Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gravity is pressure of the Ether?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gravity is pressure of the Ether?

    Hello to all who is interested in alternative science. First of all I have to say that I am not phisician and so I can't claim to be right.

    I found a video https://youtu.be/m5PH8m9A17w that breaks templates of knowledges about phisics that we all learned in schools. Then, I read some articles and even found long scientific books about ether phisics. But this video refers to doubts when they begin to tell about their commercial things and look for fundraising without a proof after 15 minutes of "lesson", but it is still interesting. As they tell, gravity is pressure of ether onto Earth from above.

    Who what thinks about it?

  • #2
    Hello.

    Thank you for informing us that you are not a physician, I will be sure not to approach you with medical inquiry. Being or not being a physicist does not validate nor invalidate your claims. Arguments must rest or fall on their own merits.

    The theory of an ether was conceived to explain how light waves seemingly travels through empty space. It was refuted and put to rest in the early 20th century after failing to predict the outcome of several experiments. Einstein's breakthroughs on the fundamentals of light and gravity certainly didn't do it any good either.

    So what do I think about it? Nothing, it is a joke.

    It gave me a laugh though, thanks.

    Comment


    • #3
      Surely there's some confusion here? Mass x Gravity is our Weight on Earth. According to 'Newton 3' there must be an equal and opposite force. What's the alternative, "ether" and "anti ether"? Ether might equate with quarks shooting through the earth every five seconds, and there's a theoretical argument for the existence of anti-quarks, unless Dr. Gell-Mann (formerly of MIT & Yale) corrects me.

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, I think the author is quite wrong to criticize physicists for not calling dark matter ether: dark matter is the name for the missing matter needed to explain galactic rotation curves and large-scale structure of the universe. Clearly that's not what the ancients meant, nor what people thought of as luminiferous ether at the turn of the 19th century.

        If the ether the author refers to is a material medium, then we should observe it -- in the LHC for example, and probably other particle accelerators. The fact that we have not seen it despite the its macroscopic and nearby effects says something. Granted, the Standard Model of particle physics doesn't include dark matter either, but dark matter interacts far more weakly.

        I think the idea will not work ultimately. From what I understand, the author thinks the ether pressure works in accordance with Archimedes principle: the buoyant force is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid, and so the amount of displaced ether is tells how much the ether presses back. The author explicitly claims that volume determines the 'gravity', that is the force that we feel pulling us down towards the Earth. So all one needs to do is find two planetary objects of same size but different density and determine their gravitational gradients or, perhaps more realistically, the radii of their orbiting satellites. Gravity predicts that objects of the same mass but different volume always have satellites at similar distances orbiting at similar velocities. The ether theory makes no such prediction.

        Gravity is also universal, meaning everything attracts everything. The ether theory says nothing about that, but it has been measured by Cavendish in late 18th century. It's possible there is another mechanism at work, but if so, then this ether theory doesn't seem to provide a better alternative, as it leaves more things unexplained compared to gravity. Like the tides. If the Moon doesn't attract the Earth, why are there tides?

        Also not sure how the ether theory would deal with predictions of gravity for non-spherical objects. I think they might be different.

        Interestingly, ether theory probably allows for gravity waves, or waves propagating in ether. We should feel these as momentary fluctuations of gravity... Doubt we've seen anything on that scale though, especially since LIGO is still looking.

        From what I guess, the ether theory would also suggest that the ether pressure is larger the higher you go... but in fact gravitational attraction decreases the farther you go.

        I don't think the ether theory is simple. It sounds like fluid dynamics, which is not simple. There is even a Millennium problem about that. Also, it's not at all fleshed out, it's just taking its first steps, so it has little explicative power, especially compared with the modern machinery of physics and math which together can produce bewilderingly accurate predictions. The author seems to look down on math, so I doubt any mathematical formalism will be forth coming... so why should physicists -- or anyone for that matter -- abandon their trusted machinery that works so much better?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Accidie View Post
          The theory of an ether was conceived to explain how light waves seemingly travels through empty space. It was refuted and put to rest in the early 20th century after failing to predict the outcome of several experiments. Einstein's breakthroughs on the fundamentals of light and gravity certainly didn't do it any good either.

          So what do I think about it? Nothing, it is a joke.
          Actually, ether wasn't refuted, it was merely shown that it was not needed. Regardless, there are formulations of special relativity with ether that produce exactly the same mathematics as special relativity. Whether it exists in reality is a metaphysical question, but it seems that it may be allowed. In general relativity you could say that ether exists as the curvature of spacetime.

          I think you might be surprised reading some of Einstein's views on aether -- though maybe not, they're very reasonably.

          Comment


          • #6
            To quote Stephen Hawking:

            Rubbish.

            Comment


            • #7
              It is not true because we pull earth in the same power It pulls us according to general Newton's law of gravity

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by momenmoh View Post
                It is not true because we pull earth in the same power It pulls us according to general Newton's law of gravity
                Are you restating rhetoric that I've already mentioned about Newton's third law of motion about equal and opposite forces? You need a new pair of spectacles, surely?
                Last edited by look4swissmiss; 08-05-2015, 07:38 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ether does not exist. End of the story.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Back in the 19th century, ether was still regarded as a feasible idea and even more so after Maxwell came up with his equations of electromagnetism. One outcome from these was very strong evidence that light was an electromagnetic phenomenon. Perhaps this was the greatest single intellectual achievement of the 19th century, Darwin's theory of evolution coming a very close second.

                    Suddenly you had something that could test the ether idea, how quickly the Earth is going through the "ether" and Michelson and Morley in 1887 did just that with their experiment to check the speed of light in different directions. Bad news! No change in speed of light when you changed the direction. So, out goes the ether. Aristotle and others that followed him got it all wrong.

                    However, the idea was not so bad for what they knew at that time. if you look at Maxwell's equations and those of elasticity (Maxwell was also into elasticity theory), you'd see that they are pretty analogous. It was quite feasible that light was moving through an elastic medium of some sort. So, not such a terrible guess after all. But experiment is king in physics. So, once Michelson and Morley's results came in, out went the hypothesis of ether ('theory' in a scientific context is too strong here - 'ether' was an idea without too much hard evidence). Then relativity arrived at the speed of light and explained things nicely at a macroscopic scale.
                    Last edited by aussieinbg; 10-11-2015, 10:15 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ArtemiyB View Post
                      interested in alternative science.
                      claims require
                      Originally posted by ArtemiyB View Post
                      Who what thinks about it?
                      As other posters have said and to paraphrase - 'total crap'.

                      A more likely hypothesis borne out from tons of empirical observation explaining originators of ideas such as this 'theory' of ether is that this person is either a) a crackpot ; b) a scammer ; or c) some permutation or combination of a) and b).

                      I'm inclined to go towards b), given the huge number of people who originate such 'theories' and then subsequently ask for money to 'test' them.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ...and a fart is the speaking of god through our body^^

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          No i dont think so thats the case. Gravity is the result of the earths special movememnet.We studied that in like 9 th grade .

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In other news, I read just today that the final 2 loopholes have been closed for proving quantum mechanics "spooky action at a distance".
                            http://phys.org/news/2015-10-histori...-god-dice.html

                            What this means is that local realism is disproven (as much as anything in science can be said to be disproven). I know it's been "known" for a long time now but this now closes the case for sure.

                            Still fascinating no matter how many times I try to get my head around it.

                            As for gravity, the current theory of gravity is still general relativity. There are many candidates to tie it together with quantum theory but so far none have been confirmed by empirical data and experiment. I'm not thrilled by theories that are not testable in the foreseeable future, but perhaps there is scope for someone to invent new technology and/or new tests that can bring them closer to being falsifiable in the near future? That's what makes science exciting. I love reading about new discoveries. It's an exciting time to be alive that's for sure.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by runsOnCaffeine View Post
                              In other news, I read just today that the final 2 loopholes have been closed for proving quantum mechanics "spooky action at a distance".
                              http://phys.org/news/2015-10-histori...-god-dice.html
                              What this means is that local realism is disproven (as much as anything in science can be said to be disproven). I know it's been "known" for a long time now but this now closes the case for sure.
                              Still fascinating no matter how many times I try to get my head around it.
                              As for gravity, the current theory of gravity is still general relativity. There are many candidates to tie it together with quantum theory but so far none have been confirmed by empirical data and experiment. I'm not thrilled by theories that are not testable in the foreseeable future, but perhaps there is scope for someone to invent new technology and/or new tests that can bring them closer to being falsifiable in the near future? That's what makes science exciting. I love reading about new discoveries. It's an exciting time to be alive that's for sure.
                              Yes, quantum is a very cool theory and a brilliantly predictable one. Feynman when comparing the accuracy of quantum theories to what experimental prediction and actually measure - to specifying the width of North America to within one hair's breadth of accuracy. An indirect consequence of it is our ability to communicate here right now.

                              It's not so much fun that the testing of these theories is delayed somewhere into the future when the technology to test them will come into play or other theoretical discoveries provide a different basis to test them. However, it is a much better state of affairs than the pseudo-scientific crap out there which refuses to even dare to subject itself to scientific scrutiny.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X