What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Stuart Lavin on 21 Jul 2007 11:41 On May 24, 11:55 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The aether is a concept accepted by those whose knowledge of physics > ranges from "none" to "very little". I still find the word "ether" handy, for want of a better term, to differentiate between the "nothing" of empty space (which has various properties and is "something") and actual, conceptual nothing (e.g., "what there would be" if there was no universe at all). I think I'm right in thinking (correct me if I'm wrong, because I recognise that I right be) that "ether" was first proposed before electromagnetic fields were fully understood. People had this idea that light travelled as a wave, but a wave in what? So the idea of "ether" was basically their way of saying that vaccuum was still was full of something - in their case, a mythical fluid that filled the cosmos - and light travelled through it as ripples. Even though we now have a clearer idea of what light is, I still find the word "ether" useful (if somewhat whimsical) in merely casual speech when trying to indicate that vaccuum is *something* and has properties (from simple ones such as dimension, to more complicated ones like - e.g. - virtual particles popping in and out of existence at the quantum level). -- rt Lavin - - - Stuart Lavin - - - Stuart Lavin - - - Stuart Lavin - - - Stua
From: Stuart Lavin on 21 Jul 2007 11:43 On May 25, 1:16 am, The_Man <me_so_hornee...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Whether you can call it God or not would depend on what you think God > > is. > > "Oh, you can call me ray, or you can call me Jay..." lol. If there *is* a God, I really really hope it's Ray Jay Johnson. Just to see the looks on people's faces. -- rt Lavin - - - Stuart Lavin - - - Stuart Lavin - - - Stuart Lavin - - - Stua
From: John C. Polasek on 26 Jul 2007 09:49 On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:41:50 -0700, Stuart Lavin <yabba_dabba_ding_dong(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On May 24, 11:55 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> The aether is a concept accepted by those whose knowledge of physics >> ranges from "none" to "very little". > >I still find the word "ether" handy, for want of a better term, to >differentiate between the "nothing" of empty space (which has various >properties and is "something") and actual, conceptual nothing (e.g., >"what there would be" if there was no universe at all). > >I think I'm right in thinking (correct me if I'm wrong, because I >recognise that I right be) that "ether" was first proposed before >electromagnetic fields were fully understood. People had this idea >that light travelled as a wave, but a wave in what? So the idea of >"ether" was basically their way of saying that vaccuum was still was >full of something - in their case, a mythical fluid that filled the >cosmos - and light travelled through it as ripples. > >Even though we now have a clearer idea of what light is, I still find >the word "ether" useful (if somewhat whimsical) in merely casual >speech when trying to indicate that vaccuum is *something* and has >properties (from simple ones such as dimension, to more complicated >ones like - e.g. - virtual particles popping in and out of existence >at the quantum level). You're right-there has to be an ether to carry light waves. It's just that the first effort to find it in our xyz space had to fail for one thing because it had to be stiffer than steel (and therefore hard to walk through). For the other, because they did not conceive of a dual space to contain the ether. Think of dual space as an ocean (e.g. Dirac's sea) that is the storehouse for the material that populates our vacuum, Everything in our universe began with electrons launched from this sea. The electrons became our particles; the positrons behind mimic these particles. The real physics is in the dual space, electromagnetism and gravity both. Virtual PAIRS can pop out under gamma rays, but not any single particles (e- or p+) which would have to be created in order to do that. We go through the motions and exertions, but the twin in dualspace has to contend with a real ether to see if you can really jump 6 feet. Science is mystified by the problem of where all the antiparticles went? They are the positrons in dual space that exactly 1:1 "twin" the particles in our visible universe. Look at my permittivity paper at http://www.dualspace.net. Every possible parameter of the "vacuum" is computed there including the Youngsmodulus/mass density = c^2 = 1/eps0*mu0. My Dual Space book is better than the paper. John Polasek
From: Sam Wormley on 26 Jul 2007 10:47 John C. Polasek wrote: > You're right-there has to be an ether to carry light waves. It's just > that the first effort to find it in our xyz space had to fail for one > thing because it had to be stiffer than steel (and therefore hard to > walk through). What law or principle of physics says there has to be an ether to carry light waves?
From: Jan Panteltje on 26 Jul 2007 10:53
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:47:02 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in <Gt2qi.40919$Fc.18464(a)attbi_s21>: >John C. Polasek wrote: > >> You're right-there has to be an ether to carry light waves. It's just >> that the first effort to find it in our xyz space had to fail for one >> thing because it had to be stiffer than steel (and therefore hard to >> walk through). > > What law or principle of physics says there has to be an ether to carry > light waves? The question is: 'What waves'. In case of 'wave' we usually see one particle transferring momentum to a next one. Even if those particles are in themselves just standing wave patterns, then the question repeats itself. No particle no wave.... no medium no wave. Right? |