It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
[PDF] William Lyne's Research Supports Ultraviolet Light Transmutation File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View Lithium is the most active of all elements, and is perhaps the most ... Space Aliens from the Pentagon second edition August 1995 by William R. Lyne ... fedgeno.com/.../william-lynes-research-supports-ultraviolet-light-transmutation.pdf - Similar
Well if yours is a solid then yes, Einstein would approve because he made quite clear that experimental evidence shows it cannot be like a liquid or gas:
Originally posted by Phractal Phil
I’m sorry to disappoint you, Cos, but Tesla’s ether was a gas; mine is a solid. I’m no mathematician, but I’m pretty sure both special and general relativity are compatible with my model
So I believe in both relativity and ether, but not Tesla's brand of ether.
So you've got a transverse wave problem if you try to hypothesize a fluid (or a gas) ether, only a solid will allow transverse waves according to Einstein.
When in the first half of the nineteenth century the far-reaching similarity was revealed which subsists between the properties of light and those of elastic waves in ponderable bodies, the ether hypothesis found fresh support. It appeared beyond question that light must be interpreted as a vibratory process in an elastic, inert medium filling up universal space. It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a fluid, but only in a solid.
This may be a false dichotomy, it doesn't necessarily have to be either or and there are other options to believe in as Phil pointed out.
Originally posted by Cosmic4life
This is just a simple poll to discover who on ATS is a follower of Einstein's Relativity Theory?
and who is a follower of Tesla's Dynamic Aether Theory?
I'm not allowed to post the whole explanation, just a snippet, so you have to refer to that link and read the thread, it's quite interesting.
Essentially what you are proposing is the same as "Ether drag", a proposal that has already been made. The problem with it is that it doesn't jive with certain astronomical observations, namely stellar aberration...
To return to light, Ether drag would mean that there is would be no stellar aberration and we woudn't see the stars shift positions.But we do see stellar aberration and the M&M experiment does not detect a aether drift, either.This rules out both rigid Aether(Aether drift and stellar aberration) and a "fluid" Aether(no Aether drift and no stellar aberration.)
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
... When we do conduct experiments that detect its existence, then you might convince me, until then all I have to go on are the experimental results we have which say there is no aether, static or dynamic.
Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Just a small correction to aid the understanding of Tesla Dynamic Aether Theory.
Tesla states that this Aether acts as a solid to heat and light while at the same time behaves as a fluid to solid matter.
I hope this clarifies just what kind of Aether Tesla was describing.
Michelson-Morley merely proved that Earth does not drag the ether with it. This in no way falsifies ether theories, such as my own, which do not involve ether dragging.
Einstein derived the FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction from the relativity postulate; thus his description of special relativity was also consistent with the apparently null results of most experiments (though not, as was recognized at the 1928 meeting, with Miller's observed seasonal effects). Today special relativity is generally considered the "solution" to the Michelson–Morley null result. However, this was not universally recognized at the time. As late as 1920, Einstein himself still spoke of a different concept of ether that was not a "ponderable medium" but something of significance nonetheless.
We use ElectroMagnetic Quantum Gravity (EMQG, ref. 1) to provide a simple physical model of the Lense-Thirring effect on the earth. The Lense-Thirring effect is a tiny perturbation of the motion of a free-falling particle near a massive rotating object, first calculated by the physicists J. Lense and H. Thirring in 1918 using general relativity. The Lense-Thirring effect can also be thought of as the ‘dragging of inertial frames’, as first named by Einstein himself.
I just read Korg Trinity's post and along with this post it points out that we need to define some terms here, so we are talking the same language.
Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Just a small correction to aid the understanding of Tesla Dynamic Aether Theory.
Tesla states that this Aether acts as a solid to heat and light while at the same time behaves as a fluid to solid matter.
At no time did he ever state that his Aether was a gas.
I hope this clarifies just what kind of Aether Tesla was describing.
Then Einstein came up with a different definition, he called the "aether of special relativity" and the "aether of general relativity" but the scientific community never accepted or used his terminology:
In the late 19th century, luminiferous aether or ether, meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.
So this is something different than the luminiferous ether, and refers to what in our modern day terminology we might call the fabric of space-time. I think this is what Korg Trinity refers to in one part of his post, but since the scientific community calls this the fabric of space-time, then perhaps we should too, or if we refer to it in Einstein's terms I suggest we use the terminology "Einstein's " to distinguish it from commonly accepted usage of the terminology in the scientific community. Then of course we have Phractal Phil's Ether, no problem there he says he has his own theory and that's fine with me because he's defined it. So that makes 4 definitions.
After arguing that in special relativity motion is relative and acceleration is absolute, he said that even the "aether of special relativity" (aether = the four-dimensional space-time) is still "absolute", because matter is affected by the properties of the aether, but the aether is not affected by the presence of matter. This asymmetry was solved within general relativity. Einstein explained that the "aether of general relativity" is not absolute, because matter is influenced by the aether (aether = gravitational field), as well as matter influences the structure of the aether.
So the luminiferous ether that Einstein abandoned in 1905 is not the same as his new aether which we now refer to as the "fabric of space-time" and use the famous rubber-sheet analogy.
the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians like John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. In addition, Einstein's use of the word "aether" found no support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics.
This is a 5th definition though not really, because as Phractal Phil astutely points out, they don't just call it aether, they call it "quantum aether". I don't think it is called something else ONLY because the term luminiferous ether is unpopular, but also because if it's something different, then it adds clarity to call it something else like "quantum ether" instead of "aether". So if we call this "quantum ether" I don't think it creates any confusion with "luminiferous aether" or Einstein's "aether of special relativity" as long as we are careful to refer to them that way and not just call them "aether" because they are all different things.
Originally posted by Phractal Phil
I suppose they invented this “quantum ether” to avoid making the unpopular claim that there is a luminiferous ether.
We have to give Tesla recognition for AC electricity and other contributions of his, so no doubt he was a great man. However, my understanding is that later in his life he kind of "lost it" which doesn't make his earlier contributions any less valuable, but I don't think we can deny his full life's story. Regarding the "He would have delivered free energy from resonating the Schumann cavity if Morgan had not blackballed and derailed him.", please don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. What would stop anyone else, including you, from delivering "free energy from resonating the Schumann cavity" if such a thing were possible, irrespective of what did or didn't happen to Tesla?
Originally posted by Cosmic4life
Tesla has to be ranked next to da Vinci in stature as a scientist and an inventor/engineer.
He invented radio not Marconi.
He invented AC current which we all use.
He would have delivered free energy from resonating the Schumann cavity if Morgan had not blackballed and derailed him.
Simply google list of inventions by Nikola Tesla.
There are 300, happy reading.
Oh and those longitudinal Scalar waves, yep Nikola Tesla.
___________________
___________________
___________________
___________________
That's what I'm doing for now so as not to confuse it with the other topics, but should you choose to rename it later just let us know.
Originally posted by Phractal Phil
Would I be accused of arrogance if I named it after myself?
Meaning you have defined it as something that is your hypothesis, that's enough for now but whenever you choose to reveal more details that's fine. If you plan to publish it maybe you should do that first.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Here are the first 4 definitions discussed:
Luminiferous aether - When you use the word aether, this is what I believe is generally understood.
Tesla's Dynamic Aether-Hopefully a link will be provided to help us define that better.
Einstein's "aether of general relativity"- this is different from the traditional aether and nobody in modern times calls this aether but instead the "Fabric of Space Time"
"Phractal Phil's Aether"-he has defined this for us so we're clear on that.