Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / April 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"The Properties of the Aether"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Tahc - 25 Mar 2007 13:51 GMT
"The Properties of the Aether"

    Of course there is no such thing as the Aether, it says so right here
in the book that the Aether has been proven not to exist. Unfortunately for
the academic elite, such a proof does not exist. As Dr. Einstein said,
"remember gentlemen, we have not proven that the Aether does not exist, we
have merely proven that we do not need it (for computations)"! Actually, by
combining the Lorentz Transformations provided by Special Relativity to
obtain the Lorentz Transformation for velocity and adding a simple and
physically realizable thought experiment, the existence of an absolute rigid
velocity reference frame is readily proven. See
http://winsteinhoax.com/posting36.htm.

    The classical Aether was postulated as a medium which allowed the
transmission of light, which was known to be a wave, through space. When
attempts were made to measure our velocity though the alleged medium the
result was failure. In 1903, Fitzgerald and Larmor provided the Lorentz
Transformations for Length and Time which were later mathematically derived
by Dr. Einstein in the Special Theory of Relativity. Both of these
approaches (which are actually identical) answered the dilemma posed by the
failure of the Michelson-Morely experiment to measure our absolute velocity.

    Accepting the Aether as the basic component of space answers many, if
not all, of the problems associated with modern physics. The Aether was
postulated to explain how light, which was known to be a wave, could
propagate through empty space. As shown by Maxwell's Equations, a light wave
consisted of a cyclical interchange of energy between orthogonal
electromagnetic fields in a plane perpendicular to the direction of
propagation and was therefore a shear wave. Since all known waves require a
medium for propagation and shear waves cannot propagate through a fluid, it
was accepted that the medium (the Aether) must be a solid.

    Later work suggested that light was composed of particles, which could
travel without a medium, rather than as a wave. It is easy to show, however,
that electromagnetic waves are composed of one cycle "pings" of an
electromagnetic energy traveling in synchronism. <A
href="posting19.htm">Posting 19</A><font size=+1> The velocity of such a
wave and of photons is determined by the permeability and dielectric
constant of space and, if space has such properties, it cannot be merely a
geometric construct as modern physics would have one believe. Attempting to
retain space as a geometric concept devoid of an Aether forced Dirac to a
invent a space filled with negative energy in order to make his mathematical
explanation of the creation of electron-positron pairs from the energy of a
high energy photon. One might wonder haw that space filled with "negative
energy" is any different from a space filled with the classical Aether.

    If the Aether is a solid, then two questions must be answered. What is
the Nature of that solid and how do "solid" particles (e.g.- matter) travel
through it. The first question is easily answered by looking at the results
of cosmological observations. If the "solid" Aether is composed of minute
granules, akin to rice pudding, then there should be evidence of chromatic
dispersion of the light from distant objects analogous to the reddening of
Sunlight as it passes through the air molecules of our atmosphere. If the
"solid" Aether discontinuous, akin to jello, then no such dispersion would
occur. To date no chromatic dispersion or light from distant objects seems
to have been reported and it seems safe to assert that the Aether is a
continuous solid.

    One is then left with the question of how solid matter can pass through
a solid Aether. The answer which follows is that material particles are not
solid but are actually standing waves (probably electromagnetic). It should
be noted that the work of de Broglie and the theoretical and physical
experiments which followed established the wavelike properties of material
particles early in the 20th century. Such waves would have no more trouble
passing through the Aether than does light. (The nature of particles
including the quarks which compose protons and neutrons etc. is discussed in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm and in a posting to follow.

    The Aether must be composed of two materials in proximity, a positive
electric field and a negative electric field. (The use of the word field
rather than charge is deliberate since it is quite possible that the
materials are continuous rather than discrete as is the charge of
electrons.) The application of a sufficiently strong electromagnetic field
might then be expected to separate those materials to form an
electron-positron pair.

    One more property that the Aether must have if one is to account for
gravity is that the proximity of energy causes a reduction in the ABSOLUTE
velocity of light. (The Lorentz Transformation for Velocity shows that since
the velocity of light is constant when measured locally, it cannot be
constant in ABSOLUTE terms.)

    The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm 
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

    All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

    Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

    E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

    The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
Dr. V I Plankenstein - 25 Mar 2007 21:25 GMT
Man Old As Coal said :

>      Accepting the Aether as the basic component of space answers many, if
> not all, of the problems associated with modern physics. The Aether was
> postulated to explain how light, which was known to be a wave, could
> propagate through empty space.

The Aether is space itself you silly sh.ts - if you cant see that then you
must be bee elle eye & dee.
nuny@bid.ness - 26 Mar 2007 03:27 GMT
On Mar 25, 1:25 pm, "Dr. V I Plankenstein" <Plankenste...@stle.sci>
wrote:
> Man Old As Coal said :
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> The Aether is space itself you silly sh.ts - if you cant see that then you
> must be bee elle eye & dee.

 Lemme give you a hint; when you see a 300+ line post sent by a name
that actually makes a word backwards, it's this same "einsteinhoax"
jackass. And BTW he NEVER reads, much less responds to, replies. That
way he can continue his claim that there have never been substanital
rebuttals.

 Mark L. Fergerson
Dr. V I Plankenstein - 26 Mar 2007 03:42 GMT
> > Man Old As Coal said :
> >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>   Mark L. Fergerson

That man/woman/robot is a ridiculous troll.

I've seen this same post probably 500 times. I just dont get it. There is no
creativity being exhibited by this poster. Quite distressing.
globarr@yahoo.com - 26 Mar 2007 04:18 GMT
< Deletes by O'Barr>

> I've seen this same post probably 500 times. I just dont get it. There is no
> creativity being exhibited by this poster. Quite distressing.

Comments by O'Barr:
   I understand the frustration of this individual.  He has a lot of
truth
to what he says, yet he never gets back any responsible responses.
What should one do when this occurs?  Some just drop the subject,
and go to something elsel.

   This individual is correct in many ways:  There really is
an ether.  That is, there really is a medium in which the
movements of photons are controlled.  And yes, this medium
means that there is an absolute reference frame, exactly as
called for in LET.  And yes, if one accepts a contraction
of length with velocity in this ether, and a slower clock
with velocity in this ether, such assumptions produce the
exact same results as is found in SR.  And at the present
time, there is no known test that can make a discrimination
or a distinction between these two approaches.
  Our present science is dishonest when they are not
willing to agree with all this.  And because of this dishonesty.
then those who believe in an ether are not able to have
the discussions that should be taking place.  Only Tom
Roberts, from time to time, has said some of the things
that are correct about what we really know in these areas.

  Having said all this, I do not agree with everything being
said by this individual.  There really are particles of mass
that move in our universe.  They are not all waves.  They are
not all waves made out of the material that composes the
ether.  And the ether is not a rigid solid.  The transverse
mode (or circular mode that also exists) is not dependent
upon a solid.  There are motions in a fluid (which includes
even a gas) where the motion, under stable conditions, results
in a serpetine motion that appears to be a wave.  These waves
are mathematically similar, but physically, they do not require
a medium that has within it any mutual forces or internal
potential energy relationship.  It is a most interesting
situation, but it works.  At least it works on the computer.

Thanks for reading.
Gerald.
luke.saul@space.unibe.ch - 26 Apr 2007 14:11 GMT
On Mar 26, 5:18 am, glob...@yahoo.com wrote:
> < Deletes by O'Barr>
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> means that there is an absolute reference frame, exactly as
> called for in LET.

Please excuse my late reply to this thread.

What is this "absolute" reference frame you speak of?  Is no the
scientist free to draw his coordinates in any frame she chooses?
Reference frames are by nature relative, hence the word "reference"..
to show what the coordinates are relative to.

> And yes, if one accepts a contraction
> of length with velocity in thisether, and a slower clock
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> that move in our universe.  They are not all waves.  They are
> not all waves made out of the material that composes the ether

As I understand it, mass is a bulk property of motions of the space-
time medium (quantum vacuum if you prefer).  What other entities are
you suggesting to exist?
[..]

Ciao -
GSS - 26 Apr 2007 18:32 GMT
On Apr 26, 6:11 pm, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
> On Mar 26, 5:18 am, glob...@yahoo.com wrote:
......
> > Comments by O'Barr:
> >     I understand the frustration of this individual.  He has a lot of
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> Ciao -

In this regard let me express my viewpoint concerning the subject
issue and the associated absolute reference frame.

Empty Space, Aether or Vacuum
-----------------------------
There are two notions of space in vogue. The first notion is of a
coordinate space and the second is that of physical space. Whereas the
metric scaling property is only associated with coordinate space, the
physical properties of permittivity, permeability and intrinsic
impedance are only associated with physical space. The notions of
physical space, empty space, vacuum, aether and their modern
reincarnation the quantum vacuum, all mean the same entity - call it
by any name. It is said that a rose by any other name will smell as
sweet. For detailed discussion of this issue kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/space_aether_vacuum.pdf

Notion of Universal Reference Frame
-----------------------------------
The Universal or an Absolute reference frame may be defined as a non-
rotating inertial reference frame with its origin fixed with respect
to the 'Center of Mass' of the Universe. We know that the origin of
International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF or BCRF) is fixed at the
barycenter or the center of mass of the solar system. If we could
locate a point O in ICRF such that O is fixed with respect to the
center of mass of our Universe, then a celestial reference frame with
its origin at O could be referred as the Universal Reference Frame.
For this we need to determine the velocity of O in ICRF which will
lead us to determine the velocity of ICRF in the Universal Reference
Frame. For establishing the Universal Reference Frame with reference
to ICRF, we don't need to establish the location of the center of mass
of the Universe. *The speed of light is an isotropic constant c and
the measures of distance and time are absolute in this frame.*  This
Universal or Absolute reference frame can be experimentally
established with the use of available technology. For details kindly
refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf

GSS
luke.saul@space.unibe.ch - 26 Apr 2007 23:17 GMT
> On Apr 26, 6:11 pm, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> rotating inertial reference frame with its origin fixed with respect
> to the 'Center of Mass' of the Universe. [..]

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me already.  What is "absoulte"
about choosing a specific origin in which measurements are relative
to?  In this case you are using a relative space, space that is
relative to an origin fixed with respect to the 'Center of Mass' of
the Universe.

Why do you think the word "absoulte" is appropriate for measurements
that you explicitly state are relative to a choice of reference
frame?

This may be an appropriate frame of reference for certain
calculations, but I don't think the word "absolute" has any place
here.

Ciao -
GSS - 27 Apr 2007 05:21 GMT
On Apr 27, 3:17 am, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:

>> On Apr 26, 6:11 pm, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
>> ......
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> Ciao -

There are two main reasons for using the term 'absolute' for certain
reference frames and the measurements made therein.

First reason is simple, 'not relative' implies 'absolute'.

Let us consider a closed volume V of space containing a system of N
particles of matter in all possible physical states.  We consider the
closed volume of space in the sense that there is no transfer of mass
or energy across the boundary surface of this volume and the enclosed
particles do not experience any significant force or interaction from
outside this volume.  Let point S be the center of mass of these N
particles and let G be a non-rotating Cartesian coordinate reference
frame with its origin located at point S.  In this reference frame G,
let the positions of all N particles be defined to be certain function
of time (xi(t), yi(t), zi(t)), provided they remain bounded within the
closed volume V.  Since G is a reference frame with origin at the
center of mass of the enclosed N particles, total momentum of all of
its domain particles is zero.

Obviously within the closed volume V under consideration, the total
momentum and the total mass-energy content of the given N particles
will be conserved.  We may refer this set of N particles to any
coordinate reference frame for quantifying or assigning certain
measure numbers to the relative positions of these particles, but that
must not alter the physical state (e.g. pressure and temperature
distribution) or content of matter (e.g. mass-energy content) within
the closed volume under consideration. This requirement may be treated
as a physical constraint on the choice of valid coordinate reference
frames.

Any reference frame within this closed volume V, in which the center
of mass of the enclosed particles is at rest, may be considered as an
absolute reference frame because
(a) The total momentum of the enclosed system of particles is zero in
this reference frame.
(b) And the total mass-energy content of the enclosed system of
particles is absolute minimum in this reference frame.

http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/relative_measurement.htm

Second reason for the absolute reference frame is a bit intricate.
That is, contrary to the postulates of relativity, the speed of light
propagation (in vacuum) is a universal constant c only in the absolute
reference frame (in which the center of mass of the Universe is at
rest) and not in all inertial reference frames in relative uniform
motion. Let me illustrate this point with an example.

