Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The propagation of light and the aether

Options
  • 13-02-2013 5:24am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭


    This is just a thought that resurfaced when discussing a different topic; I'm sure it's nothing new, but I just wanted to see where the logic would lead and see if the formulation could become clearer, because I'm not sure how to formulate what exactly I mean. It's a philosophical question of a scientific "problem".

    Something or nothing
    It's said that light doesn't require a medium through which to travel, but presumably light must necessarily travel through some medium, because everywhere in the universe there is something, there can be no part of the universe where there is nothing, because "nothing" implies non-existence. So, if light travels through the universe, it must surely travel through some sort of medium i.e. it must travel through something and not nothing.


    Medium
    If we have a laser at one end of a room and fire it towards the other, we can imagine the light traveling through the air and reaching the other side; the speed of light will be affected, such that it is marginally slower than the speed of light in a vacuum (300,000km/s).

    We can then imagine creating a vacuum in the room and firing the laser again; this time, the light doesn't travel through the air, because all the air has been removed. But the region of the universe where the vacuum has been created still exists, or at least, assuming it still exists, it must mean that there is something there; there must be something within the entirety of the vacuum, that is, it must still be filled with something; if it wasn't filled with something, that is, if there wasn't something there, then that region of the universe would be non-existent.

    If there is something throughout the entire vacuum, then the light must necessarily pass through it to get from where it is fired to where it ends up; this would represent a medium for light, wouldn't it?


«13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    roosh wrote: »
    Something or nothing
    It's said that light doesn't require a medium through which to travel, but presumably light must necessarily travel through some medium, because everywhere in the universe there is something, there can be no part of the universe where there is nothing, because "nothing" implies non-existence. So, if light travels through the universe, it must surely travel through some sort of medium i.e. it must travel through something and not nothing.
    When physicists refer to the medium here they are making a distinction between light and mechanical waves.
    Mechanical waves such as water waves or sound are displacements in the medium (which is the water or the air etc.) They are not "travelling through the medium" in the sense that something travels in the way some object travels through the air. They are changes in the medium.

    Light (and other particles) do not have a medium in the same way. They move through space, but they are not displacements of space or anything like an aether.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    King Mob wrote: »
    When physicists refer to the medium here they are making a distinction between light and mechanical waves.
    Mechanical waves such as water waves or sound are displacements in the medium (which is the water or the air etc.) They are not "travelling through the medium" in the sense that something travels in the way some object travels through the air. They are changes in the medium.

    Light (and other particles) do not have a medium in the same way. They move through space, but they are not displacements of space or anything like an aether.
    Ah yes, sorry, I completely forgot about that.

    When we say that light move through space, it must mean that light passes through something, because there must be something "in the way" all along it's path, because there can't be nothing. Do you know what it is that it passes through, and how it passes through it?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    roosh wrote: »
    Ah yes, sorry, I completely forgot about that.

    When we say that light move through space, it must mean that light passes through something, because there must be something "in the way" all along it's path, because there can't be nothing. Do you know what it is that it passes through, and how it passes through it?
    What exactly are you basing this assumption that there can't be nothing on?

    When light is travelling through space it is not passing through any material as it does not need a medium in the same way a water or sound wave does.

    You seem to be letting yourself be confused by the language of the analogies use to explain physical and mathematical concepts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    King Mob wrote: »
    What exactly are you basing this assumption that there can't be nothing on?

    When light is travelling through space it is not passing through any material as it does not need a medium in the same way a water or sound wave does.

