Ethertheory

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

  1. Mitchell Hein Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    After having read every message in this thread, I must admit, I am disappointed. I don’t see much discussion or sharing of ideas, but I do see a lot of name-calling. An entire body of work is dismissed out-of-hand with the phrases, “quack”, “crackpot”, or “idiot” (whether the village or fucking kind). Opinions are offered, but without any backup or basis of fact.

    I am glad that all of you are devoting time and brainpower to a worthy endeavor, however, bear in mind that you are discussing theory which cannot be proven or disproven. Regardless of the claims of “billionths” of a degree of accuracy, I encourage you to show me a “photon”, or a vial of aether for that matter. You can’t. It is the duty of people with “scientific minds” to keep an open mind… discounting nothing, and not making conclusions without incontrovertible evidence.

    I would have you consider this… The “spherical world” theorists were gaining in popularity throughout the 1400s, however, there were a determined bunch of “flat-worlders” still in existence. When Columbus sailed west for “India” on his famous expedition in 1492, and found the Americas instead of India, the “flat-world” theorists had a major revival. The “spherical world” theorists were considered “crackpots”, and “flat-world” theory was once again in the spotlight. It wasn’t until Magellan’s voyage ended in 1522 that the debate once again started up.

    Once in a while, science is proven to have taken a step in the wrong direction, for perfectly logical reasons. Usually, this happens when something is beyond our measuring capabilities. Mankind once thought itself at the center of the whole universe, but that doesn’t make it so. We would do best to remember our history…

    As far as aether, and whether science should consider it, it seems to me to be an open door. The idea that light is comprised of “particles” which have momentum, but no mass (I know you’ve heard this, but isn’t the equation for momentum equal to mass times velocity?), and can show doppler-like effects because they can supposedly stretch themselves should open a number of questions. If light looks like a wave, and behaves like a wave, then chances are that it IS a wave, and we have merely failed to detect its modus operandi. It was RIGHT of the scientific community to go down the photonic particle path, to see where it would lead, but it has created new “accepted theory” which makes “Star Trek” look like NASA.

    One only needs to look at how these theories have to twist our perceived view of the universe to see how suspect they are. When Quantum mechanics and Relativity didn’t fit, they tried still harder to imbue light particles with “wave-like” properties by giving matter the resonance and the expandability of “strings”. All properties that waves have, but particles don’t.

    All of these odd theories have been created NOT because anyone has ever denied that light was (or at least acted exactly like) a wave, but because humans couldn’t detect it’s medium.

    Finally, on to my original question…

    Redbourne (quack or not) declares that Michelson-Morley, and similar experiments since that time could NOT have detected any aether motion, due to the compression and expansion properties of waves, as they flow through a moving medium. The thought is that any difference in wave velocity on a 180 degree folded path, would be compensated for by compression and expansion of the light waves, which would result in a null phase shift at the detector.

    Bottom line (according to this line of thinking), is that you can’t detect aether motion if your light source and detector are in relative synchronicity. Much like looking through a water filled aquarium. I can point at you, and you can point at me, and we both believe that we are pointing at each other, but if you take away the aquarium, we actually weren’t. (and yes, I know that’s refraction, and not compression…it’s just an analogy).

    Can anyone point out flaws with the idea that the compression and expansion of light waves in a flowing medium would null the phase shift that M-M hoped to detect?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Perhaps it is just the fact that I have been awake for way too long already... and my incapability to detect irony at this time... But did you just critize the photon idea and say "p = mv" at the same time as an argument pro photonmass ?

    Anyway, it is time to clear out one misconception: a photon is not a particle. It is a quantummechanical entity which describes a quantum of electromagnetic radiation. It is neither a particle or a wave, as photons exhibit properties of both (the conventional way would be to say that a photon is both, a reference to the wave-particle duality of quantummechanics).

    The idea is mathematically perfectly rigoureous, and I can assure you that it is not related to Star Trek... or NASA for that matter

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Well, if they are not in relative synchronity (whatever that means, I assume that you mean that they do not move with respect to eachother), then you'll surely detect interference. But this does not indicate the presence of aether, but the presence of the lab newbie messing around with the measurement device

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    In the MM experiment a light beam is split through 90 degrees, bounced off mirrors then recombined. It is not possible for any substance to flow in one direction and at right angles to itself at the same time. Hence the experiment should measure motion in one direction at least.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. bigjnorman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    I am pro-particle on this issue and think that the quantum nature of photons trick us into thinking that they are waves (eg: sum over histories) and therefore must have a medium to be propagated (eg: ether). but I just don't believe this to be true
     
  8. Zarkov Banned Banned

    Messages:
    657
    Variant Inertial (invarient) ether

    >> So unless the hypothetical aether is absolutely motionless, it becomes irrelevent in terms of absolutes in cosmology?

    In Electromagnetic Spin Gravity Theory, the spin of the field is isotrophic, inertial, for each spin system (invariant). However each spin system is different (variant).

    This also explains red shifting from galaxies, since a path is mapped as a series of curves through space.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. thed IT Gopher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Re: Variant Inertial (invarient) ether

    So what you are saying is that it is an invariantly variant isophotic spin system for each spinor that is mapped between abelian groups of order 2. Red shift is is a sum of histories obeying second order perturbative techniques.

    Also, Mr. Ed was a Zebra. I read it on Snopes, it must be true.
     
  10. bigjnorman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    Re: Re: Variant Inertial (invarient) ether

    aaaaahhhhh.......I see
    I think i'm catching on to the EM spin thing !
     
  11. Nico Benschop Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    (-->) Indeed, and in fact Hubble - in his 1931 paper with Humason - warned in a footnote that his 'Doppler' view of the Redshift was just an assumption, for the time being, and that it could well be caused by a 'tired light' (or a 'foton-decay') process, proportional to traveled distance (versus proportional to speed).
    He admitted that the properties of intergalactic space were just not well known at all, at that time (or are they now? : e.g. can a parellax measurement of the DISTANCE to far star with redshifted spectrum be done with any sufficient accuracy ?-)

    By the way, congratulations on thecharming farmer/mouse story. I actually thought his neighbour's name was Zweistein , who showed that there is no 'air' for sound to propagate in, after accurate sound-propagation speed measurements in three orthogonal directions, while in a riding closed train compartment without windows -- which of course he did not know at the time;-)
    see http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/ether.htm

    For a math approach, via Maxwell E/M eqns *with* damping coefficient in a dissipative medium (you may call it 'aether' or 'ether' or 'cosmic soup' if you like) see Mike Lewis on Foton Decay theory (hypothesis;-) at
    http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop

    He derives a foton half-time of 1/(h.c^2) sec, which is about 6.5 billion years (nasty idea: does an electron or proton have a finite lifetime ? Yakh . . . ) Of course, if one - as a real scientist - disavows any 'perpetuum mobile' , then one equally strongly despises the idea of a foton (cq. light) travelling for bilions of years *without* any loss of energy (detect some irony ?-)

    Oh well, as many a farmer will agree, it is all human psychology man !! Since when do vested intersts NOT have an enormous inertia ?!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/inertia.htm

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    PS: The Redshift is a VERY weak effect, and was detected some 20 years AFTER Einstein's great theory..... Even E himself gave 'space' some specific deformation properties (but do keep calling it Vacuum, please... since it is PURE : dissipation is for farmers and engineers, not for real scientists ;-)

    NB, Ciao (and keep it simple, said Occam while shaving himself...)
     

Share This Page