Thread 16842140

Don't Einstein postulates actually make the case for aether stronger instead of disproving it?

To me the speed of light being the limit, and that you need more and more energy to speed up the closer to the speed of light you're already moving shows that electromagnetic field is stationary aether-like entity - speed of light being the limit because electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light and you can't move the field itself - only within it and limited by it.

The aether concept failed decades before the invention of relativity because it couldn't explain the invariance of c (ie. you can measure the airspeed with sound).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

>>16842140 (OP)
The speed of light is the same from every reference frame. If there was a stationary aether, then it would change depending on your velocity to the aether, but it doesn't.

>>16842181
>The speed of light is the same from every reference frame
Because you measure it with electromagnetism.
Your measurement is constrained by the very thing you're trying to measure.

>>16842178
You can in fact not measure the air speed just with sound alone

>>16842254
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemometer#Ultrasonic_anemometers

>>16842256
>They measure wind speed based on the time of flight of sonic pulses between pairs of transducers
And that's the problem. To make the analogy work you can only rely on sound speed signals. You're not allowed to sync your clocks with electromagnetic signals. You're not even allowed to use electromagnetic clocks. Your clocks need to be sound based too for example by bouncing a sound wave

>>16842262
You're missing the point. UA works because the medium itself alters the ToF, this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment was the equivalent for light. Both are using the same principle, but that principle doesn't applies to EM waves.

>>16842256
>>16842262
See https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.06870
>The observers travelling at a constant velocity have no way to tell if they are stationary or moving. With no way to tell who is in motion, this question would become a philosophical one for internal observers, and some internal observers may even come to the same conclusions that we in our universe have: that all motion is relative.

Also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKkH4IH-zmw

>>16842266
>UA works because the medium itself alters the ToF, this
And we can measure this because the clock is unaffected by the wind speed. However we can't build a clock that's unaffected by the speed of a hypothetical aether because they all work via electromagnetic waves

>>16842140 (OP)
I've always wondered this about the michaelson morley experiment. If there is this ether, why is it assumed that it must be a static unmoving background field? Why wouldn't ether lock onto the rotation of the earth, and rotate at the same angular velocity as the earth is rotating near the surface?
If that were the case, shouldn't there be difference in the velocity of the ether between the surface of the earth, and higher elevation? Did anyone do a vertical michaelson morley experiment of sufficient path length to detect any velocity difference between the surface and an elevated position?

>>16842279
You see anon,
1. you have to describe that "affected" because otherwise you're just forcing your preconception
2. using a ortogonal interferometer is the easiest way to maximize the effect even if it's weak and by design you can ignore the effect on the "clock", observer, sensor. The aether hypotesis predicts a huge effect (v + c, with v/ 10^-4), but there's another phenomena harder to measure: see LIGO. If your preconception related to aether can't be measured with a well tuned experiment capable of measuring space distortions in the order of 10^-12 then your preconception is wrong. My condolences.

It is all a semantic game, OP. You essentially solved reality with that post. Everything can essentially be summarized with "but its core processes are electromagnetic."

>>16842178
Relativity fails to account for the evidence of basic discussion of data between fundamental energies, thus failing to account for the interconnectedness of matter and consciousness, thus failing to disprove Aether.

>>16842356
Sorry but I don't speak schizo.

>>16842364
Your unwillingness to acknowledge my statements has no bearing on my mental health, champ, outside of it being a minor inconvenience to reply to such an asinine statement.

>>16842140 (OP)
The question is if spacetime is a universially conservative field or not.

Obviously for any one object it is not conservative because gravity assists work.

>>16842385
One cannot physically measure gravity without first discarding the inherent underlying electromagnetic processes at matter's base. For this reason, I must disagree with its claimed existence on principle.

>>16842140 (OP)
I think the speed of light is a limit of spatial change in relation to time because if anything went faster it would just run into the same white hot noise that preceded spacetime as we know it. In other words the universe isn’t something from nothing it’s distinction surrounded in all sides by a lack of distinction.

>>16842366
>>16842356
show us some equations, otherwise YWNBAP etc

>>16842398
Okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermitian_matrix
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-schematic-illustration-of-the-two-cyclic-sequences-of-the-mosaic-Yin-Yang-matrices_fig2_1774954

>>16842400
I’m the retard who posted about existence being surrounded by raw potentiality, and not the one you were replying to; but thanks for the cool topics. You gave me some stuff to read tonight.

>>16842406
Read up on North Whitehead, as well. Have a good one, anon. Pic unrelated, but related.

>>16842140 (OP)
>Don't Einstein postulates actually make the case for aether stronger instead
No. Aether was a mechanical medium that waves propagated through. Relativity was able to explain electromagnetism without having to suppose the existence of any mechanical medium. That was the great thing about SR: you could show that the aether wasn't required at all.
>To me the speed of light being the limit, and that you need more and more energy to speed up the closer to the speed of light you're already moving shows that electromagnetic field is stationary aether-like entity
This effectively assumes that the aether exists first. It's not deduced from anything else. Can you show that a medium follows from your the assumptions of:
>c is an upper bound
>you need more and more energy to speed up the closer to the speed of light
>stationary aether-like entity
A stationary aether means there should be aether wind, which has never been detected.

Nice GPT response. Shan't be donating a (You), thoughbeit.

>>16842410
>No arguments
I rest my case.