Notices
Results 1 to 42 of 42

Thread: Waveman's ether

  1. #1 Re: Does Michelson & Morley really rule out an Aether? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Bottom line -- special relativity works and is supported by a mountain of experimental evidence. There is no need to replace it, certainly not with something that is either wrong or that is equivalent but more complicated on the surface.
    A. Ether theory is not "wrong".
    B. Ether theory is not more complicated.

    Ether theory postulates that objects themselves physically contract as they move. This is much simpler than special relativity because it does not assume the existence of "space time" who's existence has never been proven. We obviously know that physical objects exist, so it makes much more sense to speak of their contraction, rather than some "space time" entity which at this stage is nothing more than a human fabrication.


    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Does Michelson & Morley really rule out an Aether? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Anyway, as DrRocket said, Aether might exist, but it'd be in the same way that there might be an invisible, intangible leprechaun in the room with you. It basically doesn't do anything, so there's no reason to assume it exists.
    You could say the same thing about space time. There is no reason to assume it exists either. In reality though, there is a reason to postulate an Ether, because it can explain phenomena in a consistent and logical way, something a lot of people are ignorant of.


    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Does Michelson & Morley really rule out an Aether? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    You could say the same thing about space time. There is no reason to assume it exists either. In reality though, there is a reason to postulate an Ether, because it can explain phenomena in a consistent and logical way, something a lot of people are ignorant of.
    As usual you have it backwards.

    There is no reason to postulate an Ether precisely because there is a logical and consistent formulation of physics that requires no Ether -- that formulation is called special relativity and it is supported by a veritable mountain of experimental evidence in addition to an elegant mathematical model.

    In short, you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Does Michelson & Morley really rule out an Aether? 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Anyway, as DrRocket said, Aether might exist, but it'd be in the same way that there might be an invisible, intangible leprechaun in the room with you. It basically doesn't do anything, so there's no reason to assume it exists.
    You could say the same thing about space time. There is no reason to assume it exists either. In reality though, there is a reason to postulate an Ether, because it can explain phenomena in a consistent and logical way, something a lot of people are ignorant of.
    I think you must have a different definition of "consistent" and "logical"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Does Michelson & Morley really rule out an Aether? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As usual you have it backwards.

    There is no reason to postulate an Ether precisely because there is a logical and consistent formulation of physics that requires no Ether -- that formulation is called special relativity and it is supported by a veritable mountain of experimental evidence in addition to an elegant mathematical model.

    In short, you have no idea what you are talking about.
    That same veritable mountain of evidence which supports Special Relativity also supports Ether Theory. The fact that SR does not require an Ether is also irrelevant, because the same thing can be said about Ether theory: it doesn't require space time. The Ether theory however, is promised to a much greater future than SR, because it can explain and unify other areas in science, where as space time explains nothing else. You are the one who does not know what your talking about, because your arguments are invalid.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Does Michelson & Morley really rule out an Aether? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As usual you have it backwards.

    There is no reason to postulate an Ether precisely because there is a logical and consistent formulation of physics that requires no Ether -- that formulation is called special relativity and it is supported by a veritable mountain of experimental evidence in addition to an elegant mathematical model.

    In short, you have no idea what you are talking about.
    That same veritable mountain of evidence which supports Special Relativity also supports Ether Theory. The fact that SR does not require an Ether is also irrelevant, because the same thing can be said about Ether theory: it doesn't require space time. The Ether theory however, is promised to a much greater future than SR, because it can explain and unify other areas in science, where as space time explains nothing else. You are the one who does not know what your talking about, because your arguments are invalid.
    Nope.

    If by the "Ether theory" you mean the Lorentz Ether Theory, then it not only includes a spacetime, it in fact is the same spacetime as special relativity.

    However, the full power of spacetime only comes about in general relativity and the spacetime of special relativity is really the tangent space to the full Lorentzian manifold of general relativity.

