Philosophy Now Forum

Izzywizzy wrote:Converge wrote

Back when we started to discover the relativistic and quantum properties of the universe, most other scientists were exactly like you guys, calling it "unreasonable" and too weird, and refusing to budge from the medieval belief system.

Exactly and that is the problem when there is talk about reviewing Aether today.

The point you're missing is that they then performed experiments that showed beyond any reasonable doubt that they were wrong about the aether. True scientists do not put absolute faith in a particular thing like aether and then say "We have to prove it's real no matter what; any data that looks like it proves us wrong needs to be ignored!" Some "scientists" do that, but we call them Republican shills, not scientists. The scientists back then performed experiments to try to prove the aether, and they failed, and they admitted they were wrong, and moved on. That is why they changed their minds. If you want to try to change everyone's mind back to thinking that all of modern science is wrong and we need to start over from Newtonian physics, then you would need to also perform experiments that proved the aether was there, and have them reviewed by other scientists and make the experiments reproducible so that skeptics could try them on their own. Just saying that the entire world is a vast conspiracy against aether isn't going to change anyone's minds except other conspiracy theorists. Pointing to a discredited scientist who refuses to let anyone review his work and who claims that his experiments are too special to be reproduced is not going to convince any scientist. The scientists who doubted relativity for being "too weird" were not saying there was a vast worldwide conspiracy promoting aether and that it was full of lies and false data. They knew that they didn't yet have any data showing that aether was real, and so they decided to test for it. The two situations are not the same at all.

converge wrote: The point you're missing is that they then performed experiments that showed beyond any reasonable doubt that they were wrong about the aether. True scientists do not put absolute faith in a particular thing like aether and then say "We have to prove it's real no matter what; any data that looks like it proves us wrong needs to be ignored!" Some "scientists" do that, but we call them Republican shills, not scientists. The scientists back then performed experiments to try to prove the aether, and they failed, and they admitted they were wrong, and moved on. That is why they changed their minds. If you want to try to change everyone's mind back to thinking that all of modern science is wrong and we need to start over from Newtonian physics, then you would need to also perform experiments that proved the aether was there, and have them reviewed by other scientists and make the experiments reproducible so that skeptics could try them on their own. Just saying that the entire world is a vast conspiracy against aether isn't going to change anyone's minds except other conspiracy theorists. Pointing to a discredited scientist who refuses to let anyone review his work and who claims that his experiments are too special to be reproduced is not going to convince any scientist. The scientists who doubted relativity for being "too weird" were not saying there was a vast worldwide conspiracy promoting aether and that it was full of lies and false data. They knew that they didn't yet have any data showing that aether was real, and so they decided to test for it. The two situations are not the same at all.

Because of physics gets nowhere fast for many long years the contemplative people try to find out where the problem is. Because of quantum mechanics is very useful and functional, many of them focuses the TR. It is not difficult to quickly recognize mostly suspected "object" as an empty physical space and a space-time concept. Every reasonable people must be disturbed by questions of type: "how is empty space possible having very real physical properties?" or "is it possible that I am already prepared elder somewhere in space-time?". If we target the laser pointer at Moon we can see its refraction after a few minutes. For such "photon" the time stays the same (by TR). Let's suppose the photon is scattered twice during its way. Does it mean these events occurred in the same time for it? How such photon know what event occurred the first? Does anybody know what it is useful for?

I am always glad when I meet the people who do no admire Emperor new suits. This is the reason why I, despite poor English, keep similar dialogs :)

PS: I suggest every people who blindly believe in every fantastic experiment to they attend any measurement where 0.0001% th precision of measurement is the aim. The results here depend on every small temperature difference, every penetrated magnetic field, on a gravitational field differences, on many other material aspects, homogeneities in whole measuring equipment. Of course I believe in similar, hardly reproducible experiments too (by my own way), but I am aware their limits and borders...

