A collection of scientific evidence for aether

Quote from: DonaldC on March 19, 2015, 02:28:35 AM

As someone who has a BA in physics and some graduate work in physics a few clarifications.

Einstein was a genius and was the father of SR and GR and played an integral role on quantum mechanics. In fact his Noble prize was for his work in QM, not relativity. Having said that, GR has moved so far beyond its beginnings he would barely recognize it. He also loathed QM, but that theory also has grown and as much as he hated it, it is one of the most successful scientific theories.

It is almost a century from 1920. If Albert were to be here now, read up on all physics since 1920, he would certainly not be a proponent of ether, or aether, or whatever. Even in the 30's he and others has dropped the idea. The evidence had become overwhelming.

The ether was proposed as the medium through which light was theorized to propagate, as light was thought to be a wave and waves need a medium to oscillate in and move through. There were no other reasons for the ether to exist. Einstein in fact (remember that Nobel?) proved via the Compton Effect and Photoelectric Effect that light has to be made of particles, what are now called photons. Although in the aggregate they demonstrate wave properties, light is made of these photons and particles do not need a medium for travel. Experiments to find it had failed, and then the entire edifice was no longer required so it fell away, as it rightly should have.

When you are speaking to someone in person, you do start every conversion by first giving your academic qualifications?  I find it very odd that you do it here.  It almost makes me think that your might be lying or are narcissistic. 

Odd, I have only seen one or maybe two posts that Donald has "flaunted" (not really) his academic qualifications.
Plus if you are entering the conversation about something like physics, would it not make sense to provide some background about yourself concerning the topic?  To make sure that you are representing yourself as a possible authority on the subject?   Especially if it concerns things being debated. 
If I started out telling you that I am a computer engineer, and you had no reason to doubt that, would it not make sense for me to announce that before talking about electron flow through a semiconductor?

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 19, 2015, 01:31:05 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 19, 2015, 01:20:57 AM

Yes exactly. What is called "vacuum" in modern physics could well be called "aether", but it isn't, out of historical reasons.

Modern Einstein based aether theories use Einstein's concept of aether=spacetime. But they differ from common theoretical physics, because , as I said, it also implies a "prefered frame of reference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

Does Einsteins theory of aether describe the theories of aether described here? If not then we are not talking about the same thing. His theory of aether does not in anyway describe a flat world, or a world where teleportation of matter happens at will. There are no aether winds in his theories. What is being described is much closer to modern quantum theory than a flat earth theory.

Surely you can see that?

Nah, Einstein used the word ether. Thats good enough for Jroa and he'll continue to trot it out as "evidence".

Einstein was also a big believer in gravity and the spherical shape of the earth, so Jroa is now in a bit of a pickle.

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 01:38:56 AM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 19, 2015, 01:31:05 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 19, 2015, 01:20:57 AM

Yes exactly. What is called "vacuum" in modern physics could well be called "aether", but it isn't, out of historical reasons.

Modern Einstein based aether theories use Einstein's concept of aether=spacetime. But they differ from common theoretical physics, because , as I said, it also implies a "prefered frame of reference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

Does Einsteins theory of aether describe the theories of aether described here? If not then we are not talking about the same thing. His theory of aether does not in anyway describe a flat world, or a world where teleportation of matter happens at will. There are no aether winds in his theories. What is being described is much closer to modern quantum theory than a flat earth theory.

Surely you can see that?

Nah, Einstein used the word ether. Thats good enough for Jroa and he'll continue to trot it out as "evidence".

Einstein was also a big believer in gravity and the spherical shape of the earth, so Jroa is now in a bit of a pickle.

Yeah.

By the way - still no one, excluding RE'ers, posted here about real evidence for aether. Result? Aether is false, aether doesn't exist. Whole idea of flat Earth teared apart right now.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 19, 2015, 11:45:27 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 01:38:56 AM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 19, 2015, 01:31:05 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 19, 2015, 01:20:57 AM

Yes exactly. What is called "vacuum" in modern physics could well be called "aether", but it isn't, out of historical reasons.

Modern Einstein based aether theories use Einstein's concept of aether=spacetime. But they differ from common theoretical physics, because , as I said, it also implies a "prefered frame of reference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

Does Einsteins theory of aether describe the theories of aether described here? If not then we are not talking about the same thing. His theory of aether does not in anyway describe a flat world, or a world where teleportation of matter happens at will. There are no aether winds in his theories. What is being described is much closer to modern quantum theory than a flat earth theory.

Surely you can see that?

Nah, Einstein used the word ether. Thats good enough for Jroa and he'll continue to trot it out as "evidence".

Einstein was also a big believer in gravity and the spherical shape of the earth, so Jroa is now in a bit of a pickle.

Yeah.

By the way - still no one, excluding RE'ers, posted here about real evidence for aether. Result? Aether is false, aether doesn't exist. Whole idea of flat Earth teared apart right now.

I expect it just a delay while they collate all their data and double-check all the equations.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 19, 2015, 02:36:17 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on March 19, 2015, 11:45:27 AM

Quote from: Weatherwax on March 19, 2015, 01:38:56 AM

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 19, 2015, 01:31:05 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 19, 2015, 01:20:57 AM

Yes exactly. What is called "vacuum" in modern physics could well be called "aether", but it isn't, out of historical reasons.

Modern Einstein based aether theories use Einstein's concept of aether=spacetime. But they differ from common theoretical physics, because , as I said, it also implies a "prefered frame of reference"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_aether_theory

Does Einsteins theory of aether describe the theories of aether described here? If not then we are not talking about the same thing. His theory of aether does not in anyway describe a flat world, or a world where teleportation of matter happens at will. There are no aether winds in his theories. What is being described is much closer to modern quantum theory than a flat earth theory.

Surely you can see that?

Nah, Einstein used the word ether. Thats good enough for Jroa and he'll continue to trot it out as "evidence".

Einstein was also a big believer in gravity and the spherical shape of the earth, so Jroa is now in a bit of a pickle.

Yeah.

By the way - still no one, excluding RE'ers, posted here about real evidence for aether. Result? Aether is false, aether doesn't exist. Whole idea of flat Earth teared apart right now.

I expect it just a delay while they collate all their data and double-check all the equations.

Man, they're gathering their "data" for ages...

jroa I am not flaunting my degrees, I am putting forth my qualifications. Just as some others here have mentioned theirs. It is a matter of full disclosure.

If you do not trust my qualifications I am happy to my ID and a copy of my degree and post them here. I should also be  able to find the 2006 list of graduating students and link to that webpage.

jroa I am not flaunting my degrees, I am putting forth my qualifications. Just as some others here have mentioned theirs. It is a matter of full disclosure.

If you do not trust my qualifications I am happy to my ID and a copy of my degree and post them here. I should also be  able to find the 2006 list of graduating students and link to that webpage.

Because you talk to jroa, so go on.

jroa I am not flaunting my degrees, I am putting forth my qualifications. Just as some others here have mentioned theirs. It is a matter of full disclosure.

If you do not trust my qualifications I am happy to my ID and a copy of my degree and post them here. I should also be  able to find the 2006 list of graduating students and link to that webpage.

Well, here are my credentials.

Quote from: DonaldC on March 19, 2015, 10:39:13 PM

jroa I am not flaunting my degrees, I am putting forth my qualifications. Just as some others here have mentioned theirs. It is a matter of full disclosure.

If you do not trust my qualifications I am happy to my ID and a copy of my degree and post them here. I should also be  able to find the 2006 list of graduating students and link to that webpage.

Well, here are my credentials.

Jroa, please ban jroa.

Ether detection experiments.

Here's proof of ether:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether

Quote from: DonaldC on March 19, 2015, 02:28:35 AM

As someone who has a BA in physics and some graduate work in physics a few clarifications... 

When you are speaking to someone in person, you do start every conversion by first giving your academic qualifications?  I find it very odd that you do it here.  It almost makes me think that your might be lying or are narcissistic.

Do you agree then that sceptimatic—who's claimed to possess thirteen academic qualifications—may well be a liar?

And do you agree that if sceptimatic is a liar, then other flat earthers may also be lying about the aether, its origins, and its effects?

   

Two days, still no simplest evidence. I think FE, double FE and other shits are going to trash now. Man, remove this forum, it's now useless if we proved that aether doesn't exist.

If aether didn't exist then UA wouldn't exist and if UA didn't exist then the Aetheric wall wouldn't exist which would make us all fall off the Earth disc. I think that's good enough evidence right there. Since we know UA exists we know that aether exists.

Pretty simple, actually.

If aether didn't exist then UA wouldn't exist and if UA didn't exist then the Aetheric wall wouldn't exist which would make us all fall off the Earth disc. I think that's good enough evidence right there. Since we know UA exists we know that aether exists.

Pretty simple, actually.

LOL... I love such logical explanations of matters scientific.  Multiple non sequiturs anyone?     

Psst.... Gravity exists, therefore Earth is round, therefore no aether needed, therefore no UA, and no one falling off the edge.

Quote from: DonaldC on March 19, 2015, 10:39:13 PM

jroa I am not flaunting my degrees, I am putting forth my qualifications. Just as some others here have mentioned theirs. It is a matter of full disclosure.

If you do not trust my qualifications I am happy to my ID and a copy of my degree and post them here. I should also be  able to find the 2006 list of graduating students and link to that webpage.

Well, here are my credentials.

How come you spelled Master Willmore's name wrong? Also I thought Dr Bishop was the dean of the FE faculty and gave out the certificates?

If aether didn't exist then UA wouldn't exist and if UA didn't exist then the Aetheric wall wouldn't exist which would make us all fall off the Earth disc. I think that's good enough evidence right there. Since we know UA exists we know that aether exists.

Pretty simple, actually.

What's UA? Your so-called evidence is nothing more than "aether exists because without aether our idea of flat Earth based on aether wouldn't even arise".

Yet no evidence.

Yet no evidence.

Please deflate your ego. I'm not here solely to entertain you.

If you want real answers, please ask nicely. Everyone is put off by your shitty attitude.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 20, 2015, 03:50:00 PM

Yet no evidence.

Please deflate your ego. I'm not here solely to entertain you.

If you want real answers, please ask nicely. Everyone is put off by your shitty attitude.

I'm asking nicely - what are your scientific evidences for aether? You can share it, take it easily!

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 20, 2015, 03:59:04 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 20, 2015, 03:50:00 PM

Yet no evidence.

Please deflate your ego. I'm not here solely to entertain you.

If you want real answers, please ask nicely. Everyone is put off by your shitty attitude.

I'm asking nicely - what are your scientific evidences for aether? You can share it, take it easily!

I don't have direct evidence. All I can ask of you is to think about this question....

Where did space come from? Do you honestly believe that the 'vacuum' of space is truly an empty void? I don't. That's aether. It's the void. It's space itself.  Just like there is no evidence for dark matter except what has been deduced from making observations - that's the same principle that we are operating on with aether. It's there because it explains so much about the universe and the Earth itself. Also, do not confuse me with others. I freely admit that I could be and am quite possibly wrong about this, but it's a better explanation than the current model.

I don't believe in "nothing". I don't think "nothing" is an obtainable thing, for the universe or for anything really. That's why aether exists. It's a seemingly magical substance, but it's no more magical than the universe and all it's glory. You cannot answer where we came from, how we got here, why we are seemingly floating in space. I deny the existence of nothing, and I purpose that it is aether instead.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 20, 2015, 04:07:45 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on March 20, 2015, 03:59:04 PM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 20, 2015, 03:50:00 PM

Yet no evidence.

Please deflate your ego. I'm not here solely to entertain you.

If you want real answers, please ask nicely. Everyone is put off by your shitty attitude.

I'm asking nicely - what are your scientific evidences for aether? You can share it, take it easily!

I don't have direct evidence. All I can ask of you is to think about this question....

Where did space come from? Do you honestly believe that the 'vacuum' of space is truly an empty void? I don't. That's aether. It's the void. It's space itself.  Just like there is no evidence for dark matter except what has been deduced from making observations - that's the same principle that we are operating on with aether. It's there because it explains so much about the universe and the Earth itself. Also, do not confuse me with others. I freely admit that I could be and am quite possibly wrong about this, but it's a better explanation than the current model.

I don't believe in "nothing". I don't think "nothing" is an obtainable thing, for the universe or for anything really. That's why aether exists. It's a seemingly magical substance, but it's no more magical than the universe and all it's glory. You cannot answer where we came from, how we got here, why we are seemingly floating in space. I deny the existence of nothing, and I purpose that it is aether instead.

There is no perfect vacuum. In every cubic meter of universe there are aprox. only 2 protons. Where did space come from? From Big Bang, obviously. Dark matter is just a name for well-observable force that is actually pretty unknown, which makes galaxies stay in their positions. So we've got gravity, we've got pretty empty space, we've got dark matter - so for what actually is the aether? Now it's just fictional thing which is here only to explain in less or more ridiculous ways problematic situations which are making FE idea to fall apart.

COME ON, SHARE YOUR EVIDENCES, YOU'RE FREE TO POST!

COME ON, SHARE YOUR EVIDENCES, YOU'RE FREE TO POST!

Ignore all of the evidence all you want.  You are programmed to ignore it and pretend that no evidence has been presented.  It is not your fault; you are just brainwashed to think that way. 

That's not us your describing there jroa. 

Please reflect upon yourself.  You might be surprised. 

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 21, 2015, 05:10:17 AM

COME ON, SHARE YOUR EVIDENCES, YOU'RE FREE TO POST!

Ignore all of the evidence all you want.  You are programmed to ignore it and pretend that no evidence has been presented.  It is not your fault; you are just brainwashed to think that way.

Your only so-called evidences were "aether must exist because if it didn't then our FE idea would fall apart" and "we observe aether, not problem that what we actually observe is gravity". These aren't evidences. These are stupid assertions and subjective assumptions.

Please reflect upon yourself.  You might be surprised. 

I always do, I question everything around me, but I actually try to find out whats really happening and do silly things like experiments, check evidence, do that thing we call math, etc.  But hey, it is so much easier to just call someone a liar (by the way in essence that is what a shill is), ignore any evidence that doesn't agree with what Rory Cooper spouts off about, or just take wise cracks at others while not really participating in discussions.  That stuff takes a lot less effort than actually thinking.

Quote from: jroa on March 21, 2015, 07:08:19 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 21, 2015, 05:10:17 AM

COME ON, SHARE YOUR EVIDENCES, YOU'RE FREE TO POST!

Ignore all of the evidence all you want.  You are programmed to ignore it and pretend that no evidence has been presented.  It is not your fault; you are just brainwashed to think that way.

Your only so-called evidences were "aether must exist because if it didn't then our FE idea would fall apart" and "we observe aether, not problem that what we actually observe is gravity". These aren't evidences. These are stupid assertions and subjective assumptions.

lol, I am starting to think that you have Alzheimer's or some other memory problem.  That was Vauxhall whom you are claiming as my quote.  Perhaps your care giver could give you a hand keeping up with who said what? 

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 21, 2015, 05:10:17 AM

COME ON, SHARE YOUR EVIDENCES, YOU'RE FREE TO POST!

Ignore all of the evidence all you want.  You are programmed to ignore it and pretend that no evidence has been presented.  It is not your fault; you are just brainwashed to think that way.

Nope, he clearly quoted you