Aether, how you know it exist?

How do observe, test, and demotrate Aether if it exist?

PM jroa
Receive wall of text
Read said wall of text
Cry

I did. Not sure if I can disclose private messages though. Othwise I will tell you the conversation we had. Still waiting for a response though I can tell you that.

The aether does not exist. Why? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
Basically, it attempts to determine how much the aether slows a beam of light. Since there was no difference between the speeds of a beam of light travelling perpendicular to the aether (relative to earth's movement through it) and a beam of light travelling into the aether, it was determined that the aether cannot exist.

The aether does not exist. Why? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
Basically, it attempts to determine how much the aether slows a beam of light. Since there was no difference between the speeds of a beam of light travelling perpendicular to the aether (relative to earth's movement through it) and a beam of light travelling into the aether, it was determined that the aether cannot exist.

To be fair, you can't prove the non-existence of anything. That's why I ask for proof for Aether.

How do observe, test, and demotrate Aether if it exist?

How do I observe, test and demonstrate gravity exists once you strip away all the dubious science fiction and manufactured laws. That is the dilemma we face! Limited scientific back-up. Aether must exist because most of all matter is empty space and your science confirms that, something must fill that empty space.

... something must fill that empty space.

Why?

Aether must exist because most of all matter is empty space and your science confirms that, something must fill that empty space.

It really does not matter if aether exists or not, its a word and the word exists.
What matters is that the thing you are describing with certain properties.
The question is, do those properties exist within your framework? If not your then your framework needs to be reviewed.

If you say aether can turn apples into bannans, then you need to show it can. If it cant then you need to describe aether differently.

Quote from: Aman68 on November 24, 2015, 11:17:58 PM

... something must fill that empty space.

Why?

Because there is no such thing as nothing! Check your science and find out how much energy is stored in the so called nothing

How do I observe, test and demonstrate gravity exists once you strip away all the dubious science fiction and manufactured laws.

Check your science and find out how much energy is stored in the so called nothing

So "my" science is okay if it supports your ideas, but it's "dubious science fiction and manufactured laws" when it goes against you?

The aether does not exist. Why? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

The word aether is used to refer to many things. I simply use it as it is a recognized FE term, though my definition varies.

Still waiting for a response though I can tell you that.

Consistently ignoring my replies and refusing to say what is wrong with any of them, expecting me to somehow guess, is not 'waiting for a response.' You've had a response. Until you can actually say what's wrong with it, it stands.

It really does not matter if aether exists or not, its a word and the word exists.
What matters is that the thing you are describing with certain properties.
The question is, do those properties exist within your framework? If not your then your framework needs to be reviewed.

And this is the most important message of this thread. Aether, as a basic concept, certainly does exist. It is defined to be something that is proven to exist. This isn't an assumption, or anything special, this is a simple definition: a change of word. That's all. If a dog exists, a canine exists.
What matters is the property I assign to it. That's all: can we say that aether possesses the high-to-low property? And as I explained in my first message, the answer is yes; the law is universal. Beyond outside interference, all things do.

Ultimately however, this only shows that the definition is reasonable. Observations are required to firmly tie it to reality, and these are met by any experiments of observations you care to make. This'll be covered in message 4.

Quote from: Aman68

How do I observe, test and demonstrate gravity exists once you strip away all the dubious science fiction and manufactured laws.

Quote from: Aman68

Check your science and find out how much energy is stored in the so called nothing

So "my" science is okay if it supports your ideas, but it's "dubious science fiction and manufactured laws" when it goes against you?

Science like many other areas of our manufactured reality is a partial truth, much of science is common to both earth models, would you not agree? The fact that science is so sure of itself gives reason to be sceptical. I heard about aether years before flat earth, it is a topic I have long considered and relates to reality in general no matter what shape our world is.

Quote from: Soulblood on November 25, 2015, 12:28:55 AM

Quote from: Aman68

How do I observe, test and demonstrate gravity exists once you strip away all the dubious science fiction and manufactured laws.

Quote from: Aman68

Check your science and find out how much energy is stored in the so called nothing

So "my" science is okay if it supports your ideas, but it's "dubious science fiction and manufactured laws" when it goes against you?

Science like many other areas of our manufactured reality is a partial truth, much of science is common to both earth models, would you not agree? The fact that science is so sure of itself gives reason to be sceptical. I heard about aether years before flat earth, it is a topic I have long considered and relates to reality in general no matter what shape our world is.

So your answer is yes, you cherry-pick the parts of science you like.

Well, in "my" science there is gravity and no aether, and it has evidence for both ...

So your answer is yes, you cherry-pick the parts of science you like.

Well, in "my" science there is gravity and no aether, and it has evidence for both ...

I do not profess to know the truth, I am searching like many others. My direction stems from previous research which hints at massive deception.

RE needs gravity or it falls apart, another unproven force. Aether is often referred to as the 5th element and is widely accepted to be in existence although not much is known about it because it is beyond our perception. I believe it is the most vital force in the environment we live and beyond and you can not prove otherwise.

Quote

The aether does not exist. Why? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

The word aether is used to refer to many things. I simply use it as it is a recognized FE term, though my definition varies.

Quote

Still waiting for a response though I can tell you that.

Consistently ignoring my replies and refusing to say what is wrong with any of them, expecting me to somehow guess, is not 'waiting for a response.' You've had a response. Until you can actually say what's wrong with it, it stands.

Quote

It really does not matter if aether exists or not, its a word and the word exists.
What matters is that the thing you are describing with certain properties.
The question is, do those properties exist within your framework? If not your then your framework needs to be reviewed.

And this is the most important message of this thread. Aether, as a basic concept, certainly does exist. It is defined to be something that is proven to exist. This isn't an assumption, or anything special, this is a simple definition: a change of word. That's all. If a dog exists, a canine exists.
What matters is the property I assign to it. That's all: can we say that aether possesses the high-to-low property? And as I explained in my first message, the answer is yes; the law is universal. Beyond outside interference, all things do.

Ultimately however, this only shows that the definition is reasonable. Observations are required to firmly tie it to reality, and these are met by any experiments of observations you care to make. This'll be covered in message 4.

First, let's look at how you REALLY define Aether (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3040.0) so everyone knows what we are discussing here.

Second, as I pointed out in the "DET - discussions" thread, you define Aether as the "fabric of space" then later as, as here, that it is "space". As I point out, a FABRIC is not the same as the object made of the fabric. Steel (fabric) is not the same as a steel needle or steel girder. You can't build a building out of needles nor sew clothing with a girder. You have to pick one or the other - not both. In the other thread, you say Relativity proves "space" exists. Now you need to show that Aether is that "space". You need to show it has the same properties as Relativity space (i.e. that Relativity space moves, moves from high to low concentrations, forms concentrations, forms whirlpools, creates "gravity", transmits light and heat from the Sun/Moon inside the Earth, positions the Sun/Moon in the sky with the proper phases correctly, etc.) I have not read anywhere that Relativity space does this kind of stuff. If Relativity space does not do these things, Aether is not Relativity space. It is something different. You need to prove it separately - not just combine proofs, properties and principles randomly (i.e. horses exist, animals fly and exist, therefore flying horses exist).

... and is widely accepted to be in existence ...

No ... you should expand your horizon a little bit, then you will see it is accepted by a few small, fringe groups that need it to explain away established scientific theory for their respective believe ...

Second, as I pointed out in the "DET - discussions" thread, you define Aether as the "fabric of space" then later as, as here, that it is "space". As I point out, a FABRIC is not the same as the object made of the fabric.

And as I pointed out, the fact I used a shorthand in no way alters what's being said. But here you are, still whining over a ridiculous irrelevancy.

You need to prove it separately - not just combine proofs, properties and principles randomly

Which I do you blithering idiot, but look at that, you decide to just openly ignore everything I ever say to you. Why should I waste time on you?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 25, 2015, 01:05:20 AM

Quote

The aether does not exist. Why? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

The word aether is used to refer to many things. I simply use it as it is a recognized FE term, though my definition varies.

Quote

Still waiting for a response though I can tell you that.

Consistently ignoring my replies and refusing to say what is wrong with any of them, expecting me to somehow guess, is not 'waiting for a response.' You've had a response. Until you can actually say what's wrong with it, it stands.

Quote

It really does not matter if aether exists or not, its a word and the word exists.
What matters is that the thing you are describing with certain properties.
The question is, do those properties exist within your framework? If not your then your framework needs to be reviewed.

And this is the most important message of this thread. Aether, as a basic concept, certainly does exist. It is defined to be something that is proven to exist. This isn't an assumption, or anything special, this is a simple definition: a change of word. That's all. If a dog exists, a canine exists.
What matters is the property I assign to it. That's all: can we say that aether possesses the high-to-low property? And as I explained in my first message, the answer is yes; the law is universal. Beyond outside interference, all things do.

Ultimately however, this only shows that the definition is reasonable. Observations are required to firmly tie it to reality, and these are met by any experiments of observations you care to make. This'll be covered in message 4.

First, let's look at how you REALLY define Aether (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3040.0) so everyone knows what we are discussing here.

Second, as I pointed out in the "DET - discussions" thread, you define Aether as the "fabric of space" then later as, as here, that it is "space". As I point out, a FABRIC is not the same as the object made of the fabric. Steel (fabric) is not the same as a steel needle or steel girder. You can't build a building out of needles nor sew clothing with a girder. You have to pick one or the other - not both. In the other thread, you say Relativity proves "space" exists. Now you need to show that Aether is that "space". You need to show it has the same properties as Relativity space (i.e. that Relativity space moves, moves from high to low concentrations, forms concentrations, forms whirlpools, creates "gravity", transmits light and heat from the Sun/Moon inside the Earth, positions the Sun/Moon in the sky with the proper phases correctly, etc.) I have not read anywhere that Relativity space does this kind of stuff. If Relativity space does not do these things, Aether is not Relativity space. It is something different. You need to prove it separately - not just combine proofs, properties and principles randomly (i.e. horses exist, animals fly and exist, therefore flying horses exist).

I read the link. The best I got is that Occams' razor favors it. My question now is why?

I read the link. The best I got is that Occams' razor favors it. My question now is why?

There's a reason I don't like the link, and why I'm not the one who proposes it, and why it's only Jadyyn who spams the forum despite being asked not to multiple times.
You've been answered. You can't teach someone who has mad eup their mind to ignore you.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 25, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

I read the link. The best I got is that Occams' razor favors it. My question now is why?

There's a reason I don't like the link, and why I'm not the one who proposes it, and why it's only Jadyyn who spams the forum despite being asked not to multiple times.
You've been answered. You can't teach someone who has mad eup their mind to ignore you.

Stop whining and answer questions about your fantasy. I will continue spamming your DEF "wall of text" so everyone knows what your fantasy is everywhere you assert DEF can answer arguments. After all, people need to know what your model is to answer your rebuttals and see if the objections are real. If you do not want to formally describe DEF to everyone, then stop mentioning it in threads.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 25, 2015, 08:27:55 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 25, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

I read the link. The best I got is that Occams' razor favors it. My question now is why?

There's a reason I don't like the link, and why I'm not the one who proposes it, and why it's only Jadyyn who spams the forum despite being asked not to multiple times.
You've been answered. You can't teach someone who has mad eup their mind to ignore you.

Stop whining and answer questions about your fantasy. I will continue spamming your DEF "wall of text" so everyone knows what your fantasy is everywhere you assert DEF can answer arguments. After all, people need to know what your model is to answer your rebuttals and see if the objections are real. If you do not want to formally describe DEF to everyone, then stop mentioning it in threads.

I AM HAPPY TO FORMALLY DESCRIBE IT, THAT IS WHY I HAVE AN OPEN OFFER TO EXPLAIN IT TO EVERYONE WHO ASKS
Constantly spamming a model which was vague, rushed, that has been streamlined and clarified, and which is too poorly organized to actually help someone learn a model is outright dishonesty on your part, AND YOU KNOW IT. Are you really so insecure you're unable to let someone make up their own mind?

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 25, 2015, 12:12:07 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 25, 2015, 08:27:55 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on November 25, 2015, 07:30:49 AM

I read the link. The best I got is that Occams' razor favors it. My question now is why?

There's a reason I don't like the link, and why I'm not the one who proposes it, and why it's only Jadyyn who spams the forum despite being asked not to multiple times.
You've been answered. You can't teach someone who has mad eup their mind to ignore you.

Stop whining and answer questions about your fantasy. I will continue spamming your DEF "wall of text" so everyone knows what your fantasy is everywhere you assert DEF can answer arguments. After all, people need to know what your model is to answer your rebuttals and see if the objections are real. If you do not want to formally describe DEF to everyone, then stop mentioning it in threads.

I AM HAPPY TO FORMALLY DESCRIBE IT, THAT IS WHY I HAVE AN OPEN OFFER TO EXPLAIN IT TO EVERYONE WHO ASKS
Constantly spamming a model which was vague, rushed, that has been streamlined and clarified, and which is too poorly organized to actually help someone learn a model is outright dishonesty on your part, AND YOU KNOW IT. Are you really so insecure you're unable to let someone make up their own mind?

I know nothing of the sort. I, like most people on this forum - unless they are 5yr olds, can read and understand what I read. For you to constantly say I don't and insult me is ludicrous and a lie. If it has been "streamlined and clarified", where? The "wall of text" is just ramblings of a madman that only you (the madman) can understand. That has been your point in the discussions of DEF, hasn't it?

I am not insecure, you are. I posted the link ON THIS WEBSITE so people can make up their minds. You just whine that I should not have done it. THAT is INSECURE. Be proud of your model!

BTW, where is your answer to the Occam's Razor question? "You've been answered."

I know nothing of the sort. I, like most people on this forum - unless they are 5yr olds, can read and understand what I read. For you to constantly say I don't and insult me is ludicrous and a lie. If it has been "streamlined and clarified", where?

Hint: i teach people DET, i don't link to an ancient thread I have asked you not to refer to multiple times, and that you persist in whingign about for no purpose except to be bloody-minded.
Do you think about anything?

The "wall of text" is just ramblings of a madman that only you (the madman) can understand. That has been your point in the discussions of DEF, hasn't it?

It's badly paced, badly ordered, and it's always going to be near-impossible to learn from a static wall of text.

I am not insecure, you are. I posted the link ON THIS WEBSITE so people can make up their minds. You just whine that I should not have done it. THAT is INSECURE. Be proud of your model!

I am always happy to explain the model. You, however, are incapable of letting people learn honestly, so you link them to an unclear block along with your own bastardized interpretation which you refuse to acknowledge correction of. Then you spam the forum with an argument that's still under debate. THAT is insecure: too much to do anything with any honesty.

BTW, where is your answer to the Occam's Razor question? "You've been answered."

I'm not going to waste time addressing someone who ignores what I say. And if you would actually look at who that was addressed to, it was someone I've been engaging in a PM conversation with.

I'm not going to waste time addressing someone who ignores what I say

Ditto...

Ok, boss man.  I'll gracefully back out of this thread.

I will too. Nothing to discuss here.

Maxwell, Einstein, and Tesla all believed in the Aether.  Why do you think you are so much smarter than than the brilliant minds of the 20th century? 

Quote

I'm not going to waste time addressing someone who ignores what I say

Ditto...

Good riddance. Let's leave it to the readers to see who was openly evading and ignoring.