Aetheric wind / southern celestial pole

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 08, 2013, 05:59:39 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 08, 2013, 09:52:47 AM

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.

Get back to the rest of us when someone approaches you in the first place. Do you see your username in the subject title?


Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.

If your views conflict, I'd be interested to hear them.  I posted this here to subject it to a bit of scrutiny from the society, as I'm eager to learn and improve.

In short, I believe that the Earth is an infinite plane, and that gravitation and mass are linked. Moreover, I do not believe that Antarctica is a rim continent surrounding the known Earth. Your idea is interesting, but I find the weight of evidence in favour of gravitation due to mass, and Antarctic navigation, more compelling.

Quote from: Tintagel on January 08, 2013, 07:52:44 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on January 08, 2013, 05:59:39 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 08, 2013, 09:52:47 AM

Get back to me when someone has collected a bottle of aether.

Get back to the rest of us when someone approaches you in the first place. Do you see your username in the subject title?


Anyway, I think this is an interesting model. It conflicts with my own views and does not problematise my reasons for holding them, but unlike others in this thread, I am nevertheless eager to see ideas exchanged.

If your views conflict, I'd be interested to hear them.  I posted this here to subject it to a bit of scrutiny from the society, as I'm eager to learn and improve.

In short, I believe that the Earth is an infinite plane, and that gravitation and mass are linked. Moreover, I do not believe that Antarctica is a rim continent surrounding the known Earth. Your idea is interesting, but I find the weight of evidence in favour of gravitation due to mass, and Antarctic navigation, more compelling.

I find the infinite plane model compelling due to its elegance, and for its explanation of gravity, as you say.    I'd love to discuss that further, in another thread sometime

So this aetheric wind, how was it 'discovered'?

Or can I do something similar?

I believe the earth is round due to the aetheric pressure that pushes equally in all directions affecting mass and determining that the most perfect and elegant shape that it can form is a sphere.

Is the 'evidence' behind aetheric wind really any different than this?

So this aetheric wind, how was it 'discovered'?

Or can I do something similar?

I believe the earth is round due to the aetheric pressure that pushes equally in all directions affecting mass and determining that the most perfect and elegant shape that it can form is a sphere.

Is the 'evidence' behind aetheric wind really any different than this?

Aether is a theoretical substance, just as dark matter is, just as are gravitons.   None of these have ever been directly measured, but their existence is postulated because their respective scientific models have a need for them. 

I freely admit that I am in the realm of pure hypothesis in this thread, in the interest of productive thought, but some people don't seem to be able to stop beating their own "whar is teh evidence" drums long enough to enjoy a little free discourse.

Quote from: mexicanwave on January 11, 2013, 07:27:15 AM

So this aetheric wind, how was it 'discovered'?

Or can I do something similar?

I believe the earth is round due to the aetheric pressure that pushes equally in all directions affecting mass and determining that the most perfect and elegant shape that it can form is a sphere.

Is the 'evidence' behind aetheric wind really any different than this?

Aether is a theoretical substance, just as dark matter is, just as are gravitons.   None of these have ever been directly measured, but their existence is postulated because their respective scientific models have a need for them. 

I freely admit that I am in the realm of pure hypothesis in this thread, in the interest of productive thought, but some people don't seem to be able to stop beating their own "whar is teh evidence" drums long enough to enjoy a little free discourse.

Not at all. Apologies if it sounded that way... Not my intention to offend., just to understand the thinking... though I will never agree with your theories.

Quote from: mexicanwave on January 11, 2013, 07:27:15 AM

So this aetheric wind, how was it 'discovered'?

Or can I do something similar?

I believe the earth is round due to the aetheric pressure that pushes equally in all directions affecting mass and determining that the most perfect and elegant shape that it can form is a sphere.

Is the 'evidence' behind aetheric wind really any different than this?

Aether is a theoretical substance, just as dark matter is, just as are gravitons.   None of these have ever been directly measured, but their existence is postulated because their respective scientific models have a need for them. 

I freely admit that I am in the realm of pure hypothesis in this thread, in the interest of productive thought, but some people don't seem to be able to stop beating their own "whar is teh evidence" drums long enough to enjoy a little free discourse.

Another poor analogy. Dark matter was postulated because there is observed evidence that is difficult to explain without either modification of the theory of gravity, or the existence of more matter than we can detect by current conventional means - and there is NO explanation for the observations in currently proven physics. Hence the need for new hypotheses. Aether, by contrast, is not needed, as the observable environment of the earth and its visible celestial sky rotation, CAN be explained by currently proven physics - using the round earth model. You might not agree with it, you might not think it's true, but you cannot truthfully say the round earth model does not provide an explanation for what we observe around us. Because it does. If conventional physics could provide a hypothesis that would explain the anomalous rotation of galaxies, then nobody would have thought up dark matter in the first place. We demand independent evidence for aether because it is not the only explanation that works.
As for gravitons, these are theorised to exist simply because as we study the universe at a closer and closer level, it appears that almost all forces are controlled by representative particles. The graviton is a suggested particle that could operate in this way for gravity, but no serious scientists claim it exists without doubt, and it's not actually necessary to know if it's there or not to study the majority of the properties of gravity - any more than knowing that photons exist is essential for understanding the basic workings of light.

Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.

Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.

I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.

Quote from: Tausami on January 11, 2013, 01:35:02 PM

Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.

I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.

Light does not travel in a straight line, as a matter of fact, and this was not known until well after the discovery of photons.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2013, 01:40:37 PM

Quote from: Tausami on January 11, 2013, 01:35:02 PM

Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.

I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.

Light does not travel in a straight line, as a matter of fact, and this was not known until well after the discovery of photons.

could i have a link to the scientific experiments that prove light bends, and to what degree over what distance pleas?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2013, 01:40:37 PM

Quote from: Tausami on January 11, 2013, 01:35:02 PM

Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.

I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.

Light does not travel in a straight line, as a matter of fact, and this was not known until well after the discovery of photons.

One of the most well known things about light is that it travels in a straight line. Refraction is simply a change of direction, if that's what you're talking about. If not interfered with by matter, light travels in a straight line.

Quote from: Tausami on January 11, 2013, 01:54:50 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2013, 01:40:37 PM

Quote from: Tausami on January 11, 2013, 01:35:02 PM

Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.

I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.

Light does not travel in a straight line, as a matter of fact, and this was not known until well after the discovery of photons.

One of the most well known things about light is that it travels in a straight line. Refraction is simply a change of direction, if that's what you're talking about. If not interfered with by matter, light travels in a straight line.

Light travels as a wave and therefore not in a straight line.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2013, 01:58:46 PM

Quote from: Tausami on January 11, 2013, 01:54:50 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2013, 01:40:37 PM

Quote from: Tausami on January 11, 2013, 01:35:02 PM

Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.

I was referring to all the properties of light that were understood prior to the discovery of the photon, such as its finite speed, its properties of refraction and reflection, its constant travel in a straight line, etc. Hence my use of the phrase "the basic workings of light". The day before photons were discovered, we understood more about light and its properties than we do today about gravity.

Light does not travel in a straight line, as a matter of fact, and this was not known until well after the discovery of photons.

One of the most well known things about light is that it travels in a straight line. Refraction is simply a change of direction, if that's what you're talking about. If not interfered with by matter, light travels in a straight line.

Light travels as a wave and therefore not in a straight line.

It travels as a wave in a straight line.

How can something with sinusoidal curves be considered a straight line?   

A wave is not a straight line, but it can travel in a straight line.

Also it is a wave model

A wave is not a straight line, but it can travel in a straight line.

The wave can travel in a straight line, but the photons themselves cannot. Therefore, as photons are the fundamental particle of light, light does not travel in a straight line.

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2013, 09:41:04 PM

A wave is not a straight line, but it can travel in a straight line.

The wave can travel in a straight line, but the photons themselves cannot. Therefore, as photons are the fundamental particle of light, light does not travel in a straight line.

A photon is a wave.

Quote from: Tausami on January 13, 2013, 07:19:39 AM

Quote from: markjo on January 12, 2013, 09:41:04 PM

A wave is not a straight line, but it can travel in a straight line.

The wave can travel in a straight line, but the photons themselves cannot. Therefore, as photons are the fundamental particle of light, light does not travel in a straight line.

A photon is a wave.

And a wave is a photon. Regardless of the duality, photons do not move in straight lines. However, I am willing to accept that a large enough amount of photons taken as a whole will move in a straight line.

What a wonderful example of trying to flip the argument based on wording rather than fact, Tausami. And huge derailment too.

And a wave is a photon.

Not necessarily.  For example, sound is a mechanical wave and should not be confused with electromagnetic waves.

Quote from: Tausami on January 13, 2013, 07:55:43 AM

And a wave is a photon.

Not necessarily.  For example, sound is a mechanical wave and should not be confused with electromagnetic waves.

Well, but it was implied that I was talking about EM waves

What a wonderful example of trying to flip the argument based on wording rather than fact, Tausami. And huge derailment too.

Derailment unintentional. The points that were made my original post in the derailment were
1) Incorrect
and
2) We really didn't understand light before the photon was discovered

Shall we go back to that point?

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2013, 09:44:54 AM

Quote from: Tausami on January 13, 2013, 07:55:43 AM

And a wave is a photon.

Not necessarily.  For example, sound is a mechanical wave and should not be confused with electromagnetic waves.

Well, but it was implied that I was talking about EM waves

Fine, but you still haven't given a reason as to why a photon (which is both a particle and a wave) doesn't travel in a straight line.  Or is this merely an unnecessarily tedious semantic debate about the definition of a "straight line" as it applies to wave propagation?

Quote from: markjo on January 14, 2013, 09:44:54 AM

Quote from: Tausami on January 13, 2013, 07:55:43 AM

And a wave is a photon.

Not necessarily.  For example, sound is a mechanical wave and should not be confused with electromagnetic waves.

Well, but it was implied that I was talking about EM waves

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 14, 2013, 06:49:02 AM

What a wonderful example of trying to flip the argument based on wording rather than fact, Tausami. And huge derailment too.

Derailment unintentional. The points that were made my original post in the derailment were
1) Incorrect
and
2) We really didn't understand light before the photon was discovered

Shall we go back to that point?

1. Not sure what bit you're referring to as "incorrect" 
2. We did, as I said, understand the basics of how light works on a macroscopic scale. As we do with gravity, though not quite as well.

Shall we go back to my point that we don't need to know whether gravitons or gravity waves or any other form of propagation of gravity is correct in order to understand quite a lot about what it actually does? Sure, let's go back to that. I feel it's very important to go back to that, because it's a great way of squashing the persistent Society policy of trotting out the "you don't know how gravity is propagated therefore you can't say anything valid about it" line. Next time it comes out I think us Roundies should toss out "you don't know what powers the UA therefore you can't say anything valid about it".
And seriously Tausami, as an aside, trying to say that light doesn't travel in a straight line because it's a wave is the sort of counterargument I'd expect to hear from a twelve year old who'd just been learning about the electromagnetic spectrum for the first time in science class. I know you're more educated than that. There's no need to dumb yourself down.

Knowing that photons exist is absolutely necessary for understanding light.

This is the kind of statements that scientific illiterates say just because they do not fully understand the Scientific Method.

In Science understanding and having predicting power are almost the same thing. And you definitely can predict a lot of results from a lot of experiments and observations about light without even having the notion of a photon.

Only around the time of Planck's Law (circa 1860) we were ready to understand the difference between light as waves and light as discrete photons. But most of the laws of Optics already existed in that time, and helped understand almost everything a non-scientist will ever have to do with light.

The same goes with gravitation and gravitons. We understand (that is, we can predict results from) just about every experiment and observation regarding gravitational pull, at any scale except at galactic and inter-galactic scales. We might learn some additional, interesting things if and when we incorporate the idea of a graviton to our models about gravitation. But that does not subtract from what we already know about gravitation.