Ether/Tsolkas

[WanderingLands]

I've been exploring a bit of some science by a man named Christos A. Tsolkas, who has a website about questioning Einstein's Relativity, Galileo, and also talking about the Ether and his own Electrogravitational Theory. I'm still looking to explore more of his stuff, and I'm not saying that his ideas are true or false; I'm just giving you guys some different perspectives on science.

http://www.tsolkas.gr/html/english.html

[Cerveny]

With a range of opinions, I can only agree. As for me, one, who denies the aether, is not a physicist but a mathematician (regardless of MM experiment that can be interpreted any way). As evidence of aether is sufficient for me any vacuum polarization (electric / magnetic / gravitational) or even phenomenon of inertial movement...

[WanderingLands]

With a range of opinions, I can only agree. As for me, one, who denies the aether, is not a physicist but a mathematician (regardless of MM experiment that can be interpreted any way). As evidence of aether is sufficient for me any vacuum polarization (electric / magnetic / gravitational) or even phenomenon of inertial movement...

It is most definitely logical that an ether must exist in order to explain the cause of energy and many other things. Without that, we could not explain energy which is what the modern scientific establishment has run into, with their Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Black Holes, Multiverse, etc. I'm not a scientist, but an ether is indeed logical and real.

[Ginkgo]

This might help to put things into perspective.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson ... ternatives

[WanderingLands]

This might help to put things into perspective.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson ... ternatives

Alright well here are some info that does so, too.

* How to Make a Universe (Part One): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8Hgaa6wlNs

Watch mainly at 2:20, where the video mentions James Clark Maxwell who made explanations for an ether through using mathematical equations. At 3:37, William Clifford came up with the idea that matter was made up of waves, which solved the problem of how matter was part of ether, and then it mentions Lorentz, who said that if the electron was what held the atom together, then it would prove Maxwell's equations on ether.

* Einstein and the Ether: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096836 ... d_i=507846

Book on Amazon talks of how Einstein did not disregard the idea of ether, but actually replaced the 19th century concept of ether with his own "space-time" ether based on Relativity.

You can also look at his views on Ether here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminifero ... the_aether

* The Defiance of Nikola Tesla: http://aetherforce.com/the-defiance-of-nikola-tesla/

The link above shows Tesla's lectury back in 1937, where he was talking about ether.

Only the existence of a field of force can account for the
motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption
dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this
subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all
attempts to explain the workings of the universe without
recognizing the existence of the ether and the
indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest
importance. As I have searched the entire scientific
records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time
without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself
the original discoverer of this truth, which can be
expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter
other than that received from the environment.”
-Nikola Tesla

Another website on Tesla: http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles ... ew-physics

[Ginkgo]

This might help to put things into perspective.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson ... ternatives

Alright well here are some info that does so, too.

* How to Make a Universe (Part One): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8Hgaa6wlNs

Watch mainly at 2:20, where the video mentions James Clark Maxwell who made explanations for an ether through using mathematical equations. At 3:37, William Clifford came up with the idea that matter was made up of waves, which solved the problem of how matter was part of ether, and then it mentions Lorentz, who said that if the electron was what held the atom together, then it would prove Maxwell's equations on ether.

* Einstein and the Ether: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096836 ... d_i=507846

Book on Amazon talks of how Einstein did not disregard the idea of ether, but actually replaced the 19th century concept of ether with his own "space-time" ether based on Relativity.

You can also look at his views on Ether here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminifero ... the_aether

* The Defiance of Nikola Tesla: http://aetherforce.com/the-defiance-of-nikola-tesla/

The link above shows Tesla's lectury back in 1937, where he was talking about ether.

Only the existence of a field of force can account for the
motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption
dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this
subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all
attempts to explain the workings of the universe without
recognizing the existence of the ether and the
indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.
My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest
importance. As I have searched the entire scientific
records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time
without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself
the original discoverer of this truth, which can be
expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter
other than that received from the environment.”
-Nikola Tesla

Another website on Tesla: http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles ... ew-physics

I said a number of things in my previous post that I believe still stand. I have nothing against the revival of the old ether theory, but the problem at this stage is the theory cannot compete with the accurate experimental predictions and explanatory power of current theories that have evolved from the ether proposal.

If the ether theory is to be demonstrated as viable then proponents need to show the ability of of the theory to provide reliable and accurate predictions.

[Cerveny]

I am sorry but the discussion with someone who has doubts about the aether (who thinks that the physical space is empty) about the physics seems a waste of time... Logical arguments in favor of ether are the absolute.
http://www.anti-relativity.com/

[Ginkgo]

I am sorry but the discussion with someone who has doubts about the aether (who thinks that the physical space is empty) about the physics seems a waste of time...

I didn't actually advocate that posoition.

Logical arguments in favor of ether are the absolute.
http://www.anti-relativity.com/

True. The ontological argument for the existence of God is absolute in exactly the same way.

[WanderingLands]

I said a number of things in my previous post that I believe still stand. I have nothing against the revival of the old ether theory, but the problem at this stage is the theory cannot compete with the accurate experimental predictions and explanatory power of current theories that have evolved from the ether proposal.

If the ether theory is to be demonstrated as viable then proponents need to show the ability of of the theory to provide reliable and accurate predictions.

Alright, well here are some experimental proofs then.

http://zelmanov.ptep-online.com/papers/zj-2008-08.pdf

The above experiment showed that by using a rotator that the luminous ether does indeed exist.

The outcome of these measurements shows that in ambient space,
light propagates with speed V0 independent of the motion of the apparatus,
the light source O and the optical system. This property of
space describes the luminiferous ether experimentally.

Another experiment, done by Chrisots A.Tsolkas done in 2002 proves the existence of the ether.

http://www.tsolkas.gr/files/experimental.pdf

[WanderingLands]

A ton of experiments on ether from the Natural Philosophy Alliance.

http://www.worldnpa.org/site/topic/?top ... =abstracts

[Ginkgo]

I don't really see how the cobbling together of scientific equipment can be compared to the precision and accuracy of modern scientific equipment. It seems somewhat of a mismatch. If there was an ether drift it would have been detected by now.

[WanderingLands]

I don't really see how the cobbling together of scientific equipment can be compared to the precision and accuracy of modern scientific equipment. It seems somewhat of a mismatch. If there was an ether drift it would have been detected by now.

So how would you know if these "modern scientific equipment" were accurate? What makes the more expensive equipment much more accurate than the cheaper equipment that you can acquire to test these things?

[Arising_uk]

... What makes the more expensive equipment much more accurate than the cheaper equipment that you can acquire to test these things?

Because increased accuracy costs more to make.

Now I have no idea whether these experiments you talk about prove or don't prove anything with respect to Physics but what I do understand is that you appear to think the physics bods are ignoring them for some nefarious reason and I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Why? Because physicists are a glory seeking competitive bunch and if there was the slightest chance that one of them could prove Einstein wrong then they would just jump at the chance as it'd earn them a noble prize. Since there do not appear to be any under or graduates jumping at the chance I can only assume they've looked at such things and decided they are not worth the effort. Still, could be wrong so why don't you post such stuff in a Physics forum and get some informed feedback as this is not philosophy of science but physics.

[uwot]

So how would you know if these "modern scientific equipment" were accurate?

There are many different versions, the very best are designed by highly qualified engineers and built by highly qualified technicians and they all say pretty much the same thing. There is no evidence for aether drag that would suggest an absolute aether. It doesn't follow that there isn't a relativistic aether and there are some theorists who think the Higgs field is it. The evidence for the Higgs field, the Higgs boson, was (further investigation pending) 'discovered' by the Large Hadron Collider, the most expensive scientific equipment ever built. Not least of the reasons for the cost is that it is bloody huge.

What makes the more expensive equipment much more accurate than the cheaper equipment that you can acquire to test these things?

To add to what Arising said, highly qualified engineers and highly qualified technicians aren't cheap, although the drones and graduate students that do all the dreary, but essential data assessment won't leave you too badly out of pocket.

[Cerveny]

I can understand that cannot be explained that mainstream physics is in trouble to the people without sense/feeling for physics (or to deluded believers ). But I cannot understand why they do not become uncertain that their perfect theory is not able to describe / explain / find 80% of the reality...
It seems that physics has become the faith: (