Ether model

[teh]

Photons are particles in a field around the earth, moving with the earth thru space, enclosed in the sun's ether & rotating round the sun yearly.

Responsible for gravity inertia. Electrostatic & magnetic forces are distortions in the ether at right angles to each other, light being oscillations between them.

Satisfies Michelson-Morley & Sagnac experiments. Relativity works if the inertial frame is aligned with the ether.

[mississippichem]

I moved this thread to speculations as the "Ether model" has long been out of mainstream physics. Though it is relevant to relativity, the nature of the original post is speculative.

[swansont]

You have to explain stellar aberration, too.

[pantheory]

Photons are particles in a field around the earth, moving with the earth thru space, enclosed in the sun's ether & rotating round the sun yearly.

Responsible for gravity inertia. Electrostatic & magnetic forces are distortions in the ether at right angles to each other, light being oscillations between them.

Satisfies Michelson-Morley & Sagnac experiments. Relativity works if the inertial frame is aligned with the ether.

 

I think your general ideas are correct. In the long search for dark matter they may discover the aether for real, which I believe is the cause of mass and gravity, will provide an explanation for magnetism, for all EM radiation, de broglie waves, GR, Qauntum theory, double slit experiment, etc. etc.

[Marat]

Are we back to Descartes?!

[swansont]

I think your general ideas are correct. In the long search for dark matter they may discover the aether for real, which I believe is the cause of mass and gravity, will provide an explanation for magnetism, for all EM radiation, de broglie waves, GR, Qauntum theory, double slit experiment, etc. etc.

The great thing about science is we don't have to rely on belief. We want a testable model. That's the price of admission.

[teh]

Testable model

Put a Michelson Morley apparatus into orbit. It should detect the speed of the spacecraft. Then apply thrust to negate the gravitational force, giving it a constant velocity. It will now be an inertial frame & according to Relativity the MM apparatus shoild read zero.

[swansont]

Testable model

Put a Michelson Morley apparatus into orbit. It should detect the speed of the spacecraft. Then apply thrust to negate the gravitational force, giving it a constant velocity. It will now be an inertial frame & according to Relativity the MM apparatus shoild read zero.

 

You negate the effect of gravity by putting it in freefall; that's an inertial frame. A Michelson interferometer should give a null result in orbit. It encloses no area, so there is no Sagnac term. That's why it gives a null result on earth.

 

What, specifically, do you expect to see?

[teh]

Swansont - testable model

Your reply is based on relativistic theory. The michelson interferometer gives a low result on earth. Predict it will give a higher one in orbit which will not change significantly in freefall.

[swansont]

Swansont - testable model

Your reply is based on relativistic theory. The michelson interferometer gives a low result on earth. Predict it will give a higher one in orbit which will not change significantly in freefall.

 

Numbers? The reason that the M-M experiment falsified the ether theory was that the ether theory predicted a fringe shift based on the earth's motion, i.e. there was a 30 kps speed used as a basis, from the stellar aberration measurements. What speed do you expect to measure?

[pantheory]

Photons are particles in a field around the earth, moving with the earth thru space, enclosed in the sun's ether & rotating round the sun yearly.

Responsible for gravity inertia. Electrostatic & magnetic forces are distortions in the ether at right angles to each other, light being oscillations between them.

Satisfies Michelson-Morley & Sagnac experiments. Relativity works if the inertial frame is aligned with the ether.

I like the general idea of what you have posted but have the following comments:

 

Relativity works if the inertial frame is aligned with the ether.

This sentence does not make sense to me even though I think the above has at least some validity. The calculations of Lorenz Transforms and Special Relativity work in all inertial time frames concerning calculations, not just aligned frames. Inertial time frames that are co-moving with the aether accordingly have no "real" motion at all. What does "aligned with the aether" mean to you?

Edited June 25, 2011 by pantheory

[mississippichem]

Swansont - testable model

Your reply is based on relativistic theory. The michelson interferometer gives a low result on earth. Predict it will give a higher one in orbit which will not change significantly in freefall.

 

You still have to explain the close to nil result obtained on Earth.

[teh]

Pantheory

Aligned with the eather means moving with the eather thru space. Thus in my testable model when the spaceship in orbit is made to free fall an inertial frame exists which is not aligned with the eather & should not give a zero result.

 

Mississippichem

The interferometer attached to the earth will give a low reading because of the earth's rotation on its axis

[pantheory]

The great thing about science is we don't have to rely on belief. We want a testable model. That's the price of admission.

 

I have a testable alternative cosmological model that involves aether. Do you want me to start a thread here? I would like somebody to request it so that there might be at least a little dialog to it

 

teh,

 

Aligned with the eather means moving with the eather thru space. Thus in my testable model when the spaceship in orbit is made to free fall an inertial frame exists which is not aligned with the eather & should not give a zero result.

(your quote)

 

Good, that's what I thought you meant. In some versions of aether theory including my own, you could say that the background aether is in motion as compared to a defined reference frame of space confined by matter, such as defined within a spiral galaxy for instance. The theoretical aether field particles might contain dark matter, Higg's particles, gravitons, quantum foam, and/ or countless other theoretical possibilities. It might move in a linear fashion, it may have fluid dynamics, or vortex mechanics, or other possible dynamics at the galactic or smaller scales if it exists.

Edited July 2, 2011 by pantheory

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

If you want to discuss it, post it in a new thread. Don't bring it up in other threads; that's against the rules.

[pantheory]

!

Moderator Note

If you want to discuss it, post it in a new thread. Don't bring it up in other threads; that's against the rules.

Thanks, I now realize that differing discussions should be placed elsewhere.

Edited July 3, 2011 by pantheory

[John Cuthber]

"Put a Michelson Morley apparatus into orbit."

Michelson and Morley already did that, specifically they put it on a planet (commonly referred to as Earth) in orbit round the sun.

 

"It should detect the speed of the spacecraft. "

What would your second guess be?

[teh]

In the original experiment, the interfereometer was expected to pick up the speed of the earth orbiting the sun if the ether was present. It got a low result, which Einstein assumed to be experimental error & deduced a null result. But that low result could refer to the movement of the earth about its axis in ether that moved with the earth through space. Thus if the experiment was done in orbit it should get a higher reading.

[swansont]

In the original experiment, the interfereometer was expected to pick up the speed of the earth orbiting the sun if the ether was present. It got a low result, which Einstein assumed to be experimental error & deduced a null result. But that low result could refer to the movement of the earth about its axis in ether that moved with the earth through space. Thus if the experiment was done in orbit it should get a higher reading.

 

If the ether moves with the earth, why do we get stellar aberration? Which I asked before; it is usually forgotten (or not realized) that being at rest WRT the ether was rejected >150 years before the M-M experiment, which is why they expected the value they did.

[teh]

Properties of the ether have yet to be determined so I can't answer your questions. Evidence for ether abounds - the photon is involved in electromagnetism, occurs in experiments to investigate space, has no rest mass, Maxwells equations, 2 slits experiment, Sagnac & Michelson interfereometers, time experiments, etc.

[swansont]

Properties of the ether have yet to be determined so I can't answer your questions. Evidence for ether abounds - the photon is involved in electromagnetism, occurs in experiments to investigate space, has no rest mass, Maxwells equations, 2 slits experiment, Sagnac & Michelson interfereometers, time experiments, etc.

The way science progresses is that you develop your theory and predict the properties the ether must have in order to explain certain phenomena. The problem you run into is that the properties the ether must have to explain some observations are contradicted by other observations. If you can find a way for the ether to simultaneously be entrained and not entrained, so as to explain the M-M experiment and stellar aberration, etc., go for it.

 

But evidence of some property-less ether can't "abound". That's a contradiction. For anything to be scientific evidence, it has to be consistent with some model of behavior, and that means knowing the properties of the ether. e.g. if one observation requires the ether be frictionless, then that's got to be part of your model. But any observation that requires it NOT be frictionless falsifies your theory. Those are the rules of science, and also the rules here (speculations rule #1 — you need to provide evidence to back up your claims)

[Edtharan]

I think your general ideas are correct. In the long search for dark matter they may discover the aether for real, which I believe is the cause of mass and gravity, will provide an explanation for magnetism, for all EM radiation, de broglie waves, GR, Qauntum theory, double slit experiment, etc. etc.

The problem with Dark matter leading to "an explanation for magnetism, for all EM radiation" is that dark matter does not, by definition, interact with the electromagnetic fields. If it did, we could see it block or emit light. It would cause magnetic fields that accelerate charged particles which would in turn emit radiation.

 

As we see none of these associated with dark matter, and by definition dark matter could not do this, then it can not lead to "an explanation for magnetism, for all EM radiation".

[teh]

I ignored stellar aberration because it is not relevant to the ether model. When the image of a moving object reaches an observer, because of the finite speed of light, the object has moved on, thus the image is out of date & needs to be corrected. This is done using maths based on the Lorentz transformation, which is the basis for Special Relativity, & it works. It is not dependent on whether light is a wave or a projectile. Einsteins subsequent assumption that the velocity of light is a mathematical constant is where things go awry.

[pantheory]

I ignored stellar aberration because it is not relevant to the ether model. When the image of a moving object reaches an observer, because of the finite speed of light, the object has moved on, thus the image is out of date & needs to be corrected. This is done using maths based on the Lorentz transformation, which is the basis for Special Relativity, & it works. It is not dependent on whether light is a wave or a projectile. Einsteins subsequent assumption that the velocity of light is a mathematical constant is where things go awry.

As I said before, I also adhere to the aether model but if it is the correct model, there should be some aspects of it that most physicists cannot quite get their arms around, cannot quite grasp. For your model of the aether, what do you think the problem is concerning why "they" seem to have such a hard time detecting it?

.

Edited July 17, 2011 by pantheory

[teh]

My last reply does not appear - will try again.

Stellar aberration does not depend on whether light is a wave or a stream of projectiles, & is caused by the fact that the speed of light is finite. When a moving body is observed, its image takes time to reach an observer during which time the body moves on, so the image lags behind. The position of the body is deduced by using maths derived from the Lorentz transformation, which is the basis for Special Relativity, which works. It does not require the assumption that the velocity of light is a mathematical constant, which is where Einstein went wrong.