RE: The BIGGEST Nail In Theory of Relativity's Coffin, Is About To Be Found

Unfounded and insuperable claims of magic, rather than reasonably couching such speculation as hypothetical, and lacking replicable observation, seem rather pointless to me. I assume this has something to do with Kozyrev's work, but I have not ascertained anything non-standard, nor support for a lumeniferous aether, there, yet. I only just learned of him yesterday, and note his work was confounded by the Soviet polity that produced Lysenkoism, an unfortunate political circumstance that immediately suggests propaganda afflicted his work, being necessary to his survival. The Golden ratio in no way implies an aether, but a fundamental property of vibration that is revealed across expressions of the myriad fields and forces as spirals and fractals. You do mention Tesla, whose genius cannot be disputed by anyone reasonable, but whose admonition to consider things in terms of vibrations remains quite confounding to folks uncomprehending of what particles actually are, and again, relates to no aether, lumeniferous or not. His work is clearly consilient with the Standard model and modern physics, not negating or in any disagreement with it.

Certainly there are shortcomings in the Standard model, but in discussion with physicists they have pointed out that, while the bits and pieces that have been assembled over the last century to create it all concatenate to support it, they do not suggest it is in any way complete, but quite to the contrary, note fundamental issues of cosmological interpretation can involve very small matters that propagate presently inexplicable immense properties of the universe. This raises an extraordinarily high bar to any extension or alteration of the Standard model, because of that enormous complexity and necessity of consilience with all of it - or replacing all of it - to be superable. Therein lies the 'spooky action at a distance' that betrays the incapacity of humanity, because a consilient resolution of classical physics and quantum physics remains inexpressible.

There remains, rather than a closing of the ideological ranks of physics, a fervent ferment of questioning of basal assumptions, seeking to add to it or dial it back, and a rational commitment to demonstrable and replicable observations. Mere mathematical constructs or bare hypotheses it is not, though from such it springs through replicable demonstration. A vast and bewildering variety of hypotheses have been proposed to further, alter, or replace the Standard model, including aethereal models, but have not been borne out by demonstrable observations.

Bare assertions are the foundation of your aethereal conjecture. You state instead of being superable on demonstrable observations and rational expressions physicists would find it incalculable. This rather suggests magical thinking is the source of these claims you are making, and this is directly in contradiction to the work of Tesla, and the physics that are demonstrated to us in concrete form daily, and by which we here communicate. It is silly to assert without evidence replacing the entirety of the Standard model and millions of man years of experiment, observation, and demonstrated functionality. It would be just as reasonable to claim you can project nails into wood without banging on them with a hammer, which I do not think you do, because you have banged many nails with hammers, and your poor thumbs have vouchsafed to you the soundness of the principles involved, as have mine. We can agree on these physics because we have observed them demonstrated. Why assert fantasies in place of observation?

The Standard model of physics is not 'balls bouncing around', but is a description of fields and vibrations - exactly as Tesla averred. Initial research and conceptualization of physical properties used the appellation particles, and even as understanding evolved into fields and vibrations this was artistically represented as balls in schematics explaining physics to people. Communicating the interrelationships of loci of interaction by representing them as balls in illustrations enables teaching physics without having to bear in mind too much complexity. It's just a metaphor, and like the cover of a book does not convey the understanding therein contained.

No competent living physicist suggests there are any minute balls bouncing around. A diagram of a thing is not the thing. A description of a thing is not the thing. The word particle does not mean what you say you think it means, but is a relic of the evolution of physics, which did indeed come from thinking of bits of stuff we perceive as material, but has long since moved past that to refer to loci of interactions of fields and vibrations. Our hammers and the nails we bang on them with are agglomerations of such bits, as we perceive them, and conveying in blueprints interactions of fields and vibrations would impossibly render our application of them inconceivable. We necessarily simplify physics in application, and this reflects our nature as evolved to apply physical principles. We have no need to view reality fundamentally, but only to apply consequences of physical principles at scale. It is quite amazing to me such intellectual capacity is potential to any of us at all, suggesting more to existence than meets the eye.

Adding to the misapprehension of the Standard model as involving balls bouncing around the insult of avowing insuperable, never demonstrated magic goes beyond mere incomprehension to fantastic fabrication. Restraining your urge to lay claim to understanding, by the discipline of founding it on demonstrable, replicable observation, would benefit your understanding, IMHO. That restraint must have been fundamental to your work in construction, as it has been mine. Certainly we would not try to fabricate fantastic structures without depending on demonstrable observations of superable methods.

No aether is necessary for an evolution of communications obviating wires, which is ongoing as it is potentiated economically. This doesn't have any potential to exceed the speed of light, and conforms entirely to relativistic physics. By sticking to what is demonstrable we can advance physics and enable technological progress to benefit from economic advances that decentralization potentiates, and I suggest you would benefit your understanding thereby.