Its called geometric algebra and it is indeed a very powerful tool if not the most powerful I’ve seen in mathematical physics.
Here is an introduction animation video with at the end a full derivation of Maxwell’s equations in the way Dr Farrell alluded to in the Giza Death Star series:
Photon theory, that is, the understanding of light as a transverse electromagnetic wave requires no recourse to an aether to explain the propagation of light. It is not merely the issues of dimensional transform, as I mentioned in the post regarding the separation of space and time as distinct energy multiplicities, but also the model of the wave systems pervading space.
The second principle of Special Relativity applies only to photon production which is only a localized. In other words, it does not apply and cannot be applied for non-electromagnetic i.e. longitudinal, impulse, or sometimes called “Tesla” or electro-acoustic wave forms. That is to say, that the vectoral analysis of electromagnetism of the Hertzian variety cannot be adjusted to account for the energy propagation which is alleged to be the basis of photon production.
The primary gripe of Relativity, or for that matter, the Copenhagen, is not the denial of aether as such, but the denial of any access to primary mode of energy transmission in the cosmos which is not a transverse wave system. Both Relativity and QCD/QED and any other generalized vector analysis cannot deal with the non-linear components of transmission which precede the local disjunctions of electromagnetism. Photons, as generally view them are in fact the by-product of a higher order wave function, that escapes any vector analysis.
Yes exactly. That being said, in order to unify both theories we will have to fully abandon the notion of particles and rewrite our equation as deformations of a hydrodynamic fluid in a Euclidean space. The Madelung interpretation but with fractal properties. I.e a fractal
Fractal fluid is something like this:
You recover all the non classical behavior, both relativity and quantum mechanics. There is an entire research program for that that I got interested in recently.
https://www.amazon.com/SCALE-RELATIVITY-FRACTAL-SPACE-TIME-MECHANICS/dp/1848166508
This actually does re-derive all of the postulates without needing any of them as axioms, but it still needs its version of the standard model which it does not have yet. there is still a long road ahead.
The idea of a fractal structure for the ether medium comes from the concept of creative entropy in thermodynamics. Known as constructal law. Basically is how entropy or primordial chaos can be viewed as a force of construction and pattern building:
I believe that current physical paradigms inadequately address the concepts of entropy and thermodynamics. However, I concur that the aether, if it exists, would need to be a recursively structured entity that remains invariant at all scales.
Two freely downloadable books on my website, written by a former mentor from my visual arts background, may be of interest. “Spinbitz Vol 1” and “Source Theory Vol 1” explore the physics of Steven Rado and Gerald LeBau. The terminology used in your posts suggests familiarity with these concepts.
Rather than addressing each point of contention separately, I strongly recommend reading both volumes. They apply recursive mathematics to formulate a hydrodynamic aether theory, avoiding the conceptual pitfalls that have hindered progress in this field.
In short, I do not think any overhaul of either Relativity nor QED is adequate. I believe the new physical paradigm, clearly emerging, will have transcendent basis and requires a total reorientation.
Download here: Downloads | ᔛɂἶɳɓίʈζ
Thanks. I’ve skimmed the books a bit, especially source theory. I think we arrived to similar conclusions but from different paths. I can see some parallers between some concepts there on complexity and geometric concepts like fractal dimensions, phase space geometry, etc… Even the basic items evolutionary tree isn’t very far from constructal theory.
I also agree we live in a holographic reality 
Of that I have very little doubt at this point.
Will read them more in depth this weekend.
Also Nottale"s presentation is not radical enough at all. Its others who removed all the links with previous physics and recast his theory into a “source” theory that are more interesting to read.
This is a link to a free book by these authors.
They are mostly geometric in their approach, and dont have the conceptual depth the two Books you shared with me have. But I feel there are making an interesting first effort
This is their full textbook:
I accept the premise that reality, or the observable universe, exhibits holographic properties. In other words, the world is not a series of fragmented parts, but is recursively structured so that every identifiable domain, regardless of scale, encodes the information of the entire cosmos.
Probably what the nazis were interested in with the bell experiment. There is an academic textbook for this stuff now
abellache, let me start by mentioning two things: first, if you get the impression I’m a pretentious individual, who seems to incessantly dispute or modify the physics and ideas you present and share, I apologize in advance. Second, I’ve very much enjoyed these interactions the last few days, I have yet to come across another member who want to discuss these distinct physical systems at any length. Lastly, I realize these subjects are specialized and akin to the language of Klingon, so I understand the reservations of other members.
Now then, as for the concept of a magnetosphere. I believe it is a matter of conventional misnaming.
For instance, we’re informed that beyond the Sun’s corona, both the Sun and planets are encompassed by a magnetosphere. We also learn additional details: that the corona’s expansion into this heliospheric or magnetospheric region establishes the interplanetary magnetic field, and that coronal mass ejections and solar flares propagate along the magnetic field lines or loops of this Sun-proximal region. However, it’s crucial to note that radiation emanating from the Sun’s core and escaping the stellar surface generates a plasma envelope around the Sun – more accurately termed a toroidal plasmasphere than a magnetosphere. In my view, the magnetosphere concept is unnecessarily restrictive, not due to its nonexistence, but because the magnetic field-flux component is just one of many intricate, superimposed field systems emitted by both the Sun and planets.
The very possibility of exotic propulsion and its potential total suppression stems from reducing all energy transmission forms to mere electromagnetism. I believe the issue isn’t that the physics community fails to understand the complexity of celestial plasmaspheres (provided their cores remain active), but rather stems from a desire to prevent any notions of engineering involving such complexities.
And, in my field, of biophysics the exact same limitation is impressed upon biological systems in the mainstream. Which is to say, the complex overlapping field flux emanating from the human body, which is itself at once identical in character to the plasmasphere of a planet, albeit a microcosm, is also reduced to and even begrudgingly admitted to as a mere rotary magnetic field.
I think the problem of deriving the concept of mass is what’s still challenging. That can actually be done only if one rebuilds everything from the ground up. Start with a multi-scale fluid and define its geometry step by step. Mass should arise from that. Right now its an as hoc concept people don’t want to accept the ether and electromagnetic propulsion because they have this mass thing and its must be doing something…
The sphere model is probably just because it makes the equations nice and simple. It is very restrictive indeed. And the link to biology is pertinent here. Especially how the energy transformation process from cell, to organ to body is itself fractal
Full agreement. What is genealogy of mass, or becoming? The salient question here is: at what point does a flux of energy become inertial, providing the boundary conditions necessary to distinguish imponderable mass-free energy in flux (aether), and ponderable mass-bound energy in a physical domain. For future reference, I will use the terms mass-free and mass-bound to differentiate the phase energies of wave systems, and the phase energies and formation of leptons.
The logic:
Energy continua and manifolds if one is to take the domain of the mass-free energy as the veritable domain of the Aether, Matter mass-bound is simply a subset of Aether. Note here, that I do not conflate plasma and Aether-proper. Plasma is one special case of the Aether, specifically its two primary constituents (Space and Time) in a state of resonant and synchronous superposition. From which we find both mass-free and mass-bound multiplicities.
In this view, a true physics of Energy takes Time into account, preserves its distinction from Space, introduces Space and Time as independent from Matter, but dependent upon Energy. In previous posts, I’ve outlined why reducing Time to a linear feature of Space, or equating Time with Energy produces a flat geometry wherein excessive dimensions must be introduced. String theory is the greatest offender in this way - 7, 9, 11, or 13 dimensional renditions of physics are needlessly mathematical abstract and only serve to complicate.
The fundamental superimposition occurring for each lepton-system, each “field resonant multiplicity”, when it couples its mass-energy to the energy of the underlying field locks the frequency of its motion to that of the underlying field in order acquire the necessary input of kinetic energy, maintaining the First Law of Physics (conservation of energy), often called the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Mass, then is the product of phase-locked reference frames in superposition (1) primary superposition of energetic constituents Space and Time allowing the mass-free component to acquire its own energy of motion and the gravitational reference frame, (2) secondary superposition allowing for the generation mass-energy phase locked to both Space, Time, and gravitational references, (3) tertiary superposition provides allowing for acquisition of the special case of kinetic energy and linear momentum, monopolar charge, and hence, sensibility.
“You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.”
-Albert Einstein
I’m reading “Tertium Organum” which quotes mathematician Riemann "when higher dimensions of space are in question, time, by some means, translates itself into space, and he regarded the MATERIAL ATOM as the entrance of the fourth dimension into three-dimensional space. They write about ‘surface tensions’ the relationship of a surface to a solid to a higher solid is one which we often find in nature. A surface is nothing more than the relationship between to things. Two bodies touch each other. The surface is the relationship of one to the other. If our space is in the same co-relation with higher space as is the surface to our space, then it may be that our space is really the surface, that is, the place of contact, of two higher-dimensional spaces. And it may be that the laws of our Universe are the surface tensions of a higher Universe.
We are not in ether but On the ether, where the ether is the surface of contact of the two bodies of higher dimensions. The ether is not a substance but only a ‘surface,’ the boundary of something.
The author is Ouspensky and is writing about The fourth dimension as the Esoteric Nature of Reality from what he had learned from G. I. Gurdjieff. I’m only on the 4th chapter where he is explaining how space, time and motion work; that as our consciousness changes and develops , the sense of space changes and develops too.
I’m trying to learn Klingon and it’s a hard language to learn, I see moments of understanding.
