The propagation of light and the aether

roosh

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?

roosh

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.

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?

roosh

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.

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.

roosh

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.

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.

roosh

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?

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?

roosh

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.

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.

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?

Morbert

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

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.

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'.

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.

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:

roosh

wallycharlo wrote: »

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

roosh

wallycharlo wrote: »

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

noddabodder

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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".

mpc755

Morbert wrote: »

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".

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

The following article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the "fluidic" nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself."

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid, a supersolid, which is described in the article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The 'back-reaction' described in the article is the displaced aether pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the matter.

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure (or vorticity).

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3955

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5654v2

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1111.1155

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3753

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5168

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0610135

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.1892

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles'
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0701155

"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."

Morbert

First, I should make it clear to the OP (roosh) that the aethers discussed in these papers are categorically distinct from the luminiferous aether. Physicists will often posit a transmission field or, much more controversially, a lorentz-violating incompressible fluid in conjunction with spacetime. The first paper, for example, discusses a 2+1 fluid around black holes (I.e. A fluid that extends across 2 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time). They don't replace spacetime. They exist alongside it.

mpc755: I have no major problem with positing gravitational aether as an exploration of possible quantum theories of gravity/black holes. Though I do have a problem if you describe them as anything more than tentative controversies, as Lorentz invariance has still never been demonstrated, which none of the above papers dispute.

Furthermore, I specifically asked you for examples of the mechanical explanation of gravity (which is distinct from gravitational aether pertaining to the vacuum field). While gravitational aether is entertained, the Le Sage style kinetic gravity you are supposing was thoroughly abandoned except in the exploration of forms of solutions in classical mechanics.

mpc755

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"matter pervading the universe" has mass.

"'stuff'" has mass.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

Morbert

mpc755 wrote: »

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

"matter pervading the universe" has mass.

"'stuff'" has mass.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense." - Albert Einstein

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

No it isn't.

"Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support."

mpc755

Morbert wrote: »

No it isn't.

"Einstein sometimes used the word aether for the gravitational field within general relativity, but this terminology never gained widespread support."

What part of, "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light" are you unable to understand?

Morbert

mpc755 wrote: »

What part of, "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light" are you unable to understand?

Your question makes no sense. The aether Einstein was referring to was the Lorentz invariant gravitational field. He is simply saying spacetime is dynamical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_views_on_the_aether#Einstein.27s_views_on_the_aether

"In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether."

"However, the difference from the electromagnetic aether of Maxwell and Lorentz lies in the fact, that "because it was no longer possible to speak, in any absolute sense, of simultaneous states at different locations in the aether, the aether became, as it were, four dimensional, since there was no objective way of ordering its states by time alone.". Now the "aether of special relativity" is still "absolute", because matter is affected by the properties of the aether, but the aether is not affected by the presence of matter. This asymmetry was solved within general relativity. Einstein explained that the "aether of general relativity" is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether, just as matter influences the structure of the aether."

That is entirely uncontroversial, and different to the gravitational aether theories the papers allude to, and the luminiferous aether of Lorentz.

mpc755

Morbert wrote: »

Your question makes no sense. The aether Einstein was referring to was the Lorentz invariant gravitational field. He is simply saying spacetime is dynamical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%27s_views_on_the_aether#Einstein.27s_views_on_the_aether

"In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether."

"However, the difference from the electromagnetic aether of Maxwell and Lorentz lies in the fact, that "because it was no longer possible to speak, in any absolute sense, of simultaneous states at different locations in the aether, the aether became, as it were, four dimensional, since there was no objective way of ordering its states by time alone.". Now the "aether of special relativity" is still "absolute", because matter is affected by the properties of the aether, but the aether is not affected by the presence of matter. This asymmetry was solved within general relativity. Einstein explained that the "aether of general relativity" is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether, just as matter influences the structure of the aether."

That is entirely uncontroversial, and different to the gravitational aether theories the papers allude to, and the luminiferous aether of Lorentz.

Laughlin is saying there is a relativistic ether. This is the ether of general relativity.

Einstein says according to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable for there would be no propagation of light.

I am saying the relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

Your response of, "No it isn't" makes no sense.

The following quote is from Albert Einstein.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light"

Einstein is saying if there isn't an ether there is no propagation of light.

Laughlin is saying a relativistic ether, the ether of general relativity, is confirmed everyday by experiment.

Therefore, the relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

Morbert

mpc755 wrote: »

Laughlin is saying there is a relativistic ether. This is the ether of general relativity.

Einstein says according to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable for there would be no propagation of light.

I am saying the relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

Your response of, "No it isn't" makes no sense.

The following quote is from Albert Einstein.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light"

Einstein is saying if there isn't an ether there is no propagation of light.

Laughlin is saying a relativistic ether, the ether of general relativity, is confirmed everyday by experiment.

Therefore, the relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

Again, Einstein is merely referring to dynamical spacetime. Laughlin is referring to quantized fields on spacetime. If what you were saying were true, the following statements would be contradictory.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light" --Einstein on General Relativity

Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. -- Laughlin on General Relativity

Most importantly, neither are referring to Lorentz invariance violating, absolute, luminiferous aethers of Lorentz or Maxwell.

mpc755

Einstein's 'First Paper'
http://www.efiko.org/material/Albert%20Einstein%5c%27s%20First%20Paper%20by%20Anonymous.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."

What Einstein failed to realize is what he was describing was the state of displacement of the aether.

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.

roosh

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.

Apologies, I'm thinking very basically on this; hopefully the questions make sense.

I had a look at some of the stuff on the concept of a manifold, but don't fully grasp it. I'm no doubt wide of the mark here, but my understanding of a manifold is as a "thing" in, or on, which other things can lie. The surface of a table would be a 2D manifold, the universe would be a 3D or 4D manifold. Is that, apart form being incredibly basic, anywhere near the mark?


Just going from that understanding, which could be inaccurate, I would think that there must be associated "stuff" with the manifold; the surface of the table is made of matter. I would think that the universe must be filled with "stuff" at every location.


My lack of understanding of the concept of a "field" is also an issue, I'd say. I can only think in terms of a very basic understanding of a magnetic field - think of the sheet of paper with iron filings "experiment" you'd do in secondary school. Is there "stuff" associated with a magnetic field; I mean like, matter or energy?

Thinking in terms of that basic understanding of a magnetic field, I would say that there must be "stuff" at every point where the magnetic field extends to; I'm not saying that a magnetic field is made up of any particular "stuff", but rather that wherever there is a magnetic field, there must be "stuff" there.


When I say "stuff" I am again thinking in very basic terms of something vs nothing.

roosh

This is incredibly basic, but it might be helpful, in clarifying what I'm trying to get at, to say that light cannot propagate through something which doesn't exist, and whatever exists must be made of some sort of "stuff"; whatever that "stuff" is; be it energy, matter, or something else.

mpc755

roosh wrote: »

This is incredibly basic, but it might be helpful, in clarifying what I'm trying to get at, to say that light cannot propagate through something which doesn't exist, and whatever exists must be made of some sort of "stuff"; whatever that "stuff" is; be it energy, matter, or something else.

The "stuff" has mass. Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether has mass.

As far as we know aether exists everywhere particles of matter do not.

As far as we know there is no space, nor any part of three dimensional space, devoid of mass.

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

mpc755

roosh wrote: »

My lack of understanding of the concept of a "field" is also an issue, I'd say. I can only think in terms of a very basic understanding of a magnetic field - think of the sheet of paper with iron filings "experiment" you'd do in secondary school. Is there "stuff" associated with a magnetic field; I mean like, matter or energy?

"In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to shew that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium." - Maxwell

Maxwell's displacement current is a physical displacement of the aether.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Vacuum_energy

"a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position"

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.

Each of the plates in the Casimir effect displace the aether. The displaced aether which exists between the plates is pushing back toward each of the plates which causes the force associated with the aether displaced by each of the plates which exists between the plates to offset. This aether is more at rest than the aether which is displaced by the plates which encompasses the plates. The reduced force associated with the aether which exists between the plates along with the displaced aether which encompasses the plates which is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the plates causes the plates to be forced together.

What occurs physically in nature in the Casimir effect is the same phenomenon as gravity.

There is no such thing as non-baryonic dark matter. Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter.

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

The aether which exists between the Earth and the Moon is displaced by both the Earth and the Moon and is pushing back toward the Earth and toward the Moon. This displaced aether offsets and cancels each other out to some degree. This aether is more at rest than the aether which encompasses the Earth and the Moon.

The aether which encompasses the Earth and the Moon is able to exert more pressure on the solid matter Earth than it can the liquid oceans. This causes the solid matter Earth to be pushed closer to the Moon than the ocean water opposite the Moon. This causes the ocean to 'rise' opposite the Moon. The aether displaced between the Earth and Moon is more at rest. This aether exerts less pressure on the ocean water between the Earth and the Moon than it can the solid matter Earth. This causes the ocean to 'rise' between the Earth and Moon.

Morbert

roosh wrote: »

Apologies, I'm thinking very basically on this; hopefully the questions make sense.

I had a look at some of the stuff on the concept of a manifold, but don't fully grasp it. I'm no doubt wide of the mark here, but my understanding of a manifold is as a "thing" in, or on, which other things can lie. The surface of a table would be a 2D manifold, the universe would be a 3D or 4D manifold. Is that, apart form being incredibly basic, anywhere near the mark?

Just going from that understanding, which could be inaccurate, I would think that there must be associated "stuff" with the manifold; the surface of the table is made of matter. I would think that the universe must be filled with "stuff" at every location.

My lack of understanding of the concept of a "field" is also an issue, I'd say. I can only think in terms of a very basic understanding of a magnetic field - think of the sheet of paper with iron filings "experiment" you'd do in secondary school. Is there "stuff" associated with a magnetic field; I mean like, matter or energy?

Thinking in terms of that basic understanding of a magnetic field, I would say that there must be "stuff" at every point where the magnetic field extends to; I'm not saying that a magnetic field is made up of any particular "stuff", but rather that wherever there is a magnetic field, there must be "stuff" there

When I say "stuff" I am again thinking in very basic terms of something vs nothing.

A field definitely something rather than nothing. That much is true. Fields are the fundamental physical objects of the universe, and particles are quantised excitations of these fields. Unlike, say, a table, which is an aggregate collection of more fundamental stuff (E.g. Wood, or molecules, or particles), a field is not an aggregate collection of stuff. Instead, they are the things which express the stuff we are familiar with (E.g. Electrons are excitations of the Dirac field. Photons are excitations of the electromagnetic field.).

So if you take an "empty" region of space, you are correct when you say it is not "nothing" in the fundamental sense of the word nothing. It is something.

The important difference between the spacetime field and an aether (in the traditional Lorentzian sense of the word), is Lorentz invariance (Or, more correctly, general covariance). Spacetime has no associated state of rest with respect to it, unlike a table. If spacetimes was like a giant table, and we were moving with respect to each other, then I could point out that you (or I) are moving with respect to the "grain" of wood/space, or that you experience friction, or some observation which would define you as moving with respect to the aggregate "stuff" of spacetime and violate Lorentz invariance. This is why picturing spacetime as a table, or some other intuitive surface, will always break down. We can always identify a unique coordinate system or "background dependence" with respect to such a surface. General relativity is background independent.

mpc755

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

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The physical state of the aether at every place determined by its physical connections with the matter and the physical state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which atomic clocks tick. That is the 'time' portion of spacetime.

In terms of general relativity, the greater the mass per volume of the matter the greater the displacement of the aether, the greater the force exerted toward and throughout the atomic clock by the displaced aether the slower the atomic clock ticks. In terms of special relativity, the faster a clock moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the more aether the clock displaces the more force the displaced aether exerts toward and throughout the atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.

Morbert

mpc755 wrote: »

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

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The physical state of the aether at every place determined by its physical connections with the matter and the physical state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

What is referred to geometrically as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

Everything is with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists, including the rate at which atomic clocks tick. That is the 'time' portion of spacetime.

In terms of general relativity, the greater the mass per volume of the matter the greater the displacement of the aether, the greater the force exerted toward and throughout the atomic clock by the displaced aether the slower the atomic clock ticks. In terms of special relativity, the faster a clock moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the more aether the clock displaces the more force the displaced aether exerts toward and throughout the atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.

You have said this before, and the response has not changed. Aether, in the sense that Einstein used it, is entirely uncontroversial. I.e. He says it is a non-absolute covariant, dynamical field coupled to energy and momentum via the field equations. It is categorically unrelated to your funky mechanical aether. Further repetition will be summarily ignored.

mpc755

Morbert wrote: »

You have said this before, and the response has not changed. Aether, in the sense that Einstein used it, is entirely uncontroversial. I.e. He says it is a non-absolute covariant, dynamical field coupled to energy and momentum via the field equations. It is categorically unrelated to your funky mechanical aether. Further repetition will be summarily ignored.

The connections between the aether and matter as referred to by Einstein are physical. The state of the 'water' in the analogy is referring to the physical state of displacement of the aether.

'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 and move through it.

Einstein as a teenager understood the aether to have mass.

Einstein's 'First Paper'
http://www.efiko.org/material/Albert%20Einstein%5c%27s%20First%20Paper%20by%20Anonymous.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."

What Einstein failed to realize is what he was describing was the state of displacement of the aether.

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.

Aether has mass and physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by particles of matter. Displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward matter.

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

mpc755

Watch the following video starting at 1:50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8

There are no such things as virtual particles. Aether has mass. What is referred to in the video as the mass of the virtual particles is the mass of the aether which exists where the quarks do not.

Morbert

mpc755 wrote: »

Watch the following video starting at 1:50.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8

There are no such things as virtual particles. Aether has mass. What is referred to in the video as the mass of the virtual particles is the mass of the aether which exists where the quarks do not.

Actually I recommend people watch the video from the beginning. I also recommend people watch his entire talk, and read his book. It is a good pop-science introduction to ideas in quantum field theory, and entirely contrary to your idea of an aether.

mpc755

The Michelson-Morley experiment looked for an absolutely stationary space the Earth moves through. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. Aether is displaced by particles of matter. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the state of the aether in which it exists. You have an atomic clock at sea level. You take it to the top of a mountain. The atomic clock ticks at a different rate at the top of the mountain because the state of the aether in which it exists has change.

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

The analogy is putting a mesh bag full of marbles into a supersolid and spinning the bag of marbles. If you were unable to determine if the superfluid consists of particles you would still be able to detect the state of displacement of the supersolid.

The supersolid connected to and neighboring the mesh bag of marbles is in the same state throughout the rotation of the bag in the supersolid.

The aether connected to and neighboring the Earth is in the same state, or almost the same state, throughout the Earth's rotation about its axis and orbit of the Sun.

The state of which as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.