0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Impyre: I didn't think aether was still considered a thing...
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.
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 .
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.
Phys Bang: It is interesting in that contemporary science has determined that neither require a medium.
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.
The quote in the OP was taken from Newton's 'Optics'. <Irrelevant quotations omited>
What do you say about a medium now ?
QuotePhys 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PhysBang: On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies is not a half humorous explanation of the aether.
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.
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 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;
QuotePhysBang: 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.
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.
PhysBang- Do you need to be so critical?
I believe in GR and SR because of a energy medium c.
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.
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.
Quote from: GoC on 19/04/2017 14:47:11PhysBang- Do you need to be so critical?I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was a fiction forum.QuoteI 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.QuotePhysBang 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.
@PhysBang They rarely listen.