    If by the "Ether theory" you mean something other than the Lorentz Ether Theory, and you probably do mean something else, although it is quite clear that you don't really kinow what you mean, then whether it excludes a spacetime is quite irrelevant since the theory is completely bogus.

    My arguments are only iinvalid to someone who has no understanding of physics or capability to understand basic logic. You do seem to qualify.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: well 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    The problem here is pretty simple. Everything works without a medium and everything works the same way with a medium, so why bother assuming a medium exists? It just adds extra stuff without improving anything.
    Please, that is such a bad way way of thinking.

    As a very crude example, what you are saying is akin to looking out into the ocean and saying: "There is no such thing as water, just waves", "When all we see is waves moving up and down, why bother assuming those waves are in a medium? Doing so will just make things more complicated".

    Face it, every wave needs a medium. It is unthinkable to even suggest that they dont.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: well 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    The problem here is pretty simple. Everything works without a medium and everything works the same way with a medium, so why bother assuming a medium exists? It just adds extra stuff without improving anything.
    Please, that is such a bad way way of thinking.

    As a very crude example, what you are saying is akin to looking out into the ocean and saying: "There is no such thing as water, just waves", "When all we see is waves moving up and down, why bother assuming those waves are in a medium? Doing so will just make things more complicated".

    Face it, every wave needs a medium. It is unthinkable to even suggest that they dont.
    This is just absurd.

    I realize that you find many things, virtually everything in fact, unthinkable. Try thinking sometime. You might like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: well 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    The problem here is pretty simple. Everything works without a medium and everything works the same way with a medium, so why bother assuming a medium exists? It just adds extra stuff without improving anything.
    Please, that is such a bad way way of thinking.

    As a very crude example, what you are saying is akin to looking out into the ocean and saying: "There is no such thing as water, just waves", "When all we see is waves moving up and down, why bother assuming those waves are in a medium? Doing so will just make things more complicated".

    Face it, every wave needs a medium. It is unthinkable to even suggest that they dont.
    Sure, that'd make perfect sense, if I stuck my hand in it and didn't feel anything different under the surface. As I can pick the water up and measure it, the "no water" model is no longer in agreement with observation, even if it might be simpler.

    In the ether/no ether case, there are no measurable differences, so it's valid to say that it has no reason to exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: well 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Sure, that'd make perfect sense, if I stuck my hand in it and didn't feel anything different under the surface. As I can pick the water up and measure it, the "no water" model is no longer in agreement with observation, even if it might be simpler.

    In the ether/no ether case, there are no measurable differences, so it's valid to say that it has no reason to exist.
    You could argue that the waves are just changing location. There is no water, just waves that are now being measured in some way. However, this is just wrong. So with light and matter waves, you need a medium. Otherwise, what is waving? So lets make things extremely simple and answer this for me: In the case of light and matter waves, what is waving? It cant be nothing, because nothing cant do anything, which in turn means it isn't waving. Its just plain logic.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: well 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Sure, that'd make perfect sense, if I stuck my hand in it and didn't feel anything different under the surface. As I can pick the water up and measure it, the "no water" model is no longer in agreement with observation, even if it might be simpler.

    In the ether/no ether case, there are no measurable differences, so it's valid to say that it has no reason to exist.
    You could argue that the waves are just changing location. There is no water, just waves that are now being measured in some way. However, this is just wrong. So with light and matter waves, you need a medium. Otherwise, what is waving? So lets make things extremely simple and answer this for me: In the case of light and matter waves, what is waving? It cant be nothing, because nothing cant do anything, which in turn means it isn't waving. Its just plain logic.
    You are once again trying to apply macroscopic intuition to something that is only similar in vague ways apart from the name. The waves of quantum mechanics are not the same as waves of water. (BTW, in water, the waves do not move the water, despite moving themselves, so even that is not as simple as it appears. Ok, the particles of water move, but only in small circles. They don't go anywhere.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: well 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster

    You are once again trying to apply macroscopic intuition to something that is only similar in vague ways apart from the name.
    You are giving Waveman WAY too much credit.

