What are the properties of empty space?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Blaggard
Posts: 2245
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by Blaggard »

WanderingLands wrote:If you were to search that paper online (which I doubt you did), the paper showed graphs and detailed documentation of Dayton Miller's experiments, which did show positive results on the ether. Whether or not the peer review accepts it is futile, because it would be a fallicious appeal to authority and false superiority to just believe them just because they claim 'science'. I believe anyone can figure it out through their own reasoning and investigating.
I did I read it, it turns out his experiments were not actually able to be verified to any substantial account by others. And that his drift was not substantial enough to have a bearing on science, it's all very well to whine about a result that is so tiny that when repeated it does not bear scrutiny but I will forgo it if you please.

Don't assume I did not do the leg work, I already know about Dayton, it is hence not worth reviewing a failed experiment.

I believe only that science relies on proof, a lack of proof is not apt.
User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by WanderingLands »

Blaggard wrote:
WanderingLands wrote:If you were to search that paper online (which I doubt you did), the paper showed graphs and detailed documentation of Dayton Miller's experiments, which did show positive results on the ether. Whether or not the peer review accepts it is futile, because it would be a fallicious appeal to authority and false superiority to just believe them just because they claim 'science'. I believe anyone can figure it out through their own reasoning and investigating.
I did I read it, it turns out his experiments were not actually able to be verified to any substantial account by others. And that his drift was not substantial enough to have a bearing on science, it's all very well to whine about a result that is so tiny that when repeated it does not bear scrutiny but I will forgo it if you please.

Don't assume I did not do the leg work, I already know about Dayton, it is hence not worth reviewing a failed experiment.

I believe only that science relies on proof, a lack of proof is not apt.
That's not what the actual article had said; it actually disproves that misconception.

Excerpt:
Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry. Other positive ether-detection experiments have been undertaken, such as the work of Sagnac (1913) and Michelson and Gale (1925), documenting the existence in light-speed variations (c+v > c-v), but these were not adequately constructed for detection of a larger cosmological ether-drift, of the Earth and Solar System moving through the background of space. Dayton Miller's work on ether-drift was so constructed, however, and yielded consistently positive results.

Miller's work, which ran from 1906 through the mid-1930s, most strongly supports the idea of an ether-drift, of the Earth moving through a cosmological medium, with calculations made of the actual direction and magnitude of drift. By 1933, Miller concluded that the Earth was drifting at a speed of 208 km/sec. towards an apex in the Southern Celestial Hemisphere, towards Dorado, the swordfish, right ascension 4 hrs 54 min., declination of -70° 33', in the middle of the Great Magellanic Cloud and 7° from the southern pole of the ecliptic. (Miller 1933, p.234) This is based upon a measured displacement of around 10 km/sec. at the interferometer, and assuming the Earth was pushing through a stationary, but Earth-entrained ether in that particular direction, which lowered the velocity of the ether from around 200 to 10 km/sec. at the Earth's surface. Today, however, Miller's work is hardly known or mentioned, as is the case with nearly all the experiments which produced positive results for an ether in space. Modern physics today points instead to the much earlier and less significant 1887 work of Michelson-Morley, as having "proved the ether did not exist".
Excerpt 2:
Miller was fully aware of the criticisms being made against his findings, that his interferometer was responding to one or another mechanical, magnetic or thermal influence. Given its large size and sensitivity, it required a careful set-up procedure prior to each use. Setting screws with extremely fine threads were used to adjust the mirrors, and the final adjustment could isolate 100 wavelengths of light by just a 16° turn of the screw. Even this was insufficient for the final adjustment, which was made by adding small weights of around 100 gram to the ends of cross-beam, which was sufficient to cause a micro-flexing of the iron supports by only a few wavelengths. Only then would the interference fringes come into view. And once in view, additional care had to be taken to prevent distortions from mechanical vibrations. Consequently, from the very beginning of the ether-drift experiments, Miller undertook extensive control experiments and procedures to guard against laboratory artifacts, and to objectively determine just how sensitive his apparatus was to external influences.

