Your unsupported opinion.
Which gives a good indication of the extent of your "knowledge". There never was a period when mainstream physics believed that.
Aether Displacement
- Thread starter mpc755
- Start date
The explain something, anything. Explain what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment. Explain why there is an offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring moving galaxy clusters and the galaxy clusters themselves. Explain why the Milky Way's halo is in the shape of a squished beach ball.
Your next non-answer is more evidence of the absurdity which exists in mainstream physics today. All in order to not understand aether is physically displaced by matter.
That's why I said 'we'.
So I will add fuel to the fire perhaps... Mull this over a bit...
Now of course though Newton was perhaps the greatest minds to grace the subject, he was in this instance in error (mpc, that means wrong). Still it sounds a lot like aether displacement.
Newton said this I don't remember if it was in a letter to Dr Richard Bentley or from Opticks, queries 20 and 21...
"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"
"Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines? ...Is not this medium much rarer within the dense bodies of the Sun, stars, planets and comets, than in the empty celestial space between them? And in passing from them to great distances, doth it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the bodies; every body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the medium towards the rarer?"
Now of course though Newton was perhaps the greatest minds to grace the subject, he was in this instance in error (mpc, that means wrong). Still it sounds a lot like aether displacement.
"Einstein's 'First Paper'"
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."
The above more correctly stated as the following.
The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium"
The "energetic contact" is the state of displacement of the aether.
More evidence of the absurdity which exists in physics today. Mistaking equations as explanations as to what occurs physically in nature.
'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf
"I think that when this interpretation is further elaborated, extended, and eventually modified in some of its aspects, it will lead to a better understanding of the true coexistence of waves and particles about which actual Quantum mechanics only gives statistical information, often correct, but in my opinion incomplete."
You do realize that, that has been around near 100 years now. It is not like some new idea no one has ever explored before. I even have a copy in my library.
You do realize Einstein, Newton, and de Broglie are all referring to aether displacement.
Lest we forget Maxwell's displacement current is a physical displacement of the aether.
Do you have any sort of life outside of the 24 hrs a day you monitor this absurd thread?
Do you have any sort of life outside of the 24 hrs a day you monitor this absurd thread?
You do realize Einstein, Newton, de Broglie and Maxwell are all referring to aether displacement.
Do you have any sort of life outside of the 24 hrs a day you monitor this absurd thread?
This is his life. Posting here validates his existence.
@mpc --
I think there's something that you're not getting here...well let's be blunt...there's a lot of things you're not getting here. One is that we don't need to explain anything to know that you're wrong. Your explanation doesn't fit with observation, therefore your explanation is wrong regardless of whether or not we can explain what we observe. That which can be asserted without evidence(whether it's your aether theory or "god exists) can(and should) be rejected without evidence.
Another flaw is your insistence in the proof by assertion fallacy.
Until you can understand these things you will never make it in science or in debate.
I think there's something that you're not getting here...well let's be blunt...there's a lot of things you're not getting here. One is that we don't need to explain anything to know that you're wrong. Your explanation doesn't fit with observation, therefore your explanation is wrong regardless of whether or not we can explain what we observe. That which can be asserted without evidence(whether it's your aether theory or "god exists) can(and should) be rejected without evidence.
Another flaw is your insistence in the proof by assertion fallacy.
Until you can understand these things you will never make it in science or in debate.
Name one.
@mpc --
This should about cover it. There's very little difference between the shite you've spouted and this debunked idea.
This should about cover it. There's very little difference between the shite you've spouted and this debunked idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_theory_of_gravitation#Predictions_and_criticism
"The theory proposed a mechanical explanation for Newton's gravitational force in terms of streams of tiny unseen particles (which Le Sage called ultra-mundane corpuscles) impacting all material objects from all directions."
Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether is defined throughout the following article as the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time.
I interpret Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether as it can not be known if ether consists of particles or not.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
"if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."
"There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time."
"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity."
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;...But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
Every time Einstein mentions motion as applied to the ether it is defined as the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. This is different than Einstein's definition of mobility as applied to the ether.
"It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility."
The ether of general relativity is mobile. In terms of its connections with matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places, the mobility of the ether of relativity is its state of displacement.
What I have done is figured out the cause of the condition of the aether of relativity as determined by its connections with matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places.
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."
The state of the ether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether.
Try again.
Last edited:
How does that work? What is the force exerted toward matter.
Place a ball into a tank full of a superfluid. Now take the ball out of the tank. Is there a void in the superfluid where the ball had been? No. This is evidence the superfluid exerts force toward the ball.
Aether and matter have mass. As far as we know, there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space devoid of mass. Aether exists where particles of matter does not.
Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether is not at rest when displaced.
A 'field' in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.
Matter physically displaces aether. The greater the displacement of the aether from its rest position the greater the force exerted by the displaced aether toward the matter.
Gravity is force exerted by displaced aether toward matter.
Well, actually when the ball is in the fluid there is no net force on the ball.
Why is the aether different than the above analogy?
If that were the case then when you took the ball out of the fluid there would be a void left in the fluid where the ball had been.
Good lord, this is high school physics! Do you even know what a force is?
Let me help you out there is no net force because the surface of the ball is not moving. It is staionary because the pressure of the fluid is matched by the internal pressure of the ball, if it wasn't then the ball would collapse or expand. Since the surface of the ball in the fluid does not move there is no net force on the ball.
Look up normal force on google it might help you out.
You should really take a physics course.