The Aether. Does it exist or doesn't it? Just for the record, lets see everyones opinion, one way or the other on the matter. Not just the usual suspects either! I want EVERYONES opinion. My definition of Aether is that of an unknown medium in which light travels, the fabric of space/time, the vacuum quantified. I know this was partially answered in Macs thread, but in this thread I don't want ANY attacks on other opinions or BS back and forth, just one opinion each. Come on now, don't be scared...

It exists, it has isotrophic spin and is inertial around each geomagnetic massive body in the Universe. The M&M experiment proved this by it's failure to detect the aether drag.

How can this be ? .... see Electrodynamic Spin Gravity Theory thread in the Astronomy section.

:)

I think it is mainly a question of definition. One way to explain a number of observations is to define an "aether". It is like "fabric of space", and "gravity wells"; none of these exist literally, but they provide a framework for expressing things that are really outside the scope of human language.

Hans

I would have to agree with MRC. However, not having done any research into this area besides what I was taught at uni, does not put me in a position to argue my case. However I will say a couple of things.

The M-M experiment was designed to measure the speed of the Aether, since this obtained no result one cannot rule out Aether purely based on the outcomes of this experiment.

As MRC said, I believe the Aether is just a name given to the
"fabric of space" which could be made of anything, even nothing! But even nothing can be given a name. So Aether in my opinion could very well exist, even if it doesn't.

Originally posted by Blaah!
The Aether. Does it exist or doesn't it?

The aether, with the definition used 100 years ago, probably does not exist. That is a fluid like substance filling up space representing an absolute reference frame. If it does, it is redundant and so might as well not. Who would tell the difference?

But in modern physics, a new kind of aether has surfaced. What this means is that even empty space itself is not the silent background stage (or nothingness) in which physical objects move about. So even in the massive voids, there is something there, namely the gravitational field, gravity waves, vacuum energy, etc. Of course "something being there" only constitutes an aether in a very weak sense of the word.

Cheers guys, exactly what I'm looking for. :) Anyone else?

So if there is an aether, then perhaps sometime in the future, we could find a way of extracting energy from it, and that would solve the worlds energy problems! Hurray!

There is no aether, and there is no hope of extracting energy from it. Unless you find some radical way of breaking all the laws of physics as we know them.

Bye!

Crisp

The present notions of aether are those of a speculative medium for transmission of various wave phenomenons. The is no notion that it contains an energy source of any kind.

Hans

Originally posted by Crisp
There is no aether, and there is no hope of extracting energy from it. Unless you find some radical way of breaking all the laws of physics as we know them.

Bye!

Crisp

You cannot say with certainty that there is no aether, because you cannot prove a negative. And you cannot either say that it is impossible to extract energy from it, because you don't know what it is (if it does exist). I will agree with you that at the present, aether is still an unscientific concept because there is no proof for or against it. However, 100 years ago, people stated with the same certainty that you say there is no aether that the atom was the most fundamental particle, and could not be broken down. Now we have -, +, neutrons, quarks, mesons, etc.. Perhaps 100 years from now, you will be proven wrong. Until then, don't make any assumptions.

No, scince is based on assumption which are founded on observation. No aether has been observed. If one does exist it doesn't meet the current definition of aether. More proof of non-existance (experiments) have taken place for aether then most scientific concepts. If we can not observe it, and it has no effects, then it is redundant.

100 years from now, aether may be redefined, but that doesn't mean aether (as defined today) exists.

As has been pointed out by several here, ether as originally defined probably does not exist but that actually hasn't been proven in that there are claims of entrained ether, that is ether drag around massive bodies. IF that is the case the original ether may exist but cannot be detected since there is no local movement but I think that is remote at best.

However, as I noted in the string I started Einstein himself space without ether is unimaginable.

If we can not observe it, and it has no effects, then it is redundant.

ANS:

1 - There are many things in science that we have never observed yet but they are certainly considered to exist.

2 - The affects are most likely the underlying "Cause" of Relativity", something that SHOULD be a high priority of study.



Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.

As I've said before, considering there is no evidence suggesting aether, it is premature to assume that is must exist. You might as well say little gremlins push light around... after all, just because they haven't been observed doesn't mean they don't exist.

