Why an ether/aether?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
Influx
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:06 am

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by Influx » Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:09 pm

altonhare wrote:When we look out there and watch things move, it seems that there is something physically binding the earth (and other things) to the sun. When we look more carefully it appears that every object binds every other object to a greater or lesser extent. It appears that objects are somehow physically bound.
The casimir effect could explain this binding force much better!? As in ether. The earth and the sun act as a cavity excluding certain wavelengths, (those longer than one AU) and so we have the binding force! I know scientist say that the casimir effect can only be felt at submicrometre scale, but in the ether there might be a similar effect. The U is massive, means it has huge waves running around everywhere, If the dipole bodies in space act as exclusion cavities, then their motions could simple be the result of their mass and size.

The atoms could to be bound in a similar method. No strong, weak, or wimpy forces need be invoked. Even threads. Infact...
On a submicrometre scale, this force becomes so strong that it becomes the dominant force between uncharged conductors. In fact, at separations of 10 nm—about 100 times the typical size of an atom—the Casimir effect produces the equivalent of 1 atmosphere of pressure (101.3 kPa), the precise value depending on surface geometry and other factors [1].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

So atoms could simple be held together by the outside pressure of the "virtual particles in zero-point energy of a quantized field"= ether! :roll: 8-) Sense the exclusion cavity between the subatomic particles is tiny, the subatomic particles would experience massive pressure!

The atom then could be an interplay of electrostatic repulsion forces and the casimir binding forces. That is why neutrons stick
...the typical example is of two uncharged metallic plates in a vacuum, placed a few micrometers apart...
Neutral uncharged plates= neutrons. In fact I propose a new theory, (maybe somebody already did) Everything is held together by the binding pressure of the casimir effect in the ether and electrostatics.
Today is the yesterday of tomorrow.

quantumboy
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether? Dark matter is here!

Post by quantumboy » Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:55 pm

The traditional view of an invisible, undetectable "ether" has been confirmed by traditional scientists who have named it "dark matter". Theorists that have claimed to produce beyond-Einstein levels of energy (via atomic-grade hydrogen welding torches) from "nothing" (the ether) appear to be redeemed from the looney bin. There IS something out there that we have not tapped or understand. 8-)

tangointhenight
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by tangointhenight » Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:18 am

Yes, interesting theory influx. But your theory requires ether, which has been quit elusive for the last 100 yrs.

What effect would ether have that we could test for?

quantumboy
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by quantumboy » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:13 am

There appears to be some mysticism attached to the term "ether". Physicists are more comfortable with the "substance" of "spacetime" or "dark matter" which is accepted by the mainstream scientific community. The physical connection between the Sun and Earth has been proven to be a product of a Gravitational field, which we now understand to be bent space or warped spacetime to be more precise. The field of Quantum Gravity attempts to explain gravity at the micro level and unify quantum physics with Einsteinian physics - - without any success thus far. Extreme mass produces the bending of space with Black Holes collapsing spacetime into quantum foam or chaos, where time stops and space is crushed into non-existence or a hole if you will. There is also some possibility that, perhaps, super-intense counter-spinning electro-magnetic fields can produce spacetime distortions. The Austrian space agency has reported gravitational fields 10000 times greater than predicted by spinning a supercooled magnetic field, (also, google Die Glock and counter-rotating EM fields) If true, this could possibly become the next generation of propulsion, allowing man to step outside the spacetime velocity constraints of Einsteinian physics. (i.e. Vmax = c) 8-)

tangointhenight
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by tangointhenight » Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:58 pm

Dark Matter is not the same as ether. According to astrophysicists space is empty.
It is not accepted by the mainstream scientific community. You must be forgetting how science works. It works by explaining then trying to test nature to see if your explanation is correct, you do not jump the gun and say your theory is correct.
Dark matter is being tested for, so far they didn't find any.

Joe Keenan
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:17 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by Joe Keenan » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:04 pm

Bills eyebrows tell me to do bad things........it's either them or the dog.........pretty sure it's the eyebrows though.

quantumboy
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by quantumboy » Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:45 am

With all due respect, the ONE thing all physicists do agree on is that space is NOT empty. "Empty" spacetime has mass, otherwise the universe would be flying apart (expanding) at much greater speed. While the "God particle," as it is popularly called, has not been found at the quantum level, evidence for it abounds at the Astrophysics level without question. I would respectfully suggest you read up on the subject before you post stuff like "space is empty". We all agree that is nonsense. It is not up for debate among serious physicists. May all God's blessings and particles be upon you. Repent or perish! 8-)

tangointhenight
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by tangointhenight » Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:53 pm

With out invoking QED and Higgs Bosons, space is empty. Plus their is no actual proof for Higgs Bosons, yet.

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by StevenO » Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:34 am

tangointhenight wrote:With out invoking QED and Higgs Bosons, space is empty. Plus their is no actual proof for Higgs Bosons, yet.
It all depends on viewpoint. In physical formula's numbers can be assigned to matter (take Newton or Special Relativity for instance) or space (take General Relativity or QCD for instance). Would be nice if that would be done with some consistency :)
But, at least we have to conclude that space is something physical. Even if it is not curved or teeming with virtual particles it provides separation between observable objects.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

quantumboy
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by quantumboy » Sun Sep 27, 2009 9:39 pm

"Even if space is not curved..."

