The theory of relativity and its relationship to Aether

Quote from: eggyk on December 14, 2015, 12:34:16 PM

Does your model have any basis in mathematics? Yes or no will do fine.

Yes. Search function, 'formula for the density of aether.'
It also has a basis in logic, and scientific experiments.

A basis is what you start from. You start from defining the aether, and then make maths from it. So no, your theory doesn't have any basis in mathematics.

Again, "god did it" is logical and works, but probably isn't true.
Your experiments -"all experiments ever done"- are not direct proofs for DET. They just fit within your model, crudely.

A basis is what you start from. You start from defining the aether, and then make maths from it. So no, your theory doesn't have any basis in mathematics.

Well, yes, that's how everything works. You can't define math until you know what it is you're defining. What do you think you're proving? What matters is whether the predictions are accurate.

Your experiments -"all experiments ever done"- are not direct proofs for DET. They just fit within your model, crudely.

That's all proof is. This was explicitly stated. Do you have any other kind of proof for any model beyond 'Its predictions match the results of these experiments.' You're just being a hypocrite.

Well, yes, that's how everything works. You can't define math until you know what it is you're defining. What do you think you're proving? What matters is whether the predictions are accurate.

It's not how everything works. Many areas of physics begin with experimental data, and provide relationships between variables mathematically. Theories are then built around these formulas. You don't do this.

That's all proof is. This was explicitly stated. Do you have any other kind of proof for any model beyond 'Its predictions match the results of these experiments.' You're just being a hypocrite.

You spout insults a lot, don't you? I'm not being hypocritical in the slightest.
Actually, you are contradicting yourself by saying this. You say that that's all the proof there is, but you have defined an experiment to directly prove DET! By your logic, the experiment that you want to do is totally unnecessary because of the mounds of previous evidence. But it isn't and you know it.

Keep insulting me if you wish, it doesn't make you right.

Few questions:

• How can DEF predict anything if it doesn't know where anything is? It can't tell you where you are (or anything is - distances) on the model nor Sun, Moon and planets (near the Sun). The only thing we know for sure about the model is where the poles and equators are. Aether just makes things look right - somehow. Can you make predictions off that?
• I don't know this, but since Aether is supposed to be Relativity space (its proof of existence), does Relativity space move? from high to low concentrations? and create whirlpools (rotate - not just bend space)?
• Can Aether be defined as Relativity space with all its unique properties?

Few questions:

• How can DEF predict anything if it doesn't know where anything is? It can't tell you where you are (or anything is - distances) on the model nor Sun, Moon and planets (near the Sun). The only thing we know for sure about the model is where the poles and equators are. Aether just makes things look right - somehow. Can you make predictions off that?
• I don't know this, but since Aether is supposed to be Relativity space (its proof of existence), does Relativity space move? from high to low concentrations? and create whirlpools (rotate - not just bend space)?
• Can Aether be defined as Relativity space with all its unique properties?

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

Particles of matter move through and displace the aether. A moving particle has an associated wave in the aether.

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

Once again, I post this. From Wikipedia's Tests of general relativity

Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:

the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
the deflection of light by the Sun
the gravitational redshift of light

All three were confirmed experimentally. New tests have been designed and tested, such as gravitational lensing, and the Shapiro delay. All tests agree with general relativity.

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 15, 2015, 03:07:07 PM

Few questions:

• How can DEF predict anything if it doesn't know where anything is? It can't tell you where you are (or anything is - distances) on the model nor Sun, Moon and planets (near the Sun). The only thing we know for sure about the model is where the poles and equators are. Aether just makes things look right - somehow. Can you make predictions off that?
• I don't know this, but since Aether is supposed to be Relativity space (its proof of existence), does Relativity space move? from high to low concentrations? and create whirlpools (rotate - not just bend space)?
• Can Aether be defined as Relativity space with all its unique properties?

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

Particles of matter move through and displace the aether. A moving particle has an associated wave in the aether.

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

If such is the case, why does the addition of detectors stop the interference pattern (not waves)?

If such is the case, why does the addition of detectors stop the interference pattern (not waves)?

In a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether that passes through both. As the wave in the aether exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Strongly detecting the particle exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.

Once again, I post this. From Wikipedia's Tests of general relativity

Quote

Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:

the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
the deflection of light by the Sun
the gravitational redshift of light

All three were confirmed experimentally. New tests have been designed and tested, such as gravitational lensing, and the Shapiro delay. All tests agree with general relativity.

Quote from: mpc755 on December 15, 2015, 03:20:42 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 15, 2015, 03:07:07 PM

Few questions:

• How can DEF predict anything if it doesn't know where anything is? It can't tell you where you are (or anything is - distances) on the model nor Sun, Moon and planets (near the Sun). The only thing we know for sure about the model is where the poles and equators are. Aether just makes things look right - somehow. Can you make predictions off that?
• I don't know this, but since Aether is supposed to be Relativity space (its proof of existence), does Relativity space move? from high to low concentrations? and create whirlpools (rotate - not just bend space)?
• Can Aether be defined as Relativity space with all its unique properties?

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

Particles of matter move through and displace the aether. A moving particle has an associated wave in the aether.

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

If such is the case, why does the addition of detectors stop the interference pattern (not waves)?

I like Einstein's Cross.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/mar/05/gravitational-lensing-creates-einsteins-cross-of-distant-supernova

Quote

Well, yes, that's how everything works. You can't define math until you know what it is you're defining. What do you think you're proving? What matters is whether the predictions are accurate.

It's not how everything works. Many areas of physics begin with experimental data, and provide relationships between variables mathematically. Theories are then built around these formulas. You don't do this.

Try not to be a hypocrite. You just outright admitted the model begins with data (obseravtions), and then mathematics are appended. This is exactly what I do.

Quote

That's all proof is. This was explicitly stated. Do you have any other kind of proof for any model beyond 'Its predictions match the results of these experiments.' You're just being a hypocrite.

You spout insults a lot, don't you? I'm not being hypocritical in the slightest.
Actually, you are contradicting yourself by saying this. You say that that's all the proof there is, but you have defined an experiment to directly prove DET! By your logic, the experiment that you want to do is totally unnecessary because of the mounds of previous evidence. But it isn't and you know it.

Keep insulting me if you wish, it doesn't make you right.

It is not an insult to state an objective fact: hypocrite is a descriptive term, not a mere insult. if you don't like it, don't be so dishonest.
The experiment was to demonstrate that DET is falsifiable, and to show that RET may be falsified. And more evidence is never a bad thing, no matter how much-pre-existing evidence there is. There is no contradiction whatsoever.
I notice that you completely evaded the actual question: you wonder why I call you dishonest. The flaw in your logic is pointed out, and you completely evade addressing it. You cannot address the actual evidence, so you construct a straw man and hope no one noticed the clear evasion.

Quote from: Conker on December 15, 2015, 03:49:25 PM

If such is the case, why does the addition of detectors stop the interference pattern (not waves)?

In a double slit experiment the particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the aether that passes through both. As the wave in the aether exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Strongly detecting the particle exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the aether, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.

*Buzzer noise*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 15, 2015, 03:07:07 PM

Few questions:

• How can DEF predict anything if it doesn't know where anything is? It can't tell you where you are (or anything is - distances) on the model nor Sun, Moon and planets (near the Sun). The only thing we know for sure about the model is where the poles and equators are. Aether just makes things look right - somehow. Can you make predictions off that?
• I don't know this, but since Aether is supposed to be Relativity space (its proof of existence), does Relativity space move? from high to low concentrations? and create whirlpools (rotate - not just bend space)?
• Can Aether be defined as Relativity space with all its unique properties?

"The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo." - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, quantum solids and fluids, a piece of window glass and 'stuff' have mass and so does the aether.

Particles of matter move through and displace the aether. A moving particle has an associated wave in the aether.

There is evidence of the aether every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

The particle moves, no doubt.

But:

• Does this aether move?
• Does it move from high to low concentrations?
• Does its concentrations remain (like between the hemidisks) while it moves through them (without effecting them)?
• Does it cause whirlpools?
• Is it a non-material material (substance)?
• Does it transmit light?
• Does it transmit heat?
• Does it cause "gravity"?
• Does it cause "friction" (heating the Sun, Moon and planets - so we see their metallic surfaces)?
• As these are the properties of DEF Aether, is it the same as the aether described above?
• If Aether is not aether, can aether's definition be used to prove the existence of Aether or does Aether (with all these properties) need to be show to exist independently?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

In order for there to be conservation of momentum a downconverted pair are created with opposite angular momentums. Each of the pair can determine the position and momentum of the other based on their own position and momentum. Entanglement is each of the pair being able to determine the state of the other.

'Superdeterminism'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism

"In the 1980s, John Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview:
There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. ... Suppose the world is super-deterministic, ... There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be."

The Universe, including particle A, do not "know" what the measurement will be. However, since particle A is propagating with the opposite angular momentum of particle B, particle A can determine what the outcome of any measurement carried out on particle B will be.

Entanglement is not super-deterministic, it's just deterministic.

The pair are not physically or superluminally connected. There is no such thing as spooky action at a distance. They are entangled as they can determine each other's state.

The particle moves, no doubt.

But:

• Does this aether move?
• Does it move from high to low concentrations?
• Does its concentrations remain (like between the hemidisks) while it moves through them (without effecting them)?
• Does it cause whirlpools?
• Is it a non-material material (substance)?
• Does it transmit light?
• Does it transmit heat?
• Does it cause "gravity"?
• Does it cause "friction" (heating the Sun, Moon and planets - so we see their metallic surfaces)?
• As these are the properties of DEF Aether, is it the same as the aether described above?
• If Aether is not aether, can aether's definition be used to prove the existence of Aether or does Aether (with all these properties) need to be show to exist independently?

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

What is referred to as frame dragging in the following video is the state of displacement of the aether. Watch the following video starting at the 0:30 mark to see a visual representation of the state of displacement of the aether.
 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
 
'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

""Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University."

Honey has mass and so does the aether. The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether.

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 16, 2015, 07:15:00 AM

The particle moves, no doubt.

But:

• Does this aether move?
• Does it move from high to low concentrations?
• Does its concentrations remain (like between the hemidisks) while it moves through them (without effecting them)?
• Does it cause whirlpools?
• Is it a non-material material (substance)?
• Does it transmit light?
• Does it transmit heat?
• Does it cause "gravity"?
• Does it cause "friction" (heating the Sun, Moon and planets - so we see their metallic surfaces)?
• As these are the properties of DEF Aether, is it the same as the aether described above?
• If Aether is not aether, can aether's definition be used to prove the existence of Aether or does Aether (with all these properties) need to be show to exist independently?

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

"Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

The state of the aether at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

What is referred to as frame dragging in the following video is the state of displacement of the aether. Watch the following video starting at the 0:30 mark to see a visual representation of the state of displacement of the aether.
 
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
 
'NASA's Gravity Probe B Confirms Two Einstein Space-Time Theories'
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

""Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey. As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it's the same with space and time," said Francis Everitt, GP-B principal investigator at Stanford University."

Honey has mass and so does the aether. The swirl is the state of displacement of the aether.

OK, so answer to questions #1 and possibly #4 based on rotating matter.

So aether moves. But per the video (nice by the way), does the aether cause the Earth to rotate or does the Earth rotating cause the aether to move? Can we tell which?

Keep in mind, Aether circulates per:


There is no central spherical rotating mass in all this (the hemidisks aren't rotating).

Also per:


Since low concentration is "attracting" Aether, why does it go back up to the high concentration?

BTW, clarification regarding #6 & #7, I am not only talking about light/heat going in a straight line across your room. I am talking about it turning, sharply, at the equators in the above images (i.e. does light/heat flow with the Aether like in a liquid).

OK, so answer to questions #1 and possibly #4 based on rotating matter.

So aether moves.

I'm not willing to state the aether moves. I just refer to the state of displacement of the aether. "Moves" implies matter is capable of making it flow. That might be the case. I'm just not willing to go there. If we can just get mainstream physicists to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter that exist in it and move through it then that will be an improvement over their current nonsense about "space with properties".

But per the video (nice by the way), does the aether cause the Earth to rotate or does the Earth rotating cause the aether to move? Can we tell which?

Keep in mind, Aether circulates per:

Again, I'm not saying the aether circulates or swirls. I'm only willing to say aether is displaced by matter.

There is no central spherical rotating mass in all this (the hemidisks aren't rotating).

Also per:


Since low concentration is "attracting" Aether, why does it go back up to the high concentration?

I think of the aether as a supersolid that is displaced by matter so the notions of low/high concentrations is not accurate in terms of what I am suggesting.

BTW, clarification regarding #6 & #7, I am not only talking about light/heat going in a straight line across your room. I am talking about it turning, sharply, at the equators in the above images (i.e. does light/heat flow with the Aether like in a liquid).

I wouldn't waste time on Jadyyn. He has some of the least substantive posts on this site, with just enough arrogance and self-possession thrown in that you don't notice. he's the only person I've currently got blocked because he consistently repeated the same argument (and spammed it all over the forum) while refusing to address my response, who took pages evading a clear question, not even attempting to answer, who consistently refuses correction and lies about what the DE model states, and then even after being corrected goes on to claim it says something completely different. There's no debating with someone who's only concerned with acting arrogant, rather than talking or learning.

Believe me, this site is a lot tidier when you can't see his posts.

The DE model of aether remains well-defined and justified. I'm still waiting for anyone to address what's said, rather than making straw men, sweeping assertions with no specificity or clarity or justification whatsoever, or with an argument beyond Luke's "I don't accept the theory of relativity." (Not a straw man: he does not accept the model).

I wouldn't waste time on Jadyyn. He has some of the least substantive posts on this site, with just enough arrogance and self-possession thrown in that you don't notice. he's the only person I've currently got blocked because he consistently repeated the same argument (and spammed it all over the forum) while refusing to address my response, who took pages evading a clear question, not even attempting to answer, who consistently refuses correction and lies about what the DE model states, and then even after being corrected goes on to claim it says something completely different. There's no debating with someone who's only concerned with acting arrogant, rather than talking or learning.

Believe me, this site is a lot tidier when you can't see his posts.

The DE model of aether remains well-defined and justified. I'm still waiting for anyone to address what's said, rather than making straw men, sweeping assertions with no specificity or clarity or justification whatsoever, or with an argument beyond Luke's "I don't accept the theory of relativity." (Not a straw man: he does not accept the model).

Have you had a face-to-face discussion with anyone about DET, are details published and discussed elsewhere?

Have you had a face-to-face discussion with anyone about DET, are details published and discussed elsewhere?

Do you do anything except butt into threads and waste time? That's completely irrelevant to everything under discussion here, and doesn't even begin to manage any kind of substantial addition to any discussion on the evidence for aether. It's just tedious to deal with you. When you have soemthing actually meaningful to say, how about you post then?

As I stated, astronomy falsifies/destroys/annihilates FE models. Since I know amateur astronomy, it is just convenient to stop answering me. This does not change the fact that the DEF model doesn't know where anything is (except the poles and equator) therefore can not observe much (the magical Aether with its mythical properties, takes care of EVERYTHING). When asked repeatedly for telescope alignment angles and how they were derived, no answer - just the "altitude of stars" changes the sky somehow. No pictures, diagrams or anything.

So yes, I have several posts destroying the single disk FE model and even the DEF model - these are "some of the least substantive posts on this site". It is much easier to just ignore me. That's OK. I will still put my 2 cents in. Whatever.

BTW, my questions on Aether do need to be answered. Since JRoweSkeptic doesn't want to answer me, I will let you all carry the torch to him.