The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Blacksmith on August 25, 2014, 09:57:39 PM
-
After reading several pro-FE posts and theories, this mysterious subject of the 'Aether' seems to appear again and again. Yet no one will provide an answer to what this mysterious thing is, why it exists, evidence that it exists, etc. I want to know how this idea cane about and what observable, testable evidence supports it. To me, it seems as if FE followers have basically made some mystical force up to excuse away the factual evidence mounting against them. To me, the best analogy is that the FE communitybhas basically made a crutch out of what was lying around to prop up their dieing theory. Seriously, what could make you come to the conclusion that there is some mystical aether above us with winds that blow light around perfectly to make it seem like the earth is round. How could you come to that conclusion? It becomes apparent to me that FE supporters are unwilling to look at the matter objectively and examine the facts for and against. They are willingly ignorant of what is obvious because they don't want to admit defeat after they've picked the wrong side.
Now, after that probably offensive ending, I encourage everyone that reads this to give me testable evidence as to the existence of this aether, and these mystical winds which blow light around to form perfectly transitioned images of a spherical star field above us. It would be very cool if this underground movement was actually true, because that means I would get to witness a revolution in the way we look at the world as said evidence sweeps away the desenters. I would change my opinion in a heartbeat, with fervor if someone gave me testable, recreatable evidence of this aether.
-
Tesla believed in the Aether. So did Einstein. Were they just idiots, or did main stream science just push them aside?
-
Tesla believed in the Aether. So did Einstein. Were they just idiots, or did main stream science just push them aside?
Where is the current definition? The usual extreme option of idiots...
-
Please study up on the subject, inquisitive.
http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html (http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html)
-
REDACTED.
-
That's all very nice, but I still do not see a clear definition. That's cool that two very intelligent people believed in it. If this phenomena is so obvious and influential, then you should be able to, yourself, tell me what it is, how we know it's there, and why it behaves as it does. Only then does it become a suitable candidate for replacing currently held beliefs. The current model of what the world looks like and why it does is logically sound and based on mountains of empirical data, so in order to dislodge it you have to provide the same.
-
Tesla believed in the Aether. So did Einstein. Were they just idiots, or did main stream science just push them aside?
I guess you could say the concept of aether was pushed aside by mainstream science simply because it wasn't useful or necessary. Einstein didn't strictly believe or disbelieve in aether. At one point he decided it wasn't a necessary concept, as when he developed special relativity. Later on he talked about it as a possible way to envision gravity, but it wasn't strictly necessary there either. Keep in mind also that "Einstein's aether" is not the FET aether.
But this aether 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. (emphasis is mine)
So the idea of an "aetheric wind" blowing on the Earth and causing motion of the Sun and Moon would not have been supported by Einstein at all. I don't know about Tesla's aether. Isn't it just what we would now call the electromagnetic field?
-
Please study up on the subject, inquisitive.
http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html (http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html)
Miles Mathis (who authored the link jroa refers to) is a well-known conspiracist, and some say, a certifiable lunatic. You can safely ignore anything he has to say about Tesla and/or Einstein.
—One of Mathis's ludicrous claims? "The derivative of an acceleration is a velocity". ;D
-
Please study up on the subject, inquisitive.
http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html (http://milesmathis.com/tesla.html)
Miles Mathis (who authored the link jroa refers to) is a well-known conspiracist, and some say, a certifiable lunatic. You can safely ignore anything he has to say about Tesla and/or Einstein.
—One of Mathis's ludicrous claims? "The derivative of an acceleration is a velocity". ;D
Ironically, it also supports shmeggley's point that neither Tesla's or Einstein's versions of Aether bore any resemblance to FET Aether. Effectively countering jroa's first post in the thread.
-
This is not a debate forum.
-
This is not a debate forum.
Again, I respectfully request that this policy be reviewed.
How, after all, should the community dispute a controversial 'A' to a 'Q'? Since this site is dedicated to challenging almost all widely-accepted beliefs, any 'A' given is virtually assured to be controversial.
-
I really don't care who believes what, no matter who they are. (Also, fun fact, the aether as referred to by Telsa is actually just what he used to refer to the electromagnetic fields he had been experimenting with, ex: the infamous tower he could not complete.) I care what evidence there is that it exists. If Stephen Hawking said he believed in an aether, that's cool and all but belief is not evidence of fact, no matter who is holding said belief.
-
This is not a debate forum.
Again, I respectfully request that this policy be reviewed.
How, after all, should the community dispute a controversial 'A' to a 'Q'? Since this site is dedicated to challenging almost all widely-accepted beliefs, any 'A' given is virtually assured to be controversial.
Anyone is welcome to start a debate in Flat Earth Debate. The purpose of this forum is to answer questions about the flat-earth.
-
Has anyone seen or detected this aether for themselves.
-
The effects of the Aether have been well documented for a very long time.
-
Excellent. Please provide links to some of this documentation.
-
Is your Google broken? Because it is usually not a difficult task to Google something.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28classical_element%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28classical_element%29)
According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity. In the late 19th century, physicists postulated that aether permeated all throughout space, providing a medium through which light could travel in a vacuum, but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson-Morley experiment.[2]
That's what I found.
Having personally performed the Michelson-Morley experiment, I feel qualified to agree.
-
I am glad that your Google is working now. Maybe you could make a point, for a change?
-
He did make a point. Apparently, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Look mate, the point is, you asked him to search for all the documentation on the aether, and when he did, he found that it's an old crutch used to explain phenomena they did not understand at the time, was resurrected for a time as a possible conduit of electromagnetism and light, but no evidence was ever found despite widespread scientific interest. So, said documentation is actually against you. That's his point.
-
Is your Google broken? Because it is usually not a difficult task to Google something.
Facetiously referring someone to Google is not considered appropriate for the Q&A forum jroa. If you don't have a meaningful answer for a question, can you please refrain from posting zero-content comments in future.
-
Is your Google broken? Because it is usually not a difficult task to Google something.
Facetiously referring someone to Google is not considered appropriate for the Q&A forum jroa. If you don't have a meaningful answer for a question, can you please refrain from posting zero-content comments in future.
Memberating is against the rules. Please refer to rule #10 and consider this a warning. Thanks.