Aether Displacement

[OnlyMe]

If I were moderating this thread, I'd have locked it long since. It's basically 40 pages of MPC posting the same thing over and over and over...

I know it would disappoint many of you, looking for amusement by poking a stick at the monkey through the bars, but...

That's what I'd do.

Less that half of the posts in this thread are from MPC and though the post count just hit 800 those that have viewed the thread is approaching 8000.

If people other than MPC where not having some sort of entertainment here it would have died on its own long ago.

It is in a pseudoscience folder and most of the complaint seems to be directed toward attempting impose contemporary standards of science.

While I do not agree with MPC's ideas and even believe that in some ways they may inhibit some legitimate debate involving similar off the mainstream ideas, if there is not somewhere for free thought under the science umbrella, science itself suffers the lose in the longer run.

 

[OnlyMe]

"Gravity Probe B (GP-B) is an experiment that measures the precession rate < Ω > of four gyroscopes orbiting the Earth. Recently, GP-B reported a frame-dragging drift rate of −37.2 ± 7.2 mas/yr, to be compared with the GR prediction of −39.2 mas/yr (’mas’is milliarc-second) [39]. Laser ranging to the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites also provides a measurement of the frame-dragging effect. The total uncertainty in this case is still being debated; with optimistic estimates of 10% − 15% (e.g., [40]), and more conservative estimates as large as 20% − 30% (e.g., [41]). Therefore, we conclude that even though perfect co-rotation of aether by matter is preferred by current tests of intrinsic gravitomagnetic effect, an irrotational aether is still consistent with present constraints at 2σ level."​

The Gravity Probe B detected the state of the aether at every place determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places, which is the state of displacement of the aether.

Where did the quote re: GP-B come from did i just miss it?.

Ah, I see from a few posts down it is your own assessment so the question becomes why did you put it in quotes?​

And you never answered my question as to whether the ether in your model does or does not act as the medium from the propagation of light.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Had a thought last night, and decided to put out here for others to answer since (not surprisingly) I'm not an expert on superfluids.
My question is this: I know that superfluids equalise temperature throughout the entire medium (i.e. no portion is warmer/ colder than any other) but: do they also act this way with pressure (since they are, after all, frictionless).
If so then mpc's claim that the aether acts as a superfluid and that "pressure exerted by aether toward matter is gravity" would be self-evidently wrong given that gravity varies from location to location.

 

[mpc755]

Less that half of the posts in this thread are from MPC and though the post count just hit 800 those that have viewed the thread is approaching 8000.

If people other than MPC where not having some sort of entertainment here it would have died on its own long ago.

It is in a pseudoscience folder and most of the complaint seems to be directed toward attempting impose contemporary standards of science.

While I do not agree with MPC's ideas and even believe that in some ways they may inhibit some legitimate debate involving similar off the mainstream ideas, if there is not somewhere for free thought under the science umbrella, science itself suffers the lose in the longer run.

It is your inhibiting state of denial which is causing you to not understand the correctness of aether displacement.

 

[mpc755]

Had a thought last night, and decided to put out here for others to answer since (not surprisingly) I'm not an expert on superfluids.
My question is this: I know that superfluids equalise temperature throughout the entire medium (i.e. no portion is warmer/ colder than any other) but: do they also act this way with pressure (since they are, after all, frictionless).
If so then mpc's claim that the aether acts as a superfluid and that "pressure exerted by aether toward matter is gravity" would be self-evidently wrong given that gravity varies from location to location.

Frictionless no loss of energy in the interaction of. It does not mean no interaction.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Frictionless no loss of energy in the interaction of. It does not mean no interaction.

Please read what I wrote. Nowhere did I claim "no interaction".

 

[OnlyMe]

Less that half of the posts in this thread are from MPC and though the post count just hit 800 those that have viewed the thread is approaching 8000.

If people other than MPC where not having some sort of entertainment here it would have died on its own long ago.

It is in a pseudoscience folder and most of the complaint seems to be directed toward attempting impose contemporary standards of science.

While I do not agree with MPC's ideas and even believe that in some ways they may inhibit some legitimate debate involving similar off the mainstream ideas, if there is not somewhere for free thought under the science umbrella, science itself suffers the lose in the longer run.

It is your inhibiting state of denial which is causing you to not understand the correctness of aether displacement.

Do I have this right? I post an argument that supports your right to post your ideas and you respond with some claim about my state of denial?

Does this make sense? Are you essentially in agreement with the post I was responding too?

I added that post below to make your answer to this question a little easier.

If I were moderating this thread, I'd have locked it long since. It's basically 40 pages of MPC posting the same thing over and over and over...

I know it would disappoint many of you, looking for amusement by poking a stick at the monkey through the bars, but...

That's what I'd do.

 

[mpc755]

Please read what I wrote. Nowhere did I claim "no interaction".