Converge wrote

The scientists back then performed experiments to try to prove the aether, and they failed, and they admitted they were wrong, and moved on. That is why they changed their minds. If you want to try to change everyone's mind back to thinking that all of modern science is wrong and we need to start over from Newtonian physics, then you would need to also perform experiments that proved the aether was there, and have them reviewed by other scientists and make the experiments reproducible so that skeptics could try them on their own. Just saying that the entire world is a vast conspiracy against aether isn't going to change anyone's minds except other conspiracy theorists.

Um modern science is often wrong, one only needs to review the amount of drugs released onto the market one year then withdrawn the next year to see..I like science..but its often wrong these days.

then you would need to also perform experiments that proved the aether was there,

Um that is what i am asking for. no closed books but open modern experiments..who besides who i posted links on, are brave enough scientists to perform modern experiments on aether?

BTW you shout a lot of rhetoric with no sources or a link to back your claims. I for my part, gave you commendable valid links to current scientists ..so what is your excuse? haha

Just saying that the entire world is a vast conspiracy against aether

More rhetoric with no substance really converge!!! when did i assert the entire world is a vast conspiracy against aether? that is your rhetoric and bald assertion not mine..plz stop putting your words into my mouth to waylay this debate of a valid science.

Izzy, you're contradicting yourself. First, you go on and on about how all modern science is a monolithic organizatino stopping "brave" scientists from going against it, and then pretending you're not a conspiracy theorist. I've given you multiple links. Here is the truth: the aether was soundly disproven multiple times by many, many scientists, including all the scientists who were trying to prove it existed! The entire professional scientific world agrees that it's not real. If you believe the results of the experiment are not being faked, there is no conclusion except that it's not real. There is no way to "interpret" the complete lack of evidence as evidence. All the "alternative science" folks (don't you wonder what the word 'alternative' means?) that you linked DO believe that all "non-alternative" science is a massive worldwide conspiracy to silence their beliefs. Most of the books they write are specifically about this conspiracy, not about science. They do not have any experiments proving anything that they propose; and they will not let others peer review their work.

This is my last post in this thread. I can tell neither of us is going to change our minds. But I'd suggest if you're really interested in science, and not conspiracies, you should take some science classes and read some science literature, not just read conspiracy websites. Once you know enough about actual science, then you can go back to "alternative science" and make a more informed decision about it.

Izzy, you're contradicting yourself. First, you go on and on about how all modern science is a monolithic organizatino stopping "brave" scientists from going against it

Converge if all you are to contribute is building one strawmen after another, it might be worth you leaving this debate, I raised the question and plausiblity of Aether, I certainly didn`t write the scientific articles with links, I posted, so how am i contradicting myself? The referenced article you refer to was written by Eugene F. Mallove, Sc.D. and not by me.

Try placing your counterpoints to the arguments placed by science and not at me. This is a debate about what the sicence says and not about me thank you very much.

I've given you multiple links

You most certainly haven`t, you gave one wiki link and anyone can write anything on wiki which is why most know its not a reliable source. It has its uses but anyone can post on it and edit in and out what they like.

Why not tackle what the argument in favor of aether is, I have placed ample peer reviewed scientists theories and you haven`t tackled any of what they write thus far.

The Aether, Yes or No
by Ken Seto, Physicist

THE AETHER---YES CAMP:
The current state of the universe described by this camp is very simple; no abstract processes were used in the formulation of the theories; S-Particles are the only truly fundamental particles in the universe and the motions of these particles in the E-MATRIX (AETHER) give rise to all the other particles and all the forces of nature; there is no need for the S-Particles and the resulting particles to have holistic (e.g.: duality, the ability of a quark to change color to become a different quark, the decaying process of the various unstable particles.....etc.) and magical properties, their motions in the E-MATRIX impart the appearance of them having these properties---in fact, one of the fundamental postulate of Model Mechanics is that all particles are dumb the only activity they can have is their motions in the E-MATRIX; Model Mechanics provides a framework for the unification of the forces of nature; Silvertooth's experiments confirm the existence of Aether; newly designed experiments are also capable of confirming the existence of Aether.

With the above comparison of the current state of the universe, it is clear that the AETHER---YESâ camp won hands down. On this basis, I think the physical community should make an effort to confirm the validity of Model Mechanics. The facts are there and the superstring theory is no longer the only game in town.

http://ldolphin.org/aether.html

Theories of the Aether
Articles relating to the Emergence of
Scientific Theories of the Cosmic Aether

"Thus he then classified living creatures into genera and species,
and divided them in every way until he came to their elements,
which he called the five shapes and bodies -
aether, fire, water, earth and air."
- Xenocrates, On the life of Plato

http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether.html

Cerveny wrote: I have seen at least five interpretations of MM experiment. A least half of them claims they prove aether
Because of Einstein's theories does not bring any eaten fruits during eighty years it is really the time think by another way.

If it weren't for our understanding of general relativity, GPS would be less precise than it is.

Aetixintro wrote: Let me point out again that magnetism has north and south poles and thus reflect earth gravity, but on a micro scale.

It seems converge hasn't addressed this error- quite forgivably, what with all the ether BS being flung around. The earth's gravity does not have north and south poles. The earth's magnetic field has them.

Cerveny wrote: Because of physics gets nowhere fast for many long years the contemplative people try to find out where the problem is. Because of quantum mechanics is very useful and functional, many of them focuses the TR.

Quite a few quantum phenomena require special relativity to be understood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_re ... _mechanics

i blame blame wrote:The earth's gravity does not have north and south poles. The earth's magnetic field has them.

This is understood! And it is also my point that gravity of the Earth by its magnetic field can be redefined as either a combination of strong and weak interactions/forces or either of them. To say Earth's gravity or Earth's gravity field or the magnetic gravity field of the Earth is only a matter of convention. How nice to make the magnetism of the Earth stand out, i_blame_blame, other than that, you're not doing anything else than reiterating my point, that Graviton is virtually dead and that a possible solution can be found in the redefinition.

[Edit:] You can consider Earth's gravity vs. the Sun's gravity that has no clearly defined north and south pole, I think. The Sun's magnetic field of gravity is quite hazy! [End of edit.]

[Edit2:] Added the missing "interactions/forces". [End of edit.]

[Edit3:] The point for me is to bridge gravity of the Sun to the gravity of the Earth to magnetism in general, even the little magnets on the fridge. In doing so, I envision how easy it should be to come up with a number for the magnetic force that is required for bending the light, that this is really only a matter of public education. You know, even NASA spells it out that bending the light by electro-magnets is impossible because photons have no charge. This must obviously be WRONG!!! [End of edit.]

i blame blame wrote:It seems converge hasn't addressed this error- quite forgivably, what with all the ether BS being flung around. The earth's gravity does not have north and south poles. The earth's magnetic field has them.

That's because it was actually addressed in a different thread when alexintro first brought it up. He has a very... unique... view of science, so I doubt he and I would see eye to eye on most things

Aetixintro wrote:This is understood! And it is also my point that gravity of the Earth by its magnetic field can be redefined as either a combination of strong and weak interactions/forces or either of them.

I don't understand what you're saying.

Aetixintro wrote:To say Earth's gravity or Earth's gravity field or the magnetic gravity field of the Earth is only a matter of convention.

No. Magnetism is different from gravity.

Aetixintro wrote:How nice to make the magnetism of the Earth stand out, i_blame_blame, other than that, you're not doing anything else than reiterating my point, that Graviton is virtually dead and that a possible solution can be found in the redefinition.

I never claimed that graviton is virtually dead. What redefinition?

Aetixintro wrote:[Edit:] You can consider Earth's gravity vs. the Sun's gravity that has no clearly defined north and south pole, I think.

Gravity fields never have north and south poles. But its complex magnetic field is constantly changing.

Aetixintro wrote:The Sun's magnetic field of gravity is quite hazy! [End of edit.]

If it exists, the gravitomagnetic field of the sun that arises due to its rotation can be calculated from its mass, radius, and mean period of rotation (it varies from the equator to the poles of the rotational axis): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism

Aetixintro wrote:[Edit2:] Added the missing "interactions/forces". [End of edit.]

[Edit3:] The point for me is to bridge gravity of the Sun to the gravity of the Earth to magnetism in general, even the little magnets on the fridge. In doing so, I envision how easy it should be to come up with a number for the magnetic force that is required for bending the light, that this is really only a matter of public education. You know, even NASA spells it out that bending the light by electro-magnets is impossible because photons have no charge. This must obviously be WRONG!!! [End of edit.]

have you set up an experiment in which a magnetic field bends light?

i blame blame wrote:

Aetixintro wrote:[Edit2:] Added the missing "interactions/forces". [End of edit.]

[Edit3:] The point for me is to bridge gravity of the Sun to the gravity of the Earth to magnetism in general, even the little magnets on the fridge. In doing so, I envision how easy it should be to come up with a number for the magnetic force that is required for bending the light, that this is really only a matter of public education. You know, even NASA spells it out that bending the light by electro-magnets is impossible because photons have no charge. This must obviously be WRONG!!! [End of edit.]

have you set up an experiment in which a magnetic field bends light?

If you want to see an exercise in frustration then have a look at Aetixintro's thread on Bending light by electro-magnetism!.

He's seems convinced that gravity has a north and south pole and repeatedly speaks about the Earth's "magnetic gravity field." If you tell him he's confused he accuses you of not knowing what a compass is. It's all very bizarre to be honest.

Good luck if you can make any more sense of it than I can.

John wrote: If you want to see an exercise in frustration then have a look at Aetixintro's thread on Bending light by electro-magnetism!.

He's seems convinced that gravity has a north and south pole and repeatedly speaks about the Earth's "magnetic gravity field." If you tell him he's confused he accuses you of not knowing what a compass is. It's all very bizarre to be honest.

Good luck if you can make any more sense of it than I can.

Hm, no thanks. Interestingly, as moving electric charges produce magnetic fields, moving gravitational "charges", i.e. massive objects should produce a gravitomagnetic field according to general relativity. This hasn't been tested yet experimentally.

i blame blame wrote:

John wrote: If you want to see an exercise in frustration then have a look at Aetixintro's thread on Bending light by electro-magnetism!.

He's seems convinced that gravity has a north and south pole and repeatedly speaks about the Earth's "magnetic gravity field." If you tell him he's confused he accuses you of not knowing what a compass is. It's all very bizarre to be honest.

Good luck if you can make any more sense of it than I can.

Hm, no thanks. Interestingly, as moving electric charges produce magnetic fields, moving gravitational "charges", i.e. massive objects should produce a gravitomagnetic field according to general relativity. This hasn't been tested yet experimentally.

I think Gravity Probe B was supposed to test this. No idea what the results where though or whether the data is still being analysed.

i blame blame wrote:

Cerveny wrote: I have seen at least five interpretations of MM experiment. A least half of them claims they prove aether :)
Because of Einstein's theories does not bring any eaten fruits during eighty years it is really the time think by another way.

If it weren't for our understanding of general relativity, GPS would be less precise than it is

General relativity is not related with GPS :(

Cerveny wrote:

i blame blame wrote:

Cerveny wrote: I have seen at least five interpretations of MM experiment. A least half of them claims they prove aether
Because of Einstein's theories does not bring any eaten fruits during eighty years it is really the time think by another way.

If it weren't for our understanding of general relativity, GPS would be less precise than it is

General relativity is not related with GPS

From General relativity in the global positioning system, University of Colorado:

Apart possibly from high-energy accelerators, there are no other engineering systems in existence today in which both special and general relativity have so many applications.