what about Ether?

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Izzywizzy
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:52 pm

what about Ether?

Post by Izzywizzy »

its been shelved for centuries, about time we took this book off the shelf and investigated it.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ether.html

http://www.borderlands.com/ethericphysics.htm
Impenitent
Posts: 3470
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: what about Ether?

Post by Impenitent »

book for traveling existentialists: Ether/Oar...

-Imp
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: what about Ether?

Post by Cerveny »

It is clear the any "space" (even physical) can not be empty (it should have been the "null set"). It is clear the physical space can contain only limited number of elements because of every element must have any non-zero properties and their integral can not diverge. There are not possible any singularities in physical world. They are only hypothetical, only thought even in the math. It is clear the physical space keeps fixed, perhaps elastic, metrics. It is clear the physical space keeps some kind of physical "fields" (strains, tensions). Physical space is able to keep, to transfer such fields into the next time tick, into the next time sediment. I tried to explain why the space is not been composed from "virtual particles" in some other topics before. In addition, nobody is able to define them (virtual particles). The quantum foam is not good idea too - it follows from unreasonable attempts to generalize, to materialize the fact we need more time for more exact measuring of the energy. Of course Ether is our reality. Many of bright physicists are aware of it but they are only ashamed to confess it :)

PS: Vacuum has very real physical properties as a permittivity, permeability, gravitational susceptibility... of course
converge
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:18 am

Re: what about Ether?

Post by converge »

The "luminiferous aether", which is what those links refer to, was thoroughly disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment, and all experiments since then have only reinforced Einstein's theories and obsoleted ether theories. Why do you think we should bring it back? The original calculations have all been shown to not mirror what actually happens in reality, and it conflicts with the current Standard Model of physics, which is actually quite good at mirroring what happens in reality.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: what about Ether?

Post by Cerveny »

converge wrote:The "luminiferous aether", which is what those links refer to, was thoroughly disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment, and all experiments since then have only reinforced Einstein's theories and obsoleted ether theories. Why do you think we should bring it back? The original calculations have all been shown to not mirror what actually happens in reality, and it conflicts with the current Standard Model of physics, which is actually quite good at mirroring what happens in reality.
I have seen at least five interpretations of MM experiment. A least half of them claims they prove aether :)
Because of Einstein's theories does not bring any eaten fruits during eighty years it is really the time think by another way.
Physical space is not certainly null, empty set. It contains limited count of some elements...
converge
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:18 am

Re: what about Ether?

Post by converge »

Cerveny wrote:
converge wrote:The "luminiferous aether", which is what those links refer to, was thoroughly disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment, and all experiments since then have only reinforced Einstein's theories and obsoleted ether theories. Why do you think we should bring it back? The original calculations have all been shown to not mirror what actually happens in reality, and it conflicts with the current Standard Model of physics, which is actually quite good at mirroring what happens in reality.
I have seen at least five interpretations of MM experiment. A least half of them claims they prove aether :)
Because of Einstein's theories does not bring any eaten fruits during eighty years it is really the time think by another way.
Physical space is not certainly null, empty set. It contains limited count of some elements...
Yes, and there are about a thousand internet sites "proving" that the Earth is flat instead of round. If one lacks the ability to understand the MM experiment, I think the best bet would be to side with the widespread, peer-reviewed scientific consensus, rather than some random crazy person's personal blog page.

What do you mean that Einstein's theories do not bring "eaten fruits"? Nearly every advance in physics since then has been based on his insights, and plenty of modern technology is based on principles from relativity and quantum physics. Nearly everything he postulated has been proven correct.

And "physical space has some count of elements" doesn't make any sense. If it has something in it, it's not empty space. If it's empty space, then it doesn't have something in it. Much of the universe is believed to contain "dark" matter and energy, but this is not at all the same thing as the luminiferous aether. The luminiferous aether has been thoroughly disproved.
Izzywizzy
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: what about Ether?

Post by Izzywizzy »

The luminiferous aether has been thoroughly disproved.
Your sources would be great as it stands asserting a definate doesn`t really show me anything.
converge
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:18 am

Re: what about Ether?

Post by converge »

Izzywizzy wrote:
The luminiferous aether has been thoroughly disproved.
Your sources would be great as it stands asserting a definate doesn`t really show me anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson% ... experiment
Izzywizzy
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: what about Ether?

Post by Izzywizzy »

Yes Converge I am aware of the history and that the M&M experiment in 18th century on proving luminiforous aether wasn`t successful that has already been mentioned in my opening post links , but when you read the why it wasn`t you might just read what is said on this in the OP links placed. Contemporary scientists think they were seeking for aether in the wrong way and so of course the experiment was bound to fail, doesn`t mean its proven to not exist it just means it hasn`t been sought correctly or demonstrated yet.
Izzywizzy
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: what about Ether?

Post by Izzywizzy »

Let me reiterate:
This thread invites you all to see only through your sceptical lens at science itself, at myths of science that remain officially unchallenged by the pillars of scientific establishment, granted science has made great progress over the past century, it remains to be seen if when the faithful totems of science are challenged with newer approaches to its established scientific thesis it becomes dogmatically anti itself. The scientific argument against [for example] Einsteins theory of special relativity and the dilemma here for establishment is its becoming a stickler to special relativity theory thus stuck in its ways. To illustrate just one an example, I am more than a little interested in the scientific study of Aether [Ether] the following article I have presented clearly outlines the bias shown to the research on it, what are the implications of it, and ignores its worth, and in Eugene F. Mallove`s estimation the scientific establishment like any establishment will have to re-open its mind to Aether and stop cannonising sciences theory of special relativity by Einstein. This isn`t to say relativity is obselete or altogether wrong, it is to say it can be redefined. If science can open its mind again, there could be great promise for it.

Izzy :idea:
The Einstein Myths— Of Space, Time, and Aether by Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D.

What is very new in Einstein criticism, however, is a body of emerging experimental evidence for an energetic aether, which could be tapped to run electrical machines and generate anomalous heat. Actually, it is the re-emergence of this evidence for an energetic aether after it was rejected by officialdom in the 1940s and 1950s. Also, a handful of theorists have come to believe that aether-based models of subatomic structures are necessary to explain the anomalies in the cold fusion/low-energy nuclear reaction field. The last issue of Infinite Energy featured the landmark article by Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa, "The Reproducible Thermal Anomaly of the Reich-Einstein Experiment Under Limit Conditions" (p. 12). This told of Albert Einstein's inappropriate explaining-away of an important thermal anomaly associated with Faraday cages (metal boxes) after the phenomenon was brought to his attention in early 1941 by Wilhelm Reich. If this and related electrical anomalies evidencing mass free charge from an energetic aether are real, as I for one am reasonably sure they are, then it is clear that the standard conceptions of physics, particularly Einstein's relativity theories, cannot be correct. This, despite their elegant foundation in only a few postulates, such as the relativity principle relating specifically to electromagnetism (which Einstein borrowed from Henri Poincaré) and the supposed constancy of the speed of light in vacuum with respect to any observer, which was his own invention.

In my estimation, Einstein was a person much more cautious about dogmatic expression than those who have claimed invincibility for his relativity theories. In a letter to J. Lee in 1945, Einstein wrote: "A scientific person will never understand why he should believe opinions only because they are written in a certain book. Furthermore, he will never believe that the results of his own attempts are final."

On the other hand, Dr. James DeMeo has unearthed ambiguities in Einstein's reaction to the threatening experimental results from Dr. Dayton C. Miller, who in June 1933 published in Reviews of Modern Physics, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth."16 In the present issue, DeMeo (p. 72) provides an outstanding critique of the Miller work and its apparently glib rejection by others, such as Einstein's biographers, who dismiss Miller's work outright. Though Miller's extensive experimental work is not crucial to Einstein criticism, Einstein's and others' reaction to it is very telling.

The Path Beyond Relativity
There is no question that in the late nineteenth century physics needed to try to find a theory that would extend the relativity principle of Newtonian mechanics to optical phenomena and electromagnetism. Einstein's bold, but flawed synthesis seemed to be workable. That its formulae led to excellent quantitative fit in some experimental regimes concealed its all too apparent logical inconsistencies and inability to encompass other experiments. The physics establishment fell in love with the idea that a lone genius, Einstein, had stood on the shoulders of others to come up with the radical synthesis that abolished the aether and conventionally understood space and time. This elevated the profession of physics by establishing an elite group, which boasted that it could comprehend the spatialization of time and the many paradoxes inherent to SRT.
Many may be surprised to learn that the most perceptive critics of Einstein's relativity theories employ rational methods of scientific argument and analysis; they have performed the essential mathematical treatments. It is natural that newcomers may have misgivings about these critics, because they have been bludgeoned with what have been claimed to be iron-clad proofs of SRT predictions, such as length contraction and time dilation. In truth, the experimental record contains no proof of length contraction and it has a highly muddied collection of "proofs" of time dilation per se. No, the existence of altered decay of subatomic particles such as muons does not prove time dilation, no matter how often that canard is repeated in textbooks (see, for example the critique by Cantrell). Even the famous E=mc2 formulation, supposedly one of Einstein's most original concepts, has alternative derivations, some of which were in an advanced state by the time SRT burst forth onto the scene. And, SRT's famous mass increase with velocity can be viewed quite differently. The infamous "twin paradox" can be abolished. Not only that, there is no reason why advanced space ships could not far exceed light velocity (see Dr. Cynthia Kolb Whitney's papers and conclusions, referenced and summarized on p. 65-66). She notes, ". . .long-distance space travel is seen to be not impossible in principle. We are now limited not by the speed of light, but rather by the speed of thought, which the present author submits is actually infinite when thought is liberated from dogma."

The late Herbert E. Ives of Bell Laboratories, one of the most illustrious of Einstein critics, published one of his many perceptive articles in the Journal of the Optical Society of America, "Genesis of the Query, "Is There an Ether?,'"24 which we have reprinted in this issue (p. 30). In this short piece he appears to shred the illogic of Einstein's second postulate (the supposed requirement for the constancy of the velocity of light measured by all observers), and he defines the false constraints (no use of moving clocks to synchronize other clocks), and other problematic assumptions of Einstein's SRT. No matter— you will be hard-pressed to find mention of Ives' compendious work in any of the biographies of Einstein and books about relativity. Perhaps the well-documented approach of Ives' should become a starting point for relativity criticism (see introduction to Ives' work, (p. 29).

Something Overlooked?
It must be admitted that most alternatives to Einstein's relativity theories seem to focus on mathematical alterations to eliminate the theories' inconsistencies with the experimental record. But it now appears probable to this reviewer that something much more profound has been missed by most of the critics— the possibility of new experimental investigations heretofore overlooked. This new direction is being pioneered by Dr. Paulo and Alexandra Correa, whose laboratory work builds upon the experimental findings of Wilhelm Reich in the middle of the last century and casts their experimental findings in a formalized theory with full mathematical support. (See their newly released materials, available on a new website— http://www.aetherometry.com— which was to appear shortly after this issue went to press.) Their new publication stream began with their paper in the last issue of Infinite Energy,25 continues with their second paper in this issue, and with another Einstein-related paper to appear in our next issue ("The Sagnac and Michelson-Gale-Pearson Experiments: The Tribulations of General Relativity with Respect to Rotation").

They summarize the essence of their new direction in their current paper: "The authors propose that Einstein's heuristic hypothesis be taken as factual— the result being that electromagnetic radiation becomes secondary to an energy continuum that is neither electromagnetic nor amenable to four-dimensional reduction. It follows that the second principle of SR only applies to photon production, which is always and only a local discontinuity. It does not apply to non-electromagnetic radiation, nor, a fortiori, to the propagation of energy responsible for local photon production." [Editor's note: Einstein's "second principle" is the postulate of the supposed constancy of light speed in vacuo to all observers.]

