A simple new model of gravity

No, this is not mainstream physics. You are mistaking mainstream physics of ca 1880 with present day. There is no minority of present day scholars who teach ether so this not an alternative theory. It's a junk science pretense of a theory. Big difference.

Ether was the name given to the medium believed necessary to transport light waves before the laws of electromagnetics were discovered. Michelson & Morley wanted to replicate the work of Fitzeau, which proved that c was constant in a moving medium. Only they expected to find a variation in c, due to the velocity of the Earth against the background ether. Of course they measured no variation, since there is no ether.

No, they were simply looking for evidence that the Earth was moving against a background of ether. And it isn't, so they found no such evidence.

Ether is now moot, since electromagnetics explains the propagation of light in a vacuum. And relativity experiments from Fitzeau through present day all prove the constancy of light in all frames. Therefore there is no medium to required to transport light, hence the 18th-19th c speculation that ether must exist is rendered obsolete.

As far as why Michelson-Morley nails the coffin shut, it's because it proved c is invariant regardless of the motion of the Earth against some external medium responsible for transporting light. The only case for ether that would have remained possible was that the ether is moving at exactly the Earth's trajectory, which is absurd. So we have to rule that out, too.

Physics doesn't cling to anything. Like every other branch of science, it relies entirely on best evidence. Ether was never based on evidence, but on assumptions about how light waves might move in space, before it was understood that they are electromagnetic waves subject to the laws we call Maxwell's equations.

It is anti-science cranks and religious trolls who cling to obsolete ideas, namely the 18th-19th c. assumptions about ether, the latter group being interested in this argument since they need to attack the constancy of c to shore up their belief that radiometric dating is grossly in error, and hence the Earth is only 6000 years old. That's the sort of crowd you are advocating for, even if only unwittingly so.

It completely ruled out the possibility that c could be invariant, which makes ether obsolete, since it was assumed to be a medium necessary for transporting light. Obviously the assumption was wrong.

All facts, not claims. Claims are allegations not yet proven. This is not the case.

Any kind of ether is constrained by its velocity relative to earth It simply can't exist, since c is invariant in all frames.

What cosmological models are you referring to? The only one I think you might mean comes from Hubble's expanding universe, the necessary conclusion after he discovered that all the objects (galaxies) measured for spectral content in his day were presenting redshift. That's empirical data. The model then says that if you wind the clock back, they begin at a single location -- the singularity of the Big Bang. But that in itself is not directly a consequence of either electromagnetics nor relativity. It's logic necessitated by the principle that c is constant in all reference frames.

Uhhh. . . . that's moot. Redshift in light from distant galaxies has nothing to do with being earthbound. It's an external effect. Nor does quantum reality particularly pertain to this, so that issue is moot.

Irrelevant.

That's properly called the free space impedance. To give it a new name and repackage it to sell ether is a non-starter.

No, very few everyday applications have anything to do with "quantum scale data". Nor does it have anything to do with redshift, or how it's measured. Nor does it matter where the telescopes are situated. The Hubble Space Telescope for example is not Earth bound and yet it measures redshift as well.

What's to understand? What application? Ignoring relativity, the premise for the universal law of gravitation stems from the explanation given by Newton to Kepler's Laws. And that's no harder to understand than Coulomb's Law.

No, general relativity explains gravity, although you'd be hard pressed to come up with a dual for GR which explains Coulomb's Law. And ether is made even more absurd by the need to propagate static fields.

So no, ether is dead -- and can not possibly be resurrected.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it's "just plain wrong" thinking. Otherwise it would begin by citing empirical evidence. Without that, it's worthless and invariably wrong.

My ideas are to speak on behalf of the facts and evidence, as I know them, and to the best of my ability. Other than that the content of my posts aren't my own ideas, but the ideas of others who have established themselves as experts.

Well this is all pretty basic. It boils down to understanding the flow of discovery from Tycho to Kepler to Newton, then, switching over to Newton's work in optics, the speed of light measurements, esp. by Fitzeau, then understanding Michelson-Morley's rationale for their experiment, then understanding the fundamentals of electromagnetics stemming from the discoveries of Coulomb, Faraday, Gauss, Ampere and Maxwell. After that you only need to understand why Poincare and Lorentz were discussing coordinate rotations and why Einstein found is necessary to tie all of the above work together into his "little postulate". After all of that ether is more than obsolete. And clinging to it, just to try to drive a wedge into the science (esp with familiarizing oneself with the above) is worse than ignorant. It's asserting facts that run contrary to the facts and evidence without even trying to figure out what they tell us.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

↑

Yet some others think that ether does exist and is the fundamental to the existence of all matter

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aqueous Id:

I would debate some of the points you made as to why the ether "has been disproven" by physics.

The real bottom line of my reasoning for resurrecting the ether is that all your so-called "proofs against the ether" by various physicists have been based on quantum empirical earthbound observation, whereas the ether would have to lie beyond that capacity of observation. -The elemental units of an ether such as I posit would be vanishingly-rarified compared to our quantum-systems-based evidence.

To try to address a few of your more emphatic points, I would dispute the claim that Michelson-Morley's ether (which as you said, was designed to "measure the velocity of earth against the background ether") would still be relevant vis-a-vis the kind of universal ether that I posit, which would primarily comprise elemental ether-units (although it would generate a background sea of resonant etheroidal, subatomic, and atomic aggregative-units) that are contiguous with, and in non-inertial resonance with, both solid bodies like earth, and the ether of space. Therefore, its dynamic relativistics would be very different from the kind of ether Michelson and Morley posited, and physicists since have continued to base their cosmic theories upon, theories which do not disprove such an ether.

My ether model would additionally offer a rational model for Time, which present physics does not offer. -The ether model would relate the rate time passes to the vibratory rate of the elemental units of the ether. This rate could vary depending on the ambient macrocosmic energy-setting. For example, a clock at earth's surface would measure the rate time passes in our quantized setting. -Then, if one places an atomic clock in an orbiting satellite in space, the time rate changes. In my ether model, the energy-ambience of space is less quantized (less magnetically energized) than on earth's surface. The more-etheric setting, in space, would slow the vibratory rate of the ether units that make up the clock's elemental structure, because the lower energy level in space slows the vibrations of the elemental ether units. (A second factor to slow the clock moving through space is the velocity of the satellite, which increases the resonance rate between the clock's elements and the elemental ether units in space.)

I would be glad to debate further, Aqueous Id, but will leave it at that for the present.

 

You can put lipstick on it, but it's still a

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

From post #1:

"......with consequent etheric resonance providing gravitational attraction between the bodies."

How?

 

Sympathetic resonance isn't gravity.
The OP doesn't have a mechanistic explanation of gravitational attraction. All he has done is to replace tuning forks with masses and air molecules with ether units.

 

Calling my model "sympathetic resonance with lipstick on it" doesn't address it debate-point-wise.

The model is comprehensive and is all given in the opening of the Thread. -This is a "cosmic origins" model that covers such ongoing enigmas as Gravity and Time, based on a first-causal mechanism in original space, for how space, before the first appearance of forces, contained uniform, symmetric, oscillations of contiguous points, which then transitioned to a uniform, unit-based, vibrationally-energic ether. -The way the basic energy works would be that the directionality of the elemental units's vibrations (which can be thought of in terms of "nodes" that enable the elemental units to resonate) produces larger and larger aggregate units - etheroidal, subquantum, quantum, and atomic units. The larger-scale units then develop energic mechanisms involving spin, vectors, and so on. -Currently physics only recognizes the larger scale energy systems, which is why it lacks a basic understanding of gravity or time.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

in more advanced and knowledge based science on gravity I don't think your to far off

but they look at the ether as being asymmetrical

 

to add

here from Josephs book , The Giza Death Star Deployed , pg. 178

" The basic method of creating the phenomenon was through interferometry: combining beams of electromagnetic energy on a non-linear propagating medium , such as radar absorbent material :

If two weak monochromatic ( electromagnetic ) waves are run together , 180 degrees out of phase , and run through a nonlinear medium so that they modulate each other and lock together, they make a strange " scalar ( electromagnetic ) wave " , that is an electrogravitational wave of pure potential , and one that you are controlling . Such a wave goes down through the electron shell of the atom , and is absorbed in the nucleus . If you choose the right mix of waves in the scalar wave, and just keep irradiating the nuclei with that " pattern " the nuclei will gradually rearrange themselves . "

Bearden is the author of this quote

 

Quotes from this book would be a lot more persuasive if the author wasn't a lunatic.

 

I don't think that reference relates to this Thread, but since I started the Thread, I would comment that in my ether model, etherically-non-linear energy systems are not involved in my model. (Quantum physics views linearity and non-linearity somewhat different from how my ether model does.) -But in my ether model, the forces of importance in natural world phenomena like gravity are linear etheric forces. -As I point out above, once you get into energies mediated by larger-scale energy units on the quantum scale, a great array of other phenomena become possible. But they don't bear on the ether model of this thread.

 

They are not mine.

Let's just call them experts in science and math. They had all kinds of backgrounds.

"Earthbound" excludes Tycho, Kepler and Newton, Poincare and Lorentz. The principal observation thereafter begins with Fitzeau, which obviously took place on Earth, but was not a quantum observation (whatever that means) as it involved the bulk effects of a medium (initially water) with light. The work of Coulomb, Ampere, Gauss, Faraday and Maxwell (to cite some of the key players) involved the discovery of the laws of electromagnetics which far exceed "quantum ?" (whatever epithet you are using). Michelson and Morley were not measuring earth bound phenomena nor were they making "quantum" observations (esp. depending on how you define that). Poincare and Lorentz were principally mathematicians so they are excluded and Einstein was really not a physicist at all when he first started to conceive of the nature of relativity in regard to electromagnetics (age 16) nor do I think he had any idea what the quantum world was y then. In any case his work was stimulated by thinking of the age of the light of stars, and one of the important corollaries (redshift) attributed to Hubble certainly wasn't based on earthbound observations.

The thing you want to worry about is making conclusions which attack science the are made in a vacuum of the information discovered by the above individuals. That's the sure road to error.

No, it would not. It lies beyond the capacity of theory. It never was a theory, and it never had any basis in fact to support it. It was simply an assumption based on the state of the 17th and 18th c. science which was grappling with what was, until the 19th-20th c. discoveries listed above, the mysterious nature of light. That mystery began to unravel in events that took place between the time Fitzeau published (ca 1850) and Einstein's collation of that information in 1905.

That makes no sense. It either is responsible for field and wave propagation or it isn't. And in the first place, it's impossible for any medium to transmit a static field, so there is no point in inventing reasons for why it can't be detected.

It wasn't their ether. It was proposed by others long before they came along. And yes, ether is ether. It is a medium now known to be non-existent, which was once believed to carry the waves of light the way the ocean carries waves of water. Since acoustic waves were discovered in media like air, we can group all of these together as acoustic waves as far as their mode of transport (acting on molecules). Ether was supposed to be an acoustic medium. Therefore it has nothing to do with light transport, which propagates in electromagnetic media. Electromagnetic propagation, as Maxwell and the others I listed with him showed, does not propagate by acoustic waves. Therefore ether is meaningless to the points you are trying to make, and is rendered uselessly obsolete by electromagnetics alone.

That's not a theory. To be a theory it needs to be based on evidence. What you are doing is alleging fact that are simply without merit.

Then it would be useless. The vacuum does not resonate. Waves of every frequency propagate with exactly the same path loss.

Fabricated pseudo-techno-speak.

If it were particulate then Michelson-Morely would have detected it. So that's been disproven.

More fabricated pseudo-techno-speak.

Solid bodies do not inherently resonate. In any case, resonance is out as explained above. "Contiguous with" is meaningless gibberish.

That's ridiculous. You are proposing an undetectable subatomic particulate sea that both travels with the Earth and also does not travel with the Earth. You obviously haven't thought this through.

More fabricated pseudo-techno-speak.

Again, they did not posit it. A raft of 17th-18th c commentators on the philosophy of light propagation posited it. And no, your ether can not be different. Otherwise your ether can not transport light waves, which was the sole purpose the Old School posited it. Again, you haven't thought this through.

False, although "cosmic theories" is too obscure to impart meaning. Certainly cosmology is entirely reliant on both electromagntics and relativity, and would be tied up in knots without them. Conversely, cosmology proves electromagnetics and relativity.

Ether is nothing to be disproven. It was never based in fact to begin with. There is nothing to disprove! Again, you need to think this through.

No, you have no such models. In order for you to have a model, you would need to be able to being with the experiments of Coulomb, Gauss, Ampere, Faraday and Maxwell, and arrive at Maxwell's equations. And that's impossible. It can't be done outside of the way it was actually done. That is, you would need startling new empirical data never before seen by the million or so scientists (probably tens of millions) over history who have done the hard work you haven't yet attempted. (Studying, learning, doing lab and field work, and mastering the subject).

There can be no such rule, since time is relative -- for one thing. That's just another fabrication.

No, it can't. It has to vary according to the relatiovistic conditions between any two possible frames. And they are infinitely many. That's why you need the Lorentz rotation to explain time, and you can't have the Lorentz rotation in ether. And, M-M showed there is none, even though they did not yet understand exactly what the rotation was.

That's not true. The rate of time measured at the floor is not equal to the rate of time measured at the ceiling. You haven't thought this part through either.

It doesn't change because of being in a vacuum, otherwise watches would not agree with realtime when I subjects exit a barometric chamber. You need to think harder about this too.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean since it's all fabricated pseudo-technospeak. But see the above remark.

That's impossible. Time is relative due to both the height above the gravity well, and also the relative velocities of local and remote frames. That's precisely why ether is impossible! (Another of several key reasons).

No it doesn't. Otherwise there would be drag, and there is none. Besides, this does not account for both red and blue shift! (Yet another reason ether is impossible.) Nor does it account for the transverse relativistic effects, not those of length contraction and dilation (and its transverse effect)!

Really, all you've done here is to highlight about a dozen reasons that make ether impossible.

 

Aqueous Id, all you've done is dilute his word salad with reason. We know that won't work already.

Since he's trolling, that will give him pages of woo to spew in "rebuttal", just like Farsight.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!