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a frictionless superfluid with properties of a solid.

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.

 

[mpc755]

Where did the quote re: GP-B come from did i just miss it?.

Ah, I see from a few posts down it is your own assessment so the question becomes why did you put it in quotes?​

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1106/1106.3955v2.pdf

And you never answered my question as to whether the ether in your model does or does not act as the medium from the propagation of light.

Of course.

 

[mpc755]

Do I have this right? I post an argument that supports your right to post your ideas and you respond with some claim about my state of denial?

Does this make sense? Are you essentially in agreement with the post I was responding too?

I added that post below to make your answer to this question a little easier.

Aether displacement is correct. Aether displacement determines the cause of the condition of the state of the aether of relativity. I have answered every one of your questions correctly.

And you reply with aether displacement "may inhibit some legitimate debate"?

Give me a break.

It is one thing to have to deal with the knuckleheads who are simply close minded. It is another to have to deal with someone who acts as if they are actually asking questions which if answered correctly, which they all have been, may change their understanding of the physics of nature, who are actually as close minded, if not more so, then the rest of the knuckleheads.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

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

 

[OnlyMe]

Had a thought last night, and decided to put out here for others to answer since (not surprisingly) I'm not an expert on superfluids.
My question is this: I know that superfluids equalise temperature throughout the entire medium (i.e. no portion is warmer/ colder than any other) but: do they also act this way with pressure (since they are, after all, frictionless).
If so then mpc's claim that the aether acts as a superfluid and that "pressure exerted by aether toward matter is gravity" would be self-evidently wrong given that gravity varies from location to location.

I have pondered this same issue on several occasions and a simple answer is difficult.

Some of the references to a super or perfect fluid, also described sometimes as a nearly perfect liquid, I have run into include the following characteristics. Not all found from any single source and to some extent an interpretation.., meaning my understanding...

1. A perfect fluid acts as a super conductor with respect to heat, temperature remains uniform through out. Home would say it does not hold or conduct internally. Rather it would be as if it conducts heat as a whole, the heat never exists within the fluid.

2. A kinetic force propagates through a perfect fluid instantly. This is closely associated with a uniform temperature, as heat is itself kinetic within a substance. Here is where the non-compressibility of a perfect fluid comes in. if it cannot be compressed any kinetic force applied to or within the fluid would have an instantaneous affect throughout. (An ether composed of a perfect fluid cannot be locally displaced. Any local displacement with be globally distributed throughout the liquid instantly. (A slight delay could be associated with the distribution in a "nearly" perfect liquid.)

3. A perfect fluid has an extremely low viscosity and a very high internal bond or connection between its individual parts. Seems a bit counter intuitive but what it means in effect, is that a drop on a surface would spread out to cover the whole surface. there would be no beading up as you would see with common fluids we normally deal with. Essentially no surface tension.

My understanding of perfect liquids or super fluids is in part the source of my questioning MPC as to whether his ether, which he describes as such, is the medium of the propagation of light. If so and it is agreed the the speed of light is finite, the ether at best could be described as only a "nearly" perfect fluid which is compressible. Kinetic energy, heat and light must propagate within the ether and at a finite velocity.

 

[mpc755]

I have pondered this same issue on several occasions and a simple answer is difficult.

Some of the references to a super or perfect fluid, also described sometimes as a nearly perfect liquid, I have run into include the following characteristics. Not all found from any single source and to some extent an interpretation.., meaning my understanding...

1. A perfect fluid acts as a super conductor with respect to heat, temperature remains uniform through out. Home would say it does not hold or conduct internally. Rather it would be as if it conducts heat as a whole, the heat never exists within the fluid.

2. A kinetic force propagates through a perfect fluid instantly. This is closely associated with a uniform temperature, as heat is itself kinetic within a substance. Here is where the non-compressibility of a perfect fluid comes in. if it cannot be compressed any kinetic force applied to or within the fluid would have an instantaneous affect throughout. (An ether composed of a perfect fluid cannot be locally displaced. Any local displacement with be globally distributed throughout the liquid instantly. (A slight delay could be associated with the distribution in a "nearly" perfect liquid.)

3. A perfect fluid has an extremely low viscosity and a very high internal bond or connection between its individual parts. Seems a bit counter intuitive but what it means in effect, is that a drop on a surface would spread out to cover the whole surface. there would be no beading up as you would see with common fluids we normally deal with. Essentially no surface tension.

My understanding of perfect liquids or super fluids is in part the source of my questioning MPC as to whether his ether, which he describes as such, is the medium of the propagation of light. If so and it is agreed the the speed of light is finite, the ether at best could be described as only a "nearly" perfect fluid which is compressible. Kinetic energy, heat and light must propagate within the ether and at a finite velocity.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid.

Waves do not propagate instantaneously through superfluid helium-3 which has properties of a solid.

