Is the Aether Truly Attached to Earth?

[hartlw]

Just out of curiousity, what's wrong with the theory that the aether is attached to the earth? It's no more fantastic than the hypothesis that the Earth is the only inhabited piece of matter in the known universe. And if it makes it easier to "think" and explains the Michelson Morley and similar experiments and celestial obsevations, why not? Halliday and Resnick second edition comment that physicists don't like it. That's the reason?

While I'm on the subject, why is it that classical physicists carefully define time and distance while special relativity simply starts with speed without first defining time?

 

[1effect]

Just out of curiousity, what's wrong with the theory that the aether is attached to the earth? It's no more fantastic than the hypothesis that the Earth is the only inhabited piece of matter in the known universe. And if it makes it easier to "think" and explains the Michelson Morley and similar experiments and celestial obsevations, why not? Halliday and Resnick second edition comment that physicists don't like it. That's the reason?

No, experimental falsification is the actual reason.

 

[hartlw]

Link unintelligible. Why bother upsetting a very useful and intelligible hypothesis with obscure experiments?

 

[1effect]

Link unintelligible. Why bother upsetting a very useful and intelligible hypothesis with obscure experiments?

I apologise for wasting my time, I promise not to do it again :-)

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Link unintelligible. Why bother upsetting a very useful and intelligible hypothesis with obscure experiments?

Are you suggesting that we should ignore experimental results that disprove an unverified theory simply on the basis of the theory's subjectively assigned "usefulness"?!

 

[Ookke]

The gravitational field of Earth is quite dominant here locally. It might well have much effect on observations made in the vicinity of the Earth.

 

[hartlw]

I don't think it's worth upsetting the system to explain an obscure, questionable, experiment. Especially if the "explanation" involves a fudamental parameter like time without even first defining it.

 

[hartlw]

Ooke wrote: "The gravitational field of Earth is quite dominant here locally. It might well have much effect on observations made in the vicinity of the Earth."

That's a reasonable observation. I love reason. As an example of logical thinking:

It is logically concluded an electron must reside outside of nucleus. But then it would collapse due to force of attraction. OK, so it revolves around nucleus. But then it would lose energy by elecrical radiation and slowly collapse. OK, it occupies specific orbits (energy levels). Let's determine them by theory and experiment. Fine. I'm sold. Quantum mchanics. Very interesting. Can't imagine the thought process with relativity in mind.

 

[hartlw]

Are you suggesting that we should ignore experimental results that disprove an unverified theory simply on the basis of the theory's subjectively assigned "usefulness"?! :

I'm suggesting we should look for a logical explanation based on first principles, like the definition of time.

 

[Mentz114]

Hartlw:
In my opinion you're talking rubbish.

First you haven't defined what you mean by 'an aether', and secondly you prefer intellectual indulgence to hard physical evidence. The 'nature of time' has nothing to do with the case.

 

[hartlw]

Mentz114 wrote:
"In my opinion you're talking rubbish.

First you haven't defined what you mean by 'an aether', and secondly you prefer intellectual indulgence to hard physical evidence. The 'nature of time' has nothing to do with the case."

Aether: A reference frame in which the speed of light is the same in all directions, postulating the availability of an absolute clock and measure of length.

"The nature of time has nothing to do with the case." I agree. That's not science. we need a concrete definition. What is "the nature" of mass, length, charge, time? We can only define them with physical definitions based on experiment and observation. Only God knows "the nature" of these things.

 

[Mentz114]

I don't think it's worth upsetting the system to explain an obscure, questionable, experiment. Especially if the "explanation" involves a fudamental parameter like time without even first defining it.

The MM experiment is neither obscure nor questionable. "upsetting the system " what system ? You mean your own private set of beliefs which you arrogantly hold to be true ?

How can any explanation not involve time ? Time is well enough defined to make physical theories self consistent and agree with experiment.

 

[1effect]

The MM experiment is neither obscure nor questionable. "upsetting the system " what system ? You mean your own private set of beliefs which you arrogantly hold to be true ?