[Jerry]

Sorry again about the weird codes. I should probably give up.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Sounds quite interesting. If I’m at home, instead of out of town, I could serve as somewhat of an objective observer, to ask questions to either side, and offer suggestions with as few unbiased assumptions as possible. Just a thought.

[Jerry]

The falling aether seems quite an intriguing concept. Given that falling objects accelerate to the earth (or I suppose any other planet or star), that the aether (if it exists) would seem affected within gravitational fields, that is, if the aether actually does have mass. However, how to detect or provide evidence for the aether’s possible mass?

[Jerry]

Also, it may have appeared as though I accept as valid, the ideas of time dilation, the maximum possible velocity, and the relativity of simultaneous events. I actually don’t though. I also don’t accept the ideas of length contraction and relativistic mass. The only part of Special Relativity I actually accept as truth, is the first postulate, which was Galileo’s original relativity from around a few centuries ago.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Sorry again for all the weird codes and such. Maybe some of this is possible to decipher. 🙂

• This reply was modified 2 years, 4 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Hi David. My apologies for what I wrote the other day. I didn’t mean to misinterpret your words. I honestly thought you meant such views were naïve. I’m guessing though, that you at least think some of ideas aren’t correct, otherwise, why wouldn’t you currently accept them?

I have a question. Has the goal to find the truth of what the interferometer was designed to find out, been achieved yet? If so, what was it?

I hadn’t heard that Special Relativity is based on aether drift results. What were these results? Were you referring to how it’s similar to time dilation? Actually, my personal view is that time dilation was developed to account for the discrepancy that seems apparent when considering the relative motion and position of objects. It often seems implied that the constancy of the velocity of light creates a universe where time and space themselves seem somewhat “blamed” (or perhaps “credited”) for the relativistic effects, of the space that stretches and the time that dilates. That they seem to “bridge the gap”.

The ideas of length contraction and mass increase with velocity were arrived at by FitzGerald and Lorentz, at least two decades before Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity. However, the sole purpose they had for these ideas was to maintain the aether theory. They were trying to account for why the Michelson and Morley experiment failed to detect the aether. FitzGerald suggested the aether itself foreshortened the equipment, a view that continues to seem accepted to this day.

[Jerry]

Hi David.

Did you mean to say of what I wrote, that you’ve seen the “same ideas presented over the years by countless individuals”, that this view is meaningless or naïve? If you once had the same or a similar viewpoint, why did you eventually “abandon” the idea(s)? Also, I personally haven’t heard the views of many other scientists who share the views and ideas of those few paragraphs.

I was just earlier reading the link you sent. Thanks! Does Dayton have that much of a different story, compared to so many other individual’s accounts of the Michelson and Morley experiment? The fact that he performed the experiment with Michelson and Morley, doesn’t automatically mean he’s most qualified to speak of their ideas, plans, and intentions. Maybe he was though.

Something I haven’t ever had a clear understanding of, was what was the purpose of their experiments with the interferometer? What types of results did they expect? If the experiment had even turned out “perfectly” (in their eyes), what would that tell them? What ultimate conclusions were they looking for?

[Jerry]

Good question, Kasim.

How exactly is gravity electrical? instead of gravity being “the only one” that isn’t thoroughly unified with the unified field theory? I’ve had the same thought myself. What led you to that idea?

[Jerry]

As for possible alternatives for light than waves and particles, what of the differences of these two effects? For instance, what of how “particles” of light (or photons) don’t have a positive, negative, or any other type of “charge”? Of course, they aren’t exactly the same phenomena. Why call them “particles”? There was the experiment that showed electrons or “sparks” jump out of a certain type of metal plate if light were shown onto it. However, this doesn’t seem to provide any evidence that light is actually a particle, simply because it affects other (maybe actual) particles that way.

It is my viewpoint that light, within its possibly “duality”, if we were to take both the wave and particle ideas into account, why assume both, or even just one of them is correct? What if light is instead in a different cosmic territory than particles and waves? of a completely separate phenomena? Perhaps these effects of light were too quickly labeled, instead of allowing the time to find a more accurate truth?

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik. Thank you for your previous posts here.

If gravity isn’t moving, is it the purpose of the aether to “propagate” it? Such as how the slightest disturbance shakes a whole spider’s web? However, how is it possibly known that gravity is “stationary”? Does all gravity (possibly within a particle form) “line up” perhaps within somewhat of a “3-D juxtaposition” that covers all other areas of space? Is the aether a medium through which gravity (or light) is propagated?

[Jerry]

I wanted to say quickly, that I agree with what David said earlier, that “I enjoy listening to other people’s ideas. Even if in the end I do not agree that the idea actually describes physics, I am often impressed with some of the creative insights that people develop.” Just wanted to share that thought!

[Jerry]

Hi John-Erik.

I’ve also asked a similar question constantly for many years, in forums, writings, and conversations, that “if a given object travels at any velocity, what is that relative to?” I feel this question (and yours) is <font face=”inherit”>highly relevant and should receive much more attention and emphasis. This seemingly simple question seems sufficient to invalidate the whole Special theory, with the exception of the first postulate, which Einstein borrowed from Galileo, yet didn’t seem to give him credit. My personal view is that the first postulate is possibly the only truth of Special Relativity. The first and second postulates were inherently </font>incompatible, so Einstein wanted to find a way to unify them.

I have trouble accepting the ether theory. If the ether is the ultimate “stationary” reference frame, does that mean when you drive a car at 55 miles per hour, that you either add, subtract, or somehow else to account for the additional mph of the car? Of course, given that the earth spins and revolves around the sun, and the sun through the galaxy, and the galaxy through the “whatever all else”, could this scenario possibly accurately find how fast the earth (or the interferometer) travels through the “stationary” ether? Those seem quite daunting variables.

Also, if space is the <i style=”background-color: transparent; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit;”>container of ether, does it also “outlast” or extend further from the ether? Or does it expand at only a limited amount, with the space-time? How far could it possibly go?

Anyway, just a few thoughts. 🙂

[Jerry]

Hi David.

If light (or photons) is caused by electrons that jump their orbitals, it would seem that electrons would continually and steadily have to maintain their jump of orbitals, since light often flows so smoothly. I’ve heard from a variety of sources that electrons that “orbit” is inaccurate or outdated. I personally don’t have a strong opinion of this though. However, I definitely have doubts with Quantum Mechanics, such as how particles have been said to “jump in and out of existence”, or “appear in two places at the same time”.

With the comparison of photons and light to water molecules and a river. The river itself consists of water molecules. So why couldn’t light consist of photons? I guess I’m sort of playing “devils advocate” though, since I actually question the validity of the concept of photons.

I actually have quite a few alternate views that might sound outlandish to some. I have questions as to if and how the velocity of light is constant. I’ve often thought that light doesn’t travel, that it is possibly instantaneous. or that we see the light that travels towards us. Also, I (almost) don’t believe quantum entanglement, or that observation collapses the wave function. I could present these ideas (plus more) maybe for another thread sometime.

Thanks for your response. 🙂

[Jerry]

Hi David.

Would you say you accept the existence of photons, and also light, except that light doesn’t travel? I’ve most often heard that light consists of photons. It sort of sounds as though you’re speaking of two separate phenomena, with photons that travel at c, while the light stays “stationary”.

Of the alternate units you mentioned that you prefer could seem reliable. How, or to what level, does the currently established metric units fail or fall short of the most effective way to reach accurate findings?

What, though, is your view of why the accepted value of the meter was “fixed” to correspond with the velocity of light, without a “rounded-off” designation? Why 299,792,458 meters per second, instead of 300,000,000 meters per second?

I’ve read of what seems credible sources online, that it is unknown if electrons have a size. If the electron’s mass is detected, why doesn’t that suggest that electrons also have a size, however possibly miniscule? Just a thought.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by  Jerry.

[Jerry]

Ken,

There were two “short specific example answers” you provided above, the first of which says that “Radio telescopes can determine the precise location of high frequency transmission from any star any time of day without interference from “the sun’s light”.” This seems to suggest it is unnecessary to use the eclipse to track the positions of the stars. If this is so, why couldn’t they find the same results of the experiment in the daytime, without the use of the eclipse?