Blasphemy (Aether, really)

[Handy andy]

 

Wrong again - only particles with mass. And yes, it is blasphemy, but only to silly people who think that science is a belief.

 

Objects don't have mass until they experience acceleration, otherwise its only inertia.

 

I don't believe in everything I am told and neither do I believe in everything I say or write. It is a good way of learning and improving ones arguments to take a counter view. I use it regularly even if I agree with a concept or idea.

 

This method is sometimes known as oppositional defiance disorder.

 

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.

 

 

Now that I have answered something for you, please confirm that you understand the difference between velocity and acceleration?

 

 

Velocity is a vector in a direction without change with respect to time, acceleration is a rate of change with respect to time. ds/dt as opposed to ds²/dt² ​or dv/dt² ​

 

Apologies for the pathetic use of the editor.

 

Thank you very much for your very useful answer. I will take some time to look up all the references.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Andromeda is moving towards us, not away.

 

And there is no evidence that space moves with galaxies, nor that space repels other space.

 

 

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.

 

 

Do you have any evidence that gravity is a vibration in space?

 

 

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?

 

 

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").

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

Evidence?

 

 

A measure of the distance between things.

 

 

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

 

 

 

The above should disprove that idea.

 

 

WTF?

 

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

Not very helpful answer, I fully recognize that all comments take time and are given freely, I welcome all views

.

I will follow your links and perhaps change my mind.

 

Maxwells equations are a closed system, that do not include gravity.

 

WTF no experiment ever showed the existence of strings, which are a mathematical model concept that facilitates the creation of a theory. (I have recently acquired yet another book on string theory to read, it is in the queue) Strings unfolding in space or making up space, and carrying all forces etc are just another variation of the aether concept. I have it flagged under string aether, as opposed to aether wind, or any other metaphysical concept dreamt up by spiritual type persons.

 

Space is not an empty void that equations move through, it has properties and is the origin of all matter and all forces. The Big bang if you insist in believing in the idea, instead of plasma theory, has all matter coming out of a miniscule non existent space. Which expands to a bigger space, if space did not exist first, how can it evolve from something that doesn't exist, where did the first string come from. The only argument I can see that supports this is philosophical and is for a zero space and infinite space both being able to exist at the same time. I think the concept of a beginning of time in a big bang is ludicrous, it is better to remove the boundaries from any such model and state there is was no beginning of time and neither will there be an end of time, likewise the same with space, it is infinite, but may have other interconnecting dimensions.

 

If you look at quantum entanglement (Einstein spooky action at a distance) you could wind up with a statement stating all points are or can be connected, but then you are left with the notion of how they would move in response to each other. I do not think the entangled particles would completely mirror in all directions the entangled particle. But this is a speculation beyond what we are talking about here.

 

According to what I had read, up until about a month ago, the edge of the observable universe is moving away from us at 0.3c not light speed. How red shifted would that be if the edge of the universe was moving away at light speed. DOH

 

I ??ed Andromeda because I know its coming this way, and will engulf the milky way in a few years time.

 

Thank you all for all your inputs they are appreciated.

[studiot]

 

 

Velocity is a vector in a direction without change with respect to time, acceleration is a rate of change with respect to time. ds/dt as opposed to ds²/dt² ​or dv/dt² ​

 

Apologies for the pathetic use of the editor.

 

Thank you very much for your very useful answer. I will take some time to look up all the references.

 

 

First a small correction to Strange's post.

 

Maxwell was a firm believer in an ether. In fact his ether theory was the first to offer mathematical analysis.

 

The following table of who knew what, when is quite useful.

 

[swansont]

Objects don't have mass until they experience acceleration, otherwise its only inertia.

 

Since E=mc^2, that violates conservation of energy.

 

So objects must have this mass even when they aren't accelerating.

[Strange]

According to what I had read, up until about a month ago, the edge of the observable universe is moving away from us at 0.3c not light speed.

 

 

Can you provide a reference to this 0.3 c?

 

I believe the particle event horizon is moving away at about 3 c.

 

The Hubble Horizon (where recessional velocity reaches c) at about 14 billion light years is closer than the cosmological horizon (where we can never observe anything that happens) at 16 billion light years.

