The Case for The Aether (resurrected)

[sakinago]

I suppose ether is also effected by gravity like space time is?

Funny, I've explicitly addressed that question already for you. What's "convenient" is presuming to comment without even bothering to read.

More to come..

So the speed of light is constant despite the ether it travels through is effected by forces such as gravity? You’re whole theory is now contradictory.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I suppose ether is also effected by gravity like space time is?

Funny, I've explicitly addressed that question already for you. What's "convenient" is presuming to comment without even bothering to read.

More to come..

So the speed of light is constant despite the ether it travels through is effected by forces such as gravity? You’re whole theory is now contradictory.

So either you still haven't read this:
The Case for The Aether (resurrected)
Or didn't comprehend it. In either case, you continue asking me questions preloaded with your own presumptions based upon ignorance. Do you not comprehend that I'm still adding to this topic as my time allows? That it's not a finished product yet? Nonetheless, IF you ask somewhat intelligent, unloaded questions about areas I've yet to cover in detail, I will respond.. allow you to distract me.. and attempt providing some sort of shortened explanation.. that therefore will not likely be very satisfying, but will be truthful nonetheless.

 

[Grumblenuts]

More on gravity then:

Sir Isaac Newton (1693):

The last clause of your second Position I like very well. Tis unconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact; as it must if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus be essential & inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe {innate} gravity to me. That gravity should be innate inherent & {essential} to matter so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of any thing else by & through which their action or force {may} be conveyed from one to another is to me so great an absurdity that I beleive no man who has in philosophical matters any competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent {acting} <7v> consta{ntl}y according to certain laws, but whether this agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers.

Your fourth assertion that the world could not be formed by inn{ate} gravity alone you confirm by three arguments. But in your first Argument you seem to make a petitio principij. ffor where{as} many ancient Philosophers & others as well Theists as Atheists have allowed that there may be worlds & parcels of matter innumerab{le} or infinite, you deny this by representing it as absurd as that there should be positively an infinite arithmetical summ or number which is a contradiction in terminis: but you do not prove it as absurd. Neither do you prove that what men mean by an infinite summ or number is a contradiction in nature. ffor a contradiction in terminis argues nothing more then an improperty of speech. Those things which men understand by improper & contradictious phrases may be sometimes really in nature without any contradiction at all.

Since 1855 at least the argument has never progressed beyond a draw. Michael Faraday:

That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is, he (Newton) says, to him a great absurdity. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, he leaves to the consideration of his readers. This is the onward-looking thought of one who, by his knowledge and like quality of mind, saw in the diamond an unctuous substance coagulated, when as yet it was known but as a transparent stone, and foretold the presence of a combustible substance in water a century before water was decomposed or hydro gen discovered; and I cannot help believing that the time is near at hand when his thought regarding gravity will produce fruit : and, with that impression, I shall venture a few considerations upon what appears to me the insufficiency of the usually accepted notions of gravity, and of those forces generally which are supposed to act at a distance, having respect to the modern and philosophic view of the conservation and indestructibility of force.”

 

[Grumblenuts]

You can read more of Faraday's arguments from the same source along with plenty of angry, dismissive rebuttal from the unnamed editor. SSDD. I'll proceed with my own.

First off, in case one somehow fails to accept that it's still a draw, consider this. We intuitively think we are pulled toward the Earth's center of mass by this force called gravity. We are naturally biased by our senses. However, when sitting on a bus our senses also lead us to believe we are being pushed backward into the seat when the bus suddenly accelerates and forward whenever the brakes are applied. Wrong on both accounts, but also, what happened to any sense of being pulled? Just standing we imagine tension exists pulling to Earth, but no hint of that exists on a bus moving laterally. There's actually no reason to presume being pulled rather than pushed.

Picture a submerged ball filled with air and tied with string to the bottom of a swimming pool. Its weight is insignificant compared to its buoyancy. Great tension exists between the ball and Earth's center. Yet the ball wants to go skyward, not down. Why? Because the net effect of the surrounding medium (water) is to push it upward. Same as the air pushing a helium balloon upwards. No pulling necessary. But, OMG, not gravity! How could that be! What medium could be pushing us downward? It really ain't rocket science, folks.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Accept for the moment that The Aether exists and is always working to lower its entropy, meaning return to its default density. If follows then that wherever mass displaces The Aether it keeps trying to get back in. So if one of us is such a mass The Aether pushes at us from all directions at once. Same with the Earth. Now if one of us blocks The Aether from pushing the Earth directly it just pushes us toward the Earth instead. The net effect is perfectly analogous to the pulling theory when all the vectors are added.

The only difference is the pushing theory actually explains the what, why, and how of gravity while the pulling theory just leaves everyone scratching their heads.

 

[karpenter]

Tell me, do you surround yourself with crystals? How about tea leaves?...do you read them? Palmistry? Phrenology? Werewolves? Vampires? Fairies? What are your thoughts on them?

Any Excuse To Put Kate Beckinsale In A Rubber Suit....

 

[Grumblenuts]

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

(Video removed due to lack of reasonable evidence to corroborate historical claims made within)
I've seen many, many claims of experiments purporting to demonstrate that Michelson-Morley's experiments were simply too insensitive or otherwise done wrong. I believe that's true. But I'm not going to promote something simply because it initially appears to agree with me.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.

― Nikola Tesla

This, being actual study results published in a physics journal, is something I can promote:

Gravitational Blue Shift Confirms the New Phenomenon of the Vertical Aether Flow into any Mass

 

[Grumblenuts]

What's endlessly amusing is watching videos claiming to explain the Casimir effect as though it were some development of, supportive of, predicted by.. quantum mechanics (QM)! Oh, sure! "Zero point energy", "The vacuum of space", "Virtual particles",.. we created all that! And, and, Heisenberg was one of ours doncha know!

Actually, stripped of all that desperate nonsense, nothing supplies clearer evidence of The Aether and Le Sage Effect.

This mechanical explanation for gravity never gained widespread acceptance.

LOL, yet it's how QM actually explains the Casimir Effect to this very day. Modern physics simply steals and corrupts the ideas of others in order to prevent any threat of disruptive progress. Conservatism on crack.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He asked you a question.

 

[Grumblenuts]

He asked you a question.

Could you perhaps be a tad more specific?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Well, apparently Mr. Funstuff cannot. Nonetheless it appears very likely that he was referring to this:

I suppose ether is also effected by gravity like space time is?

Funny, I've explicitly addressed that question already for you. What's "convenient" is presuming to comment without even bothering to read.

More to come..

So the speed of light is constant despite the ether it travels through is effected by forces such as gravity? You’re whole theory is now contradictory.

I addressed sakinago despite his simply appending question marks on two consecutive conclusions of his own alone. So "questions" in appearance only. Even ignoring the baseless dismissal added after the second, neither is mistakable for serious inquiry. I had already addressed the first and the second only contradicted what I'd previously shared. Both were thus incoherent expressions of bravado akin to idiotically barking "He asked you a question."

Meanwhile, I'll continue,.. keying off your inputs to further illustrate The Case for The Aether.

The Aether, not simply "ether" since the latter is a class of organic compounds commonly used as anesthetics and solvents. Capitalized for the same reason "God" is. To piss off any and all who persist in believing or arguing to the contrary. Not really. I don't recall actually, but I believe it goes back to being one of the four or five original Elements, depending upon where one looks, and the god-like deference historically attributed to them.

To "suppose ether is also effected by gravity like space time is" is to suppose: (Note: wrong word choice - "effected")
1) The Aether is affected by gravity.
2) "space time" is affected by gravity.
3) Both are similarly affected by gravity.

Easily verified is that I've asserted exactly none of that here. So the "question" reduces to either a red herring forwarded to distract or to the erection of a straw man to be subsequently slain through brutal, repeated stabbing. It's a pretend inquiry. No genuine scientific curiosity evident. Just another wiseass know-it-all waving his dick around for lack of anything better to do. Or so one is left to presume. Oh well, boys will be boys.

A better understanding to come..

 

[Grumblenuts]

An extensive Case for Einstein's "Gravitational fields and the theory of general relativity" is provided by britannica.com here.

n Einstein’s theory of general relativity, the physical consequences of gravitational fields are stated in the following way. Space-time is a four-dimensional non-Euclidean continuum, and the curvature of the Riemannian geometry of space-time is produced by or related to the distribution of matter in the world. Particles and light rays travel along the geodesics (shortest paths) of this four-dimensional geometric world.

Choosing to use such expressions as "the world" and "world" there really sets the tone. The entire Universe, all of The Cosmos, Space,.. is reduced now to simply "the world." One can seemingly just lounge out in one's backyard, sip tea, apply little thought experiments to everything, and expect to be taken seriously. Why not? It appears to have worked bigtime for Einstein anyway. A celebrity. He needed fear no "physical consequences" other than from Nazis. "The world" naturally appeared his oyster while most of the rest of us must remain here down to earth. Knowing our place and liking it. Satisfied with the far more common usages of "world."

1a: the earthly state of human existence
. b: life after death — used with a qualifier the next world
2: the earth with its inhabitants and all things upon it

So from my mundane perspective, for example, there indeed exist things like space and time, but only space really qualifies as a dimension. Sure, we often use "dimension" and "coordinate" interchangeably. I often use "2D" and "3D" to save time and space. But where getting technical matters, x, y, and z are just coordinates or measures of space. "Space" really possesses but one, self-described dimension, space. A noun. Time is but another coordinate of space. We can measure space statically in terms of physical length, say from point (x, y, z) to point (x', y', z') by the foot, or by the time we detect light traveling the same route, e.g. feet per second times seconds = feet.

The second method is preferable since yardsticks are only so long and relativity is indeed a thing as, even Princeton University now reluctantly admits, it was Maxwell's theory long before it was Einstein's. The whole is clearly a very ambitious, extremely well referenced attempt to salvage something to credit their long time Professor Einstein with something original. And, of course, given that much effort they undoubted succeed. But the far more notable result is the well documented, true genius of Maxwell. Nonetheless, even Maxwell overcomplicated reality while greatly simplifying it compared to the norm of the day. Further stated explicitly:

Even in æther theories, the velocity of the laboratory with respect to the hypothetical æther should not affect the results of these static experiments, so the speed of light should be the same in any (inertial) frame

"So the speed of light is constant despite the ether it travels through"? Fuck no! Light is an electrical transfer of energy through space. The simplest way I can put it is that we (the observers) can't remove ourselves from The Aether. We all observe from points having specific Aether density subject to vary. A theoretical absolute speed of light at any point in space would then be a function of local Aether density. However,.. always being immersed in the limiting medium ourselves renders us incapable of detecting such variations in light speed. It shall always appear a constant to us because the speed varies in direct proportion with the limiting Aetheric density. In space we can and have observed many instances of Aetheric density, both far more and less viscous than what we'll likely ever experience locally, but obviously only indirectly since it's invisible. Main point being The Aether's density defines the speed of T.E.M. light transmission. Light being simply electrical creations of its own making, The Aether has and knows its geometric limitations.

 

[sakinago]

Well, apparently Mr. Funstuff cannot. Nonetheless it appears very likely that he was referring to this:

I suppose ether is also effected by gravity like space time is?

Funny, I've explicitly addressed that question already for you. What's "convenient" is presuming to comment without even bothering to read.

More to come..

So the speed of light is constant despite the ether it travels through is effected by forces such as gravity? You’re whole theory is now contradictory.

I addressed sakinago despite his simply appending question marks on two consecutive conclusions of his own alone. So "questions" in appearance only. Even ignoring the baseless dismissal added after the second, neither is mistakable for serious inquiry. I had already addressed the first and the second only contradicted what I'd previously shared. Both were thus incoherent expressions of bravado akin to idiotically barking "He asked you a question."

Meanwhile, I'll continue,.. keying off your inputs to further illustrate The Case for The Aether.

The Aether, not simply "ether" since the latter is a class of organic compounds commonly used as anesthetics and solvents. Capitalized for the same reason "God" is. To piss off any and all who persist in believing or arguing to the contrary. Not really. I don't recall actually, but I believe it goes back to being one of the four or five original Elements, depending upon where one looks, and the god-like deference historically attributed to them.

To "suppose ether is also effected by gravity like space time is" is to suppose: (Note: wrong word choice - "effected")
1) The Aether is affected by gravity.
2) "space time" is affected by gravity.
3) Both are similarly affected by gravity.

Easily verified is that I've asserted exactly none of that here. So the "question" reduces to either a red herring forwarded to distract or to the erection of a straw man to be subsequently slain through brutal, repeated stabbing. It's a pretend inquiry. No genuine scientific curiosity evident. Just another wiseass know-it-all waving his dick around for lack of anything better to do. Or so one is left to presume. Oh well, boys will be boys.

A better understanding to come..

Then what distinguishes ether from space time? It sounds exactly like space time. Einstein came up with relativity by purging the the whole concept of ether as a starting point. You’re saying A. The greatest, most revolutionary theory in astrophysics was stumbled upon by accident, despite it doing away with the exact concept you’re positing. B. Ether is behaves like space time, despite being undetectable, despite the speed of light being constant (the same universal constant we use in many times equations), making ether an unfalsifiable theory in your mind. C. Seem to confuse or dismiss gravity and it’s affect on the space aspect of space-time. I don’t think you understand how we actually detected the gravity waves. They took lasers, bounced those lasers of off mirrors in a giant t shape that’s miles long. The lasers wavelengths converged at the top of the t and canceled each other out. We detected the gravity waves because they were stretching space which caused the wavelengths to stop canceling out each other. If the luminiferous ether was being disrupted as you claim, it would’ve been disrupted at the same rate, in which we would not have detected the change in wavelengths (unless the space was actually being stretched, which is what caused the change in wavelengths).

 

[Grumblenuts]

Then what distinguishes ether from space time?

You mean The Aether? Spacetime? How much have you read this topic? Do you never attempt backing your assertions with quotes/links to respectable sources?
Spacetime theory presumes mass curves space. A preposterous notion. Aether theory presumes the logically necessary Aether medium is displaced by mass just as our body mass displaces air and water. <--- A clear predicate of this topic was making sense. Can you make sense of "curved space" using equally simple or simpler analogy? What is Occam's Razor?

Einstein came up with relativity

No he didn't. Read the topic.

You’re saying A. The greatest, most revolutionary theory in astrophysics was stumbled upon by accident, despite it doing away with the exact concept you’re positing. B. Ether is behaves like space time, despite being undetectable, despite the speed of light being constant (the same universal constant we use in many times equations), making ether an unfalsifiable theory in your mind. C. Seem to confuse or dismiss gravity and it’s affect on the space aspect of space-time.

You're still bombastically flailing around in denial instead of paying attention. Google notes that "it's effect" rather than "it's affect", by the way, lol.

I don’t think you understand how we actually detected the gravity waves. They took lasers, bounced those lasers of off mirrors in a giant t shape that’s miles long. The lasers wavelengths converged at the top of the t and canceled each other out. We detected the gravity waves because they were stretching space which caused the wavelengths to stop canceling out each other. If the luminiferous ether was being disrupted as you claim, it would’ve been disrupted at the same rate, in which we would not have detected the change in wavelengths (unless the space was actually being stretched, which is what caused the change in wavelengths).

Thanks! At least that appears an honest attempt at coherent counter-argument. In reality though:
1) The results remain reputably in serious question.
2) Even supposing "gravity waves" to be a thing, I've yet to see an explanation of how simply proving the existence of some previously undetectable "waves" supports "curved space" theory over simply presuming transmission of the same through The Aether? Why presume typical T.E.M. wave transmission in the first place?

If the luminiferous ether was being disrupted as you claim, it would’ve been disrupted at the same rate,

I've never claimed a "luminiferous ether", but you're not really saying anything here anyway."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

? Do you never attempt backing your assertions with quotes/links to respectable sources?

Do you? Oh wait, you can't, as no reputable sources agree with anything you are saying.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Oh that Funstuff, he's just so damned funny!

 

[anotherlife]

Let me put this spin in, as I am a student of mathematics, so a kind of scientist myself. Einstein's gravitational theories, with their centrifugal forces acting what is measured as gravity, bode very well with Romans 20, where the apostle Paul explains how the entire world is subjected to decay.

What is even more interesting is that he says that this decay is not by the will of the world but external. So current research into sourcing these forces from another universe is appropriate.

 

[anotherlife]

Tesla innately understood that electrical energy, being ubiquitous, should be made readily and cheaply available so that humans could quickly progress to a point where handling our basic, everyday wants and needs became such a trivial matter, with so minimal an impact upon our natural environment, that we could well advance as a species, and do who knows what I suppose, instead of just repeating our same mistakes and continuing to make a bigger mess of things. Commie, pinko notion? Hardly!

Tesla had created the electric power grid practically from scratch, grew bored with it and moved on. Edison meanwhile, had "invented a meter to allow customers to be billed for energy proportional to consumption, but this meter worked only with direct current" while Ottó Bláthy "invented the first AC electricity meter" thus permanently rendering electricity a consumer commodity to be delivered solely by capitalists. No more investment in Tesla's wacky notions necessary nor sought. However, when the nuclear power lobby needed a sales pitch, guess who they suddenly sounded like? :

Too cheap to meter describes a commodity so inexpensive that it is cheaper and less bureaucratic to simply provide it for a flat fee or even free and make a profit from associated services. It can also refer to services which it would cost more to itemize bills for the service than it costs to provide the service in the first place, thus it being simpler and less expensive to just provide it in a bundle along with other services.

Although sometimes attributed to Walter Marshall, a pioneer of nuclear power in the United Kingdom,[1] the phrase was coined by Lewis Strauss, then chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission

Now we have Trump: "They’re all back to work, and they’re going back to work. Clean coal, clean coal. Nobody thought that was going to happen so fast, either.”

Tesla, the brilliant scientist, is also the best example of how the roads to hell are paved with good intentions. It is the difficulty of satisfying our daily needs that keeps us alive. Without that we go dead. So technology is a curse.