Aether

[sananda]

you cannot rule out ether based on Michelson-Morley

 

you see, ether, or what we now know as the zero point field or the sea of virtual particles is a real field... whether it's the subtlest field is anyone's guess...

 

but think about it, how does light travel?

why does gravity cause an inward force towards matter?

why do magnets have an effect on the space around them?

 

it all points to a subtle ether that electromagnetic radiation can flow through quite easily.

 

my own belief is that matter absorbs ether and that is why mass and time depends on how much ether is available to an object to consume.

 

atoms are like energy sinks that manifest as physical matter and gravity is the equal but opposite reaction to this system

 

the reason drag is not observed is because the rate matter feeds from space depends on the space around it, and the observers rate of time is also governed by this rate of consumpion of fuel.

 

so maybe there is no space time, only the affect of matter on ether.

 

matter causes gravity because it consumes ether and observation of time is dictated by how much ether is available to matter.

also light waves travelling through this ether medium are affected by the current in space caused by planets and stars in space... this would lead to gravitational lensing by its very nature.

 

is this the grand unified theory???

 

I have a paper on this if anyone wants to read it.

Edited August 30, 2009 by sananda

[ajb]

Does your paper

 

a) contain enough mathematics to be of interest to people?

 

b) contain too much mathematics not familiar with most theoretical physicists?

 

If it is a) then we are unlikely to be very interested. If it is b) we maybe interested but more work maybe needed on your part to keep us interested.

 

What predictions does you theory make and how do they agree with general relativity?

[sananda]

Hi AJB,

 

Unfortunately it is more of a discussion than a mathematical paper...

 

And gravitational lensing is the most logical prediction but that's already been shown to exist so that's not much use.

 

If I was to stick my neck out on a prediction I would say that the universe is not expanding at an accelerating rate but rather it looks that way because the medium that light is passing through is more dense the further you travel towards the edge of the universe, simply because it has not been absorbed or processed yet.

 

Has this been proposed before anywhere? i.e. that matter has its volumetric properties because it absorbs energy in the ZPF and acts somewhat as a capacitor for this energy? And that gravity is the equal but opposite reaction to this system?

 

I would even suggest that perhaps electrons are the absence of something rather than something. Hawking radiation is where black holes absorb one of the virtual particle pairings, could this also be what is happening at the subatomic level?

 

 

My theory is simply a three dimensional solution to Einstein's theory of relativity substituting ether for space-time.

 

It is based on a number of assumptions

 

1. matter absorbs ether to become animated and exhibit its volumetric properties, this results in the side effect of gravity

2. light travels through this same medium and thus is affected by any gravity currents it encounters

3. time is based on the rate of absorption of ether and is thus affected by movement through the ether and the amount of matter in the viscinity

 

Perhaps this is why light speed seems constant to observers.

 

If I am traveling at half the speed of light towards a light source, my clock now runs at a new pace say 1.5 times normal... now the light is actually traveling towards me at 1.5 times the speed of light, however because my clock is running faster I observe everything around me running .667 speed, which means that I now observer the light traveling towards me coming at exactly light speed.

 

I kind of imagine the system a bit like rivers and ripples... the ripples are light the river current is ether flow towards matter... the only extra thing is that matter is made from the same stuff as the river and the perception of this matter is based on how much ether can be absorbed at any one point.

 

atoms, molecules etc. so are like wire frames floating around in this energy and are affected by flow through it and surf gravity current... gravity is very weak because the flow goes through our atoms like a bottle crate caught at the grid at the end of a sewer tunnel.

 

Does any of this make sense to anyone out there?

[Klaynos]

Hi AJB,

 

Unfortunately it is more of a discussion than a mathematical paper...

 

And gravitational lensing is the most logical prediction but that's already been shown to exist so that's not much use.

 

I have an issue with this, to make a prediction you require mathematics, a prediction in modern physics is numerical, general relativity doesn't just say "yeah light will follow curved spacetime around a mass" it says exactly the amount of lensing you will observer for a given gravity field...

 

You need to show, with maths, how the MM experiment would not show the effect from your aether.

[sananda]

But the theory is the theory of relativity, it just gives reason to it, so the math is exactly the same.

 

At the moment the theory of relativity states that matter magically effects the space-time continuum.

 

All i'm saying that matter consumes the space time continuum, and you can see the results of this as gravity.

 

The only extra prediction I am giving is that light will redshift coming into areas of lower pressure, i.e. areas that have consumed more ether.

[ajb]

But the theory is the theory of relativity, it just gives reason to it, so the math is exactly the same.

 

Can you either show the calculation or give a reference to it?

[swansont]

At the moment the theory of relativity states that matter magically effects the space-time continuum.

 

No more "magic" than Newtonian gravity, which tells us that mass attracts mass. Relativity states that because light speed is a constant, the geometry of spacetime is not Cartesian, the transforms between frames are not Galilean, and also that energy affects the geometry.

[Mr Skeptic]

But the theory is the theory of relativity, it just gives reason to it, so the math is exactly the same.

 

So then show how your theory results in the same math as the theory of relativity. My theory is that you don't even know the maths of relativity, so you're just saying the math is the same because you don't know enough math to even state what the math of relativity says.

[sananda]

No more "magic" than Newtonian gravity, which tells us that mass attracts mass. Relativity states that because light speed is a constant, the geometry of spacetime is not Cartesian, the transforms between frames are not Galilean, and also that energy affects the geometry.

 

I agree totally, it is no more magic than Newtonian.

 

Newton as much as said it was beyond his comprehension and preposterous to think an object could act on another magically without a medium.

 

The geometry is a modified Cartesian though...

 

I suggest the geometry is Cartesian but that the atmosphere of the block varies and this affects the matter and energy traversing it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

So then show how your theory results in the same math as the theory of relativity. My theory is that you don't even know the maths of relativity, so you're just saying the math is the same because you don't know enough math to even state what the math of relativity says.

 

I've another theory too, it is that you're 13.

 

I can cut and paste some formulas from Wikipedia if you want me to... what would that prove.

 

For me even the fact that mass increases as you speed up until the point that you need infinite energy to get it to light speed suggests that space is thick with ether, and though it is not the resistive wind that michelson-morley were searching for it means there is another system in operation.

 

For example if energy is being plucked from virtual particles, which we all know permeate space, then space would have a kind of stickiness... if it is pattern based then moving through it at a constant speed should not be a problem as the matter absorbing energy changes it's flywheel speed... perhaps it is this change in absorption rate that causes objects to resist motion.

[Klaynos]

Everyone should remember to remain civil with one another.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

But the theory is the theory of relativity, it just gives reason to it, so the math is exactly the same.

 

If it's not empirically different (this would require mathematical predictions that differ) then it's not science.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

For me even the fact that mass increases as you speed up until the point that you need infinite energy to get it to light speed suggests that space is thick with ethe.

 

It is perfectly valid, and mostly prefered by people who work in the field to use a constant mass formation of special relativity. This statement also seems to suggest that there is some prefered reference frame which would differ from the results of relativity.

[sananda]

i guess it bothers me that we can't even approach light speed...

 

they said the same about planes and the speed of sound, and look I know that these things are worlds apart because mass is connected to energy whereas a plane has to cut through air...

 

i love the principle of supercavitation with submarines, perhaps matter causes similar type of effect on space time and thus can glide freely through space.

[Klaynos]

i guess it bothers me that we can't even approach light speed...

 

they said the same about planes and the speed of sound, and look I know that these things are worlds apart because mass is connected to energy whereas a plane has to cut through air....

 

That was a technological barrier not a physical one. Relative to many things (an infinite amount in fact) we are travelling very close to the speed of light.

[sananda]

That was a technological barrier not a physical one. Relative to many things (an infinite amount in fact) we are travelling very close to the speed of light.

 

Some scientists back then thought it was a physical one right?

 

Say we could travel faster than the speed of light... would there be a photonic boom at the atomic level?

[Klaynos]

Some scientists back then thought it was a physical one right?

 

None that worked in the area. "Scientist" is a very broad term.

 

Say we could travel faster than the speed of light... would there be a photonic boom at the atomic level?

 

If you disregard the laws of physics you can reach any conclusion you want.

[Moontanman]

Some scientists back then thought it was a physical one right?

 

Say we could travel faster than the speed of light... would there be a photonic boom at the atomic level?

 

Yes, when you exceed the speed of light there is a "photonic" boom.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

[Mr Skeptic]

I've another theory too, it is that you're 13.

 

lol

 

I can cut and paste some formulas from Wikipedia if you want me to... what would that prove.

 

It would prove that despite not being able to derive the equations from your theory (ie, you are lying or guessing that they are the same), that at least you have the most basic of research skills.

 

For me even the fact that mass increases as you speed up until the point that you need infinite energy to get it to light speed suggests that space is thick with ether, and though it is not the resistive wind that michelson-morley were searching for it means there is another system in operation.

 

As far as anyone knows, the increase in mass is because energy has massas predicted by Einstein's equations. This predicts the mass to the highest precision able to be measured. Your theory doesn't even have numbers.

 

For example if energy is being plucked from virtual particles, which we all know permeate space, then space would have a kind of stickiness... if it is pattern based then moving through it at a constant speed should not be a problem as the matter absorbing energy changes it's flywheel speed... perhaps it is this change in absorption rate that causes objects to resist motion.

 

I hope you realize that not only does this not give the same mathematical predictions as relativity, it gives no mathematical predictions at all.

[sananda]

mr. skeptic.

 

you certainly live up to the name

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes, when you exceed the speed of light there is a "photonic" boom.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

 

That's actually beautiful, thanks for that, I had never heard of Cherenkov radiation.

 

Now is the boom coming from the electron's effect on ether or the interaction with other elecrtons within the matter?

 

Surely that gives us hope that exceeding light speed in the vacuum of space is possible?

[ydoaPs]

So, are there currents in this aether? Does your aether provide some sort of absolute reference frame? If it does, it is most certainly NOT the same as GR.

[sananda]

Gravity is the observable current, yes.

 

Obviously large bodies, through the absorption of ether affect this reference frame.

[ydoaPs]

Gravity is the observable current, yes.

 

Obviously large bodies, through the absorption of ether affect this reference frame.

 

So, if large bodies are absorbing the aether, do they saturate? Are there areas of space without aether due to it being absorbed elsewhere? If you're correct, there should be no light traveling through those areas at all. They would be even more dim than black holes and experience no lensing.

[sananda]

So, if large bodies are absorbing the aether, do they saturate? Are there areas of space without aether due to it being absorbed elsewhere? If you're correct, there should be no light traveling through those areas at all. They would be even more dim than black holes and experience no lensing.

 

Thank you for engaging with me.

 

I suppose you could say atoms saturate and when fission or fusion occurs some of this energy is released... i.e. they act as ether capacitors...

 

The energy absorbed by atoms gives them their size, i.e. they would remain point particles and do nothing, probably cease to exist without ether.

 

areas of space that has close to no ether would be around immensely dense objects... and possibly close to the nucleus of an atom also... if there were no ether then yes light would just stop,

[ydoaPs]

Thank you for engaging with me.

 

I suppose you could say atoms saturate and when fission or fusion occurs some of this energy is released... i.e. they act as ether capacitors...

 

The energy absorbed by atoms gives them their size, i.e. they would remain point particles and do nothing, probably cease to exist without ether.

 

areas of space that has close to no ether would be around immensely dense objects... and possibly close to the nucleus of an atom also... if there were no ether then yes light would just stop,

 

Wouldn't dense objects be the location of the most dense aether field, since they're absorbing more?

 

Such variations in aether density would yield variations in light speed. This would inherently differ from GR. It would actually make much of physics completely wrong. The constant speed of light falls right out of the Maxwell equations.

[sananda]

We know light speed changes when it flows through matter, when it is refracted etc.

 

The thing is that if an observer is located in the same part of space as the light they will measure it as c because their own time reference changes based on the density of the ether in their location...

 

Do you see the beauty and simplicity of this statement?

 

Dense objects would certainly draw in more ether yes. Their effect on ether would dissipate at a rate inversely proportional to the distance, simply because the amount of fuel available grows geometrically... this is exactly newtons law of gravitation... the only addition I'm making to this is that the rate of time at any given point in space is dictated by how much ether is available to matter... more energy can be made available to matter the further into space it goes away from planets, stars etc. or by moving the object.

 

That is why through experimentation we see that both movement and distance from earth affects the tick rate of atomic clocks...

[Edtharan]

We know light speed changes when it flows through matter, when it is refracted etc.

 

The thing is that if an observer is located in the same part of space as the light they will measure it as c because their own time reference changes based on the density of the ether in their location...

 

Do you see the beauty and simplicity of this statement?

 

Dense objects would certainly draw in more ether yes. Their effect on ether would dissipate at a rate inversely proportional to the distance, simply because the amount of fuel available grows geometrically... this is exactly newtons law of gravitation... the only addition I'm making to this is that the rate of time at any given point in space is dictated by how much ether is available to matter... more energy can be made available to matter the further into space it goes away from planets, stars etc. or by moving the object.

 

That is why through experimentation we see that both movement and distance from earth affects the tick rate of atomic clocks...

So because of the density of the Aether, light slows down. The density of the Aether is what we call gravity.

 

But there have been experiments where they shone lasers up and down tall buildings and directly measured the frequency of the light. What they found was directly opposite to the conclusions you say will occur if your theory of the Aether is correct.

 

Light shone from the top of a high tower has in increased frequency as it approaches a higher gravitational field.

 

Your claim therefore, that light would slow down in a higher density Aether is demonstrated to be wrong (it is also shown that light shone upwards will decrease in frequency - which is opposite to your conclusions based on Aether).

 

This means there is direct experimental proof that the the Aether as you describe it does not exist.