Thanks for a fascinating post. It occurs to me that Russia/Soviet Union have always had a strong scientific tradition including a much larger space program than US. I wonder if some gems from behind that language barrier (and previously an ideological barrier) might have fallen through the cracks regarding ether and such topics.
Good point. Will need to look into that. They would probably agree there is an aether. The Russians were far ahead of the Americans in space tech in the 60s. They said, and still say, you can't go to the moon, radiation of course and other factors. Every day there is some cosmic event, and 'space' is bombarded by gamma rays and other energy which would fry you.
I am still trying to wrap my head around the aether.
Is it like a gas covering the ground, and gets 'less' higher up?
is it like a roaming invisible mass, that is at times more and then less, at various locations?
Is is a conduit for energy transfer? like lightning?
How did the MM prove non-movement? Yes, the parallel readings should have been different than the perpendicular. But the predicted of 30km/s was higher than the actual 8km/s. What actually was moving then? if the Earth is stationary. What was moving at 8km/s? In relation to what?
Yes, an aether is required as a medium for waves to propagate. Is the medium more/less at different locations on the earth? If yes, then that means waves propagate more/less when there is more/less aether present.
I would like a more detailed explanation of the MM experiment as how it 'proves' the aether.
A fascinating critique of what is presented to us as "settled science". As a non-scientist, I appreciate this breakdown of the competing interpretations of presence of waves, aether etc..
Thanks glad it helped! A key takeaway is that 'The Science' will never discuss what is in the post. They will declare (as you would expect) the opposite of what MM actually found. All to fit the narrative of Relativity of course.
Thanks for a fascinating post. It occurs to me that Russia/Soviet Union have always had a strong scientific tradition including a much larger space program than US. I wonder if some gems from behind that language barrier (and previously an ideological barrier) might have fallen through the cracks regarding ether and such topics.
Good point. Will need to look into that. They would probably agree there is an aether. The Russians were far ahead of the Americans in space tech in the 60s. They said, and still say, you can't go to the moon, radiation of course and other factors. Every day there is some cosmic event, and 'space' is bombarded by gamma rays and other energy which would fry you.
I am still trying to wrap my head around the aether.
Is it like a gas covering the ground, and gets 'less' higher up?
is it like a roaming invisible mass, that is at times more and then less, at various locations?
Is is a conduit for energy transfer? like lightning?
How did the MM prove non-movement? Yes, the parallel readings should have been different than the perpendicular. But the predicted of 30km/s was higher than the actual 8km/s. What actually was moving then? if the Earth is stationary. What was moving at 8km/s? In relation to what?
Yes, an aether is required as a medium for waves to propagate. Is the medium more/less at different locations on the earth? If yes, then that means waves propagate more/less when there is more/less aether present.
I would like a more detailed explanation of the MM experiment as how it 'proves' the aether.
Many posts on these very questions are coming :)
If there is no aether, there is no light, sound, wave, or energy transmission., Vacuums in reality can't exist. Nothing means nothing. Even the calculation of light speed, done in the 19th century for the most part, used the aether, or if one prefers the 'lower atmosphere'. https://unstabbinated.substack.com/p/the-speed-of-light-is-probably-not?utm_source=publication-search
A fascinating critique of what is presented to us as "settled science". As a non-scientist, I appreciate this breakdown of the competing interpretations of presence of waves, aether etc..
Thanks glad it helped! A key takeaway is that 'The Science' will never discuss what is in the post. They will declare (as you would expect) the opposite of what MM actually found. All to fit the narrative of Relativity of course.