    It is abundantly clear that he has not idea whatever what he is trying to do other than promote some ill-defined notion in the hope for self-aggrandizement.

    If you ever do succeed in reasoning with and converting to logic any delusional nut case, I would like to hear of it -- it will be a first. I do admire your tenacity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I enjoy a good argument every now and then. Also, I hold out hope that some of these people really are just confused and can be made to see reason with careful enough arguments. (You're right though. It'd be a first, I think.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    The biggest difference in the logic here is Occam's Razor. There is no logical need for a medium, as it requires additional assumptions to be made about space that we have no observation to support since both medium and no medium are equally supported, the razor will favor no medium, because a medium requires extra information that we simply have no reason to believe.
    Occam's Razor can not be used to support space-time in this case, if anything, it should actually be used to support the Ether. The Ether does not require additional assumptions about space, it requires substitutional assumptions. In explaining relativity, instead of behaving like space-time, it behaves in a different way. Just because it is different doesn't mean it is more complicated. In fact (as I mentioned earlier), the Ether is simpler, because it can unify and explain other areas of science where as space time cannot, and additional whole theories are required to explain those phenomena. Look at the big picture, not just relativity, because an Ether can explain much more than just that.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    The biggest difference in the logic here is Occam's Razor. There is no logical need for a medium, as it requires additional assumptions to be made about space that we have no observation to support since both medium and no medium are equally supported, the razor will favor no medium, because a medium requires extra information that we simply have no reason to believe.
    Occam's Razor can not be used to support space-time in this case, if anything, it should actually be used to support the Ether. The Ether does not require additional assumptions about space, it requires substitutional assumptions. In explaining relativity, instead of behaving like space-time, it behaves in a different way. Just because it is different doesn't mean it is more complicated. In fact (as I mentioned earlier), the Ether is simpler, because it can unify and explain other areas of science where as space time cannot, and additional whole theories are required to explain those phenomena. Look at the big picture, not just relativity, because an Ether can explain much more than just that.
    What observable properties does this ether have that are different from space-time?

    Also, the way you talk about it, I don't think you actually understand what space-time is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    The biggest difference in the logic here is Occam's Razor. There is no logical need for a medium, as it requires additional assumptions to be made about space that we have no observation to support since both medium and no medium are equally supported, the razor will favor no medium, because a medium requires extra information that we simply have no reason to believe.
    Occam's Razor can not be used to support space-time in this case, if anything, it should actually be used to support the Ether. The Ether does not require additional assumptions about space, it requires substitutional assumptions. In explaining relativity, instead of behaving like space-time, it behaves in a different way. Just because it is different doesn't mean it is more complicated. In fact (as I mentioned earlier), the Ether is simpler, because it can unify and explain other areas of science where as space time cannot, and additional whole theories are required to explain those phenomena. Look at the big picture, not just relativity, because an Ether can explain much more than just that.
    What observable properties does this ether have that are different from space-time?

    Also, the way you talk about it, I don't think you actually understand what space-time is.
    Bolded and quoted for emphasis.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    The biggest difference in the logic here is Occam's Razor. There is no logical need for a medium, as it requires additional assumptions to be made about space that we have no observation to support since both medium and no medium are equally supported, the razor will favor no medium, because a medium requires extra information that we simply have no reason to believe.
    Occam's Razor can not be used to support space-time in this case, if anything, it should actually be used to support the Ether. The Ether does not require additional assumptions about space, it requires substitutional assumptions. In explaining relativity, instead of behaving like space-time, it behaves in a different way. Just because it is different doesn't mean it is more complicated. In fact (as I mentioned earlier), the Ether is simpler, because it can unify and explain other areas of science where as space time cannot, and additional whole theories are required to explain those phenomena. Look at the big picture, not just relativity, because an Ether can explain much more than just that.
    What observable properties does this ether have that are different from space-time?
    That's exactly the issue: there is no difference.

