PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-21, 05:39:59
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11
Author Topic: Ether - Does it Exist?  (Read 117244 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
LOL Room.  There's plenty 'room' for conjecture.  But - in my defense - I used our experimental evidence to prove the material property of a magnetic field.  And it's not pink bunny rabbits I'm proposing.  Both on the large and small scale - the evidence does seem to fit.  But I don't expect anyone to buy in.  It's just an enormous comfort to share the idea at all.  Even if it's rather taxing on the time and the attention.  So.  Thanks for listening.

Rosemary 

what experimental evidence is this that you speak of?
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary I think all of us who believe in the ether think it  is some very tiny particle or something and is probably able to move faster then the speed of light, it may be something that we can never really know because of where we are trying to observe it from.  So lets just call it the ultamaton or something and go on from there. I believe this ultamaton is manifest in a magnetic field as the constituent of the magnetic field itself.  And that works if you are right and the ultamatons are bipolar, like little magnets as they could be entrained by moving electrons. I don't think anyone believes the ether is electrons but if electrons can exert a force on the ether or ultamatons, then the ultamatons should be able to exert a force on the electrons and may actually have a hand in creating them somehow.  If we learn how to manipulate this ether it doesn't matter if we can see it or prove it exists or even know what it is.

I like the name ultimatons.  We use the word zipons - really to give the idea of 'zipping' matter together and then 'unzipping' it.  But it's incidental.  

I know why you all need the electron to 'entrain' as you put it, the magnetic field.  It's because you all assume that this is the only possible means to 'exploit' the field.  I fondly believe this is a misconception.  Surely - if the thesis is half way right - then think of all that usable energy in the standard resistor - your household element - or your coils - regardless of the complexities of their windings.  Effectively they would become an energy supply source.  Imbalance their binding fields - and you create a supply source.  That's what we do.  We use the conductive properties of circuit material - specifically the resistor - to re-generate a cycle - but strictly in terms of inductive laws.  What we're challenging is the concept that the energy from the supply is stored.  If it was stored then let's suppose that the supply 'delivered' 3 watts.  If 2 watts is measured to be dissipated as heat then one can only return 1 watt as stored energy back to the supply.  But what is evident is that we can return 3 watts back to the supply AND dissipate 2 watts as heat.  That means that the the material in the resistor has come into the equation as a supply source.  Therefore?  Why is there any assumption that this energy was stored?  Now.  Where does that vary from any classical requirement?  It conforms to the principle of INDUCTIVE LAWS.  And it conforms to Einstein's mass/equivalence requirements.  AND it gives us MORE energy than was first delivered.  That's got to result in something Over Unity.  Very usable.  And very scalable.  

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
what experimental evidence is this that you speak of?

Grumps?  I apologise for upsetting you in my earlier posts.  Clearly I was being 'high handed'.  I'll try and do better.

We have our own experimental evidence that we published in Quantum magazine some 8 years back.  (October edition 2002).  Glen did a replication - but then denied that it was a replication - which effectively meant that he denied the thesis as its basis.  Both tests widely accredited.  I still am not sure if it's because he suspects I've got a valid patent or if it's because the numbers he got were subsequently disproved - or what.  It's irrelevant.  We're now doing our own experiments and, thankfully, this is on a CAMPUS - so when our report is out it will have considerably more respectability than has been managed thus far.  And Thank God - the results are even better than any that we've managed before.  In fact, right now, we're looking at COP INFINITY.  LOL  If and when the report is finished - then subject to some appropriate scrutiny - it'll be posted here.  Actually - we'll probably go directly to the press as well.

Rosemary 

   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
There is a great deal to "induction" that is grossly unexplored.  Technology just took off and many things were "glossed over" or entirely overlooked.
   
Group: Guest
There is a great deal to "induction" that is grossly unexplored.  Technology just took off and many things were "glossed over" or entirely overlooked.

I absolutely agree with this.

Rosie  :)
   
Group: Guest
There is a great deal to "induction" that is grossly unexplored.  Technology just took off and many things were "glossed over" or entirely overlooked.

Can you offer up any examples Grumpy?

From my perspective if we just look at the "macro observations," for lack of a better term, induction and all of the other electromagnetic interactions that you can observe working on a bench are fully explored and understood.  It really is a triumph of the application of reason, something that we should be proud of.