However, if you define aether as whatever makes light 'work', then yes... I agree that we will one day find it... but that is a very broad definition, and may have nothing to do with how anybody of this site has defined aether.

You continue to say things such as 'the affects are most likely the underlying cause', when the only possible way for that to have a basis is to use the above definition... and then it becomes circular logic.

I think that it isn't so unreasonable to think that an aether exists.
I am not saying that I necessarily think it does or does not (I am undecided).
However, I do not think it has been effectively been proven that the aether does not exist.
Michelson Morley did not detect an aether wind.
That means that:

a.) There is no aether.
OR
b.) The aether is not static in the earth's atmosphere.

If whatever particles that make up the aether are affected by gravity, then no wind would have been detected in the MM experiments (nor any following experiments based on the same mechanics).

If the aether particles are affected by gravity (and gravitational fields), then they would be moving with the earth (basically they would be stationary relative to the earth's surface) and no (or negligable) shift would have been detected.

There has yet to be an experiment (that I have heard of so far) that would take gravitational (or atmospheric) drag into account in the mechanics of the test.
Because of that, I think it is premature at best to discount aether theories as a whole.

So what makes these particles worthy of being aether? From what you are saying, they are just particles.

Nobody has shown any reason why the aether must/would exist. People say 'a cause is needed', but refuse to notice that an infinite number of possible causes exist. Randomly picking one without any reason is not science. It's more akin to choosing god over allah because it has fewer letters. There is no good reason behind it.

Originally posted by Persol
So what makes these particles worthy of being aether? From what you are saying, they are just particles.

Particles that carry/transfer electromagnetic energy.

You are right, many possibilities DO exist, that is the whole point.
Why discount this as one of them when there is not enough evidence to refute it?

One possibility is that photons are discrete particles that travel freely through "empty" space at a constant rate (although they exibit wave-like properties such as interference), time is dynamic and Newtonian mechanics should be thrown out at the sub-atomic level.

It seems a more likely scenario that there is a medium (the aether) that electromagnetic energy propagates through as a wave, and since is has not been sufficiently demonstrated that this is not possible (see my above post) why should it be discounted?

As I said, I am undecided about the whole aether thing, and I think that the field of physics should be undecided as well, until there is more conclusive evidence one way or the other.
Until that happens, it seems the most reasonable scenario that I have yet heard.

I look at Why discount this as one of them when there is not enough evidence to refute it? a different way.

Why pick this as the one (out of an infinite selection), when there is no evidence to suggest it?

Why is this any more likely then gremlins moving waves around?

Until our theories breakdown, we have no way (or reason) to look any further. We can do our damnest to try and break our theories though, and then when we do break them... we have some way to start looking for a 'deeper reason'.

Originally posted by Persol
Why pick this as the one (out of an infinite selection), when there is no evidence to suggest it?
Can't this be applied to any interpretation of experiment results, including Relativity?

All data can be interpreted one way or another.
What makes you think that the currently most widely accepted theory is the correct one?

Turn your question around.

Why is it more likely that EM radiation is transferred by discrete particles that travel freely yet exibit wave-like properties rather than being propagated via a sea of particles?
What evidence suggests that?

Fact is, evidence DOES suggest that this is a viable hypothesis.
As much, if not more than, the currently accepted theory.

Originally posted by Persol
Until our theories breakdown, we have no way (or reason) to look any further. We can do our damnest to try and break our theories though, and then when we do break them... we have some way to start looking for a 'deeper reason'.

When our theories are based on arbitrary interpretations of incomplete experimental data, we should question them at every level that could have been reasonably interpreted a different way.
Magic gremlins aren't reasonable.

Aether was a required concept when light and other electromagnetic forms of energy were considered to be waves.

Note that sound is a wave-light phenomenon and cannot propagate in a vacuum. It requires air, water, a solid object, et cetera. When you drop a pebble into a still pond, you get waves with the3 pond as the medium. When light was considered to be a wave, it required a medium with certain properties.

The Michelson-Morley experiment is not the only reason to discredit the concept of the aether. Modern Quantum Theory provides a description of light which does not require the aether as a medium for a wave phenomenon.

Since the aether was a concept invented solely due to the requirements of the classical wave theory of light, why keep it when light is no longer considered a classical style wave? It is just excess baggage with no experimental evidence for its existence.

If you want to believe in it as a matter of faith like a religious concept, be my guest. If you want to view it as a synonym for space, it is merely a semantic issue.

Originally posted by Dinosaur
Aether was a required concept when light and other electromagnetic forms of energy were considered to be waves.

Modern Quantum Theory provides a description of light which does not require the aether as a medium for a wave phenomenon.
As I understand it, it is just an abstract theoretical construct (like virtual particles) that was created to fill in missing puzzle peices with no undisputed experimental evidence to support it.
Closer to Persol's "gremlins" than the aether theories are.

I am just a layman, and don't claim to be otherwise, so I KNOW there is a great deal I have not read and learned yet, so if I am mistaken about this, please point me in the right direction.
I would genuinely appreciate it.



Originally posted by Dinosaur
Since the aether was a concept invented solely due to the requirements of the classical wave theory of light, why keep it when light is no longer considered a classical style wave? It is just excess baggage with no experimental evidence for its existence.
I am curious, other than photoelectric effect, what experimental results are interpreted as refutations against the classical wave theory?


Originally posted by Dinosaur
If you want to believe in it as a matter of faith like a religious concept, be my guest. If you want to view it as a synonym for space, it is merely a semantic issue.
I don't believe in unsubstantiated faith.
That is exactly WHY I question everything.
That is exactly why I am questioning the assumptions made that led to us deny the aether as a viable concept.
Again, I am not saying it IS true, I am saying that I am simply not convinced that it isn't.

Originally posted by one_raven
Can't this be applied to any interpretation of experiment results, including Relativity?
Well, no. Relativity was derived from things which were observed over and over. We have not observed anything which leads us to an aether. Also, relativity provided it's own experimental support... while aether has not.

What makes you think that the currently most widely accepted theory is the correct one?
It's not a matter of being 'correct'. It's how useful it is at making predictions. I am fairly certain that relativity is missing a big piece of the puzzle, but see no reason why aether would fill that spot. With that said, it is as correct as newtonian mechanics. We know better now, but there are still areas where it is the best thing to use. The same will be true for relativity.

Why is it more likely that EM radiation is transferred by discrete particles that travel freely yet exibit wave-like properties rather than being propagated via a sea of particles?
What evidence suggests that?
Well plenty actually. As these aether particles would break EVERY law of physics, and would have some very nique interactions between them. That doesn't mean light is particle. There is still something missing, but there is no reason to think aether is it.

Fact is, evidence DOES suggest that this is a viable hypothesis.
As much, if not more than, the currently accepted theory.
Evidence such as?

When our theories are based on arbitrary interpretations of incomplete experimental data, we should question them at every level that could have been reasonably interpreted a different way.
Magic gremlins aren't reasonable.
Ok, just plain gremlins then. Why is it less reasonable then a sea of particles which we can not interact with and which break all the laws of physics? Saying that either is the cause is just guessing. It's premature. They will be testing the current theory at CERN. If/when it fails, it'll show what should be researched.

It's not a matter of being 'correct'. It's how useful it is at making predictions. I am fairly certain that relativity is missing a big piece of the puzzle, but see no reason why aether would fill that spot. With that said, it is as correct as newtonian mechanics. We know better now, but there are still areas where it is the best thing to use. The same will be true for relativity.

I guess that is the point then.
I think it IS a matter of being correct.
This now comes down to the philosophy of physics.
Whether the goal should be to seek material truth and the reality of what is happening, or it should be no more than prediction using abstract mathematic constructs that may not reflect reality.

I think there is nothing wrong with using Relativity to predict, but the real goal should be to discover the reality of what is happening.

What do you think the goal should be?

Well plenty actually. As these aether particles would break EVERY law of physics, and would have some very nique interactions between them. That doesn't mean light is particle. There is still something missing, but there is no reason to think aether is it.
On the contrary, quantum mechanics and the current theory of light is what broke what were accepted as laws of physics.
The aether, depending on the details of the particular aether theory you are talking about, can fall well withing tested and verifyable scientific truths and Newtonian interactions.
Relativity states that time is dyanmic.
Newton stated that time is a constant.
Einstein broke the accepted laws, didn't he?

