Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 115
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: How can mainstream physics be persuaded to consider Aether Theory?

  1. #1 How can mainstream physics be persuaded to consider Aether Theory? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Over the last 15+ years, I have come to believe that an aether (ether - carrier of light waves) theory is missing from the present foundation of modern physics and it is very likely an even greater blunder that can also be attributed to Einstein. If one looks seriously at Big Bang Theory is so bad and so bandaged that it is time to move on, to quote James Joyce:“the ether has dropped out of science, not because scientists as a whole formed a reasonable judgment that no such thing exists, but because they find they can describe all the phenomena of nature quite perfectly without it. It merely cumbers the picture, so they leave it out. If at some future time they find they need it, they will put it back again.” (James Jeans, Fellow of the Royal Society,The Universe Around Us, 1930, page 329)

    I am interested in starting a thread on an aether model and am interested in hearing objections to it. I have looked at a LOT of aether theories and have not yet found one that explains the speed of light waves. The one I propose does and it is available from Amazon at a very reasonable price as "A need for speed (c): The Quantum Effects of a Elastic-Solid Aether" but is accessable in its full document for FREE at this URL webpages.charter.net/deww/AetherWeb.htm
    (add Http://) to see it.
    Aether - A contiguous structure of body-centered identical spheres of approximate radius of 2.3x10-14 cm. Alternating layers exhibit opposite spin at an approximate rotational speed of 2.8x1023 rotations per second and have an effective mass of zero in pure aether.It occupies all space and all particles which occupy space, which are a subset of modified aether.It readily transfers light wave energy (angular impulses).Contiguous denotes the direct contact, “solid state”, of adjacent spheres to allow for transverse movement of light on the aether matrix.
    If you have an Aether(ether) model that shows how light moves at 300,000 Km/sec, please send me your link as I would like to see it. This definition of aether is based on known measurements of physical structures (proton core). give me your best shot(s). this model will move an angular impulse (light wave) at 300,000 Km/sec Sincerely AetherRules



    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Well that's a rather involved introduction, but hey welcome to the forum.


    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    “the ether has dropped out of science, not because scientists as a whole formed a reasonable judgment that no such thing exists, but because they find they can describe all the phenomena of nature quite perfectly without it. It merely cumbers the picture, so they leave it out. If at some future time they find they need it, they will put it back again.” (James Jeans, Fellow of the Royal Society,The Universe Around Us, 1930, page 329)
    I would agree with this statement. Lorentz ether theory works, but "cumbers the picture."
    Lorentz ether theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    What makes you think we have arrived at that future time where we need to put it back in?

    I'm moving the thread to the appropriate forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Moderator Note: Aetherrules, I have moved your post from the introductions to New Hypotheses and Ideas, where I think it will be more at home.

    Now, with mod hat removed, I think a more knwledgeable person will be along shortly, but my understanding is that the speed of light falls out of Maxwell's equations. Aether is not required.

    Oh, and welcome to the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    You beat me to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    How can mainstream physics be persuaded to consider Aether Theory?
    How about some evidence it exists or is required?

    More importantly, how can mainstream physics be persuaded to consider Phlogiston Theory?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Er, James Joyce did not say that.

    As other people have been asking, why do we need an aether?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Er, James Joyce did not say that.
    But he did say: "Three quarks for Muster Mark! Sure he has not got much of a bark. And sure any he has it's all beside the mark."
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Ascended Member Ascended's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,370
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Moderator Note: Aetherrules, I have moved your post from the introductions to New Hypotheses and Ideas, where I think it will be more at home.

    Now, with mod hat removed, I think a more knwledgeable person will be along shortly, but my understanding is that the speed of light falls out of Maxwell's equations. Aether is not required.

    Oh, and welcome to the forum.
    More knowledgeable than you John, surely not.
    Everything has its beauty, but not everyone sees it. - confucius
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    “the ether has dropped out of science, not because scientists as a whole formed a reasonable judgment that no such thing exists, but because they find they can describe all the phenomena of nature quite perfectly without it. It merely cumbers the picture, so they leave it out.
    a.k.a. Occam's Razor.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    "How can mainstream physics be persuaded to consider Aether Theory?"

    Simple. Find the result of any experiment where an aether is required in order to explain that result.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post

    I am interested in starting a thread on an aether model and am interested in hearing objections to it.
    Well, the main objection would be that no aether has ever been detected, and that all experimental searches for aether have come up negative.
    Besides, it's not needed to explain the laws of physics as we see them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    With the internet sharing of information, one would think that the openness of a forum such as this, there stands a better chance of correcting misinformation and although present "physics" seems to work well, its foundation is corrupt. Why does light wave energy move at 300000 Km/per second? Answer present physics - that's an a priori issue, it just does. NO it doesn't it has a mechanical basis. FIX the model and physics can move on (not unlike Ptolemic system moving to Copernicus system) WHat is gravity? Answer present physics - Action at a distance between too masses. Even Newton objected to that premise stating, "he conjectured that the
    density of the aether might vary from place to place, and that the bodies might
    tend to move from the denser parts of the medium toward the rarer; but whether
    this were the true explanation or not, at any rate, to suppose ‘that one body may
    act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of
    anything else,. . . . is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has
    in philosophical matters a competent faculty for thinking can ever fall into.”
    With an aether model similar to one proposed here, gravity acceleration is the result of a variance in aether spin velocity (AKA speed of light variance) as one moves further aware from a center of mass.
    Wave-particle duality is also corrupt in that all the interpretations of results that lead to this premise ASSUMED that vaccuum space was empty space. It wasn't, it was filled with aether. Particles are particles, and at all times (David Bohm). Returning to the aether model is not a backward step in physics, it is a step back to MECHANICS which is in my opinion more true to physics than present underpinnings and actually will make physics MORE understandable and less faith based as the present Big Bang (lambda-CDM) model appears to be. Those are just a few of my thoughts the rest are in the book and I would be happy to email the full PDF version to anyone on this thread simply request it from my through my email (deww@charter.net).

    Last edited by AetherRules; June 7th, 2012 at 04:00 AM. Reason: Meant to include quote of Why is now the time for physics from John Galt
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Moderator Note: Aetherrules, I have moved your post from the introductions to New Hypotheses and Ideas, where I think it will be more at home.

    Now, with mod hat removed, I think a more knwledgeable person will be along shortly, but my understanding is that the speed of light falls out of Maxwell's equations. Aether is not required.

    Oh, and welcome to the forum.
    That's the problem, modern physics basing observations (empirical findings) on mathematical constructs, the most infamous being Big Bang (Lambda-CDM) theory. Can someone elaborate on how Maxwell's equations' move something at 300000 Km/sec? If you haven't noticed yet, I am sort of hard core mechanics, and the model proposed here, if one attaches a paint chip onto one of the spheres of a body centered structure, the spin and size of the spheres will move it away from you (linearly and in all directions) at ~300000 Km/sec. The proposed sphere size and spin velocity are consistent with present empirical data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You beat me to it.
    Harold14370, that doesn't tell me anything, I would like to hear your critique of the proposed model? Evidently you've had some thought on this or I would't have "beaten" you at it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    ‘that one body may
    act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of
    anything else,. . . . is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has
    in philosophical matters a competent faculty for thinking can ever fall into.
    Have you never heard of General Relativity? Gravity is a geometric phenomenon.

    Answer present physics - that's an a priori issue, it just does
    Have you never heard of Special Relativity? Light does not have a preferred reference frame and is a form of electromagnetic radiation that doesn't need an aether.

    Both have been tested exhaustively experimentally and have not been found wanting. How much experimental verification do you have for your idea?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Er, James Joyce did not say that.

    As other people have been asking, why do we need an aether?
    I stand corrected, it is James Jeans, as it is listed at the end of the quote is correct.
    I have addressed the some of the need for aether in the reply to John Galt, please see earlier reply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You beat me to it.
    Harold14370, that doesn't tell me anything, I would like to hear your critique of the proposed model? Evidently you've had some thought on this or I would't have "beaten" you at it.
    That was addressed to John Galt who moved the thread before I had a chance to.

    How about posting here the part of your book where you derive the speed of light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    How can mainstream physics be persuaded to consider Aether Theory?
    How about some evidence it exists or is required?
    The evidence is all there, just ignored by present day physics, the best physicists of the 19th century had no doubt To illustrate just how sure of the existence of aether that the best physicists
    of the 19
    th century were, please review the following excerpt from, School
    Physics, Elroy M. Avery, Sheldon and Company, Chicago, 1895, pp. 312-313.
    254. The Ether Physicists are generally of the opinion that all space is filled with an
    incompressible medium of extreme tenuity and elasticity.
    This hypothetical medium is called the ether
    . The variety of the phenomena for which the ether hypothesis offers the only
    explanation that modern science can accept (see CH.10) is so great that the unproved
    existence of the ether is confidently accepted.

    Light ( electromagnitism) moves by wave motion. All evidence supports this as shown by refraction, diffraction, reflection and ESPECIALLY interference. Particle theory cannot explain interference. WAVE energy is transfered OUT of the way by particle contact as this is no different for sound wave energy. But in order for a motion (energy) to move from point A to a distant point B, there must be a carrier. Again as noted above, if you consider vacuum as empty space, then it becomes necessary to devise a theory (Field theory) which states it doesn't need a carrier but still can't explain the qualities of light movement as would be described by a carrier. Put the carrier back in the vacuum and everything becomes crystal clear (at least to me.
    Hang in there it took me a few weeks for it the aether to sink it, too.

    The evidence for the earth moving through the aether is its magnetosphere. I am assuming here everyone realizes that Electromagnetism can be mathematically described by mechanics theory? Not unlike wave mechanics is equivalent mathematically to matrix mechanics. It is all dynamics.

