ether <> ether MacM, Do you agree, we tell about two kinds of ether? 1.ether of experiment Michelson-Morley. This ether doesn't exist. 2.ether of some other cases. This ether exists, but it is not the first kind. Emil
Ether Emil Smejkal, I don't know that we can say the MMX ether didn't exist. It may be properties of the ether that masked the test. but I think certainly there must be some form of ether (meaning a physical fabric to space.
ether : ether MacM, if existence of ether is depending of some unknown factor, we can to seek cases with meaningfull difference. The first is MMX, I think. What can be the second one? Emil
MacM, Emil, Why should there be a "physical fabric to space" (or better: spacetime) ? Is there something that makes you feel more comfortable with if aether came into the picture ? Personally, I see no need for it. As you pointed out, if aether exists, it seems to be very good at hiding itself from our experiments. Even from an historical point of view (where at first people thought a medium was needed for electromagnetic propagation, but this did not turn out to be a requirement) I see no need for it. Or do you just like it because it is against common science ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Bye! Crisp
ether - ether Crisp, If you see MM experiment as swanlike song of ether, my opinion is near. But inside atom there is other environment, I think. OK? Emil
A dumb question from a layman, but why could ether, aether, zero point energy, the fabric of space, etc., not be simply gravity waves? Yes, I know they are not proven to exist either.
Canute, 2inquisitive, which is your view to MM experiment? Is it about gravity waves? What about conclusion? Emil
I don't find the results of the MM experiment very helpful. It was based on a particular concept of the ether, and there are other concepts. (e.g. perhaps the ether is stationary relative to the Earth, as a Christian might assume). As far as we know the Earth might be stationary and the orbits of the planets best explained by Ptolemaic circles on circles. Seems unlikely but reality's a strange place.
Sorry, I am just a layman, not a physicist and I have not read the MM experiment. I have read some recent papers on gravity at very close distances. Gravity, of course, is a weak force at a distance, but the papers claimed to have found it to be strong force at very close distances. I thought that might help explain the Casimir force, often used to try to validate zero point energy. I just put it all together and the possible connection was raised in my layman's mind.
Why ether? Canute, "ether - simply gravity waves?" Gravity is similar to electrostatic field, not to electromagnetic field. Light has wave lenght in submicron area. Gravity has not even wave lenght; it is not wave. Why can gravity to represent our ether? Emil
Ether Canute, It has more to putting substance behind current theory, including Relativity, than it does oppose anything. You say we don't need it and to a limited degree, I agree but I also believe its absence (or some other physical cause concept) allows to much mathematical conjecture. That is extrapolation of purely mathematical concepts to extremes that most likely don't exist. Such as "Infinite Mass", "Singularities", v = c limit, etc. A perfect example of why an ether (or other physically based concept) is important is that of time dilation. My view of the universe is that time is a property of the 3D's and not an independant enity or 4th dimension. What we currently do is devise a clock (a process) and because it changes with velocity we claim time has changed but in reality no clock measures time they are all processes. Likewise if I assume the evaporation rate of water from a pan is time but then heat the pan I increase the vaporation rate but I have only altered a process by external enfluence, I have not altered nor measured time itself. Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
ether is something to believe only MacM, I read your words for Canute, and I enjoy it. "I agree but I also believe its absence". I hope, I think the same. I believe it. Term ether is subject of believe. Each of us has own reason, for it. Is it beatifull, or bad? Emil
Yep Emil, You are correct, at least until there is further discovery or evidence. It is a matter of choice and what best works for the individual. But that doesn't alter the fact that I am right.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Macm, I wish to ask you something. It is the two steps from ether, I apologize. Do you read D. Halliday (and comp), Physics, 2001 or so? I red it, and it is very good, I thing. Nevertheless, some mistakes are also here. Do you agree? Emil
Reading Emil Smejkal, No, I'm not familiar with it. do you have a link? 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, provided "Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.", I could write about book, which contents not only words, but numeric examples also. Result 29MHz, or 100MHz; "that is the question". Or 3C9, shift spectral line: classically, v is higher then c, or not? If Halliday "is absent", what about Feynman, Cal inst of technology 1963? Can you have it? I have translation only, but it can be quite enough. I'm afraid, it is similar to one joke. Asylum, two Napoleons, three scientists. Talking jokes. Only numbers of their jokes. Seven! Laughing! Two! Laughing! Newcomer says: Four! Without laughing. "Why?" "You don't know pass it!" I wish, to mail only "numbers". Will be follow "Laughing?" (Can you correct my grammar, and explain it, as the case may be?) Emil
Emil Smejkal, Sorry, I'm afraid you lost me on this one.:bugeye: Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe will make you a genius.
