Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Impenitent
Posts: 4329
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Impenitent »

uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pm ... I used to believe in Father Christmas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-oVPVsCqs4

I believe Sir Ray Davies and the Kinks were fabulous

-Imp
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Impenitent wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 11:53 pmI believe Sir Ray Davies and the Kinks were fabulous
Indeed; the evidence is overwhelming.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pm
Age wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 11:54 amJust answer this clarifying question Honestly; Would you believe something is true if it was NOT true, to you?
Would I believe something is true that I don't believe is true? No.
Although you have DETRACTED from answering the ACTUAL question I posed to you, ONCE AGAIN, you have still made it VERY CLEAR that your answer is No.
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pm
Age wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 11:54 amif you are believing something to be true, then OBVIOUSLY you would NOT be OPEN to anything opposing nor contrary to that 'thing', which you believe is true, correct?
Incorrect.
WHAT!

What you fail to recognize is that WHILST you are BELIEVING something is true, then you are NOT Truly FULLY OPEN, and, COULD NOT change a belief.

This is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS IF one LOOKS AT this from a Truly OPEN perspective.

ONLY IF one is somewhat OPEN could they change a belief.
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pm What you fail to appreciate about us human beings is that not all of us are mental.
How do 'you' define the word 'mental', here?

And, have I EVER even suggested a thing?
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pm Some of us are reasonably bright,
Being 'bright' or 'not bright' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with what I have been talking about, ​and pointing out.
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pmnot by your standards of course,
This is ANOTHER ASSUMPTION 'you' have made here.
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pmand we can admit that we were wrong.
Is this ALWAYS?
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pm Take me for example: I used to believe in Father Christmas. More recently, I used to believe that gravity would slow the expansion of the universe, and that a Big Crunch was a real possibility.
AND, whilst you BELIEVED those 'things', then you were NOT OPEN to ANY thing opposing nor contrary.
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pmnow think that unlikely, because of the red-shift that you acknowledge is a genuine phenomenon:
In case you are STILL UNAWARE 'think' and 'believe' are two VERY DIFFERENT 'things'.
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pm
Age wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 10:08 am
uwot wrote: Sat May 29, 2021 8:11 amSo: Red-shift is a genuine phenomenon.
Yes.
That's all most people mean by belief: saying something is a genuine phenomenon is the same as saying you believe it.
BUT, 'we' have NEVER discussed, talked about, NOR even mentioned 'believing in the red shift phenomenon'. So, if you can NOT stay focused on what we have been talking about and discussing, then this is going to take even longer.
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pmThe fact that you might change your mind is not the same as disbelief.
WHAT?

'you' are now SO FAR OFF TRACK that I think 'you' are MORE BLIND and MORE DEAF than I first thought.

1. NOTHING has been mentioned about 'changing "your" mind' having ANY thing to do with 'disbelief'.

2. There is NO such thing as 'your mind'.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:48 pm
Age wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:23 pmIf this is NOT BLATANTLY OBVIOUS in regards to 'what' NEEDS to be asked clarifying questions about, or is NOT ANY thing that I have PROPOSED, and which requires clarification, then I do NOT KNOW what else or MORE I could PROVIDE 'you'.
Well, the blatantly obvious question to me is 'What is that proof?'
FINALLY.

Although how long that took was near 'unbelievable' I THANK YOU, anyway.

That 'proof' is 'that', which establishes a fact or the Truth of a statement.
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pm
Age wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:23 pm'you' appear to just be completely and utterly ABSOLUTELY BLIND and DEAF here.
Then show me or tell me something that will open my eyes and ears.
Have 'you' forgotten ALREADY?

I am waiting for those who are Truly OPEN and Truly CURIOS. 'you', "uwot", have STILL NOT shown a near enough sign of this.
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pmIf I am sick and you have the cure, what sort of rascal are you that keeps it to yourself?
One that waits, patiently, for those who want to help "themselves".

Just about ALL the 'cure' involves 'you' doing things for, and by, "your" 'self'.

Also, what has 'you being sick' got to do with 'me' informing 'you' about WHY your BELIEF that, "the Big Bang hypothesis is the best explanation of galactic red-shift" is Wrong.

Although you are NOT wrong in that that is 'your' BELIEF, you are Wrong in that that hypothesis is the best explanation of galactic red-shift.

That hypothesis, as I have informed you previously, is just False, Inaccurate, and Incorrect. Or, in other words, just PLAIN Wrong.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 10:35 am
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pm Take me for example: I used to believe in Father Christmas. More recently, I used to believe that gravity would slow the expansion of the universe, and that a Big Crunch was a real possibility.
AND, whilst you BELIEVED those 'things', then you were NOT OPEN to ANY thing opposing nor contrary.
If that were true, I would still believe in Father Christmas.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:27 am
Age wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 10:35 am
uwot wrote: Sun May 30, 2021 12:41 pm Take me for example: I used to believe in Father Christmas. More recently, I used to believe that gravity would slow the expansion of the universe, and that a Big Crunch was a real possibility.
AND, whilst you BELIEVED those 'things', then you were NOT OPEN to ANY thing opposing nor contrary.
If that were true, I would still believe in Father Christmas.
Is it NOT possible that when you just STOPPED believing (in) ... was true, FIRST, and then that is when you could SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS?

Or, do you just JUMP from one BELIEF to another BELIEF?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:31 amIs it NOT possible that when you just STOPPED believing (in) ... was true, FIRST, and then that is when you could SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS?
As it happens I still don't know what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, because you won't tell me.
Age wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:31 amOr, do you just JUMP from one BELIEF to another BELIEF?
I wouldn't describe my behaviour so skittishly; there is some consideration of the evidence. I don't remember the entire sequence of thoughts, but when I first saw my father leaving presents at the foot of the bed, my immediate reaction was to reconcile that datum with my contemporary hypothesis. Perhaps Father Christmas only delivered to the bottom of the chimney - he's a busy man after all. Then at some point, I started doing the maths; even allowing for magic, delivering presents to every good child on the planet in the space of 24 hours is untenable. Then there were the different Santas in different locations and times. Eventually the weight of evidence persuaded me that my original hypothesis was incorrect, and I adjusted my belief accordingly. Similarly with the expansion of the universe. Until the Hubble observations of distant supernovae, I didn't doubt that gravity was slowing cosmic expansion; the only question was whether gravity would slow the expansion to a halt, and then perhaps cause contraction. Evidently you are familiar with all the evidence but have interpreted in a different way. How do you explain cosmological red-shift?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:57 pm
Age wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:31 amIs it NOT possible that when you just STOPPED believing (in) ... was true, FIRST, and then that is when you could SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth IS?
As it happens I still don't know what thee ACTUAL Truth IS, because you won't tell me.
Thee ACTUAL Truth in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?

For example, If you still do NOT YET KNOW what thee ACTUAL Truth is in regards to "father christmas", then is 'that' what you want me to tell you?
uwot wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:57 pm
Age wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 11:31 amOr, do you just JUMP from one BELIEF to another BELIEF?
I wouldn't describe my behaviour so skittishly; there is some consideration of the evidence. I don't remember the entire sequence of thoughts, but when I first saw my father leaving presents at the foot of the bed, my immediate reaction was to reconcile that datum with my contemporary hypothesis.
Is a 'contemporary hypothesis' really a 'belief'?

We were looking at and discussing 'beliefs' before.
uwot wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:57 pm Perhaps Father Christmas only delivered to the bottom of the chimney - he's a busy man after all. Then at some point, I started doing the maths; even allowing for magic, delivering presents to every good child on the planet in the space of 24 hours is untenable. Then there were the different Santas in different locations and times. Eventually the weight of evidence persuaded me that my original hypothesis was incorrect, and I adjusted my belief accordingly.
So, now you BELIEVE wholeheartedly and without ANY doubt at all that father christmas is NOT real, correct?
uwot wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:57 pm Similarly with the expansion of the universe.
LOL "expansion of the universe".

What does the word 'universe' even mean or refer to, to you?
uwot wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:57 pm Until the Hubble observations of distant supernovae, I didn't doubt that gravity was slowing cosmic expansion; the only question was whether gravity would slow the expansion to a halt, and then perhaps cause contraction.
WHY did you NOT doubt 'that'?
uwot wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:57 pm Evidently you are familiar with all the evidence but have interpreted in a different way.
Okay.

Now, if one says that they have 'evidence', then I am curios as to what this 'evidence' is supposedly for, EXACTLY.
uwot wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:57 pm How do you explain cosmological red-shift?
How I explain 'cosmological red-shift' is by saying that 'cosmological red-shift is the explanation, and/or the evidence said to be, for galaxies moving away from us'.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 11:34 am
uwot wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:57 pmHow do you explain cosmological red-shift?
How I explain 'cosmological red-shift' is by saying that 'cosmological red-shift is the explanation, and/or the evidence said to be, for galaxies moving away from us'.
So having accepted that cosmological red-shift is a genuine phenomenon, you now accept that it is "said to be" evidence for galaxies moving away. Do you accept that galaxies moving away from us explains cosmological red-shift, or do you have an alternative explanation?
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 9:47 am
Age wrote: Tue Jun 01, 2021 11:34 am
uwot wrote: Mon May 31, 2021 12:57 pmHow do you explain cosmological red-shift?
How I explain 'cosmological red-shift' is by saying that 'cosmological red-shift is the explanation, and/or the evidence said to be, for galaxies moving away from us'.
So having accepted that cosmological red-shift is a genuine phenomenon, you now accept that it is "said to be" evidence for galaxies moving away.
But, I have ALWAYS accepted that 'red-shift' is "said to be" evidence for galaxies moving away.
uwot wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 9:47 am Do you accept that galaxies moving away from us explains cosmological red-shift, or do you have an alternative explanation?
I have ALWAYS accepted that galaxies moving away from us explains cosmological red-shift.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Sculptor »

uwot wrote: Sat Sep 05, 2020 5:55 am The wikipedia page on Aether Theories https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories cites Nobel Prize winning physicist Robert B. Laughlin:
"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. 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."
Pretty much any realist theory about matter that doesn't invoke Ancient Greek atomos - uncuttable - atoms, is some version of an aether theory. Much better to call any such idea a quantum field theory for the reasons given above.
Special relativity offers us a view of spacer whereby it is substantial without being material. It is a vacuum but it is dimensionally substantial; it can bend and warp. Whilst this might seem to engender the resussitation of the notion of Aether, I do not think this is valid. We still has a vacuum; but we are more able to say what a vacuum is. The logic of using aether as a theory was because people found the notion of "action at a distance", through a vacuum, difficult to accept, and so to accept ideas surrounding gravity, especially in the time of Newton, aether was invented as a model. Call it what you like aether, crystal spheres, the adaption of vacuum, proved to exist by the Royal Society contemporaneously by Boyle superceeded aether.

Were we to employ aether in a relativistic context we would not be rejuvenation the theory of aether, we would only be reviving the use of the lable. This is aether, Jim, but not as we knew it.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by uwot »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:09 pmSpecial relativity offers us a view of spacer whereby it is substantial without being material. It is a vacuum but it is dimensionally substantial; it can bend and warp. Whilst this might seem to engender the resussitation of the notion of Aether, I do not think this is valid.
I think it comes down to the difference between what is useful and what is true. Special relativity is useful for describing and predicting the effect of motion on observations/measurements. Like Newtonian gravity, you don't need to understand the mechanism to do the maths; space is simply distance and in mathematics, you can do anything you like to quantities, lines and planes; it's just numbers. General relativity is a refinement of both special relativity and Newtonian gravity; it is predicated on space being a material with specific mechanical properties - it bends and warps in a particular way for particular reasons. The mathematics of general relativity is more broadly applicable and more accurate than SR and NG, but you are right that it is not valid to conclude that more accurate = more true.
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:09 pmWe still has a vacuum; but we are more able to say what a vacuum is. The logic of using aether as a theory was because people found the notion of "action at a distance", through a vacuum, difficult to accept, and so to accept ideas surrounding gravity, especially in the time of Newton, aether was invented as a model. Call it what you like aether, crystal spheres, the adaption of vacuum, proved to exist by the Royal Society contemporaneously by Boyle superceeded aether.
The particular model that Newton responded to was Descartes' vortex theory, endorsed by Leibniz. The idea was that space is made of tiny corpuscles and that these are swept around by the sun. At a push this could explain the orbits of the then known planets, but as Newton pointed out, the orbits of comets cut across planetary orbits with no effect. For Newton, it was light that is corpuscular, hence its ability to travel through void. Two centuries later, Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for his discovery of the photo-electric effect, which emphasises the particle-like qualities of light, which again makes their travel through a void more easily tenable.
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:09 pmWere we to employ aether in a relativistic context we would not be rejuvenation the theory of aether, we would only be reviving the use of the lable. This is aether, Jim, but not as we knew it.
The name aether has too much baggage. For anyone who takes the big bang theory seriously, the question is what went bang? Was is just a load of mathematics, or is the universe made of some stuff? If it is made of stuff, did all of it end up as matter? Getting back to what is useful and what is true, the answer for practical purposes is 'Who cares?', the truth makes no difference to the maths.
Thank you for bringing this thread back to earth.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Sculptor »

uwot wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:17 am
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:09 pmSpecial relativity offers us a view of spacer whereby it is substantial without being material. It is a vacuum but it is dimensionally substantial; it can bend and warp. Whilst this might seem to engender the resussitation of the notion of Aether, I do not think this is valid.
I think it comes down to the difference between what is useful and what is true. Special relativity is useful for describing and predicting the effect of motion on observations/measurements. Like Newtonian gravity, you don't need to understand the mechanism to do the maths; space is simply distance and in mathematics, you can do anything you like to quantities, lines and planes; it's just numbers. General relativity is a refinement of both special relativity and Newtonian gravity; it is predicated on space being a material with specific mechanical properties - it bends and warps in a particular way for particular reasons. The mathematics of general relativity is more broadly applicable and more accurate than SR and NG, but you are right that it is not valid to conclude that more accurate = more true.
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:09 pmWe still has a vacuum; but we are more able to say what a vacuum is. The logic of using aether as a theory was because people found the notion of "action at a distance", through a vacuum, difficult to accept, and so to accept ideas surrounding gravity, especially in the time of Newton, aether was invented as a model. Call it what you like aether, crystal spheres, the adaption of vacuum, proved to exist by the Royal Society contemporaneously by Boyle superceeded aether.
The particular model that Newton responded to was Descartes' vortex theory, endorsed by Leibniz. The idea was that space is made of tiny corpuscles and that these are swept around by the sun. At a push this could explain the orbits of the then known planets, but as Newton pointed out, the orbits of comets cut across planetary orbits with no effect. For Newton, it was light that is corpuscular, hence its ability to travel through void. Two centuries later, Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize for his discovery of the photo-electric effect, which emphasises the particle-like qualities of light, which again makes their travel through a void more easily tenable.
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 02, 2021 12:09 pmWere we to employ aether in a relativistic context we would not be rejuvenation the theory of aether, we would only be reviving the use of the lable. This is aether, Jim, but not as we knew it.
The name aether has too much baggage. For anyone who takes the big bang theory seriously, the question is what went bang? Was is just a load of mathematics, or is the universe made of some stuff? If it is made of stuff, did all of it end up as matter? Getting back to what is useful and what is true, the answer for practical purposes is 'Who cares?', the truth makes no difference to the maths.
Thank you for bringing this thread back to earth.
Cheers.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Cerveny »

Age wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 1:56 pm
Cerveny wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:34 am
Impenitent wrote: Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:52 pm is the purpose of the Aether similar to the square root of negative one?
-Imp
Purpose of aether is to create physical space...:)
Which is, OBVIOUSLY, IMPOSSIBLE. That is; if one wants to look at and see thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

By definition 'space' is NOT and can NOT be physical. This is WHY the words 'space' AND 'matter' are used. And, thee One and ONLY Universe can ONLY work in this way of, and with, 'space' AND 'matter'.

EVERY is created by the coming together of, at least, two other things, and it is 'space' AND 'matter', together, which is needed for ANY thing else to be created.
Do not confuse physical / real space (the only reality) with mathematical space (idea). Empty physical space = aether, has a regular 4-D structure and grows (condenses / crystallizes) by velocity of ~c from the "future". Structural disorders / defects of physical space (=elementary particles) manifest as matter.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Aether it exists, or it doesn't.

Post by Age »

Cerveny wrote: Sat Jun 19, 2021 3:40 pm
Age wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 1:56 pm
Cerveny wrote: Mon Sep 07, 2020 7:34 am
Purpose of aether is to create physical space...:)
Which is, OBVIOUSLY, IMPOSSIBLE. That is; if one wants to look at and see thee ACTUAL Truth of things.

By definition 'space' is NOT and can NOT be physical. This is WHY the words 'space' AND 'matter' are used. And, thee One and ONLY Universe can ONLY work in this way of, and with, 'space' AND 'matter'.

EVERY is created by the coming together of, at least, two other things, and it is 'space' AND 'matter', together, which is needed for ANY thing else to be created.
Do not confuse physical / real space (the only reality) with mathematical space (idea). Empty physical space = aether, has a regular 4-D structure and grows (condenses / crystallizes) by velocity of ~c from the "future". Structural disorders / defects of physical space (=elementary particles) manifest as matter.
How do 'you', "cerveny", define the word 'space'?

And, is it different to 'real space'?

Also, from the way 'you' have written here, 'you' and 'I' SEE things VERY DIFFERENTLY and have two VERY DIFFERENT views, and as such will NOT understand each "other".

Unless, OF COURSE, you begin to answer my clarifying questions, posed to 'you'.
Post Reply