Massive Aether

[Zephir]

..Michelson-Morley experiment that proved the nonexistence of an ether...what was the nature of the supposed ether? Was it assumed to be stationary or in motion? Was it considered to be a substance or an energy?

The luminiferous Aether is massive environment by definition. Such environment can behave like thin gas, surrounding/penetrating the movable objects. Or it can behave like very dense matter, from the density fluctuations of which the observable objects are created. The M-M experiment has refuted only the thin Aether concept, which is irrelevant to luminiferous concept in fact.

 

Because the light can be of very high energy density (the gamma and cosmic radiation in particular), it's evident, the luminiferous aether must be very dense stuff, with higher energy density, then the energy density of most energetic light to be able to spread the light in waves. Surprisingly enough, the dense Aether model was never considered seriously, until now in connection with black hole models of Universe.

 

Here are many others, less or more abstract models of Aether, which are considering many insintric Aether properties (like the vector fields, etc.). These models have nothing to do with original inertial Aether concept, though, being based on ad-hoced concepts.

[ajb]

Is there any need for a classical aether?

 

Relativity and quantum field theory don't seem to need it. Wouldn't trying to reintroduce it make things more complicated than needed?

 

As far as I can tell, any modern papers discussing the effects of the classical aether tend to be flawed and as such not many people take the idea seriously.

 

Things like Gasperini's scalar field or Jacobson and Mattingly's vector are as you said different. They are used to give a preferred direction in general relativity and break local Lorentz symmetry, but keep Einstein invariance (Diff M). To me these ideas seem more natural to investigate than a classical aether, at least we can understand the geometric objects involved.

[Zephir]

Is there any need for a classical aether?

You can always explain some phenomena by many alternative ways. In this sense, here's no need of Aether, by the same way, like here's no need of strings or spin loops concepts.

 

But how to interpret easily the fact, the light is spreading through vacuum in waves, if not by inertial environment concept? For example, the inertial particle system can explain the concept of strings or spin loop as a density fluctuations, similar to those, which appears in dense condensing supercritical fluid. You can say, the behavior of strings is principally different, but this is just an conjecture. Such analogy was never considered seriously.

 

 

After all, isn't the concept, the Universe is formed by interior of massive dense object one of mainstream science concepts?

 

If yes, why I'm collecting the infractions for pointing such apparent connections all the time? Why the scientists, like the Laughlin, Susskind, or many others can publish the peer-reviewed speculations about it freely, while I'm banned/censored/moved to pseudoscience threads on the anonymous forum full of layman BS, when considering such possibility?

 

The only explanation is, the so called "real science proponents" are heavily frustrated by the possibility of such scenario, which they were refuted for whole their wasted life without understanding of the subject... The final stage of their conceptual crisis and confusion can be demonstrated by the fact, they've tendency to censor even the opinions of mainstream science authorities by the same way, like some Holy Church fundamentalists are denying different parts of Bibble!

[swansont]

If yes, why I'm collecting the infractions for pointing such apparent connections all the time?

 

Because you're hijacking threads with off-topic discussions. It's disruptive and it won't be tolerated.

[Zephir]

..and as that postdates the M-M experiment...

 

Everything, what I can say about it is just to repeat my previous explanation. The M-M experiment doesn't refute the dense Aether concept, where the light is supposed to spread along surfaces of density fluctuations of Aether in transversal waves, which is in good agreement with Maxwell's Aether theory of light, from which the Lorentz transforms were derived.

 

The M-M experiment just excludes the thin Aether gas concept, where the energy should spread in longitudinal waves. The behavior of these two Aether models is completely different, in fact it's completely dual to say at best. Which effectively means, the single M-M experiment cannot refute both models at the same time. I'm usually demonstrating the difference between thin ("gaseous") and thick ("foamy") models of Aether by this animation, which emphasizes the paths of energy spreading during inertial environment condensation:

 

 

..it is decidedly off-topic for this thread...

If you can understand the subtleties of string theory, I guarantee you, you can understand the difference in behavior of thin and dense Aether models as well. I'll repeat it, until you understand this trivial thing, which belongs to classical physics of Victorian era, in fact. After all, only a few things in physics are as easy to understand, like this one.

 

The repetition is mother of wisdom.

 

Sorry for such approach, but you were apparently repeatedly assured about incompatibility of M-M experiment and Aether concept, so that the only way, how to reset such stance is to repeat the opposite by the same way. The Aether case just demonstrates the dangerous strength of inter-subjective belief and propaganda, which is able to virtually disable certain ways of thinking, so that even the most trivial connections are impossible to realize.

[Zephir]

..because you're hijacking threads with off-topic discussions...

This is just a conjecture of yours. Believe it or not, I'm always perfectly on-topic.

[Phi for All]

If yes, why I'm collecting the infractions for pointing such apparent connections all the time? Why the scientists, like the Laughlin, Susskind, or many others can publish the peer-reviewed speculations about it freely, while I'm banned/censored/moved to pseudoscience threads on the anonymous forum full of layman BS, when considering such possibility?

You're no martyr, just a person with an idea who is acting like a jackass by braying about it even when others are trying to discuss something else. Like others before you, you ignore the Speculations part of Pseudoscience & Speculations and cry that you're being repressed.

 

You're just being told to confine your speculations to threads where they are appropriate. No need for all the hand-waving, it takes away from the energy needed to defend your ideas.

[Klaynos]

This is just a conjecture of yours. Believe it or not, I'm always perfectly on-topic.

 

Unfortunately for you, it's the staff that decide whether your on or off topic...

 

I don't like "interpretation" ideas, it's not science.

[Zephir]

..I don't like "interpretation" ideas, it's not science...

This is a typical stance of people with analytical thinking, which are preferring to elaborate existing ideas. The creative people with synthetic thinking already know, the intuitive interpretation of idea ("the imagination") is the very first step during every new concept development.

 

Of course, once the formal model is developed, the "interpretation" of phenomena isn't further necessary during application of equations. But such formal approach prohibits us to understand the subject deeper - it effectively freezes the state of its understanding.

..you're no martyr, just a person with an idea who is acting like a jackass by braying about it even when others are trying to discuss something else...

Well, by the same logic we can say, the Jesus Christ, Giordano Bruno or Galileo were jackasses, who limited certain people in spreading of their ideas. But how Galileo limited the Holly Church in spreading of Holy Church ideas, in fact? How the publishing of some book can limit the other people in publishing of their books?

 

Therefore, if you don't want/like to follow my way of thinking, why simply don't ignore my posts? Maybe somebody else become interested about it. For example, if I find some formal discussion full of equations, I've no problem to ignore it completely. I've no need to remove it from thread or even ostracize its authors.

 

We can met with the situation, even quite dumb posts of many posters here are usually tolerated in forum, while the thread of mine was urgently closed even in Pseudoscience section. As we can see, the stance of yours covers a deeper problem with my posts, then just "diluting of discussion". After all, I can say the very same about the posts of yours, because my position towards you is completely symmetrical.

[Klaynos]

But when the imagination add something it does it with maths.

 

And the only ones of those people you mentioned who I would possibly object to be labeled as an out and out jackass had evidence!

 

I wont answer for phi, but the staff are here to ensure the site Works.

[Zephir]

...when the imagination add something it does it with maths..

OK, try to express the idea, the Earth is revolving around Sun and not vice-versa with math. Try to prove it with math.

...but the staff are here to ensure the site Works..

And the purpose of Holy Church is just to ensure the religion Working. Everybody can substantiate his stance by such self-referencing tautology.

[Klaynos]

I think it can be done with keplar orbits, you've used the examples of shadows in crators before, well they can easily be modelled mathematically.

 

This is a strawman, and discussed in your closed thread.

 

 

Urg, strawman again, you are not posting commonly accepted science.

[Zephir]

...strawman again....

This is not strawman at all. If you want to express new ideas by using of math, you should prove, it's technically feasible (if not effective) in all cases.

[Phi for All]

This is a typical stance of people with analytical thinking, which are preferring to elaborate existing ideas.

This is a typical stance of people who are too lazy to learn why they don't understand accepted ideas.

Well, by the same logic we can say, the Jesus Christ, Giordano Bruno or Galileo were jackasses, who limited certain people in spreading of their ideas. But how Galileo limited the Holly Church in spreading of Holy Church ideas, in fact? How the publishing of some book can limit the other people in publishing of their books?

I knew the comparison to Galileo was coming. Everyone who takes some criticism for a hyothesis suddenly becomes Galileo.

 

Therefore, if you don't want/like to follow my way of thinking, why simply don't ignore my posts? Maybe somebody else become interested about it. For example, if I find some formal discussion full of equations, I've no problem to ignore it completely. I've no need to remove it from thread or even ostracize its authors.

Well, you're not a Staff member, so why should you? It's up to us to handle things when enough members complain about some crackpot who keeps ruining everyone's threads on accepted science with his own ramblings.

We can met with the situation, even quite dumb posts of many posters here are usually tolerated in forum, while the thread of mine was urgently closed even in Pseudoscience section.

Everyone is tolerated as long as they obey the rules of the comunity. This is hardly a new concept, or do you wish to challenge that too?

As we can see, the stance of yours covers a deeper problem with my posts, then just "diluting of discussion". After all, I can say the very same about the posts of yours, because my position towards you is completely symmetrical.

I'm not sure what you're seeing. What I see is someone who thinks he knows better than everyone else. Our positions are asymmetrical, I assure you.

[Zephir]

...who are too lazy to learn why they don't understand accepted ideas....

Do you believe, I don't know mainstream science ideas? Just because I'm understanding the accepted ideas clearly, I able to find a holes in them.

...it's up to us to handle things ...everyone is tolerated as long as they obey the rules of the comunity...

This is just a claim of yours. Try to prove, I'm violating these rules at first.

...what I see is someone who thinks he knows better than everyone else...

You cannot know, what I'm thinking about. Just try to refute my arguments, or simply don't spread the speculations about my thinking.

[ajb]

Do you believe, I don't know mainstream science ideas?

 

Sorry but is is looking that way.

 

Also, if you want to discuss ideas about the aether and extensions of relativity etc. I am happy to do so.

 

However, I refuse to get involved with any rant about the moderators and how they are like the church and you are like Galileo.

[Zephir]

Sorry but is is looking that way..

Well, we should learn something. Once again, the fact, somebody disagrees with mainstream ideas doesn't mean, he doesn't knows about them - on the contrary. For example, I know perfectly all the reasons, which lead the mainstream science to Aether refusal before one hundred years. Just because I know all of them, I can safely say, why these reasons were incomplete and/or wrong.

 

Think logically: how can I disagree with something, which I don't know? I can say easily, it's just you, who is ignorant here, if you don't see my reasons of critique. But I don't saying this, I'm just asking you to substantiate your stance.

 

The demagogic stance is typical for pathological skepticism:

 

...Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments

Pejorative labeling of proponents as ignorants.

Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate...

 

We should learn to distinguish the symptoms violating the dialectic, matter of fact discussion, which are prohibiting us in deeper understanding of reality. As a single rule, every sentence should be presented as a logical predicate: If - Then or Because - Then. What are you believing in is nice, but completelly irrelevant here - the important is, what can you support by some argument, no matter, how such argument appears trivial. What I can disprove is just the validity of implicate, without implication every claim is just an tautology without true value by its definition. It cannot be refused as such without consideration of further conditions/implications - so if the claim doesn't contain some implication, it cannot be considered as a falsifiable claim at all and it can be ignored safely.

 

By Aether theory, just the causual conections are considered real in chaos. What you can see in supercritical fluid are just a density gradients, i.e. the groups of states, which are connected by some causual dependence in space-time. The rest of fluid is transparent for you, so you cannot see/interract it.

 

Therefore, without some causual connection (i.e. implication) the space-time events or states cannot be considered reproducible and as such real. This is why the mainstream science requires the reproducibility during presentation of testable results and or opinions. The unsubstantiated claim cannot be reproduced, if we don't know, how did you arrived at it.

[swansont]

Well, we should learn something. Once again, the fact, somebody disagrees with mainstream ideas doesn't mean, he doesn't knows about them - on the contrary.

 

Then you should have absolutely no trouble differentiating between mainstream and alternative responses, and posting in the appropriate sections. If it's an alternative theory/hypothesis, it belongs here and not in the physics section.

 

Everything, what I can say about it is just to repeat my previous explanation. The M-M experiment doesn't refute the dense Aether concept, where the light is supposed to spread along surfaces of density fluctuations of Aether in transversal waves, which is in good agreement with Maxwell's Aether theory of light, from which the Lorentz transforms were derived.

 

The M-M experiment just excludes the thin Aether gas concept, where the energy should spread in longitudinal waves.

 

The thread from which this was moved was discussing the aether as defined at the time, what you are calling the thin aether. Bringing anything else into the discussion is off-topic.

[Phi for All]

Do you believe, I don't know mainstream science ideas?[

*Gasp!*

Just because I'm understanding the accepted ideas clearly, I able to find a holes in them.

Many people, for whom a scientific concept doesn't come intuitively, feel this way. It doesn't make sense to you immediately so you assume that thousands of people over millions of man-hours of research and experimentation must be wrong.

 

This is just a claim of yours. Try to prove, I'm violating these rules at first.

When someone else posts a thread discussing mainstream ideas, you have repeatedly posted responses with your own ideas, which aren't mainstream, causing people to correct you, or refute you, or deny you. Since that wasn't the purpose of the thread, you are off-topic and in violation of our rules.

 

You cannot know, what I'm thinking about. Just try to refute my arguments, or simply don't spread the speculations about my thinking.

The membership is doing that quite well, only you aren't listening because you have pulled the Galileo martyr hat down too low and it's blocking your ears.

[ydoaPs]

The membership is doing that quite well, only you aren't listening because you have pulled the Galileo martyr hat down too low and it's blocking your ears.

 

“Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right.”

 

– Robert Park

[ajb]

 

Think logically: how can I disagree with something, which I don't know? I can say easily, it's just you, who is ignorant here, if you don't see my reasons of critique. But I don't saying this, I'm just asking you to substantiate your stance.

 

I am indeed ignorant of many things. However, I am not ignorant of the fact that wiki is not a scientific reference and the answer to all our arguments.

 

 

I was willing to engage in scientific arguments with Zephir, but not any more.