0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You have made a series of assertions without any evidence backing up those assertions. An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed.
According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;"
Quote from: pasala on 20/11/2022 13:31:23According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;" That is incorrect, GR (and SR) work without assuming the existence of an ether.Can you please describe an experiment that can detect the ether.
The existence or nonexistence of God is similarly unprovable. However, on the basis of causality and most certainly NOT religious faith, I strongly believe there is an intelligence behind the creation/operation of this universe, call it what you may.
The disproof is that, whatever properties you assign to it turn out to be inconsistent with experiment. Same as God.
If you name your pet cat as "Aether" then you can say the aether exists.But it doesn't tell you anything about physics.If you name "lines of force" as "Aether" then you can say the aether exists.But it doesn't tell you anything about physics.
In specific terms, we don't know what exactly this aether is?
Ok, the speed of light in vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second. By creating vacuum, we are taking away different particles, that are present in the air. Basic idea of aether is that, light waves needs a medium to propagate.
Since light travels with maximum speed in vacuum, we came to a conclusion that light needs no medium.
Does this particles present in air aiding light.
Actually, an atom absorbs a photon and releases electrons.
In other words we are only removing obstacles. Naturally, light travels with maximum speed as there are no obstacles.
It is incorrect, if we say that, by creating vacuum, we are taking away or removing the aether or the medium that is aiding or helping in propagation of light.
Some of the great scientists such as Lorentz failed to get any result.
Quote from: pasala on 04/12/2022 05:29:54Some of the great scientists such as Lorentz failed to get any result. No.They got a result.The result was "there is no ether".
As assumed by Descartes, there is no place for magnet,
It he had so, science will be in different shape.
Descartes has got a big doubt, how these magnets identify a like and unlike poles. He assumed that there is an invisible field with which these magnets are interacting and identifying it. This is not a feature or quality of magnets.Space is not empty and it is completely filled with particles. It is completely wrong to say that magnet creates its field.As assumed by Descartes, there is no place for magnet, like ordinary matter, it has to create its own. It pushes ether particles in the space. Due to attraction, more particles are attracted towards the magnet. So, it results in magnetic field. Magnet = magnetic field (draws particles from space).So, it clearly tells us that, ether or Luminiferous ether or light bearing ether is not hardest substance like steel. Further it also clearly tells us that there is direct relationship between magnet and aether. Attraction of particles towards magnet clearly tells us that ether is spread every where in the space. It also gives us an idea that ether is not a separate substance or medium. Magnetic field clearly tells us that ether consists of particles only.As assumed by Lorentz, the condition of this aether at a place can be described by the electric field E and the magnetic field H, where these fields represent the "states" of the aether, with no further specification, related to the charges of the electrons.Ok, if we move the magnet, its field is not lost. It clearly tells us that ether is so dense that it is very difficult to separate them. However if we move the magnet at the speed of light, its field is lost. At that speed, it is very difficult for particles in the space to join magnet.