Two Errors In Relativity

a reply to: BakedCrusaderact


Hypothetically the difference between a gas and a solid but that really liberal to scale and just is intended as a general effort to commutate.


Space-time as a finite substance could be understood as "diluted" beyond our comprehension.

a reply to: Kashai

Please post the definitions of both aether and Dark Energy/Matter.

a reply to: BakedCrusader


As far as definitions for Aether that has been made apparent.

When it comes to definition's in relation to Dark matter and Dark energy check run a search.

To elaborate a comprehension of reality as a whole would require deductive knowledge of reality as a whole.

Space-time is simply to diffused as potential substance to act as a definition for dark matter.

a reply to: Kashai

I see, you can't tell me the difference.

One thing we can conclude is that your responses are definitely emptier than the space we are discussing.

a reply to: BakedCrusader


Another way of looking at it is that your assessments of space-time are unrealistic.

And just like Copernicus you simply cannot see beyond the idea that somewhere just beyond the known Universe Space-time ends.

I disagree.

What clearly seems empty is based upon what evidence; respectively.

Identifying space-time as a substance is discernable and hence Einstein's conclusions about space-time.

In all sincerity if your parents do not understand Calculus or Trigonometry, that may have had caused you some problems in school

But that doe not mean that because mankind is not have infinite knowledge you have to get an attitude with the membership of ATS.

To be clear that you do not understand what I am saying......

Any thoughts?

I mean if one cannot conceivably understand every specific parameter of a scenario why would someone claim otherwise.

Simple Logic.

a reply to: Kashai

I never mentioned space time. What is the difference between DarkEnergy/Matter and Aether.

a reply to: BakedCrusader


I have already made that obvious you do not seem to be reading my responses.


Aether as you have postulated does not exist that is obvious.

a reply to: Kashai

Where in your responses did you mention Dark Energy/Matter, give it's definition, and explained the difference to Aether.
Please point me towards this post.

And I have made clear that impression has nothing to do with a feeling in my right big Toe (metaphorically of course].

a reply to: Kashai

What impression. I asked you two questions which you yet again didn't answer.

a reply to: Kashai

I think hes trying to claim an aether and dark energy are the same truth is they are opposites. The aether was the easy explanation made sense but unfortunately was proven wrong. however dark energy makes no sense as to what causes it and why its there. Meaning there isnt a physicist that likes this but it was forced on us by observations.

In other words we cant make the universe behave according to our theories. Our theories have to account for observations. Truth be told we've had some beautiful theories we had to throw out.

a reply to: BakedCrusader


A point would be that space-time is to diluted structurally to support the idea that it functions to maintain the structure of individual galaxies.

a reply to: dragonridr

I think hes trying to claim an aether and dark energy are the same truth is they are opposites. The aether was the easy explanation made sense but unfortunately was proven wrong.

It was not proven wrong since it was not the only conclusion that could be drawn from the MM experiment.

Maybe you are willing to post the definition of Aether and Dark Energy/Matter to back up your claims of a difference between them. So far nobody has dared to do so........

a reply to: BakedCrusader


Seriously

a reply to: Arbitrageur

So, the existence of Dark Matter is proven by observations of gravitational lensing.

What is gravtitational lensing?

A gravitational lens is a distribution of matter (such as a cluster of galaxies) between a distant light source and an observer, that is capable of bending the light from the source as the light travels towards the observer. This effect is known as gravitational lensing, and the amount of bending is one of the predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity

How does it prove Dark Matter?

The scientists had already calculated the masses of the galaxies using other measuring methods. Yet the results from gravitational lensing showed the galaxies are bending much more light toward themselves than they should be able to. The astronomers knew something was amiss. An unseen force, substance or object had escaped the clouds along with the galaxies and was helping to bend more light.

According to your sources.

So here we have a mysterious, invisible "force, substance or object" permeating space and affecting light. Light is moving through space which is not empty but filled with this Dark Matter and Energy that is bending light and thus a medium.

But it is nothing like aether, oh no.

Yet you all agree Dark Matter exists, you agree that it makes up "empty space" through which light travels, and you agree that light is affected by it.

So, now that we have established that there is in fact a medium through which light travels in space, and that this medium does in fact affect light how is the conclusion of the MM experiment that there is no such thing, correct?

It wasn't. The result showed that the Earth is stationary so they had to get rid of the Aether and now they are trying to sneak it back in because their model fails without it. Well it fails with it too.

How could they conclude that there is no aether if they had no proof that the Earth is in fact moving? The whole thing is based on the belief that the Earth is moving which was nothing but an assumption at the time, a belief.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Kashai

I never mentioned space time. What is the difference between DarkEnergy/Matter and Aether.

I will take a shot at answering the question you've repeatedly asked.

Dark Matter. (Caveat - This is not something I am expert on.) From what I understand, dark matter is made up of particles. At one point I recall that they were called WIMPS for weakly interacting massive particles. It was observed that the galactic models need considerably more gravitational pull between and within them than you get when you just account for the known particles that make up stars, planets, asteroids, interstellar dust and gas. To achieve this extra pull it was proposed that there must be a lot of particles within the galaxies that can't be seen by electromagnetic interactions. (I believe dark matter also has no strong interactions.)

Dark Energy. Caveat - This is also something I am not expert on. I understand it is similar to dark matter except that it is all pervasive, occupying all of space, and does not come in clumps. From their names, I assume dark energy has zero rest mass whereas dark matter will have finite rest mass.

Aether - a physical substance capable of sustaining and propagating the mechanical oscillations that we know as light.

As I hope you can see, these three things, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Aether are quite different from each other. While photons are affected by dark matter and dark energy gravitationally, dark matter and dark energy do not form an underlying substance upon which light is "waving".

So that is my shot at the definitions that you have asked for repeatedly but not gotten.

And now we get to the fun part.

Because there is a very good reason why you did not get the answers you repeatedly asked for.

Present modern physics thinking finds that the question you kept asking, and the answer I have given, is a mere shadow of what the real science is. From what I believe you are asking, and from what I know my answers are, there is an assumed belief in something real underlying the physics. That is, there is an underlying objective reality that is being assumed, within which underlying real things have certain physical properties. In other words, we are assuming there is an underlying physical model. We may not know fully what the properties of our model are, but we believe they must exist. Surely, nature is made up of something!

But that was the classical view prior to modern physics. The modern physics approach was heavily influenced by Ernst Mach, who was a major factor in the rise of logical positivism. Logical positivism takes an approach that all we can really be certain of are our observations. So it is the observations that tell us what is real, and the theory behind the observations can only truly be expressed by equations and principles. In the modern physics approach, we don't have the underlying mental pictures, nor the models of an underlying reality that you are asking for. Instead we have "the principle of least action" and the "principle of relativity" as well as lots of extremely complicated equations.

So what is dark matter and dark energy then? They are names given to things that appear in equations: usually manifestly co-variant equations! A manifestly co-variant equation is an equation wherein you can readily see how spatial intervals can become both spatial and temporal intervals, and temporal intervals can become both spatial and temporal intervals, as observed by a relatively moving observer. (Or energy and momentum can likewise transform.) Both time and space (or energy and momentum, or other "four vectors") appear in the equations in a symmetric way. If that all sounds confusing, well, welcome to modern physics! Very few people actually understand the reality of what lies behind the equations. In fact, most physicists, basing their work on Mach and Einstein, don't even try. Instead, what is done is that we learn the equations and principles and then do experiments to determine whether or not our experiments disprove those principles and equations. So far, the principles and equations have survived nearly every experimental test, and on those rare occasions when they falter, new equations (and far less frequently, new principles) are added to the mix. Which, of course, explains how things have gotten so complicated and confusing.

All that said, I have devoted much of my career in an attempt to return physics back to the pre-Machian classical foundations. I plan to continue posting here in the coming weeks and months, and I plan to get to the topics of space, time and the Aether, but it all takes time. Right now I am posting about preons.

a reply to: delbertlarson

As I hope you can see, these three things, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Aether are quite different from each other. While photons are affected by dark matter and dark energy gravitationally, dark matter and dark energy do not form an underlying substance upon which light is "waving".

That is a conclusion that is based on nothing. Light is travelling as a wave through empty space that is actually filled with Dark Matter, how did you establish that the invisible substance refered to as Dark Matter is not waving? You didn't.

Furthermore, the aether was proven to exist by the 1913 Sagnac experiment. Relativists have tried to refute this but have failed using demonstrably wrong arguments.

a reply to: delbertlarson

As I hope you can see, these three things, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and the Aether are quite different from each other. While photons are affected by dark matter and dark energy gravitationally, dark matter and dark energy do not form an underlying substance upon which light is "waving".

And also, in relation to the MM experiment, it is not relevant if the aether is "waving", the point is that if there is a substance filling empty space that affects light, like science claims it does, then the MM experiment should still give a result if the Earth were moving, but it shows the Earth is stationary.

Other experiments do to btw, like "Airy's failure", regardless of the very weak attempts to refute it.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
That is a conclusion that is based on nothing. Light is travelling as a wave through empty space that is actually filled with Dark Matter,

False. Space is not filled with dark matter. Dark matter is very "clumpy". For example, so far we have found no evidence of dark matter in our own solar system and light travels just fine in our solar system.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
And also, in relation to the MM experiment, it is not relevant if the aether is "waving", the point is that if there is a substance filling empty space that affects light, like science claims it does, then the MM experiment should still give a result if the Earth were moving, but it shows the Earth is stationary.

Again, false. You are imposing properties on Einstein's "ether of general relativity" that are not part of his theory. I have provided Einstein's clarification of the difference in properties between the aether of general relativity and the luminiferous aether and this is one of the differences which you are refusing to accept for whatever reason and therefore your statement is completely false.