[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]

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.

[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]

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

[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

[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

[Marco]

Hi @jerry ,

what you say is correct, but your example is easy while velocity is unrelativistic, but when it become near to c, the experiments becomes very difficult to realize because G field must be neglected and we need extra fast rocket/satellite that must meet in far space.

Already with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly we can feel something is wrong in relativity.

For constancy of c, it “may be” a good approximation in special relativity, (on earth) it is almost always verified in experiments.

In space it give some troubles with GPS satellite and Pioneer_anomaly that can be explained with different c velocity.

That constancy become dubious in general relativity when light travel in the direction of force field (G field for example) due to energy/mass of photons:

photons increase/decrease its frequency/energy in that direction, and, in a classic mechanics view, it’s equivalent to an increase/decrease of c.

The mathematics models of relativity (SR & GR) find correct results in experiments, but they loose the “physical” behavior between fields and matter (due, almost certainly to ether).

Regards

Ing.__mm

[Marco]

Thanks again for your question, it is not trivial.

The concept of time dilation in my view is correct, the velocity of atoms within ether deforms the shape of boundary and spin decrease, increasing local time viewed from moving objects, so, for example, pion decay time increase when comes from space instead standing in labs.

“What of the theory of Special Relativity, in General”

I think it is a good, but not perfect model of reality, it is equivalent (mathematically speaking) with LET (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory) in which ether make the medium rule.

Special Relativity not need ether but not denies its existence, only it’s unnecessary.

Time dilatation is an effect of general relativity that emerge in special relativity (unexplained in SR) but translated in formulas by Lorentz according to experiments.

Special relativity is a theory applied in inertial frames but developed in NON inertial frame (due to gravity), and it is the approximation in the 2 directions orthogonal to gravity vector of general relativity.

All this concepts is explained very well by @JoP in his works, he and me differ only for source and sink of ether but not for behavior with matter and light.

Gravity is due to an ether flow, and on earth, it is vertical at 11.4 km/sec and it keep we with (foot 😅) down to heart.

King regards

Ing.__mm

[Marco]

Thanks again for your question, it is not trivial.

The concept of time dilation in my view is correct, the velocity of atoms within ether deforms the shape of boundary and spin decrease, increasing local time viewed from moving objects, so, for example, pion decay time increase when comes from space instead standing in labs.

“What of the theory of Special Relativity, in General” 😅

<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>I think it is a good, but not perfect model of reality, it is equivalent (</font>mathematically<font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”> speaking) with LET (</font><font color=”rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)” face=”inherit”>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory) in </font>which ether make the medium rule.

Special Relativity not need ether but not denies its existence, only it’s unnecessary.

Time dilatation is an effect of general relativity that emerge in special relativity (unexplained in SR) but translated in formulas by Lorentz according to experiments.

Special relativity is a theory applied in inertial frames but developed in NON inertial frame (due to gravity), and it is the approximation in the 2 directions orthogonal to gravity vector of general relativity.

All this concepts is explained very well by @JoP in his works, he and me differ only for source and sink of ether but not for behavior with matter and light.

Gravity is due to an ether flow, and on earth, it is vertical at 11.4 km/sec and it keep we with (foot 😅) down to heart.

King regards

Ing.__mm

[Marco]

The special relativity theory have a long story… it is based on observation of some experiment (made on the earth) all convergent to that theory, so the mathematical model reflect the results of experiments (on earth).

Why I write “on earth”? Because the theory is based on 2 hypothesis :

1. The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no acceleration).
2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of light source or observer.

I think the first hypothesis is more theoretical then the second one.

The first hypothesis becams https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle (strong or wake) and it is only demonstrate for wake, and the second one is difficult to prove because super luminary object appear and disappear quickly in our world.

[Marco]

Sorry for the trouble, but this make me think on super luminary speed…

Unfortunately we have only few example of super luminary speed like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation because the particles came from a medium with highest speed of light.

In this case the observer in the medium with a super luminary particle can’t see the particle until it surpasses the observer but it see only a little pulse in direction of emission angle, when the particle had already surpasses the observer and never again see after this moment.

When the speed of an object is higher of c, the rapidity isn’t defined.

We can calculate the sum of speed of object with rapidity formula, and for rapidity of high value this mean that real velocity is near to c ( for rapidity of 4 the velocity is 0.9993c).

I can made you another example:

we see 2 object with velocity 50% c and the other 80% c,

the objects sees reciprocally move at + and – 50% c ( v/c =atanh( tanh (0.8) – tanh(0.5))

[Marco]

Hallo @jerry,

thanks for your question, I wrolte fastly and I made some little troubles in my explanetion.

I wrote velocity instead rapidity and the correct phrase was:

For a real rapidity of the object =1c, the velocity seen by the static obserber is tanh(1)=0.762c
for a rapidity of 2c, the velocity appear of tanh(2)=0.964c and so on.
For low rapidity the difference rapidly vanish and for 1/2 c the measured velocity became 0.462c with a difference <10%, it became 2% at 1/4 c and 0.1% at 1/16 c

[Marco]

Hallo @jerry,

the rule is tanh (v) , described in the link above of rapidity.
For a real velocity of the object =1c, the velocity seen by the static obserber is tanh(1)=0.762c
for a velocity of 2c, the velocity appear of tanh(2)=0.964c and so on.
For low velocity th difference rapidly vanish and for 1/2 c the measured velocity became 0.462c with a difference <10%, it became 2% at 1/4 c and 0.1% at 1/16 c

Regards Ing_mm

[Marco]

Hallo @jerry ,

looking for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity we can calculate the sum of velocity in relativistic field.
tanh( 2*atanh( 0.98)) =0.9998 c

Regards Ing_mm

[Marco]

For increases complexity, I want say only 2 things:

1) Lorentz transformation is more complicated then Galileian transformation, but “unfortunately” in same condition works better, so, sometimes, you have to accept complexity when this is more faithfull to reality.

2) “del = Nabla” operator (Div, Grad, Curl) are widly used both in electromagnetic and fluid dynamic studies, but Maxwell equation of electrodynamics was develloped using mechanical models, such as rotating vortex tubes, to model the electromagnetic field.

For this reason these equations of electromagnetism arise from a fluid dynamics basis as a starting point, so ether can be modeled as fluid, with pipe, vortex end other flud structures.

There is a near perfect one-to-one correspondence between electromagnetism and fluid dynamics, therefore studying one filed there is a one-to-one correspondence with the other filed.

Thanks for the attention

Ing.__mm