[PhysBang]

Then

1. So is the BB.

If you pay attention to cosmologists, you will find that the status of a supposed first event "big bang" is dubious. But the "Big Bang Theory" is not, because that theory is not really about the first instant.

2. So is the photon as a particle.

There are many ways to detect particle-like behaviors from photons. But you are right, photons are not classical particles, they are quanta.

3. So is a cause of gravity.

Yeah, we know the nature of gravity pretty well, but one can always look for a cause. In doing so, one should actually try to produce evidence about the nature of the phenomena being investigated and show how the cause actually helps us gain more and better evidence about the phenomena.

4. So is a cause of magnetism.

Well, magnetism is due to the EM field, but you can always look for a cause of that.

5. So is the cause of the weak force.
6. So is the cause of the strong force.
7. So is the cause of c being constant.
8. So is the cause of electron motion.
Shall I go on?

Please don't because you aren't adding anything to the conversation. You are just idiotically trying to defend a poster who has cherry-picked quotations from scientists and misrepresented their works. That poster is now refusing to provide a citation for something that they claim is fundamental and you are defending the refusal to provide evidence.

The two of you must be young about thirties. You just settled in on what you were taught and remained satisfied. The two of you are probably not worthy scientists yet.

Who cares if we are scientists or not or how old we are? That doesn't change that McQueen has tried to deceive other people here and that they refuse to provide verifiable evidence to support their claims. You may like evidence-free claims, but that doesn't seem like science to me.

McQueen on the other hand makes the argument of being in new theories which needs some leeway to say the least.

What theories need is evidence.

Jeff let me ask you a question. If aether particles were spinning at c what could you possibly use to detect them? You would need something faster than c and nothing is faster than c. Indirectly a interference on the spin c could propagate that interference at c. Would you consider that a detection? How about the correlation between mechanical and photon clocks reading the same in every frame? How about a slower electron producing a faster photon. How about how the photon remains constant in a vacuum.

That doesn't even make sense. One can detect particles through collision, regardless of whether they are spinning.

If you have a theory, then show us the numbers and how they work out.

If there is an aether, then either it has no effects and is superfluous for our reasoning or it has effects and these can bear on evidence.

If science waited for something to be detected we would not even have the atom for reference.

Science does wait for things to be detected. One should believe in atomic particles because of the detectable evidence, not because it is an interesting theory with leeway. I urge you to read about the history of the evidence for atoms.

Rather than be defensive of what you have learned how about using what you learned to try and further the knowledge of science.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe that is what people are doing when they question someone like McQueen? There is a vast amount of evidence out there that McQueen seems to be ignoring or distorting. You want us to forget about all the evidence and jump on board with McQueen.

[David Cooper]

Science is evidence based so physbang is making a valid request. The aether has never been detected and so is equivalent to nothing.

Intelligent computer software is incapable of telling whether the computer it runs on exists other than by hypothesising its existence - it cannot detect the computer in any way. In the same way, our inability to detect the aether of any aether theory (including Spacetime) doesn't render them all equal to nothing - one of them must be something.

[jeffreyH]

We are incapable of telling whether the world we live in is real or just a very sophisticated simulation on a computer we will never be able to detect. However, unless the simulation suddenly starts to behave very strangely it will never matter. So if the aether ever begins to behave strangely then I might change my point of view.

[David Cooper]

If the universe is a simulation, there is still something that it runs on which is not nothing. It is not rational to describe something that must exist in some form as nothing when it's required to support the things that can be detected. Theories with Spacetime are just complex-aether theories, regardless of how strongly their followers deny that.

[Edited to add hyphen.]

[Bored chemist]

1.   It was tasteless
2.   It was odourless.
3.   It had a rigidity more than several million times that of steel.
4.   It was flexible enough  that the planets could move through it without causing any disturbance whatsoever.
5.   It could pass through matter as if it didn't exist and vice versa.

 

Those are the sort of properties that the ether needed to have in order to "do the job" of carrying light.
And,  yes, you are right it's an absurd list.

The trouble is tat the list hasn't changed.
Any "luminiferous ether " still has to meet those impossible criteria.
That's part of the reason why nobody believes it exists.
The other reason is that we looked for it, and didn't find it.

[GoC]

If you pay attention to cosmologists, you will find that the status of a supposed first event "big bang" is dubious. But the "Big Bang Theory" is not, because that theory is not really about the first instant.

Maybe not in your mind but 13.6 billion years is a basis because of our inability to observe further. The BH's prove the universe was here much longer. And if it has been here longer the event for the first atom to distance of the viewable universe does not coincide.

.

Please don't because you aren't adding anything to the conversation. You are just idiotically trying to defend a poster who has cherry-picked quotations from scientists and misrepresented their works. That poster is now refusing to provide a citation for something that they claim is fundamental and you are defending the refusal to provide evidence

I do not agree with his views and I totally agree with relativity but that is no reason to treat someone the way you treated him. He is very intelligent as both you and Jeff. I was defending him against your degrading abuse. New theories have no citation because they are new.

Who cares if we are scientists or not or how old we are? That doesn't change that McQueen has tried to deceive other people here and that they refuse to provide verifiable evidence to support their claims. You may like evidence-free claims, but that doesn't seem like science to me.

I do not believe his desire is to deceive anyone. He truly believes what he is saying. You only believe it is a deception because it goes against what you believe. And that is where the age remark came into play. Its your inability to manage your emotional baggage that gives away your age.

[guest39538]

geordief: Particles are described as "excitations in the Field".  How many kinds of Field  are there(or can there be)  and is there only one kind of a Field to which this particle description applies?

This is a very pertinent description. It is almost a tacit admission of the existence of an aether like entity. There were at one time according to Feynman more than 400 different fields each with its associated particle. Quite crazy and Dirac had to advise physicists to stop looking for new particles and their associated fields. 

Every particle has a corresponding field that permeates all of space in the same way the Higgs has a field that is supposed to do.

The spin up electron. The spin down electron. The spin up positron. The spin down positron.

The up quarks (all three colors and both spins).The down quark (all three colors and both spins).Same for the charm, strange, top and bottom. And double that because all those quarks each have an antiparticle with the corresponding anticolor and opposite electric charge just like the electron had its antiparticle, the positron.

Then there two more leptons like the electron the muon and the tau lepton (each has two spins and an antiparticle with opposite electric charge).

That's all the fermions that have electric charge. Then there are the eight gluons and they would have three spins each but since they are massless they have two helicity states instead, and they are their own antiparticles)

The gluons are also bosons like the photon, there are only two photon fields, one for each helicity (there would be three spins but the photon is also massless)

There are yet more bosons, the W+,W+, W−,W−, and ZZ each of them have three spins. And the neutrinos are the charge-less fermions and the charge-less leptons. There is one for each of the charged leptons (one for the electron, one for the positron, one for the tao and one for its antiparticle, one for the muon and one for its antiparticle).


But hold on there is room for hope. All of the above particles ( few in number admittedly compared to the 400 that are supposed to exist)  most of which exist in the nucleus are virtual particles  which fits in beautifully with the Gestalt Aether Theory concept of a virtual photon universal aether that permeates the universe.

We live in a gauge Universe governed and controlled by gauge theories, Gestalt Aether Theory fits in very well with this concept.

McQueeen , can I please use your title of this thread?  Also because of your title if you wish to discuss the Aether field? , I can not only ''see'' the field, but I understand it and can explain several pieces of science using the ''aether'' field.
I just noticed your title hiding of the page , you have got the title I need for my thread.