Space is curved in the presence of mass and this has been proven during an eclipse of the sun when a star appeared behind the sun a little earlier than predicted if space was not curved. The mass of the sun bent space so we could see the star which was still behind the sun, precisely as predicted by Einstein. Who has postulated that space is not curved? I feel like I am in Never-Neverland, here...

If Higgs Bosons do not exist, Lucy has some Splainin' to do... 'cause the Universe is not behaving in a manner consistent with massless spacetime...

Please corerect me if I have stated anything that is a proven misstatement of fact.

Blessings,

Quantumboy 8-)

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by StevenO » Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:47 am

quantumboy wrote:"Even if space is not curved..."

Space is curved in the presence of mass and this has been proven during an eclipse of the sun when a star appeared behind the sun a little earlier than predicted if space was not curved. The mass of the sun bent space so we could see the star which was still behind the sun, precisely as predicted by Einstein. Who has postulated that space is not curved? I feel like I am in Never-Neverland, here...

If Higgs Bosons do not exist, Lucy has some Splainin' to do... 'cause the Universe is not behaving in a manner consistent with massless spacetime...

Please corerect me if I have stated anything that is a proven misstatement of fact.

Blessings,

Quantumboy 8-)
Dear Quantumboy,

The assignment of "curvature" to "space" is a choice made by Einstein. It is actually much easier to assign the distortion to matter. I show you how that works for this example you mentioned:

Doing General Relativity with plain Algebra

Through Einstein's equivalence principle we cannot distinguish between a gravity pull down or an acceleration up. That permits us to model gravity as an outward acceleration of matter. This way it becomes straightforward to e.g. calculate the gravitational deflection of light from the sun.
  • 1. Putting the transit time of a photon grazing the sun to the earth at 500s, we get that the surface of the earth during this time expands a distance of:
    • s = at2/2 = (9.8m/s2)(500s)2/2 = 1,225,000m
    2. The angle of deflection can then be calculated from:
    • tan(θ) = s/1 AU = 1,225,000m/1.5x1011m

      θ = 1.68 arcseconds
    3. Voila, the result that made Einstein an instant celebrity. :ugeek:

    4. It is just that Einstein could have saved us all this tensor math.... :x
Similar calculations could be made for all other properties now assigned to "space". And indeed, if you ask me, the Higgs-boson belongs in NeverNeverland, but I'm sure the LHC will find something that fits the "adjusted prediction".
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

quantumboy
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 3:23 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by quantumboy » Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:25 pm

Dear StevenO,

Okay, I have to admit that is the first time I have heard about replacing Einstein's "arbitrary" choice of cuved space vs. "accelerated mass". Has this alternative theory been published in any of the journals anywhere? If so I would like to look it up. In the meantime, I'm sticking with Einstein, even though he dissed Quantum Physics, which was really hurtful. :cry:

Blessings,

Quantumboy

User avatar
StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by StevenO » Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:45 am

quantumboy wrote:Dear StevenO,

Okay, I have to admit that is the first time I have heard about replacing Einstein's "arbitrary" choice of cuved space vs. "accelerated mass". Has this alternative theory been published in any of the journals anywhere? If so I would like to look it up. In the meantime, I'm sticking with Einstein, even though he dissed Quantum Physics, which was really hurtful. :cry:

Blessings,

Quantumboy
Dear Quantumboy,

I'm happy you at least want to consider it. Most journals or other institutions of the "mainstream" are not that open minded or even kind. So, I cannot point you to a mainstream journal publishing it. I can only point you to Miles Mathis, which was the originator of this line of reasoning (some others did as well, but not as simple as he did): A Critique of General Relativity.

Here is a typical example how this idea is received if one defends this simple method at a mainstream forum: Doing Relativity with Plain Algebra.

I don't think Einstein dismissed quantum physics as a whole since he was the inventor of the photon. Einstein just had the opinion that the idea that physics could only follow laws of statistics as the Copenhagen school proposed was a clear sign that the theory was incomplete. A simple argumentation why the Copenhagen school is wrong can also be found on Miles website: Quantum Mechanics and Idealism. Some comments on the Born-Einstein discussion on this and other topics can be found there as well: The Born-Einstein Letters.
Miles Mathis wrote:The fundamental problem of Quantum Mechanics is a problem of the same sort. It is a mistaking of the math for the reality. The current theory of QM starts with the assumption that the probability wave is the reality. But the probability wave is the math. The math cannot be the reality. The math represents the reality. But it is not logically equivalent to the reality.
Heisenberg’s main fault therefore was not in his math but in the interpretation of that math. He made a simple definitional error, one of equating the math with the reality. Bohr accepted this error, it became the famous Copenhagen interpretation, and particle physics has followed it ever since. All of the biggest paradoxes in QM are caused by this error. Superposition and entanglement, for instance, are both caused by mistaking the math for the reality. Superposition was historically just an addition of wave amplitudes. In Quantum Mechanics, these waves are probability waves, and so superposition seems to imply, in some circumstances, a multiple existence. Schrodinger’s cat is both alive and dead until we open the box.
The entire problem is in assuming that the math is the reality. It is not. The math is the math, and the reality is the reality. The math in QM is statistical. The wave is a probability wave. Therefore the math can never transcend the probability. Probability math cannot fully represent reality. Even regular math cannot fully represent reality, in that the dimensions will always be incommensurate: mathematical fields cannot match physical fields due to the fact that you cannot mathematically represent (or graph) a zero-dimensional variable. But probability math represents reality even less fully, for obvious reasons. Probability math gives us only probabilities.
This used to be common sense. Mathematicians understood that probabilities were probabilities. Probabilities were imprecise, due to the very definition of the word. But scientists in the 20th century could not live with this imprecision. They were so proud of their new theory that they could not bear to admit that it was not a full expression of reality. They couldn’t live with the “gap” in knowledge. So they simply closed the gap, by main force. They just defined probability as reality. They said, in effect, “This is what we know. Our math is all we know and it is all we can know. Therefore, it is reality for us. Therefore it is reality.”
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

scotty
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:48 pm

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by scotty » Tue Sep 29, 2009 4:36 am

Here is some quotes from Tesla.
"It has been suggested that the cosmic rays are electrons or that they are the result of creation of new matter in the interstellar deserts. These views are too fantastic to be even for a moment seriously considered. They are natural outcroppings of this age of deep but unrational thinking, of impossible theories, the latest of which might, perhaps, deal with the curvature of time. What this world of ours would be if time were curved:"

And here also.
"When Dr. Heinrich Hertz undertook his experiments from 1887 to 1889 his object was to demonstrate a theory postulating a medium filling all space, called the ether, which was structureless, of inconceivable tenuity and yet solid and possessed of rigidity incomparably greater than that of the hardest steel. He obtained certain results and the whole world acclaimed them as an experimental verification of that cherished theory. But in reality what he observed tended to prove just its fallacy.

"I had maintained for many years before that such a medium as supposed could not exist, and that we must rather accept the view that all space is filled with a gaseous substance. On repeating the Hertz experiments with much improved and very powerful apparatus, I satisfied myself that what he had observed was nothing else but effects of longitudinal waves in a gaseous medium, that is to say, waves, propagated by alternate compression and expansion. He had observed waves in the ether much of the nature of sound waves in the air.

"Up to 1896, however, I did not succeed in obtaining a positive experimental proof of the existence of such a medium. But in that year I brought out a new form of vacuum tube capable of being charged to any desired potential, and operated it with effective pressures of about 4,000,000 volts. I produced cathodic and other rays of transcending intensity. The effects, according to my view, were due to minute particles of matter carrying enormous electrical charges, which, for want of a better name, I designated as matter not further decomposable. Subsequently those particles were called electrons.

"One of the first striking observations made with my tubes was that a purplish glow for several feet around the end of the tube was formed, and I readily ascertained that it was due to the escape of the charges of the particles as soon as they passed out into the air; for it was only in a nearly perfect vacuum that these charges could be confined to them. The coronal discharge proved that there must be a medium besides air in the space, composed of particles immeasurably smaller than those of air, as otherwise such a discharge would not be possible. On further investigation I found that this gas was so light that a volume equal to that of the earth would weigh only about one-twentieth of a pound.

"The velocity of any sound wave depends on a certain ratio between elasticity and density, and for this ether or universal gas the ratio is 800,000,000,000 times greater than for air. This means that the velocity of the sound waves propagated through the ether is about 300,000 times greater than that of the sound waves in air, which travel at approximately 1,085 feet a second. Consequently the speed in ether is 900,000 x 1,085 feet, or 186,000 miles, and that is the speed of light."

"The assumption of the Maxwellian ether was thought necessary to explain the propagation of light by transverse vibrations, which can only occur in a solid. So fascinating was this theory that even at present it has many supporters, despite the manifest impossibility of a medium, perfectly mobile and tenuous to a degree inconceivable, and yet extremely rigid, like steel. As a result some illusionary ideas have been formed and various phenomena erroneously interpreted. The so—called Hertz waves are still considered a reality proving that light is electrical in its nature, and also that the ether is capable of transmitting transverse vibrations of frequencies however low. This view has become untenable since I showed that the universal medium is a gaseous body in which only longitudinal pulses can be prop­agated, involving alternating compressions and expansions similar to those produced by sound waves in the air. Thus, a wireless transmitter does not emit Hertz waves which are a myth, but sound waves in the ether, behaving in every respect like those in the air, except that, owing to the great elastic force and extremely small densi­ty of the medium, their speed is that of light."

And just one more... ;)
"It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.".......Nikola Tesla.

User avatar
junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Why an ether/aether?

Post by junglelord » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:39 pm

3-6-9, the rotating magnetic field, the aether....Tesla gave the cryptic message about this being the secret of the universe.
8-)
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests