# Aether push

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

#### undidly

##### Guest
SpeedFreek":3mbn071d said:
Hi guys!

The ether was found to be surplus to requirements and so was discarded, in much the same way as the cosmological constant. The ether has not exactly been "proven not to exist", but as of yet, there has been no need for it and no way to detect it if we did need it! (Yes, this is me!)

The Michelson-Morley experiment (and subsequent tests for the constancy of the speed of light, etc) preclude the need for a "luminifeous" ether in order to explain the motions of elementary particles, and relativity precludes it as a dynamical theory, but, as has been alluded to above, the mathematical concept of a "hidden" ether remains.

But, what use is it?

Well, that all depends on what we discover in the future, doesn't it?

""But, what use is it?""

A space drive?.In your space ship throw a heavy object toward the front where you have placed a trampoline to bounce it back.
When you throw the object it has a mass.Change the aether to INCREASE the mass before it hits the trampoline.
As the object returns REDUCE the mass .Catch the object and repeat.
Each bounce back will accelerate the ship a little,each catch will decelerate the ship but by a smaller amount.
I am not suggesting it will be an energy free space drive.
When the mass is increased will the speed of the object drop to conserve momentum or will energy be sucked from
the aether change device to maintain the speed of the now larger mass?.
It may take much energy each time the aether is changed but such a drive does not need mass to be ejected to make thrust.
Without the idea that mass can be changed no such drive can even be thought about.

What is that NEWTON?. Equal and opposite?.
On the large scale that is correct.Spaceship moves one way,universe moves the other way (not much).

O

#### origin

##### Guest
undidly":35cctb22 said:
SpeedFreek":35cctb22 said:
Hi guys!

The ether was found to be surplus to requirements and so was discarded, in much the same way as the cosmological constant. The ether has not exactly been "proven not to exist", but as of yet, there has been no need for it and no way to detect it if we did need it! (Yes, this is me!)

The Michelson-Morley experiment (and subsequent tests for the constancy of the speed of light, etc) preclude the need for a "luminifeous" ether in order to explain the motions of elementary particles, and relativity precludes it as a dynamical theory, but, as has been alluded to above, the mathematical concept of a "hidden" ether remains.

But, what use is it?

Well, that all depends on what we discover in the future, doesn't it?

""But, what use is it?""

A space drive?.In your space ship throw a heavy object toward the front where you have placed a trampoline to bounce it back.
When you throw the object it has a mass.Change the aether to INCREASE the mass before it hits the trampoline.
As the object returns REDUCE the mass .Catch the object and repeat.
Each bounce back will accelerate the ship a little,each catch will decelerate the ship but by a smaller amount.
I am not suggesting it will be an energy free space drive.
When the mass is increased will the speed of the object drop to conserve momentum or will energy be sucked from
the aether change device to maintain the speed of the now larger mass?.
It may take much energy each time the aether is changed but such a drive does not need mass to be ejected to make thrust.
Without the idea that mass can be changed no such drive can even be thought about.

What is that NEWTON?. Equal and opposite?.
On the large scale that is correct.Spaceship moves one way,universe moves the other way (not much).

Yes, but alas we do not have the power to create things like the aether by fiat.

K

#### KickLaBuka

##### Guest
Undidly, origin is right. Your efforts are in the right direction, to develop energy, but your approach fails for a variety of reasons- most starkly the requirement to use an undefined as a variable. Another reason, this one more light hearted, is the model itself. Imagine being on that space ship, jerked around by a single cylinder. Two cases develop. The first is the astronaut floating around and watching the ship vibrate. The other would be the astronaut buckled in and losing his lunch. Back to the illustrious aether, it would be best for you to fall in or go find the biggest guy in the room who agrees with you and bring him here. There's a few other topics other posters have alluded to and it may be best if i attack those issues on another thread.

K

#### KickLaBuka

##### Guest
origin:":3iojv80b said:
Of course it is not a coincidence, you made up the properties of the aether to coincide with general relativity. You also use aspect of the Higgs field to coincide with the made up aether. This is not science.

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html":3iojv80b said:
For media of equal springiness, the sound goes faster through the less heavy medium, essentially because the same amount of springiness can push things along faster in a lighter material. So when a sound wave passes, the material—air, water or solid—waves as it goes through. Taking this as a hint, it was natural to suppose that light must be just waves in some mysterious material, which was called the aether, surrounding and permeating everything. This aether must also fill all of space, out to the stars, because we can see them, so the medium must be there to carry the light.

Warning, the aether pushers are everywhere.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/mmhist.html":3iojv80b said:
With the interferometer which he invented, Michelson found no evidence of the ether, to his and everyone else's surprise. Michelson's terse description of the experiment: "The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. ... The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect." (A. A. Michelson, Am. J. Sci, 122, 120 (1881))

The proponents of an "ether" as a propagating medium for the light were not ready to give up the idea, and proposed that the Earth dragged the ether along with it in its orbit, thus accounting for the negative result of the interferometer experiment. Lord Rayleigh wrote to Michelson, urging him to repeat the experiment with greater accuracy to test these hypotheses. Repeated over the next 40 years with ever greater precision and the same negative result, this 1887 experiment is pointed to as one of the experimental foundations of relativity, and earned Michelson the Nobel Prize in 1907.

While proponents for the existence of a medium in space, an "ether", still exist, the standard position is that there is no medium in space. One of the reasons for this position is that there was no direct experimental evidence for the existence of the ether - everything can be explained without it, hence the Ockham's razor approach

thankfully, so is Occam's razor

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
1
Views
666
Replies
2
Views
568
Replies
0
Views
756
Replies
7
Views
688
Replies
17
Views
4K