Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: kymere on 08/04/2017 17:31:16

Title: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: kymere on 08/04/2017 17:31:16
How can something without mass carry energy/force in three dimensional space? This leads me to believe that our three dimensional reality is actually enacted upon by four dimensional forces and waves that carry information through space-time to give the illusion of time. Gravity would be similar to bending a piece of paper where the two dimensional distance would remain the same but since light would move across the paper, more light would hypothetically be able to fit inside this "bend" in space-time.

All feed back is appreciated :)
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: GoC on 09/04/2017 11:56:28
Yes, transfer energy. Bend is dilation gradient for gravity. Spin direction for magnetism. Shell balance for electrons. The medium we call the spectrum is probably an energy spectrum. That is probably why the MMX failed to detect it. You cannot measure something when you are part of the measurement. That is equivalent to sitting in a chair and trying to lift the chair and yourself with your hands and arms.
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: kymere on 10/04/2017 17:07:26
And this is what quantum theory suggests correct, with the particles and the types of energy/force they carry? Could this be seen as some type of "fourth dimensional space-time fabric" in which gravity, light, magnetism act on? I wonder if different perspectives of math could give a better view of how these forces enact upon the 3rd dimension and relating this to black holes. Good analogy by the way, thanks :).
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: impyre on 15/04/2017 17:30:46
I didn't think aether was still considered a thing...
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: McQueen on 16/04/2017 16:04:48
Quote
Impyre: I didn't think aether was still considered a thing...
I hope the statement above does not imply that  the aether is no longer in contention because you  believe it is out of contention ?

That would be a great pity because several really outstanding minds did believe that a substance such as the aether must exist. For instance this is what Sir Isaac Newton had to say about the aether:

Newton in his eighteenth century query in Optics asks the questions:

"Is not the heat of a warm  room conveyed through the vacuum by the virtue  of a medium  much subtler than air, and is not the  medium the same as that medium by which light is reflected and refracted , or by whose vibrations light communicates heat to bodies.  And do not the vibrations of this medium in hot bodies communicate their heat to contiguous cold ones by the vibrations of this medium propagated from them into cold ones ? And is not this medium exceedingly more rare and subtle than air, and exceedingly more elastic and active ? 

Thus it can be seen that Newton was of the opinion that heat consists in a minute vibratory motion of the particles of bodies and that such motion was communicated through what he calls a vacuum by the vibrations of an elastic medium, the aether, which was also concerned in the phenomena of light.  What is fascinating here is that Newton with his usual acuity and insight seems to have grasped the concept that a medium was necessary to the propagation of heat as well as of light. Equally interesting is the manner in which he rules out air as being the medium in question not once but many times and most emphatically.   Later on he gives his views on why he considers a medium a necessity :

“It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be, if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Mathematica Principia

It would be interesting to note why you think an aether is not necessary and why.

Still later Newton gives a description of what the physical attributes of such an aether must be and the function that it fulfils:

“Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centers of the sun and the planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes used to do) , but according to the quantity of solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to great distances , decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the distances……But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses (Hypotheses non fingo); for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. “Isaac Newton, Mathematica Principia.

One could probably think about the matter for a very long time and not come up with a better description of what qualities a medium such as the aether should possess.

The other great believer in the aether with a standing almost equal to that of Newton was none other than Albert Einstein:

Thus, in its most basic form, aether is nothing more than a distributed physical medium permeating the entire universe, endowing it [space] with measurable physical qualities. Einstein readily acknowledged this when, in 1920 (See "Sidelights on Relativity", A. Einstein, Dover Edition 1983 Page 23), he said:

"… space is endowed with physical qualities;
in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."


Here is Einstein in his Leiden lectures of 1928 being even more emphatic about the existence of an aether:

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time. (Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)

Other famous men of science who believed in the existence of an aether like medium are Henrik Lorentz, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell and Poincare, to name just a very few of the huge number of distinguished names who believed in the existsence of an aether . So maybe it is not a subject to be as airily dismissed as you seem to imply. 
 
Lastly here is a statement released by the CERN Large Hadron Collider laboratory in 2015:

According to theory, there are countless electric dipoles created by virtual particles in any given volume of the quantum vacuum. All of these electric dipoles are randomly oriented—like countless compass needles pointing every which way. But if the dipoles form in the presence of an existing electric field, they immediately align along the same direction as the field.
 




Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: PhysBang on 16/04/2017 17:00:49
For instance this is what Sir Isaac Newton had to say about the aether:

Newton in his eighteenth century query in Optics asks the questions:

"Is not the heat of a warm  room conveyed through the vacuum by the virtue  of a medium  much subtler than air, and is not the  medium the same as that medium by which light is reflected and refracted , or by whose vibrations light communicates heat to bodies.  And do not the vibrations of this medium in hot bodies communicate their heat to contiguous cold ones by the vibrations of this medium propagated from them into cold ones ? And is not this medium exceedingly more rare and subtle than air, and exceedingly more elastic and active ? 

Thus it can be seen that Newton was of the opinion that heat consists in a minute vibratory motion of the particles of bodies and that such motion was communicated through what he calls a vacuum by the vibrations of an elastic medium, the aether, which was also concerned in the phenomena of light.
I find it hard to believe that Newton had the theory that heat was the vibration of particles. It was much later that this theory became viable. Of course, Newton believed a lot of things that weren't viable. Do you have any other source for this claim about Newton? I haven't read much of his heat stuff.

Quote
What is fascinating here is that Newton with his usual acuity and insight seems to have grasped the concept that a medium was necessary to the propagation of heat as well as of light.
It is interesting in that contemporary science has determined that neither require a medium.

 
Quote
Still later Newton gives a description of what the physical attributes of such an aether must be and the function that it fulfils:

“Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power. This is certain, that it must proceed from a cause that penetrates to the very centers of the sun and the planets, without suffering the least diminution of its force; that operates not according to the quantity of the surfaces of the particles upon which it acts (as mechanical causes used to do) , but according to the quantity of solid matter which they contain, and propagates its virtue on all sides to great distances , decreasing always in the duplicate proportion of the distances……But hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypotheses (Hypotheses non fingo); for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. “Isaac Newton, Mathematica Principia.

One could probably think about the matter for a very long time and not come up with a better description of what qualities a medium such as the aether should possess.
Newton is there relying on the work of any people who were working on a particulate theory of gravity/celestial motion. His point is that these theories haven't be made to work, and if they could be made to work, then they have to obey the relationships established in the Principia. Specifically, Newton is saying that just because you can't come up with a particulate theory (or an aether theory) to fit the science, that isn't reason enough to throw out the science.

Quote
The other great believer in the aether with a standing almost equal to that of Newton was none other than Albert Einstein:
This is another myth that has been passed around the internet. It is simply not true; only by distorting the context of Einstein's remarks can anyone come up with anything close to an endorsement of the aether theories.
Quote
Thus, in its most basic form, aether is nothing more than a distributed physical medium permeating the entire universe, endowing it [space] with measurable physical qualities. Einstein readily acknowledged this when, in 1920 (See "Sidelights on Relativity", A. Einstein, Dover Edition 1983 Page 23), he said:

"… space is endowed with physical qualities;
in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether."

Exactly, Einstein endorsed one aspect of aether theories in a sense otherwise entirely removed from the history and content of all aether theories. People who say that Einstein supported aether theories are simply trying to deceive others.


Quote
Here is Einstein in his Leiden lectures of 1928 being even more emphatic about the existence of an aether:
 

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time. (Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden Lecture)
Again, Einstein is using one and only one element from aether theories and absolutely nothing else.
Quote
Other famous men of science who believed in the existence of an aether like medium are Henrik Lorentz, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell and Poincare, to name just a very few of the huge number of distinguished names who believed in the existsence of an aether .
The above passage is a classic example of an inappropriate appeal to authority. There are excellent scientific reasons to reject the positions that the above people took on aether theories; to invoke someone merely because they are famous and to ignore the relevant content of their work and subsequent work is poor scholarship. In this case, one may infer that the author intended to deceive their audience.
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: McQueen on 17/04/2017 02:25:11
Quote
Phys Bang:  I find it hard to believe that Newton had the theory that heat was the vibration of particles. It was much later that this theory became viable. Of course, Newton believed a lot of things that weren't viable. Do you have any other source for this claim about Newton? I haven't read much of his heat stuff.


The  quote in the OP was taken from Newton's 'Optics'. Here is what he says in the foreword to the book:

My Design in this Book is not to explain the Properties of Light by Hypotheses, but to propose and prove them by Reason and Experiments.
 
Here is his experiment on transfer of heat:

If in two large tall cylindrical Vessels of Glass inverted, two little Thermometers be suspended so as not to touch the Vessels, and the Air be drawn out of one of these Vessels, and these Vessels thus prepared be carried out of a cold place into a warm one; the Thermometer in vacuo will grow warm as much, and almost as soon as the Thermometer which is not in vacuo. And when the Vessels are carried back into a cold place, the Thermometer in vacuo will grow cold almost as soon as the other Thermometer.

In case you couldn't follow that, here was his explanation:

Is not the Heat of the warm Room convey’d through the Vacuum by the Vibrations of a much subtiler Medium than Air, which after the Air was drawn out remained in the Vacuum?

What do you say about a medium now ?

Quote
Phys Bang: It is interesting in that contemporary science has determined that neither require a medium.


Of course a medium is required, if not the speed of light would be infinite and light would travel instantaneously from one point to another.

Quote
Phys Bang: Exactly, Einstein endorsed one aspect of aether theories in a sense otherwise entirely removed from the history and content of all aether theories. People who say that Einstein supported aether theories are simply trying to deceive others.


Look Einstein may have been a lot of things but he wasn't God, he never claimed he was. He was as fallible as you and me. What he did was to replace the proof that  the aether existed provided by Lorentz and Fitzgerald  namely that things grew shorter when facing into the aether and that time maybe dilated and that that was the reason that the aether was not detected.  This half humorous explanation of why the aether could not be detected was taken at face value by Einstein  who replaced the speed of light as constant with the aether as being the causative factor for these phenomena . So what is the basis of this massive belief that you have in Einstein ? A half humorous suggestion in defense of an aether that could not be detected ?  Where is the solid proof that time actually dilates or that things get shorter in the direction of the aether.

It would be different if clocks actually showed that the one way time taken by light was the same as the two way time. THEN, yes, there would be ample reason to question how such a bizarre phenomenon could take place. THEN there would be real and ample grounds to think that this is in fact how the Universe works. But unfortunately clocks just show the real time, so it is all conjecture. If you have read anything about Neo-Classical (GAT) Theory, you must realise that a much better explanation is given for the speed of light being constant, namely that it is travelling through a medium.  If you think about it Einstein's theory of the constancy of the speed of light is extremely shaky in the light of the fact that it changes so easily when it enters a different medium.

Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: GoC on 17/04/2017 14:54:16
Just the fact that the electron and photon are confounded in every frame proves a medium by logic. Only the frivolous thinker could conceive of a uncontrolled constant. The very structure of space produces the inverse square of the distance for volume, gravity, spectrum waves and magnetism. Math is never the cause of physics. Physbangs view is a math view of effect without a cause. A very unintelligent view of something for nothing. The more intelligent thinkers understood the need for cause of an effect. Just because we can not detect the cause directly (although we do indirectly) is just proof of our limitation and not proof of our unlimited ability.

I am glad to see McQueen has a logical mind that understands math is not magic.
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: PhysBang on 17/04/2017 17:12:01
The  quote in the OP was taken from Newton's 'Optics'.

<Irrelevant quotations omited>
Let's look at what Newton says in Proposition XII of Opticks:
"What kind of action or disposition this is; Whether it consists in a circulating or a vibrating motion of the Ray, or of the Medium, or something else, I do not here enquire. Those that are averse from assenting to any new Discoveries, but such as they can explain by an Hypothesis, may for the present suppose, that as Stones by falling upon Water put the Water into an undulating Motion, and all Bodies by percussion excite vibrations in the Air; so the Rays of Light, by impinging on any refracting or reflecting Surface, excite vibrations in the refracting or reflecting Medium or Substance, and by exciting them agitate the solid parts of the refracting or reflecting Body, and by agitating them cause the Body to grow warm or hot; that the vibrations thus excited are propagated in the refracting or reflecting Medium or Substance, much after the manner that vibrations are propagated in the Air for causing Sound, and move faster than the Rays so as to overtake them; and that when any Ray is in that part of the vibration which conspires with its Motion, it easily breaks through a refracting Surface, but when it is in the contrary part of the vibration which impedes its Motion, it is easily reflected; and, by consequence, that every Ray is successively disposed to be easily reflected, or easily transmitted, by every vibration which overtakes it. But whether this Hypothesis be true or false[Pg 281] I do not here consider. I content my self with the bare Discovery, that the Rays of Light are by some cause or other alternately disposed to be reflected or refracted for many vicissitudes."

That is, Newton says, I'm not going to commit to a hypothesis that there is some vibrating medium or that heat transfer takes place through vibration.
Quote
What do you say about a medium now ?
That there is right now no good reason to suppose there is a special one for electromagnetism and reasons to suppose that there is not.

Quote
Quote
Phys Bang: It is interesting in that contemporary science has determined that neither require a medium.


Of course a medium is required, if not the speed of light would be infinite and light would travel instantaneously from one point to another.
So you say, without any supporting reason. I can find no credible argument to support your claim. Just as one should reject your improper appeals to authority, so too one should reject your appeal to your own authority.

Quote
Look Einstein may have been a lot of things but he wasn't God, he never claimed he was. He was as fallible as you and me. What he did was to replace the proof that  the aether existed provided by Lorentz and Fitzgerald  namely that things grew shorter when facing into the aether and that time maybe dilated and that that was the reason that the aether was not detected.  This half humorous explanation of why the aether could not be detected was taken at face value by Einstein  who replaced the speed of light as constant with the aether as being the causative factor for these phenomena . So what is the basis of this massive belief that you have in Einstein ? A half humorous suggestion in defense of an aether that could not be detected ?  Where is the solid proof that time actually dilates or that things get shorter in the direction of the aether.
Are you kidding?

On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies is not a half humorous explanation of the aether. You can read it yourself:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

You can find your own remedial information on the evidence for special and general relativity through a google search. Or you can read Clifford Will's book "Was Einstein Right?" or his university textbook on the subject.
Quote
It would be different if clocks actually showed that the one way time taken by light was the same as the two way time. THEN, yes, there would be ample reason to question how such a bizarre phenomenon could take place. THEN there would be real and ample grounds to think that this is in fact how the Universe works. But unfortunately clocks just show the real time, so it is all conjecture. If you have read anything about Neo-Classical (GAT) Theory, you must realise that a much better explanation is given for the speed of light being constant, namely that it is travelling through a medium.  If you think about it Einstein's theory of the constancy of the speed of light is extremely shaky in the light of the fact that it changes so easily when it enters a different medium.
Ah, yes, the "Wah! Science is hard!" objection.

You've tried to deceive people with improper citation. You are either grossly ignorant of the available evidence or you just deny it. If you can provide a theory that does better on the evidence, then go get your Nobel prize.
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: PhysBang on 17/04/2017 17:14:21
Just the fact that the electron and photon are confounded in every frame proves a medium by logic.
They do that every time a unicorn is involved.
Quote
Only the frivolous thinker could conceive of a uncontrolled constant. The very structure of space produces the inverse square of the distance for volume, gravity, spectrum waves and magnetism. Math is never the cause of physics. Physbangs view is a math view of effect without a cause. A very unintelligent view of something for nothing. The more intelligent thinkers understood the need for cause of an effect. Just because we can not detect the cause directly (although we do indirectly) is just proof of our limitation and not proof of our unlimited ability.
My view is the same as Newton's view, as I noted above: if you have a theory, it has to match the way that we measure the universe to behave.

I am glad to see McQueen has a logical mind that understands math is not magic.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: McQueen on 18/04/2017 14:16:04
Quote
GoC :Physbangs view is a math view of effect without a cause. A very unintelligent view of something for nothing. The more intelligent thinkers understood the need for cause of an effect.


Hear! Hear!  But at least he seems to think that I am in the running for a Nobel prize, or what is more likely, that I think I am in the running for a Nobel prize. Speaking of which, how come Einstein was never awarded the Nobel prize ? Surely, unifying space and time AND forming the concept of a curved space time are more than deserving of such a prize? What could be the reason for this horrible oversight ?  Could it be that the basics of SR and GR were just a little too illogical for the prize too be bestowed ? The Nobel Prize committee don't seem to regret it either!

Elaborating on this just a little. Let's see exactly how illogical this sounds.  OK,  so Einstein claimed that if you had two points say one in London and the other in New York,  and that if you tried to measure the distance between the two cities by sending a light beam between them. Only the distance travelled by the beam from London to New York and back again would be accurate (isotropic) . However when the distance from London to New York one way is measured, it turns out to be wrong because there is no possible way in which to synchronise the two clocks. If the clocks were checked and appeared to show the expected time lapse, this was only because the clocks actually ran slower and that distances got shortened. OK, leave light alone for the moment and return to the chains used in the early surveys, surely measuring the distance between two cities say London and Portsmouth could be accurately measured by this method and the time taken for light to travel between these two cities verified ? Surely it should be possible? Not so says Einstein, the chain used to measure the distance will get longer so that the time taken for light to travel the two way distance from London to Portsmouth and back again was the same as the time taken for light to travel from London to Portsmouth.  If  it sounds illogical when put in this manner, that's probably because it is illogical.

Quote
PhysBang: I find it hard to believe that Newton had the theory that heat was the vibration of particles. It was much later that this theory became viable. Of course, Newton believed a lot of things that weren't viable. Do you have any other source for this claim about Newton? I haven't read much of his heat stuff.


It looks as if PhysBang has been able to exert himself a little and to ascertain that Newton, even as early as the  late 1600s  and early 1700s, did indeed have a theory that heat was due to the vibration of particles. Here is the quote that  he (PhysBang) had used from Optics:

  so the Rays of Light, by impinging on any refracting or reflecting Surface, excite vibrations in the refracting or reflecting Medium or Substance, and by exciting them agitate the solid parts of the refracting or reflecting Body, and by agitating them cause the Body to grow warm or hot;

Quote
PhysBang:  On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies is not a half humorous explanation of the aether.


Oh! but historically it is. How else would it be possible to come up with such  a crazy theory? Neo-Classical (GAT) Physics on the other hand offers  a cogent well knit together and put together explanation of every possible subject under the sun; from electromagnetism to how the aether was formed, the properties of the aether, the manner of  dispersion of electromagnetic radiation, gravity, super conductivity, radio waves, super gravity, neutrinos. Every subject which is mentioned can be accurately calculated using straightforward mathematics. It will be possible to tell the strength of an electromagnetic field at any point, it explains the nature of near and far fields, it tells how permanent magnetism forms.  In short it is a much more cogent theory than either special relativity or General Relativity which are convoluted, use nonsensical and illogical arguments, (some of which can be seen in the third paragraph above) and in the end explain very little.   

Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: PhysBang on 18/04/2017 17:41:05
Quote
GoC :Physbangs view is a math view of effect without a cause. A very unintelligent view of something for nothing. The more intelligent thinkers understood the need for cause of an effect.


Hear! Hear!  But at least he seems to think that I am in the running for a Nobel prize, or what is more likely, that I think I am in the running for a Nobel prize. Speaking of which, how come Einstein was never awarded the Nobel prize ?
McQueen is really great on the facts of the history of science: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/

(PS, I was writing sarcastically, McQueen is either very bad at the history of science or they are a bad liar.)

Quote
Surely, unifying space and time AND forming the concept of a curved space time are more than deserving of such a prize? What could be the reason for this horrible oversight ?  Could it be that the basics of SR and GR were just a little too illogical for the prize too be bestowed ? The Nobel Prize committee don't seem to regret it either!

Elaborating on this just a little. Let's see exactly how illogical this sounds.  OK,  so Einstein claimed that if you had two points say one in London and the other in New York,  and that if you tried to measure the distance between the two cities by sending a light beam between them. Only the distance travelled by the beam from London to New York and back again would be accurate (isotropic) . However when the distance from London to New York one way is measured, it turns out to be wrong because there is no possible way in which to synchronise the two clocks.
That's absolutely not what he wrote. He actually demonstrated a way to synchronize clocks that, if one accepts the procedure, leads to the development of SR.

Quote
OK, leave light alone for the moment and return to the chains used in the early surveys, surely measuring the distance between two cities say London and Portsmouth could be accurately measured by this method and the time taken for light to travel between these two cities verified ? Surely it should be possible? Not so says Einstein, the chain used to measure the distance will get longer so that the time taken for light to travel the two way distance from London to Portsmouth and back again was the same as the time taken for light to travel from London to Portsmouth.  If  it sounds illogical when put in this manner, that's probably because it is illogical.
It might sound wrong because it is McQueen Relativity, not special relativity or general relativity.
Quote
It looks as if PhysBang has been able to exert himself a little and to ascertain that Newton, even as early as the  late 1600s  and early 1700s, did indeed have a theory that heat was due to the vibration of particles. Here is the quote that  he (PhysBang) had used from Optics:

  so the Rays of Light, by impinging on any refracting or reflecting Surface, excite vibrations in the refracting or reflecting Medium or Substance, and by exciting them agitate the solid parts of the refracting or reflecting Body, and by agitating them cause the Body to grow warm or hot;
To simply remove the context around that quote, where Newton says that he is not committing to that position, is to lie very, very badly. It may be the dumbest cherry-picking of a quotation I have ever seen; one can literally scroll up to find the context.

Quote
Quote
PhysBang:  On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies is not a half humorous explanation of the aether.


Oh! but historically it is. How else would it be possible to come up with such  a crazy theory? Neo-Classical (GAT) Physics on the other hand offers  a cogent well knit together and put together explanation of every possible subject under the sun; from electromagnetism to how the aether was formed, the properties of the aether, the manner of  dispersion of electromagnetic radiation, gravity, super conductivity, radio waves, super gravity, neutrinos. Every subject which is mentioned can be accurately calculated using straightforward mathematics. It will be possible to tell the strength of an electromagnetic field at any point, it explains the nature of near and far fields, it tells how permanent magnetism forms.  In short it is a much more cogent theory than either special relativity or General Relativity which are convoluted, use nonsensical and illogical arguments, (some of which can be seen in the third paragraph above) and in the end explain very little.   
And yet nobody uses it to do any science of value...
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: GoC on 19/04/2017 14:47:11
PhysBang- Do you need to be so critical?

MaQueen you believe in a medium and not GR and SR.

PhysBang you believe in SR and GR without a medium.

I believe in GR and SR because of a energy medium c.

Nothing can be proven. Even a theory that follows all of the observations and math can be incorrect. Which of us are the most correct?
I can create an energy system c from space as a spinning grid pattern that would produce the observations we measure in relativity

PhysBang why are the electron and photon confounded in every frame if nothing connects them? How do you get something faster by something slower? Why does the photon have no entropy? Why do electrons have no entropy? These are all invalid questions to your understanding.

MaQueen Same questions about your medium?
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 20/04/2017 11:41:12
As I see it, the energy levels within space are so fine that they cannot be measured. Compress space and we get the much higher energy levels of our particles and photons.
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: GoC on 20/04/2017 13:37:23
As I see it, the energy levels within space are so fine that they cannot be measured. Compress space and we get the much higher energy levels of our particles and photons.

Of course energy levels can be measured. Atomic clocks measure the energy of space. Here is the kicker. Space has more energy the further away from mass as measured by an atomic clock. If an atomic clock could go the speed of light it would not measure time because it is used up in kinetic energy. If an atomic clock could sit on a BH it would not measure time because a BH is all kinetic energy and no time energy. We are always in a balance of kinetic and time energy c. That is why there is no preferred frame to measure the universe. You cannot measure accurately something of which you are a part. We are a part of time. A clock measures energy c - kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is in the form of mass GR and speed SR.
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: PhysBang on 20/04/2017 16:38:21
PhysBang- Do you need to be so critical?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was a fiction forum.
Quote
I believe in GR and SR because of a energy medium c.
You believe in ideas that you label "SR" and "GR", but these ideas don't match how they are used in most arenas.

Quote
PhysBang why are the electron and photon confounded in every frame if nothing connects them?
I have no idea what you mean by the word "confounded". I'm also unclear what you mean by the word "frame".

Quote
How do you get something faster by something slower? Why does the photon have no entropy? Why do electrons have no entropy? These are all invalid questions to your understanding.
These questions are nonsense, not invalid, they contain English words, but they are a combination that doesn't have a clear meaning.
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: jeffreyH on 20/04/2017 17:49:52
Have any of you heard about fields? Not the ones you grow potatoes 🍠 in. The ones like the electric, magnetic and gravitational fields. If you believe that there has to be some medium then you need to do some serious study. There is no shortcut.
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: jeffreyH on 20/04/2017 17:50:48
@PhysBang They rarely listen.
Title: Re: Shouldn't there be a medium for light, gravity and electromagnetic forces?
Post by: GoC on 20/04/2017 18:38:39
Yes all fields are a property of the spectrum. The medium of space.

Have any of you heard about fields? Not the ones you grow potatoes 🍠 in. The ones like the electric, magnetic and gravitational fields. If you believe that there has to be some medium then you need to do some serious study. There is no shortcut.
Without a medium all you have is magic. I do not need to study those that believe in magic. I do recognize the math as being the correct form of relativity. In your world there is no cause for effect. What moves the electron? What moves the photon?
Your answer to those two questions are personal insults. Its the same reaction of someone caught in a lie. Your lie is not understanding what you preach. If you did you would understand you do not get something for nothing. Which is what you preach with your insults.

PhysBang- Do you need to be so critical?
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was a fiction forum.
Quote
I believe in GR and SR because of a energy medium c.
You believe in ideas that you label "SR" and "GR", but these ideas don't match how they are used in most arenas.

Quote
PhysBang why are the electron and photon confounded in every frame if nothing connects them?
I have no idea what you mean by the word "confounded". I'm also unclear what you mean by the word "frame".

Quote
How do you get something faster by something slower? Why does the photon have no entropy? Why do electrons have no entropy? These are all invalid questions to your understanding.
These questions are nonsense, not invalid, they contain English words, but they are a combination that doesn't have a clear meaning.

The meaning is clear its your depth of understanding that needs attention.

@PhysBang They rarely listen.

The religious always needs assurances from others. Both of you follow the doctrine of something for nothing. I understand relativity and believe it to be correct. But I do not believe relativity works on something for nothing.

1. How do you create a gravity field effective for billions of miles if they are not somehow connected. Magic?
2. How do you get electrons to move relative to the photon motion through space in clocks?
3. How can a slower electron produce a faster photon?

These are questions that are nonsense to the model you use for understanding and having no skills to progress further than your training, insults are your armor. Saying you do not have the skills to progress is not an insult, its just fact. True understanding has no need for insults. You two must be young, thirties?