you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Well except one is measurable, and the other isn't...

[–]bobbobbybob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

?

I get that people dislike the concept of aether because it was drummed into us from birth, but I can't see any functional difference between grids or underlying fields or aether. They are just common names for the same thing.

Love to know why that's wrong. All concepts break relativity.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

The aether hypothesis was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects. As the nature of light was explored, especially in the 19th century, the physical qualities required of an aether became increasingly contradictory. By the late 1800s, the existence of the aether was being questioned, although there was no physical theory to replace it.

The negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) suggested that the aether did not exist, a finding that was confirmed in subsequent experiments through the 1920s. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether.

It's a pretty interesting concept. It's one of the times science really went down the wrong path, for a long time.

With the development of the special theory of relativity, the need to account for a single universal frame of reference had disappeared – and acceptance of the 19th century theory of a luminiferous aether disappeared with it.

So basically it was disproved by relativity, because aether requires a universal frame of reference to work, and things like space dilation and time dilation, which are very measurable, couldn't be explained by aether.

[–]bobbobbybob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

'luminiferous' - made of light.

ie. an EM field.

relativity doesn't work. Spacetime dilation is explainable without relativity, as the Gabriele link I posted gets into.

have you ever really looked at relativity? It seems to hold together when considering two objects in motion to one another, but put 4 into the mix, 3 on orthogonal axis and one oblique, and let the fun begin.

Adding insult to injury, G seems to depend on absolute velocity (the variation in measured G matches changes in velocity of earth relative to the galactic core). Relativity is poop.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting ideas, I'll have to think more about them.