Re: Does any mainstream physicist subscribe to aether theory?


"George" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vqy0j.2392$Tq2.738@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
:
: "Timo A. Nieminen" <timo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
: news:Pine.WNT.4.64.0711191237330.1468@xxxxxxxxxxxx
: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, George wrote:
: >
: >> Just curious. I've been in a discussion with someone on another forum,
: >> and
: >> my understanding is that the Michelson-Morley experiment (and every
: >> experiment since) refutes it. Am I missing something?
: >
: > (a) Unless you define "mainstream" specifically to exclude subscribing
to
: > minority theories, there are mainstream physicists who do so.
: >
: > (b) There are also professional physicists, but who would not be
: > considered by the majority of physicists to be mainstream, who also do
: > so.
: >
: > (c) A steady trickle of aether theory papers continues to appear in the
: > mainstream physics literature; a much larger stream of them appears in
: > the fringe/crank physics literature.
: >
: > (d) Michelson-Morley doesn't refute aether theory, it refutes one
: > particular variety of it. Observation of stellar aberration refutes
: > another, Fresnel drag refutes another (quite a few types actually - this
: > is the closest there is to a decisive experiment refuting aether
theory).
: > Panofsky & Phillips has a nice chapter on all of this, much better than
: > the common repetition of the Michelson-Morley myth. Lorentz's aether
: > theory remains unrefuted outside quantum physics and perhaps general
: > relativity - given that it basically spawned the mathematics of special
: > relativity, it works quite well.
: >
: > Aether theory as a mainstream theory died in the early 1920s, with the
: > ultraviolet catastrophe providing the death-blow. Jeans (one of the last
: > big-name aether supporters) had a couple of papers in the 1920s that are
: > essentially the coffin of the aether.
: >
: > So, it's not true that the aether has been disproven to exist, but
rather
: > that it doesn't provide any worthwhile explanation. One can assume that
: > the electromagnetic field exists as an entity in its own right, which is
: > a simpler theory than assuming that an aether exists, and some
particular
: > state of it (velocity, stress, strain, rotation, whatever) correspsonds
: > to the electric/magnetic field. Some people differ in their opinions on
: > this matter, considering that a "mechanical" explanation, even if more
: > complex, is better than just saying "fields exist". Which is why various
: > people, including professional physicists, amateur physicists, and
: > engineers, continue to support aether theories.
: >
: > I doubt you'll find many mainstream physicists on this newsgroup who
: > support aether theories, but there are interested amateurs who write
: > interesting (but unconvincing to me) posts.
: >
: > (e) It's also possible to define "aether" such that most mainstream
: > physicists believe in aether theory. For example, Pauli's (in his EM
: > textbook) usage of "ether" as a synonym for "electromagnetic field", and
: > Einstein's Leiden lecture.
: >
: > --
: > Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
: > E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
: > Shrine to Spirits:
: > http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
:
: Thanks Timo, and everyone else for your responses. Basically, you've all
: confirmed what I've been saying about this all along. I'll also point out
: that some fringe elements have said that Einstein backtracked on aether,
: and so somehow that means that it does exist. Here is what Einsten said
in
: 1938:
:
: "Looking back at the development of physics, we see that the ether, soon
: after its birth, became the enfant terrible of the family of physical
: substances. First, the construction of a simple mechanical picture of the
: ether proved to be impossible and was discarded. This caused to a great
: extent the breakdown of the mechanical point of view. Second, we have to
: give up the hope that through the presence of the ether sea, one
: co-ordinate system will be distinguished and lead to the recognition of
: absolute and not only relative motion. . After such bad experiences, this
: is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention
: its name. We shall say our space has the physical property of transmitting
: waves and so omit the use of a word we have decided to avoid. The omission
: of a word from our vocabulary is of course no remedy; the troubles are
: indeed much too profound to be solved in this way. Let us now write down
: the facts which have been sufficiently confirmed by experiment without
: bothering any more about the 'e-r' problem.' - Albert Einstein and Leopold
: Infeld, Evolution of Physics, 1938, pp. 184-5"
:
: George

That drool reduces to "There is an aether because I say so and I'm
the great genius, you are merely stooopid."

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif


Heller wrote: "There was only one catch and that was Catch 22, which
specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were
real and immediate was the process of a rational mind.
"Orr (a character in the novel) was crazy and could be grounded. All he had
to do was ask, and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would
have to fly more missions.

"Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he
was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have
to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."

In Einstein's case if you use c+v you can derive c = (c+v)/(1+v/c) from
the cuckoo malformations he blamed on Lorentz. That says you can't
use c+v.

What troll kooks like Schwartz, Poe, McCullough, Roberts, Draper, Lawrence,
Andersen, Neiminen et. al. fail to realise is the existence of isomorphism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isomorphism
between Sagnac's real experiment and Einstein's hallucination experiment,
shown here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TwoSpeedRack.gif
Einstein sends light along the rack and back again, the rack
moving at velocity v in his pipe dream.
Sagnac sends the light around the gear wheel for real.
If you analyse one you should get the same result as the other, but
you cannot use SR to derive SR, that is petitio principii, circularity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

c+v is essential to the derivation of the cuckoo malformations, the
part where Einstein screws up is:
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/tAB=tBA.gif

Here are some mathematical proofs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

Not included are
Proof by "because I say so",
Proof by "everybody knows",
Proof by "it is written",
the three most popular forms used in sci.physics.relativity.

You'll often see this pathetic mob muttering "Lorentz Transformations"
but they haven't a clue how they are derived and faithfully follow their
indoctrination like lemmings.

Catch 22:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif

Prediction:
The troll kooks will ignore it, they are too stooopid to understand a
proof.

RULES OF REASONING IN PHILOSOPHY.

RULE I.
We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true
and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and
more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity,
and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes. -- Sir Isaac Newton



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Does any mainstream physicist subscribe to aether theory?
    ... There are also professional physicists, but who would not be considered by the majority of physicists to be mainstream, who also do so. ... A steady trickle of aether theory papers continues to appear in the mainstream physics literature; a much larger stream of them appears in the fringe/crank physics literature. ... it refutes one particular variety of it. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Does any mainstream physicist subscribe to aether theory?
    ... :>> experiment since) refutes it. ... there are mainstream physicists who do so. ... :> Michelson-Morley doesn't refute aether theory, ... :> physicists believe in aether theory. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Does any mainstream physicist subscribe to aether theory?
    ... Unless you define "mainstream" specifically to exclude subscribing to ... there are mainstream physicists who do so. ... A steady trickle of aether theory papers continues to appear in the ... it refutes one ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... I'm getting sick and tired of circling this point, the aether has no ... Space-time needs the medium for it to even exist. ... Physicists DO NOT SHARE your definition of space as that which has no ... of matter. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... I'm getting sick and tired of circling this point, the aether has no ... Yes, that's spacetime so far. ... Physicists DO NOT SHARE your definition of space as that which has no ... of matter. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)