Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Theory is on Eather

  1. Nov 10, 2004 #1
    I'm new to this. I had a thought and wanted to run it by people who are willing to take a minute to show me where I am wrong.

    What if the theory is on Eather (if thats how its spelled) is partially right. What if matter exists everywhere and there is no vacuum. Just matter so small we cannot detect it. And then what if light is not energy traveling through nothing but a wave of particle bouncing off each other in a wave like sound. And what if the design of the atom is the same design as a solar system. And we are on an electron traveling around a group of neutrons and protons our sun. And matter can become infinitely small. What if all matter is unstable as the density of matter increases creating energy or reaction(critical mass?), but as we know gravity attracts matter to matter.

    This was just my general idea. I had some specific thoughts about other parts of a theory. But I know very little of physics and the math behind it, so I am hoping for some help proving my theory wrong and filling in the wholes I have.
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 10, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Current theory says that there is no aether, how can that be partially right?

    Current theory suggests that all of space is filled with virtual particles, but this is not what you are suggesting. How can you include a non detectable in your theory? God is not detectable and like God, what you are suggesting is not physics.
    Basic theory says that photons do not bounce off of each other.
    Atomic structure is similar to the solar system in only the most basic models, the analogy simply does not work for anything other then a simple starting point. Atomic structure is NOTHING like the solar system.
    Fortunately this type of "what if" is not the basis of modern physics, we must base our theories on physical observations. Therefore we simply cannot even physically discuss infinitely small, that is a mathematical concept not a physical one.

    You may want to read our site guidelines concerning personal theories. I would strongly recommend that before you spend much more time developing your theories that you read through the posts on this forum, or find and read some real Physics books.
  4. Nov 10, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Once upon a time, that was more-or-less how people theorized that light acted. (To be specific, people thought that light was a mechanical vibration, like sound, travelling through the ether). Based on this theory, they predicted that the speed of light should depend, like the speed of sound, on one's relative velocity to said ether. They looked for this effect and couldn't find it. So they needed a new theory. This theory was called "relativity".

    I'm not sure of the point of this theory. Electrons, which are all identical, are bound together in atoms by electromagnetic forces. Planets, which are far from all identical, are bound together in solar systems by gravitational forces.

    It's a bit of a burden to come up with specific predictions for a theory, but there is no person better to do this than the person who comes up with the theory. The problem with asking other people to do this for you is twofold - first of all, they might not be interested or attracted to your theory, secondly, they probably won't really understand what you are trying to say.
  5. Nov 11, 2004 #4
  6. Nov 11, 2004 #5
    At one time current theory held that the world was flat.

    I meant not detectable with current technology, not undetectable as a divine being.

    How can you be so certain are not the models of an atom just that models? When can we get a view of electrons in there perfect orbit around the nucleus.

    I disagree with you on what the basis of modern physics is not. I think people sat in a room with ideas or "what if's", and then came up with physical ways to observe or test their hypothesis.

    In fact hypothesis means lets say what if for the sake of this argument.

    "1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
    2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
    3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement"
    (Merriam-Webster online)

    I would certainly be interested in getting more information. Are there any specific reading suggestions that you feel will debunk my theory.
    Also please let me know where I can look up the site guidelines that say I should not espouse absurd theories.
  7. Nov 11, 2004 #6
    For the level of interest in physics that you describe try "The World of Physics" by Jefferson Hane Weaver, published by Simon and Schuster of New York.

    It is a three volume set published around 1987, pretty old, but has a wealth of articles by physicists who actually did the work of defining modern day physics.
  8. Nov 13, 2004 #7
    Thanks Vern I'll check to see if I can find those books in the Library.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook