Ether evidence?

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, interested said:

Question, Einstein believed in the aether for a time, could time dilation be regarded as a kind of proof of an aether, if you move through it time slows, if you are stationery it speeds up, gravity slows time etc. 

No.

Inertial motion is relative; you can't tell who is moving, thus there is no preferred frame.

[interested]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

No.

Inertial motion is relative; you can't tell who is moving, thus there is no preferred frame.

I think I understand what you are saying, a reference point is required to make any relative measurements, it is like in electronic circuits, a voltage measurement needs a reference point. So why not use the centre of the sun (or perhaps earth) for instance as a reference point, (what do GPS satellites use as a reference point). All things could be measured relative to this in our solar system, and time would appear to slow down or speed up dependent on movement, in space with reference to a reference point. If it is assumed that space is flowing towards and being absorbed by the sun and causes the appearance of the stretching of space then moving through space is the same thing and will cause time dilation, if you travel fast enough. 

 

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, interested said:

I think I understand what you are saying, a reference point is required to make any relative measurements, it is like in electronic circuits, a voltage measurement needs a reference point. So why not use the centre of the sun (or perhaps earth) for instance as a reference point, (what do GPS satellites use as a reference point). All things could be measured relative to this in our solar system, and time would appear to slow down or speed up dependent on movement, in space with reference to a reference point.

IIRC GPS uses an earth-cenetered reference frame, and pretends it's inertial (which means you have to account for the Sagnac effect for any signal traveling along the equatorial direction, which you can do). Everywhere on the earth's surface is the same time (universal time) and clock rates only vary with elevation. It should make sense to use that, since it's a terrestrial system. 

But the reference frame used in inertial systems is by choice — a convenience — not because physics can be used to tell you that it is the correct frame.

16 minutes ago, interested said:

If it is assumed that space is flowing towards and being absorbed by the sun and causes the appearance of the stretching of space then moving through space is the same thing and will cause time dilation, if you travel fast enough. 

Not sure what such off-topic speculation has to do with an aether. 

[Janus]

46 minutes ago, interested said:

I think I understand what you are saying, a reference point is required to make any relative measurements, it is like in electronic circuits, a voltage measurement needs a reference point. So why not use the centre of the sun (or perhaps earth) for instance as a reference point, (what do GPS satellites use as a reference point). All things could be measured relative to this in our solar system, and time would appear to slow down or speed up dependent on movement, in space with reference to a reference point. If it is assumed that space is flowing towards and being absorbed by the sun and causes the appearance of the stretching of space then moving through space is the same thing and will cause time dilation, if you travel fast enough. 

 

As pointed out by Swansont,  Such a choice would be just a matter of convenience and would not signify any uniqueness for that reference.   Such choices are made all the time in Relativity. You simply choose the reference which makes the calculations the simplest.   But what reference this is depends on the problem you are dealing with. Particle accelerators use the lab centered frame and GPS uses the Earth centered frame. But if you were dealing with the Solar system at large, then a Sun centered frame would make a better choice.   At interstellar scales, a galaxy centered frame might make more sense, etc.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, interested said:

If it is assumed that space is flowing towards and being absorbed by the sun and causes the appearance of the stretching of space then moving through space is the same thing and will cause time dilation, if you travel fast enough. 

Remember, all moment and velocity is relative. And time dilation is not something that happens to you because you are "moving through space", it is something that is measured by someone else who is moving relative to you (and you would measure the same looking at them). Who is to say that one of you is "moving through space" and the other isn't, or vice versa. You can be stationary in space (in your chosen coordinates) and someone else will still see your clocks undergo time dilation (and you, theirs).

So it is not an effect of moving space on you.

[interested]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not sure what such off-topic speculation has to do with an aether. 

I read somewhere that one idea of the aether was that it is space. If space is considered to flow and can be detected flowing by the slowing down or speeding up of a clock, then you have detected something, I wondered if time dilation could be as a result of the space(aether). Gravity or the stretching of space can be viewed as the flow of space towards a mass,  moving through space causes clocks to slow, conversely space moving towards a clock causes it to slow. Without movement in space the clock ticks faster.

Ligo detected waves in space, a property of space is that it can affect physical dimensions when stretched or compressed. Characteristics of space can be detected by gravity, time dilation etc.

I thought I was on topic sorry

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

IIRC GPS uses an earth-cenetered reference frame, and pretends it's inertial (which means you have to account for the Sagnac effect for any signal traveling along the equatorial direction, which you can do). Everywhere on the earth's surface is the same time (universal time) and clock rates only vary with elevation. It should make sense to use that, since it's a terrestrial system. 

But the reference frame used in inertial systems is by choice — a convenience — not because physics can be used to tell you that it is the correct frame.

Would atomic clocks at the poles measure the same time as those at the equator.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Remember, all moment and velocity is relative. And time dilation is not something that happens to you because you are "moving through space", it is something that is measured by someone else who is moving relative to you (and you would measure the same looking at them). Who is to say that one of you is "moving through space" and the other isn't, or vice versa. You can be stationary in space (in your chosen coordinates) and someone else will still see your clocks undergo time dilation (and you, theirs).

So it is not an effect of moving space on you.

Yes I get what you are saying. That is why I suggested a reference location to measure things from to remove the ambiguity, it seems like they do with GPS. 

19 minutes ago, Janus said:

As pointed out by Swansont,  Such a choice would be just a matter of convenience and would not signify any uniqueness for that reference.   Such choices are made all the time in Relativity. You simply choose the reference which makes the calculations the simplest.   But what reference this is depends on the problem you are dealing with. Particle accelerators use the lab centered frame and GPS uses the Earth centered frame. But if you were dealing with the Solar system at large, then a Sun centered frame would make a better choice.   At interstellar scales, a galaxy centered frame might make more sense, etc.

Would you happen to have an opinion on the effects of time dilation calculations on dark matter. I read if time dilation is taken into account dark matter is not needed, and relativity is correct again.

[Strange]

17 minutes ago, interested said:

I read somewhere that one idea of the aether was that it is space.

einstein once described space time as "the aether". That is not "the" aether (the medium required for the transmission of light - which doesn't exist) but "an" aether - just an analogous name for space-time that something that (by definition) exists everywhere.

18 minutes ago, interested said:

Yes I get what you are saying. That is why I suggested a reference location to measure things from to remove the ambiguity, it seems like they do with GPS. 

You can choose a reference frame where you are not moving through space. Others (moving relative to you) will see your time dilated. Or you can choose a reference frame where you are moving up, down, left, right forwards, backwards, ... and others will still see your time dilated. And you will still see theirs dilated. In other words, the frame of reference you choose makes no difference. Which is what "no preferred frame" means.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, interested said:

I read somewhere that one idea of the aether was that it is space.

Not the aether that preceded Einstein. Several people have noted that the OP is ambiguous, as it does not clarify what is meant by the aether.

2 hours ago, interested said:

If space is considered to flow

which is comjecture

2 hours ago, interested said:

and can be detected flowing by the slowing down or speeding up of a clock

which is conjecture

2 hours ago, interested said:

, then you have detected something, I wondered if time dilation could be as a result of the space(aether). Gravity or the stretching of space can be viewed as the flow of space towards a mass

as above, conjecture

2 hours ago, interested said:

,  moving through space causes clocks to slow, conversely space moving towards a clock causes it to slow. Without movement in space the clock ticks faster.

One would need a model and a way to distinguish this from the already-accepted theory of relativity.

2 hours ago, interested said:

Ligo detected waves in space, a property of space is that it can affect physical dimensions when stretched or compressed. Characteristics of space can be detected by gravity, time dilation etc.

That's detection of geometry.

2 hours ago, interested said:

I thought I was on topic sorry

Speculation is never on-topic in any thread other than the one dedicated to its discussion. 

2 hours ago, interested said:

Would atomic clocks at the poles measure the same time as those at the equator.

Yes, if you are on the geoid.

2 hours ago, interested said:

Yes I get what you are saying. That is why I suggested a reference location to measure things from to remove the ambiguity, it seems like they do with GPS. 

Again, it's a matter of convenience and not physics.

2 hours ago, interested said:

Would you happen to have an opinion on the effects of time dilation calculations on dark matter. I read if time dilation is taken into account dark matter is not needed, and relativity is correct again.

That's not much to go on.  A discussion on this would have to have a citation so everyone knows what reference is being used, and has to take place in its own thread.

[Janus]

3 hours ago, interested said:

Would you happen to have an opinion on the effects of time dilation calculations on dark matter. I read if time dilation is taken into account dark matter is not needed, and relativity is correct again.

I don't know where you read that, but is definitely incorrect.  It is quite easy to do a quick estimate to how big an effect time dilation would have and show that it is many orders of magnitude too small to produce the observations.  

I've seen this type of "explanation" too often.   " Those silly scientists, if they had only been smart enough to account for "X", they would have saved themselves a lot of trouble".   It assumes that they are so clueless that they couldn't find their own arse with both hands.

[interested]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

That's not much to go on.  A discussion on this would have to have a citation so everyone knows what reference is being used, and has to take place in its own thread.

