Aether Theory
Discussion group for modern aether theory.
Organizer:
- Organized by
-
-
Aether as merely an interpretation of Modern physics
-
Aether as merely an interpretation of Modern physics
Hello, I introduced myself in the Relativity forum but wanted to specifically put a fine point on something.
Aether theory does not need to be thought of as an alternative thing altogether and so I see no reason to have a [mynamehere] theory. It’s already been developed adequately in a variety of ways (by our betters) circa 1910. It is only the adequate maintenance of the analogy throughout the 20th century that is important. (via fluid dynamics, Madelung, etc)
I saw a strange comment from the group originator, David, about aether being all about collisions. Is there some supposed consensus in modern aether physics about particles?
Aether theory posits a mechanical medium for wave transmission. A proper advancement of aether theory, in the vein of Kelvin who is most responsible for its advancement, (with some credit to Fitzgerald and his students) …would be to conceive of particles as epiphenomena.
I’ve explained this thousands of times over the past two decades with the analogy that a tornado isn’t a real independent thing even though we easily think of it as such. It is simply a phase transition along a border that grants some aspects of what we think of as independently real objects. (we see a border because relative humidity is altered by pressure changes from rotation)
The same is true of particles in any aether theory that actually descends from the general consensus of 19th century and can can continue to be analogous with 20th century physics.
Was David thinking of corpuscular and ballistic theories? I don’t know, but it makes no sense to me. Kelvin’s most difficult task that he finished in 1889 was to solve the problem of ring vortex elasticity and collisions along borders, but that’s a layer above the aether itself.
If there is some consensus in modern times around aether theory that deviates from Kelvin’s developments then it just won’t fit with modern experimentation and theory as an alternative interpretation. That idea of “modern aether” would be defunct at the outset.
The one thing I do personally add to aether physics is specifically to re-state Fresnel’s use of wave speed equation in refraction to use reduced rigidity instead of increased density and the end result remains unchanged. Thus the entire mathematical structure is perfectly the same but we conceive of reality in an inverted fashion such that only aether is truly “real” and matter is the ephemeral.
I’ve been conveying this for almost two decades now so some people are repeating it, but not enough people yet.
Regardless, this is mathematically equivalent at every critical point, thus it is an interpretation, not a “theory.” and it’s called the Neoclassical Interpretation.
-
7 Replies
-
Hmm, I should quickly clarify that I mean later Kelvin after his 1889 justification of rotational elasticity, not the earlier Kelvin still struggling with the untenable “jelly” of a typical elastic medium.
-
Shiva: There are many problems with aether theory. The “desire” to give physical form to light has overshadowed the real problems with an mechanical aether. There are other physical models but people are blinded by aether and get stuck there.
-
That’s quite true of any theory and physics theoretical physics in particular. Right now the vacuum energy catastrophe gives difference between theory and experiment that is larger (120th power) in size than the difference between one atom and all atoms in the universe (~80th power IIRC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physicsSo, can you be specific? Aether theory was disrupted in the prime of its development by political nonsense so just saying “aether theory” is a little silly really. (though I use the simplification myself)
…also what is your preferred worldviews? Mainstream or non?
If mainstream, which interpretation of quantum physics? I need to now what level of critical thinking you use and the borders of it. Some people agree perfectly with their most favored group, others believe everything that seems contrarian and cool. By what mechanism do you find truth and in what way do you use social truth and social proof.
-
I did a quick review of some of your videos and see that you separate out various aether concepts into lattice theories and aether theories. This is not a categorization I would use whatsoever since both were present in the 19th century and both were called aether.
What is critical is that aether posits something present in vacuum that is a mechanical wave medium and field theories posit waves without medium, the first major magical idea that crept into science.
I can’t find what your father posited as the idea of a particle but I can tell you I’ve been working on rotation based models of gravity for more than a decade and posited a cavitation particle for almost as long.
Here’s one of my first explanations of vortex atoms explained in video form in 2012:
You mention the underwater experiments where spin relates to attraction and repulsion. Here’s me explaining that in 2012:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaLikwZRk1Y
Here’s me explaining my concept of the cavitation particle to a group of scientists and DoD contractors at Berkeley in 2016: (though I had developed it years earlier and explained it in a variety of places online)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaLikwZRk1Y
I think you’ll also enjoy my war on orthodoxy I’ve been carrying out for ~15-20 years: https://qr.ae/pGEiah
-
Oof… after a quick review of your Dad’s material, it looks like you have no explanation for destructive interference.
Given that everything relies upon your processions of particles being spaced to create waves, this is a central and inescapable problem that would cause the entire theory to fall apart from the base. (totally ignoring other arguments against ballistic mechanics)
Let me quickly explain:
If one sparsely spaced (trough of wave) portion of a wave is overlaid (share the same space) on top of a densely spaced portion (peak) then the result is a medium spaced bunch of particles.Thus the intensity of a light beam on a surface would be medium, not gone. Does that make sense to you?
Have you addressed this fundamental point of failure somewhere?
-
-
Shiva
Yes, the result is medium spaced density. No, this means zero light, since the differences are very small in relation to medium density.
All
I do not believe in density that is large near the body. Instead, I think matter absorbs a small part of ether particles. Therefore, not so many particles are leaving the body than the number of arriving particles. This means that the small number of ‘missing particles’ is gravity and also creates an ether wind in radial direction.
If ether tells matter how to move’ we can guess that the radial ether wind is equal to the escape velocity.
Assuming a radial ether wind means that:
COSMOLOGICAL RED SHIFT IS CAUSED BY ETHER MOTION – NOT BODY MOTION.
A falling ether means that 2-way light speed is changed for radial light. So:
PIONEER ANOMALY IS AN ILLUSION CAUSED BY A CHANGE IN 2-WAY LIGHT SPEED.
John-Erik
-
Sorry, John-Erik, but that just doesn’t work. It’s not rational or functional.
The peak of a wave and a trough of a wave completely cancel out. No light is transmitted, but the trough of a wave does show up and transmits light.
IE: You’re saying the low density particles show up and transmit light but medium density doesn’t. That just doesn’t track or make any sense whatsoever.
Let’s stay on topic, however because I agree with a lot of arguments against relativity since I’ve been creating, promoting, and spreading them for 20 years and that’s not the subject. (I used to to discuss the pioneer anomaly on Anti-relativity.com)
There’s no point right now talking about the many things we agree about.
The topic we need to focus on is this issue with your model. Destructive interference is a critical aspect of conventional waves and it is used and observed everywhere with light. Your idea of particles streaming at a cycling rate will not produce what is observed.
Unless you can provide some sort of explanation, you should abandon that claim and return to a proper aether. If you still feel unsatisfied with aether and wave-particle duality, I’d be glad to introduce you to a system you are not familiar with.
-