If there is no Ether how can we talk about light being a wave?

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonboy
If you people were ever called to debate your views with those who know logic you would be laughed out of town.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind posting some actual logic then.

Think about your attempt parallel reason.

I did. Both questions get to the heart of the matter, which is that the universe is not known a priori. We don't have the answer to either question for that reason. It's a pity that you still don't understand that simple point, as I have elucidated it to you several times now.

The reason you would have to explain why light is source independent is because everything else we know that is a particle is source dependent. You comparison to explaining the charge of an electron is completely off the mark.

Everything else we know of that is a particle satisfies the exact same velocity addition law that light does. We cannot explain why that particular velocity addition law holds, any more than we can explain why the electron has the charge that it does.

This is what I have been saying all along. There are no more great thinkers. Just regurgitations.

Look in the mirror, protonboy.

 

[quantumdude]

Oh yes, one more thing:

What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?

 

[Zero]

Ummmm. Yeah...


If I am sidetracking something, let me know. What evidence is there for "ether"? Can somebody answer that for me?

 

[protonman]

That will be enough of that.

--Tom[/color]

 

[Zero]

Can someone give me a POLITE answer?

 

[protonman]

I did. Both questions get to the heart of the matter, which is that the universe is not known a priori. We don't have the answer to either question for that reason. It's a pity that you still don't understand that simple point, as I have elucidated it to you several times now.

What do you mean by the universe anyway?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by protonman
That will be enough of that.

--Tom[/color]

Okey Dokey Tom!

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
What do you mean by the universe anyway?

By "the universe" I mean "the totality of material existence".

OK, that's 2 of yours I answered. It's only fair that I get one now.

What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
By "the universe" I mean "the totality of material existence".

OK, that's 2 of yours I answered. It's only fair that I get one now.

What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?

I know something a priori about material existence.

 

[Zero]

What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?

Ooh, call on me, Teach!

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonboy
I know something a priori about material existence.

LMAO, you keep talking about what you know, and yet you never actually put any of this knowledge on display so the rest of us can review it. What's the matter, are you scared?

Tell me, what do you know a priori about material existence?

edit: You can start by filling me in on what substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations!

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by protonman
I know something a priori about material existence.

Do you know everything about material existence, a priori? If so, I'm really impressed. Are you saying you've never been wrong about an assumption or belief before?

 

[Peterdevis]

This becomes again a meaningless discussion.
I suggest that protonman answer this question:

What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?

And the others wait with replying until he has answered

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Tom
Tell me, what do you know a priori about material existence?
[/i]

Thanks for falling right into my trap. There are reasons why I don't give everything right away and you have not figured it out.

All material phenomena are produced.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by protonman
Thanks for falling right into my trap. There are reasons why I don't give everything right away and you have not figured it out.

Oh, I figured it out all right. The reason you don't say what you think or why is that you are nothing but hot air and you have nothing of substance to say.

Prove me wrong!

All material phenomena are produced.

Produced by _________?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Can someone give me a POLITE answer? [re:evidence for ether]

Certainly: none (rhetorical?).

And yeah, been there, done that: Ask a question and then listen to the chirping crickets.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Tom
quote protonman: All material phenomena are produced.

Produced by _________?

Since you asked Tom: All material phenomena are produced by the Prior-geometry gravitational membrane (field). It restructures in double-layered membrane quantum packages. These couple again to multi-layered "events" or more complex quantum packages. All this happens on-the-brane.
All starts with kinetic energy. Thermodynamics create EM by friction on the internal layers inside the quantum packages.
In this approach you don't need an ether (since it's all on the brane) but is resembles to an ether.

JAMES CLERK MAXWELL quote "In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy."end quote.

And: A wave is any traveling, periodic disturbance in the gravitational membrane.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Certainly: none (rhetorical?).

And yeah, been there, done that: Ask a question and then listen to the chirping crickets.

Not a rhetorical question at all, more of a demand to "put up or shut up"...you know the drill.

 

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Eyesaw
Well, Maxwell's equations for EM radiation are wave equations,
so they need a medium since waves don't exist as far everyday
observations go, independent of a medium.

Why not? What substrate is implied by Maxwell's equations?

Everyone at the time believed in an ether so I think it’s a good assumption to say that the whole Electromagnetic model was based on an ether as substrate. I don’t think anyone before Einstein would have been crazy enough to think a wave can exist absence of a medium since waves are not the actual particle motion but the silhouette of their collective motion. A common illustration of wave motion is the people in a stadium who start standing up and down one by one- if you only have one person in the stadium, you can’t have wave motion.

To derive Maxwell's
equations without an ether then would require one to show
that the vacuum is completely empty, else one can always assume
a medium that is just too small to be observed.

"Too small"?

The light that we see from the sun travels 93 million miles to Earth! In what sense is this supposed medium "too small"?

I think you misunderstood the sentence. I’m saying there’s no way to reject the idea that some medium exists in which light is just the disturbance in the medium, like any normal wave, since one can always argue that the stuff consisting of the medium are too small to be detectable by current technology. For example, Dr. Tom Van Flandern proposes such a medium in the Meta Model which they called the Elysium. The medium you are speaking of here is total empty space of which there would exist no properties, which is entirely opposite to the ether medium Maxwell and all those who developed the Maxwell equations envisioned. So if you are going to derive Maxwell’s equations based on the ability of light as a wave that travels without a medium, you have to show that this is possible in the first place. But as mentioned before, you can’t rule out the possibility of a medium consisting of particles too tiny to be detected which could explain the wave motion so you this introduction of a radically new concept- that of a wave existing without a medium- becomes unnecessary.

Since this can never be done, it's more economical to assume light, if it is a wave, requires like every observable wave phenomenon,
a medium for propagation. So you need an ether to derive Maxwell's equations.

Why is it more economical to add an assumption?

You are not adding an assumption when considering an ether necessary for wave motion. Are you adding an assumption by saying that ocean waves need an ocean to exist? If so, you should take that up with Mother Nature. While you’re at it, you should file the complaint also that gravity is unnecessary since we already have attractive motion in Electromagnetism. If a wave model already exists that can explain EM radiation, the introduction of a new model for waves just to accommodate light becomes uneconomical, especially since it contradicts the mountains of evidence for normal wave behaviour in sound and other waves.

An alternative would be to consider light as particles, in which case you would have to explain why their velocity is not source dependent like other ballistic particles.

Tom:

We do consider light as particles, when the intensity of the radiation is sufficiently weak. But why do we have to explain why the velocity of those particles is not source dependent? That is like demanding an explanation of why the charge of an electron has the value that it does.

Well, because in every particle we know of when momentum is transferred, they gain velocity. Since SR rejected the ether and yet assumes source independency of light, both of which are “assumptions” which totally contradicted all evidence of wave and particle behavior prior to Einstein, the one proposing such radical ideas should provide some clear evidence such contradictions are necessary to explain the behavior of light. Or develop a mathematical model to demonstrate this special behavior. All Einstein seemed to have done in SR is point out that Maxwell’s equations predict a constant speed c for EM waves propagating in a uniformly dense ether. But since he got rid of the ether, he loses
his right to use Maxwell's equations for his theories.

 

[Nereid]

Eyesaw wrote: *SNIP

But as mentioned before, you can’t rule out the possibility of a medium consisting of particles too tiny to be detected which could explain the wave motion so you this introduction of a radically new concept- that of a wave existing without a medium- becomes unnecessary.

But you could be proactive here, and suggest one or two (or 25 or 341) experiments which might detect such particles; or you could predict the likely range of properties of such particles ...

Further, you have available to you a truly vast amount of data - both in raw form and processed - FREE! - from across the EM spectrum (~1 TeV gammas to LVF radio), from the whole sky, with levels of intensity that Maxwell and Einstein would surely have not believed possible, and on, and on - that you can analyse for constraints on your proposed range of properties.

Etc, etc, etc.

How much of this have you done so far?

 

[protonman]

Produced by _________?

Its cause.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Its cause.

Which is what?

 

[GRQC]

Originally posted by protonman
Its cause.

Protonman is again trying to yank everyone's chain. I suggest that we ignore him, since he apparently has nothing positive to contribute to the discussion.

"Because" isn't a logical argument.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Zero
Which is what?

Its cause is that which produces it. You are so far from understanding my points you don't even know the questions to ask.

It is not the question of what is the cause. There are countless phenomena in the physical world with equally countless causes. What I am establishing is a pervasive relationship between anything that is material and being produced.

The question you should be asking is why are all material phenomena produced? Do I have to start telling you the questions to ask.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by GRQC
Protonman is again trying to yank everyone's chain. I suggest that we ignore him, since he apparently has nothing positive to contribute to the discussion.

"Because" isn't a logical argument.

Me, I'm waiting to see what steps protonman and Eyesaw have taken to make use of the cornucopia of data that their taxes have paid for (unless they're not residents or citizens of the US, any of the EU countries, probably Canada, and maybe many other countries too) to find 'valid perceptions' to support their supposed* deep insights into the nature of light, waves, particles (and the universe?).

*as none of us - other than protonman and Eyesaw - have been told what these insights are, we have only their word that they have such insights.

 

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by protonman
This is excellent work. What you are doing is here is a breath of fresh air. Another related question to raise is that if SR is incorrect how do you explain all the phenomena that have been explained using SR? For example, Pion decay experiements.

Thanks. Do you mean the muons from the upper atmosphere detected to apparently have longer lifetimes than those on EArth? If they were traveling faster than c that would explain it, no? There are lots of possibilities. Do you have a link to the experiments? Those I've read aren't very detailed.

 

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Nereid
Me, I'm waiting to see what steps protonman and Eyesaw have taken to make use of the cornucopia of data that their taxes have paid for (unless they're not residents or citizens of the US, any of the EU countries, probably Canada, and maybe many other countries too) to find 'valid perceptions' to support their supposed* deep insights into the nature of light, waves, particles (and the universe?).

*as none of us - other than protonman and Eyesaw - have been told what these insights are, we have only their word that they have such insights.

All the experiments of light that GR uses curvature of space
to explain are explainable by varying the density of the ether. And the speed of light in a medium is backed up by Maxwell's equations,
but one just have to deal with a variably dense medium when involving space. What of GR? It explains everything by curving space- if you believe empty space can curve, your insight is much deeper than mine.

 

[Nereid]

Eyesaw wrote: All the experiments of light that GR uses curvature of space to explain are explainable by varying the density of the ether.*SNIP

Details please.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by Eyesaw
Thanks. Do you mean the muons from the upper atmosphere detected to apparently have longer lifetimes than those on EArth? If they were traveling faster than c that would explain it, no? There are lots of possibilities. Do you have a link to the experiments? Those I've read aren't very detailed.

I was referring to the experiment in a lab where the half life of pions is known. A given amount of pions is accelerated near c towards a detector. According to the time in the lab frame the number of pions remaining should be less than are actually detected. The explanation is that in the pion's frame time goes slower.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by protonman
Its cause is that which produces it. You are so far from understanding my points you don't even know the questions to ask.

It is not the question of what is the cause. There are countless phenomena in the physical world with equally countless causes. What I am establishing is a pervasive relationship between anything that is material and being produced.

The question you should be asking is why are all material phenomena produced? Do I have to start telling you the questions to ask.

Sounds like circular reasoning to me.