Re: Aether is the empty space in which the Universe sits

From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 07/20/04 

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:08:13 GMT

"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
news:lq8pf01mkvso59dh3f6i166o8ol86ti2nq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 06:14:12 GMT, "Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul Stowe" <ps@acompletelyjunkaddress.net> wrote in message
> >news:o59mf053tj17iklnhi4bt0elto5hvvm5ie@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> Has Dayton Miller's experiment been repeated using the same
apparatus
> >>>>>> with perhaps a modern optical imaging recorder? If not you have NO
> >>>>>> valid argument. Data is data interpretation of same is solely a
> >>>>>> human endeavor. There is a saying, figures never lie, but liars
> >>>>>> figure...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We have no reason to a-priori suppose that further experiments may
> >>>>> detect an aether ...
> >>>>
> >>>> By your Platonic 'logic' as long as we 'believe' in our
interpretation
> >>>> we have no reason to do any contrasting experiments.
> >>>
> >>> I did not say we should not do the exprimnets - I leave such choices
to thos
> >>> einterested in such. I simply cliam until they are done and ogve a
> >>> postive result nonoe can make the claim the aether has been detected.
Thart
> >>> is very simple logic.
> >>
> >> I normally don't comment of typos (in fact I correct some) but these
> >> are atrocious.
> >
> > Yada, Yada, Yada.
> >
> >>>> Regardless of any potentially embarassing results that were gotten
that
> >>>> contrasted that view. A real scientific perspective here Bill...
> >>>
> >>> Real scientists to not preempt the results of experiments. I have
> >>> admitted on countless occasions an aether may exist - I do not believe
> >>> it does and understand logic well enough to know that the fact it has
> >>> not been detected means it is perfectly acceptable to not believe in
it.
> >>
> >> The problem is not one of detection, but one of accepting evidence of
> >> detection. There is a very big difference. As has been pointed out,
> >> if one insists on detecting motion with respect to a background, the
> >> CMBR fits the bill perfectly! It IS also totally in agreement with
> >> the aether premise.
> >
> > It is obvious more than that is required; and is the reason nearly all
> > scientists do not accept its existence. They are not fools despite
> > what you may think.
>
> What make you think that I consider them fools??? Self induced biases
> is not related to lack of intellect. Again I refer you to Planck's
> observation... By you 'logic' you'd consider that Planck considered
> this type fools. As for the sea of photons that constitutes the CMBR
> what about it is inconsistent with aether theory then???

No observation we have is inconsistent with an aether - unless you count the
fact, as Bilge points out, a medium in the usual sense does not have
traverse waves. Of course the out is it is not a medium in the usual sense.
But like you I digress. It not being inconsistent with any observation is a
far cry from saying it demands it.

>
> >>
> >>> And certainly enough to know that the belligerent crackpot assertions
> >>> of Ole D. Rughede that it has been detected
> >>
> >> As I've pointed out before, he isn't the only one being 'belligerent'
> >> here. You are also... Certainly belligerence is in the eye of the
> >> beholder.
> >
> > An attitude of admitting an aether may exist is one of tolerance - an
> > attitude of asserting it must exist based on dubious evidence is
> > belligerence.
>
> Hmmm, and here I thought belligerence meant hostility and aggressive
> behavior.

Claiming being able to feel radiant sunlight is proof of an aether, and when
I point out it is not, claming I must be deficient is some way to not feel
radiant sunlight is obvious belligerent crackpot behavior.

>
> >>> and that the CBMR consisting of EM radiaiton is the aether is rubbish
of
> >>> the first order.
> >>
> >> What, specifically is sound Bill? Take away its basis and can you
> >> still have sound??? Thus the question you've dodged twice now,
> >> (I'll point it out...).
> >
> > I have never dodged such questions. It is pressure variations in
something
> > that has been detected - air.
>
> Want to take a guess on how many otherwise bright individuals have argued
> that air was unreal and did not exist. Further, sound isn't confined to
> air. It is more that just pressure variation BTW. But, I quibble.

Indeed you do. It is irrelevant - we have definite evidence air exists.
The aether however is another matter.

> My point dear Bill is, aether was the proposed carrier of light just like
> other media for wave activity. Thus, in THAT theoretical framework, both
> light & aether are inseparable.

So what your saying is if I assume an aether then within the framework of
that asusmtion it must exist. Wow what a revelation.

> Also, the speed is fixed by the medium
> and is independent of the motion of emitters/receivers. The observed
> frequency, and wavelength of light will be dependent upon the motion of
> the observer.
>
> Just like, the speed of sound is fixed by the medium (and both are
> thus, iseparable) and is independent of the motion of emitters/receivers.
> The observed frequency, and wavelength of light will be dependent upon
> the motion of the observer. This fact is reason that passive sonar is
> so accurately utilized by submarines the world over.
>
> Just as the acoustical background in Earth's oceans constitutes a common
> FOR for measuring the speed, direction and range of objects within it
> so too the CMBR serves the very same function in space. It is logically
> inevitable from the aether premise that the CMBR and the medium are
> inseparably coupled. If you detect sound, you know there's a medium
> (what that medium is may need to be further quantified, but you can be
> certain it's there). If you see a field of light you can be certain that
> in the context of aether you're also seeing a manifestation of the
medium.
>
> > Take away air and you have no sound. OTOH EM waves are waves of EM
fields
> > which are nothing like a material medium such as air.
>
> So steel is nothing like the material medium of air and sound behaves
> accordingly. You get three sounds, not one as in air. Thus it is that
> difference in behavior that tell you what the medium is like.
>
> > Take away EM fields and you have no EM radiation.
>
> Great, tell me how you can do that. Please define an experiment that
> can take away EM fields such that we have a region of space that
> physically CANNOT propagate light... If & when you can demonstrate
> this feat I will pony up and exclaim that region is aether free and
> any physics done in such is non-aether based. I'll await with great
> expectation your detailed proposal for accomplishing this monumental
> feat.

The fact, using current technology, it is impossible to find or create a
region of space devoid of any EM activity is not proof of the existence of
an aether.

Bill

>
> >> "Wave in a medium are the result of the physical characteristics
> >> of the medium. Do you agree or disagree?
> >>
> >> Talk about faulty logic, sheez...
> >
> > It might be a good idea to detail the error in logic rather than allude
to
> > it.
>
> See above...
>
> Paul Stowe

Relevant Pages