What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Benj on 5 Jun 2007 10:54 Laurent wrote: > Read this: > > The Classical Vacuum > > [From Scientific American, August 1985, pp 70-78.] > > It is not empty. Even when all matter and heat radiation have > been removed from a region of space, the vacuum of classical > physics remains filled with a distinctive pattern of electromagnetic > fields > > by Timothy H. Boyer So the implication here is that the so-called "classical vacuum" or "empty space" is in fact not empty at all there therefore has properties. Maxwell observed that if energy is going to be transmitted from place to place (fields) then there are only two ways it can be done. Particles and Waves. Particles are matter and we have removed all matter by definition, which leaves waves. If waves, then what is the medium that is waving? The question always comes back to how might it be possible to create a "true vacuum" and what would be the properties of such a thing.
From: Bilge on 5 Jun 2007 11:52 On 2007-06-05, Florian <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote: > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > >> "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message > >> > But in this case, you'll never figure out if there is an ether wind >> > perpendicular to the surface of the earth... >> >> Even if there were a flow perpendicular to the Earth's surface, >> the Earth moves through space. Unless all of the aether in >> the universe were fixed to the motions of the Earth, there >> would be aberration effects. > > You would never see a relative movement of the earth through ether if > the ether is a fluid/gas systematically attracted by a mass. Water is a fluid and air is a mixture of gases. Both are ``systematically attracted by a mass,'' yet we see relative movement called ocean currents and wind.
From: Laurent on 5 Jun 2007 19:48 On Jun 5, 10:54 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > Laurent wrote: > > Read this: > > > The Classical Vacuum > > > [From Scientific American, August 1985, pp 70-78.] > > > It is not empty. Even when all matter and heat radiation have > > been removed from a region of space, the vacuum of classical > > physics remains filled with a distinctive pattern of electromagnetic > > fields > > > by Timothy H. Boyer > > So the implication here is that the so-called "classical vacuum" or > "empty space" is in fact not empty at all there therefore has > properties. The so-called "classical vacuum" is not empty, and it does not meet Einstein's definition of what the aether is. Einstein said the aether is no composed of parts that follow a time-line. What Timothy Boyer is talking about is Einstein's spacetime. The aether is before spacetime, even before the Big Bang. But even Einstein failed to make the distinction, he didn't know about Wheeler's quantum foam or the CMBR, he thought it was possible to take all the matter out of a region of space. > > Maxwell observed that if energy is going to be transmitted from place > to place (fields) then there are only two ways it can be done. > Particles and Waves. Particles are matter and we have removed all > matter by definition, which leaves waves. If waves, then what is the > medium that is waving? The question always comes back to how might it > be possible to create a "true vacuum" and what would be the properties > of such a thing.
From: mike3 on 5 Jun 2007 20:23 On May 24, 3:54 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Laurent wrote: > > The aether is simply the space between two points. David Bohm called > > it general space as he said space is what unite us, not what separates > > us. Mach called it momentum space as he explained the force of > > Inertia. Einstein and others like called it free space as they > > explained permeability and permittivity. So there is no question the > > aether is, it is the empty space between points, the question is, does > > it have physical properties? Einstein maintained it did until the day > > he died. > > aether > o current and successful theories don't require an aether > o none is detectable > o no properties are ascribed or measured > o it's a dead concept Did you notice how he defined "aether", by the way? You're saying that space does not exist? Woo, that's an impressive result.
From: Florian on 7 Jun 2007 13:55
Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > You would never see a relative movement of the earth through ether if > > the ether is a fluid/gas systematically attracted by a mass. > > I don't see how that's possible. What do you mean by > "systematically attracted"? If any mass attracts ether, then the Earth would attract ethet, and the ether flow would be perpendicular to the earth surface. right? > If it's a flow due to attraction, wouldn't the flow rate be greater > heading into the 'wind' then away from it? That's right. The flow should be stronger while you approach the surface of the Earth. -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0) |