jay_howard

The "Aether" theory was posited originally to account for the properties of light. At the time, the universality of the speed of light was not known, nor what the dual nature of light. Neither Relativity nor QM had been speculated. You have to imagine, these theorists had never lived in a world where space travel was already decades old. The "Luminiferous Aether" theory answered the question of how light propagates through space as a wave.

After Michealson-Morely gave us the unchanging speed of light, and Einstein gave us Relativity, Luminiferous Aether wasn't necessary to explain the propagation of light, so there was no need to imagine its existence. There's not much in space, now that we've been there many times. Mostly it empty. Most of the matter is "dark matter" and most of the energy is "dark energy". To me, these are the mysteries that deserve the most attention. But "aether" isn't a thing.

talmoridor-x

(((Morely)))

(((Einstein)))

jay_howard

Oh, I see, they're the dirty kike... So they must be doing kike math, right? Are you trying to "purify" science? Get all those globalist jew bankers out of our science books? I'd love to see the science you're left with.

jay_howard

Is that your response? That I mispelled names? Ok.

Conspirologist

A wall of text. But you still can't prove the Aether doesn't exist.

jay_howard

What question does the Aether answer?

YugeDick

Earlier you said there's not much in space. Space is full, so full, saturated with photons. Photons that carry a charge and enough substance that they can be slowed down, absorbed, blocked and reflected. Aether could answer many questions. Questions like; matter creation, star formation, pulsar behavior, galactic shape and matter distribution, galactic axial alignment, planet formation and positioning, faults within redshift, stellar to planetary connectivity, FTL transmission of gravity, a more plausible solution to the problems with black holes, weather patterns with little to no atmosphere, the list goes on and on. But it doesn't answer these questions without active and earnest research and experimentation.

jay_howard

Space is full, so full, saturated with photons.

Photons don't take up space. They don't change the negative pressure in space.

Photons that carry a charge and enough substance that they can be slowed down, absorbed, blocked and reflected.

Photons are not always charged. Visible light is not charged. Gamma particles are to greater or lesser degrees. So far, Relativity answers questions about photons in space just fine. We cannot have satellites, GPS, space travel, and countless other applications without Einstein's equations. What equations from Aether theory are offered to solve problems already solved by these equations?

Of course, you cannot point to any. You're not serious, and you have no idea how the real world works. Go fuck off with this childish nonsense. Produce an equation that solves a real problem or seriously, go fuck your mom. I'm so tired of childish pricks throwing some bullshit out there and demanding that other people take it seriously. Fuck you. It's a shame you didn't pay attention to maths or science when you went to school. If you did, you'd have some idea that people have to make a guess as to where an object will be in the future when they throw it up in the air. Those guesses require maths. Not any math. Equations that take into account relativistic phenomena, like time locality and the bending of space-time over long distances around massive bodies.

But no, I need to watch another dumb cunt narrate a video of the sun rising while he tells me what's "really" going on. Go. Fuck. Your. Mother. Why not try to ask a proper question? Is "matter creation" a question? No. It's two words mashed together that don't mean much without some context. My question is "what do you mean 'matter creation'?"

Are you saying matter is created? Do you mean inside stars? Formation of matter in stars is not "creation" of matter unless you're using that word in some special way. Are you suggesting matter is created from nothing? Are you saying the laws of thermodynamics are wrong?

YugeDick

Math isn't science. Experimentation is science. Math can't prove the existence of anything, observation does. Math only helps to explain its existence and predict its behaviors.

With that out of the way the math that would be used in the experimentation, observation, and study of "aether" would be that of electricity. You want me to post electrical formulae for you? They're abundant and well established. I doubt listing them for you would prove fruitful. Maybe after you inquire about a specific function I can give you the applicable formula but you can just as easily find that yourself in most cases.

Charge is potential. Every particle carries charge. There is no truly "inert" particle, not even the neutron. Light, photons with fields of electromagnetism the same as any other particle at any scale, scatter into a spectrum in the double slit test because as the photons near the edge of the obstruction pass their fields are disturbed and the photon's path is set askew. This is proof the photon is a particle and has a field of influence beyond itself. Want me to draw you a picture?

As a particle is acted upon by the field of a neighboring particle its polarity is set off center in harmony with the neighboring influencer. This field imbalance is the charge potential felt and reflected in its affect on the next particle. Thus no particle is inert. This kind of potential does not require the transfer of smaller component to induce a charge. Compound this field imbalance enough and we experience gravity.

Matter creation? Matter is energy. It's not created from nothing, don't be absurd. When matter is destroyed energy is the result. Condensing energy results in the creation of matter. For this argument let's stick to the simple hydrogen atom. Bring an electron in close enough proximity to a proton and you have yourself a particle of hydrogen matter. "Aether theory" or rather electrical theory is the only way we can produce this result experimentally. How would you propose that gravity can force such a creation?

Have more questions? Here's a useful primer in Birkeland currents. Birkeland currents are probably the most prolific example of the "aether" in action throughout our universe at every scale. In fact taking advantage of the natural spiraling balance and efficiency of Birkeland currents is what gave us high speed internet through the use of twisted pair communication lines.

Now go wash that sand out of your vagina and eat a snickers.

jay_howard

photons with fields of electromagnetism the same as any other particle at any scale, scatter into a spectrum in the double slit test because as the photons near the edge of the obstruction pass their fields are disturbed and the photon's path is set askew.

This sentence is proof positive you don't know a black hole from the black hole under you. I'm of the opinion that people can become good at history or law or engineering by reading and learning and doing. Particle physics does not lend itself to a "learn at your own pace" class from Phoenix U. There are reasons physicists use equations to describe the interaction of particles. Because they do not conform to our human intuition. In order to be a particle physicist today, you must be an instrumentalist. You must accept that even though the equations wor--that is, they correspond to the experimental results, they don't necessarily "make sense" to our little brains.

Matter creation? Matter is energy. It's not created from nothing, don't be absurd.

Good. The 'question' you're talking about is better framed as "matter assembly," right? Why use the word "creation" which carries so much baggage in the cosmological sense.

When matter is destroyed energy is the result. Condensing energy results ....and you have yourself a particle of hydrogen matter.

Ok. Nothing controversial here.

"Aether theory" or rather electrical theory is the only way we can produce this result experimentally.

Which is it? These aren't the same. The real question here is 'what's the difference between Aether theory and electrical theory?' What does Aether do that electromagnetism doesn't do?

Now go wash that sand out of your vagina and eat a snickers.

That's fair.

YugeDick

The study hasn't ceased. /v/plasmacosmology