0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
OK, fair enough, that I rescind.Which leaves me uncomfortable with 1)"Matter evaporates into aether."Einstein was talking about energy loss through radiation in the paper you quoted. So why do you need this bit of the theory? Is the displaced dark matter in halos not heavy enough that you need to generate more
2) The expansion of the universe must be resulting in a massive creation of energy as more massive aether?
3) On the scale of galaxies I don't think quantum effects would not apply due to de-coherence (the super-fluid opener was just an analogy, right). So what is causing the displacement between matter and dark matter which don't interact in any known way except (attractive) gravity?
4) "Aether is not at rest when displaced. Displaced aether exerts force towards matter. " - seems like there needs to be a theoretical mechanism by which displaced aether suddenly exerts gravity, but undisturbed aether distributes itself evenly throughout the universe?
1) so is matter "able to change into" aether or is it "continuously changing into aether everywhere throughout the universe" the word "evaporate" leads me to think you are talking about all matter having some kind of half-life.
3)OK, it's frictionless, so it just gets pushed out of the way without any work being done. But there must be a force doing the pushing, even so.
4) The gravitational attraction between two galaxies in orbit is stronger because of dark matter. How can aether displaced by one galaxy result in increased gravitational attraction towards a different galaxy (like its binary counterpart)?
So the aether act with a pressure?
Frames of reference and inertial frames?
Let me see if I got this right?Are you stating that the direction of the aether will induce a different time dilation?
MPC - first off the references you are quoting are not specifically about the effect of the æther - they rely on GR and SR and the authors / researchers might be slightly perturbed that they are being used as confirmations of the existence of the æther.
Can you confirm that the GPS satellites that are in a more polar orbit around the earth need less adjustment than those in a more equatorial orbit. Those in a polar orbit are relative to the sun (or other distant point) travelling through the æther at a almost totally uniform velocity - whilst those in an equatorial orbit are travelling through the æther at a sinusoidally varying velocity. I would thus presume that for the system to work that this variation is accounted for - can you confirm this or explain what is incorrect?
You know, I like Einsteins ideas of a friction less space. When it comes to the Hafele and Keating Experiment it's a little strange in the way it delivers two types of time dilation depending on the direction, but it was a rude experiment as I think of it. Not then, but looking back at it we today have better ways to define time dilation, like between a clock on a table relative moving the other atomic clock to the floor.It's possible to define a time dilation relative the gravity, there is a relation and that was what they did to explain the result, also defining it relative a thought 'center' of that gravity. That, combined with the motion induced relative that gravitational point made the results palatable. And that must be right, you cannot only use motion, or possibly if wanting to use that description then include Earth as gravitationally constantly uniformly accelerating at one gravity, as that is its equivalence in gravity as described by Einstein. He wouldn't have been surprised over the result of that experiment.==Although I still get a slight headache trying to see how it would work as we know that the gravity differs depending on where on earth, or above it, you are. But I presume that the thought up center was a elegant way of getting around that problem? The 'time' as such lives in a world in where every point, you defining a 'time' from, must include 'gravity's potential' at that point, also defined relative what motion you observing has relative that point. So you have a space in where every point can be said to have a certain 'time dilation' in itself if you ignore gravity's equivalence to motion, as well as having a added 'time dilation' relative the 'frames of reference' compared. That means your frame relative the 'point' you compare your 'time' too.
H&K is entirely explainable using einstein's theories. What is a frictionless superfluid with the properties of a solid? (superfluids flow, solids don't; I fail to see why this supposed state isn't self-contradictory)
At what orbit from the earth does the earth's passage through the æther become the less dominant feature - ie at what distance is the æther no longer sufficiently disturbed by the earth's passage for differential orbits to distinguished by the effects of the æther alone?Can you describe an experiment (done or future) that would prove the existence of the æther, or could you describe an experiment (done or future) that would prove the non-existence of the æther?
That paper is truly interesting But he wrote it thinking of QM and the 'hidden energy' as I think of it. Also I presume that he had the same questions as I have on what 'space' really is. After all, it exists The truly fascinating aspects of time dilation, and its relative counterpart Lorentz contraction is what it tells us about motion and gravity, at least to me. It seems possible to see it as something where any point is defined differently than what we perceive normally, with motion becoming a dubious expression, in a strange way equivalent to what we call gravity.In our world we differ those two, but to 'time' they seems to be treated as one. Now, you can look at it as if they are two different aspects of your 'reality', but I don't. I think they have all too much in common.
And he used ether differently than you. He did not define it as having a pressure or a friction."A direct consequence of Lorentz's conception of the stationary ether is that the velocity of light with respect to the ether is a constant, independent of the motion of the source of light (or its frequency, amplitude, or direction of propagation in the ether, etc.).Einstein adopted a slightly-but crucially-modified version of this conclusion as his second principle: There is an inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant, independent of the velocity of its source. A Lorentzian ether theorist could agree at once to this statement, since it was always tacitly assumed that the ether rest frame is an inertial frame of reference and Einstein had "only" substituted "inertial frame" for "ether."But Einstein's omission of the ether was deliberate and crucial: by the time he formulated SRT he did not believe in its existence. For Einstein a principle was just that: a principle-a starting point for a process of deduction, not a deduction from any (ether) theory. (I am here getting ahead of my story and will return to this point later.) The Lorentzian ether theorist would add that there can only be one inertial frame in which the light principle holds. If the speed of light is a constant in the ether frame, it must be non-constant in every other inertial frame, as follows from the (Newtonian) law of addition of velocities. The light principle hence seems to be incompatible with the relativity principle. For, according to the relativity principle, all the laws of physics must be the same in any inertial frame. So, if the speed of light is constant in one inertial frame, and that frame is not physically singled out by being the rest frame of some medium (the ether), then the speed of light must be the same (universal) constant in every other inertial frame (otherwise the democracy of inertial frames is violated). As Einstein put it in 1905, his two principles are "apparently incompatible." Of course, if they really were incompatible logically or physically, that would be the end of SRT.Einstein showed that they are not only logically compatible, but compatible with the results of all optical and other experiments performed up to 1905 (and since, we may add). He was able to show their logical compatibility by an analysis of the concepts of time, simultaneity, and length, which demonstrated that the speed of light really could have the privileged status, implied by his two principles, of being a universal speed, the same in every inertial frame of reference."
So the aether should be a frictionless 'superfluid' exerting a 'pressure'?
But not on light then? As we nowhere find light to travel other than at 'c' in a vacuum, not caring about its direction relative the experiment .
But still able to 'pressure' time, via gravity that then is? what?
The force of the 'aether' pressuring on 'matter'?
I'm getting a headache here
But we already have space? Which to us is empty macroscopically. Quite satisfactory so too if I may add. What you're doing is creating/defining a 'substance' that we can't detect, and expecting it to be 'space', as you define it as matter 'pushes' on it.
Space is already here. We can in a way 'measure it' by matters boundaries, and it works without friction or pressure. The ideas of friction and pressure is made from some sort of definition of a 'null state'. We have our in space. In QM you might discuss Casimir forces and quantum foam, but then we're no longer on the plane we exist and observe macroscopically. You have to see where we are, to imagine our world as a quantum phenomena may be entirely possible, but not 'real'. What is 'real is where we exist, and live daily.
That we might be outcomes of 'probability' doesn't mean that we are doubtful in any way. Everything we do and everything we define comes from us being here, for 'real' So an unmeasurable aether consisting of pressure without friction ? Show me one possible experiment to prove that idea.
Could you show me a schematic of that last experiment? with clear simple notations.
As for a aether I'm still wondering why you feel you need it.
In Einsteins it is gravity doing it, but in yours?
Explain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity.Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
CPT that article was from 2006. Not all agree, here you can read a rebuttal http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/the-dark-matter-crisis/2010-07-30/but-the-bullet-cluster-...-proof-of-cold-or-warm-dark-matter-in-galaxy-clusters-is-but-a-myth [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
I agree with you on one thing, there is indiscernible light waves explaining quantum entanglement because they travel in space and not in time. They propagate instantaneously. Their reach is still limited by the speed of light though. It is not aether but space itself. Why do you think gravity bend spacetime and light path? [:0]
What we see from gravitational lensing seems to be particles of Dark Matter with zero apparent electric charge... You must take in account, the fact that the Dark Matter and the gas cloud occupy a very large space, gravity is thus very small compare to the electromagnetic force during the collision. Einstein's spacetime replaces aether in Relativity: constant speed of light for any observer...
Time is local and it is associated to energy quanta posessing a mass (or inertia)...http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/25689 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
Here you have http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/aberration.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] Can you show me how your 'displaced aether' do the same?
Perhaps you should read http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1920PA.....28..334P [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] too as he describes it in a little more detail. I think you will find it most satisfactorily for your understanding of my opinion.
You never addressed the fact that H&K is entirely explained by einstein's theories
Interesting side note on superfluids - thanks. Still unsure how this anomalous single property of superfluids affects your ideas but..
Your explanation of spontaneous parametric down conversion is quite incorrect in dealing with polarisations and momentum conservation - but the experiment as described works because the photons are entangled which is the important bit. You would be better off describing one photon path as the red path and the other as the blue just as wikipedia did.
Your changes to the dcqe are unusual and ineffective. Firstly, it's a bit of a poor show when yoron, who has be very generous in his engagement with this subject gets a black "no" in response to his request for a schematic.
Secondly, the set of beam splitters after mirror a and mirror b are totally superfluous. Thirdly, the interference will disappear - it does not matter how many spurious beam splitters, mirrors, and detectors in the way your experiment will just duplicate detectors D3 and D4 which receive only one pathway of light. If a photon is detected at D3 or your new D1a or D1b - the slit will be determined and no interference will be seen. Unless I have misunderstood your variation - which is where a schematic would have helped - you are merely replacing a single D3 with a triplet of D3 D1a and D1b and replacing D4 with D4 D2a and D2b; this branching of paths with no interaction or recombination with the other possible path removes all interest and reverts the experiment to a situation well known and well understood before dcqe experiment.
QuoteExplain what occurs physically in nature to cause gravity.Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.The first is a noble cause - and if you are seeking a proximal cause then look at general relativity - it's one of the most accurate and highly tested physical theories in the history of science. Funnily enough the explanation of the double slit experiment and quantum mechanics in general is the other most accurate and highly test physical theory in the history of science.
So far in this thread all you have offered is assertions that experiments and observations with accepted explanations and theories are, in fact, explained by the existence of your aether. by occam's razor we don't need your aether - we can explain the action of gravity and the double slit experiment; although perhaps not the underlying reasons for the way the universe behaves in this manner.
Quote from: yor_on on 07/05/2011 10:18:52CPT that article was from 2006. Not all agree, here you can read a rebuttal http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/the-dark-matter-crisis/2010-07-30/but-the-bullet-cluster-...-proof-of-cold-or-warm-dark-matter-in-galaxy-clusters-is-but-a-myth [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] Interesting blog - but a little one-sided I think, whilst correct to state that the bullet cluster is not (and could never be) proof positive. The original article was one a shamefully long line of over-hyped articles from Nasa and does need a critical approach.It is a little disingenuous to talk about explaining the BC via Modified Newtonian Dynamics - the whole reason that dark matter had to be postulated was that no system could be found that would explain different scale gravitational effects all at the same time. if we choose different sets of laws and constants for different situations we can explain anything!
Take a look here for more articles about dark matter. http://www.astro.uni-bonn.de/~pavel/kroupa_SciLogs.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] not that it seems necessary for an aether?And yes Imatfaal, but isn't that just what the bullet proof did too, cited theory for proving a 'fact'.
I am not impress by that rebuttal. I don't see any good arguments. It is true, it is not an absolute proof of the existence of cold dark matter, but it really looks like it. It would have been very surprising that the LCDM model were right, simply because they just don't know how Dark Matter is created, what is the sizes and mass of DM particles and does it interact with the weak force. There is more Dark Mass than matter mass in the Universe. It sounds obvious that if the accepted laws of gravity were so wrong, we would have already seen the proof of it elsewhere. And people should understand that the LHC produces only high energy collisions by the accelerations of charged particles having a very long life (protons and electrons) in a low density medium, which is a strong limitation to the type of particles that it can generate.
Ah well Now, I can see we will have different opinions here. I think you will need a little math to prove your points, but, that's up to you. In the mean time Have fun guys.
It is not acceptable simply to repost material onto this forum that you have posted elsewhere, except where the post is specifically pertinent to an ongoing thread. If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly.