Ether Drag theory

**yogi** · Mar15-05, 01:14 AM

I would agree that with the large number of competing scientific publications, most reasonable ideas will find a home. But I would also wager that SR would be rejected by most scientific publications today if we had not already come to accept what Wheeler calls the preposterous idea that light always passes an observer at the same velocity. Can I prove it - of course not.

The subject of this thread was (past tense) ether drag - we all agree there is no evidence of ether drag - but the rebuke of the concept was not based upon the absence of evidence of entrainment, but rather upon no ether. Of course if there is no ether there is nothing to drag. But it does not follow that because there is no drag, there is no ether. And that was my point - and it still is. If Einstein believed that an ether was necessary for the propagation of light - then so do I.

**ZapperZ** · Mar15-05, 07:55 AM

Originally Posted by yogi

I would agree that with the large number of competing scientific publications, most reasonable ideas will find a home. But I would also wager that SR would be rejected by most scientific publications today if we had not already come to accept what Wheeler calls the preposterous idea that light always passes an observer at the same velocity. Can I prove it - of course not.

Which is just the way you like it. If you can't prove it, then you should have just shut up and not brought it up. What's the point in speculating IF Einstein's idea would be rejected. I have equal grounds (if not MORE) to say that it WOULD have been published based on all the whacky ideas that DID get published. So such discussion, which YOU brought up, is MOOT and a waste of time!

The subject of this thread was (past tense) ether drag - we all agree there is no evidence of ether drag - but the rebuke of the concept was not based upon the absence of evidence of entrainment, but rather upon no ether. Of course if there is no ether there is nothing to drag. But it does not follow that because there is no drag, there is no ether. And that was my point - and it still is. If Einstein believed that an ether was necessary for the propagation of light - then so do I.

And you of course ignored the quote attributed to Einstein that essentially deemed the ether as unnecessary. TYPICAL!

But this is still besides the point. You still seem to think that physics is done based on who collects what quotes. This is pure garbage. Einstein, of all people, believe MORE in observations than anything else. And the best that you can do to insinuate the existence of the ether is to go on a fishing expedition to throw out values for the permittivity and permeability of free space. Even Einstein didn't make such connection! Do you think he was too dumb to see such an obvious thing like that that was staring right in everybody's face?

But do you know why there is no ether? It's simple. It is because YOU can't define it. You cannot tell how it behaves, what physical qualities and quantities that it has, and what set of properties it posesses. In this sense, the classical ether is MORE REAL than YOUR ether. At the very least, the classical ether was well defined. People know what it is supposed to do, and how it is supposed to do it. It allows for its properties and effects to be measured and falsified. And falsified it was! This "ether" you are trying to sell is a figment of your imagination. It has more shifty and vague spins to it than a politician caught in a brothel. You can't even point to one single published paper that would define and clarify what you meant by this ether. And yet, you "believed" it, and not only that, you are trying to sell it to everyone else.

And still, you do not see what's wrong with this picture? Puhleeze!

Zz.

**russ_watters** · Mar15-05, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by yogi

Where do I disagree with Einstein...

If Einstein believed that an ether was necessary for the propagation of light - then so do I.

Doubletalk, and you know it. I've pointed it out half a dozen times now and you agreed. From now on, I'll just put the initials of the point, every time you say it: ENEVCE (Einstein's New Ether Vs the Classical Ether).

Ether drag and the MMx is about the classical ("lumiferous") ether, which Einstein specifically said is superfluous. You favor the classical ether (or something that looks a lot like it) and Einstein did not. Therefore, you disagree with Einstein.

**russ_watters** · Mar15-05, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by ZapperZ

But do you know why there is no ether? It's simple. It is because YOU can't define it. You cannot tell how it behaves, what physical qualities and quantities that it has, and what set of properties it posesses. In this sense, the classical ether is MORE REAL than YOUR ether. At the very least, the classical ether was well defined. People know what it is supposed to do, and how it is supposed to do it. It allows for its properties and effects to be measured and falsified. And falsified it was! This "ether" you are trying to sell is a figment of your imagination. It has more shifty and vague spins to it than a politician caught in a brothel. You can't even point to one single published paper that would define and clarify what you meant by this ether. And yet, you "believed" it, and not only that, you are trying to sell it to everyone else.

And still, you do not see what's wrong with this picture? Puhleeze!

Zz.

Well put. This is starting to get old...

**russ_watters** · Mar15-05, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by yogi

The subject of this thread was (past tense) ether drag - we all agree there is no evidence of ether drag - but the rebuke of the concept was not based upon the absence of evidence of entrainment, but rather upon no ether. Of course if there is no ether there is nothing to drag. But it does not follow that because there is no drag, there is no ether. And that was my point - and it still is.

And that point is simply wrong, as we've discussed. The ether was postulated to exist and predicted to have certain properties. One such property was that you could drag it. If an experiment (observation) designed to detect the ether drag fails (post 2 of the thread), then that is another nail in the coffin for the ether itself.

It goes like this:

-I propose an ether with the property (behavior) "ether drag" (this is, as we discussed and you agreed, a property of the classical ether but not Einstein's ether).
-I observe that "ether drag" does not exist.
-I conclude my ether does not exist.

**yogi** · Mar15-05, 12:46 PM

Wrong Russ - the ether drag hypo was postulated as an attempt to explain MMx - the ether had long been proposed - the drag hypo was an incorrect idea - had nothing to do with the merits of the ether. In fact it was proved wrong by aberration even before it was invented.

Zz - why is your guess as to whether SR would be accepted by Physics Review or Nature or Scientific American any better than mine -

Einstein said the ether was superfluous to his 1905 derivation - in 1920 he said it was essential for the progagation of light - read again the last paragraph of the Leiden address. How can you all deny the plain meaning of what he said.

**ZapperZ** · Mar15-05, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by yogi

Wrong Russ - the ether drag hypo was postulated as an attempt to explain MMx - the ether had long been proposed - the drag hypo was an incorrect idea - had nothing to do with the merits of the ether. In fact it was proved wrong by aberration even before it was invented.

Zz - why is your guess as to whether SR would be accepted by Physics Review or Nature or Scientific American any better than mine -

Einstein said the ether was superfluous to his 1905 derivation - in 1920 he said it was essential for the progagation of light - read again the last paragraph of the Leiden address. How can you all deny the plain meaning of what he said.

And you said that I have this hang up about peer-reviewed journals? It looks like you have an unhealthy obsession with Einstein's quotations!

Read my lips (or my typing fingers): Science is NOT done via a series of quotations.

If ALL you are able to do is quote someone else's words, and this is ALL you are basing your "belief" on, then you are in the wrong area of the web. You want "religion by the book" web section where they BLINDLY obey and follow the words of other messiahs. Here, they'll counter any physical evidence by citing phrases off such holy books. Not only that, they also think this is a VALID means of discussing and countering any ideas. I think you'll be happier there since they're doing exactly what you are doing here.

Zz.

**russ_watters** · Mar15-05, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by yogi

Wrong Russ - the ether drag hypo was postulated as an attempt to explain MMx - the ether had long been proposed -

That does not contradict what I said: ether drag was essentially a loophole (we've discussed this before) in which the ether still could reside after the failure of the MMx. After the failure of the MMx, ether proponents were looking for a way that they could hold on to the ether - ether drag was the loophole they needed to avoid abandoning an idea that had already failed. The failure of MMx was one strike against the ether, the ether drag postulate was another separate one. With the loopholes getting smaller and smaller, most scientists consider it pumping a dry well to continue postulating that it exists (most decided that after the failure of the MMx). [quote]the drag hypo was an incorrect idea - had nothing to do with the merits of the ether. In fact it was proved wrong by aberration even before it was invented. [quote] Yeah, it does have something to do with whether or not the ether exists: had ether drag been found to be real, then the ether, would have also been proven to exist. Since ether drag is flawed, the ether postulate is still empty.

How can you all deny the plain meaning of what he said.

Some people, yogi, faced with everyone saying they are wrong might consider re-examining their ideas to see if its possible that the rest of the scientific community might be right. As I've said before, there is no controversy in the general scientific community over the interpretation of those Einstein quotes.

**marlon** · Mar15-05, 04:39 PM

Pff, this is a very exhausting thread

marlon

**yogi** · Mar15-05, 10:11 PM

Russ - i will agree that the ether drag was an attempt to save the ether - but it didn't need saving since (as I keep saying and you and your immature friend continue to ignor or misinterpret) SR did not depend upon the existence of an ether or any properties of space whatsoever. SR is strictly observational relational. MMx and other over and back experiments do not disclose anything about the ether - the null result depends from time dilation.

Third call for an answer as to what Einstein meant when he said an ether is necessary for the progagation of light (Last paragraph of his Leiden address).

**russ_watters** · Mar16-05, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by yogi

Russ - i will agree that the ether drag was an attempt to save the ether - but it didn't need saving since (as I keep saying and you and your immature friend continue to ignor or misinterpret) SR did not depend upon the existence of an ether or any properties of space whatsoever.

We're not ignoring that, that's the entire point. Because of the failure of the MMx, the ether wasn't so much dead as it was superfluous. So we kinda agree - the ether didn't need saving - we just disagree on why: the ether didn't need saving since it was never alive in the first place.

However, if the ether existed, it would need to be incorporated into SR: it would need to be incorporated into the second postulate. (hold that thought - further discussion later)

SR is strictly observational relational. MMx and other over and back experiments do not disclose anything about the ether - the null result depends from time dilation.

That's the loophole-searching we discussed before. The MMX was specifically designed to detect the ether and when it didn't detect it, it became a piece of evidence against the existence of the ether.

Third call for an answer as to what Einstein meant when he said an ether is necessary for the progagation of light (Last paragraph of his Leiden address).

Third call? We've discussed it already. You continuously lump any mention of the word "ether" together into your undefined "ether" that smells like the classical ether even when you specifically agreed that it can't be.

Regarding the Leyden address - I must admit to never having read the full text (just that last paragraph taken out of context, and even then I never had trouble understanding the distinction you're refusing to draw: ENEVCE). I have now.

HERE is the full text. Its essentially a history of he ether and its evolution. He even specifically labels different concepts of the ether ("Hertz's ether", for example). It is crystal clear that there is more than one "ether" being descussed there and crystal clear that the ether in SR is not the classical ether. Quotes such as: "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz...." are obviously talking about different concepts of what an "ether" might be. Its your usual mistake: ENEVCE. And yet you still refuse to differentiate. My god, he even calls it "the new ether" (I didn't know that when I started saying it). Far from even being vague or tough to interpret, the interpretation you hold is so clearly, straightforwardly wrong its amazing that you could even say it with a straight face.

Reading more of your previous post, I see a clarification in your point:

Einstein said the ether was superfluous to his 1905 derivation - in 1920 he said it was essential for the progagation of light...

You think Einstein made a mistake in 1905 and changed his mind in 1920. Setting aside the fact that Einstein still used the word "superfluous" in the Leyden address to characterize the relationship between SR and the classical (lumiferous) ether and setting aside that you're mis-paraphrasing him (in 1905, he referred to "the lumiferous ether", in 1920, he referred to "the new ether", and again ENEVCE) (and, I'm going to sound like ZZ here....), if Einstein had made a mistake and changed his mind, where can I find a specific retraction/correction of his 1905 paper? Einstein was famous for his personality as much for his science - he was open to admitting mistakes (as any good scientist is), and yet he never issued any such statement. He never wrote a paper discussing the mistake. A term for the ether flow does not appear anywhere in any equation in any of his papers. In fact, open any physics text today and the 2nd postulate of SR still reads: "The speed of light in vacuum has the same constant value c in all inertial systems. " Why has this not been amended to read 'The speed of light in a vacuum is constant relative to the lumiferous ether'?

edit: RE: Lorentz ether theory: HERE is a good discussion of how and more importantly, why Einstein came up with Relativity, including the flaws in the assumptions of Lorentz's theory. It so happens that Lorentz's math works out, but the method to get their is fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies.

**anti_crank** · Mar16-05, 04:55 PM

In theory, I should get some comments in before the moderators lose their patience and lock this thread and its endless circularity. In practice, it turns out, I've gotten so much entertainment already from reading all this that any commentary would be fairly superfluous. Marlon calls this exhausting, but I call it a laugh fest; so much so that I'll be almost sorry to find this closed upon my return in 5 days.

**yogi** · Mar16-05, 10:42 PM

Russ - If what you are saying is: some ethers have been eliminated - I would totally concur. And i would submit also that the idea of an ether as some sort of fluid medium was dealt a blow by Mmx.

Let me ask you this. Do you think Einstein's statements in the Leyden and other addresses that I have quoted are totally consistent. In other words, Einstein had an opportunity to put the lumiferous ether to bed - and take his stand against the ether as a requirement for the propagation of light - yet he doesn't do that - he says its necessary for the propagation of light.

To take all his statmente at face value, you wind up with a very peculiar animal (like your elephant). Now a distinction can be clearly drawn between Lorentz ether and other properties of space - I think Einstein, when refering to the "ether of Lorentz" is saying that motion with respect to space does not cause a physcial contraction of material things as per Lorentz and FitzGerald - i.e., there is nothing acting upon the electrons and atoms consequent to motion wrt space that brings about a physical shrinkage - So we can agree that Einstein has emphatically eliminated the "ether of Lorentz." I hope I have not given the impression that i am defending the ether of lorentz - because I am not.

But I do not find in his words a condemnation of a propagation medium.

Did Einstein change his mind? I don't think it was so much a change as shift. In his theory of GR he explained the G force as a static space conditioned by mass. Much of his later work was directed to finding a global connectedness. Einstein was convinced that particles do not act directly upon one another, but rather they affect space - and the second particle, being in the field of the first, feels the force of the first because of its affect upon the inbetween space. So while there is no specific retraction, there is this:

See next post

**yogi** · Mar16-05, 10:44 PM

“There is no idea of which I would be sure that it would stand the
test of time, and I have doubts whether I am on the right way
In general ...feelings of dissatisfaction come from the inside.”

Quote from Einstein near the end of his life.

**Alkatran** · Mar17-05, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by yogi

“There is no idea of which I would be sure that it would stand the
test of time, and I have doubts whether I am on the right way
In general ...feelings of dissatisfaction come from the inside.”

Quote from Einstein near the end of his life.

Why is all your evidence seem to be like this:
Einstein said it.
Therefore it is true.

And the other half is

Einstein said it.
Einstein then said it was wrong.
Therefore it is false.

Wait... i think.. I think I see a problem here... what.. is it... Oh I KNOW I;m looking RIGHT at it...

**russ_watters** · Mar17-05, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by anti_crank

In theory, I should get some comments in before the moderators lose their patience and lock this thread and its endless circularity. In practice, it turns out, I've gotten so much entertainment already from reading all this that any commentary would be fairly superfluous. Marlon calls this exhausting, but I call it a laugh fest; so much so that I'll be almost sorry to find this closed upon my return in 5 days. [emphasis added]

Can you tell that's my new favorite word? It just rolls off the tongue. Say it with me: Superfluous, superfluous, Beetlegeuse - er, I mean superfluous!