Ether is something present everywhere

Ether is the medium on which Light Travels.

What is refractive index of Ether?

If Ether is present everywhere What is it made up of.

IS Ether filling the Gap between Nuclie & Electrons?

Is Ether Mass Less

Does Ether has a Volume

When a Mass moves arround Ether does Ether produce any Resistance

Is it simmilar to the Water in Ocean Or Air on Earth So that the
Fishes cannot feel the Water and we Cannot see the Air though it is
present every where?

Is Ether also present in Vaccume.

What are the Laws that say Ether Exists.

And Which Laws say Ether do not Exist.

Is there any Experiment to show Ether is present in World.

If Ether is removed from a place will the Light Stop. Just Like Sound
travels from medium. But Sound do not travel in Vaccum. Simmilarly
will the Light Stop when Ether is not Present?

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Your rejectioon of the Aether does you little credit.

Without the Aether we are faced with unanswered questions:
1.- The reaction forces required for inertial and gravitational forces are
considered to be "fictitous" in contradiction to Newton's Third Law.

2 - Empty space has observable properties in addition to its volume. It has,
for example, a dielectric constant, permeability, a characteristic
electrical impedance (300 ohms) and propagates light at the velocity of C in
accordance with its dielectric constant and permeability.

It seems absurd to
assert that "empty" space has properties.

It is not absurd to assert that
"empty space" is actually filled with an "Aether" having those properties.

Try thinking instead of merely propagating the "party line."

A perusal of my posts in this newsgroup shows quite clearly that I do
not "reject" the aether. But I do know that any viable aether theory is
experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and that makes them all quite
useless. And I also know that no aether theory has any approach to
quantum phenomena, which makes them excessively naive.

But I do know that any viable aether theory is
experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and that makes them all quite
useless.

Um.. a bit of circular reasoning perhaps? The fundamental tenet of SR,

On Apr 29, 6:06 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

But I do know that any viable aether theory is
experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and that makes them all quite
useless.

Um.. a bit of circular reasoning perhaps? The fundamental tenet of SR,
the constancy of the speed of light _independant of the velocity of
the emitter_ PROVES the reality of light's carrier medium. Without the
medium, why is not the speed of light additive to the emitter's speed?
Why isn't the speed of light energy-dependant, or even infinite? If
space is 'nothing' and functionally void, what property of the
'Nothing' fixes its permeability/permittivity and dialectric constant
and sets the high, invariant propagation speed of light? Further, in
the absence of a carrier medium, why is there NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF ENERGY TRANSMISSIBLE BY EM RADIATION?

These two Cardinal Points of Evidence (and a half dozen others
mentioned here many times) demonstrate a spatial medium of very high
energy density that not only fixes the speed of light, _but is of even
greater energy density than the most energetic wave it carries_.

Another Cardinal Point of Evidence is the *relativistic effects*
described by SR. Time dilation, mass increase, and foreshortening of
rods, demonstrate a medium becoming increasingly resistive and
"viscous" at high relativistic speeds. If space were 'Nothing', this
onset of "viscous-ness" could not and would not occur and there would
be no speed limit to anything, no mass increase, and no foreshortening
of rods at *any* speed.

SR is a set of **descriptions of effects**. SR does not explain the
_acting mechanism_ CAUSING those effects. Yet the very presence of
those effects are prima facie evidence by which the spatial medium
_demonstrates itself_.

GR is likewise a set of **descriptions of effects**. GR does not
explain the acting mechanism CAUSING those effects. Just for example,
take one of the most dramatic demonstrations of gravity-in-action, a
supernova. What is the literal, active mechanism POWERING the stellar
collapse that powers the fusion that rebounds as the SN blast, leaving
that massive star crushed down to a black hole? Proponents of the 'no
medium', space-as-void doctrine are challenged to "fill in the
blank"____________.
Whatever powers the stellar collapse culminating
in a supernova is a very REAL force, not a pseudo or 'fictitious'
artifact of symmetries/fields, geometry, "curvature" of 'Something
that is yet Nothing'.. or of hordes of "exchange
particles" (gravitons).
Massive gravitational phenomena such as
quasars, supernovae and hypernovae, demonstrate a FLUIDIC spatial
medium under a state of pressurization far exceeding degeneracy
pressure of the atomic nucleus.
The behavior of gravity at all scales
demonstates the pressure-driven, accelerating Flow of that fluid into
mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. And it demonstrates
unification of gravity with the strong nuclear force. Per Occam's
razor, gravity is exactly what it _demonstrates itself_ to
be.

On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:45:27 -0700 (PDT), oldcoot





oldcoot7...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Apr 29, 6:06 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

But I do know that any viable aether theory is
experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and that makes them all quite
useless.

Um.. a bit of circular reasoning perhaps? The fundamental tenet of SR,
the constancy of the speed of light _independant of the velocity of
the emitter_ PROVES the reality of light's carrier medium. Without the
medium, why is not the speed of light additive to the emitter's speed?
Why isn't the speed of light energy-dependant, or even infinite? If
space is 'nothing' and functionally void, what property of the
'Nothing' fixes its permeability/permittivity and dialectric constant
and sets the high, invariant propagation speed of light? Further, in
the absence of a carrier medium, why is there NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF ENERGY TRANSMISSIBLE BY EM RADIATION?

These two Cardinal Points of Evidence (and a half dozen others
mentioned here many times) demonstrate a spatial medium of very high
energy density that not only fixes the speed of light, _but is of even
greater energy density than the most energetic wave it carries_.

Another Cardinal Point of Evidence is the *relativistic effects*
described by SR. Time dilation, mass increase, and foreshortening of
rods, demonstrate a medium becoming increasingly resistive and
"viscous" at high relativistic speeds. If space were 'Nothing', this
onset of "viscous-ness" could not and would not occur and there would
be no speed limit to anything, no mass increase, and no foreshortening
of rods at *any* speed.

SR is a set of  **descriptions of effects**. SR does not explain the
_acting mechanism_ CAUSING those effects. Yet the very presence of
those effects are prima facie evidence by which the spatial medium
_demonstrates itself_.

GR is likewise a set of **descriptions of effects**. GR does not
explain the acting mechanism CAUSING those effects. Just for example,
take one of the most dramatic demonstrations of gravity-in-action, a
supernova. What is the literal, active mechanism POWERING the stellar
collapse that powers the fusion that rebounds as the SN blast, leaving
that massive star crushed down to a black hole? Proponents of the 'no
medium', space-as-void doctrine are challenged to "fill in the
blank"____________.
                     Whatever powers the stellar collapse culminating
in a supernova is a very REAL force, not a pseudo or 'fictitious'
artifact of symmetries/fields, geometry, "curvature" of  'Something
that is yet Nothing'.. or of hordes of "exchange
particles" (gravitons).
                      Massive gravitational phenomena such as
quasars, supernovae and hypernovae, demonstrate a FLUIDIC spatial
medium under a state of pressurization far exceeding degeneracy
pressure of the atomic nucleus.
                       The behavior of gravity at all scales
demonstates the pressure-driven, accelerating Flow of that fluid into
mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. And it demonstrates
unification of gravity with the strong nuclear force. Per Occam's
razor, gravity is exactly what it _demonstrates itself_ to
be.

I think you would enjoy the following:

Dynamical 3-Space: A Reviewhttp://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Dynamical3Spac...

Abstract: For some 100 years physics has modelled space and time via
the spacetime concept, with space being merely an observer dependent
perspective effect of that spacetime - space itself had no observer
independent existence - it had no ontological status, and it certainly
had no dynamical description. In recent years this has all changed. In
2002 it was discovered that a dynamical 3-space had been detected many
times, including the Michelson-Morley 1887 light-speed anisotropy
experiment. Here we review the dynamics of this 3-space, tracing its
evolution from that of an emergent phenomena in the
information-theoretic Process Physics to the phenomenological
description in terms of a velocity field describing the relative
internal motion of the structured 3-space. The new physics of the
dynamical 3-space is extensively tested against experimental and
astronomical observations, including the necessary generalisation of
the Maxwell, Schrodinger and Dirac equations, leading to a derivation
and explanation of gravity as a refraction effect of quantum matter
waves. The flat and curved spacetime formalisms are derived from the
new physics, so explaining their apparent many successes.

More here:http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 29, 6:06 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

But I do know that any viable aether theory is
experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and that makes them all quite
useless.

Um.. a bit of circular reasoning perhaps? The fundamental tenet of SR,
the constancy of the speed of light _independant of the velocity of
the emitter_ PROVES the reality of light's carrier medium. Without the
medium, why is not the speed of light additive to the emitter's speed?
Why isn't the speed of light energy-dependant, or even infinite? If
space is 'nothing' and functionally void, what property of the
'Nothing' fixes its permeability/permittivity and dialectric constant
and sets the high, invariant propagation speed of light? Further, in
the absence of a carrier medium, why is there NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF ENERGY TRANSMISSIBLE BY EM RADIATION?

These two Cardinal Points of Evidence (and a half dozen others
mentioned here many times) demonstrate a spatial medium of very high
energy density that not only fixes the speed of light, _but is of even
greater energy density than the most energetic wave it carries_.

Another Cardinal Point of Evidence is the *relativistic effects*
described by SR. Time dilation, mass increase, and foreshortening of
rods, demonstrate a medium becoming increasingly resistive and
"viscous" at high relativistic speeds. If space were 'Nothing', this
onset of "viscous-ness" could not and would not occur and there would
be no speed limit to anything, no mass increase, and no foreshortening
of rods at *any* speed.

SR is a set of **descriptions of effects**. SR does not explain the
_acting mechanism_ CAUSING those effects. Yet the very presence of
those effects are prima facie evidence by which the spatial medium
_demonstrates itself_.

GR is likewise a set of **descriptions of effects**. GR does not
explain the acting mechanism CAUSING those effects. Just for example,
take one of the most dramatic demonstrations of gravity-in-action, a
supernova. What is the literal, active mechanism POWERING the stellar
collapse that powers the fusion that rebounds as the SN blast, leaving
that massive star crushed down to a black hole? Proponents of the 'no
medium', space-as-void doctrine are challenged to "fill in the
blank"____________.
Whatever powers the stellar collapse culminating
in a supernova is a very REAL force, not a pseudo or 'fictitious'
artifact of symmetries/fields, geometry, "curvature" of 'Something
that is yet Nothing'.. or of hordes of "exchange
particles" (gravitons).
Massive gravitational phenomena such as
quasars, supernovae and hypernovae, demonstrate a FLUIDIC spatial
medium under a state of pressurization far exceeding degeneracy
pressure of the atomic nucleus.
The behavior of gravity at all scales
demonstates the pressure-driven, accelerating Flow of that fluid into
mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. And it demonstrates
unification of gravity with the strong nuclear force. Per Occam's
razor, gravity is exactly what it _demonstrates itself_ to
be.

The frame dragging results of Gravity Probe B will distinguish whether
it or GR is the better theory.
Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effecthttp://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/CahillGPB.pdf

When the reality of the spatial medium and the flowing-space mechanism

oldcoot <oldcoot7074@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On Apr 29, 6:06 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

But I do know that any viable aether theory is
experimentally indistinguishable from SR, and that makes them all quite
useless.

I think it depends what kind of aether is meant. The following theory

Um.. a bit of circular reasoning perhaps? The fundamental tenet of SR,
the constancy of the speed of light _independant of the velocity of
the emitter_ PROVES the reality of light's carrier medium. Without the
medium, why is not the speed of light additive to the emitter's speed?
Why isn't the speed of light energy-dependant, or even infinite? If
space is 'nothing' and functionally void, what property of the
'Nothing' fixes its permeability/permittivity and dialectric constant
and sets the high, invariant propagation speed of light? Further, in
the absence of a carrier medium, why is there NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO THE AMPLITUDE OF ENERGY TRANSMISSIBLE BY EM RADIATION?

These two Cardinal Points of Evidence (and a half dozen others
mentioned here many times) demonstrate a spatial medium of very high
energy density that not only fixes the speed of light, _but is of even
greater energy density than the most energetic wave it carries_.

Another Cardinal Point of Evidence is the *relativistic effects*
described by SR. Time dilation, mass increase, and foreshortening of
rods, demonstrate a medium becoming increasingly resistive and
"viscous" at high relativistic speeds. If space were 'Nothing', this
onset of "viscous-ness" could not and would not occur and there would
be no speed limit to anything, no mass increase, and no foreshortening
of rods at *any* speed.

SR is a set of **descriptions of effects**. SR does not explain the
_acting mechanism_ CAUSING those effects. Yet the very presence of
those effects are prima facie evidence by which the spatial medium
_demonstrates itself_.

GR is likewise a set of **descriptions of effects**. GR does not
explain the acting mechanism CAUSING those effects. Just for example,
take one of the most dramatic demonstrations of gravity-in-action, a
supernova. What is the literal, active mechanism POWERING the stellar
collapse that powers the fusion that rebounds as the SN blast, leaving
that massive star crushed down to a black hole? Proponents of the 'no
medium', space-as-void doctrine are challenged to "fill in the
blank"____________.
Whatever powers the stellar collapse culminating
in a supernova is a very REAL force, not a pseudo or 'fictitious'
artifact of symmetries/fields, geometry, "curvature" of 'Something
that is yet Nothing'.. or of hordes of "exchange
particles" (gravitons).
Massive gravitational phenomena such as
quasars, supernovae and hypernovae, demonstrate a FLUIDIC spatial
medium under a state of pressurization far exceeding degeneracy
pressure of the atomic nucleus.
The behavior of gravity at all scales
demonstates the pressure-driven, accelerating Flow of that fluid into
mass with mass synonymous with flow sink. And it demonstrates
unification of gravity with the strong nuclear force. Per Occam's
razor, gravity is exactly what it _demonstrates itself_ to
be.

If you want Tom Roberts to see your reply, it might be a good idea to
not remove the newsgroups he reads regularly.