Unbelievable

[Ott]

This weekend I received an email with the header "Unbelievable". During reading I became more and more surprised.

Although I have my master degree in Physics I could not find valid arguments against the manuscript, which is published:

Link removed by moderator

Edited February 27, 2013 by CaptainPanic
See below in Green box.

[pwagen]

Is this spam? Because the whole text seems to conclude with "buy my book, I explain everything in it!".

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

 

Ott,

Our forum rules, section 2.7 say:

"Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links in posts should be relevant to the discussion. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned."

 

You broke that rule, so the link was removed. Next time you will be banned as a spammer.

 

[edit] Upon review, we (mods) felt it might be useful to clarify this a little further. We want you to introduce the topic that you want to discuss here on our forum... at this moment, the opening post contains zero information. That, and the fact that your link, through another link went to a commercial site, is against the rules.

Edited March 1, 2013 by CaptainPanic

[Pozessed]

This is very interesting. If it was spam, it isn't now.

 

Please read and discuss this book. I'm no mathematician or physicist but this book makes logically valid points. There now seems to be no monetary agenda linked to this document; only an attempt of enlightening people to other perspectives.

"We hear sound and know that sound propagates through the air around us. We know this because science has made it clear to us. The evidence for this is when we pump out the air around us and then can not hear.

 

How about light? We can still see without any air. The thought then arises that light travels through a different medium. Science assumed, therefore, that in a vacuum, space without air, a medium must be present by which light propagates. This medium, that is logically derived, is named aether by scientists. There must be an aether for how can the light otherwise propagate?"

 

http://www.paradox-paradigm.nl/wp-content/uploads/Unbelievable.pdf

 

The book is hosted on http://www.paradox-paradigm.nlwhich seems to be a blog site created by the author of the book.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Pozessed

[studiot]

Dragged aether = dragging up the past.

 

The whole theory was given considerable thought and properly evaluated and tested and found incorrect a long time in the past.

[Strange]

THow about light? We can still see without any air. The thought then arises that light travels through a different medium. Science assumed, therefore, that in a vacuum, space without air, a medium must be present by which light propagates.

 

That assumption was found to be false when tested. That is the way science works.

[swansont]

This is very interesting. If it was spam, it isn't now.

 

Please read and discuss this book. I'm no mathematician or physicist but this book makes logically valid points. There now seems to be no monetary agenda linked to this document; only an attempt of enlightening people to other perspectives.

 

 

No, it's crap. In the part I read, the person gets some of the science wrong, and it's very hand-wavy.

[Pozessed]

Dragged aether = dragging up the past.

 

The whole theory was given considerable thought and properly evaluated and tested and found incorrect a long time in the past.

 

 

 

That assumption was found to be false when tested. That is the way science works.

Thank you both. I do know that the claims were rejected long ago. The author admitted this.

[Strange]

The author admitted this.

 

The author cl;aims that it is an "assumption" that there is no aether. He either denies or is ignorant of all the many lines of evidence that falsify all possible (*) aether theories. The entire essay appears to be an argument from ignorance/incredulity. There seem to be an enormous number of people who, because they have failed to understand some basic step in their education, assume everyone else is wrong and only they have seen the truth. It is a bit sad, really. Especially as many of them, like this author, seem to dedicate years or decades to their misconception when a few hours hard work might allow them to make progress.

 

(*) Apart from Lorentz Ether Theory, which is indistinguishable from Special Relativity. Which makes its inclusion of the aether utterly pointless.

[studiot]

 

Thank you both. I do know that the claims were rejected long ago. The author admitted this.

 

 

Please note that Strange (and modestly myself) made the point that they were not 'claims', they were hypotheses.

There were several hypotheses and the scientists of the time knew they did not know which was correct (although all had their favourites).

So they applied the scientific method - they conducted experiments to test and find out.

Subsequent scientists, being sceptical so and so's, conducted more and better experiments which confirmed the original results.

They thought 'What would counteract, negate or otherwise make our hypothesis wrong' (ie they tried to falsify it) and they came up with the aether drag, amongst other things.

 

Whilst there have been all too many examples of dishonesty in Science (even in recent years), this was not one of them.

[Pozessed]

Can someone explain to me in a simple way or lead me to an experiment (or both) that can help me comprehend how light travels? I am searching, but it appears to be a daunting search for someone who lacks an understanding of physics such as myself. I can understand that sound needs molecules to vibrate and repel frequencies in order to exist and travel, but how light exists and travels seems a bit more complex.

 

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but I appreciate you all taking the time to respond.

[Mordred]

Light was found to not require a medium to travel through. As a matter of fact if it travels through a medium it will be slower than c.

[Strange]

Can someone explain to me in a simple way or lead me to an experiment (or both) that can help me comprehend how light travels?

 

Maxwell's equations describes light as oscillations in the electric and magnetic fields. (So you can think of the fields as the "medium" if you want. Although a lot of people would argue that the fields don't exist.)

 

Quantum theory describes light as (crudely) as little packets of energy (photons).

 

The fact that light doesn't need a medium is just one of the many surprising things that science tells us about the world.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Strange

[Pozessed]

 

Maxwell's equations describes light as oscillations in the electric and magnetic fields. (So you can think of the fields as the "medium" if you want. Although a lot of people would argue that the fields don't exist.)

 

Quantum theory describes light as (crudely) as little packets of energy (photons).

 

The fact that light doesn't need a medium is just one of the many surprising things that science tells us about the world.

 

 

Light was found to not require a medium to travel through. As a matter of fact if it travels through a medium it will be slower than c.

 

Thank you both. That does help clear up some of my confusion...I think. I'll keep researching til I have a better understanding. These responses are more clear than what I was finding. And thank you for referencing Maxwell and photons, that should help me narrow my search for understanding.

 

Is there anything I should be aware of that may add to my confusion or is easily misconceived, aside from physics itself?

Edited January 16, 2015 by Pozessed

[Strange]

Is there anything I should be aware of that may add to my confusion or is easily misconceived

 

You will find an enormous number of people insisting that the aether exists (I'm really not sure why; no one still insists phlogiston exists). You can basically ignore them (the technical term is "crank" or "crackpot").

 

You will also find a lot of respectable people using the term aether/ether as an analogy to refer to things that exist everywhere. I have seen gravity, spacetime, electric fields, the Higgs fiels, quantum fields in general, "quantum foam", dark energy, virtual particles, empty space and many other things referred to in this way. None of these (with the possible exception of the electromagnetic field) are what the term aether originally referred to.

 

The people in the first group will often cherry-pick quotations from the second group to try and support their contention that the aether exists. Einstein's Leiden speech is often used for this purpose: in this he reviews the nature of the orignal aether and why it cannot exist. He then points out that "empty space" does have certain properties, even if it is not a physical thing, and draws an analogy with the aether.

 

 

aside from physics itself?

 

[studiot]

 

Strange

Maxwell's equations describes light as oscillations in the electric and magnetic fields.

 

Pozessed, you should be careful how you view this since Strange is not saying (I hope) that light is an oscillation of already existing fields.

 

The whole point is that it is a phenomenon it relies on interdependent magnetic and electric fields so the magnetic field varies and generates a varying electric one, which generates a varing magnetic one which generates a varying electric one................and so on.

 

This is how a light ray can progress into space that did not contain any fields.

 

In effect you can say that light carries its own medium with it.

[Delta1212]

 

The author cl;aims that it is an "assumption" that there is no aether. He either denies or is ignorant of all the many lines of evidence that falsify all possible (*) aether theories. The entire essay appears to be an argument from ignorance/incredulity. There seem to be an enormous number of people who, because they have failed to understand some basic step in their education, assume everyone else is wrong and only they have seen the truth. It is a bit sad, really. Especially as many of them, like this author, seem to dedicate years or decades to their misconception when a few hours hard work might allow them to make progress.

 

(*) Apart from Lorentz Ether Theory, which is indistinguishable from Special Relativity. Which makes its inclusion of the aether utterly pointless.

I like Lorentz Ether Theory simply because it's one of the few times where I've been working through something (in this case relativity) and had an idea, and then upon further research discovered that that idea was actually a thing and not just my misunderstanding or being ignorant of something, which is what I usually assume is the case.

 

That said, I like it as an interesting philosophical position, basically. I'm fully aware that there is literally no practical difference between it and SR and it's therefore pointless to worry about the non-existent distinction.

[Mordred]

In effect you can say that light carries its own medium with it.

That's an interesting view point I kind of like it

[jajrussel]

Light was found to not require a medium to travel through. As a matter of fact if it travels through a medium it will be slower than c.

Isn't radiation a medium?

[Strange]

Isn't radiation a medium?

 

Light is radaiation, not the medium.

[jajrussel]

Light is radaiation, not the medium.

I see the sense in what you say in a purist meaning, but if light needs a medium to move my next question should be; Then what is the medium?

 

And also ask why would light need a medium to move so long as it has sufficient energy to move through a medium of empty space strictly following Newtons laws of motion?

 

I would also ask; As light moved through empty space wouldn't it in effect create a medium of space that is not empty with a higher density than empty space?

[Strange]

I see the sense in what you say in a purist meaning, but if light needs a medium to move my next question should be; Then what is the medium?

 

It doesn't need a medium.

 

 

I would also ask; As light moved through empty space wouldn't it in effect create a medium of space that is not empty with a higher density than empty space?

 

Well, there would be energy in that part of space as the light passed through. This would contribute to the curvature of space-time (and hence gravity).

[jajrussel]

 

It doesn't need a medium.

 

 

Well, there would be energy in that part of space as the light passed through. This would contribute to the curvature of space-time (and hence gravity).

This seems to present a wave pattern... but at the moment I can not think of how to put it. How do you separate curved space from space that is not curved? The only distinction seems to be specific point, values. If we pick a specific point of space that does not move its value changes, because it's value is represented by what occupies it. Which may, or may not occupy it for any length of time.