Yes, if you want to hit a point on the sun, that you see, you have to calculate where it will be the point after 16 minutes.
Does Aether Exist?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
Aether likely DOES interact . . . . with stuff on the order of Planck length (e.g., gluons. quarks. strings?) . . . and possible other 'stuff' that is too small to interact with 'matter' detectors - which is all we have at this point in our technology . . . I'd hypothesize that 'aetheral' (~ Planck length) components (see e.g., above) would possibly express some detectable 'interaction' via harmonics of higher octaves of vibration . . . . . someone needs to develop a 'magnetic resonance detector' (my conceptual term - don't think they're around yet!) to 'see' this stuff - may be woo-woo at this point in time?
No you would need a warp drive to go faster than c and everyone knows those things are much larger than the plank scale...
rwjefferson
Registered Senior Member
gravity is the drag of the aether wind
aether consists wimpy quantum particles
interactive means matter is subject to inertial pressure differential
massive means matter is subject to gravity
dark means aether is not easily observed
m&m and einstein were looking in the wrong dimension to measure the relative aether wind
aether flows toward ground
to measure the relative aether wind; stand on a scale and look up
observations not consistent with warp as the same as force
airplanes fly upside down
the spin of galaxies
the expansion of the universe
'dark' matter constitutes ~80% (give or take) of mass
the 'anomalous' drag on spacecraft
the large hadron "might" be a myth
neutrinos "might" have broken the light speed barrier
observations consistent with the aether wind
the casmir effect
van der waals effect
the spin of galaxies
the expansion of the universe
the drag on spacecraft
'hard to see' matter
the large hadron is a myth
neutrinos can break the light speed barrier
gravity [/u]
Try reading what I wrote with an open mind.
insult and hostility and ignorance does not disprove aether
in the spirit of peace
ron
aether consists wimpy quantum particles
interactive means matter is subject to inertial pressure differential
massive means matter is subject to gravity
dark means aether is not easily observed
m&m and einstein were looking in the wrong dimension to measure the relative aether wind
aether flows toward ground
to measure the relative aether wind; stand on a scale and look up
observations not consistent with warp as the same as force
airplanes fly upside down
the spin of galaxies
the expansion of the universe
'dark' matter constitutes ~80% (give or take) of mass
the 'anomalous' drag on spacecraft
the large hadron "might" be a myth
neutrinos "might" have broken the light speed barrier
observations consistent with the aether wind
the casmir effect
van der waals effect
the spin of galaxies
the expansion of the universe
the drag on spacecraft
'hard to see' matter
the large hadron is a myth
neutrinos can break the light speed barrier
gravity [/u]
Try reading what I wrote with an open mind.
insult and hostility and ignorance does not disprove aether
in the spirit of peace
ron
You mean "assume you were asking questions when you were making statements"?
Yeah. Neither do unsupported assertions prove it. Or inane drivel.
rwjefferson
Registered Senior Member
[post=29]
[post=87]
Yeah. I mean false assertions based on false assumptions are the same as unsupported statements.
Yeah. I mean false assertions and false statements are the same as false witness.
Yeah. I mean "drop the puck up; answer my simple question".
q. What do you call the force that drags pucks and you toward black holes?
a. ignorance
b. inertial pressure differential
c. shape
d. write in your best assertion.
+. extra credit
Support your assertion with a kind and well reasoned response that even an elementary student of physics might better understand.
unsupported assertions
the shape of the wing is the force that lifts bumblebees and birds and planes
the shape of space is the force that drags pucks and you toward black holes
black holes are close to infinitely dense
aether is disproved by looking in the wrong direction
ItS
truth
r~
[post=87]
Yeah. I mean false assertions based on false assumptions are the same as unsupported statements.
Yeah. I mean false assertions and false statements are the same as false witness.
Yeah. I mean "drop the puck up; answer my simple question".
q. What do you call the force that drags pucks and you toward black holes?
a. ignorance
b. inertial pressure differential
c. shape
d. write in your best assertion.
+. extra credit
Support your assertion with a kind and well reasoned response that even an elementary student of physics might better understand.
unsupported assertions
the shape of the wing is the force that lifts bumblebees and birds and planes
the shape of space is the force that drags pucks and you toward black holes
black holes are close to infinitely dense
aether is disproved by looking in the wrong direction
ItS
truth
r~
Unfortunately, yes.I mean, is anybody really that :bugeye
And they all seem to turn up here at some point.
We should really take for granted that the Aether exists, and then we should go about finding it. Currently there are searches for Higgs Boson, and Dark Matter, and scientists talk about Gravitons, and Space Time. I don't understand why science accepts some claims, and completely ignores others. The Aether has the best evidence of all of the things in this list. It shows up, but nobody is looking for it. A few years ago, science found a way to find exo-planets using the change of brightness of stars as exo-planets passed in front of them. It is approaches like this that will find the Aether. New ideas, and new approaches. Now, I have been making Aether computer simulations, and what they show is that the Aether is evident in characteristics that science isn't thinking about. The Aether is a spherical stacking system of particles, and once you realise that, you can look for the stacking patterns. Spherical stacking patterns are the same as an exo-planet passing in front of a sun. The Aether becomes visible when you know how to look for it. The visibility can be found in natural fractals. You can ask.. "Why are there so many hexagon shaped fractals in nature?" You can find the exo-planet in front of a sun, by looking at hands, feet, limbs, snowflakes, tomatoes, crystal formations, Bose Einstein condensates, magnetism, single layer atomic structures. These are all spherical stacking results. In a spherical stacking system you can get 12 sphere around a single sphere. You get 6 sphere around a central sphere in 2D. Gravity shapes the 3D pressure into 2D pressure, because Gravity happens in the Y. In 2D pressure on a spherical stacking system you force the Aether to move into the Areas of least resistance. So what you end up with is hexagonal releases of pressure. Hands, feet, snowflakes, tomatoes, fish, dogs, cats. Then after studying that, you learn that entropy is reducing those results to smaller shapes that finish of the fractals as trees, plants, roots, scales on fish, finger nails, and hair.
You will not understand how these shapes come about for a long time. First you have to understand the Aether, then it is easy to move on to hexagon fractals, moving forward to entropy is a harder route.
But I can see the Aether, because I can see the exo-planet moving in front of a sun.
You will not understand how these shapes come about for a long time. First you have to understand the Aether, then it is easy to move on to hexagon fractals, moving forward to entropy is a harder route.
But I can see the Aether, because I can see the exo-planet moving in front of a sun.
They've been trying for over 100 years, with lasers, masers, particle accelerators, interferometers etc. Literally hundreds of experiments with every known model of propagation.
Every single such experiment has failed.
You can see the exo-planets because of the laws of physics - and there's no ether (aether) embodied there.
The shape of a wing helps create lift, yes. That's easily provable in a wind tunnel.
There is no "shape of space" in the literal sense. You can visualize it that way if you like.
Black holes have no density when observed from the outside; they are singularities. The objects that make them up, when observed outside a singularity, are very dense.
Aether is disproved because the definition of it (i.e. there is a single frame/fluid/reference that everything propagates through) implies behaviors of the universe that we can prove do not exist. It's like claiming "the speed of light is 500mph because I have never gone faster!" That one is easy to disprove.
Now, you can come up with some new definition of "aether" and try to prove _it_ - but again people have been doing that for over a hundred years now.
Well my theory predicted the Aether before I had even heard of it, it predicted a bubble a round the galaxy in 2004, I predicted that the bubbles were blow from Black Holes in 2005. I predicted Dark Flow in 2005, and it predicted that Voyager would find bubbles. It predicted many other things, about 20 in all. So far my theory hasn't been wrong once. Being as all of the other finds were based on a pushing gravity created from a particle which I later discovered was called the Aether. I think that I can't be wrong about this major link.
The interferometer experiments like the M&M experiment were not designed to detect the ether. They were designed to detect the motion of the Earth through the aether as defined by Lorentz and Maxwell. The results did not disprove anything, they were null results.., meaning they did not detect what they were intended to detect, the motion of the Earth through the aether.
While it is, and I will go out on a limb here, certain that an aether or ether defined as Maxwell and/or Lorentz believed it to be, does not exist, there is no proof of any sort that there is no ether of any description.
There are current theoretical discussions that do incorporate an ether. Generally with some relativistic properties. I am unaware of any that are completely consistent with general relativity, but that may be more an artifact of assumptions than anything else.
Having made the above argument I must add that I have no confidence in the any of the ether models presented within this thread. There are some interesting fragments of concept within a few, while as a whole none seems to rise to any level consistent with experience and observation.
I am attracted to some of the potential an ether model may suggest for a unified theory. I am not convinced that if an ether does exist we will ever be able to detect it directly, just as we cannot directly detect "space".
Neither SR or GR disproves or displaces the possibility of an ether. They just don't require an ether to describe experience and observation.
Agreed.
You just contradicted yourself. They WERE designed to detect the motion of the Earth through the Aether (specifically the Luminiferous Aether, the medium that light supposedly propagated in.) The results did in fact prove that such an aether did not exist.
You can certainly postulate more aethers. For example, you could postulate that a more subtle aether exists that cannot influence matter or energy in this universe. But that's a different proposition, and it's confusing to use the same word for both concepts.
We do detect it directly already. Gravity, magnetism, particle wave duality. The Unified theory just means.. realise that we already detect it, then realise how often we detect it, and then realise what this means, what we can predict with our current detections of it?
Then detect anti-aether, which is much more important. what is anti-aether? To make bubbles you need two opposing properties, which the Aether has.
I think here you misunderstand the meaning of null results. Null results do not prove anything apart from the fact that the experiment did not detect what it was intended to detect. A null result is a comment on the effectiveness of the experiment. In this case all it says is that the experiment did not work.
Now as I said, it is.., and this time no limb climbing.., certainly true that the rigidly fixed luminiferous ether does not exist. That is not the result of interferometer experiments. It is in agreement with the greater experience and observational data we have now that we did not always have. "A rigidly fixed luminiferous ether is not consistent with general relativity", and general relativity has proven itself, to be our best approximation of "experience and observation", so far!
- Status