Help me understand your objection to how modern physics describes “empty space”.
What modern science currently hypothesises as giving mass to ‘empty space(s)’ it calls: dark matter and dark energy. You want to call a/ether. In your own words, and as if you were teaching an intro class, can you elaborate the differences, other than just nomenclature in these two approaches?
Which is why mainstream physics is so fucked up it is in denial of understanding in a double slit experiment it is the aether which waves.
So it’s not just us that are “incapable of understanding that” you are correct-it is everyone else, too? Since all the professional physicists in the world are incapable of understanding you, what possible hope do we have?
Dark matter is hypothesized as being anchored to matter. The Milky Way’s halo is thought to be a clump of dark matter that travels along with the Milky Way.
This is invalid. There is no such thing as dark matter anchored to matter.
Aether has mass.
Particles of matter move through and displace the aether.
The Milky Way’s halo is the state of displacement of the aether.
The Milky Way’s halo is curved spacetime.
What is referred to geometrically as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the aether passes through both.
What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the aether.
Einstein’s gravitational wave is de Broglie’s wave of wave-particle duality; both are aether displacement waves.
Aether displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
It’s not all of professional physics. Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin understands there is a relativistic ether which is analogous to a piece of window glass. Aephraim Steinberg understands in a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave passes through both. Physicists at MIT have no demonstrated de Broglie’s wave-particle duality in the macro world with walking droplets.
Valeriy Sbitnev understands aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.
‘From the Newton’s laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others’
What you’re doing - in repeatedly quoting the same thing - is attempting an argumentum ab auctoritate or argument from authority. It’s an attempt to fend off criticism by appealing to some form of accepted higher authority that will end the criticism. It’s a common fallacy and one I don’t wish to see repeated multiple times in a single thread in Great Debates.
Instead of using someone else as an authority and saying that’s responsive, I expect you to come up with your own words making your own arguments and using checked citations to back up your arguments. As it is, it makes it appear that you, yourself, don’t understand the positions which you are asserting and are being forced to fall back on the arguments of others to support your position. That’s certainly not a means by which to convince others that you are correct.
So don’t do it again. Is that clear?
You could write out the math instead of poorly constructed assertions and analogies.
I have no idea how to respond to a poster who insists using water as an analogy for the aether is invalid when Einstein himself did.
Einstein did the math. What Einstein failed to realize is the geometrical representation of gravity referred to as curved spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.
‘Alert Einstein’s ‘First Paper’’
“The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces.”
Einstein is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.
The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.
Then I would suggest that you’re not versant enough with the topic to properly defend your assertion. That might be a leading indicator that one shouldn’t be so strongly arguing in favor of something.
Or, it could be understood that Einstein using water as analogous to aether should be good enough to understand water can be used as an analogy for the aether.
http://www.straco.ch/papers/Einstein%20First%20Paper.pdf
No, science has not progressed since the time of Einstein. Mainstream physics has driven itself off the rails, found itself in a ditch and has found it impossible to stop digging.
‘Many worlds’? You have go to be fucking shitting me. All in order to not understand it is the aether which waves in a double slit experiment.
That again perpetuates your argument from authority. You can’t just say ‘he’s an expert and that means debate is over’. You need to lay out your proof - which has to be more than ‘someone says something’ - and defend your claim. You are not doing so.
Science has not progressed since 1895? If any statement invalidates every single thing you’ve said in this thread, this one is it.
In terms of understanding what occurs physically in nature, mainstream physics is more incorrect than when it was believed the Earth was stationary and the center of the Uinverse.
The Big Bang is a religious belief.
Not understanding it is the mass which fills ‘empty’ space which waves in a double slit experiment is just ignorant.
Says the poster than does nothing but assert hypotheticals as actuals.
Einstein was brilliant, but he was not omniscient. He made mistakes, and simply restating a quote doesn’t address an argument that that quote was wrong.
Here, I’ll restate the argument Trinopus gave. Water waves come in two types: surface waves and compression waves. Surface waves require a place where the medium is not. Surface waves on water go up into the air, where there was not water before. You claim the aether fills the entire universe, so there is no surface for it to wave against. You also claim that the aether is incompressible, so it can’t have a compression wave either. So, how exactly does the aether wave, and how is that analogous to a water wave?
And here, I’ll throw in a second argument at no addition price. Waves, at least normal non-aether waves, carry energy. When a boat moves through water, the energy for that wave comes from the motion of the boat. That slows the boat down, and without something pushing the boat forward, it will eventually come to rest, relative to the water it’s moving through. You claim that objects moving through the aether make waves, but that the objects don’t slow down. So where does the energy for the aether waves come from? Or do aether waves not carry energy? Either way, it’s a big difference from the way water waves work.
Mainstream physics has data and detailed, well worked-out models; nobody says it’s the end of the story, but so far, nearly every observation we’ve made is in perfect agreement with the models. You have a bunch of bald assertions and vague analogies you refuse to imbue with any content, plus a heap of confusion about the ‘mainstream physics’ you so readily criticize.
What, for instance, does ‘anchored to matter’ mean? Dark matter is generally thought to interact gravitationally with normal matter, like normal matter does with normal matter; it simply doesn’t participate in the other fundamental interactions, that’s all. Not that I still expect any answers to straightforward questions out of you.
[quote=“mpc755, post:295, topic:686772”]
Watch the following video. As the droplet moves through the silicon it displaces the silicon. As the silicon fills-in where the droplet had been the silicon displaces the droplet. This is the wave back-filling, pushing and guiding the particle.
‘The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets’
[/QUOTE]Let me tell you why I am confused by this response. That video does not depict a droplet moving through a medium, neither does it depict any displacement.
It’s an interesting video in terms of demonstrating wave behaviours in macroscopic systems, but unless you have different definitions of ‘displacement’ and ‘moving through’, I’m at a loss to understand the relevance of this with respect to people’s questions about compression, surface waves, pressure and displacement in your proposed aether medium.