The Ether Dispute: Revisiting Einsteins argument that space is a physical substance

The Ether Dispute

---

But when we consider the gradient of concentration of such fluctuations around massive body, then the net result of such collective motion is exactly the opposite and each photon travels trough space with different speed. In another thread someone tried to explain, how the local GR may lead into worm holes, which do violate the GR globally - this is the same stuff. It's just matter of quantity, whether the local quality will be preserved at the nonlocal scope.

I already explained above, that the behavior of gravitational lens depends on whether we are using intrinsic or extrinsic perspective for their description. The extrinsic perspective is always connected with small violation of general relativity. At the case of quantum theory, which deals with myriads of tiny gravitational lenses these violations cumulate and as the result the behavior of quantum systems is quite different from relativity.

Therefore "more is different", because we are switching perspective unwillingly during observation of multiple objects. Spacetime curvature is a racemic subset[2]. Theory curve-fit Gran Sasso superluminal neutrinos. The outcome of a good experiment is unknown beforehand. When Cox said it, he was crushed[3]. When Yang and Lee said it, they were Nobel Laureates[4]. The theory of relativity is no less a theory for being a Good theory. Evidence that is "experimental" is by nature a variable dependent on conditions and the descriptive expression of conditions may fall outside of the conditions addressed by a tradition.

The point made that challenges Einstein's theory is suspect for being a challenge to dogma. It really does no service to the spirit of research that pushes against the known in favor of discovery and innovation. Newton's laws are used when it is convenient. Novel approaches to an old problem should be welcomed by those with experience to recognize the fair boundary of anachronism and new approaches to old problems.

And all the articles you've posted don't have anything to do with relating chirality of fundamental particles with handedness of crystal formation. Theory curve-fit Gran Sasso superluminal neutrinos Even if it would be confirmed, I don't see any logical connection of alleged superluminal speed of neutrinos to space-time chirality or handedness of crystals.

Could you explain it in more details - or to provide link? For some reason, I don't think he meant it actually was Think he meant that a theory is only as good as the theorist. I honestly don't know what they mean. They seemed to just grab papers that had the words "General Relativity" and "parity" or "chirality" in them I'm really confused by the claims here. I can see what he's going for and even how he's come to these conclusions, but I'm not sure how open you are to the simpleness of the reasoning I stand by for the usual barrage of crap from the gravity fanatics, Just one: Show your work and where it makes quantitative!

And also where it is quantitatively! It's expansion theory, as mentioned. There are several books on the subject, and numerous refutations all of which contain spurious logic. You will simply have to read some of them, think about it, and make up your own mind.

Keeps hundreds of acolytes on the grav"it"y train year after year! You missquoted the end of the sentence, which presumably should have read: Nobody said it was "better", just an alternative explanation as to how the universe works. You got anything "better"? Or you can accept the model, despite it doesn't enable to calculate anything, but it enables to explain multiple effects at the same moment.

Which makes it worthless. It's like a religion then. Religion also enables you to 'explain' everything "god did it" , but it's a useless theory because you can't use it for anything. It's just something to make you feel good. Arguably of psychological value to those who need such comforting mechanisms but not of scientific value. Currently the physics is based on formal regressions, which are adding new parameters, when some unexpected situation happens. Because 'just adding a parameter' will lead to things that did work with the old theory now not to work.

When you augment a theory you have to make sure you don't invalidate that part which works. The number of formal theories and postulates increases in this way, No. Theories need to be integarted with each other. Gravity waves are predicted and testable. If they don't show up as predicted then this tells us something. That may be satsfying to some but it's not useful. It's not 'better' because it's not good for anything.

AA I don't know how you do it. Word s to Reg: What would that mean — "locally"? I'm indeed opened to logical arguments. I was thinking that you were trying to clarify, but I know enough to see that this is an attempt to obfuscate the issues and bring your pet theory into it. BTW What the Wikipedia says If you cant understand subject "a" why should we continue?

You are NOT looking for logical discourse, you are attempting to realign reality to your skewed thought process. I will leave you to your fight. Best of luck to you. Einsteinian warped space is more useful Useful for what? Fanciful notions and metamagics? There was never a device made by man that used relativity by necessity to perform it's function. There no known solutions to Einstein's field equations for 2 or more masses.

Einsteinian warped space is more useful There was never a device made by man that used relativity by necessity to perform it's function. Theory can gush nonsense if it is self-consistent. A loose fiberoptic timing connection ended "superluminal" neutrinos. Physics arises from vacuum symmetries Noether's theorems observed by massless boson photons. Matter is massed fermion quarks ignore leptons. One doubts boson vacuum symmetries are exact for fermions. Opposite shoes violate the Equivalence Principle. GR can empirically fail without contradicting any prior observation in any venue at any scale when observed outside its postulates.

GR is perfect within its postulates, as Euclid is - then cartography, Bolyai, Thurston. Yeah, you could do GPS without relativity, but then you'd be off by more than 30 meters. Then there's all the stuff we're learning from colliders - which wouldn't work if relativistic effects weren't considered this includes particle accelerators for medical uses.

Then there's that small invention called: Without modeling relativistic effects we couldn't have predicted some of the useful catalysts that have been found we also would have never guessed that stuff like graphene exists, BTW. Then there's stuff like airline and shipping compasses that use the relativistic sagnac effect. When you go into serious engineering relativity is all over the place. I go to a great deal of trouble to write all this down in a book, and so do many other people.

I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Nice to see you again Reg, guess you'll be moving along now? Hi Maggnus, Nice to know you are still breathing Seriously, though, it seems to me that even the wildest, most unsubstantiated theories, totally unsupported by fact, are accepted for serious consideration provided they are based on the old establishment tenets, but, question those tenets like "gravity" and, wow, you are obviously a nutter! We need a sea change in scientific thought all around the "gravity" area. Look, gravity didn't exist until Newton invented it!

Nobody is saying his equations don't work, or Einstein was wrong, they both produced methodology which help us to deal with observed reality - but they do not in any way explain what "gravity" is or rather what causes it's effects. Anyway, feel free to have another pop! Make a prediction for something YOUR theory predicts that is at odds with the current models and we'll see when that rolls around.

There s a couple of interesting experiments going: Dark mater detectors, gravity wave detectors, Anylses of the cosmic microwave background, material sciences has a lot of unanswered questions Pick any one and make a prediction. Otherwise your 'theory' is no better than 'god did it' Either you didn't read my response properly, or you have no sense of humour and do not understand sarcasm. Or maybe we should construct a giant microscope or telescope for tracking unicorns, which are predicted to exist by many ancient learned scholars, we simply haven't been looking hard enough I never understood why we consider all mass as created equal.

Newton and Einstein didn't have the resources that we do now, we have more data than they could have dreamed. This got me wondering if there's an extra gravitational force exerted from hydrogen and helium. So I went to wiki for atomic mass http: It's interesting because hydrogen tops the list at 1. I believe the numbers come from the mass-to-charge ratio. I've tried to prove this added effect but my math sucks. Essentially, I think gravity is unique to each element, and only when there are huge quantities would you ever see it.

Need more cantdrive, mikefrom NY and all the other fun folks. I don't see whats so hilarious about debating the final question Einstein himself tried to answer. Got any ideas to add yourself? Probably not, trolls typically aren't original. Until you have something useful to say, I suggest you let the grown ups talk. Need more cantdrive You got it. Why Einstein will never be wrong Because his disciples aren't too bright PDF That paper said exactly - nothin' The author was neither a disciple of Einstein nor had any real grasp of relativity.

I understand someone weasling out of putting their 'theory' to the test when I see it. Which pretty much clinches it: Got to admit that I cannot think of a way of "proving" my philosophy is correct, all methods seems to fall into the old trap that "if three plus one equals four" you end up proving that "one plus three equals four". By the way, all proofs for the existence of gravity as a force fall into the same class. As far as I know, my theory is the only one that explains quantum entanglement, how a photon can visit all locations in the universe when moving from A to B, what time is, what momentum is, and where mass comes from, amongst other things.

How are your favorite pet theories doing? The hallmark of that real theory is: Got to admit that I cannot think of a way of "proving" my philosophy is correct Then why do you defend it or even would have an inclination to assume it's correct. You just basically said: I made it up and think it's correct. You make stuff up. But as you admit yourself: Making stuff up is not the same as explaining it.

See what I mean? Whoops, there goes a unicorn, pity we ain't got the technology to photograph something that fast According to my theory,a photon can pass thru' every point in the universe on its way from A to B. According to various microsplit interference experiments, this is the only explanation for a photons' behaviour. Does that prove my theory? I don't think so. Great article on how science works, and what science is. I'd go as far as to say that you couldn't claim to be a scientist unless you understand it. I agree with an earlier poster who said that these concepts should be taught early in science education.

As all the melatonin subsides in the commentators, i would like to request a time stamp of when articles are published by the author s. Too bad theirs no polling functionality here. I would have liked to known if any of the commentators so far are biologists or chemists.. I never went college so don't ask about me. Just an observation, it seems to me that when people discuss physics or Einstein that proceeding discussions often turn to space rather than the interactions of systems inside of a plant or the human body. Tried to follow as much as possible above but the one upmanship ruins it.

It started out well and the unique quality of the article should dictate that this comment thread should continue on for days, weeks or an aha moment is reached. Don't give up, the photon does more than most physicists think! Solve that one first. Reg Mundy I never understand you gravity athiests, always needing absolute "proof" to believe. Just because there are a few anomalies that aren't yet explained doesn't mean the whole of the theory is wrong.

Take for instance the theory I posted. It's not a redo of anything, just trying to pick up where Einstein left off. If you assume that there is an added gravitational force exerted by hydrogen and helium, than it actually resolves some of the anomalies in gravity. It would explain why the AU is increasing faster than expected since the fusion process takes 2 H to make 1 He, thus weakening the gravitational force of the sun quicker.

It would also explain why we see some ultra massive hydrogen clouds clump together denser than gravity alone predicts. I have thought of many ways to prove this theory, just haven't been able to resolve any as of yet. Great article on how science works, and what science is This article essentially says, the general relativity is as correct, as the formula for calculation of the volume of sphere is correct. Until the object is spherical, this formula works well and can be never wrong. We can even agree, that this is how the contemporary science works - but my feeling is, that the science should be a bit more than this.

This article is the demonstration of an unstable mind. It selects specifics, like the calory theory to reach a general conclusion that is insane! Why not select the theory of "epicycles" to prove that even when a model fits experimental data, the physics assumptions on which the model are based is nonsence a better word is crap! Einstein's models are ALL the same crap. For this he is a genius!

For the rest of his models and derivations he has been a physics-moron. OK, Scroof, you got a theory that would explain some anomalies in current predictions, just haven't found a way to "prove" it yet So whats so different to my theory, which explains many current anomalies, and I haven,t found a way to prove it Well, there is one difference. My theory explains a whole raft of "anomalies" which no other theory seems to do.

Anyway, 'nuff said by me, its rather like arguing with religious fanatics, if you believe that there's a heaven then there's a heaven, if you believe.. What's different is my theory is testable and based of data. You seem to want to reinvent the wheel, where as I'm trying to make it tubeless. Another difference is I have an idea of how my problem can be solved, yours seems to be "dreamed up".

According to you, we've gotten this far on what, sheer luck? Gravities effect on celestial bodies is very accurately modeled by Newton and Einstein's equations. Whether spacetime is the true cause of gravity or not is pointless to me, you can still use the theory of GR to show how the heavens move. In this same universe are travelers with this ability.. That we have nothing needed by them that they cannot simply reach out and take is a fact of history.

Ultimately our species will become nomadic to survive. First foraging among the low gravity wells of our own heritage, the Sol system, and then to any nearby bodies that we can reach that have matter disks in orbit. Fusion our power, hydroponics our food, ships our shelter. To be clear, I only claim to have shown an Einstein assertion to be wrong, not his theories. Hi Scroof What's different is my theory is testable and based of data. My point is that they in no way explain what it is they are modelling.

They offer no insight into what gravity is, for example. With decreasing distance scale bellow 1. Briefly speaking, if we introduce some energy to water surface, then the surface becomes deformed and the another ripples will propagate more slowly through it. This leads into Schrodinger equation behavior, which has been already modeled with Couder experiments too. The point of the Boltzmann brain model therefore is, the observable reality will be divided into two low-dimensional zones , which can be described with formal equations of QM and GR well.

Outside of it these distance scales the observable universe behaves just like less or more complex mess. We can actually recognize these two distance scales easily, because just at these two scales the observable Universe appears like being composed of less or more regular spheres. The large stars composed of mostly of electron orbitals are pretty regular spheres in the same way, like the electron orbitals.

These two distance scales are the validity scopes of quantum mechanics and general relativity theories, at which these two theories work perfectly. Outside of these distance scales we can observe the CP and CPT symmetry violations, until the observable reality will not change into irregular mess again.

Thank you for that Nestle. We know a photon exhibits both properties. I imagine gravity waves in the same way, only the 2d wave is a toroidal shell going in all directions emanating out from a central point. I think of gravity in a similar way, only the warp in spacetime emanates in all directions creating a sphere around the center of gravity, kinda like this http: Everything within the radius of the sphere would feel a pull due to the "gravity density" of the central mass, with the vector force decaying over the inverse of the distance squared.

The thing for me is everything in the universe is energy, so why does gravitation rely on mass? I think it's actually due to the energy density of the atoms themselves, and that it's just because the mass to charge ratio for all elements are so close to 1 that mass alone works normally. Gravitational waves would play a role of underwater sound waves in this model i. The gravity in this model results from shielding of these waves with massive bodies.

Am inclined to agree with your energy density postulate. I have other extension thoughts on it, but without extensive math skills, any verbal explanation might fall short of exactly what I want to convey. The closest I can say at this point is the sum is greater than the observed parts.

Uba then share it and allow those better versed in the motion of rockets than i am a chance to view your paper and refute it. Right, and then you go and call us religious zealots while you wallow in your delusions. Do it for all to see, big mouth err, or big fingers, as required under the circumstances I guess. An that is baseless supposition. GPS satellites' clock rate and the receiver's clock rate are not adjusted as a function of their velocity relative to one another.

Check out Ron Hatch http: Even if one third of them would be relevant, it would be enough to force the relativists into rethinking of their theory. One can't help but laugh and shake one's head! Zephyr, Mundi, Prins, Scoofinator all falling over each other with their "it's obvious that my theory is the correct one, as anybody with a half a brain and isn't blinded by mainstream indoctrination can see"! How sad this all takes place on a site devoted to science Maggnus, As usual you are displaying your ignorance: Galileo explained in detail that motion is the coordinate transformation from the inertial reference frame within which an object is stationary, into another inertial reference frame relative to which the SAME object is moving.

Einstein violated Galileo's inertia by transforming the coordinates of a moving rod into the inertial reference frame within which the rod is stationary: One need not prove now that Einstein "was" wrong since it needs no proof whatsoever that Einstein did not understand the simple physics that Galileo already explained years before Einstein. And anyone with half a brain could see that it is obvious you have the correct answer, but for the fact they are blinded by being indoctrinated by mainstream science. Liberal proponents of new ideas have false sense of uniqueness , conservatives proponents of mainstream have a false sense of consensus.

One can't help but laugh at how simple minded Maggnus is. Are you sure you understand how a theory works? It's a set of logical ideas that intend to solve a problem. Tell me how anything we've said has been illogical in your biased opinion? Is this not the proper forum for a discussion like this? I guess you understand the universe completely so this topic is below you. I'll give you another thought to my theory. I find it odd that Newton's law looks a lot like Coulomb's law. Instead of mass we use charge, and instead of the gravitational constant we have Coulomb's constant. I'll keep considering all of the logical theory's on this site until someone smarter can prove them wrong.

So if you can, please do so.

Otherwise, I'm gonna to continue to ignore your mindless comments just like I always do. Boy you told me! Tell us again how it is that your theory is so logical you only discuss the theory on a site that limits you to characters not words mind you, characters. Oh, wait I know! Its because it's so obvious anyone should see it! FWIW the article is about how people who don't know how science works make erroneous statements about science. Ironic don't you think? Today, the major part of theoretical physics has gotten lost in bizarre constructs that are completely disconnected from reality, in mockery of the methods that grounded success of physics for years.

Fortunately, an increasing number of people in the scientific community and the public are becoming aware that bold ideas such as "string theory" , multiverses, "chaotic inflation", Big Bang Theory, " Standard Model " have little to do with real physics and Reality. Unfortunately, before these fantasies took over, Physics was already ailing. Albert Einstein transformed physics in science-fiction and opened the field for his followers.

Why Einstein will never be wrong

Mark Wise is leading theorist working on particle physics beyond the standard model. At a seminar he talked about the problem of where the masses of the elementary particles come from: We've been remarkably unsuccessful at solving that problem. We have no idea why neutrinos or any of the other particles have mass or what explains their mass value.

Economics can produce bubbles, and so can science. It appears to be a universal mechanism of human aspiration that, while following the seemingly obvious, methods can gradually slip into absurdity, leaving behind unresolved problems. A particularly worrying symptom of the current state of affairs in physics is so-called discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN. What was actually discovered were a number of unexplained signals, raising many questions for everyone who takes a sober perspective. These signals are pushed to serve as evidence for the long-theorized Higgs boson supporting the "standard model" of particle physics, although this standard model is not even a well-defined theory.

Let us see whether you can answer a simple question. Was Galileo's explanation of inertia and relativity correct? According to Galileo, motion is a transformation from the inertial reference frame in which the object is stationary into another inertial refrence frame in which it is NOT observed to be stationary: Thus when you do a transformation from an inertial refrence frame relative to which an object is moving into the reference frame in which it is stationary, then according to Galileo this transformation has no physics meaning, This is what Einstein did!

This is an acceleration or not? The motion doesn't imply the change in speed. That you don't get that makes me laugh. Albert Einstein did not know what he measured as a mass , did not understand the speed of light, what gravity is, no idea of time-space. It looks that years from moment when Copernicus idea changed our view of the Universe time for new revolution.

I know what we measure as mass, what is gravity, what we measure as speed of light, what is time-space and why Universes may be like "potatoes" in different parts of time-space. I can explain what dark matter and dark matter is. More I can measurements of quantum time-space and how particles are created, from where is entropy.

I can explain why we are so important for Universe but also why It dose not care if we will not survive. And please do not tell that halve brain or It works the way it is programed. Answer yourself about followers. I'll keep Actually Scroof Not that it changes your point any, but - I believe Newton was here first, so Coulombs law looks like his Nothing gets the crackpots going like mentioning Einstein My favorite crackpot assertion: Nothing will confirm or deny your suspicions quicker than putting your ideas on firm ground and doing some calculations. Don't get me wrong.

Unlike some people, I do think there is value in "crackpot" thought. If anything, it can help you to think outside the box. What doesn't have value, however, is to wildly speculate, and then conclude that accepted theory is wrong because of that speculation, or because of your philosophical preference alone. Actually do the math. Try to understand why scientists reached those conclusions in the first place. You might be surprised by what you find. Altho why he bothered to square it, I don't know. IS genius in the way he stated - here's a simple formula that works in One of the best comments on this thread.

This is what Einstein did! And I dont think it is Einstein! Maggnus is right- yall always say And anyone with half a brain could see that it is obvious you have the correct answer, but for the fact they are blinded by being indoctrinated by mainstream science problem is There actually are problems with "spacetime", "c as a limiting velocity", the source of gravity, and a general misinterpretation of the dilation equations for m, l and t, which, for time, has to do with rates of information reception where data is carried by E-M photons.

Einstein was correct however in his observation that "God does not play dice with the universe. Aww, come on people! I mean look it UP, it's no harder than Pyythh Pie Tag Goar Ass, you know! That old Geek guy with the pointy angles! Since the mods gave up on their own board a couple of years ago almost all threads on Physorg basically morph into crackpot versions of "The Argument Clinic". Shockingly, more trollific comments from Maggnus.

Can't even support a rational discussion. Just repeats himself over and over. Stumpy If you think I'm trying to be smarter than Einstein you haven't been following closely. I've said all along we have more data than he ever did, so maybe we can find something he missed. Do you not remember that Einstein knew his theory was incomplete? The reason I bring up these ideas is so people who have a better understanding and are better at the calculations might be able to make something of it.

I'm trying to work through the math, don't assume I'm just making outlandish claims based on nothing. How have all you fundamentalists been doing for the last years with blinders on? Whydening Gyre Thanks for clearing that up. Don't you crackpots get it? You're like the guy wandering around at a party and you run into a group of people all discussing a 3D stereogram, and they're all talking about how delightfully clever the picture is, but you CAN'T SEE IT.

All YOU see is a haze of coloured noise. And then this other guy wanders by and before anyone can say more then "hey, hi Matt! But Matt says, "No, no, look, step back right here, see, a 'vette. Except, you know, it really is just a 'Vette. I doubt anyone here would be interested. Incidently, I don't think the PM system works anymore.

Is it working for anyone else? Gawad Word s to Reg: No, I didn't call people religious zealots, I simply used them as an example that once somebody truly believes in something, it is very difficult to make them consider any alternative. By the way, I've read just about every relevant book, you obviously haven't. Blathering to change the topic is cheap Reg, why don't you put your fingers where your mouth is unless of course that's up in the nether place, in which case you can spare us.

Related Stories

Come on, your silence is deafening and only shows you have in fact read no books and can only self-publish. Come on, push a little harder Don't you crackpots get it Well, I'm an egg head! What do you expect??? Thus when you do a transformation from an inertial refrence frame relative to which an object is moving into the reference frame in which it is stationary, then according to Galileo this transformation has no physics meaning This is what Einstein did! Who says the church doesnt evolve?

The violations of relativity are rather easy to find, if you know where to look for it: Intriguingly, the gamma-ray delay is about a day longer than radio observations report for this system. And while the flares and their playback show similar gamma-ray brightness, in radio wavelengths one blazar image is about four times brighter than the other Both phenomena are predicted with dispersive model of light: Actually, Matt and I were both wrong - it's a 67 and that was actually Megan Fox I think the entire premise of the article is totally broken.

Close enough doesn't make it right. Just because his incorrect equations yield results that are "good enough" doesn't mean his basic premise was not wrong. Newton's space was constant. Einstein is wrong too he has to be, because there is no perfect answer , but his incorrect equations will continue to yield "good enough" results. I read the comments for the entertainment mostly and the occasional intelligent comment usually getting a 5 What specific results predicted by an Einstein theory yield data not verified by experiment?

What alternative theory gets everything else he correctly predicts, and also solves the observed anomolies. Scroofinator you are correct, and I apologize. I lumped you in based on a couple short comments. It was first reported from an expedition by Arthur Eddington in and has been retested as new technologies with increasing precision became available. More recently, it has been tested in communications with interplanetary spacecraft and in the Hipparcos astrometry mission etc etc etc given that relativity is well tested your aether hypothesis has been debunked for a century Relativity is confirmed regularly by real science Aether or do you prefer Dense aether?

Relativity is confirmed regularly by real science So how do you explain that "the gamma-ray delay is about a day longer than radio observations report"? Dense ae ther theory was proposed by Oliver Lodge in and because nobody did argue with him, it cannot be debunked. This model has never been discussed with physicists. You're not able to recognize it, so you're not competent to judge it. You can call it a "pseudo-science", a "potato" or "pink elephant" with the same result - it's just a twaddling of guy, who has no idea, what he is talking about.

Even if you would know it by some miracle, such a labeling doesn't represents an argument. It's just a labeling - i. Because the scientists don't label - the scientists always argue. Einstein would never say: So you even don't know, what the actual scientific behavior is. You're a religious crackpot by your very nature, who is masking as a science proponent.

Zephyr Dense ae ther theory was proposed by Oliver Lodge in and because nobody did argue with him, it cannot be debunked you consider this logical? You're a religious crackpot by your very nature, who is masking as a science proponent nope. You're a religious crackpot by your very nature, who is masking as a science proponent i despise people who put religion in to Science you would know that had you paid attention. Cap'n I don't believe he intended religious to imply what the general population define it as. I think it was more to say that he thinks you appear to "thump the Science Bible" as an argument.

You and I probly don't know a tenth of the info some of these guys do, so naturally we have to adapt a more general perception relative to theirs see how I worked general and relativity into that? Debunked is probably the wrong choice of word in this context. More like not pursued, since particle studies promised numerous more predictable results.

Also, I don't think "Aether" actually means a cloud of particles. More like a "field", like-say magnetic. Totally not observable until matter interacts with it, making it measurable so that "science" can observe it. I don't think he's looking at the "particle" so much as looking at the "action". It would behoove all of us Scientists, Engineers and even us Joe Schmoes to take a minute, step back and consider what WE might have missed in constructing our own respective world views.

Cuz we all know especially engineers that what we think we know - doesn't always work. Confrontation, derision, belittling, etc is usually a reaction to a that niggling little fear that everything we know MIGHT not be exactly as we've learned it. Either that or I'm wrong and it's just the way people relate to each other so this whole speech was just a waste of typing time. Either way - just my opinion Whydening Gyre i understand There are other issues that you are not aware of, I would share some of it but we dont have PM ability nor do I have your e-mail address.

Maggnus, The echos coming from the hollow cavity sitting on your upper extremity is just contaminating any possibility of a logical discussion.

When one has a physics derivation to make one has 1. Things that you know 2. Things that you do not yet know. Einstein knew that the rod is stationary within its own inertial reference frame and that it has a stationary length L; and wanted to know what the length of the rod is within the reference frame relative to which it is moving. Einstein did the opposite: So how can this be correct? Johan - For god's sake is right. Your questions are still immaterial , and still off topic. Try answering this question this Johan - what is this article about? Maggnus, This article is all about incorrect llogic and a lack of physics insight on the part of the "astrophysicist" who wrote it.

That is what it is all about! I have not asked immaterial questions but tried to explain to an empty head like you that a model in physics ONLY allows you to derive what you do not know in terms of what you know; not the other way around like Eisntein did when he derived length contraction which does not happen at all! Funny comment considering Einstein divides by 0. Funny comment considering Einstein divides by 0 What on earth are you talking about?

Obviously something is unaccounted for. I tend to believe it's because we know more about the specifics of the atom then Einstein did. Like the mass defects we see when we calculate the mass of an atom compared to when we measure it. Point is, us non-physicist need help from the people who actually do work with this stuff all the time. It's been quite a while since I studied this stuff in college, so getting back up to speed is more difficult than expected.

This being a physics site I think many people, including myself, are hopeful someone will be able to help with these "crackpot" ideas. Einstein was also considered a "crackpot" before Max Planck believed in his work Both Einstein and Minkowski did this. I wonder if the Hausdorff dimension of the wrongness of this argument is transcendental or merely irrational.

No, dumdum, you have continually done exactly what the article says crackpots like you do. I don't give a rats ass whether or not you are right.

iTunes is the world's easiest way to organize and add to your digital media collection.

The issue raised by the article is the actions of crackpots like you, who loudly claim to have proven some scientific postulate without pausing to consider whether your theory can replicate and improve on what the theory you propose to replace can do. Go quack somewhere else now, you freaking loon! Maggnus, all I can ask is why? Why wouldn't you consider any other possible explanations? Is this what science has become, complacent? You see, we are theorizing about the true cause of gravity, which is something every astrophysicist should be doing.

Either your so set with status quo, or your being defensive because your "gifted" mind hasn't thought of these ideas yet. Ot is plain Kindergarten algebra that is used every day by excited children to show that one can prove that any number can be proved to be equal to zero. Ot is plain Kindergarten algebra that is used every day by excited children to show that one can prove that any number can be proved to be equal to zero Transcendental it is Maggnus, Thank you for proving that you are to stupid to argue logic, and too dishonest to admit that you have lost an argument. Keep on throwing your toys out of your cot.

It supplies some amusement even though it is pathetic even for a brainless individual like you! Scroofinator Obviously something is unaccounted for absolutely, and the current physics community is working hard to find out the answers. Burning the midnight oil here One more thing: Captain Stumpy, You posted: So why do mainstream theoretical physicists still believe that a moving rod contracts in length and that amoving clock keeps slower time thah a clock relative to which it is moving. Both these aspects are easily refuted and are crackpot! If, however, you are attempting to make a claim, then it would be best to: It isn't that the moving clock keeps slower time than the one that is moving.

That would imply the existence of an absolute time. It is that anyone in the rest frame will measure a clock moving relative to it to be moving more slowly. In other words, if each tick is thought of as an event, the guy in the rest frame will see these tick events happen more slowly than the guy in the moving frame. Conversely, the guy who is moving will measure the other guy's clock to be moving slowly.

Relativity is about how physical objects interact as a result of these measurements. Asking how these clocks "truly keep time with respect to each other" is meaningless in the context of the theory. It's like asking what shape the soul has. Captain Stumpy, when an idea is considered, and discarded, using scientific method Thank you for finally bringing this up. If an idea has been tested via the scientific method to be proven false, than that's what it is until proven otherwise.

However, it seems that there are many here who refuse to use that logic. Mind you, even in this case, the manuscripts would not have been published if the editor did not insist on a continuing logical discussion between the reviewer and the author, until one of them is proved right. So what the F else do YOU want me to do? Are you really so dimwitted? GOD help this planet and save it from the mediocrity that you are representing!

The furlong, You posted that: Thus both will see the other's clock gpoing more slaowly. So which clock is actually goping more slowly? Not one of them: They MUST keep the same time within their own reference frames. Thus the one twin will NOT age at a faster rate than the other. Let twin B make a return trip from earth to alpha centauri and back. Let Twin A be on earth. Alpha Centauri is at rest with A and earth.

Twin B is not. Already there is a lack of symmetry, but let's take this further. When twin B reaches alpha centauri, he must change velocity to turn around. Once he changes velocity, he changes IRFs. Then, B must measure exactly what C measures, since they are at the same exact space coordinate, and are at rest with each other.

Finally, B travels back to earth and becomes at rest with A. From B's perspective, A ages slowly, then rapidly ages, then finally ages slowly again, then rapidly ages again once B becomes at rest with A at the same coordinate. So, the next comment will examine what A sees. Since she remained on earth, she remained in only one IRF the entire time, so her experience of B's aging is far less complicated.

In particular, she sees B travel to Alpha Centauri one way, and then return. To her, the entire time, B's clock will be ticking at the same, slow rate. B never rapidly ages according to her. Hence, the fundamental difference between these two situations is that because B changes IRF's he measures A's passage of time differently.

So, this is the explanation without math. All you have to do is use the Lorentz transformation to verify that this is how it happens. One last thing I forgot to mention that because A, earth, and alpha centauri are at rest, B will always see the distance between earth and alpha centauri as shorter than how A sees it until he finally becomes at rest with A at the very end, of course. Hence, B will experience the journey in a shorter amount of time than A.

So, you need to take that into consideration as well. The reviewers were forced to accept that they were wrong and that Einstein was and still is WRONG and we are just to take your word on this, right? GOD help this planet and save it from the mediocrity that you are representing my "mediocrity" seeks logic and empirical data and the fact that you resort to attacking my personal character with no proof means? You make exceptional claims which require exceptional proof but the fact that you are on a public pop-sci site in the comments making your claims and verbally assaulting people who require proof can be used as evidence that there is no substance to your requests for validation among the laymen GOD help Captain, you do realize that crackpots have no more insight into their own condition than any other sort of mental health patient suffering from any other form of delusion?

I mean, you know, consider again the article thread they're on while they prattle away about their pet psychosis You did not know this until you looked it up. To be fair, the article started it. If only the article had only harmlessly mentioned Einstein's name instead of invoking it to start a flame war, the crackpots would merely be bloviating in droves, instead of bloviating in droves while offended.

Let's look further into this, shall we? Hell, we don't even need special relativity for this, just galilean. Gawad Blathering to change the topic is cheap Reg, why don't you put your fingers where your mouth is unless of course that's up in the nether place, in which case you can spare us. Do try to be a little less childish, Gawad, you are making me feel embarrassed for the condescension you have received by various adults on this site who have tried to treat you as a sensible person If you look at previous comments, e.

How did I fail to explain the resolution to the twin paradox? What else needs explaining? Sorry to use you as an example, but your refutation of johan's argument requires that a light pulse travel in reverse and all experimental experience in our reality shows that light does not do this. I only posted excerpts from one google result out of dozens which claim the 'einstein divided by zero' thing. I do not claim to understand the math. I just like to look stuff up. How on earth did you come to this conclusion?

I wasn't impugning you. I was impugning the paper for being so bad at conceptualizing relative transformations. I mean, the guy at rest with x and and the guy at rest with x' can't measure the signal as traveling in different directions? Do try to be a little less childish, Gawad, you are making me feel embarrassed What could possible make you think I give a fecaloma what you feel?

Hey, if I can make you feel embarrassed, good! You should feel embarrased, especially since you can't answer a simple question. And yeah, I know exactly why you don't try to explain them: Reg Mundy requires that a light pulse travel in reverse and all experimental experience in our reality shows that light does not do this i am confused- you mean like this? So far, time reversal has been successfully demonstrated for pulses of a relatively narrow spectrum.

On the other hand, schemes that enable time-reversal of broadband pulses have required complicated techniques, making them difficult to implement and giving them low efficiencies. Captain Grumpy Light is moving photons created at a point of origin, and travels away from it, usually in many different directions. It does not originate in many different locations and travel spontaneously to a single location unless you are talking about time reversal, a meaningless concept in reality.

Gawad There is a full explanation of orbits without the need for "gravity" in several books including "The Situation of Gravity - Third Edition" and I do not intend to type it all out again here to indulge your indolence. By the way, do you "fixate" on a lot of things, or is it just "orbits"? Have you seen a psychiatrist? Theb furlong, You are just dishing up stale and wrong arguments without experimental proof.

Your "turn around" argument is illogical! Assume that the twins are set in relative motion so that they follow a large circular path which causes them to again reach one another in future. Which one has turned around and which one will be older than the other? And then of course the simplest argument: Consider two clocks in free space far fromany other objects or matter which move with a speed v relative to one another" Which clock is stationary and which clock is moving? One can choose either clock say A as stationary so that the other clock B must then keep slower time than the clock that has been chosen as stationary.

An observer at clock B, which is supposedly keeping slower time than clock A, is stationary relative to clock B, and will conclude that clock A which is now moving is keeping slower time than clock B. Thus, B could not initially have been slower than clock A. I assume this is addressed to me. While that's true, I don't see how that has anything to do with my explanation of the twin paradox.

