0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
Boiring Chemist : One of those fields is the electromagnetic one- which carries em radiation. It doesn't behave like the aether.
Nilak ; That is why I think it is likely there is a single field where various wave structures can be created.
QuoteBoiring Chemist : One of those fields is the electromagnetic one- which carries em radiation. It doesn't behave like the aether. Hello, knock, knock. Wakey! wakey! This the New Theories Forum!
PhysBang: But it is not the fiction forum. The fact remains that the EM field does not act like an aether. Nothing has been shown to act like an aether.
For instance are you aware that the Michelson & Morley experiment was looking for an aether with the following properties: 1. It was tasteless2. 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.
Is it such a great surprise that they could not find it?
IMHO the only people other than yourself who had their heads so far up a wrong place seem to have been Michelson & Morley. An aether that was several millions of times more rigid than steel! Do you have any idea how rigid steel is, try thinking of something several million of times more rigid than that. At the same time this substance had to be completely invisible and undetectable.
So here we have something that is millions of times more rigid than steel, yet is completely invisible and completely non-tactile, what exactly do you think were the chances that Michelson & Morley would find such a substance? The answer is NIL!
Lastly, I am pretty sure that if Physicists had persevered and waited to find an aether that would fit all the criteria, as the Gestalt Aether Theory has done. They would have found it.
Actually, they were looking for an aether that surrounded matter in a manner that showed that it did exist; hence the point of an experiment looking for its effects. The problem is that nobody can find any evidence that it exists and no theory that includes an aether can match the physical evidence.
Since the aether by definition is equivalent to absolutely nothing at all then it has no affect on any physical processes and can be dismissed outright.
An ether of c spin particles would be indistinguishable from Relativity and move the electrons. Moving the electrons is what theories are missing.
Quote from: jeffreyH on 24/04/2017 14:26:35Since the aether by definition is equivalent to absolutely nothing at all then it has no affect on any physical processes and can be dismissed outright.That is circular reasoning that is not accurate for all ether types.
If you have to list tasteless and odorless on a list of properties of the aether, then you really are hopeless. You can't even identify the salient physical properties of the very thing that is the center of your own crank theory.
Please provide a citation for this claim.
It could very well be that an aether theory is correct but we will never have evidence for it or that a particular aether theory is correct and we will one day have evidence for it. The real problem is that people advocate aether theories that can't even do basic EM physics.
JeffreyH: Since the aether by definition is equivalent to absolutely nothing at all then it has no affect on any physical processes and can be dismissed outright.
If you have to question the claim that the aether was supposed to possess a rigidity millions of times that of steel, you shouldn't be on this forum, least of all making snide remarks about my posts.
Quote It could very well be that an aether theory is correct but we will never have evidence for it or that a particular aether theory is correct and we will one day have evidence for it. The real problem is that people advocate aether theories that can't even do basic EM physics.An improvement and a better approach. In a new theories forum an open mind a rational outlook is more productive.
Yes, a rational outlook would be nice. But it seems that all we get are cranks that can't do basic physics and that misrepresent the history of science.
PhyBang: So, like all of the claims that you have been asked about before, you can't provide a citation.
QuotePhyBang: So, like all of the claims that you have been asked about before, you can't provide a citation. I can't play this nursery school crap with you. You have had your say, get off my thread!