0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Why the Michelson-Morley experiment cannot detect ether?
I often wonder how Carl Sagan got to sleep without worrying about the tiger in his bedroom. Obviously, there was no evidence for the tiger but“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” .
Unless ome accepts that aether and spacetime are both one banana, nothing I can do to convince otherwise., But, reiterating, the main, the primary reason why aether and spacetime were thought of different is because aether was conceived of as being luminiferous while spacetime is not. I explain that the old concept of aether as lumibiferous is a misconception because what is luminiferous is light when it comes in contact with matter which has mass,light is not luminiferous in contact with supra-supra thin no-mass spacetime or ether which is not luminiferous..
..that detected frame dragging of skein of spacetime on orbit of earth around the sun after 10 years patient observation,is no other than non-luminiferous aether which is spacetime itself...
Okay, bored chemist, what I am saying is not supported by fact? Let me reiterate: the main reason why aether is conceived different from spacetime is that aether had been, has been conceived, as luminiferous while spacetime is not. I have explained that it is light that is luminiferous and visible from its source and matter it comes in contact with. Outer space has make up of NO-mass, supra-supra thin skein that light is simply passing through with no particle to contact with…but when light comes in contact with particle water- tail of comet, several million miles long, such tail is made visible/luminiferous. Why? because light impact on contact on such tail is CONCENTRATED 186,000 miles length per sec.. Thus, the old concept that aether is luminiferous is wrong. Aether is non-luminiferous,as a FACT, non-luminiferous aether is one and same banana with spacetime of Dr. Einstein. Not supported? Dr. Einstein himself, changed mind, revived aether, in a speech of 1920, if you can read between the line: he means impliedly aether and spacetime are one and same banana.The posted: “Unifying aether, spacetime, superstring, cosmological constant dark energy” can give further clarification.
Einstein revived aether, call it a new aether,.."that it is impossible to think of space without aether on which light propagates.."
Please see NASA "Frame dragging of spacetime on orbit of earth".
Einstein is simply wrong.I can think of space without Aether.It is interesting to note that, as yet, no experiment has demonstrated the existence of fairies at the bottom of my garden, yet nobody says that this is due to experimental procedural problems. They simply assume it's because the fairies don't exist.No experiment has demonstrated the existence of the aether. Has it occurred to you that there might be a really simple reason for this?
IMHO, Einstein was not wrong. Although space with aether could be analytically understood in a hypothetical construt according to its assumptions (such as in Einstein theory of relativity), space without aether could not be comprehensive understood intuitively without the fundamental assumptions, therefore is unthinkable; it is just a leap of faith with the mathematical construct that accepts the "spooky action at a distance [nofollow]" as it is without addressing the causality.
Space is space. It's complicated enough without adding a mysterious "aether" to it.
But I agree, the aether of old and the new aether, which is one and the same, exists and can be proven, without doubt.jsaldea12
..In his later life, in a press conference in which the press asked Dr. Einstein about his GR. Dr. Einstein remarked something like this, “I cannot anymore recognized my relativity.. so many hands had dipped their fingers into it”.
I agree: Einstein is not wrong. I have to say aether of old and new aether, just to make distinction terminology, but both are one and the same: when we take out the concept that aether of old is erroneously conceived of as “luminiferous”. But the existence of aether/spacetime can be proven.
Whatever properties space (by whatever definition) has, it has those properties.Sticking a new label like "aether" on it achieves nothing and promotes confusion. Relabelling it doesn't alter those properties.
Both of us agree: Einstein is not wrong. But permit to add further: that asether exists is not a matter of faith. It can be proven by scientists like us.Jsaldea122.25.
Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, it is real.
Quote from: jsaldea12 on 26/02/2010 12:13:17Call that invisible substance, aether or spacetime, makes no difference, it is real.I think you're both arguing the same point - it's normally called spacetime, why bother calling it aether?
Bored chemist, how about trying to have a grip of reality?jsaldea122.28.10
You still dont believe aether, spacetime exists, do you,a chemist.
You still dont believe aether, spacetime exists, do you,a chemist.jsaldea123.1.10