In another profound assertion, which goes directly to the heart of unraveling the mystery of E=mc2, they state: "We have proposed our own aetherometric analysis of these type of experiments, where it it shown that the experimental velocities of massbound charges are predicted by a theoretical model that does not take recourse to any of the Lorentz transformations. That means— no time dilation and no relativistic mass increase with acceleration of inertial mass. The inertial mass of a system is only a measure of its rest energy, unlike what SR proposes it is." They have contempt for the relativistic and other orthodoxies that presume to have abolished the aether: "Having become the official logico-mathematical theory of physics, relativistic orthodoxy, as much as quantum and wave mechanics, refuses to conceive of any form of energy that is not electromagnetic or associated with mass-energy. To speak of the aether these days only brings smiles of contempt from institutional physicists— they have already found something better: the intangible 'swarming of virtual particles'." So, will the aether return with a vengeance and an Aether Energy Age soon begin? We shall see.
Finally, what shall we take as the most important thing to be learned from the almost century-long Einstein hiatus in physical theory? As with cold fusion and LENR, which is for all practical purposes the return of alchemy— proved this time in scientific studies— is that even the most sacrosanct of ideas, Einsteinian Relativity, can be dead wrong. In fact, the late Richard Feynman may have said it best when he identified what he considered to be the most important implication of Relativity, though in the context in which he voiced this, he certainly did not mean that he thought Relativity itself was wrong!:
What then, are the philosophic influences of the theory of relativity? If we limit ourselves to influences in the sense of what kind of new ideas and suggestions are made to the physicist by the principle of relativity, we could describe some of them as follows. The first discovery is, essentially that even those ideas which have been held for a very long time and which have been very accurately verified might be wrong. . .we now have a much more humble point of view of our physical laws— everything can be wrong!26
As regards physics of the late twentieth century and early twenty-first, Feynman (a.k.a. "Genius," so-called by author James Gleick) was profoundly wrong about the "humble" part. But indeed, almost everything was wrong, and we must begin anew to correct it, with arduous experiment and new theory.

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazi ... stein.html


converge
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:18 am

Re: what about Ether?

Post by converge »

Well, here we come to what I said before, that if one doesn't understand the experiments, it's probably wiser to trust the widely believed, peer-reviewed, scientific consensus. When looking at most "alternative science" websites, which are all not peer reviewed and do no have any standards they are held to, you are presented with a choice of what to believe:

1) This one random guy, who has no oversight, no rules he's bound to follow, and could basically be writing whatever nonsense he wants, is telling the truth, while the entire rest of the world, every scientific community in every national academy throughout the world, and every modern accredited physicist, are all part of a massive worldwide conspiracy of lies, promoting general relativity for their own nefarious ends.

or

2) The widespread consensus of all accredited physicists throughout the world is the truth, and this one guy here is just a nut job writing some nonsense on his personal web page.

To me, choice #2 is far more likely. The only reason I'd ever choose #1 over #2 is if I was certain I understood the science being discussed well enough, and the data in #1 could be backed up by my own experiments or a large, peer-reviewed data set. (I tend to have this discussion pretty often with Republicans when it comes to evolution and climate.)

Do you honestly understand what is being discussed in the article you posted? Are you sure?

The main "scientists" in the article, Paulo Correa and Alexandra Correa, wrote several books that attempt to prove the choice #1, that the two of them are the "real" scientists and the entire rest of the world is a massive conspiracy. Here's them ranting about Wikipedia:
This brings us squarely to the question of the uses of Wikipedia, and in particular, those that concern protection of the interests of Big Science. For Wikipedia is at the intersection of this Knowledge Warfare. Its cult of the sanctity of mainstream peer-review, and its determination to brand bona fide non-mainstream scientific efforts as Pseudoscience, lumping them together with doctrines or ideas that would disgust any good scientist, all point in the direction of a gigantic disinformation act. Tyrannized by fanatical lefto-facho bureaucrats and by zealots of Official Science surrounded by an always-ready supply of zombified adolescents, Wikipedia has become a supplement to the imaginary ‘peer-review system’ that supposedly rules the secretion called Official or Big Science. The unconscious entente of Wikipedia proves the collective adherence of its participants to the brave new concept of Official Science: if it does not occur within those institutions which embody the powers of the State (Academia), the Military Mechanism and Capital, it is NOT science, nor worthy of the Media (including mainstream peer-reviewed publications), not worthy of being endorsed for the strategizing of mass-control.
Clearly they have a chip on their shoulder, and think that peer review, and consensus, are mere impediments to their genius. They ignore that all accredited scientists have disproved their theories, and tell their followers that they are victims of the worldwide conspiracy. Again, in order to believe that, I would need to be very sure that the science they are talking about was real, that I myself understood it fully.

The article you posted itself does not have any data or experiments in it. It's just the author saying that the Correa family and a few other (debunked) people say Einstein is wrong. There is a lot of "This person proposes that Einstein is wrong about this" but it doesn't go on to show any reason why they would believe that, no account of proof, and no reproducible experiments.
Izzywizzy
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: what about Ether?

Post by Izzywizzy »

This one random guy, who has no oversight, no rules he's bound to follow, and could basically be writing whatever nonsense he wants, is telling the truth, while the entire rest of the world, every scientific community in every national academy throughout the world, and every modern accredited physicist, are all part of a massive worldwide conspiracy of lies, promoting general relativity for their own nefarious ends
The only one random guy pretending to know and writing nonsense thus far is you Converge. Pardon me for having a brain but maybe you could research who you accredit with talking nonsense. That site you value wiki has this to say about him.
Eugene Mallove held a BS (1969) and MS degree (1970) in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from MIT and a ScD degree (1975) in environmental health sciences from Harvard University. He had worked for technology engineering firms such as Hughes Research Laboratories, the Analytic Science Corporation, and MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, and he consulted in research and development of new energies.

Mallove taught science journalism at MIT and Boston University and was chief science writer at MIT's news office.
All the citations I have made thus far are toward respected peer reviewed scientists the fact you would rather bumble on against their findings and research is very telling, you have enjoined this thread with one intent and that is to rubbish it rather than openly debate it. You have shown no counter claims or evidence , and your argumentum from authority is as ludicrous and fallacious as are your accusations. Like i said until the scientific establishment can stop blocking progress and stop behaving as anti science themselves, this is the expected result a derision of respected scientists and engineers that go against your own modus operandum ..against the status quo

schucks thanks but no thanks!
converge
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:18 am

Re: what about Ether?

Post by converge »

Izzywizzy wrote: The only one random guy pretending to know and writing nonsense thus far is you Converge. Pardon me for having a brain but maybe you could research who you accredit with talking nonsense. That site you value wiki has this to say about him.
I didn't realize you already held a strong belief in the worldwide conspiracy, sorry. If I had, I probably wouldn't have replied at all.
Eugene Mallove held a BS (1969) and MS degree (1970) in aeronautical and astronautical engineering from MIT and a ScD degree (1975) in environmental health sciences from Harvard University. He had worked for technology engineering firms such as Hughes Research Laboratories, the Analytic Science Corporation, and MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, and he consulted in research and development of new energies.

Mallove taught science journalism at MIT and Boston University and was chief science writer at MIT's news office.
All the citations I have made thus far are toward respected peer reviewed scientists the fact you would rather bumble on against their findings and research is very telling, you have enjoined this thread with one intent and that is to rubbish it rather than openly debate it. You have shown no counter claims or evidence , and your argumentum from authority is as ludicrous and fallacious as are your accusations. Like i said until the scientific establishment can stop blocking progress and stop behaving as anti science themselves, this is the expected result a derision of respected scientists and engineers that go against your own modus operandum ..against the status quo
Mallove may have gone to school and been peer-reviewed in some things, but his experiments in pseudoscience all failed when subjected to peer review, which is most likely why, like many discredited scientists, he tried to spread a belief that the whole world was a conspiracy against him and that the opinions of any other scientist should not be trusted. The experiments that are mentioned in the paper did not pass peer review.

All I'm saying is if you take that stance, that the entire scientific community of the world is a giant conspiracy that's misguiding everyone for their own evil ends, then you have no real reason to trust anyone claiming to be a scientist. Why would you care if this guy is from MIT if you simultaneously believe that MIT is part of a massive conspiracy to destroy science? Why would you care if anyone else who claimed to be a scientist agreed with Mallove, if you simultaneously believe that all scientists are conspirators in a vast world-spanning attempt to deny truth?

Also, you say I show "no counter claims or evidence", but you don't have any evidence either, so I'm not sure what you expect me to show you? I pointed you towards the MM experiment, which disproves the Aether. It's been reproduced many times and there is a lot of peer-reviewed data to show that it holds. You showed me an article that says that a bunch of widely debunked scientists think that Einstein was wrong, but there is no data or details of experiments at all; all that article is is a big appeal to authority, or "anti-authority" as the case may be. What sort of "evidence" would you like?
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: what about Ether?

Post by Cerveny »

converge wrote: What do you mean that Einstein's theories do not bring "eaten fruits"? Nearly every advance in physics since then has been based on his insights, and plenty of modern technology is based on principles from relativity and quantum physics. Nearly everything he postulated has been proven correct.

And "physical space has some count of elements" doesn't make any sense. If it has something in it, it's not empty space. If it's empty space, then it doesn't have something in it. Much of the universe is believed to contain "dark" matter and energy, but this is not at all the same thing as the luminiferous aether. The luminiferous aether has been thoroughly disproved.
Sorry,

• Every space (even mathematical) but (trivial) empty set contains points (elements)
• Empty space has several very physical (elastic) properties (permeability, permittivity, gravitational susceptibility) so it cannot be empty
• Today physics is in a sad point - it does not understand nearly any basic phenomena, it does not know where to go, it stands for eighty years at more and more unstable point, it is choked by TR
• I do not know any convincing prove of TR but two: the first (Mercury’s trace bending) had been exactly calculated before Einstein and the second (bending of light beam) that follows from aether theory (its changeable optical properties)
converge
Posts: 113
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:18 am

Re: what about Ether?

Post by converge »

Cerveny wrote: • Every space (even mathematical) but (trivial) empty set contains points (elements)
Points are not "things" though, they are a mathematical abstraction. They are a reference to a location within the space.
• Empty space has several very physical (elastic) properties (permeability, permittivity, gravitational susceptibility) so it cannot be empty
Why can't it be empty? Space can have properties without having "stuff" in it. Spacetime is its own thing, it does not need an extra thing inside of it to make it what it is.
• Today physics is in a sad point - it does not understand nearly any basic phenomena, it does not know where to go, it stands for eighty years at more and more unstable point, it is choked by TR
Not true, there has been a lot of advances in physics in the last eighty years. Particle accelerators, Higgs bosons, string theory, dark matter, dark energy... there's some interesting stuff going on.
• I do not know any convincing prove of TR but two: the first (Mercury’s trace bending) had been exactly calculated before Einstein and the second (bending of light beam) that follows from aether theory (its changeable optical properties)
There are some here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... relativity

You may be confusing Special Relativity and General Relativity. Special Relativity deals only with velocity and time, while General Relativity adds gravity into it as well. The luminiferous aether was disproved by Special Relativity. Niether the Aether nor GR really dealt with gravity.

But for GR tests specifically, there is a list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_g ... relativity
Post Reply