in the past? …
What final property would infinitely small, homogeneous points have to limit the speed of propagation of electric and magnetic fields?
3. Empirical:
Has anyone ever measured a charge other than a multiple of e or a spin (magnetic moment) other than h/2? Perhaps it is possible to imagine, to think of some (imaginary) immeasurable particles (quarks), but their imagined properties are still derived from fundamental constants.

In truth, such a “materialization” of a mathematical idea can be difficult for a rational person (perhaps even you, AI) to accept… sorry for bad English:(

[Age]

I certainly do not claim to know anything for sure. But from what I know, it logically follows that elementary particles/antiparticles must be some reversible local damage, rearrangement, "dislocation" of basic, discrete, periodic structure of physical space, ether. However, such a structure correctly excludes nonsense like BB and BH. The infinitely fine continuum of physical, i.e. real space is nonsense. If you had not flooded this thread, you would have easily found my opinions here...

Again, because, as you admit, you do not yet know things, here, for sure, then this is why you are not yet able to back up, support, elaborate, and clarify things.

you are absolutely free to keep re-repeating what are, essentially, just your own opinions, which may well follow logically, to you, only. But, if you are not yet able to explain them easily, to others, then how well do you really know what you are saying and claiming, here?

[Age]

Well, objections, arguments against continuous “real” space?

1. Emotional:
There can be no greater indictment of the mainstream than the Big Bang and the Black Hole. Both reek of degenerate simplification and resignation from logic and common sense.
2. Rational:
What are those infinitesimal points really made of, when in fact, due to their immeasurableness, they are not? An electron is composed of countless infinitesimal points? How does a point of an electron differ from a point of empty space? Can an infinitesimal point, or rather an (imaginary) “coordinate”, have some significant property, hairs? Can, for example, half of an electron already be lost in the past? …
What final property would infinitely small, homogeneous points have to limit the speed of propagation of electric and magnetic fields?
3. Empirical:
Has anyone ever measured a charge other than a multiple of e or a spin (magnetic moment) other than h/2? Perhaps it is possible to imagine, to think of some (imaginary) immeasurable particles (quarks), but their imagined properties are still derived from fundamental constants.

In truth, such a “materialization” of a mathematical idea can be difficult for a rational person (perhaps even you, AI) to accept… sorry for bad English:(

Obviously, if you 'see' things in 'the way' that you are, here, then this explains WHY you do not know any thing, for sure, here.

[Cerveny]

I certainly don't see here (in your textbooks) e.g.:
- why gravity should propagate at the speed of light,
- why nothing can move faster than light,
- why the number of elementary particles is so limited,
- why it is not possible to measure a charge other than a multiple of e or a magnetic moment other than a multiple of h/2…
But on the contrary I clearly see (nonsense) here e.g.:
- big bang,
- black holes,
- dark matter,
- cone of the future
- empty expanding space…

[Age]

I certainly don't see here (in your textbooks) e.g.:
- why gravity should propagate at the speed of light,
- why nothing can move faster than light,
- why the number of elementary particles is so limited,
- why it is not possible to measure a charge other than a multiple of e or a magnetic moment other than a multiple of h/2…
But on the contrary I clearly see (nonsense) here e.g.:
- big bang,
- black holes,
- dark matter,
- cone of the future
- empty expanding space…

If you are talking TO someone, here, then who is that, exactly?

Otherwise who are the words 'your textbooks' referring to, exactly?

And, as 'we' know if you do not yet know some thing, for sure, then this in and of itself explains WHY you are NOT YET able to respond WITH CLARITY, here.

[Cerveny]

I am only thinking about a concept, a model of the Universe, which would be able to effectively face the challenges I mentioned. I mean the crystalline ether - the Past, crystallizing at a speed of ~ c from the Future, where the elementary particles are local defects, irregularities, "dislocations" of its otherwise "transparent" structure. The accumulation of such defects (macroscopic matter) causes deformations, tensions, physical fields in its surroundings. The beginning of the Universe did not mean the beginning of matter, but the beginning of time, the beginning of causality, it would be the germ, the DNA of the crystal of the Past, the beginning of Reason...

[Age]

I am only thinking about a concept, a model of the Universe, which would be able to effectively face the challenges I mentioned. I mean the crystalline ether - the Past, crystallizing at a speed of ~ c from the Future, where the elementary particles are local defects, irregularities, "dislocations" of its otherwise "transparent" structure.

But, AGAIN, WHY look at, or think about, just concepts and/or just models of 'the Universe', especially when 'the Universe', Itself, is HERE, to LOOK AT, and SEE?

The accumulation of such defects (macroscopic matter) causes deformations, tensions, physical fields in its surroundings. The beginning of the Universe did not mean the beginning of matter, but the beginning of time, the beginning of causality, it would be the germ, the DNA of the crystal of the Past, the beginning of Reason...

BUT, there IS NO 'beginning of the Universe'.

Just like there WAS NO 'end of the Universe'.

[Cerveny]

…
But, AGAIN, WHY look at, or think about, just concepts and/or just models of 'the Universe', especially when 'the Universe', Itself, is HERE, to LOOK AT, and SEE?
…
BUT, there IS NO 'beginning of the Universe'.
Just like there WAS NO 'end of the Universe'.
…

Unlike you, I doubt and wonder "Why". Infinities only exist in mathematics and controversial theories...

[Age]

…
But, AGAIN, WHY look at, or think about, just concepts and/or just models of 'the Universe', especially when 'the Universe', Itself, is HERE, to LOOK AT, and SEE?
…
BUT, there IS NO 'beginning of the Universe'.
Just like there WAS NO 'end of the Universe'.
…

Unlike you, I doubt and wonder "Why".

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

What do you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that I do NOT doubt and wonder 'WHY', in regards TO, EXACTLY?

Infinities only exist in mathematics and controversial theories...

LOL
LOL
LOL

And, you KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

What 'we' have, here, is ANOTHER one who has become COMPLETELY DISILLUSIONED BY its very OWN BELIEFS.

[Will Bouwman]

That's one hypothesis.

There are others, not all of which support the concept of spacetime. The alternatives deny at least one (typically both) of the premises of SR.

I haven't seen an explanation for how matter/energy curves spacetime. Do you know any hypotheses that posit a mechanism?

That would be metaphysics, and science doesn't particularly get into metaphysics.

Where would you draw the line between science and metaphysics? Where does "the concept of spacetime" fit? Personally, as a mathematical model, I see it as science. As an ontological hypothesis, it is philosophy.

[Cerveny]

…
But, AGAIN, WHY look at, or think about, just concepts and/or just models of 'the Universe', especially when 'the Universe', Itself, is HERE, to LOOK AT, and SEE?
…
BUT, there IS NO 'beginning of the Universe'.
Just like there WAS NO 'end of the Universe'.
…

Unlike you, I doubt and wonder "Why".

In regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

What do you BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that I do NOT doubt and wonder 'WHY', in regards TO, EXACTLY?

Infinities only exist in mathematics and controversial theories...

LOL
LOL
LOL

And, you KNOW 'this' HOW, EXACTLY?

What 'we' have, here, is ANOTHER one who has become COMPLETELY DISILLUSIONED BY its very OWN BELIEFS.

So what was there before the quantum "fire" ignited, before the hyper-Darwinian process began to bake the Future into Planck's "bricks" of the Past (into cells of aether), before the Hegelian happening began? I believe it was the timeless, formless Hegelian "nothing", the pure Future, Plato's realm of ideas:) It was the same Future we face today...
@Age, take a pill:)