Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Blasphemy (Aether, really)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
163 replies to this topic

#1 Handy andy

Handy andy

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 10:06 AM

Speculation

 

I opened a storage box yesterday and found a book my wife bought for 10 years ago by Stephen Hawking, I had not read it. I was accused of not reading it so I started reading. I think Hawking is mistaken in some of his claims, he bases most of his ideas on.

 

The ideas below in no way contradicts quantum theory, particle physics, string theory, dipole theory, monopole theory etc as I understand them. It does however lead to a slightly different idea of gravity and how the universe works, ie space and questions the conclusions of Einsteins little time slowing experiment.

 

I do not view science as a religion, to be believed no matter what!

 

Let the Speculation begin.

 

The Michelson Morley experiment, allegedly disproved the existence of the aether (ether). The only thing the experiment proved is that the aether is being pulled with our solar system and galaxy, ie space or the aether is travelling with us. This experiment misunderstood the concept behind the aether and is blatantly WRONG.

 

The aether is directly equivalent to space, it is space. To argue that space does not exist is a nonsense. Space is inside every molecule it is everywhere you look. All things are waves which exist in space, all forces are waves or vibrations, strings if you like existing in space. Space can be viewed as a liquid or gas it has properties, it transmits all forces including gravity.

 

The graviton particle is nonsense, Gravity is a vibration in space, radiating away from each molecule in all directions, caused by the movement of the constituent parts of every molecule. All particles are waves and are in continual movement. The movement causes a vibration radiating outwards in all directions from every molecule in space and it is accumalitive.

 

Space is moving with the individual galaxies, and spinning like whirl pools in water, whirl pools naturally repel, and accelerate away from each other. Galaxies and Space at the edge of the visible universe is travelling at 0.3 light speed and accelerating away from us. Space within the galaxies is stationery with respect to the galaxies.  

 

Speculation over. Let the punishment begin.

 

Please be gentle

 

Rgds

 

Andy


Edited by Handy andy, 20 April 2017 - 02:04 PM.

  • -1

#2 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 655 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 10:57 AM

Let the BLASPHEMY begin.

 

The Michelson Morley experiment, allegedly disproved the existence of the aether (ether). The only thing the experiment proved is that the aether is being pulled with our solar system and galaxy, ie space or the aether is travelling with us. This experiment misunderstood the concept behind the aether and is blatantly WRONG.

 

The aether is directly equivalent to space, it is space. To argue that space does not exist is a nonsense. Space is inside every molecule it is everywhere you look. All things are waves which exist in space, all forces are waves or vibrations, strings if you like existing in space. Space can be viewed as a liquid or gas it has properties, it transmits all forces including gravity.

 

 

 

Blasphemy is meaningless in the context of science, because science is not a belief.

 

The problem with your idea of the ether is that the M-M experiment determined the speed of the ether with respect to the earth to be so small that if the earth were on the other side of its orbit round the sun, the difference would be measurable. The experiment was repeated six months later with the same result. How do you explain that?


Edited by DrKrettin, 20 April 2017 - 10:57 AM.

  • 2

κατθάνοισα δὲ κείσῃ οὐδέ ποτα / μναμοσύνα σέθεν /  ἔσσετ' οὐδὲ †ποκ'†ὔστερον· οὐ / γὰρ πεδέχῃς βρόδων / τῶν ἐκ Πιερίας· 


#3 Handy andy

Handy andy

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 11:52 AM

 

Blasphemy is meaningless in the context of science, because science is not a belief.

 

The problem with your idea of the ether is that the M-M experiment determined the speed of the ether with respect to the earth to be so small that if the earth were on the other side of its orbit round the sun, the difference would be measurable. The experiment was repeated six months later with the same result. How do you explain that?

I would state space is moving with the planet as it spins. All large masses drag space with them, in addition to making it vibrate. Then I would ask why should space not be moving in our reference frame?. The velocity of light is constant as it travels through space in our reference frame. Space is the biggest thing in the universe, it travels with individual galaxies. Light in individual galaxies only travels at light speed, in reference to space around it.

 

I will Speculate a little further but dont want to lose focus on M-M and space concept. There may be two types of gravity.

I do not believe the big bang was the source off all matter, neither do I believe Multiple Bangs were the source of all matter. Big Bangs and Super Novas may be the source of heavy elements in the universe.

 

Space is stretched by the rotation of galaxies(centrepetal forces).

In centre of rotating galaxies gravitational energy is converted into matter, and antimatter and exploded out into space.


Edited by Handy andy, 20 April 2017 - 02:05 PM.

  • 0

#4 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 37,008 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:07 PM

!

Moderator Note

This isn't religion. Moved to speculations. You are expected to follow the rules and guidelines of the speculations section (e.g. providing evidence for claims)


 

The Michelson Morley experiment, allegedly disproved the existence of the aether (ether). The only thing the experiment proved is that the aether is being pulled with our solar system and galaxy, ie space or the aether is travelling with us. This experiment misunderstood the concept behind the aether and is blatantly WRONG.

 

 

 

 

The M-M experiment followed Bradley's observation of stellar aberration (by a few hundred years), so it was already known that we were not at rest with respect to the purported aether. This is why the null result of the M-M experiment is taken as disproving the aether — the other option had long been disproven.

 

So what you need is a model that is consistent with both of these observations (as well as all the others that disprove the various aether theories that have been proposed over the years)


  • 1

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#5 DrKrettin

DrKrettin

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 655 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 12:11 PM

I do not view science as a religion, to be believed no matter what!

 

Let the BLASPHEMY begin.

 

 

Let's start here. Blasphemy is a concept restricted to religion. You do not view science as a religion. Good. But then you start what you claim is blasphemy. Total non sequitur.

 

What amazes me about your objections w.r.t the M-M experiment is that you read one small book and then decide that mainstream science has been incorrect about a fundamental concept for the last century.

 

Does it not occur to you that the objections you raise would have been raised by thousands before you? People who are professional scientists? Most of them will have read more than one book. 


  • 1

κατθάνοισα δὲ κείσῃ οὐδέ ποτα / μναμοσύνα σέθεν /  ἔσσετ' οὐδὲ †ποκ'†ὔστερον· οὐ / γὰρ πεδέχῃς βρόδων / τῶν ἐκ Πιερίας· 


#6 Mordred

Mordred

    Resident Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 4,760 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 01:04 PM

I do not view science as a religion, to be believed no matter what!

So you choose to place your faith onto an idea of something literally undetectable by any experiment ? aka the eather? rather contradictory to the above quote.

Then you try to apply some materialistic property to space itself. Yet space even in GR is simply volume.

Spacetime curvature is a set of mathematical mass density relations one where the standard model of particles contribute to. These are incorperated into the stress tensor of the Einstein field equations via their mass contributions.

If you remove all standard model particles and fields your left with just volume. (space)

Edited by Mordred, 20 April 2017 - 01:09 PM.

  • 2
http://www.einsteins.../LightCone.html
http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/main
http://cosmocalc.wikidot.com/start
If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules.

#7 Handy andy

Handy andy

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 02:29 PM

 

Let's start here. Blasphemy is a concept restricted to religion. You do not view science as a religion. Good. But then you start what you claim is blasphemy. Total non sequitur.

 

What amazes me about your objections w.r.t the M-M experiment is that you read one small book and then decide that mainstream science has been incorrect about a fundamental concept for the last century.

 

Does it not occur to you that the objections you raise would have been raised by thousands before you? People who are professional scientists? Most of them will have read more than one book. 

 

I have edited out the Blasphemy comments above, however when something is believed without proof it is a religion.

 

The belief in the concept of the aether was widespread a 100 years ago, the aether was not proven to exist by M-M. The belief in the concept of things being made of strings moving through a space or appearing in space is analogous to things appearing out of the aether. Quantum matter appearing and disappearing does not disagree with the concept of space(the aether) moving with us. The double slit experiment demonstrates that space has a memory of what has passed, creating a wave effect.

 

I have read more than one book and originally posted these ideas under religion, which I had assumed people on this forum do not take seriously having read some posts, and contributed without censure. 

 

The definition of professional being someone who is paid for their opinion, does not indicate superior knowledge. I used to be a professional, and dealt with professionals who were not always the brightest people. All physicists paid, unpaid retired etc are all using slightly different words to describe the same thing. My speculation was intended to provoke an interesting reasoned discussion. The concept of space moving with us does not undermine any of the established physics as far as I am aware, except perhaps astronomy. I find the concept amusing and thought others might enjoy it as well, it also gives a visual way of explaining gravity which seems to be lacking in some theories.

 

Kind rgds

 

Andy


Edited by Handy andy, 20 April 2017 - 02:31 PM.

  • 0

#8 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 37,008 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 20 April 2017 - 02:34 PM

 

The belief in the concept of the aether was widespread a 100 years ago, the aether was not proven to exist by M-M.  

 

 

Since you missed (or ignored) this:

 

The M-M experiment followed Bradley's observation of stellar aberration (by a few hundred years), so it was already known that we were not at rest with respect to the purported aether. This is why the null result of the M-M experiment is taken as disproving the aether — the other option had long been disproven.

 

So what you need is a model that is consistent with both of these observations (as well as all the others that disprove the various aether theories that have been proposed over the years)


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#9 Handy andy

Handy andy

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 02:53 PM

So you choose to place your faith onto an idea of something literally undetectable by any experiment ? aka the eather? rather contradictory to the above quote.

Then you try to apply some materialistic property to space itself. Yet space even in GR is simply volume.

Spacetime curvature is a set of mathematical mass density relations one where the standard model of particles contribute to. These are incorperated into the stress tensor of the Einstein field equations via their mass contributions.

If you remove all standard model particles and fields your left with just volume. (space)

 

I would ask how do forces travel through your volume (space). Bosons and fermions and vibrations in space, where do they originally appear from.


 

 

Since you missed (or ignored) this:

 

The M-M experiment followed Bradley's observation of stellar aberration (by a few hundred years), so it was already known that we were not at rest with respect to the purported aether. This is why the null result of the M-M experiment is taken as disproving the aether — the other option had long been disproven.

 

So what you need is a model that is consistent with both of these observations (as well as all the others that disprove the various aether theories that have been proposed over the years)

 

What was Bradleys aberration(I will take time to look him up).

 

What I am speculating, is that space is a substance, has properties, and moves with individual galaxies, and planets. I have used the term aether and use the term to mean space. I am speculating that space in individual galaxies moves independently of space in other galaxies and will effectively repel other galaxies like whirl pools in water or a gas, causing galaxies to normally accelerate away from each other. (Andromeda??) 

 

The fact that the Michelson Morley experiment detected nothing and light in our reference frame on this planet and solar system travels at more or less constant speed with reference to us, only shows that space is moving with us. If the M-M experimient was repeated in the vertical plane rather than the horizontal, it might detect a difference in the density of the air due to gravity effects, or of space(aether) due to gravitational effects, most likely the density of the air would effect the experiment more.

 

Apologies for posting under religion but I thought that was the place to post this concept, I had not noted the speculation thread.

 

Kind Rgds

 

Andy


Edited by Handy andy, 20 April 2017 - 02:54 PM.

  • 0

#10 Sensei

Sensei

    Scientist

  • Senior Members
  • 3,354 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 03:11 PM

The graviton particle is nonsense, Gravity is a vibration in space, radiating away from each molecule in all directions,

 

Radiation is exactly emission of particles. Typically in random direction. So sending enough of them, they follow inverse-square law.

 

You need to have something to radiate away. And that "thing" is energy.

Particles prior emitting photons have higher energy state, than after emitting them.


Edited by Sensei, 20 April 2017 - 03:31 PM.

  • 1

#11 Janus

Janus

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 1,297 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 03:57 PM

 


 

What was Bradleys aberration(I will take time to look him up).

 

Aberration is the Where the apparent position of a star shifts due to the relative motion of the Earth relative to the direction of the star.  The direction of this shift changes as the Earth orbits the Sun.   An analogy is like how rain that is falling straight down relative to the ground appears to be falling at an angle when you are driving. 

 

The point is the the observed shift over 6 months is exactly consistent with what with should see given the speed of light and the orbit of the Earth.  If there were an ether, and "ether drag" was the cause of the Null result of the M&M experiment, then this would not be the case. (Going back to our car example, if the car were dragging a bubble of air with it as it drove along, as the falling rain hits this bubble it would be drug along with the bubble and its angle of fall relative to the car will change so that you, in the car, would measure a lesser change from the vertical in the rain than you did without the bubble.)

 

So, if the null M&M experiment were due to ether drag, we would not measure stellar aberration of the magnitude that we do. 

 

This is how science works, we don't base a conclusion on just one observation, but on how this observation fits in with other observations.


  • 0

#12 Handy andy

Handy andy

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 356 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 04:20 PM

 

Radiation is exactly emission of particles. Typically in random direction. So sending enough of them, they follow inverse-square law.

 

You need to have something to radiate away. And that "thing" is energy.

Particles prior emitting photons have higher energy state, than after emitting them.

Now you are at the crux of the matter.

 

Atoms are full of space and the individual components are moving with respect to each other in space. The individual components being quarks and gluons, which are themselves waves (stable vortices) in space. Wave particle duality is a nonsense all things are waves, depending how you look at them.

 

I am speculating waves(particles) in space are disturbing space, in and around them, creating a disturbance or blurring of the edges of atoms in space. I am further speculating this disturbance is the cause of gravity. I completely agree a stable detectable particle or packet of energy in the form of a wave, photon or other form of radiation is emitted, and can be detected. Gravity exists and individual particles which cause it have not been detected, A large area of space being agitated by the movement of the atoms making up a planet or bunch of molecules, is not a single packet of energy but a disturbance in space. The disturbance will be like the vibrations in sand, and a dense object will sink into it

 

 

Space has properties and is not included in


Aberration is the Where the apparent position of a star shifts due to the relative motion of the Earth relative to the direction of the star.  The direction of this shift changes as the Earth orbits the Sun.   An analogy is like how rain that is falling straight down relative to the ground appears to be falling at an angle when you are driving. 

 

The point is the the observed shift over 6 months is exactly consistent with what with should see given the speed of light and the orbit of the Earth.  If there were an ether, and "ether drag" was the cause of the Null result of the M&M experiment, then this would not be the case. (Going back to our car example, if the car were dragging a bubble of air with it as it drove along, as the falling rain hits this bubble it would be drug along with the bubble and its angle of fall relative to the car will change so that you, in the car, would measure a lesser change from the vertical in the rain than you did without the bubble.)

 

So, if the null M&M experiment were due to ether drag, we would not measure stellar aberration of the magnitude that we do. 

 

This is how science works, we don't base a conclusion on just one observation, but on how this observation fits in with other observations.

I looked up the aberration, and yes I understand it. However I do not get where the car came into it. Maybe I missed a post, I will check above.

 

How would the stellar aberration be affected if space is not moving as expected. ie space is being dragged by planets, solar systems, and individual galaxies in different directions, being pulled and squeezed.


  • 0

#13 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 37,008 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 20 April 2017 - 04:28 PM

Now you are at the crux of the matter.

 

Atoms are full of space and the individual components are moving with respect to each other in space. The individual components being quarks and gluons, which are themselves waves (stable vortices) in space. Wave particle duality is a nonsense all things are waves, depending how you look at them.

 

I am speculating waves(particles) in space are disturbing space, in and around them, creating a disturbance or blurring of the edges of atoms in space. I am further speculating this disturbance is the cause of gravity. I completely agree a stable detectable particle or packet of energy in the form of a wave, photon or other form of radiation is emitted, and can be detected. Gravity exists and individual particles which cause it have not been detected, A large area of space being agitated by the movement of the atoms making up a planet or bunch of molecules, is not a single packet of energy but a disturbance in space. The disturbance will be like the vibrations in sand, and a dense object will sink into it

 

 

Space has properties and is not included in


I looked up the aberration, and yes I understand it. However I do not get where the car came into it. Maybe I missed a post, I will check above.

 

How would the stellar aberration be affected if space is not moving as expected. ie space is being dragged by planets, solar systems, and individual galaxies in different directions, being pulled and squeezed.

 

 

The aberration would be lessened, or nonexistent. As it is, the aberration matches what you expect from moving at ~30km/s around the sun.

 

So basically you have one measurement that says we are moving at 30 km/s with respect to the aether, i.e. we're moving through it. You have another that says we are not moving with respect to it. This is why the conclusion is that the aether does not exist. You can't have both be true, and theory must match experiment.


  • 0

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#14 Sensei

Sensei

    Scientist

  • Senior Members
  • 3,354 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 04:36 PM

 Wave particle duality is a nonsense all things are waves, depending how you look at them.

 

Are you familiar with photoelectric effect?

https://en.wikipedia...electric_effect

 

One, single photon, with enough or higher energy (given by equation E=h*f) is hitting at target is ejecting one single electron, from now on called photoelectron.

Its kinetic energy corresponds to energy of incoming photon minus energy needed to liberate it. K.E.=1/2*me*v^2 = h*f - W

 

To check what energy has photon (in visible spectrum) there are used effects like diffraction, interference, prism.

Photons with different energies/frequencies/wavelengths are reacting slightly differently, different pattern is generated.

 

In electron diffraction, it's kinetic energy of single electron, which changes diffraction pattern

https://en.wikipedia...ron_diffraction


Edited by Sensei, 20 April 2017 - 11:11 PM.

  • 0

#15 quickquestion

quickquestion

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 357 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 05:02 PM

Michelson Morley experiment is irrelevant to me, because I do not believe in Aether Wind. I believe in a theory of aether which is slightly different. However, I am out of time at my computer session so I cannot fully explain more.


  • -2

"One of the greatest cruelties of the universe is forcing man to work for a living. The laws of physics themselves perpetuate this cruelty. and that is the need of magic."


#16 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 37,008 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 20 April 2017 - 05:23 PM

Michelson Morley experiment is irrelevant to me, because I do not believe in Aether Wind. I believe in a theory of aether which is slightly different. However, I am out of time at my computer session so I cannot fully explain more.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

If you are not going to argue for the exact same proposal, it should not be done in this thread.


  • 1

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#17 frankglennjacobs@gmail.com

frankglennjacobs@gmail.com

    Meson

  • Senior Members
  • 84 posts
  • LocationEagar, Apache County, Arizona

Posted 20 April 2017 - 05:44 PM

Oh, GOODIE!   An aether battle!  And it's in speculations so I shan't be excommunicated again for taking part!

 

First off, I have become completely orthodox now, as I have recanted the Articles of Aether for the reasons given against it in the replies to this treatise.   Paraphrasing the Treasure of the Sierra Madre bandits, "Wee jus' don' NEEEED no steeenkeeng eeether!"

 

HOWEVER, if there WERE aether, it would be like the air and the water that we consider to be part of the planet upon which we stand.  It is a package deal.  It moves with us.  If you throw a rock, some tiny amount of aether (if there were any) would move right along with the rock.   The earth likewise, drags a considerable volume of aether around with it.  Now what we need is a scientific measurement of the difference of movement of the aether around the earth and around the moon.   (WHOOPS!  I meant "alleged aether"!)

 

The car example is wonderful, even tho it is used against the existence of aether.  If the car had an open sunroof,  the rain coming in would, to some extent, in the time available, follow the movement of the car, as the air inside it does -- a little.  You can physically SEE this when you drive in a light snowfall on a dark night.  As you stand still, the headlights show the individual flakes drifting straight down.  As you drive  forward, just as one would expect, the snowflakes come back toward your eyes.  However, as the air moves aside and upward for the car to come thru, the snowflakes rise just in front of the car and rise again (and move to both sides) just in front of the windshield.

 

Just because air does that is no sign that the (alleged) aether does it, too.

 

Everybody repeat with me, "There ain't no aether!  There ain't no aether!  There ain't no steenkeeng aether!"

 

Now, sound waves cannot exist without air.  Water waves cannot exist without water.  Rope waves cannot exist without rope.

 

Electromagnetic waves cannot exist without aether.   Only, the aether in which they exist is a hard vacuum.   Um, something wrong with THAT explanation.  Ah, er, electromagnetic waves sort of unfold ahead of themselves, out of themselves, without having to disturb anything on the way.  Maybe that's were their "particle" thing comes into being.  (A shotgun does not depend on air for its operation.   The pellets go about the way they were started out.  Air slows them down.  It doesn't assist them in moving.)

 

Back to the double-slit exercise!  Nobody ever explained THAT by means of aether!  (Or anything else, either!)


  • -1

#18 Mordred

Mordred

    Resident Expert

  • Resident Experts
  • 4,760 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 10:01 PM

 
Back to the double-slit exercise!  Nobody ever explained THAT by means of aether!  (Or anything else, either!)

Again incorrect the Eather advocates often attempt to explain the double slit experiment.

Now you are at the crux of the matter.
 
Atoms are full of space and the individual components are moving with respect to each other in space. The individual components being quarks and gluons, which are themselves waves (stable vortices) in space. Wave particle duality is a nonsense all things are waves, depending how you look at them.

A simple explanation covering this is all particles are field excitations. The pointlike particle view is a quanta of energy under boundary confinement. (Sensei already posted the relevant formula) The wavelike properties you already agree with

Edited by Mordred, 20 April 2017 - 10:02 PM.

  • 1
http://www.einsteins.../LightCone.html
http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/main
http://cosmocalc.wikidot.com/start
If you wish to change the rules, you must first understand the rules.

#19 swansont

swansont

    Evil Liar (or so I'm told)

  • Moderators
  • 37,008 posts
  • LocationWashington DC region

Posted 20 April 2017 - 10:59 PM

It doesn't matter that aether could be used to explain any particular phenomenon. It spectacularly fails in one experiment. It's wrong.

Phlogiston worked for some explanations, too.
  • 2

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum          To go to the fortress of ultimate darkness, click the up arrow ^

I am not a minimum-wage government shill.             Forget it, Jake — it's Crackpottown.

My SFN blog: Swans on Tea                                                           

 

 

                                                                                                                     

 

 


#20 Lord Antares

Lord Antares

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 659 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 01:25 AM

Can you explain aether to me? I'm not sure I really understand it. I read up a bit on wikipedia and I don't see the difference between aether and space. 

I think it is similar to this thread of mine where you've already responded: http://www.sciencefo...tically-flawed/

 

It seems to me that me equating vacuum to just space in that thread (i.e. space/vacuum is everything besides matter) is the same as aether. Could you explain why the aether wind (which was disproved in the M-M experiment) would be completely necessary. Thanks in advance.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users