This is all very interesting, but it ALL actually avoids the question that is the title of this thread. "Does IT exist?"
Come on, the first parameter required to ask that question is to define what "IT" is. No experimentation is of ANY use without knowing what you are looking for. THIS is where "Classical" aether searches will always fail, as if you aren't looking for the correctly defined object, than how do you expect to get results?
A LONG time ago, in school, actually, this was a heated topic, and physics was one of my favorite subjects. (The 2nd year collage course I was forced to take in junior year high school got me in trouble, but...) Why these same arguments always come up, I just don't know. I'll only comment this way. If you cannot do the test for yourself, or have not actually seen the test and parameters run for yourself, you are acting on "Faith". I don't care which side your on, nor what references you use, you are demonstrating your faith in what you have read, instead of what you have directly experienced. THAT is the problem with most science today. I've seen this argument between two physics professors, and both "Knew" they were right. (And of course, both could be wrong, too. This was within the last decade. I'm too old for this S***!
)
Prime example, just to throw a wrench in the works, for both sides. What if, (This is already proven and documented, but not as an aether effect, so don't start the "Where is that from" stuff. Try thinking about examples, and do a test or two.) again, what if the aether is "Clingy" to the structure of matter? (Oppps, all data just got canned, but who can accept that truth?) That was simple, and I didn't have to give credit to the magnetic field basics concept, the dark matter concept, the lack of aether concept nor any other theory, as the attributes of what I was looking for prevent testing with matter present, unless that matter is taken into account by the test. (Try finding info that applies in this situation. Strange hole in research there. Why? I have no clue, but have hit it in other studies.)
Many "Normal" people claim that I am just "Sprouting BS"! Many aether people consider this concept "WRONG!". Take the simple test of the "Motor Inertia effect". (I'm avoiding names as that causes trouble. Faith, remember?) Spinning up a motor the first time takes more power than the second time, if done within the "Spin down" time of whatever the unseen force that has inertia, by definition. No one, that I know of, refutes this simple fact, and it's not really even hard to test. I'm NOT saying that relates to aether, but it DOES prove that this "Whatever" stayed in the SAME place, relative to the motor, which is moving relative to the sun, etc. etc. etc. Simple logical facts, eh? IF, and I will repeat that, for those that need it, IF this "Whatever" has ANY relation to a supposed aether, then not only is relativity a requirement, but ANY MASS must "FIX" this effect in that relative location. Can you see where I am coming from. Taking these "IF"s into account means that there could not be an aether wind, per se, so such could not be measured in a standard way, unless measured in a "True" spacial vacuum, with no mass present. (There are methods, but you would have to assume an aether first, in order to define the interactions, etc.) Try this experiment, but don't attempt to publish the results. (The result is self-evident.) Generate what you would consider to be an "aether distortion" and THEN preform the experiment with light..... This will be a LOT tougher, as ALL the other things come into play. RF, EM, RE, XYZ, etc. will now have to be taken into account for their possible effects. Again, the experiment is useless. Believe me, some have tried. (I'm offering no names as the "Faith" will always win out, unless you can have greater faith in your own physical work. Theory doesn't cut it here.) No matter the result, someone will be able to destroy the results, using their "Faith" knowledge.
OK, I'm jumping off the soapbox here, as the simple statement C is the maximum speed has already been disproven, but that concept is still necessary in using current day tech and EM theory. What does that simple fact say about the completeness of the theory? A LOT of things are in use that are not understood, and only an unaware person would be able to not accept that. There are a lot of such people out there, and quite a few here, as well. Put it this way, would anyone argue with the Faraday equations and theory about electrolysis? I would hope not, as they are proven accurate. (In a specific situation...) Does this mean that there is NO MORE to be understood in the process or that Faraday knew all there was to know about the process? Same situation.
There are many things that are beyond our ability to test, especially if we don't know enough about what we are testing. When will this be solved? I hope never, as what would be the use, once we know everything? How boring would the news from a complete utopia be? SO, who can offer up an accurate description of what to test for? Seems a catch-22 to me. Waves propagating in space as a concept? If you can't even define what the "Field" is, why waste time trying to explain it's propagation when you haven't got enough parameters to even know How to test it. I hope this makes sense, as all of us are operating on faith in what we believe to be true. That's why I stick to "I believe it when I SEE it, not when told it or when I read it." Is someone going to try to tell me the attributes of water by knowing how the waves operate? By it's effect on other things? It's all in asking the right questions, or the answers are meaningless. Ask the wrong questions, and all you get is a fight.
As always, this is just my opinion and not to be construed as claiming any real knowledge. That must be obtained on your own.
Author
Topic: Ether - Does it Exist? (Read 154927 times)
