In my opinion, a general paradigm shift is far overdue! The M& M experiment has only established the non-existence of an aether wind moving relative to the earth but has not and cannot disprove the existence of an aether.

Einstein worked his theories around current observations and experimental results and performed some algebraic manipulation to produce a model with mathematical equations that fit well and work within the universe, as we understand it now. But Einstein’s theories, along with the math that back it up, are generally very difficult to follow and most people struggle to keep up!

There is an enormous peer pressure that almost forces most students to follow the orthodox textbook physics that is taught today. Most people are happy to achieve their PHD and it would be unquestionable for them to challenge any alternative theories. Those that do are ridiculed and often face a barrage of insults, put-downs, humiliation and resounding verbal thrashings! All knowledge has been build upon the shoulders of those people who have met the challenge and had the nerve to question the science of their era. They are the ones that have brought us to this point in time and are responsible for what we have achieved to date. We MUST continue to question the correctness of current theories regardless of whether observations and experimental results appear to fit the theory!

Our understanding of the universe has not matured to a point that we understand the mechanics of the propagation of light let alone unifying gravity with that of quantum mechanics! We don’t even understand how or why gravity works and that I think says it all !!! And, therefore, nobody is in a position to reject an aether theory at present. Evidence can easily be manipulated to bring about a different theory / outcome and if you are prepared to backtrack and re-think the current stance, there ARE alternative possibilities that would fit an aether model.

It appears that Einstein’s theory of relativity is very similar to that of religious beliefs in that people are prepared to accept it’s validity based on having read and accepted what is preached to them. Without stepping into religious grounds, I would like to suggest that the vast population of Earth-dwellers are prepared to accept the existence of a God without having been presented with one single shred of evidence. So with a little more evidence to support relativity, it’s hardly surprising to see a huge amount of followers in this arena! Most are perfectly willing to accept the current theories without delving too deeply, and most would have a hard time in attempting to convince a believer into becoming a non-believer!

Einstein has us believe that the speed of light is invariant and that time is the variable within the equations. But just because we measure the speed of light as a constant doesn’t mean to say that it IS a constant - it just looks that way. And the assumption that objects change in length in reality as they increase in speed relative to an observer is nothing short of an illusion and a fudge factor within the equations. Yes, I agree that they APPEAR to look shorter due to the finite speed of light, but NO, they don’t actually reduce in length in reality! It is perfectly feasible for time to be the invariant and so let me explain and it should get you thinking…

How can time possibly be invariant? That is impossible, time doesn’t even exist! Time is nothing more than a relationship between separate events, which happen in a physical world, and is only ever measurable using something physical to measure with and can only be measured if there is something physical to measure! Time is a non-physical entity and is nothing more than a tool for us humans to use. Yes, we can perceive the passing of time and we have clocks that show us the time but in reality it is the mechanical functions of the clocks that we observe and NOT the time. I’m afraid guys, it’s all in your heads!

Time does not slow down or speed up. Period! However, it is perfectly acceptable to assume that the physical interactions of sub-atomic particles, atoms themselves, molecules and possibly even life could be affected by variations within a gravitational field. Ponder the following:

Imagine for one moment that Einstein was wrong, his equations are right but his hypothesis was wrong. Now imagine an aether permeating throughout space and filling every corner. The aether is created by the presence of matter and it has the geometric properties that make it denser within the approximity of a large body and it’s relative density becomes gradually weaker as you move away from the body. The greater the mass the more dense the ather and the further the density permeates out into space. Now imagine this aether (for simplicity) is made of hail stones and you are travelling round the universe in a car with it’s wind screen wipers turned on. The closer you are to a body of mass, the more your wipers struggle to keep up and, therefore, slow down. You can get a similar effect by travelling very fast in open space, where your wipers will also struggle. This analogy could be applied to the atomic clock scenario whereby experimentation has apparently proven the slowing of time when, in actual fact, it could be just a purely physical phenomena where the atomic clock slows down based on physical reasons and not the bizarre assumption that time slows down!

One can also, without too much imagination, see how gravity could operate within this model. If the aether exerts some pressure on any given mass, then a mass within the proximity would be drawn closer to it in an attempt to form one dent in the aether rather than two. Furthermore, the aether would be dragged around by the earth, which would provide the M & M experiment with a null result! Spooky!

Light travels at a speed relative to the aether. I accept that light is always measured as c relative to an observer regardless of how fast the source or the observer is travelling, but this doesn’t make sense and there are alternative ways of describing what is ACTUALLY happening here.

There are many paradoxes within Einstein’s model and I will describe just one:

Take a planet A and a planet B (billions of miles apart). Planet A launches a rocket toward B at nearly the speed of light. Planet B does the same. You are standing right in the middle and observe the two rockets each travelling close to the speed of light. According to Einstein, both rockets could not possible see the other coming (which is fair enough) but the math would have us believe that one rocket relative to the other rocket is travelling no faster than the speed of light, but we KNOW that’s not true don’t we! The person in the middle KNOWS that is not true. In reality, the rockets are approaching each other at twice the speed of light and surely no amount of algebraic manipulation should convince you otherwise.

Could it be possible for an aether to have dynamic geometrical properties that allow it to be distorted and dragged through space by the presence of moving masses that in turn forms pressure waves in the aether similar to that of sound waves? If so, and presuming that light could propagate using this aether, the wavelengths and frequencies of the light measured could be altered to give an observer false impressions.

It has been tested experimentally that light’s wavelength decreases as it moves upward and away from the earth. This could be due to the fact that the aether particles are also decreasing in density. At the event horizon of a black hole the is a severe blue-shift of light, which could be due to the severe density of an aether. But an observer at any point would observe the same speed of light because as the wavelength goes up, the frequency goes down and visa versa. Pressure waves around moving bodies would have a similar effect. Either way, we can’t rule out endless possibilities and turn down open opportunities that lie ahead. All it takes is yet more algebraic magic to convince the masses!

It seems to me that we must keep an open mind with regard to any possibilities of an aether existing. My model may not be true and may need tweaking. I’m sure nobody will believe it and nobody would take the time to investigate it anyway! It will take a stroke of genius to overrule the science community at this point in time but I am a firm believer that it IS just a matter of time before someone discovers and proves the existence of the aether! Furthermore, Einstein’s ridiculous assumption that time is variable will surely be put to an end!

So, where is the math ? Please show us how you explain e.g. the detection of muons on earth using your aether theory.

My model may not be true and may need tweaking.

What model? Where is it?

All I see are baseless claims and assertions.

Anyone want to give the post a score? Using the criteria set by John Baez, of course.

dav57:

<i>The M& M experiment has only established the non-existence of an aether wind moving relative to the earth but has not and cannot disprove the existence of an aether.</i>

Correct. However, an aether which shared the peculiar motion of the Earth would be a strange beast indeed, and there is no reason at all to suspect that such a thing exists.

<i>Einstein worked his theories around current observations and experimental results and performed some algebraic manipulation to produce a model with mathematical equations that fit well and work within the universe, as we understand it now. But Einstein’s theories, along with the math that back it up, are generally very difficult to follow and most people struggle to keep up!</i>

That, in itself, is obviously no argument against the theory. It doesn't matter if some people struggle to keep up with the theory. That doesn't affect its correctness.

<i>There is an enormous peer pressure that almost forces most students to follow the orthodox textbook physics that is taught today. Most people are happy to achieve their PHD and it would be unquestionable for them to challenge any alternative theories.</i>

Getting a PhD requires you to advance human knowledge. Therefore, you <b>must</b> go beyond what is already known to get one. PhDs are <b>always</b> challenging existing understandings, and they are always at the boundaries of knowledge.

<i>Our understanding of the universe has not matured to a point that we understand the mechanics of the propagation of light let alone unifying gravity with that of quantum mechanics!</i>

I would say we understand the propagation of light very very well indeed.

<i>We don’t even understand how or why gravity works and that I think says it all !!!</i>

The general theory of relativity is a superb description of how gravity works.

<i>It appears that Einstein’s theory of relativity is very similar to that of religious beliefs in that people are prepared to accept it’s validity based on having read and accepted what is preached to them.</i>

In principle, anybody can go out and test Einstein's theory. It is supported by literally thousands of experiments, all independent.

<i>Einstein has us believe that the speed of light is invariant and that time is the variable within the equations. But just because we measure the speed of light as a constant doesn’t mean to say that it IS a constant - it just looks that way.</i>

How do you propose to tell the difference between the appearance and the reality?

<i>And the assumption that objects change in length in reality as they increase in speed relative to an observer is nothing short of an illusion and a fudge factor within the equations.</i>

No, it isn't fudged. It is a derived consequence of simple postulates.

<i>How can time possibly be invariant? That is impossible, time doesn’t even exist! Time is nothing more than a relationship between separate events, which happen in a physical world, and is only ever measurable using something physical to measure with and can only be measured if there is something physical to measure!</i>

Great! You and Einstein are in agreement.

<i>Time does not slow down or speed up. Period!</i>

Please show me at least some evidence of that.

<i>Imagine for one moment that Einstein was wrong, his equations are right but his hypothesis was wrong.</i>

It is difficult to imagine how a wrong hypothesis could generate correct equations, but ok.

<i>Now imagine an aether permeating throughout space and filling every corner. The aether is created by the presence of matter and it has the geometric properties that make it denser within the approximity of a large body and it’s relative density becomes gradually weaker as you move away from the body. The greater the mass the more dense the ather and the further the density permeates out into space. Now imagine this aether (for simplicity) is made of hail stones and you are travelling round the universe in a car with it’s wind screen wipers turned on. The closer you are to a body of mass, the more your wipers struggle to keep up and, therefore, slow down. You can get a similar effect by travelling very fast in open space, where your wipers will also struggle. This analogy could be applied to the atomic clock scenario whereby experimentation has apparently proven the slowing of time when, in actual fact, it could be just a purely physical phenomena where the atomic clock slows down based on physical reasons and not the bizarre assumption that time slows down!</i>

But you just said before that we can't distinguish real time from measurements of time because time is not a real thing. So, your windscreen wipers slowing down is the same as time slowing down, by your own argument.

You're still agreeing with Einstein.

<i>One can also, without too much imagination, see how gravity could operate within this model. If the aether exerts some pressure on any given mass, then a mass within the proximity would be drawn closer to it in an attempt to form one dent in the aether rather than two. Furthermore, the aether would be dragged around by the earth, which would provide the M & M experiment with a null result! Spooky!</i>

Indeed. Show me the numerical calculations. Sounds interesting.

<i>There are many paradoxes within Einstein’s model and I will describe just one:

Take a planet A and a planet B (billions of miles apart). Planet A launches a rocket toward B at nearly the speed of light. Planet B does the same. You are standing right in the middle and observe the two rockets each travelling close to the speed of light. According to Einstein, both rockets could not possible see the other coming (which is fair enough) but the math would have us believe that one rocket relative to the other rocket is travelling no faster than the speed of light, but we KNOW that’s not true don’t we!</i>

No, we don't. In fact, we know it is true.

<i>The person in the middle KNOWS that is not true.</i>

How?

<i>In reality, the rockets are approaching each other at twice the speed of light and surely no amount of algebraic manipulation should convince you otherwise.</i>

Simple algebraic manipulation of the correct velocity addition formula convinces me.

<i>Could it be possible for an aether to have dynamic geometrical properties that allow it to be distorted and dragged through space by the presence of moving masses that in turn forms pressure waves in the aether similar to that of sound waves?</i>

Yes. Anything is possible.

<i>If so, and presuming that light could propagate using this aether, the wavelengths and frequencies of the light measured could be altered to give an observer false impressions.</i>

Yes. Now you just need to do the maths to show that such an idea is consistent with all observations.

<i>It has been tested experimentally that light’s wavelength decreases as it moves upward and away from the earth. This could be due to the fact that the aether particles are also decreasing in density.</i>

Maybe. Show me the math.

<i>It seems to me that we must keep an open mind with regard to any possibilities of an aether existing.</i>

Yes. If anybody ever presents a consistent aether theory which explains all the results of relativity and more, then no doubt physicists will be all ears. Until then, however, relativity is the best theory we have.

<i>My model may not be true and may need tweaking.</i>

Do you have a model? Great! Show me the maths.

<i>I’m sure nobody will believe it and nobody would take the time to investigate it anyway!</i>

Show me. I promise I'll take a look.

<i>It will take a stroke of genius to overrule the science community at this point in time but I am a firm believer that it IS just a matter of time before someone discovers and proves the existence of the aether!</i>

Do you have a model or not? If you do, then surely the time is now. If not, what are you talking about? Is it all just wishful thinking?

“Correct. However, an aether which shared the peculiar motion of the Earth would be a strange beast indeed, and there is no reason at all to suspect that such a thing exists.”

Stranger things have been postulated and accepted my freind!!


”That, in itself, is obviously no argument against the theory. It doesn't matter if some people struggle to keep up with the theory. That doesn't affect its correctness.”

Religion has no valid argument and no proof, but people believe in a creator! It’s just a case of brainwash for most and an easy life by accepting what has been laid down before!


”Getting a PhD requires you to advance human knowledge. Therefore, you must go beyond what is already known to get one. PhDs are always challenging existing understandings, and they are always at the boundaries of knowledge.”

Just because you go beyond what you already know doesn’t mean to say that what you are building on is correct – Newton, Aristotle, Coppernicus and Galileo spring to mind!!!!


”I would say we understand the propagation of light very very well indeed.”

Correction – we THINK we understand it!


”The general theory of relativity is a superb description of how gravity works.”

No it’s not! It speaks of warping space-time, space-time being a non existent imaginary nothingness! How can you warp nothing. It’s nonsense! It’s the aether that warps. Just because we can’t detect it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I’m sure that if we were able to detect it we could come up with a SUPERB model to describe gravity on that basis too!


”In principle, anybody can go out and test Einstein's theory. It is supported by literally thousands of experiments, all independent.”

All tests DO support the math behind Einstein’s theory – granted. But I have already explained how this could possibly be an illusion of reality.


”How do you propose to tell the difference between the appearance and the reality?”

It all comes out in the wash!


”No, it isn't fudged. It is a derived consequence of simple postulates.”

It’s not fudged as far as YOU see it. Yes it is derived, but there are often many derivatives which can produce the same answers mathematically and satisfy experimental observation.


”Great! You and Einstein are in agreement.”

I am certainly NOT in agreement with Einstein!

”Time does not slow down or speed up. Period!
Please show me at least some evidence of that.”

If you agree that time doesn’t exist then try this equation:

Nothing exists = nothing to measure = nothing = can’t speed up, slow down or do somersaults!


”It is difficult to imagine how a wrong hypothesis could generate correct equations, but ok.”

Your right, it’s extremely difficult and very much more difficult that understanding Einsteins theory. That’s why nobody would pursue it!


”But you just said before that we can't distinguish real time from measurements of time because time is not a real thing. So, your windscreen wipers slowing down is the same as time slowing down, by your own argument.”

You’re getting confused…The atoms in the atomic clock (which are physical entities) are being physically slowed down by the presense of an aether and the slowing of these atoms is variable depending on your proximity to a mass, the size of the mass and how fast you are travelling through the aether. This theory is consistent with Einstein’s observations but postulates that the slowing of the clock is due to REAL physical reasons. Same results – different theory.

”You're still agreeing with Einstein.”

No I’m not!



”Indeed. Show me the numerical calculations. Sounds interesting.”

Did Einstein have numerical calculation when he first hypothesised his theory? This math is far more complicated than even the three body problem. No general solution of this problem is easy to solve so I’ll pass on that one for now. You could help me if you feel up to it!


”No, we don't. In fact, we know it is true.”

In Einstein’s fudged up world, maybe.


”How?”

Because he just got smacked in his left ear by a rocket travelling at nearly c, and then by a stroke of bad luck he got hit in is right ear by another one! Although he has no brains left, he still knows how to put two and two together!


”Simple algebraic manipulation of the correct velocity addition formula convinces me.”

Was you the one in the middle???


”Yes. Anything is possible.”

Exactly!


”Yes. Now you just need to do the maths to show that such an idea is consistent with all observations.”

I need time and help, just like Einstein had plenty of……



”Maybe. Show me the math.”

The math has already been done. It’s the reasoning behind it that is wrong!


”Yes. If anybody ever presents a consistent aether theory which explains all the results of relativity and more, then no doubt physicists will be all ears. Until then, however, relativity is the best theory we have.”

There’s a good chance of this happening in the next 50 years. There are too many unanswered questions and anomalies that are answered with yet more anomalies. The chickens will come home to roost…just as they always have!


”Do you have a model? Great! Show me the maths.”

I have a model that is unique. I doubt I would ever get the help that Einstein had!


”Show me. I promise I'll take a look.”

And then take the credit….


”Do you have a model or not? If you do, then surely the time is now. If not, what are you talking about? Is it all just wishful thinking?”

Did Einstein never have an infant model that he worked on? Was he never a wishful thinker? Did people laugh and ridicule his theories at first? What about all the other high profile authorities of science that went before him that turned out to be WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

The problem here is that the current mathematical model works for our current experimental observations. It is, therefore, not really necessary to pursue a different analysis of a situation that already works and produces correct answers. That’s why science is skeptical about treading over old ground. But not all is as it seems – take the following example.

You have a long straight square tunnel going from A to B. You stand at the start A, and I stand at the end B. A car C (which fits the tunnel snugly) travels very fast from A to B just as you emit a sound wave from your emitter at A. Someone in the car C has a speed of sound measuring device and so do you and I.

Now, we all observe and agree that our measuring devices record the speed of sound as the same. We all know the length of the tunnel and therefore should be able to calculate the time for the sound to get from one end to the other. But in reality we find that the sound reaches it’s destination much quicker, and we have to derive a theory for what is going on here. I suppose you could postulate that the faster the car goes the more that time slows down and conjure up an equation that fits the observation. But we are fortunate enough in this situation to understand what the truth is….. that the sound hits the back of the car then travels through it at the speed of sound + the velocity of the car, and then on to it’s destination.

At the end of the day,and in certain situations, the math means nothing when you’re searching for the truth!

dav57,

Hi, I don't want to get you labled by taking your side:D but yours is (in my opinion) the correct attitude, if not view.

We should always question and challenge the status quo otherwise we will stagnate (as we have now for 100 years) fine tuning a physically unsupported hypothesis.

There are encouraging signs of new data and insight that are starting to challenge and shift opinion.

Keep up the good work but expect to get hammed as you have here from those dedicated to the preservation of the status quo.

(OK guys let me have it):D

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

Ok then....based on a starting score of -5

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". x1

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. x1

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". x1

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. x4

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. x2

So in your first post, you got a score of 73 on the crackpot index. Good work.

dav57,

Damn, you got labled almost before I could put up the red flag.:D

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

He might as well have been wearing a hat with the label.

