"Einstein's ether is just a myth"

[The Wizard of pi]

Einstein was wrong about the existence of "Eather" as it's known in official texts. He agreed that it was not tangible; it couldn't be observed and it couldn't be measured by any instrument. He was obviously justifying his space-time theory of space although he never explained how EM waves (light for example) is produced or even what is the propagation mechanism employed by space. I have a layman proposition that I'm suggesting you for comments. I'm not in the mood for engaging into an empty heated arguing with fellow members, just a pleasant conversation about your personal feelings about it.

My argument is very simple really, I believe that there is no space-time fabric. Time is indeed observed differently as well events are delayed too but it has nothing to do with an assumed fabric of space but with its infinite nature, both outwardly and inwardly. I posed an inconvenient question in my very first posting, I see the general reaction to it, but I was expecting a more civilized discussion and acceptance on the part of this forum of physics enthusiasts. Why attacking me instead of trying to answer my simple questions? What's wrong in trying to see my point?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19lln6kSwHhKg6K60YFyni4lX1k3CifTH_DF0fRpDEr8/edit?usp=sharing

Good luck!

Edited June 26, 2018 by The Wizard of pi

[dimreepr]

I was wrong once... I got better...

[DrP]

I am pretty certain there was an experiment that disproved his aether idea...  I am not a pure physicist so I'll let one of them point you to it. All theories need testing with experiment. I don't have time to read through your document here at work  -  (and we aren't supposed to hop around lots of links for info) - do you have a synopsis?

9 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

 I'm not in the mood for engaging into an empty heated arguing with fellow members, just a pleasant conversation about your personal feelings about it.

Has this happened before?  I only see 4 posts of yours and have seen no arguing. What makes you expect an argument?

[The Wizard of pi]

Why the diminishing reactions against a simple question? Is it that hard to look into it than trying to mock someone who presents a different point of view? Is this how present science forums work? I'm not trying to advertise anything. I published my views already and I don't expect to receive any prize for it. Time will tell who was right and who wasn't...that's all!

[Phi for All]

1 minute ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Why the diminishing reactions against a simple question? Is it that hard to look into it than trying to mock someone who presents a different point of view? Is this how present science forums work? I'm not trying to advertise anything. I published my views already and I don't expect to receive any prize for it. Time will tell who was right and who wasn't...that's all!

Wow, talk about an over-reaction! You'll need thicker skin if you start science discussions with "Einstein was WRONG!!!" arguments. You'll also need more supportive evidence. There's mounds of it that says you're the one who's wrong. 

Btw, nobody is mocking you, or even your idea. Your argument in support of aether needs to be better supported, and that's what we're discussing, if you'll stop acting wounded. 

[DrP]

There is no mocking - I am just asking  -  what is your point? What are you trying to say?   I think you have to state it here rather than request we go to your site and read it. It seems to be about wave formation - sounds interesting   -  wanna put the beef of the theory here? There are some great mathematicians here who will pull it apart for you.  I expect that is why you are here - to test your theory?

Edited June 26, 2018 by DrP

[Phi for All]

22 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

I'm not in the mood for engaging into an empty heated arguing with fellow members, just a pleasant conversation about your personal feelings about it.

As long as this doesn't mean, "If you don't agree with me, stay out!", all will be well. Learning isn't always pleasant, but it's always good. 

[DrP]

QUOTE: {My theory explains why waves are formed, why we call charge when the quantum is in its corpuscular form and why a magnetic cycle appears when it is spread within the fractional infinite space of its own volume. It explains why the duality and obviously why the paradox theoretically known a the 'Heisenberg uncertainty principle' is perfectly natural and comprehensible. My theory also proves that there is no ether since there's no need for one. My theory also explains what gravity is, since it's the same phenomenon occurring at a big scale where huge masses of planets and stars are surrounded by a field made by the net or sum of that unfulfilled volume of fractional infinite within the fabric of space. The closer to the surface of the celestial body, the stronger the density of the distortion of space. The common property seen in both the electromagnetic field and gravity (both manifest effects of the inverse square law) proves that both physical phenomena find their process as a product of the same incompatibility between space on one side and mass, matter and energy on the other."}

 

You claim your theory explains a lot  -  can we see a copy of it please? I am sure it will be an interesting read whether right or wrong.  People here will pick the holes in it for you. We need to see the actual theory though... at the moment it is random musings. Can you sum it up in a few lines and give us whatever equations come out of it? As I said - there are people here who will help you develop it or bin it fast. I assume that is what you want? If wrong you want to know why obviously.

 

33 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

this is my point:

I don't see how I can replay from my posting but I thank you for you comments. I simply have a thought concerning the repercussions of ignoring the message (the physical message to be more accurate) of disregarding the irrational nature of the most applied math constant in science pi. I based my theory of infinite fractional space and its incompatibility in the presence of quantized energy and matter. Planck's experiments with the black box proved that energy at the smallest manifestation comes in quanta. If you take a look at how energy and matter manifest themselves in the universe (without external limitations) you'll fins a common pattern: THE SPHERE. water drops, subatomic particles, planets, atoms, stars... all spheres in three dimensional space, and this is a fact. When you take a closer look at the equation that calculates the sphere you find the mathematical constant pi in it... that's another fact. If I keep adding (inserting) decimals endlessly into the equation, the volume of the sphere keeps increasing only that into a "microscopic" magnitudes... this is another fact. The increasing volume goes into inward infinite and that's why I called it 'fractional infinite of space' another fact. Electrons according to their latest photographic observations are spheres...in fact perfect spheres to say it clearly. the fuzzy cloud around them gets thinner as it spreads to the outer edges of the sphere, that's another fact too. Can you see my point now?

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by DrP

[swansont]

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

 I have a layman proposition that I'm suggesting you for comments. I'm not in the mood for engaging into an empty heated arguing with fellow members, just a pleasant conversation about your personal feelings about it.

This is posted in physics, so you are implicitly soliciting physics answers.

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

My argument is very simple really, I believe that there is no space-time fabric.

Good. Physics only uses the phrase metaphorically. It's not a substance, it's a geometry.

1 hour ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Why attacking me instead of trying to answer my simple questions? What's wrong in trying to see my point?

Disagreement is not attacking. If you have an actual model you wish to defend, you should post in speculations.

[Mordred]

So your two page theory has lots of claims but zero math which means it has no predictability or testability. Hence it isn't a theory to begin with but rather a descriptive of your understanding. Not much to go on. Eather isn't supported by modern physics so that part you have right.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Mordred

[John Cuthber]

The Michelson–Morley experiment proved that the ether (or aether if you like) didn't exist (at least- not as expected) in 1887.

At the time Einstein was about 8 years old.
Now it's possible that he's not as clever as some folks say, but the idea that he believed in something  which had been proven not to exist when he was at school  doesn't seem realistic.
 

[StringJunky]

if anyone is interested what Einstein actually thought about the Aether, his lecture from 1920 :

Quote

Last paragraph : Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

 

[beecee]

6 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Einstein was wrong about the existence of "Eather" as it's known in official texts. He agreed that it was not tangible; it couldn't be observed and it couldn't be measured by any instrument. He was obviously justifying his space-time theory of space although he never explained how EM waves (light for example) is produced or even what is the propagation mechanism employed by space. I have a layman proposition that I'm suggesting you for comments. I'm not in the mood for engaging into an empty heated arguing with fellow members, just a pleasant conversation about your personal feelings about it.

My argument is very simple really, I believe that there is no space-time fabric. Time is indeed observed differently as well events are delayed too but it has nothing to do with an assumed fabric of space but with its infinite nature, both outwardly and inwardly. I posed an inconvenient question in my very first posting, I see the general reaction to it, but I was expecting a more civilized discussion and acceptance on the part of this forum of physics enthusiasts. Why attacking me instead of trying to answer my simple questions? What's wrong in trying to see my point?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19lln6kSwHhKg6K60YFyni4lX1k3CifTH_DF0fRpDEr8/edit?usp=sharing

Good luck!

You seem very defensive. Although not really professionally qualified, I did check your link out and like your post, seems terribly defensive and lacks any mathematical data and proof.

Perhaps if you read the following you may be more realistic in what you are trying to claim......

Anyone with alternative theories they wish to discuss should follow a few simple procedures:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/115017-science-theories-and-all-that/?tab=comments#comment-1056923

[1] Don't present the theory as fact...don't present it as something that is "faite compli" It most certainly isn't:

[2] Gather all the experimental and Observational evidence to support your claims...

[3] Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:

[4] Your theory almost certainly is going to be challenged, and will need to run the gauntlet:

[5] You will be told you are incorrect and your theory is wrong in most cases:

[6] Throwing a tantrum will not win you any support: 

[7] You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question answer it. 

[8] When someone demonstrates a point you made is wrong, acknowledge that it is wrong and accept it:

[9] Peer review may not be perfect, but it is absolutely necessary. The participants of any forum one sets out his alternative theory on, are your peers. Accept that:

[10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

[11] In all likelyhood you are not Einstein, Newton, Hawking Bohr or Feynman: Don't pretend to be.

[12] And finally always be prepared to modify your ideas/model/theories, and of course make sure you know the incumbent model you are thinking of over throwing perfectly.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

My argument is very simple really, I believe that there is no space-time fabric.

Sell, we can measure distances in three independent directions (space) and we can measure time. So they certainly exist.

We can also measure the predicted changes in the geometry of space and time caused by velocity, the present of mass, etc. So the concept of space-time as an integrated set of coordinates seems to be well founded. Whether you choose to describe this as a "fabric" is irrelevant. The word "fabric" is used metaphorically to describe many things (for example, "the fabric of society"); it isn't meant to imply the reality or existence of any "fabric".

 

[Markus Hanke]

15 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Einstein was wrong about the existence of "Eather" as it's known in official texts. He agreed that it was not tangible; it couldn't be observed and it couldn't be measured by any instrument. He was obviously justifying his space-time theory of space

Spacetime is not the same as ether; it is not a medium with mechanical properties.

15 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

although he never explained how EM waves (light for example) is produced

Of course not, because this falls outside the domain of a classical theory such as General Relativity. You need quantum field theory - specifically, quantum electrodynamics - for a full understanding of this, but that was not developed until well after Einstein’s theory of relativity.

[swansont]

6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

 Of course not, because this falls outside the domain of a classical theory such as General Relativity. You need quantum field theory - specifically, quantum electrodynamics - for a full understanding of this, but that was not developed until well after Einstein’s theory of relativity.

I think the gist here is that the OP wants a "nuts and bolts" step-by-step explanation of a how a photon is created, and physics can't supply that. There's no way to investigate it, and no way to test any model that one might come up with. It is outside of the realm of physics. 

IOW, physics/science tells you how the world behaves. It does not tell you about the details of how it works. It does not reveal "reality". Are photons real objects? We can't say. Nature behaves as if they are, so our models using them work. But we're always open to a better model.

 

[The Wizard of pi]

I will try to do it this way:

 I'll make it easier for you and for those (I'm sure will be reading this comment too) by asking questions that I'll answer myself, shall we?

Q. What is showing this picture? 

A. it's showing an equation that calculates the volume of spheres in three dimensional space.

Q. What's the point to show this equation?

A. Energy and matter in the universe adopt this configuration because it's the MOST EFFICIENT and LOWER ENERGY LEVEL any quantum or packet of energy could chose.

Q. Can you be more specific?

A. photons and the rest of the Bosons, leptons and the rest of the Fermions. matter as planets and the rest of celestial bodies. 

Q. Are you saying that electrons are spheres?

A. yes! according to latest experiments, yes they are perfect spheres Photons would also be perfect spheres if the property of space -I theorized in this forum- were to be conceived.

Q. What property is that?

A. Take a closer look at the sphere equation... There is an irrational constant called pi that holds an infinite number of decimals in its tail. 

Q. ...and how is that so important here?

A. It is so because if I told you to calculate the volume of the sphere that represents the electron you'll find what I called it "an incompatibility between quantized energy and a fractionally infinite fabric of space" (not space-time; just plain space).

Q. What do you meant to say by incompatibility there?

A. We all know about the very first proof of the particle nature of the energy: the Planck's black body experiment. Even photons (the messengers of the EM force ate pockets of energy). However here comes the paradoxical situation that I found in my analyses. If according to that equation, the volume increases toward a fractional infinite and energy will obviously tend to occupy the sphere and the space within... then what will happen as the energy spreads into that infinitesimally small fabric of space? Obviously we know that in reality the energy of the subatomic particles is not vanished into thin air, so at some point there will be a limit, which I see it as the resistance of an elemental pocket of energy (indivisible by accepted conclusions  of multiple  experimentation) to divide itself. The exact point within the volume of the sphere and the corresponding decimal place in pi where that "RECOIL" takes place has never been determined nor even searched for. It's that recoil what makes EM waves propagating at c in the vacuum. It's that recoil what's responsible for a phenomenon without proper theoretical explanation up until now, called "spin of particles". If you connect a coil to a battery, the current (electric charges) will be stored in that fractional space I theorized in my articles. It's not stored in the wires of the coil but in the air around it... in a microscopic region of space, spread across it. when the magnetic storage returns back into the circuit, the polarization will be the opposite with respect to the original; just like you can observe in an LC resonant circuit. In fact within the subatomic particles (Fermions) there is a FTL oscillation that can be explained as a resonant process  within themselves. This is the true nature of a magnetic field; energy stored within a fractionally inward infinite of the fabric of space. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtzuM96VWg-QwVpxpK2Bbq_VjjyW3nWhIuoh02Tsd8Q/edit?usp=sharing

Give it a second try and see my point before judging me in a run.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19lln6kSwHhKg6K60YFyni4lX1k3CifTH_DF0fRpDEr8/edit?usp=sharing

Edited June 27, 2018 by The Wizard of pi

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Q. What is showing this picture? 

A. it's showing an equation that calculates the volume of spheres in three dimensional space.

If it is the equation for a sphere then it is not, in general, a description of the electrons round a nucleus.

If, on the other hand, it is the equation describing electrons, then it is only spherical in very specific, limited circumstances.

5 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Q. Are you saying that electrons are spheres?

A. yes! according to latest experiments, yes they are perfect spheres Photons would also be perfect spheres if the property of space -I theorized in this forum- were to be conceived.

Electrons are point particles, not spheres. (I think I know which pop-sci headlines you have been misled by).

6 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

A. It is so because if I told you to calculate the volume of the sphere that represents the electron you'll find what I called it "an incompatibility between quantized energy and a fractionally infinite fabric of space" (not space-time; just plain space).

Q. What do you meant to say by incompatibility there?

I can't make any sense of this, even after reading your longer "explanation".

8 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

If according to that equation, the volume increases toward a fractional infinite

What is a "fractional infinite"?

8 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

and energy will obviously tend to occupy the sphere and the space within...

Energy is a property of particles, etc. It is not a thing itself that can "occupy space".

9 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

then what will happen as the energy spreads into that infinitesimally small fabric of space?

If it is infinitesimally small, how can anything "spread" into it? Infinitesimally small means approaching zero size?

But you appear to be talking about an expanding sphere so I don't know how it can approach zero size.

10 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Obviously we know that in reality the energy of the subatomic particles is not vanished into thin air,

Why do you expect the energy to "vanish"?

11 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

I see it as the resistance of an elemental pocket of energy

What is an "elemental pocket of energy" I assume you mean "packet", but that doesn't make it any clearer. There is no such thing as a packet of energy; energy is a property. You might as well talk about an "elemental packet of size".

12 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

The exact point within the volume of the sphere and the corresponding decimal place in pi where that "RECOIL" takes place has never been determined nor even searched for.

That is probably because it is a meaningless concept based on a thorough misunderstanding of physics.

 

Are there any testable predictions from your idea? In other words, can your model use mathematics to produce quantitative predictions that can be experimantally tested to determine whether the model is correct or not?

Or, even more simply, what would show your idea to be incorrect?

[The Wizard of pi]

My only evidence is that the universe exists. 

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

I will try to do it this way:

 I'll make it easier for you and for those (I'm sure will be reading this comment too) by asking questions that I'll answer myself, shall we?

Q. What is showing this picture? 

A. it's showing an equation that calculates the volume of spheres in three dimensional space.

There is no equation in that picture.

20 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Q. What's the point to show this equation?

A. Energy and matter in the universe adopt this configuration because it's the MOST EFFICIENT and LOWER ENERGY LEVEL any quantum or packet of energy could chose.

Energy is not a substance. 

Classically, things spontaneously go to their lowest energy state because F is the negative gradient of potential energy, so there is a force on objects that push them there.

20 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Q. Can you be more specific?

A. photons and the rest of the Bosons, leptons and the rest of the Fermions. matter as planets and the rest of celestial bodies. 

Q. Are you saying that electrons are spheres?

A. yes! according to latest experiments, yes they are perfect spheres Photons would also be perfect spheres if the property of space -I theorized in this forum- were to be conceived.

That's a pop-sci summary of the experiment. The electron does not have a dipole moment measurable at some level, meaning its electric field has spherical symmetry, implying that the charge distribution is spherical, but OTOH, that only makes sense if the charge takes up a volume, and there is no evidence it does.

That gets watered down to "the electron is spherical" when you read about it outside of an actual science discussion.

20 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Q. What property is that?

A. Take a closer look at the sphere equation... There is an irrational constant called pi that holds an infinite number of decimals in its tail. 

Q. ...and how is that so important here?

A. It is so because if I told you to calculate the volume of the sphere that represents the electron you'll find what I called it "an incompatibility between quantized energy and a fractionally infinite fabric of space" (not space-time; just plain space).

This is known as "word salad"

20 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Q. What do you meant to say by incompatibility there?

A. We all know about the very first proof of the particle nature of the energy: the Planck's black body experiment. Even photons (the messengers of the EM force ate pockets of energy). However here comes the paradoxical situation that I found in my analyses. If according to that equation, the volume increases toward a fractional infinite and energy will obviously tend to occupy the sphere and the space within... then what will happen as the energy spreads into that infinitesimally small fabric of space?

Energy isn't a substance, so energy cannot occupy a sphere.

20 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

Obviously we know that in reality the energy of the subatomic particles is not vanished into thin air, so at some point there will be a limit, which I see it as the resistance of an elemental pocket of energy (indivisible by accepted conclusions  of multiple  experimentation) to divide itself. The exact point within the volume of the sphere and the corresponding decimal place in pi where that "RECOIL" takes place has never been determined nor even searched for. It's that recoil what makes EM waves propagating at c in the vacuum. It's that recoil what's responsible for a phenomenon without proper theoretical explanation up until now, called "spin of particles". If you connect a coil to a battery, the current (electric charges) will be stored in that fractional space I theorized in my articles. It's not stored in the wires of the coil but in the air around it... in a microscopic region of space, spread across it. when the magnetic storage returns back into the circuit, the polarization will be the opposite with respect to the original; just like you can observe in an LC resonant circuit. In fact within the subatomic particles (Fermions) there is a FTL oscillation that can be explained as a resonant process  within themselves. This is the true nature of a magnetic field; energy stored within a fractionally inward infinite of the fabric of space. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtzuM96VWg-QwVpxpK2Bbq_VjjyW3nWhIuoh02Tsd8Q/edit?usp=sharing

Give it a second try and see my point before judging me in a run.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19lln6kSwHhKg6K60YFyni4lX1k3CifTH_DF0fRpDEr8/edit?usp=sharing

If you have a theory, you need to post it here, not just link to a file on google docs (see rule 2.7)

 

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, The Wizard of pi said:

My only evidence is that the universe exists. 

That is not very useful. Just about every cosmological model, including myths and theories that have been proved wrong, is consistent with the universe existing. 

You need something a little more specific. And quantifiable. 

It looks like you have no testable model and therefore no evidence. So you are not doing science. 

[beecee]

4 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

My only evidence is that the universe exists. 

Wow! That's a cop out answer if ever there was one! 

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 hours ago, The Wizard of pi said:

My only evidence is that the universe exists. 

I gave you a +1 for the honesty. If I hadn't already been reading for amusement only, it would have begun at that point.