Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Vortexx, Dec 22, 2002.

  1. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Do you even know what "permittivity" means?
    Vacuum energy and virtual particles are different concepts. You really don't seem to understand anything about the Casimir experiment.
    Arp's a quack. Next topic.
    The site you quoted argues that the textbook treatment of the MM experiment "is based on the Galilean Transforms," while his own stupid theory "is based on the Lorentz Transforms."

    The treatment of the MM experiment is not based on either the Galilean transform or the Lorentz transform. It's based on the concept of distance = rate * time, which is a concept even more fundamental than both types of transform. Futher, the Lorentz transform is derived from the MM treatment (as well as from electrodynamics) and is not assumed from the start.

    The author of the website you linked also seems to be incapable of math, seeing as he likes to posulate statements like c't' = c't' + v't', which of course is only true when t' = 0. If you'd like to learn about the MM experiment, you should at least choose to read an author who's competent to do basic geometry. I suggest Richard Feynman's "Six Not-So-Easy Pieces," which retails for about $15 in paperback.

    - Warren
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2002
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    A question

    I have never read any of this aether theory stuff, and have barely touched relativity... Does the idea of an aether automatically involve a staionary or absolute through which everything else moves/acts? Could not the aether itself in this idea also move about, be not absolute?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Re: A question

    Sure it could. At any given moment and location, there would be an aether flux ("wind") in a certain direction, and with a certain velocity. It doesn't matter much which direction it's moving, though, because experiments are designed to be sensitive to changes in the aether wind. For example, no matter what direction the aether wind happens to be blowing, you'll see a sinusoidal variation in any component, with a 24-hour period, due to the earth's rotation. Experiments are designed to detect this periodicity.

    - Warren
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Adam §Þ@ç€ MØnk€¥ Registered Senior Member

    Damn. So unless the hypothetical aether is absolutely motionless, it becomes irrelevent in terms of absolutes in cosmology?
  8. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Last edited: Dec 24, 2002
  9. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member


    You goddamned idiot. Do you really not understand what these websites are saying? The first one has a couple of major, glaring problems:

    1) It assumes that the precision of the experiments, i.e. ~20 km/sec, means there is an aether wind blowing at ~20 km/sec.

    2) It also says some incredibly rediculous things, like "False! Muons are created everywhere!" which is entirely, rediculously, wrong.

    In addition, just a little research on Miller work will indicate:

    3) Miller is claiming that the aether blows in different directions at different times of the year -- i.e. that the aether wind somehow follows the earth around, constantly conspiring to develop less than ~20 km/sec relative velocity. This is not science.

    4) Since Miller's time, experiments with precision well beyond both Miller and Michelson, and all have come up null, to precisions of parts per billion!

    The other websites you listed are similarly foolish. The second one includes a comment from a moderator warning the author that there are many different effects not included in his conclusion. The reason why science is based on peer-review is precisely to avoid people like this moron from confusing other people with nonsense.

    No methodologically correct experiment has ever detected an aether wind, all the way to insane precisions. The concept of aether is not necessary for any current scientific theory, and its inclusion would only set us back in time. The dismissal of the aether was an important step taken on the basis of strong experimental evidence, which has led to the acceptance of Maxwell's equations of electrodynamics (which are so precise as to be considered laws) and the theory of quantum electrodynamics, which is one of the most predictive and successful theories of all scientific pursuit. If you intend to push an aether theory, you're going to have to come up with an aether-enabled version of electrodynamics and quantum electrodynamics. People smarter than you tried to do this for years, and finally gave up -- it isn't possible.

    - Warren
  10. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    I wonder if you understand what these websites are saying, by now I would have thought you would "dig" ether

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Actually the null results of "all those experiments after MM" are really supporting the ethercase:

    You want to throw away air with ether or you just ran out of breath?
  11. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    I wonder if you understand what modern science says, since by now I would have thought you would realize what a fuckwit you are.
    The link you provided is not an experimental link -- it's a theoretical link, also trying to explain the MM experiment in different ways. The page begins with the following: "Against the assumption of the Special Relativity Theory." Many people who do not understand physics seem to think that these theories were just made up, and then are assumed at the start in the analysis of an experiment. I will AGAIN point you to Feynman's Six Not-So-Easy Pieces, which is a normal treatment of the experiment. The Lorentz transform was shown to be true both in the analysis of the MM experiment (i.e. as a natural consequence of high-school geometry) and also in the analysis of Maxwell's equations (all of which were verified experimentally long before they were brought together in one unified notation).

    The page then goes on to say that the emitter theory (i.e. the speed of light is a constant added to the speed of the emitting body) is correct. It doesn't argue this with any kind of experiment; instead, it argues it with some screwy drawing with indecipherable figures. What does phi mean? What does c<sub>phi</sub> mean? I have the feeling neither you nor the author knows.

    You would do well to become more competent in criticizing your sources. All of them either begin with false assumptions, or just seem to be unable to do basic high-school math. I don't know why you continue to try to use these kinds of sites as "evidence" for your belief, when even a high-school kid should be able to spot the flaws.

    The emitter theory fell once and for all when the speed of the gamma emission of energetic pions was measured and found to be, guess what, c.

    I suspect that the only reason you continue to do this aether theory nonsense is because you value the idea that you know more than all the scientists put together. You like the idea of being the poor, down-trodden underdog, battling the senseless dogma of the scientific "establishment." You probably did not do so well in high-school or college physics. You probably convinced yourself that you're plenty smart -- it was those damn professors who couldn't talk their way out of a paper bag. In you, the crackpot flame came alive.

    Your arguments are tired and plainly stupid. Anyone with an education can recognize immediately how plainly stupid they are. Please, at least attempt to understand and critique your own chosen sources of "wisdom," because, as long as you believe the horseshit you've been reading, you will forever be ignorant.

    - Warren
  12. Nico Benschop Registered Member

    Only if you think that a 'perpetuum mobile' for foton/light
    propagation is impossible, that is: assuming they suffer
    'diffusion' and/or 'dissipation' along their long intergalactic
    travel. By Planck: energy = h.frequency (E = h. nu)
    this would mean:
    energy loss proportional to travelled distance =
    = frequency reduction per travaled distance =
    = redshift proportional to travelled distance
    (vs. Hubble's redshift prop. to expansion speed, by Doppler effect).

    Without dissipation, a foton would not change its characteristics
    along its very long ('infinite') travel, and Einstein's assumption
    of "I do not need a medium" (ether) would indeed be the simplest
    solution (Occam's razor). However, some 20 years *after* his
    relativity theory, Hubble discovered the cosmic redshift of
    star spectra - and he (H) himself, in a footnote of his 1931 paper,
    already had doubts about the Doppler explanation: he just viewed
    that as a *hypothesis*, since they did not know enough about
    intergalactic space at all. But by then Einsteins 'no-ether' assumption was too strongly established, and the need for a dissipation-less ether did not exist, with space as a 'vacuum'.

    Only when dissipation (entropy increase) is taken as a fundamental principle of nature, including foton travel, is there a need for
    a propagation medium (ether). A decisive experiment would be to
    measure both speed *and* distance of a star with known redshift.
    My guess this would be a parellax measurement, of reasonably far
    stars - which is still beyond present day possibilities, I think.

    For a suggestion of Maxwell's EM field equations *with* dissipation
    (yielding redshift by foton decay) see Michael Lewis' work:
    "Hubble Red Shift by Photon Decay: a sensible explanation",
    temporarily at

    -- NB -
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2003
  13. Ilja Registered Member

    See for a modern ether theory.
  14. Ilja Registered Member

    The preference for special relativity in comparison with the Lorentz ether was not based on any experimental evidence, but on metaphysical considerations.

    Maxwells equations have been accepted much earlier. They have been the base of ether theory. The development of quantum theory was independent of relativity.

    To introduce a preferred frame into the standard model to obtain a Lorentz ether version of QFT is not a problem at all. Gravity is more interesting. I have tried, the result can be found at
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Chiral Condensate

    I have seen some movement towards considering what they now refer to as the Chiral Condensate (Vacuum) as being a form of aether.

    And Dark Energy as a revival of Einsteins Universal Constant but with a different value which produces the accelerating expansion in lieu of a steady state Universe.
  16. Mitchell Hein Registered Member

    Aether Theory

    After trying to understand the nature of the universe, and reading all I can find on the subject, the following story came to be written about Aether Theory. I hope you take it in the same vein in which it is intended.


    There once was a farmer, who was convinced that he had mice in his farmhouse. It didn’t take too much convincing, actually. For after all, holes had been chewed in the base of his walls, and each night he heard scrabbling sounds coming from inside his walls. In addition, each morning when he awoke, he found small chunks missing from his cheese, and mouse droppings near the holes in his walls. It was obvious.

    However, despite all this, the farmer had never actually seen a single mouse… not even a dead one. This began to weigh on the farmer’s mind after a while, and he determined that he would try to capture a mouse. He constructed a trap, which held the same cheese that had repeatedly gone missing, and he set it up close by the holes and the droppings. However, the next morning, he found that the cheese in his trap was gone, and he had not captured a mouse.

    He continued his approach, and after a whole week had gone by with no results, the farmer re-examined his methods and changed them as he thought prudent. He modified his trap, added several more, and changed their locations. Nothing… still no mice to show for all his efforts. He brought in his friends, and they attempted to help him devise new traps, new locations, and new methods for capturing a mouse, all to no avail.

    After this had gone on for about two years, one of the farmer’s friends told the farmer that he was convinced that there were no mice. After all, despite all their best efforts, none of them had ever seen a single mouse. The farmer was difficult to convince, because he had always believed he had mice, but after a while, he also had to admit that he did not have mice.

    This created a few problems, as he still had holes, missing cheese, scrabbling noises, and small particles that LOOKED like mouse droppings to explain. They decided to call the particles “mouse-ons”, because they LOOKED like droppings, and SMELLED like droppings, and had all the same characteristics as droppings, but could not have come from a mouse, because they had determined that there were no mice in the farmhouse.

    This raised the question of where the “mouse-ons” came from. They realized that they simply couldn’t materialize out of thin air, so there must be some process which created them. It was then that the farmer had an epiphany… the cheese! The cheese was losing pieces, and the “mouse-ons” appeared when the cheese lost pieces. So, the farmer and his friends carefully removed every “mouse-on” from the farmhouse, and began a study. They measured the mass of cheese lost over a two week period, and carefully collected each dropping in the farmhouse over that same time period. After careful calculations, they found that the mass of cheese lost on any given night was proportional to the mass of “mouse-ons” created. It was not the same exact mass, but it was close. The ratio was a constant value, and they called this constant “pu”.

    One of the friends mentioned that mice could also convert the cheese to droppings at the same ratio, but they asked him if he saw any mice around. When he said he didn’t, they told him that there were no mice in the farmer’s house, so that wasn’t a valid suggestion.

    All of this still left mysteries. The scrabbling noises and the holes had yet to be explained. In addition, they did not understand the process which converted the cheese to “mouse-ons”, nor the significance of “pu”. However, they realized that they were getting ever closer to understanding the nature of the farmer’s house.

    The farmer’s neighbor, a Mr. Eisenstone, told them all that they had to be careful how they did their measurements. Since the “mouse-ons” WERE the cheese, but they showed up in a different place (as the farmers perceived them), then it might be possible that both the cheese and the mouse-ons were occupying the same space, but that space was folded, so that it gave the appearance that they were in both places at the same time. He suggested that “farmer reality” and “mouse-on reality” might not be exactly the same.

    Now, Mr. Eisenstone was one of the smartest of the farmer’s friends. He had already done some thinking about how if he was chasing his cousin, and they were both running at the same speed, then each of them looked like the other was standing still. His relative-ity was a leap in logic, and had opened up new lines of thinking among the farmers well before this “mouse-on” mystery, so they were keen to listen to all he had to suggest.

    It did not seem to explain the constant “pu”, nor the change in appearance between the cheese and the “mouse-ons”, but it could explain how same stuff could appear in two different places. Perhaps the sound in the walls was the mysterious process which converted the cheese to “mouse-ons”.

    The farmers continued their study for many years, throwing dried “mouse-ons” against the walls to determine their composition, and arguing over the nature of the composite elements. It didn’t seem to match crumbled cheese, no matter how small they ground it, but they weren’t sure about string cheese.

    Every once in a while, a new visitor would walk into their discussion, and say that it sure sounded like mice to them, but they were dismissed as novices that really didn’t understand all the work that had gone into the farmer’s “mouse-on” theory. If anyone suggested a better trap, or reasons why the old traps might not have worked, they were told to leave. After all, there was serious work to be done.

    Mitchell J. Hein
    30 August 2003
  17. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Re: Aether Theory

    That was GREAT!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Mind if I use it sometime?
    I promise to give you credit.
  18. Mitchell Hein Registered Member

    Of course... it was written so that people might give Aether a second (or third) thought. I would appreciate credit for my little story, but you are most welcome to use it.

    As an aside, if you are really trying to find out all you can about aether, I highly recommend looking up Redbourne's General Theory of Universe Structure and Dynamics. It is posted right out on the internet, for public consumption.

    He believes he has invalidated Michelson-Morley's experiment, as well as the skewed lightwaves experiment (respectfully, of course) by pointing out finer points of wave mechanics which would not have been known at that time.

    In other words, he has pointed out the hole in the mousetrap. At least, I can find no fault with his invalidation. Perhaps one of you can challenge him on it.
  19. Kirk Gaulden Registered Senior Member

    The aether is a misunderstood event...

    The aether is an area of dynamic matter in time between inertia and gravity waves thats source is the graviton bubble known as space, try this m+uc^2/dtr_s*c+v, u is recognized by galilean
    eletrodynamics induction of propagating wavelength which extends 4D of virtual particles that resonate impulses of the casmir effect.
  20. bronzmash Guest

    Stories ... Stories .....

    <b><font color="#008000">Lovely attitude Mitchell...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. Beercules Registered Senior Member

    Ray Redbourne believes a lot of things. In my town, he is known as the local village idiot.
  22. bigjnorman Registered Senior Member

    "You want to throw away air with ether or you just ran out of breath?"

    Isn't it obvious that the eather theory is based on this flawed analogy?
  23. bronzmash Guest

    <b><font color="#008000"> No...</font></b>

Share This Page