One of the "hurdles," I suppose, is that people doing experiments sometimes think that they are seeing unexplained phenomena because they are not experienced enough to distinguish the ordinary from what appears to be extraordinary.

I am not trying to pick on Rosemary but she has made allegations of "COP infinity."  This is an error along the lines stated above.  My interpretation of that is they measured no net power being delivered by the battery with the DSO captures, yet the load resistor was still dissipating a measurable amount of heat, hence the "COP infinity" allegation.

The first test to double-check that claim would be to swap out the battery for a large capacitor that was trickle-charged through a resistor.  Then you run the test again and see if you have to trickle-charge the large capacitor to maintain a constant voltage across the capacitor.  It would turn out that you would indeed have to trickle-charge the large cap, and then you could easily measure the power that had to be supplied to the circuit.  The conclusion from that double-check test would be that there was no COP infinity.  The second conclusion would be that the DSO data acquisition and/or the data analysis had a problem.

MileHigh
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Electrostatic induction

We are told that induced current are always in a direction opposing the inducing current.  That is not always the case.  With electrostatic induction, current direction is based on the charge being balanced.
   
Group: Guest
Electrostatic induction

We are told that induced current are always in a direction opposing the inducing current.  That is not always the case.  With electrostatic induction, current direction is based on the charge being balanced.

I am not quite sure that I am getting you.  Are you sure that you aren't equating electrostatic induction and electromagnetic induction?

I would need to see a diagram illustrating your point but I am not asking you to do one.  I have no fire in my belly about this at all.  All that I can say is that I am not aware of any unexplained anomalies associated with electrostatic induction.

MileHigh
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
I am not quite sure that I am getting you.  Are you sure that you aren't equating electrostatic induction and electromagnetic induction?

I would need to see a diagram illustrating your point but I am not asking you to do one.  I have no fire in my belly about this at all.  All that I can say is that I am not aware of any unexplained anomalies associated with electrostatic induction.

MileHigh

All fire for this is suppressed since birth, and it is going to stay that way.

If you have access to the works of Faraday, it is three volumes.  He makes note of the direction of current when performing his induction experiments.  Immediately at the closing of the circuit, the current in the adjacent circuit is the same direction as the primary circuit.  This is during the rise of the voltage in the primary circuit and is attributed to electrostatic induction.  Unfortunately, Faraday did not explore it further.  This is not "unexplained", but rather "under explored".
   
Group: Guest
All fire for this is suppressed since birth, and it is going to stay that way.


Not if I can help it.  LOL.  The controls that can further validate this 'effect' are certainly NOT dependant on the application of a capacitor MileHigh.  To generate the initial supply - that first cycle of imbalance - must come from a material that is innately imbalanced - such as an electrolyte.  Because when it discharges it does not discharge to a zero volt condition.  A capacitor does.  How would you establish that resonating or rhythmical condition of resonance without a continual applied and opposing voltage?  I've seen this argued - over and over.  It makes me sick.  A capacitor IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A BATTERY SUPPLY.  All it does is stores charge and then it discharges charge.  And if you put any capacitor in series with that circuit it would only probably manage to interfere with that required relationship between the source and the material in the resistor.  In fact.  I couldn't even be bothered to test this - it's that irrelevant.

Rosemary

   
Group: Guest
Not if I can help it.  LOL.  The controls that can further validate this 'effect' are certainly NOT dependant on the application of a capacitor MileHigh.  To generate the initial supply - that first cycle of imbalance - must come from a material that is innately imbalanced - such as an electrolyte.  Because when it discharges it does not discharge to a zero volt condition.  A capacitor does.  How would you establish that resonating or rhythmical condition of resonance without a continual applied and opposing voltage?  I've seen this argued - over and over.  It makes me sick.  A capacitor IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A BATTERY SUPPLY.  All it does is stores charge and then it discharges charge.  And if you put any capacitor in series with that circuit it would only probably manage to interfere with that required relationship between the source and the material in the resistor.  In fact.  I couldn't even be bothered to test this - it's that irrelevant.

Rosemary

You can believe whatever you want to believe Rosemary.  I never said the capacitor has to discharge to a zero volt condition.   I said the opposite, you would have to supply current to the capacitor with a bleeder resistor to maintain its output voltage.  For the purposes of your test, the large capacitor would look like a "better battery."  The large capacitor and the battery would look like essentially the same to the circuit, that being a source of potential difference to push current through the MOSFET switch and the load resistor.

In your blog you say this:

Quote
It's the same circuit that we've always used - except that we're using a standard immersion element as our load resistor and we're driving the MOSFET with a functions generator.  It seems to afford us much better control than the 555.

So if I understand you correctly you don't need a battery to establish a "resonating or rhythmical condition of resonance" anymore because you are using a function generator.  Note the function generator is also supplying power to the circuit.  I don't believe that there is a "required relationship between the source and the material in the resistor."  You would have to provide some supporting evidence demonstrating that that statement is true.

If you really wanted to you could put a series resistor of something like 0.05 ohms between the large capacitor and the load to emulate the impedance of the battery you are using.  You would have to measure the battery's output resistance beforehand to do that.  You could check the waveforms between the two setups on the DSO and you could expect that they would be nearly identical.  In all likelihood you would not be able to distinguish between the DSO waveform recordings for the capacitor vs. the battery-based setup.

The advantage to using a large capacitor for a measurement technique is that it eliminates the need to use a fancy expensive DSO to make precise power consumption measurements.  Using a capacitor overcomes the inherent limitations of the DSO related to measuring very high-frequency signals including sampling errors, aliasing, and probe positioning.  The large capacitor and the battery would "look" essentially identical to the MOSFET and load resistor, and the circuit would perform in an identical fashion for all practical intents and purposes.

Anyway, this is off topic, I will be waiting for the results of your testing.  Just a reminder, if you don't summarize the power-in vs. thermal power-out measurements in your report like you failed to do last time then your report will have no credibility.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
You can believe whatever you want to believe Rosemary.  I never said the capacitor has to discharge to a zero volt condition.   I said the opposite, you would have to supply current to the capacitor with a bleeder resistor to maintain its output voltage.  For the purposes of your test, the large capacitor would look like a "better battery."  The large capacitor and the battery would look like essentially the same to the circuit, that being a source of potential difference to push current through the MOSFET switch and the load resistor.
MileHigh.  I can't argue with you because we're from profoundly different sides of this table.  The analogy is this.  I hit series of tennis balls across an open court.  I then go around to the side where all the balls have landed - pick them up - and go back to where I started and hit all those balls again.  The balls here represent DC current flow.  But then I wise up.  I decide to hit those balls against a wall that the wall can hit them back to me.  I'm the battery.  The wall is the conductive material in the load resistor.  Now every time I hit the ball the wall sends it back to me.  That way I just use one ball and can put in a whole lot of practice shots.  And  I can return those hits with the same level of force provided that I don't lose energy between hits.  Thankfully every time the ball comes back to me from the wall - it also gives me that little bit of extra energy. A sugar high.  A shot of adrenaline.  The voltage spikes from 12 volts to >12 volts with each return of the ball from that wall.  If I didn't 'recharge' after each cycle - if I didn't get it back with just that little bit more energy - then every time I hit the ball to the wall each hit would be with ever less force.  A bad practice session.  I'd hit it once or twice.  That's it.  Not enough force in my play.  The wall just dribbles that ball back.  No bounce.  No force.  Nearly as bad as that continual DC supply.  That's what would happen if I used a capacitor. Interrupt the DC supply and introduce the 'wall' in it's path - the conductive material of the load resistor - and I can get that current back and some - that it's 'recycled'.  Golly.  I think that series of images may have got confused.  But that's roughly what I'm trying to point to.

The point is this.  The proposal is made that the current flowing from the battery has a material property - like a tennis ball.  It's got properties of mass.  When it moves through a circuit it simply 'goes back home' - to its source.  All those balls only ever 'go back home'.  They 'belong' to the source and they always head back there.  In the same way - the load resistor has it's own supply of tennis balls.  When they move away from their source - they're also headed 'home' but their home is back to the material of the resistor.  The balls from the battery go clockwise through the circuit.  The balls from the load resistor go anticlockwise through the circuit.  That's the point.  That's the 'aether' component of current flow.  It's got properties of 'mass' that are related to the mass of it's source amalgam.  It's intimately related to the number of atoms that are bound in that circuit material or the number of atoms and molecules bound in the electrolyte.

Now I know that this conflicts with mainstream concepts as the assumption is made that the source of a battery current flow is the negative terminal and the negative rail is thereby referred to as the source.  I can't buy in.  Because I know that when the second cycle of current - that current that comes from the load resistor - is introduced to the circuit it can ONLY find it's path through the intrinsic body diode - that little zener number in the MOSFET itself.  That calls for an anticlockwise directional flow.  And since this cycle is in direct opposition to the direction of the first cycle - I can see this over my shunt resistor - then the first cycle - the cycle delivered by the battery when the circuit conditions were closed - that must then be clockwise. 

And I don't need the fancy expensive DSO to measure discharge recharge values - except that it certainly gives one a reliable measurement - a measurement that the manufacturer will hang his hat on.  I need that specialised function in those fancy oscilloscopes where it can give me an instantaneous mean average voltage across my shunt resistor.  Because this is what I use to 'tune' that resonating frequency.  This is what shows me the required strength of the hit from that battery to the wall and back to the battery.  That's what I look at when I'm trying to find the optimised switching condition. 

And I have NEVER been associated with any paper or any report that did not give a summary of the results from the tests.  Nor will I.  But thanks for the advice anyway.  And it's not actually off topic.  The proposal here is that current flow is just another form of aether - this time magnetic fields moving through circuitry to establish charge balance throughout the circuit.  But here - what we do is perpetuate the condition that it can't find it's balance. 

Rosemary
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 275
Hi rosemary,
physical matter? Ok on that, poor choice on my part. Any element or elements from the periodic table.
There is a slow dissapearing effect in and out of our 3 dimensions reported with ORME's (orbitally rotating monatomic elements). If these are not some part of a researcher's joke then maybe your comment on speed can be addressed. They are found as a white coating on electrolysis plates, this is removed,dried in a dark location and when exposed to sunlight it dissapears with a flash of light. However if where it dissapeared from is cooled the white powder has somehow returned.
This sounds ........
Are you aware of this magic...lol.
steve
   
Group: Guest
Hi rosemary,
physical matter? Ok on that, poor choice on my part. Any element or elements from the periodic table.
There is a slow dissapearing effect in and out of our 3 dimensions reported with ORME's (orbitally rotating monatomic elements). If these are not some part of a researcher's joke then maybe your comment on speed can be addressed. They are found as a white coating on electrolysis plates, this is removed,dried in a dark location and when exposed to sunlight it dissapears with a flash of light. However if where it dissapeared from is cooled the white powder has somehow returned.
This sounds ........
Are you aware of this magic...lol.
steve

Hi Steve  :)

Definitely never heard of this.  Is there a link? 

   
Group: Guest
And another thing that I haven't covered is this.  When the battery current kicks out that material from the resistor - it leaves a state of chaos in the resistor material.  They were previously in there - holding those atoms in a condition of 'relative rest'.  Now there are still parts of those fields remaning inside the resistor.  And there's nothing to hold them apart and those remaining fields unravel.  They've been destabilised.  Their orbits have been interrupted.  So.  They lose their cold-fast-small state and get big and hot and slow.  And we experience that unstable condition as heat.    Hot enough - enough of an imbalance - and they'll absolutely leave that material forever. That's when wires short.  The element burns.  Actual flames.  The resistor wire breaks.  The 'light' goes out.  The bound condition of that material is now compromised. Then the 'circuit path' for the flow of more current - is BROKEN.

BUT.  The atoms that made up that material are still those same atoms.  Nothing changed there. But the material that WAS there - those hidden fields that eluded detection - that WEIGHED NOTHING - they now leave that material.

Golly.  I do hope that this is clear.  I was sort of hoping to include this part in the previous posts and never did.  And I also hope that anyone at all is still reading this thread.  Seems like my thesis has done it again.  Left everyone supremely indifferent to it.  LOL.

Rosemary

ADDED
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
  As a physicist, I have studied for many years the Lorentz-Ives Ether Theory (LET) vis-a-vis Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT).  An American Journal of Physics article argues that there is NO crucial experiment as yet which is consistent with one theory and not the other -- and my own studies agree with that conclusion.

  However, I have thought of a possible experiment -- it is just very difficult to perform this experiment since the effects involved are so small (defined by the term gamma in both theories).

Meanwhile -- I can say as a Physics Prof that the concept of the ether is still viable... you might hear it called "the vacuum" by today's physicists.  It has definite properties and is not "nothing".

  A special hello to Rosemary Ainsley -- I have been interested to read about your work and your struggles...  I have had similar experiences in my fusion research... now retired.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
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.

Why do we need more energy?  We consider electricity to be a flow of energy, but is this energy actually consumed or just flowing?  I don't think it is consumed, converted, but not consumed.  so, why not just create the flow by a more efficient means?
   
Group: Guest
  As a physicist, I have studied for many years the Lorentz-Ives Ether Theory (LET) vis-a-vis Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT).  An American Journal of Physics article argues that there is NO crucial experiment as yet which is consistent with one theory and not the other -- and my own studies agree with that conclusion.

  However, I have thought of a possible experiment -- it is just very difficult to perform this experiment since the effects involved are so small (defined by the term gamma in both theories).

Meanwhile -- I can say as a Physics Prof that the concept of the ether is still viable... you might hear it called "the vacuum" by today's physicists.  It has definite properties and is not "nothing".

  A special hello to Rosemary Ainsley -- I have been interested to read about your work and your struggles...  I have had similar experiences in my fusion research... now retired.

Hi Professor,

LOL  I never thought I'd use that address on these forums.  I'm actually very pleased with the way this thread went.  It's the first time  that I actually discussed any relevant aspect of that eccentric thesis of mine on this forum - and it was met with that familiar sense of 'disassociation' - where our members suddenly find themselves with a mouth full of teeth and the urgent need to move onto other matters.  This most markedly shown in WW's posts.   :)    I'm knee deep in writing a report - which is an absolute pleasure to address as it's giving me an opportunity to discuss the merits and otherwise of open sourcing anything at all.  I'm now of the opinion that Open source has more dangers associated with it than our media.  And both only ever seem to pander to concensus opinion rather than logic.  It's just that they both look at the issue from different sides of a very long table.  Certainly both sides of that table enjoy the same level of conceit and 'fixed' opinion and both put an undue burden on our poor little electron.  In any event - welcome.  I won't actually be posting more about my experiments here.  Poynty has outlawed the posting of my report until he's vetted it.  And he requires us to use differential probes that are entirely out of reach.  So. The good news is likely to remain unmentioned on this 'forum dedicated to researching over unity.  Strange when you think that this is the first experiment that actually carries measured proof of anything at all.  LOL.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Why do we need more energy?  We consider electricity to be a flow of energy, but is this energy actually consumed or just flowing?  I don't think it is consumed, converted, but not consumed.  so, why not just create the flow by a more efficient means?


Grumpy?  Here's the analogy.  We look out of a window at the sky.  But there appears to be nothing there.  Then we see leaves being blown by the wind.  And we can then logically conclude that leaves have their own energy supply - provided only that we know nothing at all about wind or atmosphere.  In the same way - the assumption is made that particles have their own innate properties of energy and that they somehow provide their own wind.  The proposal here is that the particle NEVER moves anywhere at all.  It only decays.  But when it decays it is then propelled by the field as it then reaches the 'mass/velocity' of the field that the field can move the particle.  Then it 'slows down' and 'gets bigger' and then we can again see it in our dimensions.  Then it expends that force - that interaction with the field.  Then it agains decays - and so on.  What is KNOWN is that particles are discontinuous.  This is what is KNOWN.  HERE's what an electron, for example, looks like.  ******  They flicker in and our of sight. 

If this is right - if it's the 'field' that moves the particle in the same way that our atmosphere moves the leaves - then we need to STOP focusing on the particle and look at the field that moves the particle.  Where is it?  What does it do?  Where does it reside in space?  And so on.  The proposal is that one dimensional fields hold atoms together.  If those atoms are conductive or inductive then we can use them to generate current flow.  Then?  What we're actually doing is moving those binding fields from one part of space to another.  That's it.  And in doing so we're changing the bound condition of those atoms.  Fields move to establish a balance.  An electrolyte is imbalanced.  Therefore it moves to change the bound conditions of those atoms to establish a better balance.  But when they move through conductive/inductive material they IMBALANCE that material.  Then that IMBALANCE needs to adjust.  So.  Give it a chance.  Break the flow of current from the battery.  Then these fields move to re-establish the disturbance that resulted from the flow of current from the battery  They've now become an energy supply source all on their own.  They are not destroyed.  They are simply moved through space - in this instance - our circuit.  And in the same way that 'hot' condition of the resistor - those broken fields that remain - they also do not go anywhere unless and until the disruption is  that extreme that they are forced out of the material itself in the form of sparks or flame.  Then they're irrecoverable as they've moved to a different abode.  This is an inevitable and systematic consequence of heat.  It invariably compromises the bound condition of that material. 

If - for instance - you apply spot welding to anything at all - then you are actually introducing 'fields' of particles, through space, to combine atoms together.  You've actually added to the potential energy of that amalgam by ADDING these particles when they're in their HOT SLOW BIG state.  Then they join up as fields - hidden - fast, cold.  And they literally lose volume - in line with the shrinkage of that amalgam.

2 dimensional and 3 dimensional fields have different functions, different properties - but they all relate precisely to the known strong nuclear force and gravity  It's really very simple.   
   
Group: Guest
I explained that very badly.  Sorry Grumpy.  Think of those fields moving through the circuit as if they're ball bearings on a conveyor belt.  The belt moves in one direction - back to the source.  Then a second conveyor belt moves other ball bearings in the opposite direction - back to itself.  And so on.  But when the electrolyte moves its binding fields it is first imbalanced - and looking to a better charge balance.  These fields being imbalance find their path through balanced fields.  They imbalance that field which, in turn, needs to re-establish it's balance.  And so it goes. 
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
rather than finding more ball bearings, build a better conveyor
   
Group: Guest
rather than finding more ball bearings, build a better conveyor

LOL.  No.  We can't improve on that conveyor belt.  It's that sophisticated it moves at 2C.  And we can't improve on that condition.  If those belts are moving first away and then back to their source thereby perpetuating a charge imbalance - then we can use that 'resonance' for as long as we need it.  The one side stays hot and the other side never finds that electrolytic balance.  What could be better?  We've effectively managed to keep those fields forever moving - forever forced to try and find a balance.  

That's for the generation of heat.  But theoretically then - provided it's hot enough to 'boil water' we would also then have a perpetual source of energy because steam can power a generator.  And the only measurable loss to that system is then the 'bound state' of the resistive element.  This will need to be replaced.  Eventually.  LOL.  

We're looking at numbers now that absolutely give us infinite COP.  i think this may be the proof that we're all looking for.  One just needs to boil that water.  But with 120 degrees centigrade measured on the resistor - then this is theoretically possible.  It's not the force and fireworks that you guys keep looking for - and it does not come with a roll of drums and a tan tan tara.  Just a subtle, modest little application that absolutely fits the bill.  And it then speak VOLUMES about the field itself.  We've hardly touched on its potential.

Regards,
Rosie  :)
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878


Einstein's theories have been proven.

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

Not so fast, MH.  I invite you to read the following paper which will explain your errors:

American Journal of Physics -- September 1973 -- Volume 41, Issue 9, pp. 1068-
The Rod Contraction-Clock Retardation Ether Theory and the Special Theory of Relativity

Herman Erlichson

Department of Physics, Geology, and Astronomy, Staten Island Community College, Staten Island, New York 10301  map   
 
Abstract
Full Text: Download PDF | Add to Cart (US$28) | View Cart

This paper is a historical and critical review of an ether theory which starts with rod contraction and clock retardation, and a comparison between this ether theory and the special theory of relativity. The two theories are generally equivalent since they both lead to the Lorentz transformation equations. The possibility of an experimental difference between the two theories may lie in a one-way experiment, and this subject is briefly explored with the tentative conclusion that so far it seems that no one has made a specific proposal for such a crucial one-way experiment nor has anyone conclusively demonstrated the impossibility of such a test.
© 1973 American Association of Physics Teachers

Unfortunately, the paper costs $28, but is well worth it -- or you can find it at a university library and make a copy.  Well worth the read.


 
 


 
 
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2878
Here is the link to this paper:

http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v41/i9/p1068_s1?isAuthorized=no

I have studied the paper and used it in Physics classes during my university years.  It is well written.  I have communicated with the author and he stands by the paper, and well he should.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3174
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
The Interconnected Universe

Begin reading at the top of page 19.

.99
   
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, 05:39:59