'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm

'Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to conduct sound waves. ... "Faraday's finding was the first indication that light and magnetism were related," says William Halperin, professor of physics and astronomy at Northwestern. "I wouldn't say that our discovery is of that magnitude, but it is significant as the first observation of a previously unknown mode of wave propagation in a liquid -- one that is of the type you would expect to see in a solid."'

 

[OnlyMe]

And you reply with aether displacement "may inhibit some legitimate debate"?

I think I have been giving you a break. And my comment about inhibiting legitimate debate, remains valid. Yes you do answer, but your answers are not discussion or debate. You just recite the same thing, repeatedly. And some of the fundamentals of your ether are inconsistent with experience as I understand it.

When I question your interpretation of Einstein's 1920 address, "Ether and the Theory of Relativity", you don't discuss the difference in interpretation you just recite your original position. There is no discussion.

Truth be told and I have said this before if not in this thread then in others, I do like many aspects that an ether model brings to the table when addressing some of the hard issues a unified theory faces. That is the only reason I follow this thread to begin with. I explore the concept repeatedly over time and remain interested though as of yet I have found no model that is entirely consistent with what we do know, about how things in the universe interact.

You seem as inflexible in your position as you claim everyone else to be. That does not result in discussion or any possibility of arriving at any consensus even from the relatively relaxed umbrella of pseudoscience.

 

[mpc755]

I think I have been giving you a break. And my comment about inhibiting legitimate debate, remains valid. Yes you do answer, but your answers are not discussion or debate. You just recite the same thing, repeatedly. And some of the fundamentals of your ether are inconsistent with experience as I understand it.

When I question your interpretation of Einstein's 1920 address, "Ether and the Theory of Relativity", you don't discuss the difference in interpretation you just recite your original position. There is no discussion.

There is no difference in interpretation.

In order to understand Einstein's definition of ether you need to understand Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether.

Einstein's definition of motion as applied to the ether is defined throughout the following article as the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. I interpret this to mean it can not be known if ether consists of particles or not.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.

There may be supposed to be extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time.

The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity.

According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable;...But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.

Every time Einstein mentions motion as applied to the ether it is defined as the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. This is different than Einstein's definition of mobility as applied to the ether.

The ether of general relativity is mobile.

It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility.

The mobility of the ether is the state of displacement of the ether. The state of the ether as defined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the ether.

the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state.

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

Truth be told and I have said this before if not in this thread then in others, I do like many aspects that an ether model brings to the table when addressing some of the hard issues a unified theory faces. That is the only reason I follow this thread to begin with. I explore the concept repeatedly over time and remain interested though as of yet I have found no model that is entirely consistent with what we do know, about how things in the universe interact.

You seem as inflexible in your position as you claim everyone else to be. That does not result in discussion or any possibility of arriving at any consensus even from the relatively relaxed umbrella of pseudoscience.

Aether displacement is a unified theory. Aether displacement is correct.

 

[OnlyMe]

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid.

Waves do not propagate instantaneously through superfluid helium-3 which has properties of a solid.

'Superfluid Is Shown To Have Property Of A Solid'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990730072958.htm

'Northwestern University physicists have for the first time shown that superfluid helium-3 -- the lighter isotope of helium, which is a liquid that has lost all internal friction, allowing it to flow without resistance and ooze through tiny spaces that normal liquids cannot penetrate -- actually behaves like a solid in its ability to conduct sound waves. ... "Faraday's finding was the first indication that light and magnetism were related," says William Halperin, professor of physics and astronomy at Northwestern. "I wouldn't say that our discovery is of that magnitude, but it is significant as the first observation of a previously unknown mode of wave propagation in a liquid -- one that is of the type you would expect to see in a solid."'

Note the bold portion. While sound waves are completely kinetic they do not interact with material mediums in the same way that EM and light does. And that particular article also demonstrates that a clear definition of a super fluid is nowhere to be found in practice.

In one of the news releases from the CERN LHC lead ion collisions, the quark gluon plasma was also described as a perfect fluid and it was mentioned, at lest in a news report that kinetic energy was propagated instantly.

That is in part why I previously grouped Perfect & Super Fluids & Liquids together. They are used all to describe similar observations and theoretical models from a variety of disciplines and perspectives. To be specific unless you add a disqualifier of "nearly" to any of them, they are all attempting to use an idealized theoretical definition, to describe observations that come close and have no other current simple description.

 

[mpc755]

Note the bold portion. While sound waves are completely kinetic they do not interact with material mediums in the same way that EM and light does. And that particular article also demonstrates that a clear definition of a super fluid is nowhere to be found in practice.

In one of the news releases from the CERN LHC lead ion collisions, the quark gluon plasma was also described as a perfect fluid and it was mentioned, at lest in a news report that kinetic energy was propagated instantly.

That is in part why I previously grouped Perfect & Super Fluids & Liquids together. They are used all to describe similar observations and theoretical models from a variety of disciplines and perspectives. To be specific unless you add a disqualifier of "nearly" to any of them, they are all attempting to use an idealized theoretical definition, to describe observations that come close and have no other current simple description.

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I have pondered this same issue on several occasions and a simple answer is difficult.

Some of the references to a super or perfect fluid, also described sometimes as a nearly perfect liquid, I have run into include the following characteristics. Not all found from any single source and to some extent an interpretation.., meaning my understanding...

1. A perfect fluid acts as a super conductor with respect to heat, temperature remains uniform through out. Home would say it does not hold or conduct internally. Rather it would be as if it conducts heat as a whole, the heat never exists within the fluid.

2. A kinetic force propagates through a perfect fluid instantly. This is closely associated with a uniform temperature, as heat is itself kinetic within a substance. Here is where the non-compressibility of a perfect fluid comes in. if it cannot be compressed any kinetic force applied to or within the fluid would have an instantaneous affect throughout. (An ether composed of a perfect fluid cannot be locally displaced. Any local displacement with be globally distributed throughout the liquid instantly. (A slight delay could be associated with the distribution in a "nearly" perfect liquid.)

3. A perfect fluid has an extremely low viscosity and a very high internal bond or connection between its individual parts. Seems a bit counter intuitive but what it means in effect, is that a drop on a surface would spread out to cover the whole surface. there would be no beading up as you would see with common fluids we normally deal with. Essentially no surface tension.

My understanding of perfect liquids or super fluids is in part the source of my questioning MPC as to whether his ether, which he describes as such, is the medium of the propagation of light. If so and it is agreed the the speed of light is finite, the ether at best could be described as only a "nearly" perfect fluid which is compressible. Kinetic energy, heat and light must propagate within the ether and at a finite velocity.

I think that the speed of light is fixed due to spacing. I think that photons are spaced to the centre of some sort of field map... like the centre of Aether. This distribution is a strobe effect. I think it is because a photon is a change up of negative mass to mass, and the change up is pressure, and the most pressure is at the centre of Aether. A superfluid has expanded negative mass. Atoms fall into expanded negative mass areas, and the negative mass areas also act as large holes in chains. If you think of a metal chain, it requires holes to link with. If the holes get too small, you can't link with them, so bonding in particles becomes less likely. A superfluid is over bonded. The holes have very little mass to work with, and huge holes, they may even have pushed the mass into the middle of the fluid. So back to photons. If photons are pressure at the centre of a mass with a hole in the middle, what happens to photons when they interact with a superfluid? I think that they would create a ring around the mass in the middle. But a superfluid isn't normal matter, it isn't common Aether. Normal Aether has a hole in the middle and the volume of that hole is the same volume as its positive mass membrane. Average Aether is more like an empty atom. I would say that a superfluid is Aether that has been turned inside out.

 

[OnlyMe]

There is no difference in interpretation.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

Every time Einstein mentions motion as applied to the ether it is defined as the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. This is different than Einstein's definition of mobility as applied to the ether.

The ether of general relativity is mobile.

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

I refer you to my post #545, http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2821856&postcount=545

My interpretation of that address had some qualifiers you continue to ignore.

In 1920 most of the audience that Einstein was speaking to had still be educated from a background rooted in the ether theories of Maxwell and Lorentz. His address was discussing Relativity still new, SR was published in 1905 and GR in 1915 and neither were likely part of the core classwork at universities until much later.

With that in mind, Einstein's use of the words "ether" and "space" can be taken as interchangeable and his use of the word ether not as a direct endorsement of the existence of an either within space, rather as a means of connecting his definition and the mechanics of the space matter relationship with in relativity to their information and education background. Einstein was attempting to provide a logical argument for a change in perspective from the old ether model(s) to his concept of spacetime, as expressed within GR.

And yes there are a number of continuing explorations of ether models, which attempt to model GR from within the context of an ether. None so far have been completely successful. As long as you continue to just restate your opinion instead of discussing the difficulties that come up, you will continue to sound like a broken record instead of being open to a real discussion. Instead of just repeating "Aether Displacement" when a question is raised explain why.., and just using a reference that has already been shown to be interpreted differently, an original explanation would be best.

Is there any potential for a discussion of differing views and perspectives here or is the thread really a dead end?

 

[mpc755]

I do not believe that Einstein was saying that GR included "the ether"

To conclude the above from the following is to choose to exist in a state of denial.

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

 

[Arioch]

@mpc --

So what if Einstein gave the aether theory credence? That doesn't mean that it's right, the man was wrong quite often. Remember the cosmological constant he put into his equations? Or perhaps you recall his stance on QED and that it was "preposterous"?

The man was insane and a genius, but he was far from infallible and we know things now that he never would have dreamed of.