The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?  (Read 21477 times)

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #25 on: 24/02/2010 20:13:21 »
Space is space. It's complicated enough without adding a mysterious "aether" to it.
 

Offline jsaldea12

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #26 on: 24/02/2010 23:13:32 »
I agree. That frame dragging of spacetime, as announced by NASA, is not conclusive. But I agree, the aether of old and the new aether, which is one and the same, exists and can be proven, without doubt.


jsaldea12

2.25.10
« Last Edit: 24/02/2010 23:15:18 by jsaldea12 »
 

Offline jsaldea12

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #27 on: 24/02/2010 23:30:33 »
I agree: Einstein is not wrong. I have to say aether of old and new aether, just to make distinction terminology, but both are one and the same: when we take out the concept that aether of old is erroneously conceived of as “luminiferous”. But the existence of aether/spacetime can be proven.

Jsaldea12

2.25.10
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #28 on: 25/02/2010 04:11:57 »

IMHO, Einstein was not wrong. Although space with aether could be analytically understood in a hypothetical construt according to its assumptions (such as in Einstein theory of relativity), space without aether could not be comprehensive understood intuitively without the fundamental assumptions, therefore is unthinkable; it is just a leap of faith with the mathematical construct that accepts the "spooky action at a distance" as it is without addressing the causality. 

Typo error correction.

Instead of:

     Although space with aether could be analytically understood in a hypothetical construt....

It should be:

     Although space without aether could be analytically understood in a hypothetical construct....

Apology for the mistakes, especially the critical one.
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #29 on: 25/02/2010 04:24:39 »
Space is space. It's complicated enough without adding a mysterious "aether" to it.

You seems like stating space is invariant as in general term like it was referred to the 3D Eucidean space, or are you stating that space is variant like it was referred to the complex Minkowski space with four-dimensional real vector space in a mathematical construct used for special relativity?

Can you please clarify what you meant by your tautology on "Space is space", a simple definition would suffice.
« Last Edit: 25/02/2010 04:42:47 by Vincent »
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #30 on: 25/02/2010 04:41:58 »
But I agree, the aether of old and the new aether, which is one and the same, exists and can be proven, without doubt.jsaldea12

One can agree with a third party proposition, correct or not is another issue, but technically one cannot agree with his own proposition that is construed in his own opinion, especially if it is defined with self definition; this is self-referencing and therefore unfalsifiable.

Although you mentioned you agreed that frame dragging of spacetime, as announced by NASA, is not conclusive, yet you stated that "the aether of old and the new aether, which is one and the same, exists and can be proven, without doubt", this is a self contridicting statement; it is a logical fallacy that falls apart under its own context.

Logical arguments of such as quoted above would not help you at all in what you are positing.

« Last Edit: 25/02/2010 04:47:13 by Vincent »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #31 on: 25/02/2010 07:17:03 »
Whatever properties space (by whatever definition) has, it has those properties.
Sticking a new label like "aether" on it achieves nothing and promotes confusion. Relabelling it doesn't alter those properties.
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #32 on: 25/02/2010 09:18:33 »
Quote from: jsaldea12 in Redshift of all galaxies
..In his later life, in a press conference in which the press asked Dr. Einstein about his GR. Dr. Einstein remarked something like this, “I cannot anymore recognized my relativity.. so many hands had dipped their fingers into it”.

It is famously known that Einstein had mentioned: “Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity,I do not understand it myself anymore.” to rebut the mathematicians, but I have mot heard of what you have mentioned as quoted above. Was this in another language you have made the translation? Would you care to provide the source and the circumstances where and when Einstein said that? 
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #33 on: 25/02/2010 09:30:31 »
I agree: Einstein is not wrong. I have to say aether of old and new aether, just to make distinction terminology, but both are one and the same: when we take out the concept that aether of old is erroneously conceived of as “luminiferous”. But the existence of aether/spacetime can be proven.

I can understand your argument on aether and spacetime is the same thing, but why does the term "luminiferous" would make a different. Why do you think it is incorrect for the classical concept that postulate aether is the medium wherein light could propogate.   

You can say it is discernable that aether and spacetime is the same thing, but why did you say that the existence of aether/spacetime can be proven?
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #34 on: 25/02/2010 10:02:34 »
Whatever properties space (by whatever definition) has, it has those properties.
Sticking a new label like "aether" on it achieves nothing and promotes confusion. Relabelling it doesn't alter those properties.

Einstein coined the term "spacetime", in the lecture delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leyden, Einstein was trying to tell the world what he meant by spacetime.

It was not like a third party trying to interpet what Einstein meant by the word "spacetime", it was the author of "Theory of relativity" who had published his papers since 1905 thru 1915, which had thus began the era of modern physics, and Einstein by himself, not through another party, was trying to tell the world in 1920 with his definitions to clarify what he meant by spacetime.

Other then the 1920 lecture in the University of Leyden, Einstein had also made several notable astute statements on space and time, here are two of them:

“Time and space are modes in which we think
and not conditions in which we live.”
- Albert Einstein


“There is no space empty of field.” - Albert Einstein


 

Offline jsaldea12

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #35 on: 25/02/2010 10:20:00 »
Both of us agree: Einstein is not wrong.  But  permit to add further: that asether exists is not a matter of faith. It can be proven by scientists like us.

Jsaldea12

2.25.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #36 on: 25/02/2010 19:17:52 »
Both of us agree: Einstein is not wrong.  But  permit to add further: that asether exists is not a matter of faith. It can be proven by scientists like us.

Jsaldea12

2.25.


No.
We won't permit that.
The aether doesn't exist- if it did the M M experiment would have found it.

If you choose to label breakfast cereal as Aether then say because breakfast cereal exists then you know thar Aether exists you are being silly.
Choosing "spacetime" rather than "breakfast cereal" doesn't make it any less silly.
 

Offline jsaldea12

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #37 on: 26/02/2010 12:13:17 »
It is common knowledge, even to shcool children, that there exist gravitational fields that bind earth and moon, and sun and Milky Way. Whatever is that on which the bind is made is, that visibly raises millions of tons on earth,has substance, Who  questions that there is an invisible substance on which the bind is made as evidenced by the ocular raising of millions of tons of water on earth?.Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, it is real.

jsaldea12

2.24.10
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #38 on: 26/02/2010 13:43:55 »
Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, it is real.

I think you're both arguing the same point - it's normally called spacetime, why bother calling it aether?
 

Offline Vincent

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Universal Vortical Singularity
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #39 on: 26/02/2010 14:56:20 »
Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, it is real.

I think you're both arguing the same point - it's normally called spacetime, why bother calling it aether?

There are clear distinctions.

In mathematical relativism, the concept of spacetime continuum posit space is empty, space and time are interchangeable in the 4D hypothetical construct and they both are variants. This is the modern physics concept that currently dominates mainstrean in its thought.

The concept of aether postulates this medium is all pervasive in space, this concept posit space and time are invariants. This is the classical physics concept.

These different concepts would lead to entirely different propositions in their hypotheses for the same empirically observed phenomena when different definitions for time and space were adopted. The twin paradox in special relativity is one exanple, despite this hypothesis was widely popular among the mathematical relativists, Einstein did not endorse it. A few of some other examples are the quantitatively proven relativistic muon experiment and the atomic clock experiment. Richard Fenyman cited the anornalies for the muon experiment and did not endorse that it was referred to reality, only suggest to adopt it because it works and it was useful in applied science baring no better understanding of it was available. As for the atomic clock experiment, it had led to opposite opinions for was it time that had became slower or was it the atomic clock that had become slower in higher gravitational potential. These have repurcusions to other extraplolated relativistic theories such as time travel and those active transformations in special relativity that were construed and deduced in mathematical treatments.     

Food for thought.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2010 15:20:18 by Vincent »
 

Offline jsaldea12

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #40 on: 27/02/2010 01:22:05 »
I agree, too..that there exist gravitational fields that bind earth and moon, and sun and Milky Way. Whatever is that on which the bind is made (that visibly raises millions of tons on earth)has substance, Who  questions that there is an invisible substance on which the bind is made as evidenced by the ocular raising of millions of tons of water on earth?.Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, it is real.

jsaldea12

2.27.10
« Last Edit: 27/02/2010 01:24:42 by jsaldea12 »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #41 on: 27/02/2010 10:13:06 »
"Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, "
Vincent just took the trouble to tell you exactly what difference it does make.
 

Offline jsaldea12

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #42 on: 28/02/2010 11:44:09 »
Bored chemist, how about trying to have a grip of reality?


jsaldea12

2.28.10
 

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1451
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #43 on: 28/02/2010 12:18:10 »
lol
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #44 on: 28/02/2010 16:02:05 »
Bored chemist, how about trying to have a grip of reality?


jsaldea12

2.28.10

I'm sure that most people will understand if I keep a grip on my reality, rather than trying to get to grips with yours.
 

Offline jsaldea12

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #45 on: 01/03/2010 02:43:09 »


bUT IT IS MY PLEASURE TO KNOW YOU....WE ARE BOTH MEN OF SCIENCE.  REGARDS.


JSALDEA12

2.29.10
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #46 on: 01/03/2010 07:00:33 »
Then try learning stuff.
 

Offline jsaldea12

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #47 on: 01/03/2010 13:02:00 »


You still dont believe aether, spacetime exists, do you,a chemist.


jsaldea12

3.1.10
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #48 on: 01/03/2010 15:15:53 »
You still dont believe aether, spacetime exists, do you,a chemist.

How many times?  He is saying that what you are calling aether, everyone else calls spacetime - he's not denying that spacetime exists.

Vincent explained very neatly why these should be separate entities (thanks Vincent).
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #49 on: 01/03/2010 20:51:18 »


You still dont believe aether, spacetime exists, do you,a chemist.


jsaldea12

3.1.10

Trust me I know exactly what ether is- I'm a chemist- and what aether is- it's an old myth like phlogiston or N rays.

I also know that spacetime is real. I'm in it.
What you don't understand is that it no more helpful or sensible to call spacetime "aether" than it is to call it  breakfast cereal.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to dtect ether?
« Reply #49 on: 01/03/2010 20:51:18 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length