 

13 hours ago, Janus said:

I don't know where you read that, but is definitely incorrect.  It is quite easy to do a quick estimate to how big an effect time dilation would have and show that it is many orders of magnitude too small to produce the observations.  

I've seen this type of "explanation" too often.   " Those silly scientists, if they had only been smart enough to account for "X", they would have saved themselves a lot of trouble".   It assumes that they are so clueless that they couldn't find their own arse with both hands.

There are multiple links on the idea of time dilation effects being responsible for dark matter, here is a recent one from A. Deur University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901, USA. There are many more on similar lines from other universities, but like Swansont said another thread would be required to discuss it.

I initially stumbled across this idea from a paper from the university of Milan, but then found papers from all over the world by various possibly other silly people. 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.02481.pdf

https://gregoriobaquero.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/rame-is-dm/

15 hours ago, swansont said:

One would need a model and a way to distinguish this from the already-accepted theory of relativity.

This ONE has no theory to replace any theories, just questions?

I was interested in time dilation of quantum foam inside a BH because it might affect the ideas how Quantum Gravity works, ie it might kill the idea, leaving just relativity and stretched space. 

15 hours ago, swansont said:

Not the aether that preceded Einstein. Several people have noted that the OP is ambiguous, as it does not clarify what is meant by the aether.

Yes I posted a link earlier giving various ideas on the aether. My question was could time dilation be regarded as detecting a form of aether. I think the answer was no, but it depends how you look at it and what your reference point was.

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by interested

[swansont]

36 minutes ago, interested said:

 

This ONE has no theory to replace any theories, just questions?

I was interested in time dilation of quantum foam inside a BH because it might affect the ideas how Quantum Gravity works, ie it might kill the idea, leaving just relativity and stretched space. 

This thread is about the aether.

36 minutes ago, interested said:

Yes I posted a link earlier giving various ideas on the aether. My question was could time dilation be regarded as detecting a form of aether. I think the answer was no, but it depends how you look at it and what your reference point was.

You can't have it both ways. Either ask the question, or give this alleged different reference point. This tactic of suggesting that there might be another theory, without actually explaining what it is, and running away from it when challenged, is just annoying.  

Relativity does not allow for a preferred frame, i.e. the luminiferous aether. Full stop.

 

[Capiert]

On ‎2018‎ ‎01‎ ‎04 at 9:51 PM, swansont said:

Not the aether that preceded Einstein. Several people have noted that the OP is ambiguous, as it does not clarify what is meant by the aether.

Pre Einstein.

Typical Ether,

 before the M&M (=Michelson & Morley) problem set in.

Sorry Strange (for not answering your 1st answer,

 it seemed friendly, inviting;

 but a loaded question afterwards

 when it suddenly became "my" (own) Ether concept).

 

I'( woul)d like to picture the ether (medium) (2D)

 (simply) like water,

 with waves;

 ((even) although its 3D also with compressional waves,

 like sound in air (or thru a solid, like Einstein1922 Leiden University).

Can we keep it that simple,

 for a start?

 

I've never been more honoured

 to have the floor (for my own concept, of ether; but I'm only after the non_distorted (from relativity) model).

I'm after the classical Ether of Newton.

(I know)

 you'( all a)re all against his

 defining photons

 as a particle;

 but intuitively (=reading between the lines)

 I think (=suspect)

 he meant

 "a photon has mass"

 & that'( i)s all

 (to what he meant).

From that,

 he could estimate

 a (desired) photon's mass('s value, as a number). 

 

P.S. I personally find "Interested" great(!),

 he knows quite a bit,

 makes conclusions,

 ask questions,

 but presents it "very" simply

 that "anybody" can follow him

 (even if he does not stay on topic (for the thread),

 which does NOT bother me (at all (in the least)!)

 because he is so interesting,

 (simply (because he is)) being himself (=curious!).

+ point.

Keep it up, you're doing fine! (=Mega!)

Quote

which is comjecture

(Surely) conjecture. ? (I'll assume yes.)

Quote

which is conjecture

See, I've been confirmed (by automation).

Quote

as above, conjecture

Even again.

Quote

One would need a model and a way to distinguish this from the already-accepted theory of relativity.

That's detection of geometry.

Speculation is never on-topic in any thread

! (Period. !)

Quote

other than the one dedicated to its discussion). 

  Interested said:

Would atomic clocks at the poles measure the same time as those at the equator.

 

Quote

Yes, if you are on the geoid.

(~approximately sea-level).

But how is that possible?

The atoms at the equator

 are (being accelerated; &)

 moving faster at the equator

 (than at the north, or south pole).

Doesn't that (velocity & acceleration, at the equator)

 affect their mass (force)

 on them,

 to deliver (at the equator)

 a slightly different frequency

 (of precession, wrt a north (pole) position)?

Which in turn

 affects their output frequency

 in (general=) whole?

 

I'd even expect a magnetic affect

 on the atomic clock's frequency

 at the north pole

 because the flux density

 is larger.

(If that (stronger magnetism) can affect NMR=Nuclear magnetic resonance, precession frequency;

 then it's going to (also) affect atomic (ESR=electron spin) resonance frequencies.)

How can you say that (the north pole & equator atomic frequency (=inverse period) measurements are the same) Swansont?

Do you have any measurements

 to back it up?

 

E.g. Throughout the (24 hrs=) day

 the (frequency) differences will be compensated

 to about=approximately the same average;

 but the instantaneous values

 (look to me, like they)

 will vary. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Capiert

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

I'm after the classical Ether of Newton.

Then

 

the

 

evidence

 

would

 

 

 

have 

 

 

to

 

 

be

that

 

 

the 

 

 

speed

 

 

of

 

light

 

depended

 

on

 

the

 

direction

 

And/or

 

speed

of

the

source

or

observer. 

OK?

I have copied

your posting style

as you seem

to think it

is

a better way of explaining  

things.However,

I haven't read the rest of your post because it is totally illegible. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Strange

[Capiert]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

Then

  the evidence

  would have to be

  that

  the speed of light

  depended on the direction

  and/or speed of the source

  or observer. 

OK?

Light_speed c (evidence)

 depends on direction,

 &/or source. Hm?

Sounds ok.

Quote

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

(I have copied your posting style as you seem to think it is a better way of saying explaining  things.) 

I guess you missed the style,

 it's in phrases (usually),

 only occationally word by word.

(Too often I over_do it.)

Best would be a bi_phrase

 like the midevil mine song;

 but the (single) "phrasal" (structure) similarity

 is too obvious

 for me to ignore

 (instead of the bi_ phrases).

John Cuthber topped me (=my style),

 he was almost perfect

 with 3 count phrases.

It blew me away

 because it was so nice

 (almost perfect).

Compliment, to

John, we love ya.

(=Mega_In!)

At least that style.

You were talking right at me!

+1

He grasped it, (sorry) you didn't.

(If you master what he did=accomplished,

 (then) you've got it!)

He did it (=copying me, =my style) better than me.

I'm still looking for the perfect ((inspiring) writing) style

 (because I can't stand my own stuff anyway);

 he probably found it.

I write anti_climatic,

 exhausting themes

 til they are NOT interesting (anymore),

 because (life)time is precious. Priority_wise.

That doesn't always work well. I.e. Hardly.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Capiert

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Capiert said:

Best would be a a bi_phrase

Best would be to write like a grown up and not an immature poseur.

[Capiert]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

Best would be to write like a grown up and not an immature poseur.

If it would work ((for me) to fit in a grown up role (then I would do it));

 but that suggestion doesn't work for me (yet).

I have to tickle

 the peculiarities (of nature) out of me, to find them.

Discovery is a different road (=path, =method, =sequence),

 from explaining them (=discoveries, =discovering).

(They are opposite (=reversed, sentence) structures.)

Edited February 16, 2018 by Capiert

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Capiert said:

If it would work ((for me) to fit in a grown up role (then I would do it));

 but that suggestion doesn't work for me (yet).

I have to tickle

 the peculiarities (of nature) out of me, to find them.

Discovery is a different road (=path, =method, =sequence),

 from explaining them (=discoveries, =discovering).

(They are opposite (=reversed, sentence) structures.)

You are full of (sh)it

 

[Capiert]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You are full of (sh)it

(I) try to get rid of it every day.

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, Capiert said:

If it would work ((for me) to fit in a grown up role (then I would do it));

 but that suggestion doesn't work for me (yet).

If your goal is to communicate effectively, then this isn't "working" for you. It helps to confuse the presentation of your already-jumbled thoughts.

1 hour ago, Capiert said:

Light_speed c (evidence)

 depends on direction,

 &/or source. Hm?

Sounds ok.

 

No, it's not OK. There is no evidence to support the notion that the speed is direction-dependent, or source-dependent.

2 hours ago, Capiert said:

   (~approximately sea-level).

But how is that possible?

The atoms at the equator

 are (being accelerated; &)

 moving faster at the equator

 (than at the north, or south pole).

Doesn't that (velocity & acceleration, at the equator)

 affect their mass (force)

 on them,

 to deliver (at the equator)

 a slightly different frequency

 (of precession, wrt a north (pole) position)?

Which in turn

 affects their output frequency

 in (general=) whole?

Clocks do move faster at the equator (speed, not acceleration is what matters) so the clocks slow down. But because of the spin of the earth, the equator bulges, and the reduction in the gravitational potential means the clocks tick faster. The two effects cancel each other.

 

2 hours ago, Capiert said:

I'd even expect a magnetic affect

 on the atomic clock's frequency

 at the north pole

 because the flux density

 is larger.

Clocks are shielded from external fields. The earth's magnetic field changes over the course of a day, and from ambient effects. You can't build a decent clock without shielding by a factor of at least several thousand. A hundred thousand or so for the best clocks.

2 hours ago, Capiert said:

(If that (stronger magnetism) can affect NMR=Nuclear magnetic resonance, precession frequency;

 then it's going to (also) affect atomic (ESR=electron spin) resonance frequencies.)

How can you say that (the north pole & equator atomic frequency (=inverse period) measurements are the same) Swansont?

Do you have any measurements

 to back it up?

All of the measurements sent to the BIPM  are consistent with only having to account for elevation, and not latitude.  

 

2 hours ago, Capiert said:

E.g. Throughout the (24 hrs=) day

 the (frequency) differences will be compensated

 to about=approximately the same average;

 but the instantaneous values

 (look to me, like they)

 will vary. 

But they don't.

[interested]

Could a version of the aether be considered to be described by string theory, whereby space itself is the aether or membrane connecting different dimensions in space together

In string theory space D Brains connect the end of vibrating strings dependi9ng on which versuion you look at. Simplistically does M theory not represent a multidimensional space or aether.

[Strange]

22 minutes ago, interested said:

Could a version of the aether be considered to be described by string theory, whereby space itself is the aether or membrane connecting different dimensions in space together

In string theory space D Brains connect the end of vibrating strings dependi9ng on which versuion you look at. Simplistically does M theory not represent a multidimensional space or aether.

As I understand it, in string theory it is the electromagnetic field which is the "medium" for light (whether described classical waves, photons or strings). So that is what could best be described as the "aether" (if you must hang on to that label for some reason).

[interested]

48 minutes ago, Strange said:

As I understand it, in string theory it is the electromagnetic field which is the "medium" for light (whether described classical waves, photons or strings). So that is what could best be described as the "aether" (if you must hang on to that label for some reason).

D Branes are multidimensional and describe space which is not static 3 dimensional nothing. 

The only thing I hang onto is the fact that space is multidimensional, strings exist in the membrane of space as I currently understand it. 

Space could be defined as the aether from which all things eminate.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, interested said:

Space could be defined as the aether from which all things eminate.

If you want to describe space (with however many dimensions) as "the aether" then you are no longer talking about the same thing as the OP. You are free to call N-dimensional space, or strings, or dark energy, or the residue left in your coffee cup, "aether" if you want to. But it doesn't answer the OPs question.

The OP has confirmed that he was referring to the luminiferous aether; i.e. the medium that light waves are waves in. That is not space (even in string theory). If it is anything, it is the electromagnetic field.

I don't quite understand this obsession with the word "aether"; perhaps you could explain why this word holds so much fascination for some people but the word "phlogiston", for example, doesn't. What does labelling space "aether" change? How does it help with anything?

[interested]

38 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you want to describe space (with however many dimensions) as "the aether" then you are no longer talking about the same thing as the OP. You are free to call N-dimensional space, or strings, or dark energy, or the residue left in your coffee cup, "aether" if you want to. But it doesn't answer the OPs question.

The OP has confirmed that he was referring to the luminiferous aether; i.e. the medium that light waves are waves in. That is not space (even in string theory). If it is anything, it is the electromagnetic field.

I don't quite understand this obsession with the word "aether"; perhaps you could explain why this word holds so much fascination for some people but the word "phlogiston", for example, doesn't. What does labelling space "aether" change? How does it help with anything?

Oh Ive been away for a while and hadnt realized the OP is now talking about the luminefourous aether. 

I will leave the luminefourous aether and other ancient theories to you and your obvious obsession, for those that dont know what the hell phlogiston is 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

1.  
2.  

  

[studiot]

Just now, interested said:

Oh Ive been away for a while and hadnt realized the OP is now talking about the luminefourous aether. 

 

1.  
2.  

  

 

Some modern physicists identify an aether with modern presnetations of spacetime.

For example the book by nobel physicist Wilczek is accessible.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lightness-Being-Ether-Unification-Forces/dp/0465018955