New theory of light and aether

[lemur]

Look here , from an address delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden.

 

Anyone should read this.

This is a very pertinent read. Do you know if Einstein later completely rejected ether or if he maintained this idea that it was valid as long as no properties of motion (or motionlessness) were ascribed to it?

[Edtharan]

I would like to think that the idea of the aether like three-dimensional space (meaning the vacuum space) will open new perspectives in the physics. Phenomens that can be difficult to be interpreted, may be will find new explanations.This new model of aether does not come in contradiction with special relativity, on the contrary comes to support it.

This is a good point. Why does one need to propose an Aether to explain light without explaining interactions of charged particles, when we know that the electromagnetic field explains what light is, and also explains the interaction of charged particles too.

 

It is simply redundant to have an extra explanation (Aether) on top of something that needs to exist (EM fields) that at the same time explains what the Aether is supposed to explain.

[Messenger]

Then how about answering my questions? Are we moving or at rest with respect to the ether?

 

Maybe he,s having difficulty answering your question because its not really possible to answer.

According to serudr the eather is 3 dimensional, and the world we are in is 4 dimensional. i would think, but may be wrong of course, that the eather has length, width, and height. but then our environment has length, width, and height as it moves through time, hence the 4th dimension. but is this is true then either time does not exist in eather or that eather is totally separate from time. If something is moving it needs speed, but that requires time. (Speed = Distance / time)

SO, assuming eather is real and is 3 dimensional, we are neither stationary or moving with respect to the eather.

Right?

[lemur]

Maybe he,s having difficulty answering your question because its not really possible to answer.

According to serudr the eather is 3 dimensional, and the world we are in is 4 dimensional. i would think, but may be wrong of course, that the eather has length, width, and height. but then our environment has length, width, and height as it moves through time, hence the 4th dimension. but is this is true then either time does not exist in eather or that eather is totally separate from time. If something is moving it needs speed, but that requires time. (Speed = Distance / time)

SO, assuming eather is real and is 3 dimensional, we are neither stationary or moving with respect to the eather.

Right?

Isn't this argument like saying that a photon can't travel linearly if space is 3D because a line is one-dimensional?

[Messenger]

Isn't this argument like saying that a photon can't travel linearly if space is 3D because a line is one-dimensional?

 

no, i would think it isn't. just because space happens to be 3D doesn't mean you have to use all 3 Dimensions. you could still have a linear line. What I'm saying is that nothing would be able to move relative to eather because movement requires 4 dimensions but the eather only has 3. im sorry if i worded it confusingly. If something were to move "With respect to eather" it would require a dimension that simply doesn't exist in that context, which is different that having extra "Unused" dimensions which is basically what you were saying regarding the photon's path.

[lemur]

no, i would think it isn't. just because space happens to be 3D doesn't mean you have to use all 3 Dimensions. you could still have a linear line. What I'm saying is that nothing would be able to move relative to eather because movement requires 4 dimensions but the eather only has 3. im sorry if i worded it confusingly. If something were to move "With respect to eather" it would require a dimension that simply doesn't exist in that context, which is different that having extra "Unused" dimensions which is basically what you were saying regarding the photon's path.

But isn't conceptualizing time as a dimension an optional approach to conceptualizing motion? I mean, before Einsteinian "spacetime" 4D-ism no one had any trouble conceptualizing 3D space as being a basis for motion. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems to confound epistemological with empirical-theoretical problems.

[36grit]

Then how about answering my questions? Are we moving or at rest with respect to the ether?

 

 

The Aether, In my opinion, holds us in place. It is the reason it takes energy to move and the reason space is expanding. The Aether is the past radiating from the present which is the force feild time dialation caused by the proton moving at a velocity faster than the speed of light.

The aether is not an em field but simply a field of momentum. The electron/s move on the crest of real time momentum. It is virtual time being converted to fluid time. Literally the furture converting to the past. Virtual time has a higher gravity ratio than past time. Light is a pocket of real time that has no proton and therefore has no mechanism to convert virtual time into fluid time.

So the answer to your question is that the ether is moving through us and we can move through it by exchanging energy for displacement.

Edited April 11, 2011 by 36grit

[swansont]

The Aether, In my opinion, holds us in place. It is the reason it takes energy to move and the reason space is expanding. The Aether is the past radiating from the present which is the force feild time dialation caused by the proton moving at a velocity faster than the speed of light.

The aether is not an em field but simply a field of momentum. The electron/s move on the crest of real time momentum. It is virtual time being converted to fluid time. Literally the furture converting to the past. Virtual time has a higher gravity ratio than past time. Light is a pocket of real time that has no proton and therefore has no mechanism to convert virtual time into fluid time.

So the answer to your question is that the ether is moving through us and we can move through it by exchanging energy for displacement.

 

!

Moderator Note

This is serudr's thread. If you wish to post your own thoughts on the matter, it should be in its own speculations thread.

[Messenger]

But isn't conceptualizing time as a dimension an optional approach to conceptualizing motion? I mean, before Einsteinian "spacetime" 4D-ism no one had any trouble conceptualizing 3D space as being a basis for motion. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems to confound epistemological with empirical-theoretical problems.

 

Well, the way i see it, if time were to some how stop, then everything would freeze. right?

i mean Velocity = Distance / Time.

if time were to be 0 or just gone altogether then you get an undefinable or non-existent Velocity.

The math seems to say that time is necessary for there to be any kind of motion.

plus, back when people didn't think in 4 dimensions it doesn't mean that there really were only 3 dimensions. the same way people thought atoms were tiny indestructible balls. that didn't make them tiny indestructible balls, we just thought they were.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Am I the only person who still believe in the existence of aether?

 

 

.

I don't think you are the only one . Reading Frank Wilczec book " the lightness of being " although not using the word aether , he uses the word Grid. I have read some other books about the Void By Frank Close. Again there seems some alluding to a far from empty void. Both these men are well recognised scientists. I think this whole issue of the aether needs re-visiting . Keep going !

 

.

Edited April 12, 2011 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[soundoflight]

First of all we must remember that ’light as a wave’ is a 'theory.

 

While I agree that light IS 'propagated' I feel that such propagation is the result of light reflected. The reflective medium is that which propagates the quality and speed of light. This would mean that light itself is not contingent upon any reflective medium but that light is an innate ( verses “an” inherent medium) to the universe. As well light is plethoric throughout the physical universe and is represented in bulk everywhere within the space of the universe.

 

This would also suggest that the 'wave phenomenon’ is an 'emergent' phenomenon and results from the presence of light relative to a reflective medium. Thus light is Not a wave phenomenon; rather the reflective medium is that which results in the quality of light being transformed to a “wave” (transference).

 

The aether would be an appropriate medium toward the propagation ( reflection) of light. As well any solid reflective medium( surface or : ‘thickness’- with refractive properties) would necessarily propagate light photon. It is interesting that the properties of glass are not easily discerned relative to physics study. Perhaps the “wave phenomenon” is either emergent through a fluid(aether) OR solid(plane) reflective medium relative to light.

 

The aether is would be a medium through light is propogated.

 

“ Light shows a surprising number of properties that were difficult to explain relatively to the aether, but which must appear as naturals, a normal result of the properties of aether. The aether must support the phenomena related to light, particles and their interactions.”…1) The first property of light is the fact that it is a transverse wave.”

 

Again while this seems to be the accepted view such view is still theoretical. Light is projected throughout the universe as a non wave. However when its light reaches a surface plane of reflection its light is communicated to surface of the ‘screen.’ It is at this point that invisible light is transferred to a ‘wave’ representation of light photon ( visible image ..of light photon).

 

If this were the case ( light relative to a reflective surface) then the “waves” are NOT an innate quality of light rather the product of light being represented( copied ) upon the surface of the reflective medium ( whether fluid or solid). Any ’longitudinal wave’ produced would occur AFTER light intersects with the reflective plane and NOT before light comes into relativity to the plane.( Light= NON-wave). Thus again Light is not a wave phenomenon. The “wave phenomenon” represents the relativity of light to a reflective plane. Light is communicated to the surface of the plane..this results in wave representations of light.

 

The speed of light would also be equally represented upon the surface of the plane. That is to say if I wave a flashlight across the plane of a mirror at such and such speed then the speed will be exactly represented upon the plane. ( C2 ?). However if the plane has a thickness then the speed of light, though mimicked on the surface will be “slowed down” considerably ( perspectively based upon the properties of the aether) relative to the processes of refraction. Thus light speed is ‘the same’( reflected equivalently) on the surface of a plane of reflection while its speed is relegated within the thickness of the plane. ( refraction= slowing of speed of light).

 

That which makes light detectable is a reflective medium relative to light photon. That which is detectable are “mass’.. “representations” of light photon. Thus light is only detectable so long as it is reflected.

 

“How is it possible for a transverse wave to propagate within the aether?”

 

It is possible because of the reflective properties of the “aether”. As well the “surface wave” that communicates the speed and circumferential extremity of the light photon being communicated to the planes surface…is ALSO communicated through the plane ..through its refractive thickness. This combination of surface reflection and thickness refraction results also in the quality of light photon being communicated to the wave phenomenon( and spectrum) through the thickness of the plane.

 

Indeed! Thus the.. “ aether is a 3-dimensional environment.”

 

However one of the prerequisites of 3-dimentions is to have the accompanying two dimensions. Thus the aether has a surface reflection as well a certain volume of refractive space that it encompasses. The light photon is first communicated to the surface ( surface wave) then its energy and quality also is represented under the surface( spectrum/refraction of light photon) . In the particular the …‘under the surface’… represents the area of space of a SPHERE of light AFTER being represented as a circular RING on the surface. First come a circular ring (surface) is then 3 dimentionalized( spheric-alized) within the thickness( refracted light photon) of the reflective medium. Thus the circumference of any emergent geometries represents the horizon point where light is being reflected on the surface. The area of space that separates one emergent geometry from another represents the refracted light from the surface

 

 

“The aether is not being driven by the movement of bodies.”

 

Actually the ‘aether’ is a fixed volume within the universe. Or: The solid reflective planes are fixed within the universe. Thus any movement that occurs ( or the semblance of motion) is actually occurring due to the speed of light as progressively traveling within the universe. Thus the only motion that is REAL is the motion and direction of light photon. If motion is implied ( as mass is inferred) this is because the motion of light is reflecting upon and refracting within a reflective plane. When light reflects and refracts its light is transformed into emergent geometries that merely reflect the motion of the light. Thus the aether or solid plane is motionless. Light is always in motion. Mass dwells upon( circumference extremities of any mass as separate from other mass) and within( area of space occupied by any given mass object= light refracted) the reflective aether or solid reflective plane. The “motion” of “mass” is merely the reflected motion of light photon.

 

“Light is a form of transition from the three-dimensional space, the aether, to the space …“

 

Light is not a ‘form of transition’ , rather light is relative to reflective properties within the physical universe. Thus it is the reflective plane that results in light photon being transferred to the reflective plane producing “mass” images of the quality and nature of light. .

 

‘As a general rule, the transition from a space with n dimensions to a space with n+1 dimension occurs by curving the n-dimensional space.’

 

We have forgotten that reflection is that which allows a ‘transition” from one point in space to another point in space. Thus the general rule of the physical universe is expressed due to the relativity of light to reflective planes( or aether). Thus if “mass” emerges as geometric reflections of light this demonstrates the constant and necessary relativity of light to mass. ( energy to mass..E=mc

 

 

 

“2) The second property of light is the constancy of velocity of light regardless of velocity of source or the observer.”

 

Indeed the speed of light is always constant . This is a solid verses general law. If the reflective plane or aether is a fixed, zero- speed property of the physical universe then this property and only this property represents no motion or speed. If the emergent mass geometries are representative of reflections of the speed and quality of light then mass travels at the constant speed of light. Thus the slowing of the speed of light occurs due to refraction of light photon. Light travels at C speed outside the plane and upon the surface of the plane or aether. As this light travels through the thickness of the plane or aether the refraction of light gives the illusion of the slowing of the speed of light. Thus the bending of light represents light ray as refracted.. though light speed remains constant. The reflected/refracted “mass” image of light photon travels relative to the speed of the light always. Thus ‘mass’ represents the speed, quality and energy of light being represented ( dualized) upon the surface of reflective planes or aether. These dual forms of light( i.e. “mass” as reflected of light) are merely colored representations ( refracted representations) of light photon.

 

 

“knowing that the transition from an n-dimensional space to n+1-dimensional space takes place by curving the n-dimensional space.”

 

-n-dimensional space= light photon ( actually multi dimensional)

 

-n+1 dimensional space= light refracted( refractive properties of reflective medium)

 

 

 

 

“Initially, we have an observer and a wave light that are moving in the same direction, they are meeting in the point C.” ( refer to picture 3)

 

“When the observer increases its velocity, normally the light needs to travel a longer distance and longer time until it reaches the observer (AB). The fact that the velocity of light appears to be constant and equal to c, can be explained by the fact that the observer, although it increased its velocity, went on a curve trajectory and not on a straight line,…”

 

The observer is always representative of the emergent “mass” being projected onto a reflective planes’ surface due to light photon being reflected. Light travels until it reaches the plane surface. Its light is then ‘placed’ on the surface resulting in the “mass” copy of itself. After this surface reflected mass( mass horizon) ‘appears’( emerges as an image of light photon) it follows the speed of light due to its being a reflection of the speed of light. However once light photon enters the plane thickness its direction and speed is refracted, this results in the illusion of light speed slowed.( altering of the path and forward progression of light) In reality the speed of light is constant on the plane surface and within the thickness. Both the “horizon” ( “plane surface= extremity circumference of mass…”) as well as the space encompassed by the horizon( space enclosed within mass form) , though refracted..also maintains the speed of light. The illussion of the speed of light slowed is caused due to the bending or curving of the trajectory speed of light( =light refracted.)

 

　

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The light's velocity …..appears… to be constant and equal to c for the observer…”…(illusion of C2)…

 

“Similar are derived the other known equations from special relativity…“3) The third property is…. the wave-particle duality,..”

 

The “particle” represent light photon. The wave occurs when light photon “particle” is reflected. The wave is contingent upon both light photon ( non-wave) as well light photon relativity to reflective medium( plane or aether).

 

　

 

( Wicipedia):

 

In physics, Compton scattering is a type of scattering that X-rays and gamma rays undergo in matter. The inelastic scattering of photons in matter results in a decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of an X-ray or gamma ray photon, called the Compton effect. Part of the energy of the X/gamma ray is transferred to a scattering electron, which recoils and is ejected from its atom (which becomes ionized), and the rest of the energy is taken by the scattered, "degraded" photon…”

 

(Refer to picture labeled “Compton Scattering”)

 

 

“When light waves interact with obstacles which comparable size with the wavelength, becomes a standing wave.”

 

“Obstacle”= reflective plane or aether relative to light ray.

 

“Size”= ( volume off aether.. Or.. area of space covered by plane.)

 

“Standing wave”= Standing aether or reflective plane in the path of light photon. That which receives light ray upon its surface . That which causes the particles of light to be represented as a wave pattern upon its surface.

 

“an energy field.”

 

The plane or aether is a reflective substance that is relative to light thus it is a energy RECIEVER verses an innate energy field.

 

“This explanation is supported by the fact that aspect of particle of light manifests strongly for small wave lengths and is virtually nonexistent for large wave lengths.”

 

The closer the light photon is to the plane the stronger its energy is relative to the receiver plane or aether. The further the light photon is away from the plane or aether the weaker the energy is represented on the plane. Or: The energy of the light photon is dispersed freely within space so the closer the light photon is to the plane( less dispersion of light ray into space) the “hotter” and “smaller” the wave representation of particled light will be..as well the stronger the energy of the wave.

 

“4) The fourth property is the fact that light is an electromagnetic wave, consisting of an electric and a magnetic field.”

 

Light is not a wave. Light is electric( energy). Light is not electromagnetic until its energy( electricity) is bonded to ( or attracted to) a reflective plane. Thus the magneticism occurs on the plane due to light photon being attracted to a reflective plane or aether. Light is pure energy and is not magnetized until its energy comes into relativity with the reflective plane or aether.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Klaynos]

Learn what theory means in modern physics.

[soundoflight]

Learn what theory means in modern physics.

 

 

Wicipedia: Theory

 

　

 

"A theory is underdetermined (also called indeterminacy of data to theory) if, given the available evidence cited to support the theory, there is a rival theory which is inconsistent with it that is at least as consistent with the evidence. Underdetermination is an epistemological issue about the relation of evidence to conclusions.

 

Such theories are preferably described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand, verify, and challenge (or "falsify") it.

 

Theories in various fields of study are expressed in natural language, but are always constructed in such a way that their general form is identical to a theory as it is expressed in the formal language of mathematical logic. Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic.

 

Theory is constructed of a set of sentences which consist entirely of true statements about the subject matter under consideration. However, the truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole theory. Therefore the same statement may be true with respect to one theory, and not true with respect to another.

 

If there is a new theory which is better at explaining and predicting phenomena than an older theory (i.e. it has more explanatory power), we are justified in believing that the newer theory describes reality more correctly.

 

In cases where a new theory uses new terms which do not reduce to terms of an older one, but rather replace them entirely because they are actually a misrepresentation it is called an intertheoretic elimination."

 

　

 

Deduction:

 

First it is stated that a theory IS a construct of sentences which consist ENTIRELY of TRUE statements. If this were the case ( if this were a true statement ) then the following would NOT be said of "theory":

 

'..a new theory..replace THEM( old theories… "inferred" to be true) ENTIRELY because they are actually a misrepresentation …"

 

If it is true that a theory is always consistent with "true" statements then it would never misrepresent the 'truth' nor need to be replaced with other "so-called" truths( "theories").

 

Thus; unless we embrace paradox and inconsistency ( as so-called "science" often does) we would conclude that 'theory" could never appropriately define nor explain …truth.

 

The problem is that "we" have chosen to prop up scientific "inference" while relegating observations that are consistent and genuinely demonstrative.

 

In this realization we would have to acknowledge that ALL theory is "undetermined" ( regardless of witty mathematical terminology as well "scientific" language.). Though the conclusions are stated assertively, the empirical ( verses suggestion of) evidence is not so transparent. As well the fact that 'any scientist in the field is in a position to understand or verify…it' in no way strengthens the perspective theory. We see by these definitions that most scientist have succumbed to hyper asserting mere theories as being more explanatory than they are. Thus being able to understand theory has more to do with support for inference and indetermination than truth or solid data.

 

The so-called ' rational thought" that ever accompanies scientific "logic" is a system of thought that has been devised verses is occurrent or verifiable. With these realities it is "inference" that drives much of scientific thought. One inference stated as "entirely true" until another "entirely true" theory invalidates the former. This is a hopeless plight it would seem.

 

If we honestly reason on the issues of "theory" we should seem to be more inclined to be very cautious in over exaggerating the explanatory power of all theories.

 

When will TRUTH become that which categorically 'intertheoretically eliminates" the constant overemphasis of …theories?

 

Note:

 

If one constructs sentences as well frames mathematically logical statements as to what is occurring with in the universe then I would state that these sentences and mathematical logics would be proportional if not exactly the same if they were to measure these same occurrences as they would be demonstrative if viewed through a mirror. ( translation: Mirror= properties of reflection/refraction as demonstrative relative to sentences, mathematics and universal phenomenon)

 

If one measures the space of a room with furniture in it , light bulbs shinning, people in motion, ..and make all senten-tial and mathematical deductions about the interaction of mass, energy and motion they would conclude "things" about the scenario.

 

If one placed a mirror up that reflected all of this mass- light-motion interaction( of the room) and then subsequently made there math-sentence deductions they would find that their determinatives would be exactly the same. ( with "tweeking" only necessary due to the reversal affects of a reflective medium relative to light photon. I.E.. Spin, rotation, revolution, positioning, direction, etc..)

 

 

I would "predict"( theorize) that now we must discuss the "scientific" interpretation(s) of the word "truth". Sigh! I will not participate in that discussion. Such would be as profitless as teaching a ferrel child to become a renowned linguist.

( or an infant to become a mathematician). Take your pick.

Edited April 21, 2011 by soundoflight

[Klaynos]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

Re read what I wrote.

 

Why do you feel you can comment on science when you have no understanding of the basics when people have spent their lives trying to understand it?

 

Science isn't about preaching it's about learning.