Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby florentis » Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

I think, it's the place to give this link here.
It's about a publication from Maurice Allais (a french enginer from polytechnique, who recieved the Nobel Price in economy).
He took the data from the experiments made by Dayton Miller (1925-1926), which consist of mesurement of light speed as done by Michelson.
He founds a difference of 8 km/s beyond azimuts, which could be established as the consequence of the moon movement around the earth, carrying the aether.
In french, with some abstracts in english.
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/Science.htm
florentis
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 7:43 pm

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby webolife » Mon May 12, 2008 11:38 am

My French is sufficient to conclude that these are some very remarkable papers here, by Maurice Allais...
but not enough to feel comfortable with my understanding of what he is saying... generally several demonstrations of the point that the Michelson-Morley-Miller experiments did not sisprove the existence of the ether, and how some aberrations may have been the result of measurement error/bias. Does anyone know where these may be found or translatable into English?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby florentis » Mon May 12, 2008 4:04 pm

Mmh, althought I'm french myself, I'm not as confortable as Maurice Allais in statistics and I really do not understand totaly the method he use to interpete the data. Especially, I don't understand what is an hodograph, even if I presume it's a method to correct data.
Moreover, my english is far from perfection, so error in understanding + error in translating should lead to a lot of imprecision.
Nevertheless, he founds that this difference of 8 km/s is the consequence of the movement of the moon. That's an indication on how correctly interprete the data found by Dayton Miller.
Of course this has to be verified by experts (even if I did my study in an engineering school, as I'm now working in computing, I'm not an expert in this matter).
In any case, if he made a mistake somewhere, he did it sincerly.

So, I won't translate it myself.
I will ask if a translation exists about it somewhere and I'll give you an answer when I'll know.
florentis
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 7:43 pm

About Allais' work

Unread postby florentis » Mon May 19, 2008 7:45 pm

I've just found this url http://www.allais.info/ !
florentis
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 7:43 pm

Re: About Allais' work

Unread postby rasmath » Wed Aug 15, 2018 10:28 am

florentis wrote:I've just found this url http://www.allais.info/ !


After reading all this sections. I still have no conclusion about the Aether. And what the Aether is.
rasmath
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:34 pm

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby ja7tdo » Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:55 pm

Ether has not been observed yet. Assembling a theory with Ether is the same as using Space in relativity theory. Space is also a mathematical concept not proven real. We should build a theory with observed phenomena or objects.

https://etherealmatters.org/article/practical-physics
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby webolife » Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:18 pm

ja7tdo wrote:Space is also a mathematical concept not proven real.

Is anything "real?"
I fully appreciate how some objectivists might come to such a conclusion, this despite the standard definition of matter which is "anything that has mass and takes up space."
Here are some other questions that must be considered:
1. Is matter then not "real?"
2. How about "mass" then? Mass is understood as being the coagulation of matter measured by its motions or effects on [or relative to] other matter in the vicinity... er, occupying nearby space?
3. No matter how deep or small you go into the rabbit-hole of aether, there is always space [call it shape if you will] that delineates or distinguishes one bit of matter [or object] from another. If that space isn't "real" what is? Some imaginary aether? I suppose so, unless the space is real both mathematically and physically?
4. "Fields" then are not real, even though they may be manipulated and measured by a variety of means?
5. Or maybe is everything a matter of fields [pun strictly intentional], ie. objects however defined plus the forces acting in the space[s] between them?
6. If space is not real, then neither are its elements: length, radius, area, volume, density... Can you measure anything real or "physical" without these?
7. What about light (or EM radiation if you prefer), is it real? Optical geometry [representations of space] is the only way to actually experience light [focal length, ray convergence, imaging, energy transference across space, etc.] yet apart from this can there be any observation of the universe?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby ja7tdo » Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:38 pm

webolife wrote:
ja7tdo wrote:Space is also a mathematical concept not proven real.

Is anything "real?"


Your question is too much.
If you want mathematical space to be proved to be physical real, please bend it.

Many of your doubts may be understood by reading the articles I wrote.

https://etherealmatters.org/eugeology

one answer to your question, there is no mass. What we see as mass is electromagnetic force.
I do not understand everything. I points out places where there are many people's mistakes.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: About Allais' work

Unread postby kevin » Tue Aug 21, 2018 11:55 pm

rasmath wrote:
florentis wrote:I've just found this url http://www.allais.info/ !


After reading all this sections. I still have no conclusion about the Aether. And what the Aether is.


IMHO.
So called aether is consciousness.

It is detectable, via dowsing.


It is the carrier of information, and enabler of creation of 3D mass.


It flows about in a multi dimensional perfectly packed universe.


I tried upon here in a thread entitled dowsing and the lattice to describe this as best I could.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=327&hilit=dowsing+and+the+lattice




Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1125
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby webolife » Sat Aug 25, 2018 5:22 pm

ja7tdo wrote:If you want mathematical space to be proved to be physical real, please bend it.

What do you mean "real"? You wish me to declare that space is an object? But surely you don't wish me to declare that space is "imaginary"!!! There are real consequences to the increase and diminishment of distance in physics. The manipulation of this element causes physical results. Seems quite real to me. You can hypothesize any kind of aether you want. But unless you make the claim that "space" is a solid, eg. composed of a solid aethereal matrix[?], there has to be space/shape/radius/area/something that defines the quanta of your aether. And in the end, it is still aether that is imaginary, not space.
ja7tdo wrote:one answer to your question, there is no mass. What we see as mass is electromagnetic force.
I do not understand everything.

Good to know. I agree with you 100% that mass is manifestation of force. That doesn't mean "there is no mass", though; you are simply acknowledging the standard physics that matter and mass are not equivalent terms.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby ja7tdo » Sat Aug 25, 2018 11:56 pm

webolife wrote:
ja7tdo wrote:If you want mathematical space to be proved to be physical real, please bend it.

What do you mean "real"? You wish me to declare that space is an object? But surely you don't wish me to declare that space is "imaginary"!!! There are real consequences to the increase and diminishment of distance in physics. The manipulation of this element causes physical results. Seems quite real to me. You can hypothesize any kind of aether you want. But unless you make the claim that "space" is a solid, eg. composed of a solid aethereal matrix[?], there has to be space/shape/radius/area/something that defines the quanta of your aether. And in the end, it is still aether that is imaginary, not space.
ja7tdo wrote:one answer to your question, there is no mass. What we see as mass is electromagnetic force.
I do not understand everything.

Good to know. I agree with you 100% that mass is manifestation of force. That doesn't mean "there is no mass", though; you are simply acknowledging the standard physics that matter and mass are not equivalent terms.


I will write it in Japanese for accurate writing.
実在とは人間の感覚に基づくものです。
空間は数学から持ち込んだ概念であることは明白です。
だから、もしあなたが空間は実在であると主張するなら、目に見えるように曲げてほしい。

質量は、2次的な現象です。力を加えないと現れないので、もともとは存在しない。
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby webolife » Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:02 am

ja7tdo wrote:実在とは人間の感覚に基づくものです。
空間は数学から持ち込んだ概念であることは明白です。
だから、もしあなたが空間は実在であると主張するなら、目に見えるように曲げてほしい。
質量は、2次的な現象です。力を加えないと現れないので、もともとは存在しない。

Well ok, I'll take that challenge:
1. First, do you mean to say that only what we can sense as humans is "real"? As in our "five senses"?
What of radio signals, x-rays, gamma rays, magnetic fields... and what about the "aether" [whoever's version you enlist]?? While we know that the so-called "invisible" types of EM radiation exist from the special apparati we have created to detect and manipulate them, these are not discernible by human sense alone. I'm going to assume you do not actually mean to make this claim, and move to the next point.
2. Space is an imaginary mathematical construct you claim... well then by what means are you able to discern between any two different objects in the universe; if space does not "exist", how do you measure the size or shape of any object. Choose anything, and describe its features with out reference to its size or shape, both determinants elements of the space you say does not exist.
3. Even your insistence upon "bending" it is a function of relative position and spacial configuration. More importantly you insist upon "visually" bending space. But vision is itself a geometrically derived interaction between invisible rays of light and a resonant detector arranged in space for the purpose of "sensing" what otherwise is totally transparent. Even the so-called "visible" spectrum only becomes so as the result of optical geometry emplaced to manipulate ordered invisible rays into an image. Whether the apparati are natural [as in raindrops or the pupil of the eye] or synthetic [lenses, pinholes, slits] is of no relevance to the fundamental nature of reality, ie. it is totally transparent and absolutely requires space to manifest itself. No space, no shape or size referent, no "visual" sensation.
4. Standard accepted definitions of universe -- all objects and the space between them and matter -- anything that has mass and takes up space are the beginning point from which everything else is derivative. I agree that mass is derivative from force[s], themselves invisible and insensible concepts apart from the changes of position [in space] which manifest them. Mathematics is simply a language by which we describe these invisible elements in order to better model them from our imagination. Maths do not invent "space", they describe it as an elemental feature of all reality.

Here is a mystery even a child can recognize: The visible things of the cosmos are compromised of invisible elements [atoms etc]...
--brought to us by means of transparent light rays [yes even including those we call "visible"]
--elicited to our senses by means of carefully designed geometric systems [ie. spacial constructs]
--finally described by use of intelligence [yet another abstract and in-sense-ible essence].

This much I "get" as I ponder my incomprehensible friend Kevin, who refers to this principle as "consciousness."
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Relativity vs. Aether Theory

Unread postby BeyondTheVeil » Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:16 am

Aether is neutrinos. Even the great vacuum chambers of LIGO are filled with them, as is the LHC, as is the vacuum of interstellar space.
Unless you ask, the answer is always "No".
User avatar
BeyondTheVeil
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 3:56 pm
Location: Huaran, Cusco, Peru

Previous

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron