Evidence of the Existence of the Aether

It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no experimental
evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether made its
presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks on their butts
from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. A few examples:

Empty space, other than occupying a volume, has at least two observable
properties, its dielectric constant and its permeability. If space is "empty",
what is it that has these properties? Since, if space consisted of a volume of
"nothingness", only a fool would assert that it could have any properties other
than volume. Since it does, space it would seem that it does contain a rejected
entity, which was called the Aether in the 19th Century!

The velocity of light in free space is determined by the dielectric
constant and the permeability of space in accordance with accepted physical
laws. Similarly, the velocity of sound in a steel rod is determined, using an
equation analogous to that used to determine the velocity of light, by the
elasticity and density of the steel. While a modern physicist seems to assert
that the existence of the dielectric constant and the permeability of space
does not require the existence of a medium (i.e.- the Aether) having these
properties, it seems certain that he would not be foolish enough to assert
that, since the velocity of sound in a steel rod is determined only by its
elasticity and its density, he could remove the rod and retain the density and
elasticity so that the sound could propagate. One might reasonably wonder if
something is lacking in the mentality of physicists who would tolerate such a
double intellectual standard.

Special Relativity (and the Lorentz Contraction Aether Theory) tells us
that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. Such
an independence is characteristic of a wavelike disturbance propagating through
a medium, it is not characteristic of an entity propagating ballistically
through "empty" space. For example, the sound of a rifle shot travels at the
velocity of sound in air and its velocity is independent of the velocity of the
rifle. The velocity of the bullet from the rifle, however, is additively
determined by the velocity of the rifle and the velocity at which the bullet is
projected. If we abolish the Aether the observed independence of the velocity
of light from the velocity of its source would seem to require that some form
of "magic" must be at work since light would then have no way to determine how
fast it is supposed to travel. Since the writer finds the idea of "magic"
accounting for observations in the science of physics extremely hard to accept,
he would be grateful if someone could provide some other explanation, which
does not require a medium (the Aether). (P.S.- Handwaving arguments about
spacetime don't serve the purpose.)

If one examines Dirac"s treatment of the creation of complementary
particles from high energy photons, he finds that Dirac had to invent a "sea of
negative energy pervading all of space" in order to make his mathematics work.
Aside from the fact that "negative energy", in the sense that Dirac used it,
would seem not only to be unexplained but to be impossible, how does that
postulated "sea of negative energy" differ from the Aether? Both say that
"something" exists in a space which had been arbitrarily assumed to be empty!

Current theory asserts that forces that “act at a distance� do so as a
result of "virtual particles" (e.g.- virtual photons, gravitons, gluons, etc.)
that pop into and out of existence so rapidly that quantum uncertainties
prevent the Law of Conservation of Energy from being violated. There would seem
to be at least two problems with this concept:-

The first is the problem is the number of particles involved. At any
instant of time, every particle in the Universe gravitationally attracts every
other particle and they must therefore be exchanging gravitons. Furthermore,
these gravitons, since they are virtual, must be extremely short lived. The
number of gravitons involved in this concept is staggering. At any instant for
example, assuming that the presently accepted value of 10^80 particles in the
Universe is reasonably correct, there must be at least 0.5*(10^160) particles
existing at one time. The size of this number is increased by the fact that
they must be short lived and therefore must be replaced continuously (gravity
appears to be continuous), suggests that a bit of skepticism would be in order.


The second problem is that of explaining how the exchange of "virtual
particles" accomplishes the production of an "attractive force". The production
of a repulsive force by the exchange of particles is obvious. Two athletes
throwing a medicine ball back and forth experience a repulsive force because of
momentum exchange between them. There does not seem to have ever been a viable
explanation as to how these particles act to produce an attractive force. The
momentum exchange requirement to produce an attractive force prohibits the
production of such a force unless there is a substrate (e.g.:- the Aether) with
which they can exchange momentum. A boomerang returns to the thrower because it
exchanges momentum with such a medium (air). If space were empty (no Aether),
such a momentum exchange cannot occur and the virtual particles could only
produce a repulsive force. The writer is aware that the mathematics associated
with the concept of "virtual particles" allows for the production of attractive
forces. He is also aware of the fact that there are many mathematically treated
problems in which the mathematics deals with conditions outside of other
constraints related to the problem and which limit the applicability of the
mathematics. This would seem to be such a case. Allow the Aether or its
equivalent to be present as a substrate and the mathematics of "virtual
photons" works.

There are two interpretations of Quantum Theory. One interpretation
involves parallel Universes coexisting in the same space as our own that are
created every time that a particle makes a "quantum choice". This approach not
only suffers the problem of absurdly large numbers described for gravitons, it
requires that an amount of energy equal to the energy content of our entire
Universe multiplied by the number of particles in the Universe be created at
every instant of time. It also requires that the volume of space occupied by
each particle contain an amount of energy equal to the energy equivalent of
that enormous amount of energy. Since the writer accepts the concepts that
energy is conserved and two entities cannot occupy the same space at the same
time, he considers the interpretation to be rather foolish.

The other interpretation of Quantum Theory requires that quantum effects
propagate at an "infinite" velocity. Most of the academic hierarchy seems to
consider this interpretation to be both "spooky" and wrong since "Special
Relativity clearly shows that nothing can travel faster than light". To the
contrary, Special Relativity shows the opposite. What it shows is that an
entity represented by energy cannot travel faster than the velocity of light
and the scientific community has fallen into the trap of assuming that
everything that is observable is represented by some form of energy. The reason
that the Special Theory of Relativity imposes its restrictions on velocity is
that the Lorentz Transformation for energy, in a force-length-time system of
units, is 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5. This means that, at the velocity of light, energy
becomes infinite and that, at velocities above that of light, energy becomes
imaginary. The effect is a limitation on the velocity of propagation of energy.
As a result, any form of communication that involves the encoding of
information in the form of energy is limited to the velocity of light.

Experiments have shown that the polarization of "paired photons" is
coupled so that changing the polarization direction (the quantum number) of one
causes the polarization direction of the other to change in correspondence. In
addition to demonstrating this polarization coupling, experiments performed in
the ‘80s have also shown that the polarization coupling propagates at least 4
times the velocity of light and perhaps at an infinite velocity. (It should be
noted that changing the polarization direction of a photon does not change its
energy content so the coupling of polarization direction between them does not
involve energy transfer).

The polarization direction of the photon is an angle that is measured in
radians (the distance along an arc divide by the radius of that arc). The
Lorentz Transformation for Angle is therefore equal to the Lorentz
Transformation for Length divided by the Lorentz Transformation for Length and
is therefore equal to unity and is independent of velocity. (Above and below a
velocity of C, the value of unity is obvious. At the velocity of C, the value
is nominally indeterminate but can be shown to be equal to the value of unity
by borrowing a technique from Calculus). With a value of unity for the Lorentz
Transformation for Angle, it seems reasonable to assert that Special Relativity
requires the polarization coupling of paired photons to travel at the infinite
velocity required by the second, more rational interpretation of Quantum
Theory. Assuming that this is the case, then the current concept of "spacetime"
as a single entity must be in error. An absolute time and velocity reference is
required.

If one examines both the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) and the
Lorentz-Contraction Aether Theory (LCAT), he finds that they are actually the
same theory in that they are cross derivable. (LCAT) is actually a special case
solution of (STR) and cannot be disproved without disproving (STR) as well.
LCAT asserts that the Aether exists but because information cannot propagate
faster than light (quantum theory tells us that this is not true), we cannot
find our velocity with respect to it. STR tells us that because our velocity
with respect to the Aether cannot be measured, it does not exist in the theory!
It does not preclude its existence or its effect from being observed by other
means. Dr. Einstein asserted, "remember gentlemen, we have not disproved the
existence of the Aether, we have only proven that we do not need it (for
computations)".

An objection to the existence of the Aether has been raised. This
objection is that if the Aether exists, "absolute time" would also have to
exist. The idea of absolute time has, however, been abolished in physical
theory. Unfortunately, its rejection did not result from physical observation
or from logical deductions based on previously proven facts. It is based solely
upon a consensus viewpoint. In other words, that rejection is based upon an
unproven (and probably unprovable opinion) rather than upon fact. The
motivation for this opinion would seem to be an overwhelming urge on the part
of physicists to consider space and time to be aspects of the same structure,
spacetime, as viewed from different reference frames so as to make their
mathematical treatment "elegant". Nature doesn't care about what we would like
to be true and there is no objectively valid reason to accept the viewpoint.

It is claimed that the concept of spacetime rather than space and time as
separate entities yields a simpler solution and, according to the principle of
Ockham's Razor, must therefore be the correct one. It is true, mathematical
solutions employing the spacetime concept are much simpler than solutions
involving the Aether, but the solutions are not simpler with respect to
reality. As Dr. Einstein, who maintained a belief in "absolute time" for 25
years after the publication of Special Relativity exclaimed, the "concept of
spacetime requires an infinite number of Aethers" as indeed it does. Once one
realizes this, Ockham's Razor would lead any reasonable man to the Aether and
not to the concept of "spacetime" as a single entity

Unfortunately, Modern Physics seems to have been taken over by
mathematical idiot savants who lack an appreciation for the implications of
mechanism and strive to suppress the contributions of those who would dare to
say "Hey, wait a minute"

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
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 Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com

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:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 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.

Einsteinhoax wrote:

Evidence of the Existence of the Aether

It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no experimental
evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether made its
presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks on their butts
from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. A few examples:

There is nothing explained WITH Aether that cannot be explained WITHOUT
Aether. Aether is an unnecessary hypothesis and there is no conclusive
evidence that it exists. None. Zero. Nada. Bupkis. K'duchas.

Bob Kolker

That is not true. For example Dirac was forced to invent a "sea of negative
energy", which an intelligent man should recognize as a physically impossible
concept, as a substitute for the much simpler aether.

As Einstein exclaimed, "an interpretation which elimiates the single Aether
actually requirtes an infinite number of aethers.
Wake up and smell the roses.

Levelsq wrote:

That is not true. For example Dirac was forced to invent a "sea of negative
energy", which an intelligent man should recognize as a physically impossible
concept, as a substitute for the much simpler aether.

Has anyone managed to make the viscoelastic aether that carries
lightwave transversely behave like the sea of negative charges. What
makes you think this Dirac construct could be the luminiferous Aether.
Can do derive light carrying properties from Diracs construction? If so,
either do it or reference a place where it has been done.

As Einstein exclaimed, "an interpretation which elimiates the single Aether
actually requirtes an infinite number of aethers.

Just because Einstein said does not make it right. Einstein was dead
wrong about locality. Did Einstein everdomonstrate with rigor that
eliminated one Aether implies there is an infinity of Aether's. If so,
where did he -prove- it. Can you give us a reference.

Bob Kolker

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, robert j. kolker wrote:



Levelsq wrote:

As Einstein exclaimed, "an interpretation which elimiates the single Aether
actually requirtes an infinite number of aethers.

Just because Einstein said does not make it right. Einstein was dead
wrong about locality. Did Einstein everdomonstrate with rigor that
eliminated one Aether implies there is an infinity of Aether's. If so,
where did he -prove- it. Can you give us a reference.

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that our old friend H.E. Retic is
appealing to authority using *Einstein*?

Levelsq wrote:
That is not true. For example Dirac was forced to invent a "sea of negative
energy", which an intelligent man should recognize as a physically impossible
concept, as a substitute for the much simpler aether.

Dirac was not forced. He may have been very smart, but was prejudiced
by the common strange ideas.

As Einstein exclaimed, "an interpretation which elimiates the single Aether
actually requirtes an infinite number of aethers.
Wake up and smell the roses.

Forget it. Nobody is infinitely wise.

Ulrich

robert j. kolker wrote:


Einsteinhoax wrote:

Evidence of the Existence of the Aether

It is the currently accepted "truth" that there is no experimental
evidence of the Aether. This seems surprising because, if the Aether made its
presence any more obvious, physicists would have teeth marks on their butts
from where the Aether had jumped up and bit them. A few examples:

There is nothing explained WITH Aether that cannot be explained WITHOUT
Aether. Aether is an unnecessary hypothesis and there is no conclusive
evidence that it exists. None. Zero. Nada. Bupkis. K'duchas.

Bob Kolker

First, I fully agree. But that you say, is only the half truth.
That physicists understand under "matter", is the same unnecessary
hypothesis. Even more, it makes unnecessary difficulties at a unification
of GR with electrodynamics, in which the Einstein equations are not
met. In reality, all matter-related quantities like mass, spin, charge,
magnetic momentum are integration constants of the Einstein-Maxwell
equations. Particles, nuclei, atoms etc. are discrete solutions
of these tensor equations, in which mentioned integration constants
have discrete values (which match the known).
If you think about that, you will not more wonder, why people again
and again talk of that funny medium, and why even serious scientists
make refined theories using that.

Ulrich

"Levelsq" wrote in message
...
That is not true. For example Dirac was forced to invent a "sea of
negative
energy", which an intelligent man should recognize as a physically
impossible
concept, as a substitute for the much simpler aether.

Modern QFT does away with this idea. And an intelligent man that studies
science does not read more into the equations that can be inferred directly
from experiments.


As Einstein exclaimed, "an interpretation which elimiates the single
Aether
actually requirtes an infinite number of aethers.
Wake up and smell the roses.

And Einstein was unsure of what part the new conception of the aether, that
he espoused in a lecture from 1920 and keeps being bought up on this forum
ad nausea, would have on the future progress of physics - we now know the
answer - none, zero, zilch. In other words we woke up, smelt the roses, and
found they stunk, so got rid of them.

Bill

Bill Hobba wrote:


And Einstein was unsure of what part the new conception of the aether, that
he espoused in a lecture from 1920 and keeps being bought up on this forum
ad nausea, would have on the future progress of physics - we now know the
answer - none, zero, zilch. In other words we woke up, smelt the roses, and
found they stunk, so got rid of them.

Why do these guys love to bring up early views that Einstein might have
held, but completely ignore his later views developed over years of work
and reflection? If one were going to quote Einstein, I should think that
quoting from his later writing is more likely to reflect his thinking.

Bob Kolker

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...


Bill Hobba wrote:


And Einstein was unsure of what part the new conception of the aether,
that
he espoused in a lecture from 1920 and keeps being bought up on this
forum
ad nausea, would have on the future progress of physics - we now know
the
answer - none, zero, zilch. In other words we woke up, smelt the roses,
and
found they stunk, so got rid of them.

Why do these guys love to bring up early views that Einstein might have
held, but completely ignore his later views developed over years of work
and reflection? If one were going to quote Einstein, I should think that
quoting from his later writing is more likely to reflect his thinking.

Balance is not the usual mode of the aetherist. I can only think of one
aetherist who posts here who I would classify as balanced - Ijla.

Thanks
Bill


Bob Kolker