Dav,

What your saying is nothing new (to be said), what with your localized aether with the frame dragging and the windshield wipers and the tiny little balls of hail that just love to hang around big fat heavenly bodies. Maybe you're onto something (like the most popular attempt to disregard relativity among the mathephobes). Far be it from me, or anyone else to tell you that you're wrong, and don't get me wrong, I think that you have made some very distinct and profound points (albeit, ones that, as I said, have already been made by many others). But there is a fault, to which I believe you have even admitted. You don't have any experimental evidence or even theoretical rigor yet to back it up. I'm with James; let's see some of the good stuff. Otherwise, what you've got going is an unsupported opinion, and everyone has at least one of those.

I've discussed time, now how about length:

Einstein made some rather bold statements such as: the length of an object shortens according to an observer speeding along relative to that object. But I can see how an object may appear longer – can you explain the following?


If we on earth were to watch a fast rocket travelling DIRECTLY away from us, then I believe it would appear to shorten. This is due to the fact that the light from the nose of the rocket takes time to reach the point where the light from the back part of the rocket needs to leave. In the time it takes the light from the front of the rocket to reach the back, the back has moved hence the rocket appears SHORTER to you and me, and I don't disagree with this.

Now if the rocket is travelling TOWARD us I think the opposite would happen.
The light from the back (boosters) would travel towards the front cone and find that the front has moved (toward us this time), so when the light leaves the front so that the image can be collected by our measuring equipment the whole rocket appears LONGER - it’s just a case of the properties of the geometry of the situation, and from what perspective you are looking from.

I totaly agree that objects *appear* to change in length due to the finite speed of light and our relative speed to the object. But objects don't really shorten so it's all just part of the algebraic trickery!

Mass doesn't increase either! It just appears to increase. How on earth can a given mass increase in reality!!!!! Where does the mass come from??? Once again this is nothing more than a fudge factor!

Perhaps what really happens is that as a mass hurtles through space and approaches the speed of light it finds it more and more difficult to surpass a terminal velocity through the aether and does reach a critical point whereby it can't travel any faster. Imagine a submarine in water. I wonder if an analogy could be applied here. Perhaps a submarine travelling very fast through water would have apparently more mass due to the inertia of the push of the water. Hmmmm, I'll go away and think about that one!

And as for the Muon story. Have you considered that a muon's lifespan may *actually* be increased due to it's speed through the aether? Perhaps it's physical properties are slowed just as I described atomic clocks as slowing for the same reason!!! Why does it have to be anything to do with relativity? Something strange is observed - blame it on relativity!:D

Then there's the Pioneer 10 & 11 problem. Why don't we understand this problem and it's causes? If our current model was correct we wouldn't have this problem. Is there an aether drag affecting the craft!!!!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

Dave

Originally posted by dav57
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!



Good advice. Why don't you live by it.

Originally posted by Beercules
Ok then....based on a starting score of -5

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift". x1

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. x1

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism". x1

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous. x4

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment. x2

So in your first post, you got a score of 73 on the crackpot index. Good work.

Don't you think if MacM gives it some form of approval he should get like 5 bonus points? :D

Better make it 50. :)

Originally posted by dav57
If we on earth were to watch a fast rocket travelling DIRECTLY away from us, then I believe it would appear to shorten. This is due to the fact that the light from the nose of the rocket takes time to reach the point where the light from the back part of the rocket needs to leave. In the time it takes the light from the front of the rocket to reach the back, the back has moved hence the rocket appears SHORTER to you and me, and I don't disagree with this.This would be true if light was propagating through some medium to reach the point of observation, but that's not what relativity says. Relativity says that light is the connectivity of events in space-time and that it is a scalar quantity.




Originally posted by dav57
it’s just a case of the properties of the geometry of the situation, and from what perspective you are looking from.Do you know what geometry is?




Originally posted by dav57
I totaly agree that objects *appear* to change in length due to the finite speed of light and our relative speed to the object.Due to the <i>invariant</i> speed of light.




Originally posted by dav57
But objects don't really shorten so it's all just part of the algebraic trickery!You probably think that it's algebraic trickery because you only truly know the algebraic treatment. There is a geometrical treatment different than the argument that you propose, and that maintains the true spirit of the theory. There is a quantity called the speed of light, c. There is also a quantity called the proper interval, ds. Now, ds = (ds)² = &eta;_&mu;&nu;dx^&mu;dx^&nu;. Here, I have used the metric tensor of Minkowski space-time because your misgivings seemed to be rooted in the fundamental geometrical approach. This is a scalar, because it is a contraction of two second rank tensors on both indices. From this, we get some of our algebraic relationships, but, I would suggest that you do a little research on this geometrical treatment before you try to use simple-minded geometrical arguemtents to invalidate the conclusions generated by the algebra.




Originally posted by dav57
Mass doesn't increase either! It just appears to increase. How on earth can a given mass increase in reality!!!!! Where does the mass come from??? Once again this is nothing more than a fudge factor!Proper mass does not increase, and relativity admits that. What does increase is the temporal component of a tensor. This is what is ultimately responsible for the aparent mass increase.




Originally posted by dav57
Perhaps what really happens is that as a mass hurtles through space and approaches the speed of light it finds it more and more difficult to surpass a terminal velocity through the aether and does reach a critical point whereby it can't travel any faster.If you're suggesting a damping coefficient, then I don't think this is consistent with the operation of particle acceleration. The particles are given some series of initial impulses, but most of their travel is "free." If they were being damped, I suspect a significant discrepency in the applied energy and the energy transfered to the target (at the end of the beamline). Of course, this is somewhat out of my ass, so maybe we could both sit and think this through a bit.




Originally posted by dav57
Perhaps a submarine travelling very fast through water would have apparently more mass due to the inertia of the push of the water.Sounds like damping, but what is "the inertia of the push of the water?"




Originally posted by dav57
And as for the Muon story. Have you considered that a muon's lifespan may *actually* be increased due to it's speed through the aether? Perhaps it's physical properties are slowed just as I described atomic clocks as slowing for the same reason!!!It may, but relativity predicts accurately and quantitatively the same result, whereas your suggestion does not.




Originally posted by dav57
Then there's the Pioneer 10 & 11 problem. Why don't we understand this problem and it's causes? If our current model was correct we wouldn't have this problem. Is there an aether drag affecting the craft!!!!Can you explain the problem here; I am unfamiliar with this Pioneer 10 & 11 problem.

Wesmorris,

Don't you think if MacM gives it some form of approval he should get like 5 bonus points?

Beercules,

Better make it 50.


Now whatever does that mean?:D


I did say "attitude, if not view". :p Kidding.

Stick with me Dav57 and you'll be getting straight A's.

abased, abandoned, abash, abject, abjure, abnegation, abolish, absterge, abysmal...., and that is just the ab's.:D

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

>> However, an aether which shared the peculiar motion of the Earth would be a strange beast indeed, and there is no reason at all to suspect that such a thing exists.

No probs, Electrodynamic Spin Gravity (see astronomy stream) explains it with isotrophic spin fields.

:)

Ok, how about this:

The presence of every atom, having a certain mass, creates a particle of aether. However, mass repels the aether, but the aether attracts other particles of aether.

This would result in the aether fabric being stretched across the universe and pushing the universe apart whilst having localised gravitational effects as I described in my previous post.

However, the more mass that gathers at a particular location, the more the aether is pushed away from the mass (were thinking black holes here). There comes a point where there is so much mass repelling the aether that the aether does not exist in the immediate vicinity of the mass and is pushed right out to the event horizon. So within the black hole, and right up to the event horizon there is no means by which light can propagate! Also, the aether would be so dense that the gravitational pull would be huge. Also, light would be blue-shifted due to the density of the aether. The bending of light would be quite severe due to the variable density of the Aether.

I believe that recent discoveries have shown the speed of light as having decreased since the birth of the universe, and a stretching of the aether fabric would go some way to explaining this.

And why can’t we live in a 3 dimensional universe? Why does everything have to get so complex just to satisfy the relativity theory? Perhaps it’s not so complicated as we think. I blame Einstein!

Can anyone help me with my submarine problem? If you had two submarines, one sitting on a bed of air and easily pushed, and one under water. If you were to get them both moving very fast and at the same speed, and then tried to stop them, would it require more energy or force to stop the one under water? I can’t get my head around this one!
:(

Why would mass create a particle of aether? :bugeye:

As for your submarine problem, I would imagine that it would be harder to stop the one in mid-air (and harder still to stop one in a vaccuum) due to the fact that there is less resistance already working against it.

Throw a baseball in the air, and throw it with the same force under water.
Which would go further?
Now throw it in space.

So there is no energy taken from the water to stop the sub!!!!

Originally posted by dav57
So there is no energy taken from the water to stop the sub!!!!

I don't know what you are getting at.

To push a sub through a vaccum would allow you to push it to a pretty high velocity. But as you push it through water you would soon reach a critical velocity whereby you would need a HUGE amount of energy to make it go faster!

Just a simple analogy to show there maybe similar effects in deep space where a mass will reach the speed of c before it requires huge amounts of energy to get it to go faster.

It might appear that the mass increases too!:confused:

Originally posted by dav57
...mass repels the aether, but the aether attracts other particles of aether.
...
This would result in ... localised gravitational effects as I described in my previous post.
...
...the aether would be so dense that the gravitational pull would be huge.I'm quite a bit confused about all of this. First and foremost, how are gravity and aether related? Secondly, if matter and aether repel each other, then wouldn't the buildup of aether near a black hole <i>repel</i> matter?




Originally posted by dav57
So within the black hole, and right up to the event horizon there is no means by which light can propagate!What happens to light (energy) when it reaches the event horizon?




Originally posted by dav57
Also, light would be blue-shifted due to the density of the aether. The bending of light would be quite severe due to the variable density of the Aether.That sounds pretty good, disregarding everything else.




Originally posted by dav57
And why can’t we live in a 3 dimensional universe?Maxwell's equations.




Originally posted by dav57
Why does everything have to get so complex just to satisfy the relativity theory?It doesn't do it to satisfy the relativity theory. Relativity was a consequence of observations concerning Maxwell's equations.




Originally posted by dav57
Perhaps it’s not so complicated as we think. I blame Einstein!You should first blame Lorentz, Minkowski, Maxwell, Herz, Farady... I'm pretty sure Einstein was a genious, but you should give credit where credit is due. Einstein was actually working to simplify all the complications introduced by his predicessors.




Originally posted by dav57
Can anyone help me with my submarine problem? If you had two submarines, one sitting on a bed of air and easily pushed, and one under water. If you were to get them both moving very fast and at the same speed, and then tried to stop them, would it require more energy or force to stop the one under water? I can’t get my head around this one!
:( How does a submarine sit on a bed of air? I cannot picture this. Can you explain that in more detail? I would like to attack this problem, but I don't understand the situation.

This is hard to explain but if you have two masses, which are both surrounded by a soup of aether particles, and we assume the following criteria:


1. Mass creates Aether
2. Aether attracts Aether
3. Mass repels aether
4. there is a greater density of aether near the two masses
5. The density falls of gradually

I believe that the two bodies would naturally drift together, for the purposes of creating one dent in the aether rather than two! I don’t know how to mathematically prove this, but I am convinced the bodies would drift together. And the closer they get, the greater the force – the bigger the mass, the more aether, the greater the force!

We see a similar effect with bubbles on the surface of water. I know this is a totally different concept but it’s just an example of how two likes to become one in order to reduce the tension.

Originally posted by dav57
I don’t know how to mathematically prove this, but I am convinced the bodies would drift together.

We see a similar effect with bubbles on the surface of water. I know this is a totally different concept but it’s just an example of how two likes to become one in order to reduce the tension. Maybe you should investigate the mathematics behind your bubble analogy. This will probably give you some idea of how to construct a mathematical model for the attraction of massive bodies due to aether. I don't know what the math model is for the bubbles, so I don't have any input at this point.

Originally posted by dav57
1. Mass creates Aether
2. Aether attracts Aether
3. Mass repels aether
4. there is a greater density of aether near the two masses
5. The density falls of gradually


I think this would have an effect on the already present mass. Assume that you place two masses close to eachother, and then put another mass inbetween. The "pushing" (or repelling) of the aether must somehow manifest itself, unless you assume that it can contract infinitely. However, this is not compliant with your particle nature.

I know that particle-aether models were proposed at the end of the 19th century, but they did not turn out to work properly. I think you'll always end up with either very incredible properties of the aether (infinite compressability) or that somehow you should detect the presence of the aether (which is not compliant with the experiments).

Bye!

Crisp

Well I'm sure the maths is very complex! Perhaps a computer program which modeled my concept would show the bodies drifting together - maybe not!

It's frustrating when you have an idea and yet no easy and quick method of testing it. I'm positive they would drift together with the criteria I've set out above but I can't think of a way of showing it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd at least like to model it in some way first. The bubble analogy is a little crude and only 2 dimensional so probably best leave that one!

You ask about light at the event horizon. My idea is that light cannot enter a black hole and meets the end of it's life at this point.

Also, I don't believe the build up of aether would repel matter because there would be an overwelming natural desire (for want of a better word!) for the black hole to still form one dent in the aether fabric rather than two and hence suck in any mass near to it.

Let me think of a really crude example:

You have a massive hall of a few hundred people and they are all moving around chatting at random and quite close to each other. Except, that is, for 10 people that really pong! They repel all the other people and are never less than 5m away due to their smell. Now, you can imagine that after a while the circles surrounding the smelly people will begin to move around randomly and I'm sure that when they get close to each other they will automatically come together. Before long, all 10 smellies are together! And not because they wanted to be, but due to the nature of their surroundings!:D

Another thing, if my model were correct then light would not be present inside the event horizon of a black hole due to the absence of the aether. If you were to step inside the event horizon I think you would see nothing!

What does Einstein predict you would see?

Dav57,

Look, you really will need to present something better than these analogies. Sure, what you are saying could be true. But then again, it could be wrong. This is unfortunately not how real science works: there is only one answer that is given by the logic deduction through mathematics, starting from a small set of postulates.

If you fail to do that, all we can say is "nice idea" or "nice analogy", but there is no possible way of convincing anybody here using just words. And to make it extra hard for you, most people here don't think aether exists, and you'll only be able to convince that bunch through a mathematical proof of what you already said in words.

You also stated that "the math is very complex". We have a model which is very simple (it is called special relativity) and which explains the problems that were at the origin of the aether theory. In science there is a principle called "Occam's razor", which is used to cut away all complex theories in the set of all possible explanations, just to be left with the most simple (and this is usually also the most elegant) explanation.

This forum is called "sci"-forums with "sci" for science. The scientific method is basic on logical induction (or deduction) through mathematics. Please present the science behind your ideas, or we will be forced to classify them as "pseudoscience". Sorry to confront you with this - I also had some ideas on "it could be like that" using some wierd analogies when I was younger. As soon as you let the math lose on them, they usually turn out to be completely unworkable.

Bye!

Crisp

Originally posted by dav57
The bubble analogy is a little crude and only 2 dimensional so probably best leave that one!Well, I made a cursory investigation of "bubble dynamics" (as I discovered it was called). I didn't find anything to address the specific issue of two separate bubbles merging, but, from what I did read, it seems that they are not attracted to each other if they are completely separated, but if they were at least osculating, then they would merge into one bigger bubble (to minimize the surface tension). This would leave the issue of two separate bodies attracting still without analogy.




Originally posted by dav57
You ask about light at the event horizon. My idea is that light cannot enter a black hole and meets the end of it's life at this point.What happens to the energy?




Originally posted by dav57
...I don't believe the build up of aether would repel matter because there would be an overwelming natural desire (for want of a better word!) for the black hole to still form one dent in the aether fabric rather than two and hence suck in any mass near to it.The "desire" to only form one "dent" is meaningful to me. What I don't understand is the ability a mass has to "know" that there is a "dent" at some distant place in space.




Originally posted by dav57
You have a massive hall of a few hundred people...
...
Before long, all 10 smellies are together! And not because they wanted to be, but due to the nature of their surroundings!This probably contains even more problems than the bubble analogy. I can't see the connection to anything physical. This seems purely socialogical.

Originally posted by dav57
I believe that the two bodies would naturally drift together, for the purposes of creating one dent in the aether rather than two! I don’t know how to mathematically prove this, but I am convinced the bodies would drift together. And the closer they get, the greater the force – the bigger the mass, the more aether, the greater the force!

This is a pretty neat thing to try.
It has been keeping me busy while bored at restaurants ever since I discovered it as a little kid.

Take a glass of sweet soda with no ice (works great with Pepsi).
Stir it and stir it and stir it with a straw until it is pretty much flat and another stir will not cause bubbles to rise up the glass.
Let it settle until the surface of the soda is pretty clean and motionless.
Insert the straw and stop up the hole at the top with your finger.
Take the straw out (it should be pretty full with soda) and hold it above the glass (still stopped up) for a few seconds until the soda settles down again.

This next part can be a little difficult, and take some practice, but it isn't that hard and shouldn't take more than a few minutes at most to accomplish.

Lower the straw until it is about 1/4 inch above the surface of the soda.
Keeping the straw stopped up, slightly and very slowly squeeze the straw (the steadier your hand, the better) until a drop of soda lands on the surface and does not "pop".
(if it doesn't work at first, slow down, try smaller drops, and adjust the distance between the straw and the surface. It will work.)
As soon as it lands, if it doesn't "pop" the little spherical droplet (looks like a bubble) of soda will "slide" or "roll" across the surface of the soda fairly quickly.
As long as the droplet isn't so heavy that it will break the surface tension of the soda, once it stops "rolling" it will stay suspended on the surface.

Now, it gets still trickier.
Do this again, about an inch from your surface bubble.
If you can successfully land a second bubble on the surface, it will invariably gravitate towards the other bubble and they will sit next to each other.
If you are feeling lucky, you can do a third bubble and it will always form a little triangle formation.
If you look at the surface of the soda below the bubbles you will see it is slightly curved and the bubbles seem to travel downhill.

Anyway...
Maybe this will help you with your hypothesis and understanding why these masses will tend to gravitate toward each other in the Aether.
If not, it will give you something to do when you are bored at a restaurant.
Impress your friends. Be a hit at parties!! :D

Take this analogy and try and picture it in three dimensional space.
If your Aether particles are attracted to each other they will create a pressure on anything inside it.
It will be a force pushing on the matter, kind of like how most people understand the force of gravity pulling (or pushing) us "down" to earth, but from all sides simultaneously and attempting to compress anything within it.
Now, you said that your aether repels matter.
If matter is repelled by the aether that is completely surrounding it, perhaps the matter being compressed in the aether and making thses 3D dents (like the dents that the soda droplets made on the surface of the soda) and the matter within the aether is trying to roll "downhill" in the direction of the other matter.

Man!
I wish I could have worded that MUCH better, but alas I am here at 4:22 AM and I only have so much brain power remaining to work with. ;)

Does it make any sense at all?
If not, at least maybe you will have fun playing with your next glass of Pepsi.

By the way...
If I understand it correctly this is similar to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (which I very well may not, since I don't yet have a full understanding of GR), in that gravity is caused by the three dimensional warping of "Spacetime" (or "fabric" of space) around massive objects.
Rather than the warping "Spacetime" this would be the warping of the Aether (or what fills space).

But my question still stands...

How or why would matter create the Aether?

Hey, get me a straw and can of Pepsi!:cool:

In reply to "How or why would matter create the Aether?"

Why not? Why can't every particle of matter have an anti-particle that happens to have the properties of my aether?

You could ask why matter exists in the first place! or why does the universe have gravity! If the aether exists, which I believe it does, and just because we can't detect it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I am a firm believer that the aether has a variable density and that the density is greater closer to a body. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that the very presence of matter creates the aether but then immediately repels it. Strange but could be true:bugeye:

And have you heard of the casimire effect? This supports an aether theory too, or at least virtual partical pairs popping in and out of existence. Virtual pairs are most commonly assumed to be the cause because nobody dare suggest the aether:)

Why not? Why can't every particle of matter have an anti-particle that happens to have the properties of my aether?

Is that really much different than Einstein using "Algaebraic manipulation"?
Or Quantum Physicists "creating" new particles and virtual particles and imaginary time to fill in the gaps and make their theories work out mathematically?

You are in favor of the Aether because there (in your opinion) is so little physical evidence in support of Relativity, however, you are offering up a model with even less supporting ecidence.
I thought you were a reductionist attemtping to simplfy the universe.

Also, modern physics DOES state that all matter has it's corresponding anti-matter, however, when they come into close proximity, they are drawn to eachother, and when they touch they annihilate eachother (I believe that is how it is supposed to work. this is another area I am a little light on).
Anti-particles ahve opposite charges of their corresponding particles, so they would attract, not repel.
What keeps your Aether particles from attracting matter and subsequently destroying each other?


You could ask why matter exists in the first place! or why does the universe have gravity! If the aether exists, which I believe it does, and just because we can't detect it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I do ask those questions.
All the time!
That is the entire reason that I look at alternative theories that suggest answers for (or at least in the direction of answers) for those questions.
For example, my analogy above (if it were a reflection of reality) would answer why there is Gravity in the universe.
The reason most people don't like Relativity is that it doesn't seem to reflect reality, and the only theory that would be an acceptible replacement for (or augment of) it would be on that WOULD verifyably reflect reality and/or further jnowledge by answering questions that Relativity can't or by unifying forces and interractions.

I am a firm believer that the aether has a variable density and that the density is greater closer to a body. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that the very presence of matter creates the aether but then immediately repels it.
Why do you believe that so firmy?
Before you answer, remember you criticize the Relativity camp for accepting Einstein's theory as Dogmatic law without enough supporting evidene.

Strange but could be true:bugeye:

You sound like a Relativist. ;)


And have you heard of the casimire effect? This supports an aether theory too, or at least virtual partical pairs popping in and out of existence. Virtual pairs are most commonly assumed to be the cause because nobody dare suggest the aether:)
I have heard of it, but I haven't gotten around to reading up on it yet.
On the surface (the few tidbits I have heard, but honestly can't remember at the moment) I recall it sounding pretty dubious at best.
Want to give me a quick high level overview of it and rundown the basic postulates?

one_raven,

In quantum mechanics, one sometimes uses an energy-time uncertainty relation (even though I do not believe it is a real uncertainty relation, but ok). It goes like:

<font face="symbol">D</font>E <font face="symbol">D</font>t > h/4<font face="symbol">p</font>

This uncertainty principle states that "the variance in energy" (the uncertainty if you like) times the "variance in time" (???) should be larger than h-bar divided by two.

Now, some people believe that you can violate this principle. The relation above is assumed to be valid within quantum mechanics, and hence it should be valid "for the entire, real universe" (as that is totally governed by quantum mechanics). Any particle in that universe is called a "real" particle since it obeys the laws of physics. How can you violate the above principle ? Well, if you take an energy <font face="symbol">D</font>E out of nothing, and you play around with it for a time <font face="symbol">D</font>t such that <font face="symbol">D</font>E <font face="symbol">D</font>t < h/4<font face="symbol">p</font>, and then give the energy back from where-ever you took it, then you would not have violated any "real physical rule" since you never came into the physics spanned by the uncertainty principle (= real physics).

Using this mechanism, you could borrow 2*511 keV from the vacuum, create a position-electron pair for a very small time (shorter than the uncertainty time) and mess around with them. Such particles are called virtual particles (as opposed to real particles, which obey the uncertainty principle).

Now, what is the cassimir effect: by conservation of charge, the two particles that you create by "borrowing energy" from somewhere must have opposite charge (first you have zero charge, so you must end up with zero charge). By conservation of momentum, they must go into seperate, opposing directions. Because opposite charges attract eachother, they first move away from eachother, then slow down, reverse direction of motion, collapse back together (annihilate), and all this within the small timescale permitted by the uncertainty relation.

Since there are particles moving around here, you should in principle be able to detect their movement. Casimir (Dutch physicist) put two metal plates close to eachother (order of millimeter, micrometer spacing) in vacuum and measures the pressure on the plates. He found a small pressure exerted on the plates from the area between the two plates.

It was afterwards concluded that this must have been due to the virtual particle pairs hopping into existance, pushing the plate a bit and annihilating again. And this many many many times a second.



Personally, I do not buy this story. I believe that the energy-time uncertainty relation is not a "real" uncertainty relation. The most general form of uncertainty relations involves variances (or standard deviations) of probabilistic quantities, such as momentum, position, or even energy. Time however, is fixed, determinate, hence, IMHO, <font face="symbol">D</font>t = 0 always. Actually, I should even look up the derivation of this uncertainty relation, because now I come to think of it, how did they ever put time into a hermitian operator? ;). Anyway, I think someone misread the "<font face="symbol">D</font>", originally indicating variance/standard deviation, by a "difference". (And I think that this is quite a common opinion amongst scientists aswel, not everybody blindly agrees with everything ;))

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

I believe the plates attract not repel!

For those that wish to understand the Casimir effect go to here

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/9/6

I think the whole subject is still in debate (note the last paragraph!)

Also in reply to:

"This forum is called "sci"-forums with "sci" for science. The scientific method is basic on logical induction (or deduction) through mathematics. Please present the science behind your ideas, or we will be forced to classify them as "pseudoscience". Sorry to confront you with this - I also had some ideas on "it could be like that" using some wierd analogies when I was younger. As soon as you let the math lose on them, they usually turn out to be completely unworkable."

At what point did Einstein's ideas turn from pseudoscience to science?



One-raven

I am aware I have no evidence. That is my quest! But it always starts with an idea!

Originally posted by dav57
I am aware I have no evidence. That is my quest! But it always starts with an idea!

I understand that.
I have various ideas too, with little or no supporting evidence, and my goal is first to find already existing experimental data and known laws that support (or change) my ideas, then try and come up with NEW experiments to further that.

But, the only way to further ideas is to have them challenged and work towards answers of the challenging questions (in my opinion) rather than just saying, "I don't know, it just IS that way."
Plus, my ideas derrive from some understanding (whether true or false) that I have.
They stem from reasoning (just as I am sure yours do, judging from what you have posted so far).
If my ideas have any parts that are NOT reasonable I look for the reasoning, or reconsider my idea.

You know what I mean?

If you can't answer the questions, I think you should search for the answer, or at least some reasonable possibilities.

Otherwise, you will find yourself in the same boat that you accuse everyone else of being in, and begin "inventing" parts of your theory and unreasonably manipulating your hypothesis in the way that you accuse Einstein.

Dav,
Don't let yourself fall into the same trap as all the "crackpot" Aether theorists out there.
They look at Relativity and ask all the Why questions.
Then they look at their own hypothesis and ask Why NOT.

That is a one way street that leads nowhere but OUT of the scientific community.

You need to question your ideas with at least the same scrutiny as you question Relativity (ideally more scrutiny) if you have any hope of being taken seriously.

To test my theory I need to get inside a black hole! Now how the heck do I accomplish that!:confused:

Another problem I’ve thought of – and you’ll need to concentrate for this one!

Take a planet A and a Planet B

Let A and B have no movement relative to each other and let A emit a light source from a sodium lamp.

Now, B will measure the same frequency and wavelength that A emitted, and I hope you agree!

Now lets take my first scenario:

A starts to move toward B and, therefore, the light is blue-shifted before it even reaches B (and I believe that the light does NOT travel any faster just because A has sped up – you’ll be glad to hear me say!) B measure a higher frequency and a smaller wavelength and decides the velocity is still c (the speed of light).

Now in the next scenario, A remains stationary and it is B that moves faster towards A. Now Einstein has us believe that B measures the speed of light as c again, but B is moving relative to a ray of light that has already been emitted and this is where I can’t get my head around it - I have come up with two possibilities…..

Firstly, B measures a higher frequency once again but due to the finite speed of light, when attempting to measure the wavelength we have a problem in that when you fix the position of the start of a crest, by the time you look at the next crest it has moved and, therefore, you get a smaller wavelength measurement. Funnily enough, you get the impression that the speed of light is still c!

Secondly, if you have read the entire thread, you will remember my car in the tunnel analogy where all measurements record the speed of sound as the same. If all bodies carried their own aether (like the car carried it’s own air inside) they would measure the velocity of light as a constant, no matter what!

Another possibility is that the aether is compressed (a bit like a sound pressure wave) and the compression of the aether forces the light to travel slower and compensate for the speeding up of planet B

Come on guys give me some marks for effort!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by one_raven
Anyway...
Maybe this will help you with your hypothesis and understanding why these masses will tend to gravitate toward each other in the Aether.I don't see how this would relate to masses being atracted due to the aether. The droplets move towards each other because they "prefer" the least amount of gravitational potential energy. Where does that happen? It happens where they are all right next to each other, making one big dent. The problem is that these droplets are of the same material that they are denting. This could represent aether atracting aether, but I don't see where matter is represented.




Originally posted by one_raven
If your Aether particles are attracted to each other they will create a pressure on anything inside it.Shouldn't this pressure be greater due to denser aether and less to less dense aether?




Originally posted by one_raven
It will be a force pushing on the matter, kind of like how most people understand the force of gravity pulling (or pushing) us "down" to earth...The way the aether force is being described doesn't sound anything like gravity to me. It sounds like force on the surface of a body (pressure) whereas gravity acts on all points within a body.




Originally posted by one_raven
...perhaps the matter being compressed in the aether...
...
...is trying to roll "downhill" in the direction of the other matter.What is the "hill?" If the "hill" is the distribution of aether, and the "height" of the "hill" is the density of aether, then matter would move away from the denser regions, thus moving away from black holes.

Originally posted by one_raven
If I understand it correctly this is similar to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity (which I very well may not, since I don't yet have a full understanding of GR), in that gravity is caused by the three dimensional warping of "Spacetime" (or "fabric" of space) around massive objects.3-D warping? I think that it is 4-D warping. I don't claim to know GR very well, but I think that the warping is in terms of a consequence on parallel lines in 4-D (these are called world-lines), specifically that there does <i>not</i> exist <i>exactly</i> one straight line through a point that does not pass through another straight line. I am not clear on what is meant by straight either, but I think it means geodesic, which represents a curve composed of segments of extremum (usually minimum) length between given points along the curve.

Originally posted by dav57
I am a firm believer that the aether has a variable density and that the density is greater closer to a body. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that the very presence of matter creates the aether but then immediately repels it.Why would the density of the aether be greater near a massive body if mass repels aether? Is aether being constantly generated at a rate greater than the rate caused by repulsion?

Originally posted by one_raven
...my analogy above (if it were a reflection of reality) would answer why there is Gravity in the universe.Your analogy uses gravity as one of its explanations. How can you use it to explain gravity when you already have to assume gravity for your analogy to make sense?




Originally posted by one_raven
The reason most people don't like Relativity is that it doesn't seem to reflect reality...It <i>does</i> seem to reflect reality, and better so than the physics before it (Newtonian mechanics). I think that most people don't like relativity because they have never needed to consider something beyond Newtonian mechanics. They are presented with this theory that is even called "counterintuitive" (in the text book that introduced it to me). The students' first reaction is usually "COOL! Wierd stuff. I like wierd stuff." Before long, though, they start to become uncomfortable with a certain notion, and they probably don't even realize what that notion truly is:
The geometry that they took for granted when they learned it (probably not too long before) is not absolute!

Originally posted by Crisp
Since there are particles moving around here, you should in principle be able to detect their movement. Casimir (Dutch physicist) put two metal plates close to eachother (order of millimeter, micrometer spacing) in vacuum and measures the pressure on the plates. He found a small pressure exerted on the plates from the area between the two plates.

It was afterwards concluded that this must have been due to the virtual particle pairs hopping into existance, pushing the plate a bit and annihilating again. And this many many many times a second.I understand that you don't personally "buy this story," but, out of curiosity, do you know how they disregarded the fact that they didn't have a perfect vacuum, and therefore there was probably a multitude of H₂ flying around?

Originally posted by dav57
At what point did Einstein's ideas turn from pseudoscience to science?I would think that one of the first instances was when he won the nobel prize (though this was for the photoelectric effect, not relativity). Subsequently, there have been many experiments to test his relativity, and these have all supported the theory (as far as I know, though if you are thinking in terms of some conspiracy, I don't know what to tell you).

Originally posted by dav57
To test my theory I need to get inside a black hole!You don't have a theory. You have a suggestion. Before you enter a black hole, I would suggest that you at least do it for a reason.

Originally posted by dav57
Now Einstein has us believe that B measures the speed of light as c againI'm trying to start an appreciation for the actual physicists (rather than just the physics itself) and so I might not be accurate on this, but I think you might want to take a look at Maxwell before you start blaming Einstein for this.




Originally posted by dav57
...B is moving relative to a ray of light that has already been emitted and this is where I can’t get my head around it...You are probably thinking in terms of 3-D space and 1-D time. According to the geometry of Minkowski space-time (a 4-D geometry), light travels zero distance.

(the displacement is integral of sqrt[(ds)²]
= integral of sqrt[(cdt)² - (dx)²]
= integral of sqrt[(c)² - (dx/dt)²]dt
= integral of sqrt[c² - c²]dt = 0).

Originally posted by errandir
I understand that you don't personally "buy this story," but, out of curiosity, do you know how they disregarded the fact that they didn't have a perfect vacuum, and therefore there was probably a multitude of H₂ flying around?

I have absolutely no idea. Nowadays vacuums are... quite empty... so I am not sure if it is necessary to include this effect ? But I am far from an experimentalist, so I have absolutely no clue :).

Originally posted by dav57
I believe the plates attract not repel!

I stand corrected :). This makes me doubt if my explanation explains the casimir effect. I think I am mixing up two things, so I would have to look it up (why oh why did i move all my physics books to my desk and didn't i just leave them at home!?!?!)

Bye!

Crisp

Originally posted by errandir
I don't see how this would relate to masses being atracted due to the aether. The droplets move towards each other because they "prefer" the least amount of gravitational potential energy. Where does that happen? It happens where they are all right next to each other, making one big dent. The problem is that these droplets are of the same material that they are denting. This could represent aether atracting aether, but I don't see where matter is represented.

The same way that Hawking describes the cause of Gravity in GR.
The rubber sheet with the ball bearing analogy.
The fact that the droplets are made of the same material as the surface is inconsequential.
The droplets are suspended on the surface as a seperate entity.
The surface tension of the soda in the glass is not broken and the surface tension of the droplet is not broken.
I just used that as an intersting (I think) example.
If you prefer, you could use ball bearings on a rubber sheet.


Originally posted by errandir
Shouldn't this pressure be greater due to denser aether and less to less dense aether?

Depending on WHY they are attracted to each other, possibly.
For example, if the attraction is due to fields that will be additive with other local fields (such as electromagnetic force).
If, as dav suggested, the aether will be displaced by matter and build up around matter, then the larger the body is, the greater the pressure would be.
That seems to fit to me.

Originally posted by errandir
The way the aether force is being described doesn't sound anything like gravity to me. It sounds like force on the surface of a body (pressure) whereas gravity acts on all points within a body.

According to the mathematical constructs, yes.
However, no one (to my knowledge) has come up with a way to prove this in practical application.
All that is known absolutley is that the more massive an object is, the greater the force of gravity is.
I could be wrong about this, but that is my understanding, and if that IS correct, the analogy fits.

Originally posted by errandir
What is the "hill?" If the "hill" is the distribution of aether, and the "height" of the "hill" is the density of aether, then matter would move away from the denser regions, thus moving away from black holes.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Refer back to the ball bearing on the rubber sheet.

Originally posted by errandir
Your analogy uses gravity as one of its explanations. How can you use it to explain gravity when you already have to assume gravity for your analogy to make sense?

No it doesn't.
Gravity is not part of the cause at all.
I just employed people's general understanding of what gravity is thought to be to so they can relate to it.


Originally posted by errandir
It <i>does</i> seem to reflect reality, and better so than the physics before it (Newtonian mechanics). I think that most people don't like relativity because they have never needed to consider something beyond Newtonian mechanics. They are presented with this theory that is even called "counterintuitive" (in the text book that introduced it to me). The students' first reaction is usually "COOL! Wierd stuff. I like wierd stuff." Before long, though, they start to become uncomfortable with a certain notion, and they probably don't even realize what that notion truly is:
The geometry that they took for granted when they learned it (probably not too long before) is not absolute!
It is called counter-intuitive, because it IS.
Time is dynamic?
Length is dynamic?
The speed of light is observed as C regardless of if you are traveling towards or away from it?
There is no such thing as an absolute at rest frame of reference, therefore all motion is relative, so if you are driving in a car going 50 MPH towards a car going 50 MPH, your speed relative to the other car is 100MPH, HOWEVER if you are in a space ship traveling at .6C towards another space ship traveling at .6C your speed relative to the other spae ship isn't 1.2C because nothing can travel faster than C because as you travel closer to C your mass increases and will reach infinity at C?
Mathematically? Sure! It makes perfect sense and I would even call it intuitive.
But in REALITY?
What is intuitive about it?

Originally posted by Crisp
one_raven,

In quantum mechanics, one sometimes uses an energy-time uncertainty relation (even though I do not believe it is a real uncertainty relation, but ok). It goes like:

<font face="symbol">D</font>E <font face="symbol">D</font>t > h/4<font face="symbol">p</font>

This uncertainty principle states that "the variance in energy" (the uncertainty if you like) times the "variance in time" (???) should be larger than h-bar divided by two.

Now, some people believe that you can violate this principle.
violate the HUP?? no, i don t think i believe that, nor should anyone. you cannot violate the HUP.


The relation above is assumed to be valid within quantum mechanics, and hence it should be valid "for the entire, real universe" (as that is totally governed by quantum mechanics). Any particle in that universe is called a "real" particle since it obeys the laws of physics. How can you violate the above principle ? Well, if you take an energy <font face="symbol">D</font>E out of nothing, and you play around with it for a time <font face="symbol">D</font>t such that <font face="symbol">D</font>E <font face="symbol">D</font>t < h/4<font face="symbol">p</font>, and then give the energy back from where-ever you took it, then you would not have violated any "real physical rule" since you never came into the physics spanned by the uncertainty principle (= real physics).
you haven t violated the HUP here, since your delta t was so small.


Using this mechanism, you could borrow 2*511 keV from the vacuum, create a position-electron pair for a very small time (shorter than the uncertainty time) and mess around with them. Such particles are called virtual particles (as opposed to real particles, which obey the uncertainty principle).

all particles obey the HUP. real particles live on (or at least close to) their mass shells (p²=m² is the mass shell in momentum space, a hyperboloid in minkowski space), and virtual particles do not.

Now, what is the cassimir effect: by conservation of charge, the two particles that you create by "borrowing energy" from somewhere must have opposite charge (first you have zero charge, so you must end up with zero charge). By conservation of momentum, they must go into seperate, opposing directions. Because opposite charges attract eachother, they first move away from eachother, then slow down, reverse direction of motion, collapse back together (annihilate), and all this within the small timescale permitted by the uncertainty relation.

al this talk of local particles going in opposite directions is the sort of language used for free fields. in the casimir experiment, the fields are constrained by the metal plates.

Since there are particles moving around here, you should in principle be able to detect their movement. Casimir (Dutch physicist) put two metal plates close to eachother (order of millimeter, micrometer spacing) in vacuum and measures the pressure on the plates. He found a small pressure exerted on the plates from the area between the two plates.
the energy in between the two plates from the vacuum looks very much like the ground state of the infinite square well. that energy goes as 1/L². take the derivative of energy to get the force, and you get an attractive force.

It was afterwards concluded that this must have been due to the virtual particle pairs hopping into existance, pushing the plate a bit and annihilating again. And this many many many times a second.
i would say that it is because of the ground state having some energy.



Personally, I do not buy this story. I believe that the energy-time uncertainty relation is not a "real" uncertainty relation. The most general form of uncertainty relations involves variances (or standard deviations) of probabilistic quantities, such as momentum, position, or even energy. Time however, is fixed, determinate, hence, IMHO, <font face="symbol">D</font>t = 0 always. Actually, I should even look up the derivation of this uncertainty relation, because now I come to think of it, how did they ever put time into a hermitian operator? ;). Anyway, I think someone misread the "<font face="symbol">D</font>", originally indicating variance/standard deviation, by a "difference". (And I think that this is quite a common opinion amongst scientists aswel, not everybody blindly agrees with everything ;))


and well you shouldn t! the time energy uncertainty relation is not really the same kind of uncertainty relation as position momentum. how can it be, since time is not an operator!?

a more accurate way to state it would be that the variance of an operator, divided by the time derivative of the expectation value of the operator, times the variance of the hamiltonian, is greater than hbar. wave your hands a little, and you will get the sloppier form that you have written above.

speaking of casimir, i have always wondered whether this was the same guy behind the casimir operator (a casimir operator is one that commutes with everything. J² is a casimir for the angular momentum algebra, and p² is one for the lorentz algebra).

i don t really see how they could be, since the subjects are rather widely seperated. on the other hand, casimir seems like a rather uncommon name

Originally posted by lethe
you haven t violated the HUP here, since your delta t was so small.

Euuhh, yes, very bad choice of wording... What I wanted to say is that as long as your time is small enough, you could (read: I was once told that) borrow as much energy as you like from the vacuum.

But I am getting more and more convinced that I mixed up the casimir effect with something else here.

all particles obey the HUP. real particles live on (or at least close to) their mass shells (p²=m² is the mass shell in momentum space, a hyperboloid in minkowski space), and virtual particles do not.

Sidenote: by HUP I assume you mean Heisenberg Uncertainty principle ? I was not refering to this one actually ;)....

Interesting characterisation of virtual/real particles. Originates from QFT ? First time I hear it (but then again, I was never introduced properly to QFT).

a more accurate way to state it would be that the variance of an operator, divided by the time derivative of the expectation value of the operator, time the variance of the hamiltonian, is great than hbar. wave your hands a little, and you will get the sloppier form that you have written above.

Requires quite some handwaving if you'd ask me :). But I see your point - even though I find it quite dubious to write it in the sloppier notation I used earlier. I read that form in Griffiths "Introduction to quantum mechanics", along with some arguments about energy borrowing. I guess my suspicion was justified now that I see that it actually doesn't make any sense to write it in the "time-energy" uncertainty principle form.

Always nice to learn something ;).

Bye!

Crisp

Ok guys,

Do you, in your sumpreme and unparalleled wisdom:rolleyes: , think that these virtual particle pairs could possible be responsible for my aether?

Could they constitute a type of space-fabric whereby their density could change? And I know it's a long shot but could they carry electro-magnetic fields and be responsible for the propagation of light too?

I know you'll say you doubt it but I'm interested to know your thoughts.

And thanks to you all for your feedback - very professional and informative despite the fact that you think you have a crackpot on board:D

Originally posted by dav57
And thanks to you all for your feedback - very professional and informative despite the fact that you think you have a crackpot on board:D

Wait till chroot sees this thread.
He'll make up for it!
:D

Crisp,

I think you'll always end up with either very incredible properties of the aether (infinite compressability


You made the above statement against aether concepts in a previous post here. My question would be why is that a death blow to aether when you have the infinities (which are no more acceptable) in Relativity.?

If infinities disprove aether why do they not disprove Relativity?

Wouldn't a "Singularity" be in the same vein as infinite compressibility?


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

MacM says

"If infinities disprove aether why do they not disprove Relativity
Wouldn't a "Singularity" be in the same vein as infinite compressibility?"


Damn, why didn't I say that! :D

And who the hell is Chroot!!!!! Sounds like a type of potatoe:)

Originally posted by one_raven
The fact that the droplets are made of the same material as the surface is inconsequential.
...
I just used that as an intersting (I think) example.Gotcha, OK that makes sense to me. And, BTW, it is an interesting example. I have yet to try it, though, and am a bit sceptical (no offense:)). Do you suppose that the sugar elevates the surface tension of the soda?




Originally posted by one_raven
...the attraction is due to fields that will be additive with other local fields (such as electromagnetic force).
If, as dav suggested, the aether will be displaced by matter and build up around matter, then the larger the body is, the greater the pressure would be.This just sounds like good old superposition to me. I was not disputing that (though, it brings up another good question). This is only talking about one body, though. If another body is to be attracted to the one, then the other must overcome higher and higher levels of aether density. Why would the other body "want" to do this? It doesn't seem like superposition is an issue.




Originally posted by one_raven
No it doesn't.
Gravity is not part of the cause at all.
I just employed people's general understanding of what gravity is thought to be to so they can relate to it.Does this anology work in orbit?




Originally posted by one_raven
It is called counter-intuitive, because it IS.
...
The speed of light is observed as C regardless of if you are traveling towards or away from it?
There is no such thing as an absolute at rest frame of reference...This is counterintuitive? :bugeye:




Originally posted by one_raven
...if you are in a space ship traveling at .6C towards another space ship traveling at .6C your speed relative to the other spae ship isn't 1.2C because nothing can travel faster than C because as you travel closer to C your mass increases and will reach infinity at C?I wouldn't say that is the reason at all. I would say that it has more to do with the fact that the metric of 4-space is fundamentally different than the metric of 3-space. Throw in the requirement that (ds)² is a scalar, and you're there. "c is the same for all observers," not "nothing can travel faster than c."




Originally posted by one_raven
Mathematically? Sure! It makes perfect sense and I would even call it intuitive.
But in REALITY?
What is intuitive about it? If math says "no," but reality says "yes," then I've been wasting quite a lot of time in my life.

Originally posted by Crisp
Euuhh, yes, very bad choice of wording... What I wanted to say is that as long as your time is small enough, you could (read: I was once told that) borrow as much energy as you like from the vacuum.

yes, under this kind of language, you can borrow as much energy as you want, as long as you return it before your due date, so that you remain in accordance with the HUP.

in general, i avoid this kind of language. every since feynman, we say that momentum and energy are always conserved, at every vertex, and virtual processes are off-shell. before feynman, momentum was conserved, energy was not. they amount to the same thing in the end, only one way of saying it is lorentz covariant, and one is not.

But I am getting more and more convinced that I mixed up the casimir effect with something else here.
yes, it sounds like you might have been describing the analogy whereby virtual particles mediate the repulsion of, say, two like charges.


Originally posted by Crisp
Using this mechanism, you could borrow 2*511 keV from the vacuum, create a position-electron pair for a very small time (shorter than the uncertainty time) and mess around with them. Such particles are called virtual particles (as opposed to real particles, which obey the uncertainty principle).
Originally posted by lethe

all particles obey the HUP.
Originally posted by Crisp

Sidenote: by HUP I assume you mean Heisenberg Uncertainty principle ? I was not refering to this one actually ;)....

no? well then what mechanism are you referring to, by which you "borrow" 2*511 keV? that sounds to me like the HUP. the point is, that all particles obey the HUP, and it is therefore not a good characterization of the difference between virtual particles and real particles.