    Cauchy, Green, and
    MacCullagh used partial differential equations to explain wave motion in an
    elastic solid. It appears to the author that the strain in these equations is the
    equivalent of a spherical torque or angular impulse ~ curl ~ EM forces. Of
    course, a major concern which arises later from Maxwell’s equations is the fact
    that light can be described as electric-magnetic impulses propagated at right
    angles to one another. On page 144 of his “Classical Theories”, Whittaker
    summarily dispenses with this concern in his footnote 1 “MacCullagh’s
    equations may readily be interpreted in the electromechanical theory of light…
    ecorresponds to the magnetic force,
    u curl e to the electric force, and curl e to theelectric displacement. This interpretation is due to Heaviside,
    Electrician, xxvi

    (1891), p.360: Lord Kelvin had regarded rotation as analogue to magnetic force”
    (See also, Whittaker, page 286).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    With the internet sharing of information, one would think that the openness of a forum such as this, there stands a better chance of correcting misinformation and although present "physics" seems to work well, its foundation is corrupt. Why does light wave energy move at 300000 Km/per second?
    All you have to do to correct the misinformation that you believe to exist is to explain and demonstrate where precisely James Clark Maxwell was wrong. If you are familiar with the work of Maxwell and still consider his work to be flawed then you will be able to explain succinctly how the work is flawed. If you are not familiar with his work then you really have no business arguing a case for the aether and this thread should be moved to pseudoscience. I hope the former is true, since this would be the more interesting alternative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    “the ether has dropped out of science, not because scientists as a whole formed a reasonable judgment that no such thing exists, but because they find they can describe all the phenomena of nature quite perfectly without it. It merely cumbers the picture, so they leave it out.
    a.k.a. Occam's Razor.
    So what is it about the aether theory that I propose that you find complicatad? Have you studied it thoroughly enough to state that it is more complicated than present theory? LET ME rephrase that. If one truly understands the theory as proposed, then it would be noted that the entire Universe is built by one item, a single size spinning sphere. Using a sphere, everything you see and don't see can be described and defined. AND if you take it far enough, if all the mass in the universe were to disappear (as heat loss) all the energy would still exist at ABSOLUTE zero in the aether sphere spin. And yes there is empirical date to support this. That Helium4 cannot be turned into a solid, is also evidence that aether exists. At absolute zero there is NO heat = vibration/oscillation) Pure spin (and I am familiar with PR spin and this ain't that.) So I throw back Occam's Razor to you, how more simple than a single sphere can one get?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Why does light wave energy move at 300000 Km/per second? Answer present physics - that's an a priori issue, it just does. NO it doesn't it has a mechanical basis.
    From wading through your incredibly unreadable website, I assume you derive the speed of light from your "spinning spheres"?

    This doesn't answer anything. You have just moved the goalposts? Why spheres? Why are they the size they are? Why do they spin at the speed you say they do? What are they made of?

    You do understand that whatever "fundamental" explanation you can come up with, I can ask a "why" question to prove it is not fundamental?

    As for the speed of light, it is determined by fundamental parameters of the vacuum (permittivity and permeability).

    WHat is gravity? Answer present physics - Action at a distance between too masses.
    What a depressing display of ignorance this is. Ignorance of modern science. Ignorance of how the scientific process works. Ignorance of what a scientific model is supposed to do.

    Now, about phlogiston theory. Can we revive this as well, because I find modern theories of combustion go completely against common sense.

    Even Newton objected to that ...
    What is the point of quoting someone who died centuries before the relevant theory was developed? What did Aristotle have to say about it? What about Ugg the Caveman?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    a.k.a. Occam's Razor.
    So what is it about the aether theory that I propose that you find complicatad?
    So we can add Occam's razor to the list of things you don't understand?

    It is not about complexity, it is about necessity. There is no evidence for any aether, there is no need for any aether (except to satisfy those who don't understand physics).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    "How can mainstream physics be persuaded to consider Aether Theory?"

    Simple. Find the result of any experiment where an aether is required in order to explain that result.
    I do suggest some in the book, I think a form of "racing lasers" on the outside of the ISS (international space station) would very likely show the effect of moving through the aether. Yes this is a Michelson Morley design that actually should work. The Michelson Morley of 1885 and thereabouts was done on the surface of the earth, there is NO ether wind here unless you count hurricanes. Much like Lorentz, I believe the aether is embedded in everything else, atoms, us, rocks, the wind, the atmosphere is modified aether. ( AND yes you can still have Stellar aberration with no aether wind and aether atmospheric drag, Stokes showed this was possible as presented in
    won’t go into Stokes-vs-Fresnel competing theories but they can be found in
    multiple texts including Schaffner’s Nineteenth-Century Aether Theories

    Aether theory as I propose has some "quantum" elements which I think also could be verified. It is know that EM moves in an UNEqual pattern and the body centered design supports an UNEven progressive of the wave which differs from CLASSICAL theory. which is probably in part why LASERS actually work. I would be happy to email you the FULL PDF book if you would like to review this farther. As I know everyone is concerned with spam/virus, I can only say my computer appears safe as protected by my internet service provider Charter Cable/Charter Security Suite.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post

    I am interested in starting a thread on an aether model and am interested in hearing objections to it.
    Well, the main objection would be that no aether has ever been detected, and that all experimental searches for aether have come up negative.
    Besides, it's not needed to explain the laws of physics as we see them.

    And where are your laws at the beginning of Big Bang? Don't exist, with an aether model, the laws are there from the beginning and appear to continue indefinitely

    But that's the problem as I see it, modern day physics has sort of lulled itself into thinking, "we have it right" sort of like the Ptolemy universe syndrome. Do you really believe you can put the BILLIONS of Galaxies into the size of a thimble? (Abandonment of Pauley Principle) Show me the evidence for that? You don't have to do it with the aether, but you do have to give up Big Bang - a theory so inconsisent with modern scientific principals it should embassass most scientists. Just looking at the modifications of red shift theory is not good science. Since many observed red shifts suggest away velocities greater that multiples of the speed of light but that's not allowed due to Relativity, oh but wait, it is only space expanding not the galaxies where the light came from moving. Don't you guys deep down have some doubts about this? With a new model which puts the aether back, a lot of "holes" in physics can be plugged. So here's part of chaper 2.
    So why bring back aether?
    Dilemmas or obscurities of Modern Physics
    Question – followed by Modern physics answers based on my readings and
    what has been voiced in past discussions of the author with other scientists.
    Why does light move at speed
    c ? Don’t know, don’t need to know, don’t care, it
    just does.
    How does light move? As
    EM fields, no, as photons, no, as an EM wave on
    nothing, just pick the most convenient
    What is the cause of Gravity? Mass, how? Good question.
    How is gravity transmitted? Action at a distance (A Newton frowner, see pg 13).
    How does gravity bend space? By mathematical forces based on General
    Theory of relativity.
    How does an atom like lead (Pb) with 82 positive charges all located centrally
    not explode when positive to positive repulsion of two protons next to each other
    is one of the most powerful forces known to exist? Easy, the intervening
    neutrons neutralize the protons, maybe so, so what neutralizes the 82
    negative electrons in the shell from repulsing each other?, the 82 central
    protons?, doesn’t really make sense (remember this paper allows logic
    and common sense to be considered in accepting a concept if it can be
    applied to empirical data).
    How can the atom be almost all “empty space” between the electrons and
    nucleus? It just is.
    How does all the matter in the universe fit into a thimble? (Big Bang Theory), in
    the beginning physical laws as presently understood don’t really apply.
    These are a few of the author’s concerns. It is almost certain there are many
    others which have not been mentioned here, but the author would hope that the
    reader would at least agree that those listed above are pretty serious
    deficiencies. Quantum aether theory can show a mechanism for the speed of
    light and perhaps answer many other questions through a better understanding
    of the movement of light as a carrier event.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    ‘that one body may
    act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of
    anything else,. . . . is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has
    in philosophical matters a competent faculty for thinking can ever fall into.
    Have you never heard of General Relativity? Gravity is a geometric phenomenon.

    Answer present physics - that's an a priori issue, it just does
    Have you never heard of Special Relativity? Light does not have a preferred reference frame and is a form of electromagnetic radiation that doesn't need an aether.

    Both have been tested exhaustively experimentally and have not been found wanting. How much experimental verification do you have for your idea?
    Geometric = mathematical interpretation of space
    Both General and Special Relativity have a large part of the theory based on the speed of light which is a known quantity of the universe (empirical reality) so have some foundation. (Aether spin defines the speed of light) Any of the items you suggest prove General/Special theory can, i believe, be better explained by aether model. NOT time dilation which is an observational correction of motion NOT a change in Absolute time. (The prolonged life of mesons is not due to time dilation but more likely to vibrational state of hitting more aether which prolongs it "recapture" time not its "life" time)
    Could you address the original question, show where the speed of the speed of light comes from in Relativity theory as I have not found it? If it is Maxwell's show me the source, the aether presented above MOVES something which I believe is light (an electromagnetic impulse) at 300,000 Km/sec and does so on a model of spheres of size consistent with empirical data and spin consistent with empirical frequencies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Please respond to post #20.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Could you address the original question, show where the speed of the speed of light comes from in Relativity theory as I have not found it?
    It is a pretty damning admission of your ignorance that you have to ask this: Electromagnetic wave equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    a.k.a. Occam's Razor.
    So what is it about the aether theory that I propose that you find complicatad?
    So we can add Occam's razor to the list of things you don't understand?

    It is not about complexity, it is about necessity. There is no evidence for any aether, there is no need for any aether (except to satisfy those who don't understand physics).
    Maybe but it is also about simplicity and KNOWN and all this about the aethe was known in the 19th century and abandoned. Sad.
    So again where do you see the speed of light being shown in present theory?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    [Maybe but it is also about simplicity and KNOWN and all this about the aethe was known in the 19th century and abandoned. Sad.
    Pholgiston was known in the 17th century and abandoned. Sad.

    So again where do you see the speed of light being shown in present theory?
    Maxwell's equations. Jeez. How many times. Thoroughly grounded in 19th century experimentation by Mr Faraday. What more could you ask for.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You beat me to it.
    Harold14370, that doesn't tell me anything, I would like to hear your critique of the proposed model? Evidently you've had some thought on this or I would't have "beaten" you at it.
    That was addressed to John Galt who moved the thread before I had a chance to.

    How about posting here the part of your book where you derive the speed of light.
    The entire definition of aether is founded on the speed of light and is embedded as part of the definition

    Getting back to the movement of light through avacuum, the total kinetic energy = T.K.E. = 1 mv
    2 + 1 Iw2 but in the vacuum,

    the linear or sound energy is virtually zero (linear impulse = mv = 0), so any
    EM
    energy passing through the vacuum is due to the angular K.E. or 1
    Iw2, as a
    group of angular impulses [Iw ] being pushed forward as a wave at velocity w .
    The angular velocity is proportional to the speed of light so that linear velocity as
    linear displacement is related to the angular velocity or rotational displacement
    of a rotating sphere as v = 2 pi r
    w (5)
    but the actual linear displacement depends on the contact point of the spin.
    As noted on the next page, in a body-centered elastic solid, a one-rotation
    linear displacement would be equal to four segments of the contact points of the
    rotating spheres which are located at an angle of ~35.26 degrees.
    Then
    c = (4 segments@35.26o = 1.06E-13 cm) times w (w = ~2.8E+23)
    = ~3E+10 cm/sec rotations/second
    Cspeed.jpg

    Attached Images
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    he total kinetic energy = T.K.E. = 1 mv
    Kinetic energy in millivolts?

    BTW It would be easier if you used LaTeX to present your math; it would be a bit more readable.

    c = (4 segments@35.26o = 1.06E-13 cm) times w (w = ~2.8E+23)
    Why is w = ~2.8E+23? Where does this number come from? I assume this is derived from the speed of light?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Could you address the original question, show where the speed of the speed of light comes from in Relativity theory as I have not found it?
    It is a pretty damning admission of your ignorance that you have to ask this: Electromagnetic wave equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Ok maybe I have seen that equation but there is no mechanism for the speed, it just is based on a mathematical equation using 2 constants with no mechanics. Constants don't move energy, motion is energy and is required to move energy - the EM model fails to move anything and is no different than saying light moves at speed c. That's my argument so damned I am.

    Presently if one asks why light travels at speed
    c, the answer by modern
    physics is: ‘it just does’. That is like answering the question of why a candle is
    hot, with ‘it just is’. But science has the answer to candle heat; the vibratory
    motion of the kinetic energy from the combustion of the wick creates the heat, a
    form of energy (motion). But to the riddle of the speed of light, modern science
    remains silent, or are all the clues there, just not apparent to someone who is
    not looking for them because modern scientists have been told as noted above
    to “forget the ether completely”. This indoctrination makes it virtually impossible
    for anyone on the “inside” of physics or science to be able to reach the state of
    mind to even consider that there might be a problem here, without a carrier for
    light.
    “Fundamental challenges to disciplines tend to come from outside. It is customary for
    students to be introduced to their fields of study gradually, as slowly unfolding mysteries, so
    that by the time they can see their subject as a whole, they have been so thoroughly imbued
    with conventional preconceptions and patterns of thought that they are extremely unlikely to
    be able to question its basic premises.” Martin Bernal’s Black Athena: The Afro-asiatic Roots
    of Classical Civilization, Vol. I, 1987
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Ok maybe I have seen that equation but there is no mechanism for the speed, it just is based on a mathematical equation using 2 constants with no mechanics. Constants don't move energy, motion is energy and is required to move energy - the EM model fails to move anything and is no different than saying light moves at speed c.
    The mechanism is the interaction of the electric and magnetic fields as described by Maxwell's equations (which this wave equation is derived from).

    Obviously "constants don't move energy". They define the "rate" at which the electric and magnetic fields interact, which results in the velocity of electromagnetic wave.

    Presently if one asks why light travels at speed c, the answer by modern physics is: ‘it just does’.
    Why do you keep repeating that false statement when you have had the answer explained to you repeatedly?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Proton core sizes have been shown to be in the range of 1e10-13 to 10-15 CM
    The most intense gamma rays run at this frequency which would also explain why they are so destructive, - wavelength is near the size of the "vessel" it is transported on - similar to how ocean ships have trouble with specific wave sizes when a smaller ship wil not have problem with the same wave.
    In searching the data it is very hard to find convincing data of frequencies greater than stated. but may occur in short bursts.
    As Stated, the sphere size might be different, then the rot vel would be adjusted appropriately to maintain proper speed c
    IT is much easier to read in PDF which I would be happy to email to your if you request it through email.
    Thanks for your interest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    We seem at an impass, I see no mechanical mechanism in the EM formula that moves the light. There is no physical construct in the theory UNLESS one believes in fields which I believe from the reading I have done are a curl/ strain in aether, a structural composite.
    FIELD theory is a totally mathematical equation of elastic solid theory and although you can derive the speed of light from its constants there is nothing to explain how light gets from point A to point B as a wave. ALL data, properly interpreted show light is as wave as movement and an impulse (particle effect) on transfer out of the wave.

    Of
    course, a major concern which arises later from Maxwell’s equations is the fact
    that light can be described as electric-magnetic impulses propagated at right
    angles to one another. On page 144 of his “Classical Theories”, Whittaker
    summarily dispenses with this concern in his footnote 1 “MacCullagh’s
    equations may readily be interpreted in the electromechanical theory of light…
    e
    corresponds to the magnetic force,
    u curl e to the electric force, and curl e to the
    electric displacement. This interpretation is due to Heaviside,
    Electrician, xxvi
    (1891), p.360: Lord Kelvin had regarded rotation as analogue to magnetic force”
    (See also, Whittaker, page 286).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Proton core sizes have been shown to be in the range of 1e10-13 to 10-15 CM
    I assume this is a response to the question about the value of w?

    You do realise that you can't use any value for the size of protons in your theory as this is based on quantum theory and relativity, both of which you believe to be wrong. You need to derive the size of you magic spheres from first principles.

    Also, if your magic spheres were the size of protons then why haven't we detected them ?

    As Stated, the sphere size might be different, then the rot vel would be adjusted appropriately to maintain proper speed c
    Right. So you admit that the rotation rate of your magic spheres is based on c. So c depends on w which depends on c.

    Congratulations, you have proved that c = c. A staggering breakthrough. So much better than saying "it just does". You truly are a genius of the highest order.

    IT is much easier to read in PDF which I would be happy to email to your if you request it through email.
    No thanks. There is quite enough of your ignorant nonsense here.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    he total kinetic energy = T.K.E. = 1 mv
    Kinetic energy in millivolts?

    BTW It would be easier if you used LaTeX to present your math; it would be a bit more readable.

    c = (4 segments@35.26o = 1.06E-13 cm) times w (w = ~2.8E+23)
    Why is w = ~2.8E+23? Where does this number come from? I assume this is derived from the speed of light?
    Point of clarification, when I stated gamma rays tend to run at this frequency I was referring you the above number and w is then the angular velocity of the aether.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    We seem at an impass, I see no mechanical mechanism in the EM formula that moves the light.
    It is not mechanical. It is the interaction of the electrical and magnetic fields. As measured by Faraday and described using a formal notation we like to call "mathematics" by Maxwell.

    There is no physical construct in the theory
    Correct. No physical construct is needed.

    UNLESS one believes in fields which I believe from the reading I have done are a curl/ strain in aether, a structural composite.
    Perhaps you should stop reading material written two centuries ago.

    although you can derive the speed of light from its constants there is nothing to explain how light gets from point A to point B as a wave.
    It is the interaction of the electrical and magnetic fields.

    You need to open your mind to new ideas. You seem to be stuck in a 19th century mechanical view of the universe. If you are going to keep this closed minded attitude then you have little chance of learning anything.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Moderator Note: Aether Rules - a central point in all of this is your question as to why c is what it is. You have been told by several members that is a consequence of Maxwell's equations - equations that are very well founded. You have been asked if you are familiar with these equations and the dependence of c upon them. You have chosen not answer. You have been asked to explain what specifically is flawed in Maxwell's equations. You have chosen not to do so. If you choose not to respond to these to requests I shall be forced to assume you you are talking from ignorance and the thread will be moved to pseudoscience.
    Last edited by John Galt; June 7th, 2012 at 07:20 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    I am not sure why you state that I believe Maxwell was wrong? the elastic-solid aether strain are readily translated, (according to Whittaker in Aether, the Classic Theories) into EM formula and vice versa. I have no argument with Maxwell, in fact, Maxwell was one of the strongest proponents of aether, but the derivation of c mathematically by EM measurements of permittivity and permeability of space still do not explain how it, anything, can go that fast. - you are still saying it just is and if that's where present physics is comfortable, you've answered my original question which is similar to the position of early 20th Century physicists when Whittaker notes in discussing DesCartes concepts."communicated except by actual pressure or impact, a principle which
    compelled him to provide an explicit mechanism in order to account for each of the known
    forces of nature. This task is evidently much more difficult than that which lies before those
    who are willing to admit action at a distance as an ultimate property of matter.” (Whittaker,
    page 6)
    Should one really reflect seriously on ‘action at a distance,’ one could state
    that such a concept is equivalent to saying ‘it just does.’ Which is comparable to
    the present day explanation of why the speed of light is 300,000 km/sec: it just
    is. As is fairly evident from the above quote, science appears more ready to
    accept, ‘it just does’ than to take on the more difficult task of explaining the
    mechanism.

    So have nice day, I plan to study the physic of golf later today and the results are usually similar.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    An you don't give a lot of time to reply either. Maxwell equation's do not show a mechanism only period. AND obviously you have not read whittaker book that shows the equivalence EM equations and Elastic Solid equation so for your ignorance (which I hate to state this way) this concept moves to pseudoscience? My original question is answered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    An you don't give a lot of time to reply either. Maxwell equation's do not show a mechanism only period.
    Yes they do: the interaction of the electrical and magnetic fields.

    AND obviously you have not read whittaker book that shows the equivalence EM equations and Elastic Solid equation
    Just because you can show an equivalence between the mathematical description of two things, it doesn't not mean they are the same thing. One can draw an analogy between voltage and pressure, between current and water flow. This does not mean that electrons are made of water.

    Also, that is a history book (i.e. he is describing how things were perceived in the past when we didn't know what we know now) not a physics text book.

    You need to study physics not history.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Over the last 15+ years, I have come to believe that an aether (ether - carrier of light waves) theory is missing from the present foundation of modern physics and it is very likely an even greater blunder that can also be attributed to Einstein.
    As you have read Whittaker, you will know that he argued that Einstein's role in the development of relativity was fairly insignificant so it is unreasonable of you to blame him. You should point the finger at Lorentz and Poincare.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Why does light wave energy move at 300000 Km/per second?
    Because the speed of light in vacuum is determined by the vacuum's permittivity and permeability, both of which are fundamental constants of nature.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Discussions with mpc755 have been moved HERE.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Point of clarification, when I stated gamma rays tend to run at this frequency I was referring you the above number and w is then the angular velocity of the aether.
    The phrase "gamma rays tend to run at this frequency" is pretty meaningless. Gamma rays cover an enormous range of frequencies (which overlaps with X-rays, which is why gamma rays are usually defined as such by the source rather than the frequency).

    Why would you choose this value in particular? Just because it allows you to come up with the magic number c? Numerology! I love it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Right. So you admit that the rotation rate of your magic spheres is based on c. So c depends on w which depends on c.

    Congratulations, you have proved that c = c. A staggering breakthrough. So much better than saying "it just does". You truly are a genius of the highest order.


    QUOTE]


    I think you misunderstand the hypothesis. The aether spin vel doesn't depend on c it defines the speed at which light will move through a specifc medium and varies much like the speed of sound waves is medium dependent. The aether spin velocity defines what the value of c will be.
    In the case of a vacuum (at least near the surface of the earth) the spin velocity is approox 2.3 E23 rot.sec
    But in water the aether spin is slowed down by the embedded "mass" effect such thatThis becomes very clear
    when one looks at what happens to light speed as we move from a vacuum (1),
    to air (1.000293), to water (1.333), to glass (1.50), and to carbon diamond
    (2.417). (Refractive Indices noted in parenthesis). With the radius of a sphere
    remaining constant at estimated 2.3E-14 cm., then the speed of light in the medium listed is in cm/sec and the
    second term is the rotational vel
    Rot/sec
    Speed of light in vacuum
    299792458 requires 2.827E+23
    Air
    299704645 2.826E+23
    Water
    224900569 2.121E+23
    Glass
    199861639 1.884E+23
    Diamond
    123932393 1.169E+23
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    but the derivation of c mathematically by EM measurements of permittivity and permeability of space still do not explain how it, anything, can go that fast.
    Of course it does. Permittivity and permeability are fundamental properties of the vacuum itself, and thereby determine the speed of EM radiation propagating within that vacuum.

    Btw, you still have not explained why it is that no aether was ever detected in any experiment; all searches for aether have come up negative. Please explain ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    The aether spin velocity defines what the value of c will be.
    In the case of a vacuum (at least near the surface of the earth) the spin velocity is approox 2.3 E23 rot.sec
    So where do this number (2.3 E23 rot.sec) come from?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Why does light wave energy move at 300000 Km/per second?
    Because the speed of light in vacuum is determined by the vacuum's permittivity and permeability, both of which are fundamental constants of nature.
    It seems to me to state something is a fundamental concept is equivalent to saying it just is.
    What are the cause and effect fo permittivity and permeability? The strain of the aether medium due to any strain on its axial rotation. Therefore these constants are derived from the speed of light which is a function of the aether structural dynamic.Cauchy, Green, and
    MacCullagh used partial differential equations to explain wave motion in an
    elastic solid. It appears to the author that the strain in these equations is the
    equivalent of a spherical torque or angular impulse ~ curl ~ EM forces. Of
    course, a major concern which arises later from Maxwell’s equations is the fact
    that light can be described as electric-magnetic impulses propagated at right
    angles to one another. On page 144 of his “Classical Theories”, Whittaker
    summarily dispenses with this concern in his footnote 1 “MacCullagh’s
    equations may readily be interpreted in the electromechanical theory of light…
    e
    corresponds to the magnetic force,
    u curl e to the electric force, and curl e to the
    electric displacement. This interpretation is due to Heaviside,
    Electrician, xxvi
    (1891), p.360: Lord Kelvin had regarded rotation as analogue to magnetic force”
    (See also, Whittaker, page 286).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Point of clarification, when I stated gamma rays tend to run at this frequency I was referring you the above number and w is then the angular velocity of the aether.
    The phrase "gamma rays tend to run at this frequency" is pretty meaningless. Gamma rays cover an enormous range of frequencies (which overlaps with X-rays, which is why gamma rays are usually defined as such by the source rather than the frequency).

    Why would you choose this value in particular? Just because it allows you to come up with the magic number c? Numerology! I love it.
    To clarify, chose the fastest known STABLE gamma wave frequency, as anything faster than aether spin velocity would be self-destructive.
    This number is very close to reported gamma wave frequency and if one uses a specific radius which can be taken from studies of proton core, the speed in rot per second can be derived from wave energy formula, hv. I agree it does take a bit of a leap to get there but it is a LOGICAL leap as Maxwell defines mass a Length-cubed over Time-squared (This is taken directly from Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism) Under present theory there are only two solutions to this label that have LOGICAL meaning which are
    a volume experiencing angular acceleration or
    a surface area undergoing linear acceration
    These are the only 2 solution to Maxwell's labels for mass.

    AND as you may of have already guessed, the only plausible structural solution is the sphere, all other shapes would create distortion and be self desctrution.

    Hey Strange, you really need the PDF book, it has a bibliography and index. I would be happy to send it to you but only if you decide to request it. I have a feeling your mind is already made up so it probably would be a waste of time for both of us.
    PS point of clarification. I am not sure why you stated that aether theory proposed here goes against Quantum Theory? I believer the struture proposed here assimilates Quantum theory (which I said is an incomplete theory, not wrong) I would view quantum theory much like that of thermodynamics which is also a probability theory in that by knowing the Temperature pressure and volume a gas, one can calculate the average kinetic energy of every particle in that volume but you can't know the exact velocity of every particle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    It seems to me to state something is a fundamental concept is equivalent to saying it just is.
    We do not know why the values of the fundamental constants of nature are the way they are. It could be that there is an underlying reason, which can be understood by having a "Theory of Everything". It could also be that we observe the values that we observe simply by being here, because if these values would differ in any appreciable way we as human beings ( and possibly the universe as a whole ) could not have evolved in the first place.

    The point is not that we don't know the reason for the values of the fundamental constants, the point is simply that there is no evidence that the speed of light has anything to do with the presence of an aether. I repeat - there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the existence of aether. All experiments searching for aether have come out negative, without exception. Aether simply does not exist. You have so far failed to even acknowledge that fact, making all your claims pure unsupported conjecture.

    What are the cause and effect fo permittivity and permeability?
    Permittivity - Relates the unit for electric charge to distance and force, e.g. in the Coulomb force law between two separated charges.
    Permeability - Defines the magnetic forces between two spatially separated currents

    As to why these properties of the vacuum exist - well, you might as well ask why the moon is not blue. Some things are just fundamental to our reality, like the laws of physics. I am not ruling out that there is an underlying reason ( maybe there is ), but it certainly doesn't have anything to do with aether. If you claim otherwise, then please show us the evidence to support your claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Btw, you still have not explained why it is that no aether was ever detected in any experiment; all searches for aether have come up negative. Please explain ?[/QUOTE]

    In my readings there seems to be plenty of support evidence which is basically ignored. Sagnac affect shows the presence of an aether affect as does. Robert Bennett reviews several of these in his article The ALFA Model: Absolute Lab Frame and Flexible Aether
    Abstract | Natural Philosophy Alliance

    The Classic Michelson-Morley experiment assumed an aether wind on the surface earth but if there is no aether wind here and according to aether theory proposed here there isn't, the result agrees with aether theory as it should be null on the surface.
    Fresnel’s concept isechoed by Robert K. Adair in The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation,
    page 80, “If the ether were dragged along with the earth, the phenomena of
    aberration would not be observed. The light would be dragged along with the
    telescope no matter what the velocity of the earth…. The observation of
    aberration shows that the ether (if there is an ether) is not carried along with the
    earth….Yet the Michelson-Morley experiment showed the ether is carried along
    with the earth. There is a paradox! But with Stokes’ derivation of a partial
    aether drag, there is NO paradox.
    “Stokes assumed that the Earth completely dragged the aether along with it in its orbit,
    but that it did so only near its surface. The velocity of the aether is, however, claimed to be
    identical at every point on the Earth’s surface and apparently equal to the absolute velocity
    of the Earth in the universe. Out in space, however, ‘at no great distance’ from the Earth,
    the aether was supposed to be in a state of absolute rest…” (Schaffner, page 30)


    Also if one accepts the premise that light moves as a wave energy, then a carrier is required, therefore
    make a vacuum and shine light through it. If it goes through it, there is a carrier if not there is not a carrier medium. I believe all experiments at this time show light can traverse vacuum. This a proof of a carrier.
    The evidence for light (EM radiation) moving as waves is substantial, ONLY when it transfers energy out of the wave does it show its particle effect and this is no different for sound.
    BUT if one would like to put a set of racing (opposite direction) lasers on the outside of ISS, then you proof would be there, probably in one orbit or less. Unfortunately NASAs funding has evaporated and I do not have the resources and from all the negative comments, it doesn't look like most would like to know this answer.


    It would be logical to assume that large particles like a planet or person
    would move through the “loose” aether which is not embedded in massive
    particles. Therefore, it seems logical that a Michelson-Morley type experiment
    should be able to falsify
    QAT. But it can’t be done in a location where the object
    is not moving through the aether such as on the surface of the earth. It is fairly
    clear to the author that the earth and most large massive objects drag a
    considerable amount of aether with them. This entrained aether is called the
    atmosphere and may extend to the magnetosphere for the earth and probably
    includes the outer boundaries of our solar system for the aether entrained by the
    sun. But there is an object within reach of science which is moving at onefourth
    the speed of the earth, the speed which was used for the Michelson-
    Morley calculations. The International Space Station (
    ISS) has an orbital
    velocity stated at 28,000 kilometers per hour (7777 meters per second). This
    speed is only one fourth the speed of earth’s orbital velocity of 29,000 meters
    per second as used in Michelson-Morley fringe shift calculations. Present
    technology may be able to confirm or falsify
    QAT by attaching aether motion
    detection devices to the ISS.
    The author refers to this experiment as pulsing dueling lasers. Consider two
    (or three) side by side one or two meter long beams which fire a laser pulse as a
    time delay gated laser pulse to its opposite side (the next pulse dependent on
    the arrival time of each previous pulse). Laser 1 sends its pulse from left to right
    and laser 2 from right to left, both receiver and emitter open to the air so that
    any moving carrier between the emitter-detector would retard or accelerate the
    laser pulse. (A third laser with an emitter-detector encased in a vacuum tubelike
    design could serve as a control). This experiment could also be done by a
    single laser device as long as it would be possible to reverse the emitterdetector
    signal and compare results for opposite directions. The device(s)
    would need to be mounted on an external position of the
    ISS in line with theforward velocity of the
    ISS. (An alternative vehicle might be a normal shuttle
    mission whose velocity is similar to the
    ISS). As a more economical solution, a
    similar device might give significant results (retarded signal vs accelerated
    signal) in a jetted wind tunnel. Where it won’t show any significant result is
    sitting on the surface of the earth. [Or it might if it’s a really windy day!!] A
    good place to calibrate such a device might be at one of the sites where
    Michelson-Morley did their experiment since it is known from their results that
    there is no aether wind there. If it were possible to build a two meter length
    gated laser with a nanosecond delay between pulses, then in a one second
    “race” of oppositely aligned lasers, the laser pulse moving with the aether wind
    would appear to have 6000 more pulses per second. If a nanosecond gate is
    too extreme, then a microsecond delay should show 10 more pulses for every
    30 second “race” moving at 7777 m/s over the two meter length [29801192
    pulses with aether wind and 29801182 pulses against aether wind for a 30
    second interval with a microsecond gate.][A spoiler might be that the
    ISS or space shuttle would also drag a considerable amount of aether with it, which
    would be seen as null result. However with the recent drifting away of the bag of
    space tools by the space-walking astronaut, if would appear that some aether
    current is present.]
    78
    From A need for speed (c), The Quantum Effects of an Elastic-Solid Aether (2008)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    It seems to me to state something is a fundamental concept is equivalent to saying it just is.
    Which is exactly what you do with your magic undetectable spheres. You just assert them to exist. You may have missed your thread getting hijacked by another crackpot who has his own opinion of what the aether is. Which is, of course, completely incompatible with yours. This is because you are both just making stuff up rather than relying on scientific evidence.

    On the other hand, permittivity and permeability can be measured experimentally, independently of one another and independently of the speed of light.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    To clarify, chose the fastest known STABLE gamma wave frequency, as anything faster than aether spin velocity would be self-destructive.
    Please provide a reference for this "fastest known STABLE gamma wave frequency" otherwise I will be forced to assume that you made it up to make the numbers work.

    Hey Strange, you really need the PDF book, it has a bibliography and index.
    It's OK, really. You are doing a fine job of demonstrating your ignorance right here.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    In my readings there seems to be plenty of support evidence which is basically ignored.
    That is clearly because you either don't understand (1) or your reading includes pseudo-scientific crackpots (2).

    (1)
    Sagnac affect shows the presence of an aether affect
    No it doesn't. You clearly don't understand.

    (2)
    Robert Bennett reviews several of these in his article The ALFA Model: Absolute Lab Frame and Flexible Aether
    That is not science and can therefore be safely ignored.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    What are the cause and effect fo permittivity and permeability? The strain of the aether medium due to any strain on its axial rotation.
    Then your "theory" should be able to derive the values of these constants. Let's see it.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    In my readings there seems to be plenty of support evidence which is basically ignored.
    Such as ?
    I am not aware of any experimental evidence in support of aether. Please provide references.

    Sagnac affect shows the presence of an aether
    No it doesn't. The Sagnac effect is a result of subjecting an interferometer to a rotational motion, and is predicted and explained by Special Relativity. It has nothing to do with aether.

    Also if one accepts the premise that light moves as a wave energy, then a carrier is required,
    The carrier of EM waves is the electromagnetic field itself. Again, this has nothing to do with aether.

    if one would like to put a set of racing (opposite direction) lasers on the outside of ISS, then you proof would be there,
    What you describe is the combination of these two experiments :

    Michelson
    Michelson

    both of which have been performed long ago, and both of which have come out negative, thereby conclusively showing that aether does not exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    You claim that my theory is misinformation but its ok for you to put out misinformation?
    Michelson experiments only showed there was no aether wind on the service of the earth, it did not prove that aether did not exist.
    by Robert K. Adair in The Great Design: Particles, Fields, and Creation,
    page 80, “If the ether were dragged along with the earth, the phenomena of
    aberration would not be observed. The light would be dragged along with the
    telescope no matter what the velocity of the earth…. The observation of
    aberration shows that the ether (if there is an ether) is not carried along with the
    earth…
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    You claim that my theory is misinformation but its ok for you to put out misinformation?
    Michelson experiments only showed there was no aether wind on the service of the earth, it did not prove that aether did not exist
    Presumably you are so convinced you are right, you don't think it is necessary to read anything where you might actually learn something?
    Quote Originally Posted by WP
    As it was already pointed out by Michelson in 1904, a positive result in such experiments contradicts the hypothesis of complete aether drag. On the other hand, the stationary ether concept is in agreement with this result, yet it contradicts (with the exception of Lorentz's ether) the Michelson-Morley experiment. Thus special relativity is the only theory which explains both experiments.
    There is no aether.

    Open your mind. Learn some physics instead of making stuff up.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    [Just because you can show an equivalence between the mathematical description of two things, it doesn't not mean they are the same thing. One can draw an analogy between voltage and pressure, between current and water flow. This does not mean that electrons are made of water.

    Also, that is a history book (i.e. he is describing how things were perceived in the past when we didn't know what we know now) not a physics text book.

    You need to study physics not history.[/QUOTE]

    So a quick comment on physics, I am assuming you agree Wave Mechanics and Matrix mechanics which are two quite different approaches to position and momentum are essentially the same and yet present a "true" representation of this subject? Because if you don't then you must not agree with Gamov and most of everyone else in physics. I believe the model propose here reflects the interchangebility of elastic theory with Electromagnetic theory as stated by Whittaker.

    Until you have read my book, I think your claim of ignorance on my part is invalid. During my original design of the proposed wave carrier theory, after I made the original design, I was able to present the design to 3 college professors, 2 physics and one chemistry, whose major comment was, "so you want to bring back the aether?" AND I said the what? Now that was ignorance as I had no idea what aether had been proposed or even considered in the past. Therefore it became necessary to research the subject where I became sort of amazed at how many errors have progressed since the ether was dismissed around 1920 (generally considered to be attached to Einstein and his Leyden Lecture Physics: Albert Einstein: WSM in Space Explains Albert Einstein's 1920 Leiden Lecture on Space-Ether
    And later in his and Leopold Infeld's book, Einstein, Albert, and Infeld, Leopold, The Evolution of Physics: The Growth of Ideas from Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Simon and Schuster,
    1942, New York Because of this abandonment of the aether, one must turn to the "historical" documents in order to figure out what went seriously wrong, and I don't mean to understate the seriousness.

    Since then I am pretty well versed on aether theory and I would more than willing put my knowledge of aether against yours anytime.. One needs the historical info because modern physics has ineptly abandoned the aether which obviously you agree with with what appears to me an exceedingly closed mind.

    Correctly understood, a dynamic aether is the building block of the universe and is embedded in all space and in all mass - yes you and me. When its dynamics change, mass appears.

    I also know it will probably take another generation or 2 to figure this out. But until you read my book, you really appear to have no understanding of the present dilemma in physics. But based on the following statement I understand your concern with giving aether a fair evaluation.

    Fundamental challenges to disciplines tend to come from outside. It is customary for
    students to be introduced to their fields of study gradually, as slowly unfolding mysteries, so
    that by the time they can see their subject as a whole, they have been so thoroughly imbued
    with conventional preconceptions and patterns of thought that they are extremely unlikely to
    be able to question its basic premises.” Martin Bernal’s Black Athena: The Afro-asiatic Roots
    of Classical Civilization, Vol. I, 1987

    But to put back the aether to you appears threatens the foundations presently held by physics when actually, a dynamic aether actually RESTORES casuality and logic in physics .

    To reemphasize the position presented by D.W. Sciama in The
    Physical Foundations of General Relativity, page15: “In the inertial case we
    would want to say that inertial forces are exerted, not by space,
    but by other bodies . If this makes sense, then inertial forces are not fictitious after all, but are
    just as physical as any other forces. In consequence, Newton’s laws of motion
    would hold in all frames of reference, and the problem of the preferred role of
    inertial frames would be solved.”
    The aether model proposed here has inertial forces of surface area, volume displacement and spin.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    The aether spin velocity defines what the value of c will be.
    In the case of a vacuum (at least near the surface of the earth) the spin velocity is approox 2.3 E23 rot.sec
    So where do this number (2.3 E23 rot.sec) come from?
    Frequency of the Highest Electromagnetic Waves

    Note the key here is Well measured which is stated below 10E24 cycles per second which based on sphere size would be the correct amount of spin but a "burst" of higher frequency might be detectabl but not maintainable.
    This was not my original source as I used a calculated number once Radius is known, the number for light speed can be calculated base on the body centered structure compliance demands.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    I am curious what does Forum Professor indicate as I could not find your name on list of admin or moderators? thanks dew
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    I am curious what does Forum Professor indicate as I could not find your name on list of admin or moderators? thanks dew
    It only indicates a certain number of messages posted to the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    You claim that my theory is misinformation but its ok for you to put out misinformation?
    Can you read ? What I had written is this :

    both of which have been performed long ago, and both of which have come out negative, thereby conclusively showing that aether does not exist.
    I had referred to two distinct experiments, neither of which on its own can disprove the existence of aether. However, the fact that both these experiments come out negative does indeed rule out the existence of aether.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    One needs the historical info because modern physics has ineptly abandoned the aether which obviously you agree with with what appears to me an exceedingly closed mind.


    Well, so far as I am concerned ( and it would appear that most all mainstream physicists agree on this ), many people throughout the last century or two have devised and executed very sophisticated experiments to search for aether. Not one of them has come up positive. While either one of these experiments taking in isolation mightn't mean too much, the fact that all of them came out negative paints a pretty clear picture.
    Aether does not exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Since then I am pretty well versed on aether theory and I would more than willing put my knowledge of aether against yours anytime.
    I would be immensely proud if I knew less about aether theory, or phlogiston, or caloric, or the four humours, than you do.

    This is a sad admission of your ignorance of modern science and, even worse, the scientific method.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    So where do this number (2.3 E23 rot.sec) come from?
    Frequency of the Highest Electromagnetic Waves
    I'm sorry. I fail to see that number anywhere on that page.

    Note the key here is Well measured which is stated below 10E24 cycles per second
    That is not any sort of upper limit on gamma rays. That is purely about the accuracy to which the "diffuse" gamma-ray background has been measured. It explicitly states that gamma rays up to 1029Hz have been measured. This is 1,000,000 times greater than your made-up number.

    This was not my original source as I used a calculated number once Radius is known, the number for light speed can be calculated base on the body centered structure compliance demands.
    So you admit, you originally calculated a number to make it fit with the measured speed of light? And then you looked around for some justification and found a mention of gamma rays that were about a factor of 1 million out - hey, but that's close enough for pseudo-science, right?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    One needs the historical info because modern physics has ineptly abandoned the aether which obviously you agree with with what appears to me an exceedingly closed mind.
    I'm afraid you are the one with the closed mind. Closed to evidence that absolutely refutes the existence of the aether just because it contradicts your made-up science. Closed to the scientific method. Closed to actually learning any physics.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    What you describe is the combination of these two experiments :

    Michelson
    Michelson

    both of which have been performed long ago, and both of which have come out negative, thereby conclusively showing that aether does not exist.[/QUOTE]

    Ok I've read the two experiments you've listed and neither disproves the existence of ether - a quote from the 2nd(Sagnac Exp)=
    "In the case of light propagating in vacuum pre-relativistic theories and relativistic physics predict the same. In other words, in the case of propagation in vacuum a Sagnac experiment does not distinguish between pre-relativistic physics and relativistic physics. Both predict the same."
    and the 1st is Classic Michelson Morley showing no ether wind on the surface of the earth, not the non existence aether. In other words, the Sagnac is consistent with the presence of an ether.


    Which is part of my original point, physicist choose to ignore aether rather than to deal with it. But I am certain at some point in the future you will and the aether proposed here will have to be considered. AND I clearly state in my book that a physicist or mathematician can likely resolve this but the catalyst appears to need to come from the outside or perhaps someone who will actually read the book before forming an opinion that it is already futile which is obviously your opinion -- I also state I am treading on your Holy Grail (also in the book) so I am not surprised, BUT neither of the above experiments prove aether does not exist and if that is your position, then it is mistaken. So How much do you really know of aether and light movement? sounds like a lot in that case you might find the following missing "Shakespearian Act" amusing. aurory is the URL link for The Violent Catastrophe of Luminous Aether aurory
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    So you admit, you originally calculated a number to make it fit with the measured speed of light? And then you looked around for some justification and found a mention of gamma rays that were about a factor of 1 million out - hey, but that's close enough for pseudo-science, right?[/QUOTE]

    So how do you add new ideas to science? One has to come up with a new hypothesis to explain the previously unexplained which is what the body centered structure was and USING known experimental values, looked at what a logical sphere size would be. FROM SIZE alone which is an experimental value, it is possible calculate what the spin velocity should be in order to move an impulse at speed c. And the value came very close to the upper limit of experiment results for gamma wave frequency which is would it should be. NONE of evidence I have looked act show that aether did not exist only not found. If light moves across a vacuum which is pretty well proven, there is a carrier by wave definition
    The evidence is there, one just has to go back and dig it out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Or just make it up. Works better that way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    NONE of evidence I have looked act show that aether did not exist only not found.
    so you believe in something that there is no evidence for and is unnecessary.

    If light moves across a vacuum which is pretty well proven, there is a carrier by wave definition
    Who's definition?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    What you describe is the combination of these two experiments :

    Michelson
    Michelson

    both of which have been performed long ago, and both of which have come out negative, thereby conclusively showing that aether does not exist.
    Ok I've read the two experiments you've listed and neither disproves the existence of ether - a quote from the 2nd(Sagnac Exp)=
    "In the case of light propagating in vacuum pre-relativistic theories and relativistic physics predict the same. In other words, in the case of propagation in vacuum a Sagnac experiment does not distinguish between pre-relativistic physics and relativistic physics. Both predict the same."
    and the 1st is Classic Michelson Morley showing no ether wind on the surface of the earth, not the non existence aether. In other words, the Sagnac is consistent with the presence of an ether.


    Which is part of my original point, physicist choose to ignore aether rather than to deal with it. But I am certain at some point in the future you will and the aether proposed here will have to be considered. AND I clearly state in my book that a physicist or mathematician can likely resolve this but the catalyst appears to need to come from the outside or perhaps someone who will actually read the book before forming an opinion that it is already futile which is obviously your opinion -- I also state I am treading on your Holy Grail (also in the book) so I am not surprised, BUT neither of the above experiments prove aether does not exist and if that is your position, then it is mistaken. So How much do you really know of aether and light movement? sounds like a lot in that case you might find the following missing "Shakespearian Act" amusing. aurory is the URL link for The Violent Catastrophe of Luminous Aether aurory
    Well, these are only two examples, and only the most famous experiments. There have been many more - have a look at a (non-exhaustive) list here :

    Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Note that all of these experiments came out negative in the end.
    Now, can you please point me to just one single experiment that actually shows that aether exists ? One is all I am asking for. An aether such as you suggest should be fairly easy to detect, as it provides a global unique frame of reference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Now, can you please point me to just one single experiment that actually shows that aether exists ? One is all I am asking for. An aether such as you suggest should be fairly easy to detect, as it provides a global unique frame of reference.
    What Markus asks for is the exact answer to the question posed in the thread title.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    So how do you add new ideas to science? One has to come up with a new hypothesis to explain the previously unexplained
    And then you look for evidence to support the hypothesis. All evidence shows that there is no aether.

    FROM SIZE alone which is an experimental value, it is possible calculate what the spin velocity should be in order to move an impulse at speed c.
    I missed that. Where does the size come from?

    And the value came very close to the upper limit of experiment results for gamma wave frequency which is would it should be.
    If you consider a factor of 1,000,000 to be "close".

    NONE of evidence I have looked act show that aether did not exist only not found.
    But if it is utterly undetectable by any of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of experiments that have been performed and it is utterly unnecessary then we can safely assume it doesn't exist. (Until such evidence turns up, of course.)

    If light moves across a vacuum which is pretty well proven, there is a carrier by wave definition
    Which definition is that? And even if a "carrier" is required, the electric and magnetic fields will do nicely.

    The evidence is there, one just has to go back and dig it out.
    What about the invisible pink unicorns that push the planets around. I know they haven't been detected yet. And I know that the motion of the planets can be explained by "gravity". But that is just math. If they are moving there must, by definition, be something pushing them. Therefore the invisible pink unicorns must exist. The evidence is there, one just has to go back and dig it out.

    The usual crackpot reaction to an analogy like that is "that's just silly" but, honestly, it is exactly what you are saying.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    GWN
    GWN is offline
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    120
    AetherRules.

    If you go to The General Science Journal and download a free copy of my work titled Matter and Associated Mysteries, you will find that the Invisible Pink Unicorns referred to in the above post are actually resulting from Matters Property of Inertia; you know the part that requires that matter in motion will continue in motion in a straight line unless deflected or opposed by an unbalanced force. In the work referred to, you will find that an orbit of a planet results from a combination of Gravity, gravitation and matters property of inertia; all explained in minute detail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by GWN View Post
    ...
    Once again, we have a fine example of two people basing their theories on "common sense" and "logic" (rather than science and evidence) and hence coming up with completely different and incompatible explanations of reality.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Now, can you please point me to just one single experiment that actually shows that aether exists ? One is all I am asking for. An aether such as you suggest should be fairly easy to detect, as it provides a global unique frame of reference.
    What Markus asks for is the exact answer to the question posed in the thread title.
    I answered it back in post #11.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Indeed you did. Seems rather obvious, don't it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    What about the invisible pink unicorns that push the planets around. I know they haven't been detected yet. And I know that the motion of the planets can be explained by "gravity". But that is just math. If they are moving there must, by definition, be something pushing them. Therefore the invisible pink unicorns must exist. The evidence is there, one just has to go back and dig it out.

    The usual crackpot reaction to an analogy like that is "that's just silly" but, honestly, it is exactly what you are saying.[/QUOTE]

    This answer just addresses your gravity concerns, in that if an aether matrix as proposed above exists, then gravity could easily be explanable as a "reverse" buoyancy effect since it is well established that the speed of light increases as one moves away from the surface of a planet. Speed of light in air(surface of earth = 299704645 cm/sec) and in vacuum on surface of the earth is 299792458 cm/sec. AND THEREFORE there is a gradient of gravity force of AT LEAST (299704645-299792458 cm/sec or 87800 cm/sec
    F = ma = mg And an acceleration is (c(1)-c(2))/t or therefore this variance of the speed of light which is a function of carrier of light spin velocity creates a "reverse" buoyancy force of at least that noted above. ( it is reasonable to assume that the speed of light in a vacuum on the surface of the earth is actually slower than the speed of vacuum in deep space. Obviously this is theoretical since I am not aware of any deep space vacuum c speed measurements.

    Since the carrier spin particles at a higher altitude spin FASTER (as confirmed by the faster speed of light), these faster spin particles will PUSH any object toward the surface of a mass But as one moves farther away from the surface this force diminishes and at some height is inadequate to push any mass back to the surface.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    What you describe is the combination of these two experiments :

    Michelson
    Michelson

    both of which have been performed long ago, and both of which have come out negative, thereby conclusively showing that aether does not exist.
    Ok I've read the two experiments you've listed and neither disproves the existence of ether - a quote from the 2nd(Sagnac Exp)=
    "In the case of light propagating in vacuum pre-relativistic theories and relativistic physics predict the same. In other words, in the case of propagation in vacuum a Sagnac experiment does not distinguish between pre-relativistic physics and relativistic physics. Both predict the same."
    and the 1st is Classic Michelson Morley showing no ether wind on the surface of the earth, not the non existence aether. In other words, the Sagnac is consistent with the presence of an ether.


    Which is part of my original point, physicist choose to ignore aether rather than to deal with it. But I am certain at some point in the future you will and the aether proposed here will have to be considered. AND I clearly state in my book that a physicist or mathematician can likely resolve this but the catalyst appears to need to come from the outside or perhaps someone who will actually read the book before forming an opinion that it is already futile which is obviously your opinion -- I also state I am treading on your Holy Grail (also in the book) so I am not surprised, BUT neither of the above experiments prove aether does not exist and if that is your position, then it is mistaken. So How much do you really know of aether and light movement? sounds like a lot in that case you might find the following missing "Shakespearian Act" amusing. aurory is the URL link for The Violent Catastrophe of Luminous Aether aurory
    Well, these are only two examples, and only the most famous experiments. There have been many more - have a look at a (non-exhaustive) list here :

    Luminiferous aether - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Note that all of these experiments came out negative in the end.
    Now, can you please point me to just one single experiment that actually shows that aether exists ? One is all I am asking for. An aether such as you suggest should be fairly easy to detect, as it provides a global unique frame of reference.

    I have reviewed your reference (I was somewhat surprised to be referred to Wikipedia as I have been advised to avoid using Wiki for a reference.) and it looks like I have to disagree, none show the aether does not exist. only that there is no aether wind on the surface of the earth. The evidence the earth drags its aether is the existence of the magnetosphere which is likely the shear force of the earth-aether drag. All the experiments appear to evaluate for s surfice wind aether and as I quoted above, the aether as proposed is not moving on the surface
    first order comment
    Wiki quote:Besides those optical experiments, also electrodynamic first-order experiments were conducted, which should lead to positive results according to Fresnel. However, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1895) modified Fresnel's theory and showed that those experiments can be explained by a stationary aether as well:[A 6]

    second order
    Wiki quote:
    Similarly the Sagnac effect, observed by G. Sagnac in 1913 was immediately seen to be fully consistent with special relativity.[E 29][E 30] In fact, the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment in 1925 was proposed specifically as a test to confirm the relativity theory, although it was also recognized that such tests, which merely measure absolute rotation, are also consistent with non-relativistic theories (Aether not proven NOT to exist, only not detected.)
    These are bad designs due to misunderstanding of what aether is and where it is.
    the partial drag experiments show in a liquid movement some of the aether matrix is carried along but in an atmospheric (air) density the aether is stationary. period.

    Almost all these experiments were done 80+ years ago and as I suggested, I believe an experiment such as I proposed in comment #54 of racing lasers on the ISS (Internationl space station) But I am not sure what the "relativisitic" result would predict but it is very clear that a carrier effect would be shown with such an experiment. But since I lack adequate resources to run it, I doubt it will be done anytime soon.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Now, can you please point me to just one single experiment that actually shows that aether exists ? One is all I am asking for. An aether such as you suggest should be fairly easy to detect, as it provides a global unique frame of reference.
    What Markus asks for is the exact answer to the question posed in the thread title.
    I answered it back in post #11.

    Let's assume one wants to know if it is possible to freeze hydrogen, so we start lowering the temperature of hydrogen and we get to the freezing point of water which is has 2/3rds of its atoms as hydrogen and it doesn't freeze.
    So we go lower and get to 60 deg K and note that some Nitrogen we have has frozen. But the Hydrogen is still a gas, then we go down below 50 K and note the oxygen has frozen but the hydrogen is still a gas. So we get down to 25 deg K and it still a gas. Then it must be that hydrogen can't be frozen.

    You and I know that is not true but if the only experimental results that we had were above, one assumption would be hydrogen can't be frozen. (Due to poor experimental design)
    The aether experimental designs have been inadequate to detect a carrier due to poor design and lack of understanding just how elusive this carrier is. The nice thing about putting the aether back, physics really returns to a mechanics action-reaction science, no action at a distance, no wave-particle duality, no faith based mathematica concept of Big Bang, which has been religiously patched and modified over and over for the last 20 years.

    You've helped me document my position paper which is sort of really all I expected in the first place so I can thank you all for that,
    To reemphasize the position presented by D.W. Sciama in The
    Physical Foundations of General Relativity, page15: “In the inertial case we
    would want to say that inertial forces are exerted, not by space,
    but by otherbodies. If this makes sense, then inertial forces are not fictitious after all, but are
    just as physical as any other forces. In consequence, Newton’s laws of motion
    would hold in all frames of reference
    , and the problem of the preferred role of
    inertial frames would be solved.”


    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    The aether experimental designs have been inadequate to detect a carrier due to poor design and lack of understanding just how elusive this carrier is.
    The experiments conducted were perfectly adequate, and clearly show that such a thing as aether does not exist. If you think they were not, then you will have to provide appropriate evidence as to where exactly the shortcomings of those experiments were.
    I expect a full theoretical treatment from you, otherwise the quote above is just merely unsupported conjecture.

    I believe an experiment such as I proposed in comment #54 of racing lasers on the ISS (Internationl space station)
    What you suggest has been done in slightly modified form ( radio waves instead of lasers ) in 2003 by the Cassini probe. Not surprisingly, the result was in perfect agreement with General Relativity, and did not detect any aether-induced distortions.

    The nice thing about putting the aether back, physics really returns to a mechanics action-reaction science, no action at a distance, no wave-particle duality, no faith based mathematica concept of Big Bang, which has been religiously patched and modified over and over for the last 20 years.
    I think with this you have made clear your real agenda - let's go back to the 17th century, cause modern day science is just too far over your head !!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    It can't. The whole idea is just ludicrous, and was rightly abandoned a century ago. Science moves forwards you know, not backwards.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    if an aether matrix as proposed above exists ...
    On the other hand, if it doesn't ...

    There is no evidence for it and no need for it. Come back when that changes.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    I have reviewed your reference (I was somewhat surprised to be referred to Wikipedia as I have been advised to avoid using Wiki for a reference.)
    You should avoid using Wikipedia as a reference; e.g. if you are writing a paper or an article you need to find a more authoritative source. Luckily Wikipedia (especially the science pages) provides plenty of these. You can also use these if you need more technical detail than the Wikipedia article provides. You can also do your own research using the key terms in the Wikipedia argument to confirm the accuracy.

    The caveat for Wikipedia is "use with caution" rather than "do not use".

    Almost all these experiments were done 80+ years ago
    I really hope you don't think that scientists do an experiment, get a result and then put the equipment away to be forgotten. These experiments have been repeated many times since.

    More importantly, a whole variety of different experiments have been developed that test all aspects of special relativity in all sorts of clever ways. Note that these do not have to directly test for an aether to prove you wrong. What you claim would violate special relativity (SR) so every experiment that confirms SR proves you are wrong. There are many hundreds, maybe thousands, of such experiments which have been performed many times by many different people. These have shown SR to be correct to very high accuracy. In one case it constrains any divergence to be less than 3x10-32.

    Here is some reading for you: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html
    John Galt and Markus Hanke like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    More importantly, a whole variety of different experiments have been developed that test all aspects of special relativity in all sorts of clever ways. Note that these do not have to directly test for an aether to prove you wrong. What you claim would violate special relativity (SR) so every experiment that confirms SR proves you are wrong. There are many hundreds, maybe thousands, of such experiments which have been performed many times by many different people. These have shown SR to be correct to very high accuracy. In one case it constrains any divergence to be less than 3x10-32.
    Precisely...not to mention all the experiments to test General Relativity, since aether of the form proposed here would violate that as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    AetherRules,

    your question: How can mainstream physics be persuaded to consider Aether Theory?

    The answer to this question, I think, depends upon the definition of aether and the details of the theory.

    For Example:

    In the 19th century and before, aether was defined as: the non-visible omni-present material that accordingly filled the entire universe.

    After the discovery of atoms, molecules, gases and air, aether became the medium that accordingly would remain after atomic and other known matter was removed. In most proposed models it was thought to be particulate in nature having energy of relative motions, but other models were non-specific concerning particulates.

    In the 17th century onward into the early 20th century there were proposals to explain, light waves (luminiferous aether), gravity (pushing gravity models), and magnetism (most famously Maxwell's aether model of magnetism) via relative motions of the aether. In the late 19th century there was a very famous test attempting to find the luminiferous aether. This was the Michelson & Morley experiment whereby they were awarded the Nobel Prize for not finding it

    Although such a field was proposed mathematically in 1913, its discovery was not finally realized until the late 1940's. Such a model had problems in that no particles were associated with the field so the idea of pure energy was proposed. To include all possibilities the concept of the Zero Point Field containing zero point energy and the mathematical structure of field theory as well as the possibility of physical constituents.

    So finally to answer your quest , the aetherial effect of the ZPF was shown to exist in 1948 concerning the Casimere effect. Since then there have been countless experiments confirming the existence of zero point energy. Does this prove the existence of the aether? No, since the aether no longer has a definition since it is thought to have been disproved by Michelson and Morley's experiment. But is there a background field? Yes, it was shown to exist in 1948. Is that background field particulate? There are many new "ether" models of presently undiscovered particulates in a background omnipresent field. The most well know are dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, quantum foam, etc. There are also other hypothetical background field energy. The primary model is the dark energy idea.

    How about the luminiferous aether that Michelson and Morley were trying to find? None of the presently proposed background field particulates are proposed to
    be the "carrier" of EM radiation, but there are still many non-mainstream models that propose this possibility. Michelson and Morley's experiment, for instance, could not test for a gravity-centered aether. One or more of these alternative models propose(d) that a gravity producing aether must also be gravity centered and also the carrier of light. They also could not detect aether speeds less than the accuracty of the many more accurate similar tests since then.

    Mainstream physics therefore already believes in an ether of one kind or another, but of course they no longer choose to call this background field an "aether." If there is such a thing as the luminiferous aether that is gravity-centered, or of some other peculiarity, then how can science be convinced of its existence? I believe science will never again consider the idea of a luminiferous aether unless a verifiable experiment provides strong evidence for its existence.

    I have designed such an experiment and I suspect that I am not the only one. My experimental design involves nano-second timers gauging the speed of light traveling vertical to the Earth's surface (up vs. down), using lasers or fiber-optic cables. Anyone wishing the description of the design-of-experiment can contact me at pantheory.org@gmail.com The two light-weight precision timers needed for this experiment have only been available for a few years now and will be of considerable expense, even to rent them if possible, so that I expect it will still take me a few years longer to be able to conduct this experiment. I will publish a paper concerning the results regardless of the results since there are other interesting aspects and related predictions such as observing the rotation of the Earth and its magnetic field

    As to your own model of aether, I would expect you would have little mainstream audience for it until/ unless you also develop new predictions from it that strongly would contradict the mainstream model. Then you seemingly would need to design an experiment that would be strong evidence in favor of your model, that also could not be explained by a model without the use of an aether. I also think there is no good explanation that presently explains a reason for the speed of light but logical explanations alone will not entice mainstream science to consider it.




    Last edited by forrest noble; June 22nd, 2012 at 09:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,532
    Quote Originally Posted by forrest noble View Post
    Mainstream physics therefore already believes in an ether of one kind or another, but of course they no longer choose to call this background field an "aether."
    As you will see from this and the other concurrent [a]ether threads, many scientists do refer to various things as the ather; this may be used to describe Einstein's space-time, the electromagnetic field, the Higgs field and various other things.

    I have designed such an experiment and I suspect that I am not the only one. My experimental design involves nano-second timers gauging the speed of light traveling vertical to the Earth's surface (up vs. down), using lasers or fiber-optic cables.
    I suspect you will need far greater accuracy than nanoseconds (for any practical size). Also, how is this different from the Pound Rebka experiment?
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    The aether experimental designs have been inadequate to detect a carrier due to poor design and lack of understanding just how elusive this carrier is.
    The experiments conducted were perfectly adequate, and clearly show that such a thing as aether does not exist. If you think they were not, then you will have to provide appropriate evidence as to where exactly the shortcomings of those experiments were.
    I expect a full theoretical treatment from you, otherwise the quote above is just merely unsupported conjecture.

    I believe an experiment such as I proposed in comment #54 of racing lasers on the ISS (Internationl space station)
    What you suggest has been done in slightly modified form ( radio waves instead of lasers ) in 2003 by the Cassini probe. Not surprisingly, the result was in perfect agreement with General Relativity, and did not detect any aether-induced distortions
    Ok, so I have looked over the Cassini probe experiment that I was able to find and it does not show absence of aether, unless one assume that because it agrees with General Relativity, then aether theory must be wrong which is false logic. 1) the aether theory I propose is a quantum aether theory based on the speed of light and the foundation of General Relativity is speed of light. 2) I don't see any similarity of the racing lasers experiment to the Cassini microwave experiment which was a curvature of light times. If one realizes that the bending of light by gravity theory predicted by general relativity is a sham theory which uses DISTANCE from surface of a mass which still works because in Aether theory, the speed of light increases as one moves away from the center of mass, THE RESULT is the same for both theories. Since it is generally well understood that light takes the path of least time. Then light (radiowaves) will curve around a mass to get to its fastest path.

    BendLight.jpg

    racing lasers would predict a difference in the forward light vs the backwards light due to movement through the aether but since relativity would predict the SAME shrinkage since the alignment of both laser is in direction of movement, there should be no time change in the lasers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Ok, so I have looked over the Cassini probe experiment that I was able to find and it does not show absence of aether, unless one assume that because it agrees with General Relativity, then aether theory must be wrong which is false logic.
    That depends what kind of aether it is you are proposing. Let's hear it.
    Besides, it doesn't show the absence of pink unicorns either, but that does not mean we can assume there are pink unicorns up there ?!

    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    the aether theory I propose is a quantum aether theory based on the speed of light and the foundation of General Relativity is speed of light. 2)
    Ok then, let's hear the exact details of this quantum theory of yours.

    If one realizes that the bending of light by gravity theory predicted by general relativity is a sham theory which uses DISTANCE from surface of a mass which still works because in Aether theory
    Obviously you have no idea about GR - not surprising. GR does not predict the light ray to bend at all, it predicts the ray to follow null-geodesics through space-time. In the presence of energy - any form of energy, not just mass - this space-time has intrinsic curvature, and thus the null-geodesics are now straight lines in a curved space-time. That is why the light ray appears curved, because it follows the "contours" of a curved space-time.
    The relationship is highly non-linear, and there are many more factors at play then just distance, as for example angular momentum, density, electric charge, shear stresses etc etc. I could give you the field equations now, but I won't bother because you wouldn't understand them anyway.
    Needless to say your own little theory will need to correctly account for all of the relevant factors, both qualitatively and quantitively.

    the speed of light increases as one moves away from the center of mass
    It does not. The speed of light in vacuum is an unchanging fundamental constant, it does not depend on distance from a mass.
    Please reference an experiment that shows that the speed of light varies with distance.

    THE RESULT is the same for both theories.
    No it is not, as clearly shown by the total solar eclipse experiment of 1919 :

    Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A theory based on Newton's gravity and aether alone predicts a different value for the deflection as GR. Needless to say that GR had the correct value, which was actually observed. This experiment was performed multiple times since then ( last in 1973 ), and the results were always the same, i.e. in accordance to GR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    Hey Markus, I have to hand it to you, you've hung in there much longer than most. With regard to my understanding of GR, you would be absolutely correct, and with aether theory GR becomes obsolete - the exact opposite of your belief system. And as you state, I don't have the brain power to give you the MATH solutions you have requested above and I CLEARLY state this in my book (which I have offered for free to anyone requesting it) and actually request help from a mathematical expert in the book. BUT even in spite of this, the aether theory proposed here (or one quite similar - must have body-centered spheres of opposite rotation as this is required by essentially all the data that presently exists on EM movement), when properly understood will pretty much dismiss or at least relagate Relativity theory to a minor role, hopefully within your lifetime. If you have some free time some time, you should really read it. I think it would be a quick read for you and the concepts presented are well documented. Why aether theory? allows for mechanics basis for speed of light, gravity and "bending" of light by light speed variance. (Measure the speed of light on the surface of the earth is much slower than at the ISS and even slower as one goes deeper into space as there is no vacuum on the surface of the earth. - the "atmosphere" or envelope around sun and stars appears to have the same slowing affect on aether and therefore speed of light).
    GR does not address atomic structure nor wave particle dualism or cause of mass. Aether theory once restored can and will address those issues. In any case thanks for your comments, it helps me to understand just how entrenched GR and SR are in the conscienseness of the present physics cult.

    Site of free book on web Why
    I strongly advise anyone interested to request the PDF from me as the above site does not have page numbers and therefore the index in not helpful as it is in the PDF.

    Ok, yeah why does mass increase as one approaches speed of light (in aether theory), it could be clearly shown that the formula used for mass increase is essentially identical to resistance or "drag" equations such as object moving through water. The faster the object the more it would be slowed down by running into the aether spheres, in effect a "friction" effect. And since the spheres appear to rotate on the order of 10E23 or 10E24 rotation per SECOND, it takes quite a bit of speed before the effect on mass is significant.
    Ok have a great day. Cheers dew
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95 Reply to Forrest Noble comments reply #90 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Midwest US
    Posts
    35
    thanks for your comments
    with respect to Michelson Morley experiments, they are essentially worthless since there is no aether "wind" on the surface of the earth (this is noted by Adair in his physics primer, "The Great Design")

    As you no doubt know Einstein "prohibits" any aether structure to have mechanical or force concepts (and is noted in his and Leopold Infeld's book, The Evolution of Physics) ( I believe this is most likely his greatest blunder)

    All the particles or concepts you mention, in aether theory are essentially MODIFIED aether (Higgs ZPE,ZPF, dark matter as aether conditioned due to the mass in the galaxy), but true aether in the most deepest part of space would be "massless" since the surrounding aether assigns the mass to a particle.
    Does the recent discovery of the Higgs Particle by Cern = aether particle. Appears Impossible as it is way too massive and essentially artificial.

    Also I am doubtful that your Vertical laser is capable of detecting true aether, keeping in mind that EVERYthing, including you, I, atoms and the atmosphere are essentially modified aether. It seems fairly clear to me that the earth moves through our solar system aether and leaves its signature as its magnetophere - a concept that was not ACCESSIBLE to Maxwell and his comtemporaries. Keep in mind that any movement of the atmosphere or jet stream could easily distort this attempt.

    EM moves through us, AKA we are modified aether (Lorentz supported the concept of aether embedded around and in all atoms and moleculess)

    As far as your concept of gravity centered aether, I am not sure how to address that as the aether that I see is structured in such a way that it defines gravity.

    As you may have noted above I proposed a racing Laser to detect the ather wind through which the ISS (international space station) is moving, but it might even be possible to do the same experiment in a high speed wind tunnel as the wind is essentially modified aether.

    If you would like a copy of my book you can request a PDF by emailling me deww@charter.net or as noted above if you prefer to view it covertly, a web location is noted on my previous post.
    cheers dew
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    With regard to my understanding of GR, you would be absolutely correct, and with aether theory GR becomes obsolete
    ...which unfortunately for you isn't going to happen, because its prediction are in perfect agreement with experimental and observational evidence. Therefore this is a moot point.

    And as you state, I don't have the brain power to give you the MATH solutions you have requested above and I CLEARLY state this in my book
    You will need to fix that, because without maths you have exactly nothing.

    must have body-centered spheres of opposite rotation as this is required by essentially all the data that presently exists on EM movement
    I have no idea what that means. How are rotating spheres required by EM ?

    when properly understood will pretty much dismiss or at least relagate Relativity theory to a minor role, hopefully within your lifetime.
    Once again, the predictions of relativity are in perfect agreement with experimental and observational evidence. Quite a lot of modern day technology ( GPS, radar telemetry, particle accelerators, etc etc etc ) is directly based on relativity, and they all work exactly the way they are predicted to work by the theory.

    If you have some free time some time, you should really read it.
    Do you know how many aether and anti-relativity cranks I have dealt with in my lifetime ? All of them are based on the same delusions, and failures to understand basic physics principles. I have long since given up on reading their papers, and all their names are long forgotten. Every single one of them.

    mechanics basis for speed of light, gravity and "bending" of light by light speed variance
    Speed of light is due to permittivity and permeability of background.
    Gravity is curvature in spacetime.
    Light speed does not vary.
    Light rays do not bend, they move along null-geodesics in curved space-time. A fine but important difference.

    Measure the speed of light on the surface of the earth is much slower than at the ISS and even slower as one goes deeper into space as there is no vacuum on the surface of the earth.
    References, please. And don't forget to account for the refractive index of air.

    GR does not address atomic structure nor wave particle dualism or cause of mass.
    Of course not. It's a theory of gravity.

    it could be clearly shown that the formula used for mass increase is essentially identical to resistance or "drag" equations such as object moving through water.
    Wrong again. The fluid dynamic drag equation is nothing like the relation for relativistic mass.
    Just goes to show again how little you really understand of basic physics.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; July 9th, 2012 at 01:40 PM.
    KALSTER and John Galt like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    I am still awaiting a detailed description of what exactly your proposed aether is supposed to be - please specify so that we can cut to the bone of this matter.

    the aether theory I propose is a quantum aether theory based on the speed of light and the foundation of General Relativity is speed of light
    Not good enough. You need to explain this in much more detail, so that we can show exactly where you are going wrong. At the moment I only see a bunch of general statements, but no detailed explanation of what this quantum aether is and how it is supposed to behave.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    with respect to Michelson Morley experiments, they are essentially worthless since there is no aether "wind" on the surface of the earth (this is noted by Adair in his physics primer, "The Great Design")
    We're not going to let you off that easy. Even according to Adair's "aether dragging" model, the aether velocity doesn't abruptly drop to zero. Please show your calculation of the expected "wind" velocity. Only then can one assess whether the MM experiment's null result is relevant.

    As you no doubt know Einstein "prohibits" any aether structure to have mechanical or force concepts (and is noted in his and Leopold Infeld's book, The Evolution of Physics) ( I believe this is most likely his greatest blunder)
    And your belief is trustworthy because...?

    All the particles or concepts you mention, in aether theory are essentially MODIFIED aether (Higgs ZPE,ZPF, dark matter as aether conditioned due to the mass in the galaxy), but true aether in the most deepest part of space would be "massless" since the surrounding aether assigns the mass to a particle.
    Does the recent discovery of the Higgs Particle by Cern = aether particle. Appears Impossible as it is way too massive and essentially artificial.
    Yawn. Everyone knows that the Higgs is the fundamental quantum of the pink unicorn. Makes as much sense as your assertion.

    The faster the object the more it would be slowed down by running into the aether spheres, in effect a "friction" effect. And since the spheres appear to rotate on the order of 10E23 or 10E24 rotation per SECOND, it takes quite a bit of speed before the effect on mass is significant.
    Please show the derivation of the rotation speed. Please provide a quantitative derivation of the friction effect. You have made a quantitative assertion (at last), so now please back it up with something other than the refreshing breeze of an aether(?) wind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    15
    Aether theory is not required because the space between bodies is occupied by the emission of those bodies.

    typology1
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by AetherRules View Post
    And as you state, I don't have the brain power to give you the MATH solutions you have requested above and I CLEARLY state this in my book (which I have offered for free to anyone requesting it) and actually request help from a mathematical expert in the book..................., it could be clearly shown that the formula used for mass increase is essentially identical to resistance or "drag" equations such as object moving through water. The faster the object the more it would be slowed down by running into the aether spheres, in effect a "friction" effect. And since the spheres appear to rotate on the order of 10E23 or 10E24 rotation per SECOND, it takes quite a bit of speed before the effect on mass is significant.
    Ok have a great day. Cheers dew
    I find it telling that you acknowledge that you have poor math skills, but continuously make wild claims about what the maths should be saying according to your idea. Don't you see an obvious problem here? You are dong nothing more than guessing. And then you proceeded to write an entire book about your guesses? An unfortunate waist of your time if you ask me.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mostly New Physics - Yet Another Theory of Everything
    By mnpguy in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: May 4th, 2012, 01:50 PM
  2. Is Ron Paul being ignored by the mainstream media?
    By gottspieler in forum Politics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 19th, 2011, 03:47 AM
  3. Aether dynamic theory
    By tomjin2000 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 6th, 2011, 05:10 PM
  4. New theory of light and aether
    By serudr in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 31st, 2011, 02:06 PM
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
  •