 

So between those, we can see objects receding at more than the speed of light.

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf

[Handy andy]

Since E=mc^2, that violates conservation of energy.

 

So objects must have this mass even when they aren't accelerating.

This equation as I understand it is referring to rest mass or Einstein's mass–energy relationship which is not an actual mass, it is an equivalence and can be expressed in terms of pressure and volume, or an inertia. It is an energy equivalence not an actual mass, which can be weighed in the traditional sense.

 

Conservation of energy within an atom is perpetual motion, similar to a photon of light, which is a packet of energy moving at light speed until it hits something solid and is absorbed. Particles in string theory are vibrating strings existing in space or the modern version of aether A string or a vibrating bit of space the aether gains an equivalent mass or energy proportional to its state of vibration.

 

When given a spade I know when to stop digging.

 

 

Can you provide a reference to this 0.3 c?

 

I believe the particle event horizon is moving away at about 3 c.

 

The Hubble Horizon (where recessional velocity reaches c) at about 14 billion light years is closer than the cosmological horizon (where we can never observe anything that happens) at 16 billion light years.

 

So between those, we can see objects receding at more than the speed of light.

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf

 

I am pretty sure it was a NASA or MIT website, I will see if I can find a link. One of us a decimal place in the wrong spot.

 

If something is moving at 3c away from us what happens with red shift, do photon frequencies go to zero flat line and then start vibrating in another dimension, do they go dark?

[Strange]

If something is moving at 3c away from us what happens with red shift, do photon frequencies go to zero flat line and then start vibrating in another dimension, do they go dark?

 

 

Red-shift is proportional to distance. So it wouldn't become infinite until they were infinitely far away.

[Handy andy]

 

 

Red-shift is proportional to distance. So it wouldn't become infinite until they were infinitely far away.

 

It seems I am a decimal place out, and the universe is expanding faster than light speed, which is incredibly interesting is it not. c is not a limiting speed it seems, especially if space is travelling with you. Galaxies are disappearing over event horizons from view.

 

In addition to finding multiple web sites confirming the expansion rates, I found this one that confirms to me that Hawkings continual reference to god in his book and big bangs is a little twisted.

 

http://journalofcosmology.com/Cosmology4.html

[quickquestion]

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.

What experiment? Please don't say Michelson Morley.

 

We are not talking about lumineferous ether wind. We are talking about a different kind of aether.

 

the aether moving with us was falsified almost 300 years ago

 

How exactly was it falsified. Why not tell us.

Edited April 22, 2017 by quickquestion

[DrKrettin]

What experiment? Please don't say Michelson Morley.

 

 

 

Why not? Because that is precisely the experiment. Please refute the findings if you object to it.

[quickquestion]

 

Why not? Because that is precisely the experiment. Please refute the findings if you object to it.

I dont object to it. I agree that Michelson Morley disproved lumi-aether wind.

 

I believe in aether that goes with the Earth. Swansont said it was disproven 300 years ago, but I have no idea what experiment they are talking about.

[dimreepr]

I dont object to it. I agree that Michelson Morley disproved lumi-aether wind.

 

I believe in aether that goes with the Earth. Swansont said it was disproven 300 years ago, but I have no idea what experiment they are talking about.

 

Of course you do, you've been told, the problem is you have no idea what you're talking about, but you're not alone so don't fret.

[quickquestion]

 

Of course you do, you've been told, the problem is you have no idea what you're talking about, but you're not alone so don't fret.

I know what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is you guys say this experiment is so important, but won't even tell me what it is.

[dimreepr]

I know what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is you guys say this experiment is so important, but won't even tell me what it is.

 

I thought you agreed with it, but here you go.

 

The Michelson–Morley experiment was a scientific experiment to find the presence and properties of a substance called aether, a substance believed to fill empty space. The experiment was done by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley in 1887.

Since waves in water need something to move in (water) and sound waves do as well (air), it was believed that light also needed something to move in. Scientists in the 18th century named this substance "aether," after the Greek god of light. They believed that aether was all around us and that it also filled the vacuum of space. Michelson and Morley created this experiment to try and prove the theory that aether existed. They did this with a device called an interferometer.