    You seem to be letting yourself be confused by the language of the analogies use to explain physical and mathematical concepts.
    "Nothing" implies non-existence. So, if light passes through a region of the universe there must be something there, which it will have to pass through; because there must be something in every region of the universe. That is, no matter where light goes, there must have been something already there, otherwise that part of the universe wouldn't exist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    roosh wrote: »
    "Nothing" implies non-existence.
    No it doesn't.
    And it depends on how you define nothing, thus the problems you run into using language to discuss physical and mathematical things.
    roosh wrote: »
    So, if light passes through a region of the universe there must be something there, which it will have to pass through; because there must be something in every region of the universe. That is, no matter where light goes, there must have been something already there, otherwise that part of the universe wouldn't exist.
    Yes, the space is there, which could be considered nothing.
    But the light does not use it the same was water waves or sound use water and air. Light is not a displacement of space. Light is not really a displacement of anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    King Mob wrote: »
    No it doesn't.
    And it depends on how you define nothing, thus the problems you run into using language to discuss physical and mathematical things.
    Language is used to discuss physical things all the time, that is essentially the purpose of language, to discuss our experience of the physical world; to be able to discuss mathematical things language is required to first learn the mathematics.

    And nothing does indeed imply non-existence; otherwise we've got "nothing" which is, in actual fact "something".

    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, the space is there, which could be considered nothing.
    But the light does not use it the same was water waves or sound use water and air. Light is not a displacement of space. Light is not really a displacement of anything.
    If we assume a material universe, such that everything that exists is material, or made of matter, then space must be made of some form of matter, and light must pass through it. It might not be a displacement of the matter, but it must pass through this form of matter (assuming a material universe.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    roosh wrote: »
    Language is used to discuss physical things all the time, that is essentially the purpose of language, to discuss our experience of the physical world; to be able to discuss mathematical things language is required to first learn the mathematics.
    Mathematics is precise, language is less so, especially when discussing things the don't actually experience in the physical world.
    And yes to discuss mathematical things you need to learn mathematics, which you need to do to understand the topic you are discussing.
    roosh wrote: »
    And nothing does indeed imply non-existence; otherwise we've got "nothing" which is, in actual fact "something".
    It can also imply the lack of existence of anything, which is different to the assumption you are making.
    roosh wrote: »
    If we assume a material universe, such that everything that exists is material, or made of matter, then space must be made of some form of matter, and light must pass through it. It might not be a displacement of the matter, but it must pass through this form of matter (assuming a material universe.
    You logic is incredibly faulty.
    We don't have to assume that everything in a material universe is matter. We know it's not as we have thing in the material universe that are not matter, like energy for instance. (Again you are running into issues because of the language used.)
    And it does not follow at all that space must be a form of matter.

    And if you are not saying that space is a displacement or space or something else as mechanical waves are, what exactly is the point you are making?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    King Mob wrote: »
    Mathematics is precise, language is less so, especially when discussing things the don't actually experience in the physical world.
    And yes to discuss mathematical things you need to learn mathematics, which you need to do to understand the topic you are discussing.
    If we are discussing things we don't experience then we are talking abstractly, and language can also be used; there are certain things which we can express in language which must also be true for mathematics, such as, there must be something in every region of the universe, because "nothing" implies non-existence. While this might not be expressable in a mathematical formulism, it is nonetheless true.

    Where we assume a material world then there must be either matter or energy in every region of the universe, in accordance with what you mention below.
    King Mob wrote: »
    It can also imply the lack of existence of anything, which is different to the assumption you are making.
    They are the same, lack of existence is non-existence. We can restate it such that there must be something in every region of the universe, because "nothing" implies the lack of existence of anything.



    King Mob wrote: »
    You logic is incredibly faulty.
    We don't have to assume that everything in a material universe is matter. We know it's not as we have thing in the material universe that are not matter, like energy for instance. (Again you are running into issues because of the language used.)
    And it does not follow at all that space must be a form of matter.
    apologies, I was being somewhat lazy in just using the term matter; I was just thinking in terms of "something in a material world"; it would have been more accurate to say "something material" through which light must pass. But, if everything in a material universe is either matter or energy, then it must pass through either, with energy being the most likely - is this what Dark Energy is?
    King Mob wrote: »
    And if you are not saying that space is a displacement or space or something else as mechanical waves are, what exactly is the point you are making?
    I was just stating something that was in my head to see what the response would be, and to see where it might develop.

