And if you run a Google search on "ether physics" one of the top hits if not the top hit will be, "Ether Physics - Fringe Science" and Google has this idea that there are no bad ideas.., still FRINGE SCIENCE is what you get.
Does Aether Exist?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
And if you run a Google search on "ether physics" one of the top hits if not the top hit will be, "Ether Physics - Fringe Science" and Google has this idea that there are no bad ideas.., still FRINGE SCIENCE is what you get.
i think the words were aether and ether.
google search results for ether:
http://www.google.com/search?client...hp&biw=856&bih=453&q=ether&btnG=Google+Search
google search results for aether:
http://www.google.com/search?client...p&biw=856&bih=453&q=aether&btnG=Google+Search
you be the judge.
You are correct.
However, as good as Google is at anticipating your intentions, in this case since Google understands the meaning of the word "ether" in physics to be associated with "fringe science" and cannot believe that anyone in their right mind would be interested in fringe science, Google assumes your intention was to look up the chemical "ether".
Google still has some difficulty figuring out one's intentions and often requires some additional guidance.
Since this thread is in a Science forum it is not unreasonable to let Google know as much when you send forth your query.
The spellings, aether and ether are both used in science. The former being an older and somewhat archaic form of the more recent spelling "ether".
Should you need additional clarification use the advanced Google search features, to zero in on any subject of interest.
I wasn't suggesting he was. The definition of "aether" was what he needed to guess at, which JR did in his first post on this thread. I was merely asking for Jan to clarify the definition so I could respond accurately.
The subject of the thread itself was ultimately what I was trying to ascertain. Maybe i came of as a little aggressive. If that is so then i apologise to all participants.
Personal differences aside, I would be willing to discuss "aether" with Jan if he outlined what he perceives it to be. He suggests that he has a definition just by asking whether it exists and that he has always wanted to ask that question: hinting at a history of an at least passing knowledge of the subject, probably equivalent to mine.
However he has consistently resisted the temptation to clarify.
I concede your point on the capitalisation. I am always willing to back track if I am in error. It is a shame others choose not to rectify or clarify when they post.
Maybe so but that doesn't alter the main point: That this thread needs to be clarified before I can fully engage with it; hence the problem here.
I ask one final time; would Jan be willing to clarify what he means by "aether"? Then I would be very happy to participate in a constructive manner.
If the thread was called "What is aether?" would be different? But it wasn't. It was "Does aether exist?" Implying a definition was in mind - that was then not clarified in the OP. I am not attacking Jan with this. I am attacking the thread's premise. Jan could clarify. . .
I posted two links to you, both which asked the same question.
The question is legitimate, the mod sees no cause for suspicion, the thread is underway, you are definately not a mind-reader, so leave it out.
It's over man.
jan.
I had time to think and I changed my opinion.
Now I argue that there is "Aether" and Einstein made a mistake when he abolished the "Aether".
There is "Aether" whether the speed of light is invariant (with which I disagree) or not.
I rely on the fact that the speed of light does not depend on the speed of source.
Let's go step by step.
What do you think a short laser beam will hit an object that rotates the point where you "target the" or
will hit a point taking into account the distance to the object, speed of light and rotation speed of the object?
rwjefferson
Registered Senior Member
truth goes through cycles
def: pseudoscience
conclusions based on false Assumptions
planets travel around us by epicycle upon epicycle
aether is disproved
black holes are infinitely dense
space is warped
ItS
truth
ron
P.S. Have you suffered lifetime ban by science & christianity.com?
P.P.S. Have you silenced snarling dogma with a whisper of unassuming words?
P.P.P.S. I have.
O yes in deed allison wonderland
there is such a thing as an relative headwind
def: false Assumptions
even by consensus
proving aether is not luminous or static proves aether does not exist
lift is caused by the warp of fabric in verse wing making air flow faster over
gravity is caused by the warp of fabric in verse space making matter accelerate toward mass
there is no such thing as a relative headwind
syn: false witness, dogma, shame on you
drill a hole in an ice hockey rink
connect this hole to infinite negative pressure differential
what do you call the force that orbits pucks around black holes?
and holds you here on earth?
theory of everything et al.101
force is inertial pressure differential
def: aether
a highly energetic state of matter
quantum particles
syn: gravitons
def: gravity
drag in verse the relative wind
O yes in deed allison wonderland
gravity is the drag of the aether wind
ItS
truth
r~
You are welcome.
def: pseudoscience
conclusions based on false Assumptions
planets travel around us by epicycle upon epicycle
aether is disproved
black holes are infinitely dense
space is warped
ItS
truth
ron
P.S. Have you suffered lifetime ban by science & christianity.com?
P.P.S. Have you silenced snarling dogma with a whisper of unassuming words?
P.P.P.S. I have.
O yes in deed allison wonderland
there is such a thing as an relative headwind
def: false Assumptions
even by consensus
proving aether is not luminous or static proves aether does not exist
lift is caused by the warp of fabric in verse wing making air flow faster over
gravity is caused by the warp of fabric in verse space making matter accelerate toward mass
there is no such thing as a relative headwind
syn: false witness, dogma, shame on you
drill a hole in an ice hockey rink
connect this hole to infinite negative pressure differential
what do you call the force that orbits pucks around black holes?
and holds you here on earth?
theory of everything et al.101
force is inertial pressure differential
def: aether
a highly energetic state of matter
quantum particles
syn: gravitons
def: gravity
drag in verse the relative wind
O yes in deed allison wonderland
gravity is the drag of the aether wind
ItS
truth
r~
I affirm that the second version is correct, namely: "it will hit a point taking into account the distance to the object, speed of light and rotation speed of the object".
The same will happen if the target has a velocity perpendicular to the axis of the laser-target.
A short laser beam will not hit the target in the point spotted, it will hit a point taking into account the distance to the target, speed of light and the speed of the target.
It's someone different opinion or can I continue?
rwjefferson
Registered Senior Member
Einstein did not abolish aether. Einstein knew that relatively equivalent was not the same as same as. Einstein spent the rest of his life trying to reconcile gravity and aether. Too bad he and michelson&morely were looking in the wrong direction.
To measure the relative drag and vector of aether; stand on a scale and look up.
ron
rwjefferson
Registered Senior Member
please fore give
drill a hole in an ice hockey rink
connect this black hole to your strongest vacuum
what do you call the force that drags a puck toward the black hole?
I know why you can't answer my questions.
What we currently need is one less incoherent crank.
ItS
peace
r~
drill a hole in an ice hockey rink
connect this black hole to your strongest vacuum
what do you call the force that drags a puck toward the black hole?
I know why you can't answer my questions.
What we currently need is one less incoherent crank.
ItS
peace
r~
You didn't ask any questions.
Try reading what I replied to.
No. What we need is no cranks. But if we have to have cranks I'd much prefer they were coherent. Sadly, we got you.
Wikipedia,History of special relativity:
The same scenario as in the previous example except that the source has the same speed as the target.
The short laser beam will hit the target in the same place as in the previous example.
Why? Because the light is not influenced by the speed of source .
The source and target are at rest relative to each other.
Then what speed could be measured?
Is the speed relative to "Aether" which is a medium of propagation of light.
So, the "Aether" is an absolute reference system.
I will try to design a device as simple, with which can identify this absolute reference system.
Emil, this is just not true and serves only to demonstrate that Wiki is not always an accurate source of information.
Near the beginning of his 1905 paper, Einstein mentioned, "...unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium,''..." and then a bit later, "...The introduction of a "luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an "absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties,..."
Special Relativity did not discard the ether it just demonstrated that a stationary ether was not required to explain experience and observed phenomena.
Though there is some controversy about the issue, within the context of General Relativity Einstein's description of space could be considered to be indistinguishable from a relativistic ether. In his 1920 Leyden address, he essentially redefines ether such that it is indistinguishable from the space of GR.
It is true that many people today read SR as debunking the ether, that just was not and is not the case.
Edit: I believe Einstein's 1920 address is often also misunderstood. I believe that Einstein thought of the indistinguishable difference discussed as, "space", rather than as ether. It is important to remember, that this was only five years after he first published GR and most of the people he was addressing were still educated in the existence of "an ether" model.
Last edited:
. . . the aether, if it truly exists (which I believe, it does . . . but not as we try to envision it!) . . . is of a 'fineness' (. . e.g., Planck lengths) that it does NOT interact with anything . . . matter, or even photons . . re: MM experiment failure). It (Aether) may be equivalent to the QGP (Quark-Gluon Plasma) . . .from whence all matter has evolved (and is continuing to evolve with expansion of the material universe).
Last edited:
Mathematical models, such as string theory, do not have to prove that strings exists, but can leave that open for another day. The value of this theory is more in the math simulation of reality, instead of the proven reality of the strings.
I don't have a problem letting the aether have the same liberty. If one can form a good math model, with this hard to prove assumption, then it would be a dual standard to only allow some theories to gain suppoprt, using an unproven foundation premise, while not letting everyone do it. A dual standard in science would degrade science.
One possible way to model the aether is to place the aether in the C reference. It is not our reference that matters, when it comes to the aether, but rather we need to think of the aether in terms of its native C reference.
If we had a point moving at C, the point would see itself as a point. It would also see the entire universe pulled into its point reference self, due to relativity at C. What that translates to our reference is, it would exist everywhere in the universe at the same time, touching every point in the universe at the same time.
The aether is not a finite concept and can't be defined in terms of a locus of points in finite space. What you would get if you tried to measure the aether that way is only find is a fraction of the aether point, and there is no such thing as a fraction of a point; paradox.
I don't have a problem letting the aether have the same liberty. If one can form a good math model, with this hard to prove assumption, then it would be a dual standard to only allow some theories to gain suppoprt, using an unproven foundation premise, while not letting everyone do it. A dual standard in science would degrade science.
One possible way to model the aether is to place the aether in the C reference. It is not our reference that matters, when it comes to the aether, but rather we need to think of the aether in terms of its native C reference.
If we had a point moving at C, the point would see itself as a point. It would also see the entire universe pulled into its point reference self, due to relativity at C. What that translates to our reference is, it would exist everywhere in the universe at the same time, touching every point in the universe at the same time.
The aether is not a finite concept and can't be defined in terms of a locus of points in finite space. What you would get if you tried to measure the aether that way is only find is a fraction of the aether point, and there is no such thing as a fraction of a point; paradox.
I do not know what to say.
The existence of "Aether" as an absolute reference system, where can determine an object's speed (relative to light), contradicts the SR.
I never talked about GR, which I consider a model for particles reliable.
Sometimes when you don't know what to say, it is better to say nothing.
While that would be technically true, Einstein never went there. He stopped at the quote I used earlier, which for clarity I will now paraphrase, Special Relativity -will not require an "absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties- to explain electromagnetic phenomena and the relative motion of physical objects. Note Einstein only said that the ether would not be required to explain things. He did not say it did not or could not exist.
Perhaps, the last part of the post was not directed at you as much as it was intended to head off some misinterpretation of my previous statements.
P.S. You don't need to go into some great discussion of your beliefs in any attempt to convince me. I was here only correcting a historical reading of what it seems to me that Einstein was saying, since he is no longer around to defend his own position.
Last edited:
- Status