Evidence such as?
The Dual Slit experiment showed that light acts as a wave.
Waves need a medium.
Photons are supposedly massless particles, yet they are affected by gravity.
Photons supposedly have no charge, yet they are affected by electromagnetic fields.
Photons supposedly travel at a constant rate, yet there is red and blue shift detected in stars.
Yes, Relativity has an answer for all of this, but so does the aether, and the aether can fit into the confines of Newtonian Physics.
If the aether is made up of discrete particles that carry/transfer electromagnetic energy through/over them in a wave-like manner (such as a collection of billiard balls propagating kinetic energy in a wave-like manner) and those particles are affected by gravity everything fits well.
Pockels Effect, Light bending around a massive body, red and blue shift, no detection of ether wind...

What laws does any of this break?

I think there is nothing wrong with using Relativity to predict, but the real goal should be to discover the reality of what is happening.

I agree.

Originally posted by one_raven
I think there is nothing wrong with using Relativity to predict, but the real goal should be to discover the reality of what is happening.
How do you define reality? By your observation. If relativity predicts these observations, then it agrees with reality. You have no other method of defining reality unless you call on a supreme being.

What do you think the goal should be?
As I've said, to provide useable predictions.

The Dual Slit experiment showed that light acts as a wave.
Waves need a medium.
Why do waves need a medium? If you claim that aether particles are transmitting that wave, why couldn't it be light particles 'transmitting' the wave?

Photons are supposedly massless particles, yet they are affected by gravity.
Which has been explained many times.

Photons supposedly travel at a constant rate, yet there is red and blue shift detected in stars.
Red and blue shift are not due to changes in the speed of light... and can be observed right here on earth.

Yes, Relativity has an answer for all of this, but so does the aether, and the aether can fit into the confines of Newtonian Physics.
No, aether doesn't have answers for all of this. It also doesn't account for time distortion, which has been observed. It also ignore the fact the newtonian physics is, in your sense, wrong... and demonstratibly so.

If the aether is made up of discrete particles that carry/transfer electromagnetic energy through/over them in a wave-like manner (such as a collection of billiard balls propagating kinetic energy in a wave-like manner) and those particles are affected by gravity everything fits well.
No, it doesn't. You can not make a 'billard type' dynamic model which simulates light correctly. The aether theory is as developed as most non-scientist theories... and as such, makes claims that haven't actually been demonstrated or logically thought out.

How do you define reality? By your observation. If relativity predicts these observations, then it agrees with reality. You have no other method of defining reality unless you call on a supreme being.
I define reality as objective truth.
Determining objective truth should, in my opinion, be the goal of science, not simply observing phenomena and using those observations to predict future outcomes of phenomena (as I already stated, so it is pointless to argue this).

Why do waves need a medium?
They need a medium by their very definition.
If you don't have a medium, you don't have a wave.

If you claim that aether particles are transmitting that wave, why couldn't it be light particles 'transmitting' the wave?
Whatever transmits the wave is moot to this discussion.
The question is what the wave propagates in or on.

Photons are supposedly massless particles, yet they are affected by gravity.
Which has been explained many times.
Yes, by Relativity.
The realistic validity of Relativity is exactly what I am calling into question.
So simply saying that Relativity explains this does not support Relativity.

Photons supposedly travel at a constant rate, yet there is red and blue shift detected in stars.
Red and blue shift are not due to changes in the speed of light...
Let me properly finish that statement for you...
"...according to the theory of Relativity."

I am not calling the experimental accuracy of Relativity into question, simply the reality of some of what it contends.
Let me ask YOUR question here:
Why is it more reasonable to believe that time dilation and length contraction actually occur rather than documented, observable, testable and valid laws of physics, such as the Doppler Effect?


Yes, Relativity has an answer for all of this, but so does the aether, and the aether can fit into the confines of Newtonian Physics.
No, aether doesn't have answers for all of this. It also doesn't account for time distortion, which has been observed. It also ignore the fact the newtonian physics is, in your sense, wrong... and demonstratibly so.

Actual time distortion has NOT been irrefutably observed.
Please elaborate on how Newtonian physics can be demonstrated to be wrong.