Just for illustration, consider a ground station (A) in signal
communication with a Pioneer type spacecraft (B) at an approximate
distance D of 40 AU (40 * 1.5 * 10^11 m) from the station. Assume that
identical precision atomic clocks (synchronized in advance) along with
data processors are used at both ends (A  and B) for signal
communication. Further assume that at an instant of time Ta_t a coded
signal pulse is transmitted from station A towards B (uplink signal)
containing the coded data of time Ta_t.  Let this signal pulse reach
the spacecraft B at an instant of time Tb_r (as measured by the atomic
clock of B). Assume that at a subsequent instant of time Tb_t another
coded signal pulse is transmitted from spacecraft B towards station A
(downlink signal) containing the coded data of time Ta_t, Tb_r and
Tb_t. Let this downlink signal pulse reach ground station A at an
instant of time Ta_r. From this data, the data processor at A will
compute two intervals of time, first the uplink signal propagation
time Tu = Tb_r - Ta_t and second the downlink signal propagation time
Td = Ta_r - Tb_t.

Let us further assume that all measurements of distances and
velocities are done in a particular Celestial Reference Frame (K) in
which the speed of light (or signal propagation) is constant c and
both A and B are moving at uniform speed V1 along the direction AB as
shown.
.
.              D
.  A.........................B
.   ----->V1                 ----->V1
.
Therefore,  c*Tu = D + V1*Tu        ...(1)
and         c*Td = D - V1*Td        ...(2)
That is,      Tu = D/(c-V1)         ...(3)
and           Td = D/(c+V1)         ...(4)
Hence,    V1 = c*(Tu-Td)/(Tu+Td)    ...(5)

That means from the measured data of uplink (Tu) and downlink (Td)
signal propagation times we can compute the common velocity V1 which
is a unique value. It is quite obvious that in any other inertial
reference frame K1 which is known to be moving at a uniform relative
velocity (along AB) with respect to K, the common velocity of A and B
along AB cannot be the same value V1 as observed in K. This proves
that (from equation (5)) the speed of light (or signal propagation)
cannot be the same value in K and K1.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/reference_frame.htm

GSS
luke.saul@space.unibe.ch - 30 Apr 2007 16:38 GMT
> On Apr 27, 3:17 am, luke.s...@space.unibe.ch wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
> (b) And the total mass-energy content of the enclosed system of
> particles is absolute minimum in this reference frame.

Thanks for your reply.
So, the word "absolute" is used because certain quantities you chose
are equal to zero in that frame?  Your coordinate system is explicitly
relative to a certain frame of reference and the energy and momentum
are conserved in any reference frame.

Suppose you are concerned with the dynamics of one particular
particle, say one you lived on.  Would choosing the rest frame of that
particle as a coordinate system be somehow..  incorrect?

> Second reason for the absolute reference frame is a bit intricate.
> That is, contrary to the postulates of relativity, the speed of light
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> distance D of 40 AU (40 * 1.5 * 10^11 m) from the station. Assume that
> identical precision atomic clocks (synchronized in advance)

Likely you need to consider the synchronization procedure in more
detail, but I will keep reading for now.

> along with
> data processors are used at both ends (A  and B) for signal
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> that (from equation (5)) the speed of light (or signal propagation)
> cannot be the same value in K and K1.

Sounds good.  I like the way you eliminate the distance D in the
expression for V1.   However...

First, lets ignore any relative motion of Pioneer and Earth during
this experiment, assuming that can be dealt with later or is small
enough to ignore.

Now, the problem is only the offset of the clocks.  When you say they
have been "previously synchronized", I can only guess that you mean
they were synchronized together and then moved apart.  While they are
moving apart, one is experiencing slightly different electromagnetic
conditions than the other and ticks at a different rate, due to what
you might prefer to call an "aether wind", though is commonly today
referred to as "relativistic time dilation".

So, there is an additional offset in the reading that will be sent
down.  This offset works out to be independent of the velocity at
which the clocks are separated, but depends on the distance that they
are separated.  The offset also depends on your V1.  It winds up being
exactly the same offset as you would expect if you synchronized your
clocks using the Einstein synch. procedure.

Try to include this offset in your calculations.

In any case, the experiment you predict is similar to the MMX in that
your goal is to determine the motion of the rest frame of the
electromagnetic medium relative to the laboratory.  Even if you could
succeed with this (most people think it is impossible), it still
wouldn't be an absolute reference frame!!  Certainly this would be an
extremely important and useful discovery, but again your choice of
coordinate system relative to this rest frame is arbitrary and nothing
about the combination of words "absolute space" will make more
sense.

Ciao -
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.