Especially between 1922-1924, Miller's control experiments were most rigorous, aimed at addressing the criticisms he had received following the earlier work, to make the apparatus as sensitive as possible only to ether-drift. A special interferometer of aluminum and brass was constructed, to guard against the possible effects of magnetoconstriction (the measured periodic ether-drifting was the same as with the original iron interferometer). Procedures were made to judge the effects of mechanical vibration — such as using a loose or tight centering pin. Bases made of wood, metal or concrete were floated in the mercury tank, to judge and correct for the effects of strain and deformation. The apparatus was not touched when operating, but rather gently pulled in a circle by a thin string, slowly accelerated to the desired velocity of rotation while floating in the mercury tank. Different light sources were tried, mounted on different locations on the apparatus. Light sources outside the structure were also tried, including Sunlight, but finally an artificial light source located above the central axis of the instrument was used.
Excerpt 3:
Miller's work did finally receive an indirect support from Albert Michelson in 1929, with the publication of "Repetition of the Michelson-Morley Experiment" (Michelson, Pease, Pearson 1929). The paper reported on three attempts to produce ether-drift fringe shifts, using light-beam interferometry similar to that originally employed in the Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiments.

In the first experiment, undertaken in June of 1926, the interferometer was the same dimensions as the original M-M apparatus, with a round-trip light path of around 22 meters. A fringe shift displacement of 0.017 was predicted, but the conclusions stated "No displacement of this order was observed". The second experiment, undertaken on unspecified "autumn" dates in 1927, employed a slightly longer round-trip light path of around 32 meters (given as 53' for an assumed one-way distance). Again, "no displacement of the order anticipated was obtained", and the short report did not give details about the experimental surroundings or locations.

The third experiment was undertaken on an unspecified date (probably 1928) in "a well-sheltered basement room of the Mount Wilson Laboratory". The round-trip light path was further increased to approximately 52 meters (given as 85' for an assumed one-way distance). This time, having moved the apparatus to a higher altitude and using a longer light-path, a small quantity of ether-drift was detected which approximated the result observed by Miller, although the results were unjustifiably reported in negative terms:

"... precautions taken to eliminate effects of temperature and flexure disturbances were effective. The results gave no displacement as great as one-fifteenth of that to be expected on the supposition of an effect due to a motion of the solar system of three hundred kilometers per second. These results are differences between the displacements observed at maximum and minimum at sidereal times, the directions corresponding to ... calculations of the supposed velocity of the solar system. A supplementary series of observations made in directions half-way between gave similar results." (Michelson, Pease, Pearson 1929)
One fifteenth of 300 km/sec. is 20 km/sec., a result the authors dismissed as they apparently had discarded the concept of an Earth-entrained ether, which would move more slowly closer to sea level. A similar result of 24 km/sec. was achieved by the team of Kennedy-Thorndike in 1932, however they also dismissed the concept of an entrained ether and, consequently, their own measured result: "In view of relative velocities amounting to thousands of kilometers per second known to exist among the nebulae, this can scarcely be regarded as other than a clear null result". This incredible statement serves to illustrate how deeply ingrained was the concept of a static ether.
For anyone to learn more, click here: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
Blaggard
Posts: 2245
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:17 pm

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by Blaggard »

No it isn't is it be honest, it proves nothing and if it was repeated it proved nothing.

Old fashioned, and dismissed by science, because it didn't pan out. It's not worth our time reading old news cuttings for old news that did not work.

You've cherry picked haven't you WL, you haven't actually presented the length and breadth of his experiment, all you've done is present the 1 dimensional things, that he advocated.

Seems odd though that you are going back to the past nearly 100 years to prove what science now dismisses out of hand for very good reasons at the time. It ended up being disproven, it can't now be resurrected like a zombie from the past.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by Ginkgo »

Blaggard wrote:No it isn't is it be honest, it proves nothing and if it was repeated it proved nothing.

Old fashioned, and dismissed by science, because it didn't pan out. It's not worth our time reading old news cuttings for old news that did not work.

You've cherry picked haven't you WL, you haven't actually presented the length and breadth of his experiment, all you've done is present the 1 dimensional things, that he advocated.

Seems odd though that you are going back to the past nearly 100 years to prove what science now dismisses out of hand for very good reasons at the time. It ended up being disproven, it can't now be resurrected like a zombie from the past.

Yes, I think you are correct Blags. If we read the article we can see there is nothing new except more accusations and counter accusations by the scientists interested or involved. The author asks the reader to draw their own conclusions, resulting in a pointing to the fact that the Miller, Michelson/Morley experiments were inconclusive.

We can say the results were inconclusive for one reason or another. Where we side with "one reason or another" is irrelevant when it comes to science. What happened was that someone developed an alternative hypothesis that provided a better explanation for the observations, or lack of observations while all of this toing and froing was going on.

That's how science works.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by Cerveny »

Do not worry, WanderingLands, be cool :) you are on the right side. Some guys lost the sense for reality. Science does not work well. It is helpless to face "dark matter", "gravity quantization", "singularities" and others problems... Most of reasonable scientists is aware of it but they are only ashamed to confess : "Emperor is naked!"
Please refer eg. to the "http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo ... rk-energy/" they say:
...
Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the Universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues.
...
How would all relieved if they wrote "matter entrainment by ether" instead of "new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field..."
Aether acts as a clutch / glue there...
jackles
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 10:40 pm

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by jackles »

space and time didnt just happen to be there for the creation of mass to get relative location.no time and space existed as nothing and so did mass.they are an expression from nothing.to get movment from nothing.so i reckon time space and mass where or abstracted them selfs from nothing at the same moment.time and space where not as it were just hanging around for somethimg to happen.all the happening action things happened at once from the never happened or ever will happened state.the happening action event cannot change the never will happen status of nothing.why because the action state is in reality nothing presenting its self as something.its an illusion relative to the never will happen state.its all realy nothing just having fun being something.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by Ginkgo »

Cerveny wrote:Do not worry, WanderingLands, be cool :) you are on the right side. Some guys lost the sense for reality. Science does not work well. It is helpless to face "dark matter", "gravity quantization", "singularities" and others problems... Most of reasonable scientists is aware of it but they are only ashamed to confess : "Emperor is naked!"
Please refer eg. to the "http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo ... rk-energy/" they say:

That is why Roger Penrose wrote, "The Emperors New Mind"

Cerveny wrote:
...
Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the Universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues.
...
How would all relieved if they wrote "matter entrainment by ether" instead of "new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field..."
Aether acts as a clutch / glue there...
Esoteric explanations are a desire to close up shop and say the work is done. That's not science.
User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by WanderingLands »

Cerveny wrote:Do not worry, WanderingLands, be cool :) you are on the right side. Some guys lost the sense for reality. Science does not work well. It is helpless to face "dark matter", "gravity quantization", "singularities" and others problems... Most of reasonable scientists is aware of it but they are only ashamed to confess : "Emperor is naked!"
Please refer eg. to the "http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo ... rk-energy/" they say:
...
Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the Universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues.
...
How would all relieved if they wrote "matter entrainment by ether" instead of "new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field..."
Aether acts as a clutch / glue there...
Yes, the scientific establishment is indeed an example of 'the Emperor wears no clothes' scenario. It's quite funny, especially on the Internet, to encounter a group of people willing to defend the establishment and to attack anyone who goes against it. Definitely nothing new under the sun. :wink:

Reading that website on Dark Matter, it appears to me that it may obviously be the aether that they are talking about (I've read somewhere on a website called 'Aetherometry' or 'Orgone Lab' that it could possibly be also the 'Orgonite' energy that Wilhelm Reich was propounding on). The current standard model obviously isn't working, with matter being dominant along with gravity and including the whole bunch of Quantum BS, so obviously they came up with 'Dark Matter' to fool the public.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3353
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by HexHammer »

Cerveny wrote:Do not worry, WanderingLands, be cool :) you are on the right side. Some guys lost the sense for reality. Science does not work well. It is helpless to face "dark matter
Ah yes, that's why it's far better to listen to you, than far far more intelligent people.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by Ginkgo »

WanderingLands wrote:
Yes, the scientific establishment is indeed an example of 'the Emperor wears no clothes' scenario. It's quite funny, especially on the Internet, to encounter a group of people willing to defend the establishment and to attack anyone who goes against it. Definitely nothing new under the sun. :wink:
Wanderinglands, you have probably noted that I don't attack anyone. I attack their arguments.



WanderingLands wrote:
Reading that website on Dark Matter, it appears to me that it may obviously be the aether that they are talking about (I've read somewhere on a website called 'Aetherometry' or 'Orgone Lab' that it could possibly be also the 'Orgonite' energy that Wilhelm Reich was propounding on). The current standard model obviously isn't working, with matter being dominant along with gravity and including the whole bunch of Quantum BS, so obviously they came up with 'Dark Matter' to fool the public.
An important distinction needs to be made when it comes to dark energy and dark matter. Visible and non-visible matter only makes up about 30% of the universe.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

As I promised, I'm putting up links to further stir thinking and exploration. Here's a link:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/de_whatmight.htm

PhilX
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by Cerveny »

WanderingLands wrote:
Cerveny wrote:Do not worry, WanderingLands, be cool :) you are on the right side. Some guys lost the sense for reality. Science does not work well. It is helpless to face "dark matter", "gravity quantization", "singularities" and others problems... Most of reasonable scientists is aware of it but they are only ashamed to confess : "Emperor is naked!"
Please refer eg. to the "http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo ... rk-energy/" they say:
...
Another explanation for dark energy is that it is a new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field, something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the Universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. Some theorists have named this "quintessence," after the fifth element of the Greek philosophers. But, if quintessence is the answer, we still don't know what it is like, what it interacts with, or why it exists. So the mystery continues.
...
How would all relieved if they wrote "matter entrainment by ether" instead of "new kind of dynamical energy fluid or field..."
Aether acts as a clutch / glue there...
Yes, the scientific establishment is indeed an example of 'the Emperor wears no clothes' scenario. It's quite funny, especially on the Internet, to encounter a group of people willing to defend the establishment and to attack anyone who goes against it. Definitely nothing new under the sun. :wink:

Reading that website on Dark Matter, it appears to me that it may obviously be the aether that they are talking about (I've read somewhere on a website called 'Aetherometry' or 'Orgone Lab' that it could possibly be also the 'Orgonite' energy that Wilhelm Reich was propounding on). The current standard model obviously isn't working, with matter being dominant along with gravity and including the whole bunch of Quantum BS, so obviously they came up with 'Dark Matter' to fool the public.
Phenomenon of "dark matter" has probably the same basis as the "duality of elementary particles": it is the entrainment of matter by moving space ("dark matter") and vice versa entrainment of space by moving mass (waving manifestation of moving elementary particles). Because of matter is part of (physical) space - damaged aether...
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12259
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by Arising_uk »

WanderingLands wrote:...
Yes, the scientific establishment is indeed an example of 'the Emperor wears no clothes' scenario. It's quite funny, especially on the Internet, to encounter a group of people willing to defend the establishment and to attack anyone who goes against it. Definitely nothing new under the sun. :wink:

Reading that website on Dark Matter, it appears to me that it may obviously be the aether that they are talking about (I've read somewhere on a website called 'Aetherometry' or 'Orgone Lab' that it could possibly be also the 'Orgonite' energy that Wilhelm Reich was propounding on). The current standard model obviously isn't working, with matter being dominant along with gravity and including the whole bunch of Quantum BS, so obviously they came up with 'Dark Matter' to fool the public.
You really are the full biscuit aren't you. Tell you what, stop waffling conspiracy theories, go learn Physics and Maths and prove your 'science' right and the 'scientific establishment' wrong. It's easy, a bit of hard work and application, experimentation, peer review and bingo, the Noble Prize is yours.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12259
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by Arising_uk »

The properties of empty space?

Its empty and theres space.
Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: What are the properties of empty space?

Post by Philosophy Explorer »

Arising_uk wrote:The properties of empty space?

Its empty and theres space.
Trying to imitate me. Never!!!

The NOVA program I watched said that empty space had many properties. Wanna (bad grammar) try again?

PhilX
Post Reply