If the aether is made up of discrete particles that carry/transfer electromagnetic energy through/over them in a wave-like manner (such as a collection of billiard balls propagating kinetic energy in a wave-like manner) and those particles are affected by gravity everything fits well.
No, it doesn't. You can not make a 'billard type' dynamic model which simulates light correctly.
Why not?
Where doe it break down?

The aether theory is as developed as most non-scientist theories.

So, are you saying that no scientists support any of the aether theories?

This is what I think it really comes down to:

You said yourself:
I am fairly certain that relativity is missing a big piece of the puzzle

That, in itself, is enough reason to consider alternative theories to replace or augment Relativity.

The question is why not the various aether theories?

As I asked what is "wrong", (or against known physical laws) with a theory with the basic framework is an aether that is made up of discrete particles that carry/transfer electromagnetic energy through/over them in a wave-like manner (such as a collection of billiard balls propagating kinetic energy in a wave-like manner) and those particles are affected by gravity?

What laws does that break?
What specific experimental results directly refutes this?
If none, what specifically makes it an invalid starting point worth considering?

Can the aether be detected?

If so, have those looking for it found it?

If not, what's the point?

Can the aether be detected?
I don't know, but if it does exist and you look for it in the right way most likely.

If so, have those looking for it found it?
Not as far as I know, though I am sure some claim to have.

If not, what's the point?
Same point as looking for the quark, looking for gravitrons, looking for electrons, looking for the atom, experimenting to find the laws of motion and particle interaction...
What is the point of science?

You like aether basically because you see it translating EM and light waves into newtonian physics. The problem is that you can't do this. Take particles of any size, and the will not interact to create patterns the way light does (in the same situation).

Like I've said before there is no evidence pointing to it. You don't just randomly pick a direction and head out.

I define reality as objective truth.
Determining objective truth should, in my opinion, be the goal of science, not simply observing phenomena and using those observations to predict future outcomes of phenomena (as I already stated, so it is pointless to argue this).

Ok, my question still stands. How do you define truth. Through your observation. This is no 'objectiveness' in this sense. We are all biased because we are limited to our observation.

You can not determine objective truth scientifically. That is the area of religion. Even philosophers gave up on this one.

Originally posted by one_raven
I don't know, but if it does exist and you look for it in the right way most likely.
This is another good point. Nobody knows how to look for it, because we only have guesses about what it might be if it might exist.

Same point as looking for the quark, looking for gravitrons, looking for electrons, looking for the atom, experimenting to find the laws of motion and particle interaction...
What is the point of science?
Big difference here.
For quarks, gravitons, electrons, and atoms... we had theories which stated they should exist. Theories which were based on observation. Looking for them initially takes place only to determine the validity of the theory.
As for motion and partical interaction, this goes back to my observability point. You can tell, simply by being aware and watching things, of the patterns in motion. The experiments were not a big next step. Particle interaction experiments were actually slowed down because they tried to guess what 'it' was before experimenting. Uneducated guesses don't profit us in any way.

You like aether basically because you see it translating EM and light waves into newtonian physics.
Correct.
The problem is that you can't do this. Take particles of any size, and the will not interact to create patterns the way light does (in the same situation).
I am not convinced of that.

Like I've said before there is no evidence pointing to it. You don't just randomly pick a direction and head out.
I agree.
(Although that seems to be the norm in Quantum Physics)
I didn't do that.
I looked at the results of various experiments and how they were interpreted and the most reasonable explanation (to me) was some variant of the aether theories.
Now I am out to either validate or refute that position.
I will be pleased whichever route it takes.
As long as I am stisfied that the theory corroborates with the results.

I define reality as objective truth.
Determining objective truth should, in my opinion, be the goal of science, not simply observing phenomena and using those observations to predict future outcomes of phenomena (as I already stated, so it is pointless to argue this).

You can not determine objective truth scientifically. That is the area of religion. Even philosophers gave up on this one.
Can you not say that "the surface of the sun is hotter than the surface of the moon" is a true statement that can be objectively observed?
Granted that is a simplified view, but it still stands.
Objective observation is possible.
Corroboration of a statement through consistent objective observations and measurments in varying experiments with varying environments is the process of defining a law.
Is that not objective?
If not, then what is the point of it all?

You can go to the extreme philosophical view that we can never truly know anything (which I think has its place in philosophy, but is counter-productive in science).
If you take that stance, then you can never even be sure that the universe even exists, and then it just gets filled with all kinds of silly shit like multiverses.
At some point we do have to accept certain facts that reflect reality at a reasonable level of certainty.

Persol,
I think you need to pick a side of the coin.
On one hand you say that the aether does not exist because it would violate the laws of physics (which you still have not demonstrated, by the way).
On the other hand you support modern views of physics, including quantum physics, which routinely fly in the face of accepted Newtonian laws.

Which is it going to be?
Heads, the laws of physics are static and unchangable, after something is "signed" into law, it is set in stone?
or
Tails, the laws of physics are a dynamic set of observations that must be questioned, reviewed and sometimes, if necessary, revised when new observations and knowledge comes to light?

I hate to butt in here, and realize this is a philosophical question
from a layman, but is there a reason in physics to preclude gravity
itself from being the aether, the fabric of space? I mean gravity as
the medium connecting all of physical space through which electro-
magnetic waves travel? The boundries of the universe would be at
the point where gravity ceases to penetrate, thus no light could flow.
Could an aether of gravity not help explain both the Casimir effect
and the Biefeld-Brown effect? I do not know for certain if it is true,
but I have read in the past that the Biefeld-Brown effect worked
even in a vacuum. Would not the possibility of aether of gravity
help explain how a lifter could work in a vacuum? I do not mean to
distract this thread, but thought it might be an avenue of thought.
Please tell me if I am completely off base here.

Has anyone downloaded "the disclosure project" video yet?I just downloaded it tonight. If this video is real (and if its a hoax its like none before on earth) then Zero Point Energy exists, the aether exists, antigravity exists and we already have the technology to harness it. They have witnesses willing to testify infront of congress under oath that this is so.

God it feels good to be RIGHT. :eek:

...If I am... :confused:

Originally posted by Blaah!
Has anyone downloaded "the disclosure project" video yet?I just downloaded it tonight. If this video is real (and if its a hoax its like none before on earth) then Zero Point Energy exists, the aether exists, antigravity exists and we already have the technology to harness it. They have witnesses willing to testify infront of congress under oath that this is so.

God it feels good to be RIGHT. :eek:

Care to give us a synopsis of the video, the demonstration(s), the technology and how it is supposed to work?

Perhaps a link to the video and/or webpage of the project?

The video is about two hours long. It was taken at the "disclosure project" press conference. The conference has about twenty official government witnesses to various UFO related incidents and technology. One of the witnesses confirms that ZPE is the source of power for UFOs and the human military equivalent devices have been built. Sounds like total bullshit huh? WATCH THE VIDEO Please refrain from comment unless you have seen it.
Thanks to fluid 1959 and moementum7 for bringing it to my attention.

http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/npcc_full.wmv

Originally posted by Blaah!
Sounds like total bullshit huh?

Yes it does! :D

But I will watch it with an open mind.

Still got that cautious feeling in the back of my brain about this, but I dont see how it can be a hoax. Can anyone confirm or deny? Please!

Disclosure project website

http://www.disclosureproject.com/

Ok... Here's the next conference.
Dunno, sounds kinda dodgy, if they're just showing the same video.

Date/Time
Sunday 21 September, 2003, from 2 to 5:30 pm

Venue
Francis Auditorium
Main Branch, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Public Library
6th & Tryon/6th & College (across from Discovery Place and adjacent to Spirit Square)
Charlotte, NC
USA


Description
Disclosure Project representatives Peter Georges and Michael Vigilante will be showing the 2-hour Disclosure Project witness testimony video, followed by a question and answer session.

Fees
No admission costs. Donations will be accepted. Order forms will be available.

Parking
Parking is LIMITED, but patrons are welcome to park at the following: 7th Street Station – First 90 minutes FREE / Holiday Inn – First Hour Free Spirit Square - Entrance is open to College & Seventh Sts., $4.00 anytime. Other Parking - Lots facing 5th, 6th, 7th, Brevard, Caldwell, and Church Streets, $3.00-$5.00/day. Each of the above are within 1 to 3 blocks of the Library and price is subject to change at any time. Please do not park at the Discovery Place Parking.

Originally posted by one_raven
I think you need to pick a side of the coin. On one hand you say that the aether does not exist because it would violate the laws of physics (which you still have not demonstrated, by the way). On the other hand you support modern views of physics, including quantum physics, which routinely fly in the face of accepted Newtonian laws.
How would you like me to demonstrate this? Show me a situation where fluids act like light (AKA: colliding particles form the same waves, as a different scale). There are none. To produce the kind of patterns needed you would need to use something besides Newtonian physics.
I've also said, that all our theories are probably both 'wrong' and 'right'. They each have areas in which the predict reality very well, but there are places where EVERY theory breakdown. Newtonian works almost perfectly on the macroscale in our everyday lives. When you get down to particle collisions though, newtonian physics falls flat on it's face.

Tails, the laws of physics are a dynamic set of observations that must be questioned, reviewed and sometimes, if necessary, revised when new observations and knowledge comes to light?
Tails obviously. That doesn't mean that the laws we currently have are thrown out the window though. We just know that there are areas where it doesn't work. My point is, that no observations have come to light that support aether theory. And the basic idea of using newtonian physics to simulate something that doesn't obey newtonian physics is silly.

Can you not say that "the surface of the sun is hotter than the surface of the moon" is a true statement that can be objectively observed?
You can have 'objective observation', but this does not equal 'objective truth'. Just because we interepret our data to mean that the sun is hotter, doesn't actually mean it is. Chances our that it is, but that's not the point here. It is only 'true' in the sense that we don't have any better observations.

Originally posted by Blaah!
Still got that cautious feeling in the back of my brain about this, but I dont see how it can be a hoax. Can anyone confirm or deny? Please!

That cautious feeling in the back of your brain should a piercing siren and a bright red lighted sign flashing...

BULLSHIT ALERT!!!

I watched the whole two hours.
I can't see how anyone can possibly support OR refute anything that was said on there.
I honestly don't understand where your difficulty comes in.

No one said anything other than hearsay and conjecture.
No one made any supported scientific claims.
The one guy said he saw this flying saucer (at a government sponsored air show!!) and that it used Zero Point Energy to power it.
He said nothing specific about the technology itself.
He made no specific claims that could be questioned or argued.
When the one reporter asked something like, "Why would they possibly show this craft at an airshow?" (especially since they claim there is a huge government conspiracy to cover all this up), the question was ignored.

Basically it is no more than me coming on here and saying, "The aether exists, and I have proof that exists because I have seen it in action".
Then folding my arms and huffing, saying nothing else about it.

Besides, he didn't state that this mysterious source of Zero Point Energy WAS the/an Aether.

IF his claims were true (highly dubious) AND he could show more than a sketch rendered from memory AND he could explain exactly how it worked AND he could demonstrate it successfully in reality THEN -MAYBE- it would be a point supporting the existence of an Aether/Aether-like "substance".

Like I said, I want to keep an open mind about the Aether, but that does not mean I will believe every crackpot that comes along and spouts off untestable unsupported crap.

He MIGHT be right.
It IS possible.
But he showed nothing there to demonstrate that.

H e he... I guess I better leave this in pseudo-science for now...:p I'm still not convinced one way or the other tho... Also having this discussion here...

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27379

One of the sticking points here, it seems, is that ligth is a wave hence needs a medium to travel in? Why do people think that?

If you look at
<a href="http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/more_stuff/Maxwell_Eq.html">Maxwell's equations</a> you will see that the velocity of light depends only on two scalar constants. There is no medium necessary for the velocity of light. It just is based on those constants.

Also, from the above, light is only a form of EM radiation governed by those equations. The only thing that is necessary for an EM field is an electric and magnetic field. There is no requirement for those fields to be propagated in a medium so why does light (a unified field of both types) require it.

To postulate an Aether is necessary for light requires that electric and magnetic fields are also propagated in the Aether as a result. Obviously this flies in the face of the last 200 or so years of experimental results.

Ergo, no Aether, of any sort.

Some one also mentioned that we do not definitely know EM forces are mediated by photons, or some such. I would beg to differ there. The EM force and weak nuclear force was unified as the Electroweak theory. This has been experimentally verified.