The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: has aether been disproved  (Read 11928 times)

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
has aether been disproved
« Reply #25 on: 23/09/2010 08:55:11 »
But then it's just "the vacuum" by another name.  I think the reason aether has been dropped is because the original theory specified a material with very specific properties and the vacuum was found not to be filled with or made up of this material.  The modern idea of how the vacuum behaves and how light propagates through it is so different from the original aether theories that it doesn't make sense to use the name anymore. 

I do agree that the vacuum is a kind of "stuff."  The word vacuum shouldn't be taken to mean an absolute void--if that were the case, then light couldn't propagate through it!
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
has aether been disproved
« Reply #26 on: 23/09/2010 09:37:33 »
I wrote "The mystery of this 'cube' is that it can shrink with appearant motion at the same time as an uniform motion inside a black box, again as far as I get it, is impossible to differ from any other uniform motion at a different speed, relative some common originator."

Let us apply some 'logic' to that statement. Either I am right in that you can't differ one uniform motion from another, in which case the idea of SpaceTime adapting to your 'appearant motion' becomes very weird.

Or I'm wrong.

So, anyone wanna tell me how to differ the 'velocity' in a uniform motion, inside that black box?

Can there be a third possibility? How about if all 'motion' etc, just as 'frames of reference', is a definition from exactly the 'point' you are, consciously perceiving it or not? Just as 'time' seems to be? A statement made from each point. Would that make it possible for SpaceTime to adapt to something we can't differ?

Sure, I guess? If we all have our own 'unique' SpaceTime, why not. Like a 'backpack' of relations you carry around with you, going all the way from the microscopic to the macroscopic. But hey, how the he* can anything like that still present us with this 'whole relation' of a 'united SpaceTime?

Don't know?
How can time do it?
==

Not really huh :)

It seems to introduce a 'magic universe', as from what definition would my 'bag pack' decide to 'shrink the universe' and why? We could assume that I slept under a acceleration, then woke up to measure distances not knowing, I would still get the same results, wouldn't I?

So the 'shrinking' have to be something related to my 'point of existence', but unrelated to my expectations.
I hate this :) well, no, not really ::))
« Last Edit: 23/09/2010 09:48:38 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
has aether been disproved
« Reply #27 on: 23/09/2010 10:07:54 »
The weird thing about it is that it circumstances all logic I can think of. Also it introduces a element of 'objectivity' to a situation where I can't find any 'universal gold-standard' taking care of it. Assume that all 'motion' is a definition from the 'history' of your 'point of reference', also assume that the universe truly shrinks with it.

How does it differ between me 'moving' or not?
Think of it this way, you're moving uniformly, close to light speed, and send out a photon.
As you measure it it will move from you at the speed of light, not as something 'syrupy' that you almost  :) can catch up to, but really, at 'the speed of light' relative you. :)

What do I have there?

Either I'm moving close to light-speed, as defined by some common origin, or I'm not. But that light 'ignored' it, in the act also telling me that my 'frame' is 'inconsistent'. Would it differ if I was accelerating instead doing the same test? Not really, the light would act the same. So it has nothing to do with what type of 'motion' is created. But, acceleration we expect to be able to define from inside a 'black box', at least the non-linear type, uniform motion we can't? So if we can't differ it, how can the Universe? Either there is a logic to the universe, making sense to me too. Or the logic the universe use is very different from how I see it?
==

And yeah, an 'aether' might solve it? At least the question of how to define the 'speed/velocity' of a 'uniform motion' :) But if it exist it's nothing we can see, or prove. Although? If we can't explain how the universe can differ between 'uniform motions' ??

« Last Edit: 23/09/2010 10:35:32 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
has aether been disproved
« Reply #28 on: 23/09/2010 11:22:36 »
The real question is about what 'motion' should be seen as of course :) On Earth we have it easy, we always know if we are in motion relative it. But when you ask what 'motion' is generally it becomes weird. If all frames will present us with 'new standards' using lights invariance as the arbiter, then every 'frame' becomes a 'dimension/SpaceTime' of its own, and just as 'frames of reference', or for that sake time, impossible to define as 'instants'.

That you 'freeze' a moment of time in making a observation tells you nothing about what time, 'frames of reference', or motion in 'reality' consists of. It doesn't define it as 'instants', and neither you may argue does it prove it to be a 'flow'.

That I like to think of it as a flow has mostly to do with the problem of 'gluing' them together, that's also why I expect 'forces' to be expressions of something 'whole' somewhere :) And it's also one of the reasons why I wonder if light have a 'motion'?
==

Ignore my ravings.
Just tell me how to differ a 'uniform motion' from another inside a 'black box' :)
« Last Edit: 23/09/2010 12:41:43 by yor_on »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
has aether been disproved
« Reply #29 on: 23/09/2010 20:59:55 »
But then it's just "the vacuum" by another name.  I think the reason aether has been dropped is because the original theory specified a material with very specific properties and the vacuum was found not to be filled with or made up of this material.  The modern idea of how the vacuum behaves and how light propagates through it is so different from the original aether theories that it doesn't make sense to use the name anymore. 

I do agree that the vacuum is a kind of "stuff."  The word vacuum shouldn't be taken to mean an absolute void--if that were the case, then light couldn't propagate through it!

OK - I like that. I was under the misguided impression that it was commonly accepted that space was truly nothingness, and I have a suspicion that I may not be alone, but I could never reconcile how something that was not anything could have any properties at all - if you see what I mean.

Maybe I should start another thread. How about "What the bleep is space?"
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
has aether been disproved
« Reply #30 on: 24/09/2010 07:48:55 »
I think a problem with current theories is that general relativity and quantum mechanics both describe the vacuum as having properties, but those properties don't agree! 

Quantum field theory, for example, says that a vacuum isn't actually empty.  The only way things can move through a vacuum is if the underlying fields are present everywhere.  These fields have properties, and so the vacuum has properties.  In a sense, you could call this an aether, but its properties aren't like those proposed for the luminiferous aether, since these fields don't behave like matter.  That's why I think it's a bit confusing to call it aether.

There's also general relativity, in which the vacuum can distort in response to matter or energy.  The vacuum also has geometric properties here, but again, these are quite different from those of the luminiferous aether.

The thing is that if you're not dealing with tiny things (quantum mechanics) or large scales/strong gravity (general relativity), treating the vacuum as completely empty is perfectly valid.
 

Offline acsinuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
    • electricmagnofluxuniverse.blogspot.com
has aether been disproved
« Reply #31 on: 27/09/2010 17:45:22 »
I always thing of aether as the medium through which light, magnetism and radio signals can be transmitted.  It is a 3D effect and the vacuum in space must be magnetized also. Space is not empty but a fully electrified volume of ? massless ?aether
CliveS
 

Offline rwjefferson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
has aether been disproved
« Reply #32 on: 02/10/2010 22:05:57 »
hindsight.101

Kind and well reasoned responses are all ways greatly appreciated.

I never said aether does not propagate light.  I said force in verse everything is inertial differential.  I said shape is not the same as force.  I said m&m were looking in the wrong direction.  I said...

physics.101
force is inertial differential
mass tends toward relative rest
matter flows towards lower pressure
inflation forces condensation
matter is energy in verse mass by spacetime constant
as wave is better measured; relative measure of particle is lost 

aether.101
space is also fluent
time is a measure of the relative flow of aether
gravity is also a measure of the aether wind
the relative viscosity of aether is hubble by the speed of light constant
light is an electromagnetic wave propagated by particles of quantum aether
as the relative velocity of aether exceeds c; waves cannot escape the flow
to measure the relative velocity by vector of the aether wind; stand on a scale; look up

Aether predicts dark matter and dark energy and acceleration by galactic vortex and drag on pioneering spaceships and even the accelerating expansion of the universe; shape (i.e. dome and sphere and warp and string) does not.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Offer your extraordinary observation that is not consistent with aether and inertial differential.   

I am
ItS
r~
 

Offline CPT ArkAngel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 584
  • Thanked: 3 times
    • View Profile
has aether been disproved
« Reply #33 on: 04/10/2010 06:37:56 »
The only way aether can exist is if it is extra dimensions. This dimensions are not associated with time in our dimensions but it implies that it would be associated with a different time dimension than ours, because light doesn't possess a constant speed in that medium, but it interacts with matter...
« Last Edit: 04/10/2010 13:06:24 by CPT ArkAngel »
 

Offline Ron Hughes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
    • View Profile
has aether been disproved
« Reply #34 on: 04/10/2010 16:34:04 »
The first paragraph in this post explains of what your aether is composed.  http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34333.msg325530#msg325530
 

Offline acsinuk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
    • electricmagnofluxuniverse.blogspot.com
has aether been disproved
« Reply #35 on: 06/10/2010 10:05:15 »
Hi Ron
A chap called Urban came up with a similar idea but light is electromagnetic not electro static. 3D electricity is electromagnetic as well a light but both are massless and therefore have nothing to do with particles or electrons [apart from the holes in the outer shell]. I agree with JP that vacuum is made of a kind of "stuff" and would add magnetic flux stuff.
CliveS
 

Offline rwjefferson

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
has aether been disproved
« Reply #36 on: 28/10/2010 23:46:15 »
science vs dogma.101
acsinuk
I will agree aether is not disproved; much less a new theory. 
CPTArkAngel
I will agree quantum aether predicts other dimensions.   

uncertanity.101
Ron
I will agree light is a wave of electromagnetic energy and energy is equally the opposite of mass by spacetime constant and e=mc^2 and f=ma and f=(e/c^2)a et al that follows. 
rami
m&m predicted earth cycles through a luminiferous ether.  There are no findings consistent with the hypothesis that aether is not fluent.

relativity.101
force is inertial differential
relative equivalence is not the same as same as
shape is not the same as force
warp is a mathematical calculation of the shape of the universe
warp is not the same as inertial differential

science.101
kind and well reasoned responses even critical debates are always greatly appreciated
evangelism and censorship in the name of dogma not so much

force is inertial differential

peace
ron
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

has aether been disproved
« Reply #36 on: 28/10/2010 23:46:15 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums