is aether a perfect excuse to say nothing?

Nobody can say exactly how a lot of things work.  We can only speculate.  Einstein believed in the Aether, and he did a lot of maths.  What have you done?

Quote from: jroa on March 20, 2016, 07:44:17 AM

Nobody can say exactly how a lot of things work.  We can only speculate.  Einstein believed in the Aether, and he did a lot of maths.  What have you done?

Einstein's relativity completely removes any plausible grounds for an aether. He was at one time, as were most all people then, under the influence of a prevalent theory of an aether or medium through which light propagates. His work and his pursuit of relativistic space time was very much influenced by the contradiction between the Micheal-morley experiment (which disproved the existence of aether, or at least one in motion),  and the work of Lorentz and Fitz Gerald who rescued the Aether from the negative results of Morley and Co,  by developing what is now known as time dilation and length contraction. These played enormously important roles in the theory of relativity, which Einstein himself said was far more superior at explaining the properties of light propagation in a vacuum and also provided far better understanding and explanation of time dilation and length contraction of bodies in motion. If an aether does exist, it cannot be detected due to relativity, and has been to this day, elusive by all means of detection. And at no expense of effort in doing so. There have been experiments conducted using technology so accurate that even on scales of subatomic particles, there has been no detection of an eather, or any etheric wind or drift.

Nobody can say exactly how a lot of things work.  We can only speculate.  Einstein believed in the Aether, and he did a lot of maths.  What have you done?

Also, citation f***ing needed jroa.

The Aether was disproved. Nearly 150 years ago.

Recapitulating... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable

Case closed really. Anyone that still uses the aether argument should just be linked to this post.

Quote from: TigerWidow on March 20, 2016, 02:12:48 PM

Case closed really. Anyone that still uses the aether argument should just be linked to this post.

To be fair, the aether disproven is a very specific kind. FEers often have aether not in fact existing at ground level: so it's no surprise it wouldn't exist here. As for what goes on in space, their set-up's so completely different it's hard to compare.

Quote from: Jane on March 20, 2016, 02:52:55 PM

Quote from: TigerWidow on March 20, 2016, 02:12:48 PM

Case closed really. Anyone that still uses the aether argument should just be linked to this post.

To be fair, the aether disproven is a very specific kind. FEers often have aether not in fact existing at ground level: so it's no surprise it wouldn't exist here. As for what goes on in space, their set-up's so completely different it's hard to compare.

The Aether is still archaic 19th century science. Keep in mind an actual 19th century doctor cut a wedge out of your tongue to cure stuttering. No anesthesia.

Quote from: MrDebunk on March 20, 2016, 04:04:23 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 20, 2016, 02:52:55 PM

Quote from: TigerWidow on March 20, 2016, 02:12:48 PM

Case closed really. Anyone that still uses the aether argument should just be linked to this post.

To be fair, the aether disproven is a very specific kind. FEers often have aether not in fact existing at ground level: so it's no surprise it wouldn't exist here. As for what goes on in space, their set-up's so completely different it's hard to compare.

The Aether is still archaic 19th century science. Keep in mind an actual 19th century doctor cut a wedge out of your tongue to cure stuttering. No anesthesia.

Newton's laws are 17th/18th century science, age isn't really important. What matters is whether the results of the experiments in question address aether as defined by FEers. If it doesn't exist near the Earth, then we wouldn't expect to detect it here, and it wouldn't have been falsified.

Aether's often poorly defined: that's the issue. In that situation, it's not disproven because it cannot be disproven: there's nothing that exists to be disproved.
In the cases where it is better defined, then you can ask the question, but generally it just doesn't have the same properties as the aether as defined a century ago, so all you're really arguing over is word choice. Which, admittedly, jroa doesn't help when his most common defence is pretty much the same thing, but personally I hold REers to slightly higher standards than FEers. Have to give FEers a fighting chance.

The Aether was disproved. Nearly 150 years ago.

Quote from: jroa on March 20, 2016, 07:44:17 AM

Nobody can say exactly how a lot of things work.  We can only speculate.  Einstein believed in the Aether, and he did a lot of maths.  What have you done?

Einstein's relativity completely removes any plausible grounds for an aether. He was at one time, as were most all people then, under the influence of a prevalent theory of an aether or medium through which light propagates. His work and his pursuit of relativistic space time was very much influenced by the contradiction between the Micheal-morley experiment (which disproved the existence of aether, or at least one in motion),  and the work of Lorentz and Fitz Gerald who rescued the Aether from the negative results of Morley and Co,  by developing what is now known as time dilation and length contraction. These played enormously important roles in the theory of relativity, which Einstein himself said was far more superior at explaining the properties of light propagation in a vacuum and also provided far better understanding and explanation of time dilation and length contraction of bodies in motion. If an aether does exist, it cannot be detected due to relativity, and has been to this day, elusive by all means of detection. And at no expense of effort in doing so. There have been experiments conducted using technology so accurate that even on scales of subatomic particles, there has been no detection of an eather, or any etheric wind or drift.

Quote from: Jane on March 20, 2016, 02:52:55 PM

Quote from: TigerWidow on March 20, 2016, 02:12:48 PM

Case closed really. Anyone that still uses the aether argument should just be linked to this post.

To be fair, the aether disproven is a very specific kind. FEers often have aether not in fact existing at ground level: so it's no surprise it wouldn't exist here. As for what goes on in space, their set-up's so completely different it's hard to compare.

The Aether is still archaic 19th century science. Keep in mind an actual 19th century doctor cut a wedge out of your tongue to cure stuttering. No anesthesia.

Quote from: MrDebunk on March 20, 2016, 04:04:23 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 20, 2016, 02:52:55 PM

Quote from: TigerWidow on March 20, 2016, 02:12:48 PM

Case closed really. Anyone that still uses the aether argument should just be linked to this post.

To be fair, the aether disproven is a very specific kind. FEers often have aether not in fact existing at ground level: so it's no surprise it wouldn't exist here. As for what goes on in space, their set-up's so completely different it's hard to compare.

The Aether is still archaic 19th century science. Keep in mind an actual 19th century doctor cut a wedge out of your tongue to cure stuttering. No anesthesia.

I find it amusing that hsello-centrist, who claim to be cold, calculating scientists use hyperbolic statements and personal vindictive in their statement. What I find of further interest, in this particular case, which exhibits both, is that you are also wrong.

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 21, 2016, 06:57:15 AM

Quote from: MrDebunk on March 20, 2016, 04:04:23 PM

Quote from: Jane on March 20, 2016, 02:52:55 PM

Quote from: TigerWidow on March 20, 2016, 02:12:48 PM

Case closed really. Anyone that still uses the aether argument should just be linked to this post.

To be fair, the aether disproven is a very specific kind. FEers often have aether not in fact existing at ground level: so it's no surprise it wouldn't exist here. As for what goes on in space, their set-up's so completely different it's hard to compare.

The Aether is still archaic 19th century science. Keep in mind an actual 19th century doctor cut a wedge out of your tongue to cure stuttering. No anesthesia.

I find it amusing that hsello-centrist, who claim to be cold, calculating scientists use hyperbolic statements and personal vindictive in their statement. What I find of further interest, in this particular case, which exhibits both, is that you are also wrong.

I don't see the big deal,  Aether might or might not exist,   it's never been detected,  (less than 10^-17)  doesn't mean it doesn't exist,  it just means it's not detectable.   To try and conjure up something by invoking vague hand waving about the Higgs field, or maybe even Vacuum Energy fluctuations to explain something as blatantly obvious as a beautiful sunset with the sun sinking slowly below the horizon seems a stretch too far,  especially when we consider all the other things the flat earth sunset model fails to explain.   Colour changes,  green flashes,  anticrepuscular rays and all the rest.

I guess the flat earthers could roll out dark energy,  dark matter and telluric currents and probably other weird ideas,  doesn't alter the fact that the earth is a globe and rotates once every 24 hours is a far simpler and more beautiful model.

Well it is refreshing to see a Helio-centrist admit that I have the right of it, which I do regarding Einstein, aether and the firmament.

It appears that you have not taken time to sufficiently study the flat earth theory. It as postulated by Timaeus that aether's density varied in direct proportion to the distance from the earth's plane. Aether at the sea level is of almost negligible concentration but none the less exists and is referred to as quintessence.

Thus testing aether theoris at planar altitudes will yield little in results.

As Einstein would tell you, Aether is the medium of space. How can space have permitivity and permeability to light if it is not a medium?

Quote from: Sir Richard on March 23, 2016, 04:09:19 AM

It appears that you have not taken time to sufficiently study the flat earth theory. It as postulated by Timaeus that aether's density varied in direct proportion to the distance from the earth's plane. Aether at the sea level is of almost negligible concentration but none the less exists and is referred to as quintessence.

Thus testing aether theoris at planar altitudes will yield little in results.

While you make claims that space, satellites, rocketry programs, GPS communication, the ISS, etc., it is absolutely hilarious hearing you and your ilk try to deny all of this.  Your belief in a flat earth can only be defined as a faith-based pursuit.  There is no science behind your conclusions since none of your theories are provable.

Quote from: John Davis on March 23, 2016, 07:09:11 AM

As Einstein would tell you, Aether is the medium of space. How can space have permitivity and permeability to light if it is not a medium?

How do those properties imply the abilities you rely upon?

Quote from: Jane on March 23, 2016, 09:12:36 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 23, 2016, 07:09:11 AM

As Einstein would tell you, Aether is the medium of space. How can space have permitivity and permeability to light if it is not a medium?

How do those properties imply the abilities you rely upon?

They don't, but they imply a medium and thus existence to physical properties of space. Without that we have no speed of light in a vacuum. And without that, we have no mechanic by which to say "space" is "bent" - the abilities I "rely" upon. Even if gravitons carry this information, backwards and invisibly at the speed of light mind you, we are still left without something for this information to be carried to or through. Physical properties of space necessitate there being a physical body to have said properties.

So no, these two things do not show the abilities I rely on, but they do show the necessity of an aether in general. The equivalence principle shows the abilities I rely upon along with Newton's Laws.

I'm interested to find out if Einstein was a closet flat earther. There is no way he did not see what I see, and how far one can see from here! I'll need to revisit his personal writings and correspondences.

Well said. Why is it that vibrating quanta with unknown energy sources on a sting is acceptable As  a definition of space time, and not Majik, but aether is?

As Einstein would tell you, Aether is the medium of space. How can space have permitivity and permeability to light if it is not a medium?

Quote from: Jane on March 23, 2016, 09:12:36 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 23, 2016, 07:09:11 AM

As Einstein would tell you, Aether is the medium of space. How can space have permitivity and permeability to light if it is not a medium?

How do those properties imply the abilities you rely upon?

They don't, but they imply a medium and thus existence to physical properties of space. Without that we have no speed of light in a vacuum. And without that, we have no mechanic by which to say "space" is "bent" - the abilities I "rely" upon. Even if gravitons carry this information, backwards and invisibly at the speed of light mind you, we are still left without something for this information to be carried to or through. Physical properties of space necessitate there being a physical body to have said properties.

So no, these two things do not show the abilities I rely on, but they do show the necessity of an aether in general. The equivalence principle shows the abilities I rely upon along with Newton's Laws.

I'm interested to find out if Einstein was a closet flat earther. There is no way he did not see what I see, and how far one can see from here! I'll need to revisit his personal writings and correspondences.

Ether and the Theory of Relativity
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether 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.