PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-21, 06:21:44
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Author Topic: Ether - Does it Exist?  (Read 117247 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
http://www.softcom.net/users/greebo/spin.htm#det

Quote
Ether Detection Experiments

In 1887, Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward William Morley published the results of an experiment which was the successor to a similar experiment which Michelson had performed in 1881. The purpose of the two experiments was to prove the existence of the luminiferous ether. It was supposed that light would travel at different velocities, according to the direction of movement of the earth's surface relative to the ether. A light beam, split to go in two directions at ninety degrees to one another, converged after taking paths of equal distance. When the beams converged they interfered with one another. By rotating the apparatus, a maximum interference was found which showed the difference in the velocities between the two parts of the split beam, and thus showed the presence of ether.

The difference between the light velocities was used to calculate an ether velocity relative to the earth's surface. However, the relative ether velocity that they found was much lower than anticipated. Through the years that followed, similar experiments were performed with much greater accuracy. The last was in 1932 (see Volume 7, Issue 38 of Infinite Energy Magazine, Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments - A Fresh Look by James DeMeo). In the most detailed experiments, a seasonally consistent low relative velocity was found. But rather than acknowledging the results of the experiments and moving on with the information provided, the lower relative ether velocity was considered a flaw in the experiment. The proponents of corpuscular theory later asserted that these experiments had found no relative ether velocity whatsoever, and the myth they started became dogma.

An experiment was performed in 1914 by Sagnac in which a light beam was split into two parts. One part moved along a path which was square in shape. The other part moved along the same path but in the opposite direction. The apparatus was set spinning so that, if there were an ether, the two parts of the beam would move at two different velocities. The interfering parts at the termination point would disclose the existence of the ether. And, in fact, that is exactly what happened. Furthermore, there was no strangeness in the magnitude of relative ether velocity. All was as it should have been. Other similar experiments followed which also proved the existence of the ether. There were no discrepancies between theory and results as had been the case with the Michelson-Morley type of experiment.

Unfortunately, relativity by this time was considered to be correct and many reputations (and egos) could be damaged by the disclosure of the existence of an ether. So the Sagnac experiment was suppressed as were all similar subsequent experiments. Einstein ignored Sagnac and his work.

Today, the same kinds of reputations and egos might be damaged, so physicists in general continue to ignore Sagnac. However, engineers use the "Sagnac effect" when they design their navigation systems for transoceanic aircraft, nuclear submarines, and communications satellites. Without this "effect" the navigation systems could not work properly. For more details, see two articles in Volume 7, Issue 39, of Infinite Energy Magazine, one by A. G. Kelly, and the other by the Correas.


Sagnac published 2 papers (in French) with the titles:
“The existence of the luminiferous ether demonstrated…"          

http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2008-07.pdf

and

“On the proof of reality of the luminiferous ether …"

http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2008-08.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explanation of Sagnac Effect:
http://www.phil-inst.hu/~szekely/PIRT_BP_2/papers/selleri_09_ft.ppt
« Last Edit: 2010-03-31, 14:53:18 by Grumpy »
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy,

When I read your posts on this subject you are preaching to the choir  ;)

I have seen and benefited from the use of devices based upon the Sagnac effect. This in no longer crackpot science (not for about a hundred years). Those trying to debunk it just need to get over it.

If folks would just accept and understand this they may make it to understanding the simplicity of gravity, contra to 'it is just bigger so it drags you in'.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
it's frustrating
   
Group: Guest
Mainstream science uses this credo.

When the facts do not line up with the theory, the facts must go!!

I see it happen all the time. I would much rather see facts than listen to someone's guess.

E=mc2 does not allow for ether. Or does it?

E=((m)(c/a))2

E= energy
m= mass
c= velocity of the speed of light
a= aether density

 8)




   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Newton’s second law of motion is F = ma, where m is the "inertial mass"

If I have a coil of wire, and I apply a pulse (F), this force will accelerate this mass.  Will this result in a displacement of aether?
   
Group: Guest
That is an interesting question!  I could answer with a firm "Maybe" as I am not privy to HOW this force was applied.

If applied by "Voltage", I would guess yes.   If applied by acceleration of the physical coil, then you have trouble.  If the coil were "Shorted", and in the presense of a mag field (On earth?) then I would say yes.  IF the coil were "Open" and you are on "Earth", then I would say yes, but at a different level.

In space, away from any propagating mag fields (OK, not possible, but in theory...) then without a "Seed" charge or field then I would say no.  This could easily be incorrect, as there are charged items that make up the mass of the coil, and, for stupid example, if there were 1 free "electron", I would assume this could start an effect up.  Now, how long the force would need to be applied and at what rate the effect would build up......

I guess what I say is, that could take a lot of thought to vet out all the possibilities, but, in general, I would think a yes covers more of the actual situations then no.

Of course, this is all uninformed opinion, on my part.  (I, personally, think any normal mass in motion displaces aether, with no coil needed, but  conventional EE's would probably disagree with me, if they would even discuss it.  Above is for them.   Rate of displacement is another thing, and that's a looooong discussion....)
   
Group: Guest
If your pulse generates enough cooper pairs it will polarize the ether (sub-atomic particle universe).

 :)
   
Group: Guest
I am going to chime in here.  Normally I stay in my areas of interest and only venture out of them once in a while.  So today I am going to dabble into this aether business.  I know that almost none of you are going to listen to the information that is in the links, but I am going to disseminate it anyways.  You guys need to see the counter-balance once in a while, even if you are going to ignore it.

The truth is the conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that there was no convincing evidence for the existence of the aether.  However, you can find junk/alternative science links on like that claim just the opposite.  This is where you take science and turn it into some sort of a game of political spin.  It's really the wrong way to go.  You either accept what the main body of scientific research has come up with based on the experimental evidence or you don't.  It's the same kind of business with respect t electric current and electrons.  For some reason some people don't want to believe in electric current, even through there is overwhelming evidence it exists and circuit analysis relies on current and it's in agreement with experimental evidence.  I suspect that the "current" business stems more from a desire to go against the grain than anything else. It shows that you have "alternative energy" "edge" or something.

Going back to the aether, if you do the Google search the vast majority of the information you find indicates that the experiments could not prove that it exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

Quote
The Michelson–Morley experiment was performed in 1887 by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. Its results are generally considered to be the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous aether. The experiment has also been referred to as "the moving-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution".

Quote
In 1887 he then combined efforts with Edward Morley  and spent a considerable amount of time and money creating an improved version with more than enough accuracy to detect the drift.[3]  In their experiment, the light was repeatedly reflected back and forth along the arms, increasing the path length to 11 m. At this length, the drift would be about 0.4 fringes. To make that easily detectable, the apparatus was located in a closed room in the basement of a stone building, eliminating most thermal and vibrational effects. Vibrations were further reduced by building the apparatus on top of a huge block of marble, which was then floated in a pool of mercury. They calculated that effects of about 1/100th of a fringe would be detectable.

The mercury pool allowed the device to be turned, so that it could be rotated through the entire range of possible angles to the "aether wind". Even over a short period of time some sort of effect would be noticed simply by rotating the device, such that one arm rotated into the direction of the wind and the other away. Over longer periods day/night cycles or yearly cycles would also be easily measurable.

During each full rotation of the device, each arm would be parallel to the wind twice (facing into and away from the wind) and perpendicular to the wind twice. This effect would show readings in a sine wave formation with two peaks and two troughs. Additionally, if the wind were only from Earth's orbit around the sun, the wind would fully change directions east/west during a 12-hour period. In this ideal conceptualization, the sine wave of day/night readings would be of opposing phase.

Quote
After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what might be called the most famous failed experiment to date.[4]  Instead of providing insight into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley's article in the American Journal of Science reported the measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected displacement but "since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity" they concluded that the measured velocity was approximately one-sixth of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit and "certainly less than one-fourth." Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was later said to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero.

About the Sagnac experiment:

Quote
Walter Ritz's emitter theory  (or ballistic theory), was also consistent with the results of the experiment, not requiring aether. The theory postulates that light has always the same velocity in respect to the source.[9]  However it also led to several "obvious" optical effects that were not seen in astronomical photographs, notably in observations of binary stars in which the light from the two stars could be measured in an interferometer. If this was correct, the light from the stars should cause fringe shifting due to the velocity of the stars being added to the speed of the light, but again, no such effect could be seen.

The Sagnac experiment placed a modified apparatus on a constantly rotating turntable; the main modification was that the light trajectory encloses an area. In doing so any ballistic theories such as Ritz's could be tested directly, as the light going one way around the device would have a different length to travel than light going the other way (the eyepiece and mirrors would be moving toward/away from the light). In Ritz's theory there would be no shift, because the net velocity between the light source and detector was zero (they were both mounted on the turntable). However in this case an effect was seen, thereby eliminating any simple ballistic theory. This fringe-shift effect is used today in laser gyroscopes.

The quote from Grumpy's original quote about this goes as follows:

Quote
The apparatus was set spinning so that, if there were an ether, the two parts of the beam would move at two different velocities. The interfering parts at the termination point would disclose the existence of the ether. And, in fact, that is exactly what happened.

The above statement is bullshit.  The rotating apparatus would either create a longer or shorter path for the light and be detectable as shown in the highlighted section in the Wikipedia link above.

This other statement below from Grumpy's link is also nonsense.

Quote
Today, the same kinds of reputations and egos might be damaged, so physicists in general continue to ignore Sagnac. However, engineers use the "Sagnac effect" when they design their navigation systems for transoceanic aircraft, nuclear submarines, and communications satellites. Without this "effect" the navigation systems could not work properly.

The above quote plays into the usual "suppression" argument and it's not true.  The effect is perfectly understood and it's used to make laser gyroscopes.  The tone of the statement is right from the Tom Bearden school of writing.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
What exactly is it that you want to say?
   
Group: Guest
More info on the alleged aether:

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html

Quote
Michelson calculated that an aether windspeed of only one or two miles a second would have observable effects in this experiment, so if the aether windspeed was comparable to the earth’s speed in orbit around the sun, it would be easy to see.  In fact, nothing was observed.  The light intensity did not vary at all.  Some time later, the experiment was redesigned so that an aether wind caused by the earth’s daily rotation could be detected.  Again, nothing was seen. Finally, Michelson wondered if the aether was somehow getting stuck to the earth, like the air in a below-decks cabin on a ship, so he redid the experiment on top of a high mountain in California. Again, no aether wind was observed.  It was difficult to believe that the aether in the immediate vicinity of the earth was stuck to it and moving with it, because light rays from stars would deflect as they went from the moving faraway aether to the local stuck aether.

The only possible conclusion from this series of very difficult experiments was that the whole concept of an all-pervading aether was wrong from the start.  Michelson was very reluctant to think along these lines.  In fact, new theoretical insight into the nature of light had arisen in the 1860’s from the brilliant theoretical work of Maxwell, who had written down a set of equations describing how electric and magnetic fields can give rise to each other.  He had discovered that his equations predicted there could be waves made up of electric and magnetic fields, and the speed of these waves, deduced from experiments on how these fields link together, would be 186,300 miles per second.   This is, of course, the speed of light, so it is natural to assume that light is made up of fast-varying electric and magnetic fields.  But this leads to a big problem: Maxwell’s equations predict a definite speed for light, and it is the speed found by measurements.  But what is the speed to be measured relative to?  The whole point of bringing in the aether was to give a picture for light resembling the one we understand for sound, compressional waves in a medium.  The speed of sound through air is measured relative to air.  If the wind is blowing towards you from the source of sound, you will hear the sound sooner.  If there isn’t an aether, though, this analogy doesn’t hold up.  So what does light travel at 186,300 miles per second relative to?

There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light.  The analogy here is between light emitted by a source and bullets emitted by a machine gun.  The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun.  If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest.  The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight.  Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties.  It is now possible to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light.  It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed.  It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second.  In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected.  Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous.  The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964).
Einstein’s Answer

The results of the various experiments discussed above seem to leave us really stuck. Apparently light is not like sound, with a definite speed relative to some underlying medium.  However, it is also not like bullets, with a definite speed relative to the source of the light.  Yet when we measure its speed we always get the same result.  How can all these facts be interpreted in a simple consistent way?  We shall show how Einstein answered this question in the next lecture.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html

Quote
Michelson and Morley were able to measure the speed of light by looking for interference fringes between the light which had passed through the two perpendicular arms of their apparatus. These would occur since the light would travel faster along an arm if oriented in the "same" direction as the ether was moving, and slower if oriented in the opposite direction. Since the two arms were perpendicular, the only way that light would travel at the same speed in both arms and therefore arrive simultaneous at the telescope would be if the instrument were motionless with respect to the ether. If not, the crests and troughs of the light waves in the two arms would arrive and interfere slightly out of synchronization, producing a diminution of intensity. (Of course, the same effect would be achieved if the arms of the interferometer were not of the same length, but these could be adjusted accurately by looking for the intensity peak as one arm was moved. Changing the orientation of the instrument should then show fringes.)

Although Michelson and Morley were expecting measuring different speeds of light in each direction, they found no discernible fringes indicating a different speed in any orientation or at any position of the Earth in its annual orbit around the Sun.

In 1895, Lorentz Eric Weisstein's World of Biography concluded that the "null" result obtained by Michelson and Morley was caused by a effect of contraction made by the ether on their apparatus and introduced the length contraction equation

Quote
where L is the contracted length,  is the rest length, v is the velocity of the frame of reference, and c is the speed of light. Although the main interpretation of Lorentz Eric Weisstein's World of Biography for this equation was rejected later, the equation is still correct and was the first of a sequence of new equations developed by Poincaré, Eric Weisstein's World of Biography Lorentz, Eric Weisstein's World of Biography and others, resulting in a new branch of physics ultimately brought to fruition by Albert Einstein Eric Weisstein's World of Biography in special relativity. Einstein's idea of space-time contraction replaced Lorentz's interpretation of the contraction equation, and once and for all relegated ether to the history books.

There is no aether.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest

There is no aether.

MileHigh

Can you tell me how it is possible that waves propogate through space?

   
Group: Guest
Can you tell me how it is possible that waves propogate through space?

Sure, for starters I think that you are mixing up sub-atomic particles with electromagnetic wave propagation.  In your previous posting you are relating sub-atomic particles with the alleged existence of an aether and they are separate and distinct things.

Space has inherent properties of permittivity and permeability.  I am not here to question where these properties come from or how they came into existence.  It's just like I don't want to be questioned about what an electric field or voltage "really" is, or what a magnetic field "really" is.

The permittivity and permeability together act like a three-dimensional "carpet" that you can disturb and then electromagnetic waves will travel through that "carpet" with the energy oscillating back and forth being stored in the electric and magnetic fields.  Just like when you disturb a real carpet, waves travel through it where the energy is oscillating back and forth between being stored in the tension in the carpet and the velocity of the mass of the carpet.

However, as the links show, this propagation of electromagnetic energy through space is not tied to a relative velocity with some kind of medium, the experiments show that's not the case.  That's in contrast to the waves traveling through a carpet where the observed wave velocity would be a combination of the absolute wave velocity in the carpet itself and the relative velocity of the potentially moving fabric of the carpet relative to you as a stationary observer.

Even though there is nothing to "fix" the electromagnetic waves and their velocity to some sort of medium, there still exists the "media" of the permittivity and permeability of empty space that supports the transmission of electromagnetic energy through space.  Then, as the links I quoted indicate, you have to look at Einstein and his theories to explain the nature of electromagnetic waves and related observations in greater detail.

Einstein's theories have been proven.  They have put an atomic clock in a jet plane and found that it lost time relative to a stationary atomic clock on the Earth.  What astronomers once thought were anomalies in the observed orbits of planets and observations of other objects in the Universe turned out to not be anomalies once they factored in relativistic effects and the curvature of space due to the presence of very large masses.

I can't give you the super low-level answers that a physicist could give you.  What I am telling you is that there is no aether.  It's an outdated obsolete concept with its roots in the 19th century.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
No it's not and it's a very good concept actually.
Also there is enough reason to believe it exists.

I'm not mixing up anything and i like my current view better then the one you are trying to hang on my nose.

 :)

   
Group: Guest
No it's not and it's a very good concept actually.
Also there is enough reason to believe it exists.

I'm not mixing up anything.

Okay, so you tell me how waves propagate through space.
   
Group: Guest
Okay, so you tell me how waves propagate through space.

I already did, they interact with sub-atomic particles.
   
Group: Guest
I already did, they interact with sub-atomic particles.

That's all you can offer up, five words and one sentence?  Your current view has very little substance.
   
Group: Guest
you posts have alot "substance" but they don't provide any answer close to my 5 words.
I suppose you could get educated in stead of copy&pasting old experiments.
   
Group: Guest
you posts have alot "substance" but they don't provide any answer close to my 5 words.
I suppose you could get educated in stead of copy&pasting old experiments.

I gave you a real answer.  You are implying that I am not educated.  Where should I get educated?  "Education" is a relative term so I am curious where you got your education that you seem to think that I am lacking.

Like I said, I am showing the data that clearly shows that the Michelson-Morley and subsequent experiments show that the aether does not exist.  I explained how electromagnetic waves propagate through space.  You haven't rebutted either of those points.

Your five words say nothing.  Sub atomic particles can be produced by smashing up atoms.  Those types of particles normally don't exist in the environment, and they probably don't exist at all in empty space.  Then there are fleeting sub-atomic particles with no mass that pop in and out of existence.  Both of those things have nothing to do with the propagation of electromagnetic energy through space.  You might believe that they do because you read it somewhere but that doesn't make it necessarily true.  If you believe it then you should be able to explain the mechanism of how it actually works.  For example, what sub-atomic particles are you talking about?  Do you have any links to backup your argument?  Note that Grumpy's copy/paste was filled with incorrect information.

If you can't make some points to back up your proposition then let's just agree to disagree and move on.  Before I responded to this thread I knew that it wasn't going to change anything for a lot of people.  It's still a good exercise to raise the points anyways.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
let's move on.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
MH,

So you didn't like the Sagnac post.  Doesn't matter.  Nothing will convince you of an aether any more than anything can convince me that there isn't an aether.  Einstein stated that the M-M experiment did not disprove the aether and that it only disproved the form that they tested for.  Proving God exist is a similar endeavor.   However, many people who have died come back sure have changed!


Space has inherent properties of permittivity and permeability.  I am not here to question where these properties come from or how they came into existence.  It's just like I don't want to be questioned about what an electric field or voltage "really" is, or what a magnetic field "really" is.


You will be hard-pressed to explain these things without a medium.  Maybe this is why we do not have good explanations for "how" or "why" these things occur - just that they do.  These unanswered questions plagued me just as they probably have plagued SM and many before us.  I may never have the real answer, but I am a Hell of a lot closer than "it just does".
   
Group: Guest
milehigh's comments are very healthy for this type of discussion, without a milehigh we would only be agreeing with each other and not really being forced to climb out of our box of thought.

I sincearly hope that this discussion can continue and perhaps become one of the main topics on this board, moreover that all of us remain civil and intellectual on this topic, don't view milehigh as the "party-pooper" for he forces all of us to excercise our intellect which is the reason we are here.
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy:

It's open to debate if you are closer.  I would assume that physicists have done serious research into permittivity and permeability that might explain how that works above and beyond their understanding of the relative permittivity and permeability factors for a given material that occupies a vacuum.  The reason that I made the "disclaimer" statements is because the moment you talk about real scientific research and knowledge that goes against the "alternative" way of thinking the first that happens is that you are hit up with the "big" questions.  I find that frustrating because the "big" questions never come up when alternative thinkers talk amongst themselves and they use exactly the same concepts of electric field, magnetic field, permittivity and permeability.

Do the real research and starting from Michelson-Morley and onwards there is no proof that aether exists.  It's right there online, there must be hundreds of links.  You can hang on to that one Einstein quote or your link, it doesn't matter.  How electromagnetic waves propagate is understood and the alleged existence of aether has nothing to do with it.  The microwave engineers that design waveguides and antenna and transceiver systems for communications satellites don't ever consider aether to develop their real-world applications.

I am not trying to convince you, but I am just making the point relative to the question posed in this thread.  The real world of telecommunications and microwave theory and a myriad of other things all work without needing an aether model.  The existing EM models and the related R&D and the practical applications all ring true and work.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
That cannot be true.
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3582
MH
Every day men and woman all over the world get paid to attempt the impossible ,to seek out the unknown,
in every field of science!

To boldly go..... [so to speak],It is our nature,

And most definately one of our finest attributes!

Thank you for being here!!

Chet
Ps ,
is it the fact that we're not getting paid  that makes us heretics??
   
Group: Guest
I see this endless search for aether - and no actually discovery.  It's need is mistakenly assumed to correspond to the availablity of limitless energy.  We only need Einstein's mass/energy equivalence to find endless supplies of energy - and we only need the electromagnetic interaction to supply a never ending source of electric current flow.  If the question is really 'what is aether' then it's just as appropriate to ask what is energy?   What is the electromagnetic interaction - what is gravity - and so on?  And we'd still be bereft of answers.

My own take is that the aether comes in different fields - being gravitational - electromagnetic or nuclear.  And I sincerely propose that they can all be resolved by magnetic fields - in one, two and three dimensions.  1D and they control the electromagnetic force.  2D and they control the strong nuclear force.  3D and they control matter in what is seen as a gravitational field.  In all field conditions they're invisible.  And this, in turn is the aether.  And I propose that it forms the background of all space - gross interstellar - and subtle atomic. 

Just think about it.  We can get a magnet on magnet interaction with ABSOLUTELY NO ELECTRIC FIELD.  But we cannot get an ELECTRIC FIELD without evidence of a magnetic field.  Surely that points to the magnetic force being a primary force?

Rosemary
   
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2021-10-21, 06:21:44