    Also, the way you talk about it, I don't think you actually understand what space-time is.
    space-time is not too difficult to understand, but invoking it involves assumptions about reality that are no less exceptional or unobservable than the Aether assumption. Allowing light to retain its wavelike nature allows us to more easily make comparisons between QM and GR, which all by itself seems like a good reason to tentatively allow it.

    It just doesn't make sense to me to reject an observational device, especially when it's unlikely that any observations made through that device will ever contradict standing theories. I think competition between tools is a good thing, even if one seems to have a clear advantage over the other.

    It's like if an auto-mechanic decided to carry only wrenches in their toolbox, but no screw drivers,.... because they had determined that wrenches were called for more often.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    What observable properties does this ether have that are different from space-time?
    The difference between the Ether and space-time is that the Ether actually is observable because it is a physically existing entity, where as space-time is not. The properties of the Ether can also be applied to understand everything. In other words, all observable phenomena can be understood in terms of the Ether's properties and all equations that explain and describe reality can be derived from the properties of the Ether, which are purely fundamental. Space-time does not have this universal ability, which is the main difference between the two, which is certainly a huge and unavoidable one.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    What observable properties does this ether have that are different from space-time?
    The difference between the Ether and space-time is that the Ether actually is observable because it is a physically existing entity, where as space-time is not. The properties of the Ether can also be applied to understand everything. In other words, all observable phenomena can be understood in terms of the Ether's properties and all equations that explain and describe reality can be derived from the properties of the Ether, which are purely fundamental. Space-time does not have this universal ability, which is the main difference between the two, which is certainly a huge and unavoidable one.
    If this were not the total rubbish that it is, then you would be able to clearly specify the properties of that "physical entity: -- density, viscosity, etc. But, of course, you cannot.

    please,as you claim to be able to do, present a derivation of "all equations that explain and describe reality" starting from the properties of the Ether. Can't do it,can you ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    ... the properties of the Ether ...
    Which are?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    If this were not the total rubbish that it is, then you would be able to clearly specify the properties of that "physical entity: -- density, viscosity, etc. But, of course, you cannot.

    please,as you claim to be able to do, present a derivation of "all equations that explain and describe reality" starting from the properties of the Ether. Can't do it,can you ?
    The Ether can be described by the concepts of continuum mechanics (something I assume you are familiar with). The most fundamental mathematical description of the Ether is its wave equation, which actually describes the medium properties. The wave speed is c, the speed of light. The only fundamental mechanical property it actually really has is elasticity, which can also be looked at as compressibility, meaning the waves propagate longitudinally. From here, its so called "modulus" can be found. From there, everything else falls into place.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    If this were not the total rubbish that it is, then you would be able to clearly specify the properties of that "physical entity: -- density, viscosity, etc. But, of course, you cannot.

    please,as you claim to be able to do, present a derivation of "all equations that explain and describe reality" starting from the properties of the Ether. Can't do it,can you ?
    The Ether can be described by the concepts of continuum mechanics (something I assume you are familiar with). The most fundamental mathematical description of the Ether is its wave equation, which actually describes the medium properties. The wave speed is c, the speed of light. The only fundamental mechanical property it actually really has is elasticity, which can also be looked at as compressibility, meaning the waves propagate longitudinally. From here, its so called "modulus" can be found. From there, everything else falls into place.
    You have just proved that you have no understanding of continuum mechanics. There are several different "moduli" that together provide the constitutive equations that relate the stress and strain tensors. In short your response is a non-sequitar, once again demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

    Note also that the speed of sound, which is the "wave speed" that you get in a continuum mechanics model, is the MINIMUM speed for waves of vanishingly small amplitude, whereas c is a MAXIMUM speed for either movement of massive bodies or information. Your ignorance is overwhelming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You have just proved that you have no understanding of continuum mechanics. There are several different "moduli" that together provide the constitutive equations that relate the stress and strain tensors. In short your response is a non-sequitar, once again demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

    Note also that the speed of sound, which is the "wave speed" that you get in a continuum mechanics model, is the MINIMUM speed for waves of vanishingly small amplitude, whereas c is a MAXIMUM speed for either movement of massive bodies or information. Your ignorance is overwhelming.
    Your ignorance is making all of your arguments dissolve. The Ether does not have all these different moduli, because it is not a piece of matter. So instantaneously, everything you just said can be forgotten without consequence. Basically, the ether is elastic and obeys hookes law. The only real important mathematical concepts here are the restoring forces which act on the ether. These forces are interrelated with the wave speed etc and the force is directly proportional to the extension.

    Try again.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: Does Michelson & Morley really rule out an Aether? 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    What observable properties does this ether have that are different from space-time?
    Aether at least admits that it is a medium. Space-time has every medium-like property that you can imagine, except that it insists on describing itself as a non-entity. So.... supposing light is able to travel without a medium, and this non-medium we call "space-time" is capable of being warped/curved by matter. Now we have this "non-thing" getting acted upon by a thing.

    How can an entity act upon a non-entity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman Latin_of_delight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Cathedral City, CA
    Posts
    54
    Great point, Kojax!

    Obviously any aether that exist is more like space-time than like the late 19th-century aethers postulated a century ago. The possibility of an aether saturating the "emptiness" of space is a real one, though contemporary science might be limited to understanding it by the macroscopic examples of liquids and other mediums. Figuring it out (if it does exist) will require a giant leap of the imagination!

    "Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein.
    "The future isn't what it use to be."

    "The function and consequence of sentiency is physics."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,309
    If we have an existent medium(aether, or luminiferous aether as they said back in the day) through which disturbances(electromagnetic waves) propogate at a specific velocity(c), then the measured velocity of the disturbances would vary according to the velocity of either the measuring device and/or the velocity of the medium carrying the disturbances. But c measures regardless of inertial frame.
    Check this out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...ley_experiment
    The aether been dead for over a hundred years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    If we have an existent medium(aether, or luminiferous aether as they said back in the day) through which disturbances(electromagnetic waves) propogate at a specific velocity(c), then the measured velocity of the disturbances would vary according to the velocity of either the measuring device and/or the velocity of the medium carrying the disturbances. But c measures regardless of inertial frame.
    Check this out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...ley_experiment
    The aether been dead for over a hundred years.
    We all know about the Michelson-Morley experiment. We also know that it does not rule out the existence of the Ether, but apparently you do not.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    If we have an existent medium(aether, or luminiferous aether as they said back in the day) through which disturbances(electromagnetic waves) propogate at a specific velocity(c), then the measured velocity of the disturbances would vary according to the velocity of either the measuring device and/or the velocity of the medium carrying the disturbances. But c measures regardless of inertial frame.
    Check this out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...ley_experiment
    The aether been dead for over a hundred years.
    That's because everyone expects the aether to retain exactly the traits it had when it was proposed, with no modification. You could similarly argue that planet Earth doesn't exist, because the concept of "Earth" was originally defined as being flat, but someone proved that the place we live is not flat, so it must not be "Earth", so we must all live somewhere else other than Earth.

    Space is clearly a medium, but this medium doesn't have a detectable velocity, so we can't call it aether anymore, because for some reason everyone insists that aether not be allowed to have that trait.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman .o:0|O|0:o.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    37
    It seems to me that theories start off on reasonable grounds and by the time they reach some height of complexity they are ready to collapse. Thus we creatively construct means of keeping the theory standing, by imagining ludicrous numbers of dimensions and other mathematical trickeries. Time (a manifestation of something else) will show that a lot of nonsense was said by limited minds. I have just joined the forum and I am already irritated by the people giving answers as certainties that they clearly do not understand.