I cannot debate you on this if you don't explain which part of my explanation requires photons to begin "at infinity" and converge at a source. Did Einstein divide by zero or what? Over time it became accepted that the experiments had been about proving or disproving the existence of the aether, and had formed a crucial logical step towards the theory of relativity.

Surprisingly the speech assumed the existence of the aether, even going so far as to say "space without ether is unthinkable. Yet that old concept of the aether survived in many circles, and in Miller began a further series of aether experiments. In Miller announced that he had found a consistent, but small, positive result over many years, and he concluded that "there is a relative motion of the earth through the ether," contrary to relativity.

Michelson and many others immediately began experiments of their own, none of which found positive results, and by even Miller was conceding that his results may have been in error. The aether was consigned to the same fate of such other hypothesized substances as phlogiston and caloric and magnetic effluvia. Over time those who had championed the aether have become something of a laughing stock, and the story of the search for the aether is told as though it was folly.

However, there were many good logical and scientific reasons for thinking the aether existed. Throughout the nineteenth century a number of key experimental results were obtained that seemed most easily explained by a electromagnetic medium. The controversial nature of many of the so-called "null" results in the aether-drift experiments did not immediately suggest the non-existence of the aether, and a number of innovative, but logical, explanations for the Michelson-Morley results were given, some of which helped inspire relativity theory.

The Ether Dispute: Revisiting Einstein's Argument That Space Is a Physical Substance

The aether was shown to be undetectable and unnecessary, however, that does not imply that it may not exist. There may indeed be a substance that acts as a medium for the transmission of light that has no other properties. John Bell , a mathematical physicist, even proposed that the theory of the aether be revived as a solution to a dilemma in quantum physics—although perhaps only half-seriously.

The aether is still occasionally invoked by inventors of impossible perpetual motion machines and free-energy devices, but it should be remembered that it once had the support of solid evidence and logical arguments, and it only disappeared from scientific thought after many years of debate and experiment showed that it was simpler to abandon the medium than explain its weird properties and lack of detectability. In the opening years of the twentieth century, the study of light was the central concern of most leading physicists.

Mainstream physics agreed that light consisted of electro-magnetic waves, moving through a substance called the aether. However, the precise nature of the aether had not been identified and the resolution of this problem was regarded as the major task for physics in the new century. Then, due to his musings on the significance of the speed of light, Albert Einstein developed a revolutionary framework for thinking about the relationship between space and time.

In a few years, the special theory of relativity, as this framework was called, had changed the focus of physics. This transformed the understanding of light. Einstein showed that the aether, and the notion of absolute space and time that it represented, did not exist. The aether gradually ceased to be of any interest to the mainstream of inquiry in the physical sciences. Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect also transformed the understanding of light waves. This led to the idea of wave-particle duality as a way of characterizing the nature of light in different situations.

Prior to the nineteenth century, the mainstream of scientific thought regarded light as streams of tiny particles. This was the position of Sir Isaac Newton , whose authority had an enormous influence on all fields of scientific endeavor. It was not until the nineteenth century that serious consideration began to be given to the idea that light might consist of waves rather than particles.

Successive experiments by physicists found that the wave theory best explained the behavior of light. The work of the British physicist James Maxwell on electro-magnetic phenomena further strengthened this approach. Maxwell developed equations to describe the behavior of electro-magnetic phenomena. Thus, he was able to calculate the speed at which electro-magnetic waves moved in a vacuum, which coincided with the velocity of light. From this, Maxwell concluded that light was waves of oscillating electro-magnetic charges.

The triumph of the wave theory of light made the aether the center of attention. The aether had a long history in philosophical thought about the nature of the universe. It was believed to be the substance that filled up the realms of celestial space and was often identified as the mysterious fifth element, along with air, water, earth, and fire, the basis of all matter. The aether acquired additional significance in the nineteenth century, with its emphasis upon a mechanical approach in which all events could be attributed to local causes.

Nineteenth-century physicists were opposed to the idea of action at a distance, the idea that an object at one point could affect an object at another point with no medium for the effect. For a lighted candle to influence another object, such as the human eye, there had to be something that could transmit the influence from one point to another. If light was a wave, it required a medium to move through. As it had been observed that light traveled through a vacuum, it was concluded that whatever the medium of light was, it was even thinner than air.

The aether, the mysterious substance that filled space, was identified as the luminiferous medium. Therefore, to understand light, it was necessary to understand the special characteristics of the light medium. Many physicists developed complex models in order to try and describe the aether, but none of these were able to capture its special and apparently contradictory qualities.

The aether had to be very thin and elastic, so that solid objects, such as the earth, could pass through it without resistance. At the same time, it had to be very dense to allow for the transmission of the vibration of light from one part of the aether to the next at such high speeds. For the last two decades of the nineteenth century, the attempt to accurately describe the aether occupied some of the best minds in physics. One of the most crucial issues regarding the aether was the question of its immobility. Most physicists regarded the aether as fixed and stagnant, completely stationary.

Objects might move through it, but no part of the aether was moving, relative to any other part. It stretched throughout space, acting as a framework against which the movement of light could be studied and measured. In this sense, the aether can be identified with the concept of absolute space. Most of the statements made about the movement of objects in the universe were relative; Earth was moving at a certain speed relative to the Moon, or another moving planetary object. Yet nineteenth-century science had at its foundation the idea of absolute space and time, a fixed reference system in nature from which Earth's absolute velocity could be measured.

All movement in the universe was therefore movement relative to this stationary system. However, given that we participate in Earth's movement through the universe, some people were skeptical about the possibility of being able to step outside this and gain knowledge of our absolute position in the universe. As James Maxwell so eloquently wrote: We are, as it were, on an unruffled sea, without stars, compass, soundings, wind or tide, and we cannot tell in what directions we are going.

We have no log which we can cast out to take a reckoning by; we may compare our rate of motion with respect to the neighboring bodies, but we do not know how these bodies may be moving in space. However, not everyone shared this vision of humanity hurtling blindly through space. Many believed that the aether provided a fixed reference system against which all motion could be measured. Two American scientists, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley , constructed a machine that could theoretically discern the speed of Earth through the aether. The Michelson-Morley experiment was set up to measure the impact of the aether drift on the velocity of light.

The aether drift was the wind that was created by the velocity of Earth through the motionless aether, just as a person traveling in a car on a still day feels a wind if he or she put a hand out the window. Michelson reasoned that this wind should have an effect on the speed of light. He set up a machine that constructed a race between two rays of light, one moving in the same direction that Earth was moving, and the other in a perpendicular direction.

The effect of the aether drift meant that one ray of light should reach the finish line before the other. The difference in time would be incredibly small, but Michelson devised a machine, based on earlier experiments, called an interferometer, that was sensitive enough to be able to measure the difference. However, the experiment produced a null result.

The rays of light were unaffected by the aether drift.

Bookseller Completion Rate

This suggested that, relative to the aether, Earth was not moving at all. It was as if the car you were in was traveling at 40 mph 70 kph , but you could not feel the wind that should have been created by the velocity of the vehicle. This result was puzzling, because so much of what scientists knew about the movement of light depended upon the existence of the aether drift. Once again, the mysterious aether had appeared to evade detection.

A variety of different explanations were developed that tried to account for Michelson and Morley's results. However, until Einstein, none directly questioned the existence of the aether itself. Conceptually, it was too fundamental to the fabric of physics as a medium for the movement of electro-magnetic phenomena. One physicist who was particularly interested in the significance of the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was H.

Therefore, Earth's velocity through the aether caused a contraction in matter that was positioned parallel to Earth's movement. In the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, everything that was traveling into the aether wind was contracted. This contraction canceled out the disadvantage of racing into the wind, producing the null result. Lorentz admitted that this theory was "very startling. In , Albert Einstein considered the problem from a different angle. The issue of the movement through the aether was not his prime concern.

Instead, Einstein's theories were produced out of his consideration on the contradictions between two apparently valid principles. The first was the Galilean principle of relativity, which says that the laws regarding motion are the same regardless of the frame of reference. In other words, whether you are in a car traveling at a uniform speed of kph, or in a train traveling at 10 kph, the laws of motion are the same in both cases. According to the principle of relativity then, this must be the speed of light in all circumstances, whether it is measured in a car or on a train, regardless of the speed at which these are moving.

Within the existing framework of physics, this was impossible, because the speed of anything always depended upon the framework from which it was being measured. For instance, the speed of the car might be kph as measured from the roadside, but it will only be 90 kph measured from a train traveling parallel in the same direction at 10 kph. The same should apply to light. Therefore, either the principle that states the speed of light, or the principle of relativity, had to be incorrect.

However, Einstein found that the problem lay with the concept of absolute space and time. The old approach assumed that space and time were the same for all observers. Between any two events, say the firing of a pistol and the bullet striking its target, there would be a spatial separation, perhaps 80 ft 25 m , and a time interval, perhaps 0. Einstein was able to show that this was not the case; the observed spatial separation of and time interval between the events depend on the reference frame of the observer.

By eliminating the assumptions of absolute space and time, Einstein was able to develop a consistent physics in which the speed of light was always c, regardless of the frame of reference. This resolved the apparent contradiction that had so troubled him. These calculations exactly mirrored those that Lorentz had earlier devised in his observations, but Einstein was the first to recognize their true significance for ideas about space and time.

These conclusions form the basis of what is known as the special theory of relativity. The relativity of space and time had enormous consequences for the role of the aether in physics. Einstein's statement at the beginning of his paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" indicates this. As Einstein points out, the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment will always be null. Because of this shift away from notions of absolute space and time, it was gradually recognized that the aether, or any kind of medium for light, was unnecessary. Einstein's work in was also significant for light in other respects.

The wave theory of light appeared to have triumphed over the particle theory in the nineteenth century. But Einstein's work on the photoelectric effect showed that the wave theory was by itself insufficient to explain the behavior of light. He reintroduced the notion of particles of light into the vocabulary of physics, but this time in a much more sophisticated way. In terms of its interaction with matter, Einstein suggested light was composed of particles of energy. These particles interacted with matter, and could eject electrons from their original positions.

The development of the idea of light photons, as they came to be known, challenged the earlier dichotomy between theories of light based on particles or waves. Whether the concept of light as a wave or as a particle is more appropriate depends on the context of what is being observed. The two models complement each other, and this is referred to as wave-particle duality. Einstein's work on light went beyond classical physics in two respects.

He eliminated the need for the aether as the light medium, and he demonstrated that the description of light as a wave was inadequate to explain all the characteristics of light. As in most cases, the publication of Einstein's work in did not cause a sudden rupture with earlier ideas. The full ramifications were not immediately apparent to all, and many physicists ignored his work and carried on with their own research into the aether. But gradually, the impact began to filter through the profession of physics, and the cutting edge of physics was inquiry based on these new ideas.

The aether was firmly tied to the most basic assumptions of nineteenth-century physics. With the death of absolute space, it ceased to be of any interest to most mainstream physicists. The Trail of Light: Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, The Special and the General Theory. Physics in the Nineteenth Century. New Brunswick , NJ: Rutgers University Press, University of Texas Press, The relative movement of Earth and the aether. The velocity of Earth through the stagnant aether creates an aether drift. The medium is displaced in line or parallel to the direction of travel, causing compressions and rarefactions.

Sound waves in air are longitudinal. Release of electrons from an object exposed to electromagnetic radiation.

• Jumping Thoughts
• Bradys Lament (The Brady Charles Series Book 1)
• Teaching Tough Kids: Simple and Proven Strategies for Student Success (David Fulton Books)
• Movement 2
• Boriken, Isla del amor (Spanish Edition)
• Running The World: Belgrade, Serbia (Blaze Travel Guides)
• Trio Sonata in G major (violin part) BWV1038 - Violin