On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 5:16 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote:
> Like you I have harbored the idea of an ether that is local. I just can > not find a reason to assume any ether at all. There are many reasons, there is quite a lot of evidence actually, actually a lot especially if you are flexible of what we mean by aether, but then there is logic too. Since Special Relativity is an impossible nonsense as I have pointed out, and no defence of these or similar points has ever been made. Then there must be some kind of reference frame for various phenomena, including the transmission of light, and any concept of a preferred reference frame, local or universal is termed aether. > I ask myself how any one direction, or velocity can be distinguished > from the next in the vastness of space. And, if the ether is slaved to > other objects, then what determines how well it is attached to the objects > that it follows? Then you get to the questions of how small the attached > thing must be to make sense. > These are good questions. Just because the answers are not automatically known does not invalidate it, merely it sets challenges for experiments to be conducted which as far as I am aware have not even been formulated. > > I suppose it is easier to assume that one is not needed than to handle the > multitude of problems that arise. Ah, it is easier to believe a simple clean impossibility than a messy truth that is more complex to answer and has unknowns. You have hit the nail on the head for why the aether is unpopular. > And, no one seems to have any supporting measurements of which I am aware. > You have not looked then, there are, but then there is the evidence from mainstream physics that isn't looking for an aether... Have you heard of Higgs field? Dark matter/energy? Quantum probability waves? Virtual particles? Casimer effect? Zero point energy, Dirac sea etc... Frame dragging? Probably more. There are perfectly fine experiments that have shown the existence of the aether by physicists that have been rejected by their opposition to SR too. > > Maxwell's equations are based upon static charges and current (first > derivative of charge with time) measurements. This connection between the > electric and magnetic fields in space and time yield the velocity of light > without any need for an ether. Then, if you accept that SR is sound, then > again an ether does not appear to be required. > Yes, but you can't say it is sound, and I can't find anyone who can explain how SR can really play out with the examples I have given. > So, I firmly accept the notion that an ether is not needed and that space > and time are relative for each observer. > You might, but only be dogmatically believing in something you can't understand or explain or defend without opting out of the argument. And this might still seem more attractive than the aether to you, but that doesn't make you right or even coherent. John >