Originally posted by lethe
real particles live on (or at least close to) their mass shells (p²=m² is the mass shell in momentum space, a hyperboloid in minkowski space), and virtual particles do not.
Originally posted by Crisp
Interesting characterisation of virtual/real particles. Originates from QFT ? First time I hear it (but then again, I was never introduced properly to QFT).
yeah, this is perturbation theory from QFT. i think a nice analogy with QM will sort of make this clearer. but first of all, in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, there is no mass shell condition, so i will use the equivalent nonconservation of energy to show what this means.

the perturbation expansion of nonrelativistic QM has the first order term, which connects two unperturbed states by the interaction potential. this is like a virtual particle connecting two free particles, a tree level feynman diagram. in an elastic collision, the incoming and outgoing free states must have the same energy, since energy is conserved.

the second order term is a sum over states connecting the first unperturbed state to a series of other unperturbed states, spanning the hilbert space, and then connecting back to the final unperturbed state. in a sense, it is like the quantum system jumps up to all possible intermediate states, briefly violating conservation of energy, and then jumps back down to an outgoing state. similarly, in the third order term, it will jump to 2 intermediate states.

in QFT the same thing happens, and this intermediate states are particle antiparticle production out of the vacuum. these seem to violate the conservation of energy, for a short time allowed by the HUP.

but all that s really happening is that you are expanding a quantum state in a nondiagonal basis. you are not every violating conservation of energy, in a strict sense.

Requires quite some handwaving if you'd ask me :). But I see your point - even though I find it quite dubious to write it in the sloppier notation I used earlier. I read that form in Griffiths "Introduction to quantum mechanics", along with some arguments about energy borrowing. I guess my suspicion was justified now that I see that it actually doesn't make any sense to write it in the "time-energy" uncertainty principle form.


if i recall correctly, griffiths contains the derivation of the time-energy HUP, and explains the hand waving quite well.

Originally posted by dav57

And who the hell is Chroot!!!!! Sounds like a type of potatoe:)

that s the funniest thing i ve heard all day. i m laughing out loud at that one.

Originally posted by errandir
I have yet to try it, though, and am a bit sceptical (no offense:)). Do you suppose that the sugar elevates the surface tension of the soda?

You should try it it is actually kind of fun.
You can see how many droplets you can susspend.

My guess is the same as yours.
The sugar somehow creates a higher surface tension due to the crystaline bonding structure of the sugar or something.
That's just a guess though.

One more burning question....

Has the one way speed of light experiment been performed anywhere else apart from the surface of the earth?

Originally posted by dav57
Has the one way speed of light experiment been performed anywhere else apart from the surface of the earth?

One of the biggest compalints/arguments of the pro-Aether camp is that it hasn't.

I am not saying it has. but if it has, it certainly has not been widely publicized.

So the theory of relativity (which is a theory representative of the whole universe) is based on observations made purely from experiments performed on the earth only!

Mind you, I guess it's asking a bit much to expect anything else:D

dav57,

"And who the hell is Chroot!!!!! Sounds like a type of potatoe"

LOL... My, are you going to be in for a good session of chrooting.

"So the theory of relativity (which is a theory representative of the whole universe) is based on observations made purely from experiments performed on the earth only!"

Whoever said that ? We do not have the possibility to perform experiments on Jupiter, that is true (well, at least not every day), but there are plenty of astronomical phenomena going on in the universe that we can observe and check our theories with.


MacM,

"My question would be why is that a death blow to aether when you have the infinities (which are no more acceptable) in Relativity.?"

What divergences in relativity are you talking about ? If v -> c then e.g. energy becomes infinite ? This is a limitting proces, and is certainly different than postulating an "infinite compressability" or something directly.


lethe,

"no? well then what mechanism are you referring to, by which you "borrow" 2*511 keV? that sounds to me like the HUP."

I think that the name "Heisenberg" is exclusively reserved the position-momentum uncertainty relation. So I would have referred to it as "energy-time" uncertainty relation or something. I was just checking if I read the abbreviation correctly :). But this is not really relevant for the discussion anyway.

"in QFT the same thing happens, and this intermediate states are particle antiparticle production out of the vacuum. these seem to violate the conservation of energy, for a short time allowed by the HUP.

but all that s really happening is that you are expanding a quantum state in a nondiagonal basis. you are not every violating conservation of energy, in a strict sense."

Hrmmm, so let me get this straight. Whereever someone makes a reference to the word "virtual particle", he/she is always referring to a particular element of a Feynmann diagram ? Then why are some effects explained by using these virtual particles (I am thinking of Hawking radiation, or you can fill out any other effect you like) - I mean, by your "definition", they are certainly "virtual" (as opposed to real), being some mathematical element in a perturbation expansion ?

Bye!

Crisp

I don't think my theory would require infinite compressibility anyway. It would, however, require the aether to be compressed to the point whereby em waves could not propagate through it!

That's not asking too much is it?

Originally posted by Crisp
Hrmmm, so let me get this straight. Whereever someone makes a reference to the word "virtual particle", he/she is always referring to a particular element of a Feynmann diagram ?
yes
Then why are some effects explained by using these virtual particles (I am thinking of Hawking radiation, or you can fill out any other effect you like) - I mean, by your "definition", they are certainly "virtual" (as opposed to real), being some mathematical element in a perturbation expansion ?

every particle is virtual, because every particle, in the real world, is probably moving from one interaction to the next. only a truly free particle can be on its mass shell. however, particles that are more than a few nanometers apart are so nearly free that it is not worth mentioning.

One thing I find truly amazing is the fact that em waves can pass through precisely the same location in space, all at the same time and coming from virtually infinite directions, and yet NOT interfere with each other or cancel each other out. This really puzzles me and I feel that an aether would go someway to explaining this. The same goes for the wave-particle duality of light. If an aether were to exist, we WOULD have waves and particles at the same time!

Originally posted by lethe
every particle is virtual, because every particle, in the real world, is probably moving from one interaction to the next. only a truly free particle can be on its mass shell. however, particles that are more than a few nanometers apart are so nearly free that it is not worth mentioning.

Thanks for the explanation. I should leave the QFT stuff to you next time ;)

Bye!

Crisp

Originally posted by dav57
One thing I find truly amazing is the fact that em waves can pass through precisely the same location in space, all at the same time and coming from virtually infinite directions, and yet NOT interfere with each other or cancel each other out. This really puzzles me and I feel that an aether would go someway to explaining this. The same goes for the wave-particle duality of light. If an aether were to exist, we WOULD have waves and particles at the same time!

Yes.
A dynamic Aether theory could easily address both of these issues.
Wether or not that theory would also be correct, testable, accepted and verified with experimentation is the big question.

I honestly think that the key to releasing log jam in the way of the elusive Unified Umbrella Universal Theory of Everything (or whatever the hell each camp is calling it now) is a true understanding of the mechanics of Wave/Particle Duality.
(I wonder how many people just rolled their eyes at that statement. :) )
Once that mystery is really solved, the rest should fall into place.

Once I fill in the rest of the blanks, you will be able to read all about it in the intro to my book.

*sits and ponders over what to name the book*

Originally posted by dav57

Imagine for one moment that Einstein was wrong, his equations are right but his hypothesis was wrong. Now imagine an aether permeating throughout space and filling every corner. The aether is created by the presence of matter and it has the geometric properties that make it denser within the approximity of a large body and it s relative density becomes gradually weaker as you move away from the body. The greater the mass the more dense the ather and the further the density permeates out into space.

Originally posted by dav57


However, the more mass that gathers at a particular location, the more the aether is pushed away from the mass .




I understand that the aether becomes denser near masses and also less dense.

1100f,

Imagine the following analogy:

You have a large flat open space with a small tube on the floor, which points upwards. The tube produces a flow of magnetised ball-bearings, which are ejected out of the tube and then fall on the floor. This goes on for an amount of time before the system comes to rest and the tube is covered.

Notice the shape that has formed around the tube whereby the ball bearings completely cover the tube in the immediate vicinity but gradually become less dense as you move away from it. What happened here is that the tube created ball-bearings, but then repelled them. The ball-bearings attracted each other and a variable density system has resulted.

Of course, I’m not saying that this is exactly what happens, but I am suggesting that a variable density aether is possible due to the interaction of matter / aether having certain geometric and physical properties.
:)

So you say that although the aether is repelled by matter, the density is varying in such a way that it is still denser near the mass. If it is denser near the mass, how could it be with zero density near big masses so that you can have a black hole?

Do the speed of light variy with ether density?

Mathematics allows the distortion of space-time and justifies time dilation as a bi-product of space-time warping.

All I am suggesting is that an aether could indeed exist, and could be warped by the presence of mass. It’s distortion would be predicted by the same calculations that predict time dilation but instead would predict the affect that the aether has on the physical motions of mass at an atomic level ie. Atomic clocks atoms would actually vibrate varyingly depending on your velocity through the aether or your proximity to a mass.

Science repeats over and over again that an aether has been disproved, but I think they have only proved the fact that we don’t move relative to an aether! Can someone show me an experiment that disproves an aether, which moves with the earth? The M & M experiment certainly does NOT prove this. The theoretical space-time moves with the earth – nobody disputes that! My argument is that time does not exist and cannot be warped. An aether, however, COULD be warped and possibly possess properties that interact physically with matter that could bring about a physical explanation for gravity.

As for the speed of light, if the aether exists and facilitates the propagation of light and is carried along with the earth, then the speed of light will ALWAYS appear the same from the earth. If you read my car in the tunnel analogy you will see what I mean.

Apparently, the speed of light has never been measured anywhere other than the surface of the earth!

Originally posted by dav57

All I am suggesting is that an aether could indeed exist, and could be warped by the presence of mass.

What do you mean by that?

Originally posted by 1100f
What do you mean by that?

Still waiting for an answer.

James R.,

Correct. However, an aether which shared the peculiar motion of the Earth would be a strange beast indeed, and there is no reason at all to suspect that such a thing exists.

?:This is not an arguement but a question.

Why should we find ether drag anymore a strange beast than Black Hole frame dragging?

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

MacM:

<i>Why should we find ether drag anymore a strange beast than Black Hole frame dragging?</i>

Because frame dragging has been experimentally detected, whereas the ether hasn't.