Handy andy Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) Speculation I opened a storage box yesterday and found a book my wife bought for 10 years ago by Stephen Hawking, I had not read it. I was accused of not reading it so I started reading. I think Hawking is mistaken in some of his claims, he bases most of his ideas on. The ideas below in no way contradicts quantum theory, particle physics, string theory, dipole theory, monopole theory etc as I understand them. It does however lead to a slightly different idea of gravity and how the universe works, ie space and questions the conclusions of Einsteins little time slowing experiment. I do not view science as a religion, to be believed no matter what! Let the Speculation begin. The Michelson Morley experiment, allegedly disproved the existence of the aether (ether). The only thing the experiment proved is that the aether is being pulled with our solar system and galaxy, ie space or the aether is travelling with us. This experiment misunderstood the concept behind the aether and is blatantly WRONG. The aether is directly equivalent to space, it is space. To argue that space does not exist is a nonsense. Space is inside every molecule it is everywhere you look. All things are waves which exist in space, all forces are waves or vibrations, strings if you like existing in space. Space can be viewed as a liquid or gas it has properties, it transmits all forces including gravity. The graviton particle is nonsense, Gravity is a vibration in space, radiating away from each molecule in all directions, caused by the movement of the constituent parts of every molecule. All particles are waves and are in continual movement. The movement causes a vibration radiating outwards in all directions from every molecule in space and it is accumalitive. Space is moving with the individual galaxies, and spinning like whirl pools in water, whirl pools naturally repel, and accelerate away from each other. Galaxies and Space at the edge of the visible universe is travelling at 0.3 light speed and accelerating away from us. Space within the galaxies is stationery with respect to the galaxies. Speculation over. Let the punishment begin. Please be gentle Rgds Andy Edited April 20, 2017 by Handy andy -1
DrKrettin Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) Let the BLASPHEMY begin. The Michelson Morley experiment, allegedly disproved the existence of the aether (ether). The only thing the experiment proved is that the aether is being pulled with our solar system and galaxy, ie space or the aether is travelling with us. This experiment misunderstood the concept behind the aether and is blatantly WRONG. The aether is directly equivalent to space, it is space. To argue that space does not exist is a nonsense. Space is inside every molecule it is everywhere you look. All things are waves which exist in space, all forces are waves or vibrations, strings if you like existing in space. Space can be viewed as a liquid or gas it has properties, it transmits all forces including gravity. Blasphemy is meaningless in the context of science, because science is not a belief. The problem with your idea of the ether is that the M-M experiment determined the speed of the ether with respect to the earth to be so small that if the earth were on the other side of its orbit round the sun, the difference would be measurable. The experiment was repeated six months later with the same result. How do you explain that? Edited April 20, 2017 by DrKrettin 2
Handy andy Posted April 20, 2017 Author Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) Blasphemy is meaningless in the context of science, because science is not a belief. The problem with your idea of the ether is that the M-M experiment determined the speed of the ether with respect to the earth to be so small that if the earth were on the other side of its orbit round the sun, the difference would be measurable. The experiment was repeated six months later with the same result. How do you explain that? I would state space is moving with the planet as it spins. All large masses drag space with them, in addition to making it vibrate. Then I would ask why should space not be moving in our reference frame?. The velocity of light is constant as it travels through space in our reference frame. Space is the biggest thing in the universe, it travels with individual galaxies. Light in individual galaxies only travels at light speed, in reference to space around it. I will Speculate a little further but dont want to lose focus on M-M and space concept. There may be two types of gravity. I do not believe the big bang was the source off all matter, neither do I believe Multiple Bangs were the source of all matter. Big Bangs and Super Novas may be the source of heavy elements in the universe. Space is stretched by the rotation of galaxies(centrepetal forces). In centre of rotating galaxies gravitational energy is converted into matter, and antimatter and exploded out into space. Edited April 20, 2017 by Handy andy
swansont Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 ! Moderator Note This isn't religion. Moved to speculations. You are expected to follow the rules and guidelines of the speculations section (e.g. providing evidence for claims) The Michelson Morley experiment, allegedly disproved the existence of the aether (ether). The only thing the experiment proved is that the aether is being pulled with our solar system and galaxy, ie space or the aether is travelling with us. This experiment misunderstood the concept behind the aether and is blatantly WRONG. The M-M experiment followed Bradley's observation of stellar aberration (by a few hundred years), so it was already known that we were not at rest with respect to the purported aether. This is why the null result of the M-M experiment is taken as disproving the aether — the other option had long been disproven. So what you need is a model that is consistent with both of these observations (as well as all the others that disprove the various aether theories that have been proposed over the years) 1
DrKrettin Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 I do not view science as a religion, to be believed no matter what! Let the BLASPHEMY begin. Let's start here. Blasphemy is a concept restricted to religion. You do not view science as a religion. Good. But then you start what you claim is blasphemy. Total non sequitur. What amazes me about your objections w.r.t the M-M experiment is that you read one small book and then decide that mainstream science has been incorrect about a fundamental concept for the last century. Does it not occur to you that the objections you raise would have been raised by thousands before you? People who are professional scientists? Most of them will have read more than one book. 1
Mordred Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) I do not view science as a religion, to be believed no matter what! So you choose to place your faith onto an idea of something literally undetectable by any experiment ? aka the eather? rather contradictory to the above quote. Then you try to apply some materialistic property to space itself. Yet space even in GR is simply volume. Spacetime curvature is a set of mathematical mass density relations one where the standard model of particles contribute to. These are incorperated into the stress tensor of the Einstein field equations via their mass contributions. If you remove all standard model particles and fields your left with just volume. (space) Edited April 20, 2017 by Mordred 2
Handy andy Posted April 20, 2017 Author Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) Let's start here. Blasphemy is a concept restricted to religion. You do not view science as a religion. Good. But then you start what you claim is blasphemy. Total non sequitur. What amazes me about your objections w.r.t the M-M experiment is that you read one small book and then decide that mainstream science has been incorrect about a fundamental concept for the last century. Does it not occur to you that the objections you raise would have been raised by thousands before you? People who are professional scientists? Most of them will have read more than one book. I have edited out the Blasphemy comments above, however when something is believed without proof it is a religion. The belief in the concept of the aether was widespread a 100 years ago, the aether was not proven to exist by M-M. The belief in the concept of things being made of strings moving through a space or appearing in space is analogous to things appearing out of the aether. Quantum matter appearing and disappearing does not disagree with the concept of space(the aether) moving with us. The double slit experiment demonstrates that space has a memory of what has passed, creating a wave effect. I have read more than one book and originally posted these ideas under religion, which I had assumed people on this forum do not take seriously having read some posts, and contributed without censure. The definition of professional being someone who is paid for their opinion, does not indicate superior knowledge. I used to be a professional, and dealt with professionals who were not always the brightest people. All physicists paid, unpaid retired etc are all using slightly different words to describe the same thing. My speculation was intended to provoke an interesting reasoned discussion. The concept of space moving with us does not undermine any of the established physics as far as I am aware, except perhaps astronomy. I find the concept amusing and thought others might enjoy it as well, it also gives a visual way of explaining gravity which seems to be lacking in some theories. Kind rgds Andy Edited April 20, 2017 by Handy andy
swansont Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 The belief in the concept of the aether was widespread a 100 years ago, the aether was not proven to exist by M-M. Since you missed (or ignored) this: The M-M experiment followed Bradley's observation of stellar aberration (by a few hundred years), so it was already known that we were not at rest with respect to the purported aether. This is why the null result of the M-M experiment is taken as disproving the aether — the other option had long been disproven. So what you need is a model that is consistent with both of these observations (as well as all the others that disprove the various aether theories that have been proposed over the years)
Handy andy Posted April 20, 2017 Author Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) So you choose to place your faith onto an idea of something literally undetectable by any experiment ? aka the eather? rather contradictory to the above quote. Then you try to apply some materialistic property to space itself. Yet space even in GR is simply volume. Spacetime curvature is a set of mathematical mass density relations one where the standard model of particles contribute to. These are incorperated into the stress tensor of the Einstein field equations via their mass contributions. If you remove all standard model particles and fields your left with just volume. (space) I would ask how do forces travel through your volume (space). Bosons and fermions and vibrations in space, where do they originally appear from. Since you missed (or ignored) this: The M-M experiment followed Bradley's observation of stellar aberration (by a few hundred years), so it was already known that we were not at rest with respect to the purported aether. This is why the null result of the M-M experiment is taken as disproving the aether — the other option had long been disproven. So what you need is a model that is consistent with both of these observations (as well as all the others that disprove the various aether theories that have been proposed over the years) What was Bradleys aberration(I will take time to look him up). What I am speculating, is that space is a substance, has properties, and moves with individual galaxies, and planets. I have used the term aether and use the term to mean space. I am speculating that space in individual galaxies moves independently of space in other galaxies and will effectively repel other galaxies like whirl pools in water or a gas, causing galaxies to normally accelerate away from each other. (Andromeda??) The fact that the Michelson Morley experiment detected nothing and light in our reference frame on this planet and solar system travels at more or less constant speed with reference to us, only shows that space is moving with us. If the M-M experimient was repeated in the vertical plane rather than the horizontal, it might detect a difference in the density of the air due to gravity effects, or of space(aether) due to gravitational effects, most likely the density of the air would effect the experiment more. Apologies for posting under religion but I thought that was the place to post this concept, I had not noted the speculation thread. Kind Rgds Andy Edited April 20, 2017 by Handy andy
Sensei Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) The graviton particle is nonsense, Gravity is a vibration in space, radiating away from each molecule in all directions, Radiation is exactly emission of particles. Typically in random direction. So sending enough of them, they follow inverse-square law. You need to have something to radiate away. And that "thing" is energy. Particles prior emitting photons have higher energy state, than after emitting them. Edited April 20, 2017 by Sensei 1
Janus Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 What was Bradleys aberration(I will take time to look him up). Aberration is the Where the apparent position of a star shifts due to the relative motion of the Earth relative to the direction of the star. The direction of this shift changes as the Earth orbits the Sun. An analogy is like how rain that is falling straight down relative to the ground appears to be falling at an angle when you are driving. The point is the the observed shift over 6 months is exactly consistent with what with should see given the speed of light and the orbit of the Earth. If there were an ether, and "ether drag" was the cause of the Null result of the M&M experiment, then this would not be the case. (Going back to our car example, if the car were dragging a bubble of air with it as it drove along, as the falling rain hits this bubble it would be drug along with the bubble and its angle of fall relative to the car will change so that you, in the car, would measure a lesser change from the vertical in the rain than you did without the bubble.) So, if the null M&M experiment were due to ether drag, we would not measure stellar aberration of the magnitude that we do. This is how science works, we don't base a conclusion on just one observation, but on how this observation fits in with other observations.
Handy andy Posted April 20, 2017 Author Posted April 20, 2017 Radiation is exactly emission of particles. Typically in random direction. So sending enough of them, they follow inverse-square law. You need to have something to radiate away. And that "thing" is energy. Particles prior emitting photons have higher energy state, than after emitting them. Now you are at the crux of the matter. Atoms are full of space and the individual components are moving with respect to each other in space. The individual components being quarks and gluons, which are themselves waves (stable vortices) in space. Wave particle duality is a nonsense all things are waves, depending how you look at them. I am speculating waves(particles) in space are disturbing space, in and around them, creating a disturbance or blurring of the edges of atoms in space. I am further speculating this disturbance is the cause of gravity. I completely agree a stable detectable particle or packet of energy in the form of a wave, photon or other form of radiation is emitted, and can be detected. Gravity exists and individual particles which cause it have not been detected, A large area of space being agitated by the movement of the atoms making up a planet or bunch of molecules, is not a single packet of energy but a disturbance in space. The disturbance will be like the vibrations in sand, and a dense object will sink into it Space has properties and is not included in Aberration is the Where the apparent position of a star shifts due to the relative motion of the Earth relative to the direction of the star. The direction of this shift changes as the Earth orbits the Sun. An analogy is like how rain that is falling straight down relative to the ground appears to be falling at an angle when you are driving. The point is the the observed shift over 6 months is exactly consistent with what with should see given the speed of light and the orbit of the Earth. If there were an ether, and "ether drag" was the cause of the Null result of the M&M experiment, then this would not be the case. (Going back to our car example, if the car were dragging a bubble of air with it as it drove along, as the falling rain hits this bubble it would be drug along with the bubble and its angle of fall relative to the car will change so that you, in the car, would measure a lesser change from the vertical in the rain than you did without the bubble.) So, if the null M&M experiment were due to ether drag, we would not measure stellar aberration of the magnitude that we do. This is how science works, we don't base a conclusion on just one observation, but on how this observation fits in with other observations. I looked up the aberration, and yes I understand it. However I do not get where the car came into it. Maybe I missed a post, I will check above. How would the stellar aberration be affected if space is not moving as expected. ie space is being dragged by planets, solar systems, and individual galaxies in different directions, being pulled and squeezed.
swansont Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 Now you are at the crux of the matter. Atoms are full of space and the individual components are moving with respect to each other in space. The individual components being quarks and gluons, which are themselves waves (stable vortices) in space. Wave particle duality is a nonsense all things are waves, depending how you look at them. I am speculating waves(particles) in space are disturbing space, in and around them, creating a disturbance or blurring of the edges of atoms in space. I am further speculating this disturbance is the cause of gravity. I completely agree a stable detectable particle or packet of energy in the form of a wave, photon or other form of radiation is emitted, and can be detected. Gravity exists and individual particles which cause it have not been detected, A large area of space being agitated by the movement of the atoms making up a planet or bunch of molecules, is not a single packet of energy but a disturbance in space. The disturbance will be like the vibrations in sand, and a dense object will sink into it Space has properties and is not included in I looked up the aberration, and yes I understand it. However I do not get where the car came into it. Maybe I missed a post, I will check above. How would the stellar aberration be affected if space is not moving as expected. ie space is being dragged by planets, solar systems, and individual galaxies in different directions, being pulled and squeezed. The aberration would be lessened, or nonexistent. As it is, the aberration matches what you expect from moving at ~30km/s around the sun. So basically you have one measurement that says we are moving at 30 km/s with respect to the aether, i.e. we're moving through it. You have another that says we are not moving with respect to it. This is why the conclusion is that the aether does not exist. You can't have both be true, and theory must match experiment.
Sensei Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) Wave particle duality is a nonsense all things are waves, depending how you look at them. Are you familiar with photoelectric effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect One, single photon, with enough or higher energy (given by equation E=h*f) is hitting at target is ejecting one single electron, from now on called photoelectron. Its kinetic energy corresponds to energy of incoming photon minus energy needed to liberate it. K.E.=1/2*me*v^2 = h*f - W To check what energy has photon (in visible spectrum) there are used effects like diffraction, interference, prism. Photons with different energies/frequencies/wavelengths are reacting slightly differently, different pattern is generated. In electron diffraction, it's kinetic energy of single electron, which changes diffraction pattern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction Edited April 20, 2017 by Sensei
quickquestion Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 Michelson Morley experiment is irrelevant to me, because I do not believe in Aether Wind. I believe in a theory of aether which is slightly different. However, I am out of time at my computer session so I cannot fully explain more. -2
swansont Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 Michelson Morley experiment is irrelevant to me, because I do not believe in Aether Wind. I believe in a theory of aether which is slightly different. However, I am out of time at my computer session so I cannot fully explain more. ! Moderator Note If you are not going to argue for the exact same proposal, it should not be done in this thread. 1
frankglennjacobs@gmail.com Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 Oh, GOODIE! An aether battle! And it's in speculations so I shan't be excommunicated again for taking part! First off, I have become completely orthodox now, as I have recanted the Articles of Aether for the reasons given against it in the replies to this treatise. Paraphrasing the Treasure of the Sierra Madre bandits, "Wee jus' don' NEEEED no steeenkeeng eeether!" HOWEVER, if there WERE aether, it would be like the air and the water that we consider to be part of the planet upon which we stand. It is a package deal. It moves with us. If you throw a rock, some tiny amount of aether (if there were any) would move right along with the rock. The earth likewise, drags a considerable volume of aether around with it. Now what we need is a scientific measurement of the difference of movement of the aether around the earth and around the moon. (WHOOPS! I meant "alleged aether"!) The car example is wonderful, even tho it is used against the existence of aether. If the car had an open sunroof, the rain coming in would, to some extent, in the time available, follow the movement of the car, as the air inside it does -- a little. You can physically SEE this when you drive in a light snowfall on a dark night. As you stand still, the headlights show the individual flakes drifting straight down. As you drive forward, just as one would expect, the snowflakes come back toward your eyes. However, as the air moves aside and upward for the car to come thru, the snowflakes rise just in front of the car and rise again (and move to both sides) just in front of the windshield. Just because air does that is no sign that the (alleged) aether does it, too. Everybody repeat with me, "There ain't no aether! There ain't no aether! There ain't no steenkeeng aether!" Now, sound waves cannot exist without air. Water waves cannot exist without water. Rope waves cannot exist without rope. Electromagnetic waves cannot exist without aether. Only, the aether in which they exist is a hard vacuum. Um, something wrong with THAT explanation. Ah, er, electromagnetic waves sort of unfold ahead of themselves, out of themselves, without having to disturb anything on the way. Maybe that's were their "particle" thing comes into being. (A shotgun does not depend on air for its operation. The pellets go about the way they were started out. Air slows them down. It doesn't assist them in moving.) Back to the double-slit exercise! Nobody ever explained THAT by means of aether! (Or anything else, either!) -1
Mordred Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) Back to the double-slit exercise! Nobody ever explained THAT by means of aether! (Or anything else, either!) Again incorrect the Eather advocates often attempt to explain the double slit experiment. Now you are at the crux of the matter. Atoms are full of space and the individual components are moving with respect to each other in space. The individual components being quarks and gluons, which are themselves waves (stable vortices) in space. Wave particle duality is a nonsense all things are waves, depending how you look at them. A simple explanation covering this is all particles are field excitations. The pointlike particle view is a quanta of energy under boundary confinement. (Sensei already posted the relevant formula) The wavelike properties you already agree with Edited April 20, 2017 by Mordred 1
swansont Posted April 20, 2017 Posted April 20, 2017 It doesn't matter that aether could be used to explain any particular phenomenon. It spectacularly fails in one experiment. It's wrong. Phlogiston worked for some explanations, too. 2
Lord Antares Posted April 21, 2017 Posted April 21, 2017 Can you explain aether to me? I'm not sure I really understand it. I read up a bit on wikipedia and I don't see the difference between aether and space. I think it is similar to this thread of mine where you've already responded: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/96915-why-isnt-the-statement-there-is-no-perfect-vacuum-in-space-logicallymathematically-flawed/ It seems to me that me equating vacuum to just space in that thread (i.e. space/vacuum is everything besides matter) is the same as aether. Could you explain why the aether wind (which was disproved in the M-M experiment) would be completely necessary. Thanks in advance.
Handy andy Posted April 21, 2017 Author Posted April 21, 2017 Are you familiar with photoelectric effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect One, single photon, with enough or higher energy (given by equation E=h*f) is hitting at target is ejecting one single electron, from now on called photoelectron. Its kinetic energy corresponds to energy of incoming photon minus energy needed to liberate it. K.E.=1/2*me*v^2 = h*f - W To check what energy has photon (in visible spectrum) there are used effects like diffraction, interference, prism. Photons with different energies/frequencies/wavelengths are reacting slightly differently, different pattern is generated. In electron diffraction, it's kinetic energy of single electron, which changes diffraction pattern https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_diffraction Yes I am familiar with these experiments, but I am also familiar that gravity affects all particles and is not accounted for by this explanation. I see no difference between the concept of string theory and the concept of aether, in the respect that they both derive matter from an imagined difficult to prove substance. Quantum matter appears and disappears seemingly at random from a substance, which is most likely low level waves combining to form quantum matter then separating again similar to two particles in Feynman diagrams. Two waves(particles) collide momentarily form another wave (particle) move on and become two particles(waves again) on different trajectories. Space has properties in that it transmits all known forces, it is also dragged around by planets and I suspect it has inertia and resonance based on one the double slit experiment and two the Aspden Effect where when a motor, after running five minutes or more, is switched off and the machine is stopped, you can restart it in the same or opposite direction and find that it now has a memory in the sense that it will require less energy to restart it provided that the time lapse between starting and restarting is no more than a minute or so. This I think shows something of the inertia of the space(Ether) it is spun away or stretched and takes time to come back and fill the space in the motor. The aberration would be lessened, or nonexistent. As it is, the aberration matches what you expect from moving at ~30km/s around the sun. So basically you have one measurement that says we are moving at 30 km/s with respect to the aether, i.e. we're moving through it. You have another that says we are not moving with respect to it. This is why the conclusion is that the aether does not exist. You can't have both be true, and theory must match experiment. What I am thinking is that space does not move as would expect if it is in actual fact a substance with properties that can be energised and made to vibrate. or just move a little ie be disturbed by the movement of a wave or particle, but not enough to oscillate and become a particle. A movement on the north side of a particle, cancelled out by a movement in the opposite direction on the south side, is no net transfer of energy, but is a disturbance in space that could cause gravity. Gravity does not have to be a particle or wave, just a disturbance in space. Michelson Morley experiment is irrelevant to me, because I do not believe in Aether Wind. I believe in a theory of aether which is slightly different. However, I am out of time at my computer session so I cannot fully explain more. The aether means many things to many people, for the purposes here, the word space is probably more suitable. The question I am trying ot pursue is what exactly is space and how does it behave, move, oscillate, how do particles and waves appear and move through it. In fact is a space an actual substance, that connects all things. There is a lot of nonsense around the terms aether and so on, so think space as a fluid or very fine gas perhaps. It doesn't matter that aether could be used to explain any particular phenomenon. It spectacularly fails in one experiment. It's wrong. Phlogiston worked for some explanations, too. Do you have some links to other experiments other than M-M that disprove the aether. I know space exists, and equate the aether to space. I think space moves. I would like to check my ideas against what the experiments were trying to prove. The fact that the aether was not detected by M-M could be due to the fact it is moving with the planet the experiment was conducted on, and could be partly due to the Aspden effect outlined above. Oh, GOODIE! An aether battle! And it's in speculations so I shan't be excommunicated again for taking part! First off, I have become completely orthodox now, as I have recanted the Articles of Aether for the reasons given against it in the replies to this treatise. Paraphrasing the Treasure of the Sierra Madre bandits, "Wee jus' don' NEEEED no steeenkeeng eeether!" HOWEVER, if there WERE aether, it would be like the air and the water that we consider to be part of the planet upon which we stand. It is a package deal. It moves with us. If you throw a rock, some tiny amount of aether (if there were any) would move right along with the rock. The earth likewise, drags a considerable volume of aether around with it. Now what we need is a scientific measurement of the difference of movement of the aether around the earth and around the moon. (WHOOPS! I meant "alleged aether"!) The car example is wonderful, even tho it is used against the existence of aether. If the car had an open sunroof, the rain coming in would, to some extent, in the time available, follow the movement of the car, as the air inside it does -- a little. You can physically SEE this when you drive in a light snowfall on a dark night. As you stand still, the headlights show the individual flakes drifting straight down. As you drive forward, just as one would expect, the snowflakes come back toward your eyes. However, as the air moves aside and upward for the car to come thru, the snowflakes rise just in front of the car and rise again (and move to both sides) just in front of the windshield. Just because air does that is no sign that the (alleged) aether does it, too. Everybody repeat with me, "There ain't no aether! There ain't no aether! There ain't no steenkeeng aether!" Now, sound waves cannot exist without air. Water waves cannot exist without water. Rope waves cannot exist without rope. Electromagnetic waves cannot exist without aether. Only, the aether in which they exist is a hard vacuum. Um, something wrong with THAT explanation. Ah, er, electromagnetic waves sort of unfold ahead of themselves, out of themselves, without having to disturb anything on the way. Maybe that's were their "particle" thing comes into being. (A shotgun does not depend on air for its operation. The pellets go about the way they were started out. Air slows them down. It doesn't assist them in moving.) Back to the double-slit exercise! Nobody ever explained THAT by means of aether! (Or anything else, either!) Can some one please explain to me where the car came into all this, I have missed an earlier thread I think. The analogy gives a very chaotic view of space in a snow storm, almost like the quantum world, waves colliding being compressed intensified and then diminishing. Feynman diagrams all over the place. I am still thinking space exists, and is equal to the concept of the aether, which mathematically is an early version of string theory. In string theory space unfolds into strings (waves by any other definition). In aether theory matter appears out of space. Matter can decay into gamma rays, waves form all matter. Is this all not just a different way of describing the same thing. If we look at the edge of the visible universe it is accelerating away at 0.3 c in all directions. From a galaxy on the edge of the visible universe we are accelerating away from them at 0.3c and life goes on as normal. If space is moving it may be that light is bent away from us at the edges of the visible universe, and we cant see any further. Thank you everyone for your input it is much appreciated. (PS I still suspect what is being speculated about here is blasphemy to some)
DrKrettin Posted April 21, 2017 Posted April 21, 2017 (edited) but I am also familiar that gravity affects all particles.... (PS I still suspect what is being speculated about here is blasphemy to some) Wrong again - only particles with mass. And yes, it is blasphemy, but only to silly people who think that science is a belief. Edited April 21, 2017 by DrKrettin
studiot Posted April 21, 2017 Posted April 21, 2017 Do you have some links to other experiments other than M-M that disprove the aether. I know space exists, and equate the aether to space. I think space moves. I would like to check my ideas against what the experiments were trying to prove. The fact that the aether was not detected by M-M could be due to the fact it is moving with the planet the experiment was conducted on, and could be partly due to the Aspden effect outlined above. I am going to assume this question is more than just political soundbytes. I say that because there are many different ethers, each one addressing particular observable characteristics in the universe and the laboratory. However each one (to date) also has an Achilles heel in some experiment or other. Equally Michelson, later aided by Morley, conducted many experiments. You surely did not think that a good scientist would be satisfied by only one experiment do you? Heaviside, Lodge and most famously Trouton and Noble conducted alternative experiments. I believe swansont mentioned Bradley's observations. These were confirmed by more accurate repetition by Airy and by Hoek. Incidentally their method also confirmed Fizeau's experimental confirmation of Fresnel's idea about ether drag. This is important because these experiments proved that the measurable drag effect (yes there is one) on the velocity of light is far too small to be accounted for by a co-moving ether wind. This was important because it bears directly on another issue with ether properties - that of homogeny and isotropy. This experiment is important as a direct verification of the velocity addition theorem derived naturally with special relativity. It also shows that it is not possible to explain the null result of the MM experiment by saying the ether is completely convected with the apparatus. A convection coefficient of unity would be required for this explanation whereas the medium being air, the coefficient is nearly zero. If we look at the edge of the visible universe it is accelerating away at 0.3 c in all directions. From a galaxy on the edge of the visible universe we are accelerating away from them at 0.3c and life goes on as normal. If space is moving it may be that light is bent away from us at the edges of the visible universe, and we cant see any further. Now that I have answered something for you, please confirm that you understand the difference between velocity and acceleration?
swansont Posted April 21, 2017 Posted April 21, 2017 Do you have some links to other experiments other than M-M that disprove the aether. I know space exists, and equate the aether to space. I think space moves. I would like to check my ideas against what the experiments were trying to prove. The fact that the aether was not detected by M-M could be due to the fact it is moving with the planet the experiment was conducted on, and could be partly due to the Aspden effect outlined above. For the third(?) time M-M showed we are not moving through an aether at 30 km/s (or moving much at all; it was a null result). Bradley showed we must be moving at 30 km/s through the aether. IOW, the aether moving with us was falsified almost 300 years ago.You can't ignore one of the experiments. It's irrelevant that you think an aether moves with us; experiment has shown that it doesn't. That's where a scientific discussion ends. The proposal disagrees with experiment. The proposal is wrong.
Strange Posted April 21, 2017 Posted April 21, 2017 The belief in the concept of the aether was widespread a 100 years ago, the aether was not proven to exist by M-M. There was never any evidence for the aether, it was just an assumption ("if light is waves, then it must have a medium") but no one noticed, at the time, that Maxwell's equations ruled out a medium. No experiment has ever shown any measurable effects for an aether. It is almost as if it doesn't exist. So, theory says it isn't required and that is consistent with the evidence. What I am speculating, is that space is a substance, has properties, and moves with individual galaxies, and planets. Space is not a substance (what is a mile made of? is it the same as a metre?). And distance, area or volume have no measurable properties. I have used the term aether and use the term to mean space. Well, you can use the word "aether" to describe space but: 1) What is the point when we already have the word "space"? 2) We now have two completely different and unrelated meanings for the word "aether": the original luminiferous aether (which doesn't exist) and space (which obviously does). Einstein used the word "aether" to describe space-time (in the sense that it is something that fills the entire universe) which has often been picked up by anti-relativity cranks, but he also went on to emphasise that it has not physical attributes. Other people have used the word "aether" (for similar reasons) to describe quantum fields, dark energy and various other things. To my mind, this just causes confusion because (some) people immediately think they mean the traditional (and nonexistent) luminiferous aether. I am speculating that space in individual galaxies moves independently of space in other galaxies and will effectively repel other galaxies like whirl pools in water or a gas, causing galaxies to normally accelerate away from each other. (Andromeda??) Andromeda is moving towards us, not away. And there is no evidence that space moves with galaxies, nor that space repels other space. The graviton particle is nonsense, Well, it is certainly hypothetical, with no evidence for its existence. But "nonsense" might be a bit string as the concept is based on sound theoretical concepts. Gravity is a vibration in space, radiating away from each molecule in all directions, caused by the movement of the constituent parts of every molecule. Do you have any evidence that gravity is a vibration in space? I am speculating waves(particles) in space are disturbing space, in and around them, creating a disturbance or blurring of the edges of atoms in space. I am further speculating this disturbance is the cause of gravity. We already have a good and very accurate model of gravity (two actually). Do you have a useful model based on this idea? What does it add? Is it more accurate than existing theories? Can it calculate things which cannot be done by existing theory? Electromagnetic waves cannot exist without aether. Well, if you insist, you can call the electromagnetic field "other". But it will just cause confusion. And why do that when it already has a name ("electromagnetic field"). I see no difference between the concept of string theory and the concept of aether, in the respect that they both derive matter from an imagined difficult to prove substance. String theory has a sound theoretical basis and is, in principle, testable. Aether never had any real theoretical basis, but has been tested and falsified. Space has properties in that it transmits all known forces No it doesn't. The electric and magnetic forces are transmitted by the electromagnetic field (and its quanta, the photon). The weak force is meditated by its field and corresponding bosons, ditto the strong force. Gravity is the only "force" that is mediated by space-time as a field. , it is also dragged around by planets Evidence? The question I am trying ot pursue is what exactly is space A measure of the distance between things. Do you have some links to other experiments other than M-M that disprove the aether. Note that these experiments disprove (mainly) the luminiferous aether. If you are using the word "aether" to mean something else (like space, or invisible pink unicorns) then they may not be so relevant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy–Thorndike_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives–Stilwell_experiment Plus, all the experiments confirming Lorentz invariance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation I know space exists, and equate the aether to space. I think space moves. The above should disprove that idea. I am still thinking space exists, and is equal to the concept of the aether, which mathematically is an early version of string theory. WTF? If we look at the edge of the visible universe it is accelerating away at 0.3 c in all directions. We can see galaxies that are moving away at more than the speed of light, so this assertion appears to be incorrect. Where did you get it from? (PS I still suspect what is being speculated about here is blasphemy to some) Not blasphemy, just a rather silly waste of time. No one tries to prove phlogiston exists despite all the evidence, so why the obsession with aether?
Recommended Posts