[quickquestion]

 

I thought you agreed with it, but here you go.

 

The michelson morley experiment was not 300 years ago, so stop trolling.

[dimreepr]

I believe in aether that goes with the Earth

 

 

Now explain how this aether differs please.

[quickquestion]

 

Now explain how this aether differs please.

Because it is not lumineferous wind that goes through the earth.

It is aether that goes with the earth and its rotation.

[dimreepr]

It is aether that goes with the earth and its rotation.

 

Ok, now explain how this aether differs from space-time.

[quickquestion]

 

Ok, now explain how this aether differs from space-time.

Aether and space-time are interpretations of the same phenomenon.

Einstein took 5 weeks to make his final thesis...his final thesis was bogus in many ways. So it will take me much longer than five weeks to make a complete and final thesis.

 

Basically, what einstein did is say..."hey...how do i solve this problem in science, without looking at any experiments or evidence...hmm. Wouldnt it be easier if just, light violated the laws of newtonian time." And then they say...Hey, yeah, that would make it easier. Lets just say that light violates the laws of newtonian time, and then hope that future experiments, of which we are clouded by our own bias in our favor, prove us right.

 

For instance, I was reading in a book about Einstein how a certain pulsar discovered in the 70's proved Einstein right. It said that the puslar pulsed at even intervals....this proves that the light was not accelerated or deccelerated by the pulsars orbit speed and thus Einstein is right. Ok...but that explanation is completely violating Occams razor. Wouldnt it be easier to say, that the light has the same velocity, simply because C is the maximum velocity light can go in space? And thus light always travels at C? Rather than say, the reason the pulsar has even intervals is because it has special, magical-sounding time properties?

Edited April 22, 2017 by quickquestion

[dimreepr]

Aether and space-time are interpretations of the same phenomenon.

Einstein took 5 weeks to make his final thesis...his final thesis was bogus in many ways. So it will take me much longer than five weeks to make a complete and final thesis.

 

Basically, what einstein did is say..."hey...how do i solve this problem in science, without looking at any experiments or evidence...hmm. Wouldnt it be easier if just, light violated the laws of newtonian time." And then they say...Hey, yeah, that would make it easier. Lets just say that light violates the laws of newtonian time, and then hope that future experiments, of which we are clouded by our own bias in our favor, prove us right.

 

For instance, I was reading in a book about Einstein how a certain pulsar discovered in the 70's proved Einstein right. It said that the puslar pulsed at even intervals....this proves that the light was not accelerated or deccelerated by the pulsars orbit speed and thus Einstein is right. Ok...but that explanation is completely violating Occams razor. Wouldnt it be easier to say, that the light has the same velocity, simply because C is the maximum velocity light can go in space? And thus light always travels at C? Rather than say, the reason the light is not accelerated in the pulsar is because it has special, magical-sounding time properties?

 

So what you're saying is, there is no difference but Einstein was wrong "because I'm right"

 

This was how I was going start my reply, but then I realised, I can just block this shit...

[quickquestion]

 

So what you're saying is, there is no difference but Einstein was wrong "because I'm right"

 

This was how I was going start my reply, but then I realised, I can just block this shit...

No Einstein has subtle differences, which I seek to expose and correct. It is a process, and the GUTOE doesn't come about in one day.

[dimreepr]

No Einstein has subtle differences, which I seek to expose and correct. It is a process, and the GUTOE doesn't come about in one day.

 

Neither will it come about through laymen.

[quickquestion]

 

Neither will it come about through laymen.

Einstein was a layman. His professor said he was a lazy-dog at math.

[dimreepr]

Einstein was a layman. His professor said he was a lazy-dog at math.

 

What did your professor say about your idea?

[quickquestion]

 

What did your professor say about your idea?

I didn't come up with this idea while in college, so he didn't say anything.

[swansont]

What experiment? Please don't say Michelson Morley.

 

We are not talking about lumineferous ether wind. We are talking about a different kind of aether.

 

 

How exactly was it falsified. Why not tell us.

"We"? You stated earlier you were not talking about the same aether as in the OP.

 

The experiment that showed we were moving through the aether was Bradley's observation of stellar aberration. If you read through the thread you will find the three previous times I mentioned this.