    For instance, gravity supposedly "warps" space-time. So gravity, which has visible or measurable effects on matter, also has effects on the immaterial?

    So when a wave/ particle travels "through space" and has a mass (photons have mass) then how does the photon interract with this "space-time". Does it or does it not?

    I will tell you what, your "space-time" is a holding space for a better explanation. The theories may agree with the maths, but you are not visualizing the maths adequately.

    .o:0|O|0:o.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.
    It seems to me that theories start off on reasonable grounds and by the time they reach some height of complexity they are ready to collapse. Thus we creatively construct means of keeping the theory standing, by imagining ludicrous numbers of dimensions and other mathematical trickeries. Time (a manifestation of something else) will show that a lot of nonsense was said by limited minds. I have just joined the forum and I am already irritated by the people giving answers as certainties that they clearly do not understand.

    For instance, gravity supposedly "warps" space-time. So gravity, which has visible or measurable effects on matter, also has effects on the immaterial?

    So when a wave/ particle travels "through space" and has a mass (photons have mass) then how does the photon interract with this "space-time". Does it or does it not?

    I will tell you what, your "space-time" is a holding space for a better explanation. The theories may agree with the maths, but you are not visualizing the maths adequately.

    .o:0|O|0.
    The theory that you are questioning is general relativity, and it is supported by a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, including the bending of light by the curvature of spacetime. (In fact that was one of the very first tests of the theory.). So in this case your irritation is the product of ignorance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity

    Before you make foolish challenges it would behoove you to understand what you are challenging. There are certainly things to be challenged -- that is what research is all about. Knowing what and what not to challenge is differentiates a good researcher from a a crackpot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,309
    So for all you "Better Than Einstein's", how is it that EM phenomena propagate through a medium at velocity c regardless of inertial frame? C'mon explain to me how this "aether" works. Show me the math. Just one little equation or inequality or some such that makes just one little quantitative prediction. C'mon, please, pretty please, my pretty pony please. I really want to understand this exquisitely beautiful thing called "The Aether". I'm begging to be indoctrinated into this rarest of knowledges, to understand this key to the mysteries of the universe. Please share with me this profound secret , let me be also a member of this new Pythagrean society of this next millennium. I mean c'mon, I said "my pretty pony please" so you have to share the secret of "The Aether" with me now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    So for all you "Better Than Einstein's", how is it that EM phenomena propagate through a medium at velocity c regardless of inertial frame? C'mon explain to me how this "aether" works. Show me the math. Just one little equation or inequality or some such that makes just one little quantitative prediction. C'mon, please, pretty please, my pretty pony please. I really want to understand this exquisitely beautiful thing called "The Aether". I'm begging to be indoctrinated into this rarest of knowledges, to understand this key to the mysteries of the universe. Please share with me this profound secret , let me be also a member of this new Pythagrean society of this next millennium. I mean c'mon, I said "my pretty pony please" so you have to share the secret of "The Aether" with me now.
    Well, you are certainly correct about one thing: knowledge of the Ether is indeed very rare. I know of only a handful of people that understand the true extent of the Ether and how it can explain all physical phenomena. Currently, I am the only one on this forum.

    To answer your question, light is made of waves that propagate through the Ether at a constant speed (c). When matter moves through the Ether, it physically contracts in the direction of its motion. How much it contracts is proportional to its velocity through the Ether. What is important to note is that the matter itself is contracting, not space (which doesn't exist). Because of this contraction, the duration that light takes to complete a round trip appears to be the same, thus its velocity is always measured as being the same.

    My point is, everything has a mechanical and logical cause. Everything can be explained in terms of physical descriptions. Mathematics is then used to quantify and understand the relationships these phenomena have. The most important thing is to first understand what is physically going on in reality and to acknowledge that there is an underlying cause and mechanism to these phenomena.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman .o:0|O|0:o.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by .o:0|O|0:o.
    It seems to me that theories start off on reasonable grounds and by the time they reach some height of complexity they are ready to collapse. Thus we creatively construct means of keeping the theory standing, by imagining ludicrous numbers of dimensions and other mathematical trickeries. Time (a manifestation of something else) will show that a lot of nonsense was said by limited minds. I have just joined the forum and I am already irritated by the people giving answers as certainties that they clearly do not understand.

    For instance, gravity supposedly "warps" space-time. So gravity, which has visible or measurable effects on matter, also has effects on the immaterial?

    So when a wave/ particle travels "through space" and has a mass (photons have mass) then how does the photon interract with this "space-time". Does it or does it not?

    I will tell you what, your "space-time" is a holding space for a better explanation. The theories may agree with the maths, but you are not visualizing the maths adequately.

    .o:0|O|0:o.
    The theory that you are questioning is general relativity, and it is supported by a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, including the bending of light by the curvature of spacetime. (In fact that was one of the very first tests of the theory.). So in this case your irritation is the product of ignorance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity

    Before you make foolish challenges it would behoove you to understand what you are challenging. There are certainly things to be challenged -- that is what research is all about. Knowing what and what not to challenge is differentiates a good researcher from a a crackpot.

    Now, I am not questioning relativity at all. I am questioning (or "asking", if the word "questioning" is too challenging for you) why, if a star warps what you call "space-time" (which I accept it does), does a photon not interact with "space-time" proportionally or to some extent. A photon has mass. Does it not?

    Note, that I am not proposing any alternate theories here. Even if I did think that photons and waves should interract with a "fabric" of the universe to some lesser extent, I would not make the mistake of calling it Aether, as this word causes the inflexible mind to see only the historical concept and not other ways of visualizing reality.

    There is no need to become defensive! Why do the difficult questions of others cause you to throw insults instead of explanations?

    If you are able to offer an explanation then it would be appreciated. If you are going to evade the question by unwarranted name calling, then don't bother. Please do not unload your frustration at not knowing or not knowing how to explain onto people simply because they ask a direct question.

    Einstein once said that when he first thought of relativity, he imagined himself travelling on a rocket. I.e., he visualized concepts spatially before he sought a numerical solution. Mathematics is innate to a greater or lesser extent in people, even before it is formalized into equations. If you can understand it you can explain it and then you can formalize it into an equation...................................

    .o:0|O|0:o.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman .o:0|O|0:o.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    C'mon, please, pretty please, my pretty pony please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,309
    Now, I am not questioning relativity at all. I am questioning (or "asking", if the word "questioning" is too challenging for you) why, if a star warps what you call "space-time" (which I accept it does), does a photon not interact with "space-time" proportionally or to some extent. A photon has mass. Does it not?
    A photon has mass. Does it not?
    http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...rs/960731.html.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Waveman28
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    So for all you "Better Than Einstein's", how is it that EM phenomena propagate through a medium at velocity c regardless of inertial frame? C'mon explain to me how this "aether" works. Show me the math. Just one little equation or inequality or some such that makes just one little quantitative prediction. C'mon, please, pretty please, my pretty pony please. I really want to understand this exquisitely beautiful thing called "The Aether". I'm begging to be indoctrinated into this rarest of knowledges, to understand this key to the mysteries of the universe. Please share with me this profound secret , let me be also a member of this new Pythagrean society of this next millennium. I mean c'mon, I said "my pretty pony please" so you have to share the secret of "The Aether" with me now.
    Well, you are certainly correct about one thing: knowledge of the Ether is indeed very rare. I know of only a handful of people that understand the true extent of the Ether and how it can explain all physical phenomena. Currently, I am the only one on this forum.

    To answer your question, light is made of waves that propagate through the Ether at a constant speed (c). When matter moves through the Ether, it physically contracts in the direction of its motion. How much it contracts is proportional to its velocity through the Ether. What is important to note is that the matter itself is contracting, not space (which doesn't exist). Because of this contraction, the duration that light takes to complete a round trip appears to be the same, thus its velocity is always measured as being the same.

    My point is, everything has a mechanical and logical cause. Everything can be explained in terms of physical descriptions. Mathematics is then used to quantify and understand the relationships these phenomena have. The most important thing is to first understand what is physically going on in reality and to acknowledge that there is an underlying cause and mechanism to these phenomena.
    Mathematics is then used to quantify and understand the relationships these phenomena have. The most important thing is to first understand what is physically going on in reality
    Gee Waveman28, I found a website you can use; http://www.ixl.com/.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    Gee Waveman28, I found a website you can use; http://www.ixl.com/.
    What a cop-out response.
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,309
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Is-Li...ons-27503t.php

    You(Waveman28) keep saying "cop-out", are you from the 70's?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Waveman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Is-Li...ons-27503t.php

    You(Waveman28) keep saying "cop-out", are you from the 70's?
    You(GiantEvil) keep on providing links which have virtually no relation to the conversation at hand, are you from the 90's?
    "Doubt is the origin of Wisdom" - Rene Descartes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    So for all you "Better Than Einstein's", how is it that EM phenomena propagate through a medium at velocity c regardless of inertial frame? C'mon explain to me how this "aether" works.
    Asking this question shows a lack of awareness that soundspeed (or any wavespeed) is also something else then the speed of an objekt moving through air. Without any attachement for spacetime or vacuum the only attachement for the idea of constant lightspeed are aparently the brains that share these ideas and these brains do move relative to each other sometimes I hope (or apparently not ?).


    Einstein was fully aware of this problem that spacetime needed some general attachement instead of a completely abstract idea only attached to the personal brains (if the idea is attached to the brain/person that has it at least and not related to books only). That some keep this ridiculous idea for "the new absolute idea" (absolute lightspeed, not related and only to be understood by a few initiates offcourse) and it is thought as such at academylevel may impress some but to others it is as ridiculous as it allready was for Einstein. Nothing to be taken too serious.

    As for a problem.....
    If for sound (or any waveidea) the soundspeed as regardless of inertial frame is not a problem then why would it be a problem with light in medium, attached to media/substances ?

    Throwing an objekt from or from within a train (a window has to be opened then) it has a different speed for ones on/in the train then for those who are not on/in the train but "from" or "from within" makes no difference here. For sound this is not the case for "from" the train (soundspeed is attached to the medium then, not so much the specific observers and thus not their speed either). Only for within (and from outside) the train it becomes different because the medium in the train also moves through the medium outside the train just as the train itself. Therefor different observers are in different media with a speed between the media (allbeit air in both cases)
    If the train is an open trolley and different trollyes having different speed you have the same idea of soundspeed regardless to the speeds of the trolleys or a worker at the railroad.

    The question can be reversed ..try explain that without sound connected to a medium..imagine a culture where people believe sound moves through vacuum from sender to receptor....a primitive culture.

    The difference between objektsspeed and soundspeed related to media is that the objekts travels trough the air as a substance but sound travels through air as a medium. sound can travel through objekts also...the objekt becomes the medium then and the medium can become an objekt for instance as air in a closed train or spaceship where it travels within the spaceship...

    Same way fish travel through water as a substance and for waves the fish generates the water is the medium (and the wave)....and where the fish stops at the border of the pond the waves continue endlessly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,309
    Waveman meet Ghrasp, Ghrasp meet Waveman. You two should get along famously as you repeat "toast" and or "chicken" to each other endlessly. Have a good day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    you,re welcome but can you explain without a medium why this works like this for sound ?

    Why can,t I distinguish the speed of a soundsource from soundspeed.
    not if it comes directly from the source nor if it comes by an echo to a wall.

    That,s hard to understand and explain without a medium and here you are asking how it can be explained with a medium.....asking that question makes you,re general sense and intuition on wavelike phenomena questionable and then dare lecture and ridicule others ...tuh tuh tuh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •