PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-21, 05:38:11
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Author Topic: Ether - Does it Exist?  (Read 117243 times)
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. 
MileHigh

Actually MileHigh you are WRONG.  NO-ONE knows the actual condition of the vacuum.  In fact it's doubtful that there is such a thing as a vacuum.  Because there is no vacuum that is bereft of the influence of the forces.  This means that the forces must also be inside the vacuum.  Somehow.  You seem to think that there are many more answers than are actually there.  And it is entirely appropriate to question the make up of the vacuum.  It's the obsession of string theorists and particle theorists and quantum theorists and indeed ALL ltheorists.  And there are as many answers as there are theorists. 

Rosemary
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
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

I feel that both of our perspectives are necessary to further human development.  They each have there purpose.

Rather than accept "it just does" or "take it on blind faith", I question the very mechanics of the universe.  Until I know everything, I am perpetually entertained with unanswered questions.

What is electricity?

What is a magnetic field?

What is "gravity"?

What causes these things?  Why do they work the way they do?

I suspect a link between a moving electric field and gravity.  Wouldn't that be the "cat's pajamas"?

Unless God himself says "you can't do that" then I presume that I can - if I can.

If you read about the history of physics you will find that many physicist have believed in an aether and continue to do so.  Paul Dirac, Lorentz, Helmholtz, Tesla, Thomson, Poynting , and many others believed in an aether medium and it is still an unsettled topic today.  

Quote
Since the Miller experiment and its unclear results there have been many more experiments to detect the aether. Many of the experimenters have claimed positive results. These results have not gained much attention from mainstream science. Published authors claiming detection of the aether include Kantor, Marinov, Silvertooth, Torr and Kolen, Munera, and Cahill.[6]

You are correct that you do not need know anything of the aether to utilize electricity and magnetic field for our everyday devices.  However, if you wish to do something that is out of the ordinary, it would behoove you to at least question the existence of other things.

I'm sure "the vacuum" has a reason for possessing the properties of permeability and permittivity.
   
Group: Guest
Actually MileHigh you are WRONG.  NO-ONE knows the actual condition of the vacuum.  In fact it's doubtful that there is such a thing as a vacuum.  Because there is no vacuum that is bereft of the influence of the forces.  This means that the forces must also be inside the vacuum.  Somehow.  You seem to think that there are many more answers than are actually there.  And it is entirely appropriate to question the make up of the vacuum.  It's the obsession of string theorists and particle theorists and quantum theorists and indeed ALL ltheorists.  And there are as many answers as there are theorists.  

Rosemary

Actually Rosemary I am not "WRONG" at all.  I merely stated that I assumed that physicists have done research into permittivity and permeability.  That's all I said, will you please tone down your rhetoric, it's positively oppressive.

In addition, we were talking about permittivity and permeability and how that relates to a vacuum in the context of the existence of the aether, or not.  The discussion is really about whether or not the aether exists as a medium for propagating electromagnetic waves.  It's not about string theory or what really constitutes a vacuum or things along those lines.  The existence of the aether was postulated in the 19th century as a means of explaining the propagation of electromagnetic waves through space because of the belief that you needed some sort of tangible or semi-tangible medium to do this.  The logic for this was the example that sound waves must have the medium of air to propagate and as a result there are ways of detecting the presence of the air.  That's why they did the testing with light beams and interferometers.  That's what this debate is really about, does the aether exist as an explanation for the propagation of EM waves?  Your comments would ideally be made with that thought in mind.

Microcontroller:

If you say that what I am saying "cannot be true," I would ideally like to know precisely what you are talking about and what your reasons are.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest

In addition, we were talking about permittivity and permeability and how that relates to a vacuum in the context of the existence of the aether, or not.  The discussion is really about whether or not the aether exists as a medium for propagating electromagnetic waves.
So am I discussing this.  The difference being that I'm proposing that the primary magnetic waves comprise the aether.  

It's not about string theory or what really constitutes a vacuum or things along those lines.
I did not bring up the subject of string theory.  Again.  I'm proposing that the vacuum itself comprises magnetic fields in varying forms depending on where that vacuum is located.  Why do you persist in misunderstanding me MileHigh?  You seem to think that my comments are entirely irrelevant to the subject.  The fact is that you -  Grumpy et al - are debating the existence of the aether.  You have one take.  Grumpy has another.  I've got a third take.  I'm proposing that the forces reside in the vacuum in the form of 1, 2 or 3 dimensional magnetic fields.  It seems that whatever I say or contribute is denied by you and ignored by everyone else.  And all this time - all these years - I've been saying the same thing.  The aether and magnetic fields are one and the same.  How can that be considered irrelevant to this topic?  And for all that Grumpy looks and looks and looks - he evidently does NOT look to this possibility.  I am not sure why this postulate must be excluded when all others are accepted.  And I have the edge.  I have proof that this postulate may be correct - because there's experimental evidence to substantiate it albeit that this evidence is also ignored or denied.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Actually Rosemary I am not "WRONG" at all.  I merely stated that I assumed that physicists have done research into permittivity and permeability.  That's all I said, will you please tone down your rhetoric, it's positively oppressive.

And if you want to know about 'oppressive' then try this.  I keep telling you that Mainstream do not have the answers.  And you keep implying that they do.  Mainstream have measurements.  Extraordinary, skilled amazing abilities to measure and to predict effects from measurement. But they absolutely DO NOT have the explanations.  They have no 'reasons'.  They can only tell you what those interactions are - the strength of the strength and type of interactions. And some have found that some of those interactions can be absolutely universally applied.  Which makes their math that much more extraordinary.  But they do not have answers MileHigh.  And from what I read you are expecting US to supply answers that contradict mainsteam.  There is nothing to contradict.  It's an area of study that is almost entirely void of any kind of consistent explanation at all.

So.  For you to expect an answer from Microcontroller is rather unreasonable unless you first get your explanation from mainstream.  You'll probably find an explanation too.  It's just you will NEVER find a self consistent explanation or a self consistent argument.  I personally find it sad that you seem to think that there's a body of 'experts' who know everything that's needed.  They only know how to use the forces MileHigh.  And that use is limited to their understanding of the forces.  And that understanding is bereft.

Rosemary

 

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1994
@Rosemary
Im not sure I would totally agree with your magnetism theory and one of the reasons is probably because I am biased towards Teslas thoughts on this matter that the forces may be electrical in nature. As well I have found in some experiments that a great deal of energy can be transported by low voltages with no detectable magnetic fields or current. Much of this revolves around a very simple premise that when something has an incredibly high rate of change and oscillation it appears as almost stationary to everything else. To be honest I am on the fence when it comes to the concept of an "ether" but I like this statement by milehigh---
Quote
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.
The issue I have is that as soon as we start to state distinct particles or fields are responsible for everything else then we have to consider a "source" and this is usually when things take a turn for the worst. If there is one thing I have learned from nature and some pretty weird experiments is that it is never one thing it is many things acting together to give the illusion of one thing. I do however reserve the right to be completely wrong.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” George Bernard Shaw
   
Group: Guest
This is all very interesting, but it ALL actually avoids the question that is the title of this thread.   "Does IT exist?"

Come on, the first parameter required to ask that question is to define what "IT" is.  No experimentation is of ANY use without knowing what you are looking for.  THIS is where "Classical" aether searches will always fail, as if you aren't looking for the correctly defined object, than how do you expect to get results?

A LONG time ago, in school, actually, this was a heated topic, and physics was one of my favorite subjects.  (The 2nd year collage course I was forced to take in junior year high school got me in trouble, but...)   Why these same arguments always come up, I just don't know.  I'll only comment this way.  If you cannot do the test for yourself, or have not actually seen the test and parameters run for yourself, you are acting on "Faith".  I don't care which side your on, nor what references you use, you are demonstrating your faith in what you have read, instead of what you have directly experienced.  THAT is the problem with most science today.  I've seen this argument between two physics professors, and both "Knew" they were right.  (And of course, both could be wrong, too.  This was within the last decade.  I'm too old for this S***!  :) )

Prime example, just to throw a wrench in the works, for both sides.  What if, (This is already proven and documented, but not as an aether effect, so don't start the "Where is that from" stuff.  Try thinking about examples, and do a test or two.) again, what if the aether is "Clingy" to the structure of matter?   (Oppps, all data just got canned, but who can accept that truth?)   That was simple, and I didn't have to give credit to the magnetic field basics concept, the dark matter concept, the lack of aether concept nor any other theory, as the attributes of what I was looking for prevent testing with matter present, unless that matter is taken into account by the test.  (Try finding info that applies in this situation.  Strange hole in research there.  Why?  I have no clue, but have hit it in other studies.)

Many "Normal" people claim that I am just "Sprouting BS"!  Many aether people consider this concept "WRONG!".  Take the simple test of the "Motor Inertia effect".  (I'm avoiding names as that causes trouble.  Faith, remember?)  Spinning up a motor the first time takes more power than the second time, if done within the "Spin down" time of whatever the unseen force that has inertia, by definition.  No one, that I know of, refutes this simple fact, and it's not really even hard to test.  I'm NOT saying that relates to aether, but it DOES prove that this "Whatever" stayed in the SAME place, relative to the motor, which is moving relative to the sun, etc. etc. etc.  Simple logical facts, eh?  IF, and I will repeat that, for those that need it, IF this "Whatever" has ANY relation to a supposed aether, then not only is relativity a requirement, but ANY MASS must "FIX" this effect in that relative location.   Can you see where I am coming from.  Taking these "IF"s into account means that there could not be an aether wind, per se, so such could not be measured in a standard way, unless measured in a "True" spacial vacuum, with no mass present.  (There are methods, but you would have to assume an aether first, in order to define the interactions, etc.)  Try this experiment, but don't attempt to publish the results.  (The result is self-evident.)  Generate what you would consider to be an "aether distortion" and THEN preform the experiment with light.....  This will be a LOT tougher, as ALL the other things come into play.  RF, EM, RE, XYZ, etc. will now have to be taken into account for their possible effects.  Again, the experiment is useless.  Believe me, some have tried.  (I'm offering no names as the "Faith" will always win out, unless you can have greater faith in your own physical work.  Theory doesn't cut it here.)  No matter the result, someone will be able to destroy the results, using their "Faith" knowledge.

OK, I'm jumping off the soapbox here, as the simple statement C is the maximum speed has already been disproven, but that concept is still necessary in using current day tech and EM theory.  What does that simple fact say about the completeness of the theory?  A LOT of things are in use that are not understood, and only an unaware person would be able to not accept that.  There are a lot of such people out there, and quite a few here, as well.  Put it this way, would anyone argue with the Faraday equations and theory about electrolysis?  I would hope not, as they are proven accurate.  (In a specific situation...)   Does this mean that there is NO MORE to be understood in the process or that Faraday knew all there was to know about the process?  Same situation.

There are many things that are beyond our ability to test, especially if we don't know enough about what we are testing.  When will this be solved?  I hope never, as what would be the use, once we know everything?  How boring would the news from a complete utopia be?  SO, who can offer up an accurate description of what to test for?  Seems a catch-22 to me.  Waves propagating in space as a concept?  If you can't even define what the "Field" is, why waste time trying to explain it's propagation when you haven't got enough parameters to even know How to test it.   I hope this makes sense, as all of us are operating on faith in what we believe to be true.  That's why I stick to "I believe it when I SEE it, not when told it or when I read it."  Is someone going to try to tell me the attributes of water by knowing how the waves operate?  By it's effect on other things?  It's all in asking the right questions, or the answers are meaningless.  Ask the wrong questions, and all you get is a fight.

As always, this is just my opinion and not to be construed as claiming any real knowledge.  That must be obtained on your own.
   
Group: Guest
And if you want to know about 'oppressive' then try this.  I keep telling you that Mainstream do not have the answers.  And you keep implying that they do.  Mainstream have measurements.  Extraordinary, skilled amazing abilities to measure and to predict effects from measurement. But they absolutely DO NOT have the explanations.  They have no 'reasons'.  They can only tell you what those interactions are - the strength of the strength and type of interactions. And some have found that some of those interactions can be absolutely universally applied.  Which makes their math that much more extraordinary.  But they do not have answers MileHigh.  And from what I read you are expecting US to supply answers that contradict mainsteam.  There is nothing to contradict.  It's an area of study that is almost entirely void of any kind of consistent explanation at all.

So.  For you to expect an answer from Microcontroller is rather unreasonable unless you first get your explanation from mainstream.  You'll probably find an explanation too.  It's just you will NEVER find a self consistent explanation or a self consistent argument.  I personally find it sad that you seem to think that there's a body of 'experts' who know everything that's needed.  They only know how to use the forces MileHigh.  And that use is limited to their understanding of the forces.  And that understanding is bereft.

Rosemary

Rosemary:

You are doing a Straw Man argument with respect to me.  I never said or implied that Mainstream has all the answers.  Then there is the issue about expanding the debate beyond the scope of this discussion.  I don't care how much you say we "don't know" because that's not the front and center issue being debated here.  As I posted earlier in this thread I don't want to be hit up with the usual questions like, "What is an electric field?"  We are not having that discussion in this thread.  It's a cop-out to go there because you can go there for almost any discussion you want to have.

I will remind you that you also freely indicate your lack of Mainstream knowledge.  As a result you often find yourself in a situation where you don't know what you don't know.  A case in point is when we discussed how a bar magnet works.  You told me that what I said was wrong but in fact I was right.  I can suggest that a better strategy on your part would be to do the research beforehand if you are in doubt.

It's commonly accepted that the Michelson-Morley experiment and more modern versions of it are the basis for detecting the aether because the argument goes that it can't be detected directly, it can only be detected indirectly.  Grumpy states the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that the aether exists and I say that it doesn't.  I would hazard a guess that 95% or more of the links that you could pull up on the experiment would conclude that the Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't demonstrate any evidence for the existence of the aether and the vast majority of the 5% that do are "New Age" related links.  Again, that's just my guess.

Your argument that my expecting an answer from Microcontroller is unreasonable is ridiculous.  I would like some real answers from Microcontroller if he is up to it.  The burden rests on him if he wants to argue his points.

"I personally find it sad that you seem to think that there's a body of 'experts' who know everything that's needed."  Again, that is a Straw Man argument about me and it's outside the scope of this discussion.  "And that understanding is bereft."  In my opinion the "New Age" understanding of the "forces" is 100 times more bereft than the Mainstream understanding.  Plus the fact that you want to harangue Mainstream to question itself but I don't see you doing that to the New Agers.

For fun look at somebody like Marko Rodin.  I remember Marko backing up Mylow all the way.  A few years ago Marko was asking for $75,000 to build his own permanent magnet motor, he even had a clip showing the CAD files for it.  In another clip from a few years ago Marko is being interviewed and he casually states to the interviewer that the "Rodin coil" is the solution to our energy problems.  I can only speculate that Marko doesn't understand how a magnet really works and that he doesn't understand how an inductor really works.   By the same token I would like to see Marko Rodin deliver at least one single tangible benefit that you can uniquely get from a "Rodin coil."

Bringing it back, we want to be discussing if the directly unmeasurable and directly undetectable aether exists or not.  The commonly accepted means to do this is to look for indirect evidence of this by looking for direct evidence of changes in the speed of EM waves as the Earth changes it's velocity with respect to the alleged aether's frame of reference.  This is done using interferometry.  From what I see that is the anchor point for this debate.  Also, I have made my points and pulled up my links backing them up so I am done here in this thread.  I know that I probably have not convinced the majority of people that believe in the existence of the aether, and I doubt that any of them will challenge the links and the data brought forth in those links.  That's the way the cookie crumbles.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-12-12, 12:38:27 by MileHigh »
   
Group: Guest

Microcontroller:

If you say that what I am saying "cannot be true," I would ideally like to know precisely what you are talking about and what your reasons are.

MileHigh

I do not have time for lengthy discussions about this subject.
The Bose-Einstein Condensate interacts directly with what we call "Ether"
And in turn Ether interacts with solid bodies.
I call it sub-atomic particles but it is essentially the same thing.

If you want to know more i suppose you can always obtain:


real knowledge.  That must be obtained on your own.


 :)
   
Group: Guest
MileHigh let me quote you.
Grumpy:
I would assume that physicists have done serious research into permittivity and permeability that might explain how that works ...
THEN
above and beyond their understanding of the relative permittivity and permeability factors for a given material that occupies a vacuum.
From where I sit that seems to indicate that you DID assume that physicists had done serious research into the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum - and then you further assume that they have some kind of understanding of the factors of a 'material that occupies a vacuum'.  SO.  When you say this...

You are doing a Straw Man argument with respect to me.  I never said or implied that Mainstream has all the answers.  Then there is the issue about expanding the debate beyond the scope of this discussion.  I don't care how much you say we "don't know" because that's not the front and center issue being debated here.  As I posted earlier in this thread I don't want to be hit up with the usual questions like, "What is an electric field?"  We are not having that discussion in this thread.  It's a cop-out to go there because you can go there for almost any discussion you want to have.
then clearly you're giving yourself rather wide editorial jurisdiction over what you actually said and what you deny having said.

Personally my own objection is that we haven't even defined what we mean by aether.  Presumably - because it can't be detected - then it may be pure fabrication.  I tend to agree with this.  At it's least it should be measurable.  And it's not.  So.  That makes it irrelevant to this or any discussion.  But that makes none of us any the wiser.  We still don't know how light propogates in a vacuum - and we still don't know what are the properties of electric current flow.  And we still don't know about gravity.  So.  What the hell?  And all you're personally prepared to allow anyone to discuss is the possible premittivity or permeability of the vacuum - assuming that it has such properties which, thus far are entirely speculative  - and/or - the Michelson Morley experiments which, even according to Einstein - did not DISPROVE aether.  All Einstein proposed is that he or we or whoever - don't need this aether.

The actual question - which you're all dodging - or as Grumpy manages - hiding behind more and more quotes and references - is this.  How can anything at all be without a material structure if it can influence matter?  How can something reach out through space - all over the place - and do SO MUCH that is tangibly evident - when it - the thing itself - remains invisible.  Well.  I've got a proposal.  If you assume that a magnetic field has matter - if you make a leap of good faith into the unknown and then propose that the magnetic field may be structured from a simple magnetic dipole - then you can always find the explanation for the forces reaching through the vacuum and touching and moving all matter any and every which way - that we can measure the movement.  The problem is this.  It's an eccentric thesis and it has nothing to recommend it other than logic.  It is WAY too simple for the complex reach that you all seem to think is required for scientific theory.   

I will remind you that you also freely indicate your lack of Mainstream knowledge.
I do not UNDERSTAND mainstream knowledge because it's NOT BASED ON LOGIC.  But I'm reasonably au fait with mainstream thinking certainly on the fundamental questions which we're discussing here.

As a result you often find yourself in a situation where you don't know what you don't know.  A case in point is when we discussed how a bar magnet works.  You told me that what I said was wrong but in fact I was right.  I can suggest that a better strategy on your part would be to do the research beforehand if you are in doubt.
There it is again.  That editorial reach into your selective memory.  You absolutely did not give an answer.  What you actually did was give us a quote from the Encyclopedia Brittanica - in the high hopes that such a ponderous reference would carry your thin argument.  There is absolutely NO SUCH THING AS AN ATOMIC DIPOLE unless we are all to first re-invent the standard terminology in physics. 

It's commonly accepted that the Michelson-Morley experiment and more modern versions of it are the basis for detecting the aether because the argument goes that it can't be detected directly, it can only be detected indirectly.
MileHigh.  What force is there can be detected - directly?  There is no such animal.  They are ALL detected by inference.

Grumpy states the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that the aether exists and I say that it doesn't.  I would hazard a guess that 95% or more of the links that you could pull up on the experiment would conclude that the Michelson-Morley experiment doesn't demonstrate any evidence for the existence of the aether and the vast majority of the 5% that do are "New Age" related links.  Again, that's just my guess.
And that's another assumption.  I don't know.  I like to think that I'm 'new age' - and I certainly don't believe that these tests proved anything at all.  Unfortunately NOR did they disprove the aether.  That would have been a preferred result.

Your argument that my expecting an answer from Microcontroller is unreasonable is ridiculous.  I would like some real answers from Microcontroller if he is up to it.  The burden rests on him if he wants to argue his points.
Indeed.  And the burden rests on you to explain what mainstream think.  As of now - to the best of my knowledge - there is absolutely NO thesis that Mainstream has to explain ANY of the forces - or any fields that result from the forces.  Whatever Microcontoller offers will be an improvement on that.

"I personally find it sad that you seem to think that there's a body of 'experts' who know everything that's needed."  Again, that is a Straw Man argument about me and it's outside the scope of this discussion.  "And that understanding is bereft."  In my opinion the "New Age" understanding of the "forces" is 100 times more bereft than the Mainstream understanding.  Plus the fact that you want to harangue Mainstream to question itself but I don't see you doing that to the New Agers.
I most certainly DO want questions MileHigh.  It's the lack of questions and the endless stream of answers that get me down - whether they're from new agers or from mainstream.  All the answers I've ever seen are pretentious or confusing or innately contradictory.

Bringing it back, we want to be discussing if the directly unmeasurable and directly undetectable aether exists or not.  The commonly accepted means to do this is to look for indirect evidence of this by looking for direct evidence of changes in the speed of EM waves as the Earth changes it's velocity with respect to the alleged aether's frame of reference.  This is done using interferometry.  From what I see that is the anchor point for this debate.  Also, I have made my points and pulled up my links backing them up so I am done here in this thread.  I know that I probably have not convinced the majority of people that believe in the existence of the aether, and I doubt that any of them will challenge the links and the data brought forth in those links.  That's the way the cookie crumbles.
Your anchor for this debate is what you want it to be.  It's certainly not my anchor.  But nor do I prefer anyone else's.  The thread topic is 'does aether exist'.  The evidence - quite frankly - is rather thin - if it's meant to be a 'hitherto' unknown field.  Magnetic fields - on the contrary are everywhere - and they're a primary force.  Therefore I personally substitute aether fields for magnetic fields.  For me they're the same thing.  And there's whole barrel loads of extra energy there.  Certainly enough to defeat thermodynamic laws.  Which is all I'm interested in.

Now.  What I confidently expect to hear from you that 'you're done' with this argument.  LOL.  You actually don't argue anything ever.  What you do is express your opinions - brook no argument - and then walk away in the smug delusion that you've 'won' that argument.  Far be it from me to disabuse you of any such delusion MileHigh.   

Rosemary
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr

Grumpy states the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that the aether exists and I say that it doesn't.


I stated that the M-M experiment did not disprove an aether.

Aether wind (called convection at the time) was thought to exist but disproven.  Lorentz and Poincare proceeded come to the conclusion that there is a contraction in the direction of movment of moving bodies (termed the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction).  This lead to "relativity", initially by Poincare and Lorentz.

See third article in attached file:
   
Group: Guest
For the sub Mass that think science has reached it's resolution on the matter of Aether, or A-ether, or ambient pressure, or Quantum Flux, science has at least come to conclusion that something exists to the tune of 74% of the perceivable universe, and this is mainstream science, so perhaps some of us are a bit out of touch in our small university lab, while the rest of us (while perhaps not so well funded) are at least "hanging" with the big dogs.. ^-^



Quote Physics.org:

" Through precise cosmological measurements, scientists know that about 4.6% of the energy of the Universe is made of baryonic matter (normal atoms), about 23% is made of dark matter, and the remaining 72% or so is dark energy. Scientists also know that almost all the baryonic matter in the observable Universe is matter (with a positive baryon charge) rather than antimatter (with a negative baryon charge). But exactly why this matter and energy came to be this way is still an open question. In a recent study, physicists have proposed a new mechanism that can generate both the baryon asymmetry and the dark matter density of the Universe simultaneously"

Quote Wikipedia.com:

"The nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is known to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is not very dense — roughly 10−29 grams per cubic centimeter — it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory. Dark energy can only have such a profound impact on the universe, making up 74% of universal density, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant. Both models include the common characteristic that dark energy must have negative pressure"



Quote Physics.org

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-physicists-mechanism-dark.html

The scientists, Hooman Davoudiasl from Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York; David Morrissey and Sean Tulin from TRIUMF in Vancouver, British Columbia; and Kris Sigurdson from the University of British Columbia, also in Vancouver, have published their new proposal in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters. They’ve dubbed the new mechanism "hylogenesis" from the Greek words "hyle," meaning "primordial matter," and "genesis," meaning "origin."

"There are two problems in theoretical physics we are trying to address at once," Sigurdson said. "The baryon asymmetry (why do we have atoms but not antiatoms in the Universe?) has really been a problem since Paul Dirac proposed antimatter in 1928 and it was discovered in 1932. And what is the dark matter? Hints of dark matter have been around since Fritz Zwicky discovered missing mass in the Coma Cluster in 1933, but its identity is still unknown. This mechanism links the formation of atoms and dark matter and helps resolve the baryon asymmetry mystery, as the total dark plus visible baryon balance of the Universe is restored."

In this matter-formation scenario, a new particle X and its antiparticle X-bar (of equal and opposite charge) are produced in the early Universe. X and X-bar are capable of coupling to quarks (the basic components of baryonic matter, e.g., protons and neutrons) in the visible sector as well as particles in a “hidden” sector (so-called because the particles in it interact only feebly with the visible sector). In this scenario X and X-bar would have been produced when the Universe heated up after inflation, in the first moments after at the start of the big bang.

Later, X and X-bar would decay, partly into visible baryons (specifically, a neutron made up of one up quark and two down quarks) and partly into hidden baryons. As the scientists explain, X decays to neutrons more often than X-bar decays to antineutrons. By the same amount, X-bar decays to hidden antiparticles more than X decays to hidden particles. In this scenario, the quarks would be the baryonic matter that makes up almost everything we see, and the hidden antibaryons would be what we know as dark matter. Through this yin-yang decay pattern, the positive baryon number of the visible matter is in balance with the negative baryon number of the dark matter.

   
Group: Guest
For the sub Mass that think science has reached it's resolution on the matter of Aether, or A-ether, or ambient pressure, or Quantum Flux, science has at least come to conclusion that something exists to the tune of 74% of the perceivable universe, and this is mainstream science, so perhaps some of us are a bit out of touch in our small university lab, while the rest of us (while perhaps not so well funded) are at least "hanging" with the big dogs.. ^-^
Hello Clint.  Exactly how many of you in the 'sub Mass' do you think there are?  I know of more than one theorist who even denies the evidence of dark matter.  He's told me this - himself.  Also.  If dark matter was as widely accepted as you imply then by rights Ellis, Carroll et al would have been awarded the Nobel prize.  Also - Kaku states and I quote

"Every text book on the planet says that the universe is made out of atoms and subatomic particles.  Well.  All those text books are wrong.  When they hear about this invisible matter and dark mater they say 'bah humbug. But show me proof that dark matter exists'."

Also - Carroll, Ellis - Caltech - and Dan Bauer from Fermilab claim 10 times more dark matter than visible matter.  This number varies.  And while there may be one proposal that appears to resolve the question of the missing antimatter - there are NONE  that resolve the question of light propogation through the vacuum nor even the type of particle that may qualify for this 'quantum flux' as you put it.  

There is one truth.  There are as many theories related to aether as there are theorists.  Personally I subscribe entirely to dark energy from dark matter. And I agree that this is the aether.  It's just that I also see this as being the same thing as magnetic fields.  In other words - that dark matter is made up of a fundamental particle.  And these magnetic fields are everywhere - throughout the universe.  And what's more I propose that composites of these same little particles create all those stable particles that we know. Effectively therefore even the photon would be a baryon.  LOL.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Seeing that I am "Out of Date" with respect to certain information I have a couple of questions for those more "Freshly" educated.  These are dumb questions, but they lead into the discussion in a way that I cannot, at this time, explain.

Has the "Particle/Wave" debate ever been concluded?  (I can still prove both.....  Need not explain.)
Do photons have mass?   (Mass / energy conversion not acceptable as an answer..  Again, need not explain.)

Those two questions relate to the concept of an aether, but in a slightly different context than what I have been reading here.  This is turning into quite an interesting discussion, with quite a bit of revealing data, both in info and in beliefs.  I ask the above questions, not to start a debate, but to see what the current "Belief" level is for the general public.  My beliefs are already well known around here.
   
Group: Guest
Seeing that I am "Out of Date" with respect to certain information I have a couple of questions for those more "Freshly" educated.  These are dumb questions, but they lead into the discussion in a way that I cannot, at this time, explain.

Has the "Particle/Wave" debate ever been concluded?  (I can still prove both.....  Need not explain.)
Do photons have mass?   (Mass / energy conversion not acceptable as an answer..  Again, need not explain.)

Those two questions relate to the concept of an aether, but in a slightly different context than what I have been reading here.  This is turning into quite an interesting discussion, with quite a bit of revealing data, both in info and in beliefs.  I ask the above questions, not to start a debate, but to see what the current "Belief" level is for the general public.  My beliefs are already well known around here.

Loner, the wave/particle duality is an attempt to describe the 'weirdness' at the atomic level the basic tenet being that both the location and energy or velocity of a particle can never be known without some inherent degree of uncertainty.  This isn't debated.  It's a fact.  Both relativism and Quantum mechanics are 'right' in the sense that their measurements and predictions are accurate.  But they're also mutually exclusive. 

And a photon has zero mass - a spin of 1 - has no anti particle and is considered to be stable into infinity.  In view of the velocity and energy inherent in the photon I see a contradiction to Einstein's mass/energy equivalence.  If E=mc^2 - and if the photon has zero mass, then zero x C squared or not - would not allow it all that energy to move it that energetically anywhere at all.

I'm not sure if this is absolutely 'fresh' as you ask.  But I don't think that there are any variations to this. 

Rosemary
 
   
Group: Guest
I am not part of the "sub Mass", I do not believe science has reached the pinnacle of understanding in this debate, I am speaking to and about those who deny the existence of the "Aether, or A-ether, or ambient pressure, or Quantum Flux" based upon a lack of proof of it's existence. That's more of a fish's mentality denying the existence of planets, assuming a fish could ponder the question in the first place. :D
   
Group: Guest

Your argument that my expecting an answer from Microcontroller is unreasonable is ridiculous.  I would like some real answers from Microcontroller if he is up to it.  The burden rests on him if he wants to argue his points.

MileHigh

If i have to write down all i want to say i need at least 15 years of your time (pherhaps more) and even then i am NOT sure the message is recieved in the way i ment it,and that is riddiculous and a waste of time to me.
As far as i can see you have your own view on this subject and it will stay that way unless you change it yourself.

I follow certain "brains" from certain experimenters aswell as the results they are getting.
Only a few days ago last month a Bose–Einstein condensation of photons in an optical microcavity was realized.
It's not that we are stuck with an old out dated model as you are sugesting.

 :)




   
Group: Guest

Personally my own objection is that we haven't even defined what we mean by aether.  Presumably - because it can't be detected - then it may be pure fabrication. 

Rosemary

Offcource,

Milehigh is saying there is no water in the river, yet he can still see the waves when he throws a rock in it.
It cannot be true, the water/medium/Ether/sub-atomic particles whatever needs to be there or the rock will just hit bottom without giving birth to the waves we recieve.

My appologies it is the simplest example i can think of right now.
Certain people who are active in gravity modification research need sub-atomic particles to explain what they are seeing and it fits perfectly.
That is the reason for me to assume it's correct or at least to use it untill we find out more.

 :)

   
Group: Guest
I am not part of the "sub Mass", I do not believe science has reached the pinnacle of understanding in this debate, I am speaking to and about those who deny the existence of the "Aether, or A-ether, or ambient pressure, or Quantum Flux" based upon a lack of proof of it's existence. That's more of a fish's mentality denying the existence of planets, assuming a fish could ponder the question in the first place. :D

Sorry.  I thought you were arguing that mainstream are endorsing aether but calling it dark energy.  In other words the aether thinking was just different in its terminology.  Certainly the Caltech group see this as a kind of aether.  The joke is that they're looking for a meson - which is a big clumsy slow number.  Anything that big would be visible to light.  So how then would they explain its invisibility.  It's very confusing.  But at least they sort of kind of endorse the 'pervasive energetic field' which is already more even than our string theorists give us.  They - in turn - want a rigid scaffolding.  So.  Roll on Caltech.  It's just that fermilab have funded over 10 years of research trying to detect this particle and they've found ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  That's an awfully long time and awfully expensive exercise to persist in with absolutely no shadow of evidence of that particle.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Well I think that many different viewpoints could be calling something from different observable functions the same thing, or perhaps there is more than one ether as Einstein related was occurring in his day, at an Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden, in Germany.

The only fact here is that we are exploring the theoretical possibilities, we are in newly charted territory, and I think all ideas are worthy at this point. The only thoughts I find non-productive are those that blindly dismiss without basis or basis because they think their right. Almost everyone here has many valid points, and are unquestionably intelligent, I choose to give all the respect of paying their viewpoint the respect it deserves, because there is one thing I know that cannot be refuted, as a intelligent animal, we know SQUAT> :D
   
Group: Guest
Offcource,

Milehigh is saying there is no water in the river, yet he can still see the waves when he throws a rock in it.
It cannot be true, the water/medium/Ether/sub-atomic particles whatever needs to be there or the rock will just hit bottom without giving birth to the waves we recieve.

My appologies it is the simplest example i can think of right now.

 :)

Hi Microcontroller. I think that analogy is excellent.  Perhaps improved if the waves also pulled/pushed the rock in the first place.  I think the idea of aether is that it's the source of all energy.  Certainly that's the way I see it.

Rosemary
   
Group: Guest
Well I think that many different viewpoints could be calling something from different observable functions the same thing, or perhaps there is more than one ether as Einstein related was occurring in his day, at an Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden, in Germany.

The only fact here is that we are exploring the theoretical possibilities, we are in newly charted territory, and I think all ideas are worthy at this point. The only thoughts I find non-productive are those that blindly dismiss without basis or basis because they think their right. Almost everyone here has many valid points, and are unquestionably intelligent, I choose to give all the respect of paying their viewpoint the respect it deserves, because there is one thing I know that cannot be refuted, as a intelligent animal, we know SQUAT> :D

I don't agree with you here Clint.  I think that the real problem is precisely because you guys are way too intelligent.  You manage concepts that are indecently difficult to understand and impossibly difficult to explain.  What gets me down is that I'm not sure all this complexity is actually needed.  And I rather suspect that it's intended to  hide a welter of confusions that are simply never admitted.  Keep it simple stupid - is not a bad way to go.  Occam's razor?  But I'm with you when it comes to undue reverence for mainstream thinking.  If New Age is confused - then Mainstream are more so.  It's a rabbit's warren of twists and turns and qualifications and nonsense.  But its all done with a kind of intellectual flourish.  Very stylish.  That's when they pull the rabbit out of the hat.  LOL.  But it takes some looking to find out where they first took the wrong turn.   

Rosemary
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
From aetherevarising
Quote
But it takes some looking to find out where they first took the wrong turn.  

Bibhas De has some interesting thoughts on this in his : The Foundation Is The  Frontier" series.

http://www.bibhasde.com/physicsindex.html

http://www.bibhasde.com/

Takes a bit to get into the meat of the website. Some very humorous writing and stories.



---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Rosemary,

I will not disagree with any of your points, because they are your points and valid, and that is my point. We are a team, a team of forward thinkers. We have to think of concepts that are "indecently difficult to understand and impossibly difficult to explain".

Don't let it get you down, we must pursue the unknown. Many times we must think ridiculously complex to find "KISS" :)
   
Group: Guest
From aetherevarising
Bibhas De has some interesting thoughts on this in his : The Foundation Is The  Frontier" series.

http://www.bibhasde.com/physicsindex.html

http://www.bibhasde.com/

Takes a bit to get into the meat of the website. Some very humorous writing and stories.



many thanks for this Ion.  What a treat.  I've been rolling.  Just read Sir Bilko and his Amazing Sequined Dreamcoat.  I'm now going to read some more.  Nothing nicer than a dose of pure irreverence.  It clears the head.

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, 05:38:11