[Jerry]

Here is a response by Salih, who posted this on the “activity feed”. He said I could “copy and paste” his response here in the aether theory group.

Dear Jerry,

These questions are very appropriate and justified. First of all, scientists who defend the existence of ether need to prove this concretely with an experiment. Unless this is proven, scientific interpretations and philosophical thoughts about the ether will not be able to reach a real conclusion.

Many astronauts went into space. He also did a spacewalk. During this walk, couldn’t they fill a bowl with ether and bring it to the world? However, this is a very simple method to prove the existence of ether. Why has this method not been used until now?

Moreover, in my opinion, since the existence of the ether will eliminate Newton’s principle of inertia, the speeds of the planets will gradually decrease due to friction with the ether. This is contrary to the perfect cycle of the universe.

Therefore, unless the defenders of the ether can concretely prove the existence of the ether, all their theories and philosophical views on the ether will not mean anything.

Best regards

Salih

[Jerry]

Hi Salih. Thanks for your thoughts.

I definitely agree with your first paragraph. I have to admit, that even though I often debate the existence of the aether, I don’t completely disbelieve that some type of medium that permeates the universe could possibly exist, though I would currently say it does seem improbable. To prove or find adequate evidence that something is there that propagates light, gravity, and possibly all physical phenomena would seem a good first step.

I don’t know if you were joking with your second paragraph. If an astronaut were to collect some aether in a bowl, it might spill when they bring it to earth! 🙂 The idea that I think most aetherists accept is that the aether exists everywhere!

I hadn’t heard that the existence of the aether would eliminate Newton’s principle of inertia. It would seem something to consider, if there is indeed a very slight “push” (possibly the same or similar to “friction”) of the aether that would cause objects to shorten in the direction of their motion. Some aetherists don’t accept the idea of length contraction though.

Many of the possible answers to questions I asked in my original post above, would turn out in disagreement with each other. It would seem a positive step if aetherists could look for common ground about this mysterious medium. Salih, you mentioned that evidence through experimentation is a way to find out and understand more about the aether. Would you, or anyone else, possibly have any ideas for such experiments?

Thanks.

[Jerry]

A quick thought. Why wouldn’t Newton’s law of inertia “stay intact”? If the aether exists, why wouldn’t it act as what Newton called “another outside force”? Such as how “an object at rests tends to stay at rest, and an object in motion tends to stay in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force”.

[Salih]

Dear Jerry,

Thank you for your thought-provoking and mind-opening questions.

First of all, those who claim the existence of the ether must prove it. The claimant must prove his claim. Because the theories they create rise on the ether foundation. If there is no ether, there is no foundation. The building (theory) has collapsed. Just as the Michelson-Morley experiment did not find a difference in the speed of light rays moving in opposite directions within the ether, those who defend the ether need to find a concrete experiment to the contrary.

No I am not kidding. An astronaut can open the door of a closed glass jar in space, hold it for a while, then close it tightly and bring it to the world. After all, if there is an alleged ether, he must have something that can be measured. For example, its mass, its smell, perhaps its color, or just its extremely small energy. If etherists really believe that ether exists everywhere, then the situation is even worse. It is everywhere, but no one can see it, measure it, weigh it or hold it. It’s like a riddle.

If there is an ether, there will definitely be a slowdown in the speed of objects subject to the principle of inertia over a very long period of time.

Yes I agree with you. Most of the answers to the rational questions you ask will end in disagreement with each other. Although I have thought a lot about this issue, I have not yet found a concrete experiment to prove the existence of the ether. I hope especially etherists achieve this.

In my opinion, it is the magnificence of simplicity that creates space. Space; pure space, masses and energies, light and the constant speed of light, which I explained before on my page why it is constant. Relative velocities between masses and energies. Gravitational fields caused by energy. Centrifugal force (Circular movements) that balances this gravitational field. And a time created with equal amount of Energy, which is the result of the ‘Time Flow’=’Time’/’Energy’ Formula. These are the main elements of space. All other physical processes are the result of these main elements.

Newton’s law of inertia can no longer be valid due to the friction caused by the ether of an object moving in space. The object slows down and eventually stops.

Thanks again

[Jerry]

Hi Salih.

How would you say the aether is different than the aether foundation?

It seems that collecting some aether in a jar with a lid, is much different than collecting some in a bowl. Of course, an aetherist might suggest that the aether would travel through the glass. If you understood the theory to mean that the aether doesn’t exist everywhere, where would it exist? Only in outer space or around the moon? I guess whatever you’ve read or whoever you’ve heard speak about the aether, might give a different idea or answer than what another aetherist might believe.

I hadn’t heard by any aetherist, or anyone else actually, that the aether would slow down objects that travel. Though, I’ve heard countless times how objects’ lengths would shorten as they travel through the aether. It does seem something to consider, given that length contraction suggests that the objects and the aether physically interact or influence each other. Different thought, though also similar.

I didn’t quite understand your second to last paragraph. Of mass, energy, space, the constancy of c (which page did you refer to?) How exactly would you define these terms? I’m interested.

• This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by  Jerry.

[Marco]

Hallo @jerry @JoP and everyone

here are some interest question 👏👏!!!

You can find something of my tought in https://naturalphilosophy.org/groups/philosophy/activity/

I try to give you some answer, knowing you made some good works on this argument.

“How could we know for certain that the aether exists?”

– the Lorentz Ether Teory (LET) is mathematically equivalent with Special Relativity (SR),

so, it isn’t possible to discriminate from one and the other with an experiment.

The time-dilatation and lenght-contraction have the same probability to be correct of the presence of aether, so, if we accept SR, we accept with same scientific sicurity the LET and the existance of etehr too.

“Is it “fixed and stationary”, or somewhat malleable and “flowing around”?”

-It’s behaviour is corrispondent to the local time-dilatation.

“Is the velocity of light constant, yet only relative to the aether?”

-Yes, where aether move it cause force and so acceleration and so time-dilatation.

“Is that velocity 186,282 miles per second? If so, how to know?”

-There are a lot experiments to measure the speed of light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

“Was the earth’s motion through the aether ever discovered?”

-Where there is morion of aether ther is time-dilatation

“Is the length contraction of objects caused by the “push” of the aether?”

-length-contraction is due to the mathematical distortion of space in SR or to “push” of the aether in LET

“If so, how was this discovered?”

-idem like before

“Is the Michelson and Morley experiment relevant to the aether?”

!!!!

YES, it is relevant because the aether flow in vertical direction (like time-dilatation reducing with altitude)

and the result is null becuase in horizontal direction time-dilatation is fixed.

“What type of results were they searching for with their experiment?”

-They searching for a fixed aether respect to Sun (for what reason? grater mass? and respect to our galaxy?)

“Wasn’t their view that the aether exists as “fixed and stationary”?”

-They sicurly prepared the experiment for finding that

“Did they expect to find how fast the earth travels through the aether?”

-Yes

“Or did they want to find how fast the sun travels through the aether?”

-No, because the direction are different

“Why didn’t the Michelson and Morley experiment detect the aether?”

-the result is null becuase in horizontal direction time-dilatation is fixed (expained before)

“Didn’t they think it was only light that the aether propagates?”

-I think yes, because the general relativity (GR) will be born later.

“Don’t modern aetherists think the aether propagates everything?”

-I think almost all aetherists think this

“Is the aether more dense in some areas compared to other areas?”

-Since aether undergoes fluid dynamic law, it’s probable that aether have variable density in some extreme situation

“Is the density of the aether meant to account for the cause of gravity?”

-No, the cause of gravity seem due to it’s realtive motion with matter

“Does the aether exist physically? If so, what is it composed of?”

-Depend what you mean for physically ?

If you mean “made by atoms” the answer is no, because it must be more thiny then atoms.

“Does it consist of particles that travel in all directions?”

-No, travel “particels” (respect to matter) generate force corresponding to time-dilatation

“If so, what types of particles? How would they act as a medium?”

-It’s made by Polarizable “particeles”, for carrying electromagnetic beam

and have mass for explain gravity and inertia

“How would they resemble other physical particles that exist?”

-It seem like other matter particles, but with smaller order of greatness.

“Were they somehow observed through experimentation?”

-No, it’s impossible to detect a single particle of aether because it can’t interact with a single atom

(a single “particle” of aether is similar to neutrinos who interact very very little with matter)

LET end SR is mathematically equivalent (the first introduce aether, the second introduce space-time deformation with a non linear law)

the first require an aether field, the second loose the contact with reality deforming spacetime: what is better and what’s easyer?

(LET + aether drag) and GR both explain force on matter (the first with always with aether, the second deforming space-time with more complicated law)

the first require a 3D model space, the second a 4D space model: what is better and what’s easyer?

Inertia can be expained by aether while GR explain only force between reference systems or by gravity, but not itself.

Thank you for the attenction

Ing_mm

[Salih]

Hi Jerry,

I don’t know what ether is. That’s why I can’t say anything. I meant glass jar with lid. ‘An etherist might argue that ether would pass through glass.’ It’s a very easy thing to suggest. The hard part is to prove it. If ether passes through glass, it should not be in the form of mass and energy as we know it. Heat and light, which are forms of energy, pass through the glass. The degree of heat can be measured. The frequency of light can be calculated. If ether passes through glass, something about it must be measurable. I really don’t know where the ether is, whether it’s in space or somewhere else. Because there is no data regarding its existence.

In my opinion, it should not exist because the existence of ether would complicate the simple laws of physics. But if etherists prove conclusively the existence of ether, I will have great respect for them. Proving the existence of ether is the job of etherists who claim that it exists.

‘I think anything you read or whoever you hear talking about ether may give you a different opinion or answer than another etherist might believe.’ you say. You are quite right. because as I explained in my previous article, ‘ If etherists really believe that ether exists everywhere, then the situation is even worse. It is everywhere, but no one can see it, measure it, weigh it or hold it. It’s like a riddle.

Even though the ether exists in space, it does not slow down the speed of objects due to friction. Then it doesn’t have any mass or energy. It’s not light, it’s not an electromagnetic wave. Because it cannot be measured, seen or weighed in any way. We cannot perceive what it is like. I say again, etherists must prove this. The claim that length reduction is due to physical interaction is unrealistic. Physical interaction occurs between two concrete objects. Gravitational force with mass, energy mass, light mass, etc. What concrete evidence is there of ether?

I wrote about the constancy of the speed of light on my CNPS page. If you wish, I will find them and share them with you.

[Jerry]

Hi Salih.

I mostly agree with what you’ve written.

What is “energy mass” and “light mass”?

Also, I couldn’t find your CNPS page.

Could you please send a link?

Thanks!

[Salih]

Hi Jerry,

‘Energy mass and light mass’ I think there was a translation error. I have listed the basic elements that make up space. Namely, Empty space, relative velocities between masses and energies, constant speed of light c. Gravitational fields caused by energy, centrifugal force balancing them and time being equal to the amount of energy. Other physical events occur depending on these basic elements.

Our previous correspondence in CNPS regarding the constancy of the speed of light.

Dear Jerry,

As we know, speeds are a relative law of nature. Let’s say it’s just the two of us in space. If we’re getting close to each other, we’ll never know. Are you approaching me? Am I getting closer to you or are we getting closer to each other? Or are you following me faster as I move away from you? We will never know this. If one of us leaves space, speed will no longer matter to the remaining person and will be at a standstill. As we approach each other in space, the ray of light coming from you to me will come out at 300,000 km/s and will see me as standing still. Likewise, the ray of light coming from me to you will come out at 300,000 km/s and will see you as standing still.

Here I come to the following conclusion; All the planets, stars and objects in space seem to stand still for the ray of light that comes out at a speed of 300,000 km/s from its source. The speed of light seems to be constant.

Salih

Simple explanation of the constancy of the speed of light

Let there be only an object of mass A and an object of mass B in space. Let them speedly approach each other and vice versa. As soon as we send a ray of light from the object with mass A to B, let’s remove the object with mass A from space. Mass B will now appear to be standing still for the ray of light. Velocities in space exist between objects. But for the ray of light they are immobile.

Dear Marko, Thanks.

Objects A and B in space are accelerating towards or away from each other. As soon as we send a ray of light from object A to object B, let’s remove object A from space. For the ray of light, object B will still appear to be standing still. Here, the accelerated motion of the A and B objects or their uniform linear motion does not change the result for the ray of light. If the ray of light passes through the gravitational field of B object, it will deviate somewhat. This will negligibly affect the speed of the ray of light.

Best regards

Salih

Thanks..

[Jerry]

Hi Salih. I had a bit of trouble following your thoughts.

You wrote

‘Energy mass and light mass’ I think there was a translation error. I have listed the basic elements that make up space. Namely, Empty space, relative velocities between masses and energies, constant speed of light c. Gravitational fields caused by energy, centrifugal force balancing them and time being equal to the amount of energy. Other physical events occur depending on these basic elements.

You listed some basic elements that you said “makes up space”, and the first one was “empty space”. Why isn’t that the only one? How would you define “space”? Why would any else of what you listed also qualify or contribute to the concept of “space”.

You wrote

“As we know, speeds are a relative law of nature. Let’s say it’s just the two of us in space. If we’re getting close to each other, we’ll never know. Are you approaching me? Am I getting closer to you or are we getting closer to each other? Or are you following me faster as I move away from you? We will never know this.”

I would agree. This is essentially Galileo’s original principle of relativity.

You wrote

If one of us leaves space, speed will no longer matter to the remaining person and will be at a standstill. As we approach each other in space, the ray of light coming from you to me will come out at 300,000 km/s and will see me as standing still. Likewise, the ray of light coming from me to you will come out at 300,000 km/s and will see you as standing still.

Here I come to the following conclusion; All the planets, stars and objects in space seem to stand still for the ray of light that comes out at a speed of 300,000 km/s from its source. The speed of light seems to be constant.

It is commonly thought that the velocity of light is constant. What evidence is there for that though?

You wrote

Simple explanation of the constancy of the speed of light

Let there be only an object of mass A and an object of mass B in space. Let them speedly approach each other and vice versa. As soon as we send a ray of light from the object with mass A to B, let’s remove the object with mass A from space. Mass B will now appear to be standing still for the ray of light. Velocities in space exist between objects. But for the ray of light they are immobile.

Why would the light that the first or second object emanates, cause the other to seem immobile or stationary? Does it only seem that way, or would you say it is that way?

You wrote

Objects A and B in space are accelerating towards or away from each other. As soon as we send a ray of light from object A to object B, let’s remove object A from space. For the ray of light, object B will still appear to be standing still. Here, the accelerated motion of the A and B objects or their uniform linear motion does not change the result for the ray of light.

An object that accelerates, is much different than one that simply travels at a constant velocity. You seemed to suggest that they’d have the same effect either way. If c is constant, wouldn’t the light that transmits by a source that accelerates, have a different value than one that is “stationary” or travels at a constant velocity?

You wrote

If the ray of light passes through the gravitational field of B object, it will deviate somewhat. This will negligibly affect the speed of the ray of light.

However, if c is constant, this discrepancy only occurs through the “viewpoint” of a lower gravitational area. Would you say this is a possible cause of the deflection of starlight, such as the 1919 experiment had allegedly proved?

[Salih]

Hi Jerry,

In my opinion, when we say space, we need to perceive space as a whole with the basic elements I have listed.

Yes Galileo’s principle of relativity.

I don’t know any 100% accurate evidence about the constancy of the speed of light, other than what I’ve explained.

Because let there be only objects A and B in space. (Let there be one observer at object A and one observer at object B).

If A and B are approaching each other, the person in A will see that he is approaching B and that B is stationary. Likewise, the person in B will see that he is getting closer to A and that A is stable. When we remove one of the objects A and B from space, the speed no longer matters and what remains in space remains. When we send a ray of light from A to B, let’s imagine for a moment that B is not in space. For the light ray, A stands. Let’s assume we instantly put B into space. The observer at A already saw B as standing still. For this reason, it leaves A, which is stationary, at a speed of 300000 km/s relative to the light, and 300000 km/s is measured in B, which appears stationary.

The light ray sees each space object as if it were standing individually.

Since light rays consist of energy, they are affected by gravitational fields and deviate slightly. The speed of light is close to 300000 km/s in empty space. The speed of light rays passing through gravitational fields and media such as water or glass slows down slightly. However, as soon as it returns to space, it reaches its old speed again.

[Salih]

Sorry Jerry, I forgot to answer this question.

For light, there is no difference between an accelerating object and a stationary object. For example, if B is accelerating relative to A, then A is accelerating relative to B. Let’s suddenly remove A from space. For B, speed and acceleration do not matter. Now B is stoping. And vice versa.

[Marco]

I post an answer here: https://naturalphilosophy.org/groups/aether-theory/forum/topic/what-exactly-is-known-about-the-aether-and-how/#post-2557

Regards

Ing_mm

[John-Erik]

Marco

“How could we know for certain that the aether exists?”

– the Lorentz Ether Teory (LET) is mathematically equivalent with Special Relativity (SR),

so, it isn’t possible to discriminate from one and the other with an experiment.

Light and gravity exists, so the ether exists.

LET and SR are both in error. No need to compare.

Most of your questions are answered in “Why Einstein was wrong”, sent to CNPS.

John-Erik

[John-Erik]

Marco

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379112855_Why_Einstein_was_wrong_Great_scientists_and_great_mistakes

[Marco]

Hallo @JoP

I read your post and your last document with interest.

Scientifcly, when 2 theory or method lead to the same result are said equivalent.

For example “2+2” and “3+1” are equivalent because the result is 4 in both cases.

I believe aether is the primal cause of light transport and force generation, but I can’t say scientifically that it exist, principally because it is not measurable, rater, it’s useful to make measure.

While 2 theory produce the same result, I scientifically can only say that 2 models are equivalent until an experiment discriminates a different result that only one theory can explain.

What the difference between LET and your aether theory?

Have you thought an experiment for discriminate the 2/3 theory?

Good morning

Ing_mm

[John-Erik]

Marco @ing.mm

2 different theories (models) are not equal, even if they happen to predict the same.

LET (and SRT) are in error by the mistake Michelson did by accepting a ‘half’ effect in the reference arm in MMX. My model is based on no effect in the reference arm.

Regards from ______________ John-Erik

[John-Erik]

Marco

Wave or particle. The great confusion. Light is waves and we are fooled by the ray concept that has no physical existence. The ray is a mathematical concept that can describe a physical wave front that is transverse to the ray.

John-Erik

[Marco]

Wave is energy travelling into a medium and move always at speed limit into it, while particles are localized energy and can also stay at rest (there are many type of particles but I think electron is very close to photon = wave pocket of aether traveling or moving around a nucleus).

The wave-particle duality is the idea of modern physic for excluding the existence of aether.

[Marco]

Thank for your answers @JoP ,

I have another idea for negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment: aether move prevalentely in vertical direction, so it move in orthogonal direction respect the horizontal plane, while the experiment done in vertical direction detect a velocity of about 11.4 km/s, compatible with escape velocity from earth.

[Marco]

You are right: 2 models are different also if they have the same mathematical model, but is practically impossible to determine if one is the cause and the other he effect or the second is the primal cause and the first fictitious.

In our case I think aether is the cause, but how can we demonstrate the existence of aether to people believing length-contraction is the primal cause of SRT ?

Unfortunately we can only see the effect of aether and not measure it for proving its existence.

However, in the wave-particle duality we can see an aether explanation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie-Bohm_theory) while is more difficult with SRT, invoking hidden variables or other alchimistic hypothesis.

[John-Erik]

@ing.mm Marco

I think that the wave model can explain light behaviour. So, light particles are not needed. All we need is ether waves.

Michelson was wrong and he used the particle model instead of the wave model. The wave model states no effect in the reference arm. This means no time dilation a and contraction equal to 2 times the Fitzgerald contraction.

Yes, a vertical ether wind equal to 11.2 km/s is causing gravity. However, this is not an alternative explanation, since motions in vertical and horizontal directions are independent.

Sagnac demonstrated that an ether is possible.

We have already proved that the ether is needed by detecting our planets orbiting motion when we correlated signals from radio telescopes in different positions.

Instead of a wave guiding a particle I prefer to regard a particle generating a wave in the ether; like a boat moving in water.

Hidden variables is not a bad idea in my opinion, but not needed here.

With best regards from ______________ John-Erik