0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Now THAT is very interesting.
I think I'll poke this idea a little by asking an innocent little question:Could the source of this aether be what science refers to as Dark Energy?
The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo."[/I]
After the MMX result was interpreted as "proving there is no ether," physicists like Einstein started coming up with models for how the world could work without a transmissional ether medium.
Allow me to ask another innocent question then:Are you then suggesting that Dark Energy is a universal pressure that is responsible for the phenomenon of gravity instead of mass bending space/time?
And that the Mickelson/Morley experiment gave us erroneous results because we didn't recognize Dark Energy?
That might possibly explain gravity but how would it explain time dilation?
It sounds like you're trying to revive this old theory without considering every detail we have observed over the past several decades.
But light has a varying velocity when moving through differing gravitational frames where the intensity of the field varies. This is however observer dependent. So the gravitational field itself mimics the effect of an aether.
Aether has mass.
Quote from: liquidspacetimeAether has mass.First off there's no such thing as aether (aka ether). Ether, or luminiferous Ether, was the hypothetical substance through which electromagnetic waves travel. As you may know, in 1887, a crucial experiment was performed by Michelson and Edward Morley in an attempt to detect the existence of the ether. The experiment, named the Michelson-Morley experiment in honor of its authors, shocked the scientific community by yielding results which implied the non-existence of ether.
This result was later on used by Einstein to refute the existence of the ether and allowed him to develop special relativity without this artificial (and non-existent) constraint. Although whether Einstein knew of the results of these experiments is unknown. He later claimed he knew of them but he may have remembered incorrectly.
Where did you get these notions from?
Since I started this Thread, I'd like to give my take on critics' remarks, and how I feel this theory of an aether stacks up against the Big Bang model, and Physics' other theories of cosmic forces, which are based on earthbound observations and quantum mechanics/general relativity.My Aether Model is not pointedly criticized in some of the posts, but instead standard QM/GR concepts are cited, as well as the standard dismissal-out-of-hand of the existence of any kind of aether. My counter argument would be that all the points Physics bases its "no aether" models on, basically come down to the same thing. My model of aether-gravity's contiguity-mechanism has one key totally-game-changing premise. Although aether-gravity lacks empirical evidence, its rationale is logical. -While quantum theory is based on endlessly complex variations of spin, vectors, particle-unit scales, and the like, my aether model claims that gravity is based on simple vibrational resonance of elemental aether units that are all uniform, both in space and in solid bodies. It could be stated briefly as "aether-gravity's contiguity-mechanism."I actually have a possible field test to emprically detect an aether-effect (by generating an aetheric force-field, and producing a predicted decreased density in material inside the test system.) I got the ideas for the test from an obscure source, but the test would be expensive to do and I don't have a financial backer for it.
My Aether Model is not pointedly criticized in some of the posts, but instead standard QM/GR concepts are cited, as well as the standard dismissal-out-of-hand of the existence of any kind of aether.
10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.
The logical way to conceptualize this origins-setting in space would be of elemental spatial points oscillating symmetrically with each other and in intimate (contiguous) contact with each other.
The idea that First cause ..
... could have produced uniform unit-based forces,
One key to the Model I submitted would be that original space was self-compatible, ..
which was what allowed contiguous elemental points of space to oscillate,
sympathetically, so that a point-pair could form, via oscillational fatigue.
PmbPhy, when you say "space can't oscillate unless there's a time varying gravitational field present," you're just reverting to quantum mechanics.
have already given the reasons ..
You continue critiquing my model in the same way, as though you either haven't read my position as to "standard theory versus my aether model", or else you haven't digested what I said. -
When two bodies are attrracted gravitationally, then, it would involve resonances between the elemental aether units of each body resonating with the (contiguous) identical aether units in the intervening space between them, producing an attractional pull-effect.
-In my aether model, what is actually happening is that elemental aether energy units are contiguously conducting the energy impulse through the wire (with a concomitant increase of electrons being incidentally generated along the way.) The "magnetic field" merely represents "rebalancing" of electrical forces, in space, contiguously from the wire setup, by identical aether units in the space around the wire, forces that were "unbalanced" in the vicinity of the wire, by sending the electric current through the wire.
My take on the Michelson-Morley Experiment's continuing influence on modern theory is that it should be discarded.
-In my Thread, it is proposed that the true basis of energic action is at the etheric level, and involves simple oscillational/vibrationally-acting mechanisms.
Various earth-based data that result in concepts like "dark energy," "curved space gravity," and so on are incorrectly used in trying to understand basic forces.
Your discussion of the fine mathematical and optical details in the MMX went over my head,
but I still think the rationale for my non-mechanical model of the aether is not relevantly affected by any such mechanical construct, or any constructs based on a "stationary aether.".
but extending it in any detail to cosmic gravity fields would be impossible, because we are unable to detect aether.
Since my model is based on elemental-aether energics, and its non-mechanical, contiguous, vibrational resonance, it would view gravity and gravity fields as being of the same nature as in electromagnetism.
You use the term "etheric matter." -I would only ask, what would have been the origin of that kind of matter?
To answer your last question, I believe Einsteinian Relativity is a false theory. -My previous posts have described the reasons (the false assumptions about the ether underlying the MMX which then led physicists like Einstein to start coming up with models for how the world could work without a medium to transmit forces. -The basic premise for such a model being false, I don't have to go further into it.
In my model,there are elemental ether forces within the two bodies and in the space between the bodies, and elemental ether units are in constant mutual resonance, are contiguous with each other, and are uniform, or identical, both within and outside the bodies. -The forces pulling the bodies together are the same forces that, within the bodies, hold the bodies together. There is a space between them which lessens the resonance effect outside (between) the bodies compared to the strength of their resonances inside the bodies, but there is also a contiguity (of the elemental ether units) between the bodies, although there is a separation of the bodies in terms of a "space gap.".