    Would it be possible that light is the displacement of energy?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    roosh wrote: »
    If we are discussing things we don't experience then we are talking abstractly, and language can also be used; there are certain things which we can express in language which must also be true for mathematics, such as, there must be something in every region of the universe, because "nothing" implies non-existence. While this might not be expressable in a mathematical formulism, it is nonetheless true.
    But you are assuming your premise and making a false statement.
    There's nothing at all to support your assertion that there must be something in every region of the universe. There's nothing to support your insistence that "nothing" implies non-existence. And there's plenty of physical and mathematical concepts that are vague and easily misunderstood when expressed in language rather than mathematical terms, particle/wave duality and like lots of the stuff in relativity for instance.
    roosh wrote: »
    Where we assume a material world then there must be either matter or energy in every region of the universe, in accordance with what you mention below.
    This does not follow nor support what you seem to be claiming.
    roosh wrote: »
    They are the same, lack of existence is non-existence. We can restate it such that there must be something in every region of the universe, because "nothing" implies the lack of existence of anything.
    But they are not. Empty space and nonexistance aren't the same thing, but they are both "nothing".
    roosh wrote: »
    apologies, I was being somewhat lazy in just using the term matter; I was just thinking in terms of "something in a material world"; it would have been more accurate to say "something material" through which light must pass. But, if everything in a material universe is either matter or energy, then it must pass through either, with energy being the most likely -
    But it doesn't pass through energy and it doesn't need to. Space is not energy, energy is not matter and matter is not space. These all have clear strict definitions in physics and are separate concepts. You, once again are using the colloquial language used to simplify these concepts and are getting confused by it.
    roosh wrote: »
    is this what Dark Energy is?
    No, it's not. Light does not need dark energy as a medium to propagate.
    roosh wrote: »
    I was just stating something that was in my head to see what the response would be, and to see where it might develop.
    Maybe you should actually learn what the current theories are about light before you start making up new theories without any math?
    roosh wrote: »
    Would it be possible that light is the displacement of energy?
    Not in the same way you are trying to suggest.
    Light is most definitely not a displacement of anything like the aether.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    roosh wrote: »
    This is just a thought that resurfaced when discussing a different topic; I'm sure it's nothing new, but I just wanted to see where the logic would lead and see if the formulation could become clearer, because I'm not sure how to formulate what exactly I mean. It's a philosophical question of a scientific "problem".

    Something or nothing
    It's said that light doesn't require a medium through which to travel, but presumably light must necessarily travel through some medium, because everywhere in the universe there is something, there can be no part of the universe where there is nothing, because "nothing" implies non-existence. So, if light travels through the universe, it must surely travel through some sort of medium i.e. it must travel through something and not nothing.


    Medium
    If we have a laser at one end of a room and fire it towards the other, we can imagine the light traveling through the air and reaching the other side; the speed of light will be affected, such that it is marginally slower than the speed of light in a vacuum (300,000km/s).

    We can then imagine creating a vacuum in the room and firing the laser again; this time, the light doesn't travel through the air, because all the air has been removed. But the region of the universe where the vacuum has been created still exists, or at least, assuming it still exists, it must mean that there is something there; there must be something within the entirety of the vacuum, that is, it must still be filled with something; if it wasn't filled with something, that is, if there wasn't something there, then that region of the universe would be non-existent.

    If there is something throughout the entire vacuum, then the light must necessarily pass through it to get from where it is fired to where it ends up; this would represent a medium for light, wouldn't it?

    Classically speaking, light is the propagation of electromagnetic waves, and the electromagnetic field, unlike an aether, is Lorentz invariant.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you are assuming your premise and making a false statement.
    There's nothing at all to support your assertion that there must be something in every region of the universe. There's nothing to support your insistence that "nothing" implies non-existence. And there's plenty of physical and mathematical concepts that are vague and easily misunderstood when expressed in language rather than mathematical terms, particle/wave duality and like lots of the stuff in relativity for instance.
    I'm sure you're familiar with the philosophical question: "why is there something instead of nothing?"; this question is basically a question of why there is existence instead of non-existence. So here, "nothing" certainly implies non-existence. On this basis, there must be something in every region of the universe because what doesn't exist cannot be part of the universe.
    wiki wrote:
    Nothing is no thing,[1] denoting the absence of something. Nothing is a pronoun associated with nothingness.[1]
    Nothingness is the state of being nothing,[2] the state of nonexistence of anything, or the property of having nothing.



    King Mob wrote: »
    This does not follow nor support what you seem to be claiming.
    We might be at cross purposes here; what is it that you think I'm claiming?



    King Mob wrote: »
    But they are not. Empty space and nonexistance aren't the same thing, but they are both "nothing".
    Maybe the fact that you put "nothing" in inverted commas is to imply that what is meant by nothing, isn't really nothing. Empty space isn't really empty, so it isn't really nothing. The article linked to above discusses a book written by Jim Holt on the question of something rather than nothing; the following quote is pertinent:
    Nothing is not mere emptiness, nothing is not just a vacuum, which can be riddled with waves and particles and possesses extension, dimension, temporality, or at least laws

    Has the meaning of nothing changed?

    King Mob wrote: »
    But it doesn't pass through energy and it doesn't need to. Space is not energy, energy is not matter and matter is not space. These all have clear strict definitions in physics and are separate concepts. You, once again are using the colloquial language used to simplify these concepts and are getting confused by it.
    If we work on the definition of nothing as non-existence, then space must be something; if we assume a materialistic universe then space must be matter or energy; if light passes through space then it must pass through either energy or matter.
    King Mob wrote: »
    No, it's not. Light does not need dark energy as a medium to propagate.
    cool, I was just speculating as to what Dark Energy might be.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Maybe you should actually learn what the current theories are about light before you start making up new theories without any math?
    I have a farily basic understanding of what some of the theories say about light, and I'm not trying to make up a new theory; I'm just exploring the possibility that light must necessarily travel through something, if it is traveling through the universe.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Not in the same way you are trying to suggest.
    Light is most definitely not a displacement of anything like the aether.
    In what sense then, would light be the displacement of energy?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Spacetime is the gravitational field. It is a differential manifold with no geometry defined a priori.


  • Registered Users Posts: 325 ✭✭tvc15


    This discussion reminds me why it is best not to jump into physics from a philosophical point of view when there is the possibility that people with an understanding of physics are present!

    I am happy with and see the benefits of non technical philosophical discussions and with how such discussions can broaden the mind. The problem when mixing science and philosophy is that the precision of knowledge in science completely snuffs out most of the great philosophical questions by providing answers.

    Two philosophers could have a great and worthwhile discussion on the dual wave and particle nature of light. This might greatly benefit the field of philosophy and benefit mankind but problems arise when this discussion is treated as science. It is very unlikely to contribute anything to the field of physics as there are endless rules and findings generated from decades of research and experimentation which need to be considered.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    I lament the word ''Quantum'' let lose at us (the general population) as it is. Quantum implies 'weight' but the first questions and experiments were regarding 'light'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    Morbert wrote: »
    Spacetime is the gravitational field. It is a differential manifold with no geometry defined a priori.
    Thanks Morbert.

    I'm trying to understand this from the very basic position of something and nothing. There are some concepts there which I can look into.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 344 ✭✭wallycharlo


    roosh wrote: »
    Thanks Morbert.

    I'm trying to understand this from the very basic position of something and nothing. There are some concepts there which I can look into.

    You accept that light (i.e. photons) passes trough space.

    But you seem to equate space with being 'nothing'. Perhaps this is the crux of your problem?

    i.e. space is indeed 'something', and this (expanding) 'something', according to popular theory, was created at the time of the big bang.

    As for what the space is expanding into, perhap this is the 'nothing' which you are looking for? :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    You accept that light (i.e. photons) passes trough space.

    But you seem to equate space with being 'nothing'. Perhaps this is the crux of your problem?

    i.e. space is indeed 'something', and this (expanding) 'something', according to popular theory, was created at the time of the big bang.

    As for what the space is expanding into, perhap this is the 'nothing' which you are looking for? :pac:
    No, I'm saying that space is something and, as such, light must pass through this something.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    roosh wrote: »
    No, I'm saying that space is something and, as such, light must pass through this something.

    A relevant article.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence

    Also, a post I made previously
    Morbert wrote:
    Classically speaking, light is the propagation of electromagnetic waves, and the electromagnetic field, unlike an aether, is Lorentz invariant.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 344 ✭✭wallycharlo


    roosh wrote: »
    No, I'm saying that space is something and, as such, light must pass through this something.

    Indeed, I seem to have grabbed the wrong end of the stick on that :o


  • Registered Users Posts: 298 ✭✭HHobo


    I was too lazy to read the other responses so apologies if this is reiterating another posters point.

    The medium you are talking about, i.e. the not-nothingness, is space-time. That is what the light is travelling trough. The nothing that a vacuum refers to is not nothing in the absolute sense. It is the absense of any particles. Sound requires that one particule "passes" the sound (vibration/energy state) to another particle in a mexian wave kind of way. Light doesn't require this.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    Morbert wrote: »
    A relevant article.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_independence

    Also, a post I made previously
    cheers for that. I somehow missed that post you made previously.

    I should probably have kept the thread title to just the propagation of light because, while I had the aether in mind, I was thinking more simply along the lines of light traveling through something.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    Indeed, I seem to have grabbed the wrong end of the stick on that :o
    noddabodder :D


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 mpc755


    A 'new dark force' is more speculative than understanding space itself has mass and the galaxy clusters are moving through and displacing space analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by one another.

    'Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe'
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/musket-ball-dark-force/

    "The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter."

    Space itself having mass means a photon propagates as a displacement wave in space.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭roosh


    Morbert wrote: »
    Spacetime is the gravitational field. It is a differential manifold with no geometry defined a priori.
    HHobo wrote: »
    I was too lazy to read the other responses so apologies if this is reiterating another posters point.

    The medium you are talking about, i.e. the not-nothingness, is space-time. That is what the light is travelling trough. The nothing that a vacuum refers to is not nothing in the absolute sense. It is the absense of any particles. Sound requires that one particule "passes" the sound (vibration/energy state) to another particle in a mexian wave kind of way. Light doesn't require this.

    Is it incorrect to think of planets movement through spacetime as being somewhat analagous to fish swimming in a fish tank; where spacetime surrounds, and even pervades, the planets and the planets move through it?

    Obviously it would have very different properties of water and would be made of entirely different "stuff", and the planets would affect the shape of spacetime more than fish would. Could spacetime be thought of as, almost, impossibly fine matter, or would it be more energy than matter; or would it be something else entirely?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    roosh wrote: »
    Is it incorrect to think of planets movement through spacetime as being somewhat analagous to fish swimming in a fish tank; where spacetime surrounds, and even pervades, the planets and the planets move through it?

    Obviously it would have very different properties of water and would be made of entirely different "stuff", and the planets would affect the shape of spacetime more than fish would. Could spacetime be thought of as, almost, impossibly fine matter, or would it be more energy than matter; or would it be something else entirely?

    Water in a fish tank would be an aether. Spacetime, if it were thought of as very fine matter, would be an aether. Spacetime is not an aether. It is a field. The difference between a field and an aether is an important one, and it is Lorentz invariance. Since an aether is made of stuff, there is a coordinate system associated with that stuff being at rest. A field is an object that does not have a medium or "stuff" associated with it, and hence does not offer a state of rest associated with it. Instead, it is a differential manifold with no predefined geometry or coordinate system.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 mpc755


    roosh wrote: »
    Is it incorrect to think of planets movement through spacetime as being somewhat analagous to fish swimming in a fish tank; where spacetime surrounds, and even pervades, the planets and the planets move through it?

    What is referred to as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether. Planets move through and displace the aether analogous to a boat moving through the water. The aether displacement waves found out ahead of galaxy clusters and our solar system are analogous to the bow wave of a boat.

    'Hubble Finds Ghostly Ring of Dark Matter'
    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/news/dark_matter_ring_feature.html

    "Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope got a first-hand view of how dark matter behaves during a titanic collision between two galaxy clusters. The wreck created a ripple of dark mater, which is somewhat similar to a ripple formed in a pond when a rock hits the water."

    The 'pond' consists of aether. The ripple is an aether displacement wave. The ripple is a gravitational wave.

    'Surprise! IBEX Finds No Bow ‘Shock’ Outside our Solar System'
    http://www.universetoday.com/95094/surprise-ibex-finds-no-bow-shock-outside-our-solar-system/

    '“While bow shocks certainly exist ahead of many other stars, we’re finding that our Sun’s interaction doesn’t reach the critical threshold to form a shock,” said Dr. David McComas, principal investigator of the IBEX mission, “so a wave is a more accurate depiction of what’s happening ahead of our heliosphere — much like the wave made by the bow of a boat as it glides through the water.”'

    The wave ahead of our heliosphere is an aether displacement wave; analogous to the bow wave of a boat.

    'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1475v1.pdf

    "Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."

    The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.
    Obviously it would have very different properties of water and would be made of entirely different "stuff", and the planets would affect the shape of spacetime more than fish would. Could spacetime be thought of as, almost, impossibly fine matter, or would it be more energy than matter; or would it be something else entirely?

    'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
    http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

    "Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - 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."

    if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

    The ripple created when galaxy clusters collide is an aether displacement wave.

    Particles of matter move through and displace the aether. A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.

    Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's pilot-wave. Both are waves in the aether.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 mpc755


    Morbert wrote: »
    Water in a fish tank would be an aether. Spacetime, if it were thought of as very fine matter, would be an aether. Spacetime is not an aether. It is a field. The difference between a field and an aether is an important one, and it is Lorentz invariance. Since an aether is made of stuff, there is a coordinate system associated with that stuff being at rest. A field is an object that does not have a medium or "stuff" associated with it, and hence does not offer a state of rest associated with it. Instead, it is a differential manifold with no predefined geometry or coordinate system.

    The Milky Way's halo is what is referred to as the curvature of spacetime.

    The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether connected to and neighboring the Milky Way.

    The geometrical representation referred to as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

    There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    mpc755 wrote: »
    The Milky Way's halo is what is referred to as the curvature of spacetime.

    The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether connected to and neighboring the Milky Way.

    The geometrical representation referred to as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

    There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter anchored to matter. Matter moves through and displaces the aether.

    Oh dear...


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 mpc755


    Morbert wrote: »
    Oh dear...

    All of the evidence refutes the notion non-baryonic dark matter is anchored to matter. All of the evidence is evidence matter moves through and displaces the aether.

    From the ripple created when galaxy clusters collide to the offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring galaxy clusters and the center of the galaxy clusters themselves to the wave out ahead of our heliosphere to the "dark matter" which is left behind when galaxy clusters collide to what waves in a double slit experiment.

    It is all evidence particles of matter move through and displace the aether.

    The Milky Way's halo is not non-baryonic dark matter anchored to the Milky Way.

    The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

    The geometrical representation of gravity referred to as curved spacetime is the physical state of displacement of the aether.

    Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    mpc755 wrote: »
    All of the evidence refutes the notion non-baryonic dark matter is anchored to matter. All of the evidence is evidence matter moves through and displaces the aether.

    From the ripple created when galaxy clusters collide to the offset between the light lensing through the space neighboring galaxy clusters and the center of the galaxy clusters themselves to the wave out ahead of our heliosphere to the "dark matter" which is left behind when galaxy clusters collide to what waves in a double slit experiment.

    It is all evidence particles of matter move through and displace the aether.

    The Milky Way's halo is not non-baryonic dark matter anchored to the Milky Way.

    The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

    The geometrical representation of gravity referred to as curved spacetime is the physical state of displacement of the aether.

    Displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward matter is gravity.

    You wouldn't, by any chance, have reputable scientific papers to back up your assertions about the aether? The paper by Huan et al in your previous post certainly doesn't support what you are saying, as evidenced by the follow-up research.

    Also, I should mention that due to the tiresome nature of crank aether theories, I will only entertain this discussion for as long as it involves conclusions in genuine scientific research, and not "Billy's page on why Relativity sux ass".


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement