/sci/ - Science & Math

The ether was proven not to exist over a century ago, and as a theory for light propogation has been fully discarded.

>>10888548
ether provides a special reference frame for light. the electromagnetic field does not.

>>10888553
>The ether was proven not to exist over a century ago
No, it simply did not behave as expected

>>10888557
Electromagnetic field is just a mathematical construct. It's a tensor field, which obviously does not physically exist, but represents a certain portion of the state of a physical entity, which is space itself.

>>10888572
ohhhhh okay, back to retardsupportgroup.thunderbolts.info

>>10888572
The defining aspect of the ether is that it provides a unique reference frame in which light propagates at speed c. As it was found that light propagates at c in all reference frames, the ether, as defined, was disproven.

Call the photon field the ether if you like, but it has none of the defining properties of the ether and people will only laugh at you.

>>10888553
I think OP gets this, he's implying a point (which is stupid but provocatively interesting) that there is no difference between the EM field and the disproven ether.

>>10888589
>gravitational waves have been proven to exist
>waves propagate in a medium
>ether does not exist because I say so

>>10888587
The electromagnetic field exists as much as any physical phenomena studied in physics exists. Of course, there is a mathematical description of the field as a vector field which is a (possibly fictional) mathematical construct, but it is a description of a real existing physical phenomena (radio waves, visual light, etc) which we call the electromagnetic field.

>>10888553
>one theory of the ether was proven not to exist over a century ago.

FTFY

>>10888599
It's just an abstraction employed to describe physical phenomena. It's just a model, bro.

If light didn't need a physical medium to propagate, gravitational lensing would be impossible.

>>10888602
>one theory

is /x/ down today or something?

>>10888607
What the fuck is wrong with you? Did I stutter? Want to elaborate or just throw buzz phrases around?

>>10888607
don't worry, summer's almost over

OP here, I'm not asking this as a troll question or anything autistic like that. I'm a physics student just learning about SR. I've been told over and over the story of "back in the day we used to believe light propogated through ether, but later we found out it actually goes through the electromagnetic field!" I never was able to perceive the difference between the two and I find it baffling. I probably missed some subtle nuance such as the reference frames people mentioned earlier in the thread.

>>10888606
The mathematical description of the electromagnetic field is an abstraction; electromagnetic waves are an observed physical phenomena.
>If light didn't need a physical medium to propagate, gravitational lensing would be impossible.
uhm, well light follows geodesics in space-time, and energy-momentum distorts the metric of spacetime. You don't need a medium for light waves to propagate in for gravitational lensing to exist, just local distortion of the spacetime metric.

>>10888632
>electromagnetic waves are an observed physical phenomena
Yes

>you don't need a physical medium that can be distorted by other physical entities for light waves to propagate, only a distortion in an abstract model

Did you know that there aren't path integrals floating around? That there aren't vectors flying around in a loop whenever an electron is flying inside a CRT tv?

>>10888626
the aether traditionally defines a static reference frame. for example, the aether would not corevolve aroubd the sun nor corporate with the surface of the earth in the canonical picture. so they tested for whether the speed of light seems to change depending on how we are revolving around the sun or which direction a current spot on the earth’s surface is moving depending on what time of day it is, and found no variations in the speed of light. so that basically debunks the aether

>>10888617
Lurk more, you'll understand the culture on this board and the things we do and don't like.

Just in case you're serious and not trolling me, when you insert the "one theory" qualifier you're implying that there are other possible equally valid interpretations. Anyone can do this for any idea in any subject. It doesn't add any information to the discussion it just tries to philosophically reduce an idea to a shade of grey.

>>10888645
*around not “aroubd” and *corotate not “corporate”

>>10888617
That one theory was ether.

>>10888548
One is real and the other is caused by the stars going around the earth

>>10888645
>so that basically debunks the aether
No, it only shows that it has different properties than what was thought

>>10888646
>Just in case you're serious and not trolling me, when you insert the "one theory" qualifier you're implying that there are other possible equally valid interpretations.
This is a science board

>Anyone can do this for any idea in any subject
Once again, This is a science board

>It doesn't add any information to the discussion it just tries to philosophically reduce an idea to a shade of grey.
Well it definitely doesn't add any new information whatsoever to just say "oh no it was disproved" when it clearly wasn't. I was just correcting a simple misunderstanding that's all.

>>10888650
One theory of it yes, the one in question being the "luminiferous ether".

>>10888626
Okay, basically before SR people didn't know about lorentz transformations. IN SR, the speed of anything travelling at the speed of light is Lorentz invariant, meaning that light is observed at the same speed in all inertial frames. You can see this by examining the velocity addition formula
[eqn]u' = \frac{u-v}{1- vu/c^2}[/eqn]
where u' is the speed of an object with speed u in the unboosted frame, where v is the boost. Now let u'=c, and we see that
[eqn]u' = \frac{c-v}{1- v/c} = \frac{c(1-v/c)}{1- v/c} = c[/eqn]
Compare that to a Galilean transformation, which holds true in classical physics
[eqn]u' = v + u[/eqn]
clearly if something is at speed c, under a boost its speed is c+v.
Now Maxwell's equations were known about before SR, but have the structure of SR already built into them. After a series of manipulations on Maxwell's equations, you can determine the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum, and the speed just comes out as c without any reference to a medium. This is fine if you know about SR, where anything travelling with speed c is the same in all reference frames, but prior to SR nothing we knew of was like this, for instance water waves clearly appear to travel faster towards you if you're moving in the opposite direction to them in a boat. The only sensible way to measure the speed of water waves (or sound waves, or any wave in a fluid) is to measure it in the comoving frame of the fluid, (the one in which the fluid is stationary). So the speed of light that appeared in Maxwell's equations was presumably the speed in the comoving frame, but we didn't know about a comoving frame for light. A fluid-like medium was therefore posited in the frame of which the speed of light was c, the luminiferous ether, but attempts to measure the planet's velocity relative to the ether all found the same speed of light, because relativity is true, and the ether doesn't exist.

>>10888692
btw, when I said classical physics, I meant non-relativistic physics. classical physics usually means non-quantum physics and typically includes SR.

>>10888684
it goes beyond that; it shows that if aether exists then it has absolutely no consequences that have been measured ever. not even small modifications that would come with a "handstand over backwards with ducktape and superglue" aether theory

in other words, the theories that don't postulate aether predict everything perfectly, and introducing aether simply adds something unobservable and irrelevant that has never been observed and has no evidence

>>10888704
>in other words, the theories that don't postulate aether predict everything perfectly, and introducing aether simply adds something unobservable and irrelevant that has never been observed and has no evidence

Like every single particle ever conjured up.

>>10888704
>in other words, the theories that don't postulate aether predict everything perfectly
Except they need extra invisible and undetectable mass to work, but ok

>>10888692
>all found the same speed of light, because relativity is true, and the ether doesn't exist.

No, ether doesn't exist, but the space is full of invisible arrows that fly in a spiral trajectory whenever a photon pops into existence

>>10888553
It is possible that ether did exist millions of light years ago when the EM waves were quite likely longitudinal NOT transverse. so they needed a medium to propagate in.

>>10888725
>but the space is full of invisible arrows that fly in a spiral trajectory whenever a photon pops into existence
You're mistaking mathematical abstraction for reality. The photon field is a mathematical abstraction, we don't assign a physical reality to it.

>>10888704
You can't observe the thing that carries light that's not how logic works.

>>10888730
>exist millions of light years ago
wut

>>10888723
>Like every single particle ever conjured up.
The standard model produces real observable predictions which have been tested to a very high accuracy with particle accelerators and, asides from a few failings of the standard model due to things like CP violation, are consistent with every observation ever.

>>10888749
>it predicts a few things therefore it's true

>>10888749
There is no empirical evidence of any particle, hate to break it to you.

>>10888732
>you can't observe the thing that induces the reaction dubbed "light"

FTFY. These morons are still stuck thinking that light actually travels.

>>10888766
>it predicts a few things therefore it's true
I didn't say that
>>10888771
The standard model predicts what you see in your detector to a great degree of accuracy. That is as much empirical evidence as any physical theory can have.

>>10888781
>The standard model predicts what you see in your detector to a great degree of accuracy
>polish psychic predicts the past

>>10888781
>"totally empirically verified, dude!"
>doesn't predict something clearly observable, which is gravity
>"just add another particle!"

>>10888789
I mean, the electromagnetic theory of light was also created based on previously discovered phenomenological laws.
>>10888794
There are clearly problems with the Standard Model; gravity, lack of CP violation, non-satisfaction of the Sakharov conditions, no good candidate for the inflaton etc. That doesn't mean that the Standard Model, a very empirically successful theory which posits the existence of a number of particles, has no empirical evidence.

>>10888815
Empirical evidence doesn't mean anything in this case. Would you use a watch that is correct only 86% of the time?

>>10888789
kek, try to counter the standard model by citing stage performers who do slight-of-hand tricks

please, tell me what pseud theory describes Shin Lim’s telekinetic powers!

>>10888821
the standard model is correct way over 99.999999999% of the time. the anomalous measurements have much less statistical significance than the petabytes of LHC data

>>10888844
Only 99.999999999%?

>>10888907
probably more really. at least that

Now that I think about it, if their idea of aether was that it was analogous to water, assuming it would be static was pretty asinine, considering water inside a closed box can flow (just put random objects inside it, if it didn't flow the objects would remain in place). Starting from the assumption that it would behave like a physical fluid with a very low density/viscosity instead of an arbitrary construction, several other true predictions could be made that would be proven true, and the "null result" of michelson and morley's interferometer experiment (which when done 100 years later detected gravitational waves, or fluid-like behavior of spacetime) could be explained away by it being done in a boundary layer. In 2034 there should be a huge interferometer in space to study aether waves, I wonder what else they'll be able to detect with the instrument not being so close to Earth's surface

>>10888923
>huge interferometer
LIGO
>in space
LISA

>>10888844
It's correct 99.99% of the time for the 0.2% things it's supposed to predict. It's like a watch that can tell the correct time between 14:00:01 and 14:00:04.

>>10888844
>>10888917
How are we measuring accuracy here? What is the means of producing this measure?

>>10888931
>1 million km long arms

>>10888932
when it comes to particle physics, the SM is accurate in all cases besides a few statistically insignificant anomalies. and those anomalies are what the scientists working on the LHC are focusing on now.

>>10888940
it’s complicated, you probably wouldn’t understand. basically the recipe is to simulate what we would expect to see and compare to what we actually see. and it agrees most of the time. for example we debunked supersymmetry, even though all the theorists thought it must be true. that’s been debunked via careful experimental work

>>10888957
>we debunked supersymmetry,
I thought there were still some super symmetric theories that haven't been ruled out, even though most of the 'likely candidates' are ruled out, is that wrong?

>>10888597
>gravitational waves have been proven to exist
>some waves propagate in a medium
>ether does not exist because it was proven to not exist
ftfy

>>10888964
you're right, supersymmetry can't really be killed. but the models of supersymmetry that were supposed to make the higgs mass "natural" and solve supersymmetry using "WIMPs" (weakly interacting massive particles) are not going to work. so if you still believe in supersymmetry, then it requires you to abandon its power at resolving those issues, and instead requires you to believe in something like "split supersymmetry" which implies superpartners won't be observed until we make colliders much bigger than the solar system.

so, in other words, the experimentally accessible supersymmetric things that were promised to be observed at the LHC are ruled out, and the only reasonable alternatives are not within reach of our next bigger, better collider -- instead they are way beyond reach just like strings

>>10888964
Yes, there are still many natural supersymmetric models left. The ones that were ruled out were basically all the minimal whatever models (minimal SU5, minimal super gravity, etc), but many models are still possible and even with a good naturalness score but nobody cares about that anymore since they like their exotic ideas because they're "unique" and give the theorists something to do, though almost certainly wrong.

>>10888964
You're right. The SUSY theories that very nicely explain the hierarchy problem are largely out the window, but if I remember right there are still SUSY theories worth considering.

>>10888964
you're right, supersymmetry can't really be killed. but the models of supersymmetry that were supposed to make the higgs mass "natural" and solve dark matter using "WIMPs" (weakly interacting massive particles) are not going to work. so if you still believe in supersymmetry, then it requires you to abandon its power at resolving those issues, and instead requires you to believe in something like "split supersymmetry" which implies superpartners won't be observed until we make colliders much bigger than the solar system.

so, in other words, the experimentally accessible supersymmetric things that were promised to be observed at the LHC are ruled out, and the only reasonable alternatives are not within reach of our next bigger, better collider -- instead they are way beyond reach just like strings

>>10888981
>>10888983
>>10888984
That's pretty interesting; if you know a review article that discusses this stuff I'd be interested to read it. Otherwise, thanks for the replies anons.

>>10888997
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.04127

>>10889011
Admittedly published a few years, but gives an overview and can look into more recent papers for limits and bounds on LHC in natural SUSY models.

>>10889011
thanks

>>10889017
the Run 2 results from LHC have not helped SUSY. at all. SUSY is in bad shape right now. Nima is increasingly shilling "split supersymmetry" (i.e. "unobservable" supersymmetry) to account for the latest results

>>10888983
>almost certainly wrong
This means nothing without an answer to >>10888940.

>>10888985
>supposed to make the higgs mass "natural" and solve dark matter using "WIMPs"
Those failing is exactly what I would have predicted.
>much bigger than the solar system
I literally can't believe this. Our knowledge domain seems fucked in a number of ways and overconfidence in a model known to be entirely incomplete (partial incompleteness is total incompleteness when dealing with a TOE) is severely limiting how we design our experiments to verify new types of knowledge beyond the predictive horizon of the incomplete model.

The tendency in technology is to improve efficiency constantly, but the theoretical reasons for a random improvement in efficiency is never known directly. We need theory to interpret our accidental discoveries, not to help us design massively inefficient detectors. Somewhere soon I fully expect we're going to get a breakthrough in some field (probably quantum computing) that lets us known just how steep our ignorance cone was. From there, all those petabytes of LHC data will be able to be reinterpreted and we'll have a bigger picture of the cosmos than we literally know what to do with.

Worst case scenario our models were vastly inaccurate (though not unpredictive) and all the data we recorded measures something that amounts to noise even from the new level of understanding we'll achieve.

>>10889031
Precision tests of QED are what lead to these original statements. The overall deviation between theory calculations and experimental results are the metric.

>>10889031
good post.

honestly i think that re-analyzing our data using supercomputers won't really help. i think better experiments will be more sensitive to new physics. and even if the theorists say we won't see anything if we make a 10x more powerful collider (i don't think they are saying this, but follow with me) then we should ignore that and still make the 10x more powerful collider.

experiment is the only way to make real conclusions. "progress" in physics, in absence of real results, is not really all that productive aside from getting funding for mathematicians who work out witten's conjectures. if we want to make progress on physics, we need to keep experimenting. that is where we will figure things out. theorists are obviously lost at this point. and hosstardfelder telling us we should give up on experimental physics is outright retarded.

>>10889021
Would be nice to have ILC, but understandable from lack of evidence from LHC.

>>10889055
ILC would be very useful for probing the higgs potential and measuring the properties of the higgs self-interaction, even if we assume the SM is the be-all-and-end-all. we still would want to figure out whether the higgs potential means our universe will spontaneously decay (and -- it will tell us how long that will take.... a week or 90 billion years? we don't know but a good experiment could tell us) or if the QFT vacuum is stable forever

>>10889067
Yes, but nobody pays that much just to probe that. Also, for the instability, is there a good mechanism of how we happened to land in this meta-stable region of such a violent potential or is it always a "just is" answer? I personally don't see how we could have such instability that string theorists claim, but there could be a good reason.

>>10889077
that kind of goes beyond my knowledge. however, i am pretty sure the metastable vs. stable thing is not dependent on string theory. i think it is based on how QFT lagrangians might be constructed in ways that lead to a natural higgs potential without some external "write the higgs potential in by hand"...


anyhow regardless of how theorists think about it, we could measure the shape of it, and figure out whether it is just quartic with a curvy W shape or whether it has some more intricate shape with some lower minima out somewhere else. and figuring this out has huge implications for whether the universe will spontaneously end or not.

>>10889067
And not to mention in natural SUSY models, the mu parameter is around 150-300 GeV, which would be approximately the mass of the huggsino, so having a Higgs factory would also be a good test of these models being a higgsino factory, but people won't consider searching for SUSY a good justification for funding new detectors.

>>10888645

COol StORy BrO

Does the speed of air change because of a rotating Earth? Dors it change on a MoUnTAIn top???? BrO???

Fucking frauds. All of you.

>>10889111
did you actually think before making this post? of course the atmosphere drags along with the earth’s surface to some degree. spin a glass- does the water start spinning eventually or does it stay still?

>>10889111
>the speed of air

>>10889049
>theorists are obviously lost
No, they're exactly where they should be.
>>10888983
>exotic ideas because they're "unique"
Is precisely what we want. Bayesian parsimony only works when we have mutually distinct groups of hypothesis. When explanations can coexist within a framework, we can't form intuitions about them because our intuitions are already Bayesian to begin with.

>>10889043
Then we need to look at the history of the theories that made those predictions. I have the intuition that we're hopping between entire domains of theory and not really lacing it all together. Factually determining that any two explanations pose fully mutually distinct mechanisms is epistemically non-trivial in all cases. It's not just a problem we can approach by recursively trying to form a new theory every time we get confused. The goal is a unified model of understanding, so all the different bits and pieces that went into each intuition that we use to explain away the previous deviation in measures needs to be tested against each theory before and after it for consistency within the greater theoretical framework.

I'm not saying that we don't have understanding, I'm saying that we have a framework, and the framework we have says the we have nothing approaching any actual understanding. Otherwise our intuitions should match our explanations more precisely. Empirically, our intuition is off.

>>10889146
nice way to blather on without saying anything. let me guess, you’re a philosophy undergrad?

i argue that string theory/M-theory/AdS/CFT/holography is clearly on the right track (SYK model eg) and philosophical objections are retarded

>>10889192
I don't disagree, I just feel that string theory lacks texture. The simplicity is interesting, as well as being an intuitive (and "obvious") extension to the uncertainties outstanding from quantum analysis, but it gives too much consideration to possibility, leaving us lost as Bayesian intuition is concerned.

That's my long way of saying that I've always gotten the impression that something is missing from it. It's easy enough for the math to be intuitive and the implications to local physics to be precise, but it seems like there's something we're missing that stops us from just testing it using a more efficient means that particle accelerator mishaps. Despite its congruence I feel that it's only half the picture of whatever it's actually representing.

>>10888643
Did you know that literally nobody said that there were? That you sound like a complete fuckhead for phrasing your "argument" in this way?

>>10888725
>Except they need extra invisible and undetectable mass to work, but ok
Despite your childish reduction of dark matter, it's still better to "need" something like that to work than to just not work at all no matter what you do. You aetherheads dog modern physics for using this "crutch" and that "handicap" while your shitty hypothesis lies dead and cold on the floor.

>>10888821
>a watch that is correct only 86% of the time
>meanwhile, the aetherhead is attempting to tell the time with a rotting apple and a dowsing rod
>he hasn't gotten it right once, but he swears that his way will one day be vindicated because watches are not perfect creations
>he grins smugly at the thought that this makes him so much smarter than the billions of people that think he's literally retarded

>>10889118

Oh cool. Does it drag by 60,000 MPH???

FUCKING FRAUD = YOU

What is your motive? Is this a religious thing? Like do you think you are doing this for Moses? What is your motive to retard science, for... oh, 100 years now?

>>10889119

I hope that meme is for Michelson, FAGGOT, because that is the logic behind is experiment.

Did you even study the experiment or are you a FUCKING RETARD.

Tell me little, boy retard, does the air whip at 60,000 MPH on Earth, even on a mountaintop, lil boy LITTTLE BOY RETARD.

And that is your entire industry.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.

Why do we fund you people

>>10889399
>>10889395

Go watch a Ken H video if you want to know the truth, faggots

>>10889402

Yes, I'm saying Ken H will show you the way about how fucking retarded Michelson Morley is, and about how "the aether" or whatever the fuck you small mind morons who think in semantics because you are barely human and more closely related to farm animals, wish to call it

>>10889406

REEEEEEEE MY PROFESSSSSSOR SAYS THAT MM IS ACCURATE AND I BEEEEELIEVED HIM II HATE KEEEEEENN HHHHHH!!!!


REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEe

>>10889413
>>10889406
>>10889402
>>10889399
>>10889395
Reddit. Go back there.

>>10889418
SOOOOOOOOO You have a response other than deflection, or??

You were just called a... Um... a retard, a lil boy, and a faggot for believing in MM, because to do so is to think that air also whips at 60,000 mph on Earth and on mountaintops... And that to think otherwise is... um... Wel, it's lil boy faggot retarditry that will lead to the decine of the West like (((you))) also destroyed Rome, and that KEN H videos will show you the light...

Sooooo...

Have a better response, little boy?

>>10889429

Thats pretty interesting actually... Michelson Morley assumed the aether was some kind of thin "fluid", similar to air and so it who move at 60,000 mph relative to the Earth, at ground level and on a mountain... but not even air does that.... the entire experiment was faulty base on that premise.... and yet thats the foundation of modern theoretical physics that we have spent hundreds of billions funding...

>>10889452
look up stellar aberration, a boundary layer of ether dragged along by the earth is ruled out.

>>10889475

You silly silly girl. The aether is all. God is all. Tao is all. You have not realized this yet????

You cannot get "above" the "aether". This whole liquid is all that exists.

>>10889475
>>10889512

Slaves, wages slaves, who think they are not slaves. They do not understand the motives of our class. We did not choose to be free. We were born this way shout our to Lady Gaga (Reeeee!!!!!!)

Anyway, we did not choose to be born free, and I know that is triggering to you, but in our freedom we still have fear of death. But we can rise above that. It will take a modernizing of curriculum. Curriculum hasnt changed since the end of WW2.. wouldnt it be great if it didnt take a great war to advance our people and materially live for ever?

Watch Kens videos.

>>10889429
I'm not the guy you were originally talking to. I just recognized your various mental illnesses and kindly suggested that you go back to the place that likely spawned your dumb ass.

Also, maybe dial your sadboy rage down at least 20%. It's a little embarrassing.

>>10888645
>the aether traditionally defines a static reference frame.
In which works are a static reference frame necessary?

wow a ken schizo ruined any actual discussion

anyhow they considered other models with “aether drag” too and never found anything

also just to address one stupid argument teslabrains sometimes throw out: the idea that michaelson morely was the “only test” of SR is ridiculous. for example, every particle physics experiment ever tests SR every day. for example take a look at this Motl blogpost where he debunks a Czech version of Ken:
https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/08/incredibly-low-intelligence-of-anti.html

>>10889719
Replying to add that atmospheric muons literally couldn't be detected if time dilation wasn't real

>>10889719

Disproving Michelson Morely has nothing to do with disproving einstein. Einstein said himselfthat if the aether exists then it is an infinite liquid with no smallest particles (incommeasurable). That is exactly what the aether is.

Disproving Michelson Morley is as simple as pointing out that you cannot even get above the atmosophere on a mountain top and that to believe in the validity of that experiment is to be literally as stupid as a flat Earther. Literally bro bro. You mock us for acting schizo around you but thats what you deserve, because the beliefs that you shovel down the throat of the youth is literal schizo retard moron shit. Either 1) retire or 2) update your fucking models / cirriculum

>>10890775
lol you seriously have a mental issue bro. why are pseuds so salty?

did you read the point about how every particle physics experiment ever, including say the LHC which does like 40 million collisions per second, every single one of those collisions relies crucially on special relativity and it works 40 million times per second? or the other anon's comments about atmospheric muons? what about the experiments they've done using atomic clocks to measure time dilation?

let me guess your answer
>fuck you bro, you're a little baby, you have poopy undies and your mom is fat and your father smelt of elderberries! HAHA RELATIVITY BTFOOOOO IM SMRT

>>10890788

We are litetally talking about separate things. I have no problem with Einsteins theories. My problem is with literal small brain morons who think Michelson Morleys experiment proved something. You can "get above" the aether, not even on a mountain. YOU CANNOT EVEN GET ABOVE THE ATMOSPHERE on a mountain!!!! Like, how are you this stupid?

The aether is EXACTLY what Einstein himself said it was: an infinite liquid with no smallest unit.

>>10890822
>>10890788 #

We are literally talking about separate things. I have no problem with Einsteins theories. My problem is with literal small brain morons who think Michelson Morleys experiment proved something. You cannot "get above" the aether, not even on a mountain. YOU CANNOT EVEN GET ABOVE THE ATMOSPHERE on a mountain!!!! Like, how are you this stupid?

The aether is EXACTLY what Einstein himself said it was: an infinite liquid with no smallest unit.

>>10888684
>Look in empty room for goat
>See no goat at all
>The goat is actually just invisible guys

>>10888771
>There is no empirical evidence of any particle, hate to break it to you.

Are you a real person that genuinely believes this? I want to know.

>>10890831

You litetally just have too small of a brain to understand.

Tell me, do you think the Universe might be infinite?

>>10890840
space-time is only defined in the presence of energy bro

>>10890824
>Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell’s theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place.
—Einstein

many years later, after he developed GR, he started to use the word “aether” as an _analogy_ to how in GR, space time itself is a dynamic entity. but it was just an analogy that gets taken out of context (with the help he was speaking in german, so there’s a language gap). einstein rejected what you are thinking of, fact

>>10890840
>You litetally just have too small of a brain to understand.

Interesting way to mix ad hominem with an evasion from the burden of proof on your shoulders. Why do you believe in aether, exactly?

>Tell me, do you think the Universe might be infinite?

No idea.

>>10890855>>10890875

I am also speaking in terms of analogy, idiot. What? You thought I thought the words "aether" were repeated ad infinitum in the fabric of reality. All human concepts are models and analogy.

You have no idea if space is infinite and yet if someone made that assertion you would not call them a schizo, etc... because it is reasonable based on what we know, WMAP Satellite data, etc... and yet if the Universe is infinite in size, with no largest superstructure, then inversely we can imagine a universe of infinite smallness with no smallest structure. You people make me fucking sick. People like Ken have unified physics but you Boomer era morons reject the idea that anyone can contribute outside of your stale and rotting institutions.

>>10890897
>You have no idea if space is infinite and yet if someone made that assertion you would not call them a schizo, etc...

No I’d just call them stupid. Proving the universe is infinite is literally impossible.

>and yet if the Universe is infinite in size, with no largest superstructure, then inversely we can imagine a universe of infinite smallness with no smallest structure.

I can’t. Sounds like a completely incoherent idea.

>>10890912

Proving anything in science is literally impossible you small brained moron.

>>10890917
>Proving anything in science is literally impossible

Nope.

This thread is in desperate need of some dapper as fuck T E S L A

>>10890788
>measure time dilation

Time is a measurement, not a thing. It's not a tranny to be dilated.

>>10890839
>Are you a real person that genuinely believes this?
Ineresting way to phrase that but yes, I do not believe in particles. Why? Because there is no empirical evidence of such.

>No prove they exist before you say that
Not science
>No they do exist as discrete "phenomena"
Well no they don't because they have not been the input nor output of any experiment. What say you smart guy?

>>10890788
>did you read the point about how every particle physics experiment ever, including say the LHC which does like 40 million collisions per second, every single one of those collisions relies crucially on special relativity and it works 40 million times per second?
Actually it relies on super-cooled electromagnets
>Bigger electromagnet perturbs more vigorously
Just like the last one, and the one before that. Yet for some reason you think each one produces something "discrete". Drops in a pond and all of the drops of water have their own names.

>>10890932

Einstein and Newton equations are literally just computational inverses of each other.

>>10890912
>Proving the universe is infinite is literally impossible.

>unless you're smart enough to comprehend the phrase "from what".

>>10890925
>settled science

Hit and a miss

>>10890936

This based >>10890936
fucker fucks.

>>10888548
Ether - electric field = Tesla brain

>>10890948

The dominant science curriculum in the West is the scientific equivalent of a flat earth antivaccer

>>10890971
>flat earth antivaccer
So advanced?

>>10890897
okay so you are saying the word “aether” but you mean something else. what do you mean then? spacetime?

>>10890936
there is empirical evidence for particles. do we have to go over this again? franck hertz experiment, photoelectric effect, kids who make cloud chambers in their garage. why don’t you make one for yourself? i have. here are instructions:
https://youtu.be/xky3f1aSkB8

your acting like you have debunked how the LHc works is laughable. as far as i can tell your argument is “there are magnets, therefore science wrong” with some verbal feces sprinkled on top

>>10890975
Fuck off tranny

>>10890981
high IQ right there

>>10890975

The substance of the universe is not a word. Words are just another model. We are "playing" in a very big and complex world and I cannot just give you the answer. The screakings of the professors who charge 100,000 for that knowedge is intense and they do not have the same values as you and me, unlike us, these things are animals who believe in money more than truth, and they are fat with funding. Like engorged maggots.

I suggest watching Ken Hs videos, and others like him.

Escape this system. The reason why kids in the West are flipping out, if youknowwhatimean, is because the system is SHIT.

Many smart people out there know the way, and none of them are in the institution, but many are on Youtube

>>10890975
fields are not particles and things do not pop in and out of existence like some of the whackjob theories there are about "discrete particles"

>your acting like you have debunked how the LHc works is laughable.
???That is how it works you moron. Liquid refrigerant and electromagnets are literally what cause and contain your "particles" to smash into each other. It couldn't possibly be because they're the same fucking thing as electricity/magnetism or something but oh well guess they'll just have to build yet another one (which they're committed to doing and obviously so) and perpetuate their insanity.

>>10890991
okay, so you have no argument. i show you cloud chamber instructions for children and you ignore that and ramble on Gary style.

Ken is a ridiculous pseud. the dude started out saying he debunked buddhists and he discovered the hidden sekrets of buddha, that's what his whole schtick is based on. then after real buddhists said he was making shit up he decided to make 10's of fake accounts to samefag himself into gathering a retard following who would listen to him about how Julius Evola is so great (the fascist mystic, fyi). he's just shilling some sort of newage religious bullshit, that's why he hates science.

do yourself a favor and stop falling for retarded pseuds

>>10890999
another "let's ignore the children's cloud chamber" post. are you going to address that?

just because superconducting magnets are used in the LHC doesn't imply that the physics they used to design the LHC is flawed and that particles don't exist. the fact that it works is a huge proof that the underlying physics is right and your crap is wrong. stop with the sophistry. you're clearly not even arguing in good faith, just lie Ken had to make tons of fake accounts to try and stir up support for himself since he's a dishonest shill

>>10891020

You dont get it. There is a tier of people who. Do. Not. Give. A . Fuck. About the "character" of the person. Ken is RIGHT. I dont give a single fuck about the file that you have collected on him at the behest of your slave masters

>>10891020

Did... did you never hear the phrase, "smart minds discuss ideas and small minds discuss people" when you were growing up?

>>10891028
>>10891034
alright, so you still choose not to talk about the children's instructions for making a cloud chamber. even children can make particle detectors and see their tracks as they zip through their dad's garage. but you have no argument, either of you.

pathetic pseud newage brainlets

>>10891046
Butthurt haggard tranny detected. Sorry swetty, you dont pass and trannies are bad at sciencing.

>>10891046

I am the person you are responding to, and WTF??? Are you talking about? Cloud chambers are DOPE!!! Make one!!! Show your class!!!

That does not contradict any of your counterpoints here!!!

>>10888548
Fuck, we didn't get a single electric universe schizo rambing thread for like a week.
I was worried about you guize.

>>10891051
they're good at programming but that is neither science nor mathematics and does not belong on this board.

>>10890936
>Time is a measurement

..........Of what?

>>10891067

Jesus H Christ.


Time is a fucking human construct. It is ratio of movement through space. How. Are. You. This. Dumb???

>>10891051
good argument, Tesla-level IQ

>>10891054
kek weren't you arguing that particles don't exist? anyhow, particles exist, children can do an experiment to see them, okay, we agree

>>10891066
Trannies arent good at anything. Most of them are failures (they are mentally ill)

>>10891075

Particles are how the liquid "condenses" at our level of reality, correct. All that exists is the tao / aether / YHWH, the WORD does not matter.

>>10891089

Trannies are wonderful and hilarious, stfu with that nonsense

>>10891091
lol okay Yogi Maharishi Shaolin Elohim, you win the Nobel Prize in Spirit Physics

>>10891096

Spirit physics??? Labs across the world are modeling this computationally. In fact is even standard understanding that particles are basically just the peak of the wave in the medium.

>Trannies are wonderful and hilarious, stfu with that nonsense

>>10891107
quantum field theory might be what you are alluding to, but it has nothing to do with "aether" or particles being a " how the ''''''''liquid'''''''' 'condenses' " or any tao/chakra newage shit.

let's review the definition of pseudoscience, okay?

>pseudoscience - noun. nonscientific stuff that uses scientific vocabulary to give a fake impression of it being scientific

this is exactly what you are doing.

pseud.

>>10891071
>Time is a fucking human construct.

Why does gravity affect time for satellites, then?

>It is ratio of movement through space.

What? We call the speed of movement...speed. Why does speed make time slow down, as well?

>>10891112

I Am a Chad like u dont even understand, fag. One of the aspects of being a true alpha, as in a male with dominion over MANY is to understand that not everyone is exactly like me. If they were, then they would be the alpha, but theyre not. Understanding is key to leadership fag

>>10891125
>t. larping tranny

>>10891125
>im actually an idiot
The plot thickens

>>10890999
>just lie Ken had to make tons of fake accounts to try and stir up support for himself since he's a dishonest shill
You're still perpetuating this meme. If it makes you feel any better/worse I'm not Ken.

>cloud chamber
Like calling a picture the actual even that happened.

>just because superconducting magnets are used in the LHC doesn't imply that the physics they used to design the LHC is flawed and that particles don't exist.
No it doesn't. The fact that there's no empirical evidence of a discrete particle is what implies they don't.

>>10891067
Good question, too bad absolutely nobody here is gonna answer it non fallaciously. It's an arbitrary goalpost tape measure that doesn't really measure anything other than "how long does x take to go over x distance"- which doesn't tell you anything about the object nor how it's actually traveling. An arbitrary tracing that holds no basis in reality.

>>10891238
>No it doesn't. The fact that there's no empirical evidence of a discrete particle is what implies they don't.
please, elaborate on why the children's cloud chamber is not empirical evidence for particles. i'd be curious

and BTW berzerkfag, i know you are not ken himself since you posted that picture of your arm that doesn't have sleeve tattoos on it (thank god, sleeve tattoos are disgusting). but your rhetoric might as well be copypasted from ken.

let me try to figure out what your argument will be:
>Like calling a picture the actual even that happened.
>particles appearing in nature happen, but i believe in some other thing that explains this
>this other thing is some magical unobservable hologram
>the unobservable hologram has something to do with consciousness newage woo

am i correct?

>>10891238
>It's an arbitrary goalpost tape measure that doesn't really measure anything other than "how long does x take to go over x distance"

Thanks for conceding time objectively exists since things like “how long does it take” can be measured.

>>10891251

No the argument in favor of Ken us that we have computationally reproduced his ideas. Many labs have. This has been known for decades, but we are noce enough to try and make it public wven with the screecking REEEs of the (((establishment))) wanting more funding first

>>10891028
Ken why are you pretending to not be you? Are you embarrassed?

>>10891280
>>10891251 #

No the argument in favor of Ken is that we have computationally reproduced his ideas. Many labs have. This has been known for decades, but we are nice enough to try and make it public even with the screeching REEEs of the (((establishment))) wanting more funding first

>>10891280
>DUR DA JEWS

fuck off please

>>10890975
Don't waste your time arguing with this guy. He shits up multiple threads per day with his "time and space aren't real because it makes me feel smarter than everyone else" routine. Evidence and logic will not change his mind because his ego can't take the blow.

>>10891283

Nothing for Ken to be embarrassed about. (((You))), on the other hand, are a false, fake, funding leech grifting the public.

>>10891291
>Everyone who says I’m wrong is a Jew xD

>>10891288

Has nothing to do with Jews. Its about parasites stealing tax payers money.

>>10891011
>do yourself a favor and stop falling for retarded pseuds
You say this as if that isn't Ken, himself.

>>10891299
>Has nothing to do with Jews

That’s what the triple parentheses mean, you literal retard.

>>10891286
show computations then, oh master of Buddha and Evola

>>10891302
Who’s this Ken guy? My first thought was Ken Ham but I don’t think he’s smart enough to spew this breed of bullshit.

>>10891316
Ken Wheeler, the youtuber who shills electric universe and his alt-buddhism and scams people on Nikon cameras as well as "restored" handbags

>>10891251
>please, elaborate on why the children's cloud chamber is not empirical evidence for particles. i'd be curious

a particle not influnced by motion ceases to be a particle (If it ceases motion then it stops being the particle). This dualistic contradiction of "is/isn't is enough to tell me that the idea is full of shit. It "is" or it "is not".

>but your rhetoric might as well be copypasted from ken.
Monism is not new and you act as if Ken himself were the actual source of what he says. He's not and he even tells you he's not.

>this other thing is some magical unobservable hologram
Everything acts om a holographic nature correct. It has nothing to do with magic or being "unobservable". Everything is part of "the universe" and therefore is inherent to have a part of the order it does.

>the unobservable hologram has something to do with consciousness newage woo
>as opposed to the magical bumping particles bouncing around for no reason or order. all acting different because lolrandumXD.

>>10891256
>Thanks for conceding time objectively exists since things like “how long does it take” can be measured.
But that has nothing to do with reality. "how long does it take" is how a dumb human thinks. In terms of speed, distance...time.. None of these have anything to do with reality. Want to go faster? Negate what is in your way. Remove it . Make it absent of where it is. That isn't quantifiable, it is "absent. Want to fly? Air pressure makes a plane fly. That isn't a speed not has anything to do with distance. It has to do with "Air" and "where the air is not". The difference causes lift.
Quantifying all of that is fantastic for reproducing results, but measurements are not real. It's what's measured that is real. Why don't you answer what time measures. Remember, things don't define themselves.

>>10891303

You are so simple. Its cute.

>>10891353
Trying to be condescending when everyone else thinks you’re retarded is merely comical. Don’t bother trying it.

>>10888548
EM fields cannot be used as an anesthetic for surgical procedures.

>>10891351
>But that has nothing to do with reality. "how long does it take" is how a dumb human thinks. In terms of speed, distance...time.. None of these have anything to do with reality. Want to go faster? Negate what is in your way. Remove it . Make it absent of where it is. That isn't quantifiable, it is "absent. Want to fly? Air pressure makes a plane fly. That isn't a speed not has anything to do with distance. It has to do with "Air" and "where the air is not". The difference causes lift.
Quantifying all of that is fantastic for reproducing results, but measurements are not real. It's what's measured that is real. Why don't you answer what time measures. Remember, things don't define themselves.

Holy shit that’s a lot of schizo. To answer your retarded question, it’s an incoherent one, because time isn’t a measurement. You’re wrong out of the gate.

>>10891304

We have. At institutes around the world, we have tried. I know that triggers you because u are a flat earther.

You are basically a farm animal in intelligence compared to the work we are doing, and Im only here cuz im drunk and this is like petting the family dog.

You cannot even understand if told explicitly. We tried. You are not capable of understanding concepts that are like baby talk to us.

Its like Alita, with the tiers.

There are different tiers, and trying to explain to the lower tiers just makes them mad, like trying to explain calculus to a nest of ants, etc...

>>10891089
>doesn't have any high iq tranny friends
sad!

>>10891351
ah okay, the "let's ignore the children's bubble chamber" argument again.

all i can see in your argument is some "particles only exist when they pass through the bubble chamber, they cease existing afterwords". you really believe this?

you think the tracks in a bubble chamber aren't just real physical phenomena, instead it has to do with who is looking at it when? it's all about muh consciousness right?

that's what i thought. go back to yoga class newage bitch. gather some qi before trying harder to refute science

>>10891125
unironically based and truthpilled

>>10891380
"all i can see in your argument is some "particles only exist when they pass through the bubble chamber, they cease existing afterwords". you really believe this?"
LOL NO. It's batshit insane. This isn't my idea, it's wave-particle duality. There's even the "virtual particle" theory.

>you think the tracks in a bubble chamber aren't just real physical phenomena, instead it has to do with who is looking at it when? it's all about muh consciousness right?
That's not what I said, but ironically akin to what QM says about the double slit experiment.

>that's what i thought. go back to yoga class newage bitch. gather some qi before trying harder to refute science
You clearly have no reading comprehension, maybe the text is covered and you need to shake some of the stuck photon particles out of your monitor.

>>10891417
okay, so now you are saying QM and QFT are right. and they say particles are real.

i thought you were arguing against mainstream physics? seems like you are just agreeing with normal quantum mechanics and special relativity now.

what are you arguing now?

>>10891428
No idiot.

>you think the tracks in a bubble chamber aren't just real physical phenomena, instead it has to do with who is looking at it when? it's all about muh consciousness right?
That's not what I said, but ironically akin to what QM says about the double slit experiment.

Your quote is akin to what QM says about the double slit experiment, not what I'm saying. Fuck it, you're just trolling anyway.

>>10891432
i'm not trolling. i just like to debunk pseuds. but apparently you have retreated from being a pseud very far. which is good. i converted you to being a real scientist, or at least, a normie who admits science is real and pseuds are wrong.

anyhow, the double slit experiment has nothing to do with consciousness. if you think adding a detector along one of the possible trajectories for a given particle has anything to do with consciousness, then you are mistaken. it has more to do with physical interactions and decoherence.

read this excerpt from Zee.

Brainlets have the audacity to discredit the ether yet they fully believe dark matter exists.

>>10891011
>ramble on Gary style.
Because it literally is Gary.

>>10892109

I feel like Gary is waiting for a Mod to expose herself so he can sue this site into the stoneage like Hogan did Gawker.

>>10892420

But im just a causual observer so what do I know

>>10892420
>I am waiting for a Mod to expose herself
how exactly do you expect this to happen?

>>10892420
you mean "Peter Thiel did to Gawker using Hogan's story" right?

>33 IPs
>179 posts

>>10892941
>179 posters have ever been on /sci/

>>10891465
>i'm not trolling. i just like to debunk pseuds

>yeah I'm just debunking "pseuds" with debunked theories and begging the question.
Well wither you're misinformed or ill-informed on what constitutes pseudo science.

>if you think adding a detector along one of the possible trajectories for a given particle has anything to do with consciousness, then you are mistaken. it has more to do with physical interactions and decoherence.

I don't think you understand what I've been saying. Iyou think measuring what something does after it happens has anything to do with reality then it is you are mistaken. Whether you're conscious or not also has absolutely nothing to do with anything (other than your inaccurate observations and descriptions of reality that is)

This thread gets worse every time.

>>10893157
OP here, I'm sorry if I asked a shitty question, I was being sincere with it

>>10893323
yeah, Electric Universe people make this kind of discussion impossible. they have such a big pseud community and all these tactics stored up, from super detailed pseudoscientific sophistry to calling people trannies and corrupt scammers that they just spew out like a firehose anytime it comes near their little fortress of delusions. it's so bad that a lot of the reasonable questions that could be asked in this context can't even be googled because so much pseudoscience and fake news fills up the first 5 pages of google search results....

here's a decent article on these crazies and their shenanigans
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7neg/electric-universe-theory-thunderbolts-project-wallace-thornhill

>>10893323
As faggots go you're not the worst. Categorically, a thread is a function of the board, which is a multiplicative set of subfunctions of the lurkers. You had only finitely many ways of knowing that it might turn out like this.

>>10893357
I'm a junior year physics major, I just genuinely have never had the difference explained well to me

>>10893362
>I just genuinely have never had the difference explained well to me

Join the club, this thread is proof of it.

>>10893356
>Electric Universe people make this kind of discussion impossible
Not what makes this discussion impossible. It's the fact that everything having to do with fields is ineffable which why you're always going to get multiple incoherent descriptions of them. Unless you think otherwise then feel free to explain to everyone what a "field" is and what causes it.

>>10888548
Near zero.

>>10888553
Circumclampinated.
Vaccumlamped.

>>10893362
4chan is a microcosm of the larger system into which it is immersed.

https://brilliantlightpower.com/book-download-and-streaming/

>>10893403
what confuses you about the fields in the equations of electrodynamics or newtonian gravitation or quantum field theory?

let me guess, you’re an innumerate and never tried to learn math and read a physics textbook? so you demand a word explanation? maybe in baby words?

let’s say Tinky Winky is holding a lithe end of a stretchy slinky. fun! now, Dipsy is holding the other end of a slinky. when tinky winky does a hoppity hop, dipsy’s end of the slinky goes bouncy bounce! wheeee! now imagine the slinky was invisible. the slinky was make believe! that’s what a fieldy-poo is like!

>>10893492
*holding the

So if I had to TL;DR this thread, the electromagnetic field is the ether but accounts for relativity?

>>10893506
no, the aether is an old and discredited 1800's idea that never had any evidence and the need for it went away when Einstein proposed special relativity in 1905.
>>10890855
the typical usage of the word implies that the speed of light that gets measured in one reference frame would change due to relative motion between that reference frame and the aether. like if you are in a boat and you measure the speed of water waves, you might speed up your boat to catch up with them a little and therefore from your perspective they'd slow down a little. in fact this doesn't happen with light no matter how fast you try to chase light because of relativity.

any usage of the word "aether" in real science that isn't basically this debunked idea is either using it in a very metaphorical or allegorical way, since the canonical definition of the aether i just described is as thoroughly debunked as things get, on par with flatearth

>>10891280
>Unironically using the (((...)))
>>>/pol/

>>10893492
>what confuses you about the fields in the equations of electrodynamics or newtonian gravitation or quantum field theory?
Describes what was never explained.

>let me guess, you’re an innumerate and never tried to learn math and read a physics textbook?
Let me guess, you can't even answer why or how the universe runs on math/physics because you let a book do the thinking for you. Does your textbook happen to be the Bible? Do you shill your beliefs in unsuspecting neighborhoods on Saturday morning with your bicycle buddy?

>so you demand a word explanation? maybe in baby words?
An explanation period. Go ahead. Tell me what is and what causes a field. If you can't do it without math then you're simply relying on description of what has no explanation nor basis in reality. Kind of like measuring anything really, lets equate the field to a "chair" as an example. Go ahead and use as many mathematical descriptions as you can to try and tell me what a chair is. You can't do it. All you can do is quantify it, but that doesn't explain what it is nor what caused it. "this chair is x mm long and x mm wide with 4 legs and a back", does not tell me what a "chair" is not what it is used for. That is where the explanation of "chair" comes in to actually tell me what the fuck I'm measuring.

>the slinky was make believe! that’s what a fieldy-poo is like!
Your child like description is actually on par with what some moron physicists actually believe. They make it up as they go along because they don't actually know what a field is. Sorry, shadow chasing is for dumb cats. Don't be a dumb animal please, learn to think.

>>10893506
Yes, but there is nothing "relative" to one thing itself.

>>10893562
>any usage of the word "aether" in real science that isn't basically this debunked idea is either using it in a very metaphorical or allegorical way, since the canonical definition of the aether i just described is as thoroughly debunked as things get, on par with flatearth

Yeah they don't like that word anymore, too many newage types caught wind of it and they couldn't bear being associated with them. They prefer the new aether terms like "domain wall/Bloch wall", "Quantum foam/glue", "strings", "dark matter".

>>10893584
>E&M/newtonian gravity/QFT were n-never e-explained
>why or how the universe runs on physics
so you're arguing philosophy now? physics is just empirical, it just werks, and math proves to be the best tool for describing physics. why is that? maybe because word salad like your philosophical ramblings doesn't get you anywhere, you need a formalized algorithmic way to say definite things about measurements (you know, measurements are usually 'quantitative', right? that's why "it's 95 Fahrenheit today" is a bit better than "it's hot today").

if you feel like science doesn't give you that feel-good teletubby happy feeling that you know the deep truth of buddha or jeebus then sorry bro. you're gonna have to ask a bullshitter instead of somebody who actually deals with empirical truths

>>10893604
>E&M/newtonian gravity/QFT were n-never e-explained
They never explained what a field is, correct.

>so you're arguing philosophy now?
If it seems like it's leaning toward that direction then sure. Explain what causes a field philosophically. Or you can continue to quantify that which may not have quantity whatsover (shadow chasing).


>physics is just empirical, it just werks, and math proves to be the best tool for describing physics.
Correct. Descriptions are still not explanations

>maybe because word salad like your philosophical ramblings doesn't get you anywhere, you need a formalized algorithmic way to say definite things about measurements (you know, measurements are usually 'quantitative', right? that's why "it's 95 Fahrenheit today" is a bit better than "it's hot today").
That doesn't tell me what "hot" is though nor what causes "hotness". 95 F for example sounds awfully cold when you consider the temperature of the sun. That is why we came up with the term "qualities" (and protip: they aren't quantifiable).
>but we can imagine they're quantifiable by imagining up standards of measure!
Sure, whatever. Couldn't care less about your stupid imagination.

>you feel like science doesn't give you that feel-good teletubby happy feeling that you know the deep truth of buddha or jeebus then sorry bro. you're gonna have to ask a bullshitter instead of somebody who actually deals with empirical truths

You could always just tell me what a "field" is and what causes it and put an end to this discussion instead of ranting and throwing a tantrum.

>>10893647
>instead of ranting and throwing a tantrum
You physically know that anon isn't capable of that.

>>10893659
>perturbed

>>10893647
>They never explained what a field is, correct.
yes they did. the physics is written in terms of math and the various fields have rigorous mathematical definitions. if you demand word salad to do better than rigorous mathematical definitions, then you're at the level of a popsci brainlet who wants to be spoonfed some word salad mangling of the concepts. learn math anon.

>If it seems like it's leaning toward that direction then sure. Explain what causes a field philosophically.
okay, let's talk philosophy then. how about we start with this example. "One plus one equals two." can we agree on that? i hope so. but, if i were you, i'd go "but you never EXPLAINED 'one'. you need to give me words that help me to feel good about the concept of 'one' otherwise you are wrong." see how that is faulty logic? anyhow i could say "one is a mathematical object that is postulated to exist as an axiom in Peano's axioms". does that make you feel better? no, it's just an axiom.

"but whyyyyy is that axiom the way it is. explain axioms"
axioms don't have a why. at least nothing better than "it just works" or "it's interesting." see? it just werks is pretty powerful. explain axioms? now we're in deep philosophy land. axioms are things assumed to be true. what is truth? [insert some definition here]. "Okay, but whyyyyyyy?". [insert explanation here] "Okay, but whyyyyy?" [wash rinse repeat]

this line of arguing hasn't debunked math, has it? is 1+1=2 false? no. complaining about "you haven't explained why" isn't an argument.

so back to the topic. physics just werks. fields are part of the math we use to model things, and if you study the model you will get a feel for what they represent. if you want to do better, you need to provide a model that works better. but you can't. except for schizophrenia that has no equations and works exactly 0% of the time, pic related

>>10888548

After solving Maxwell's equation in a vacuum, one is led to a wave equation in which a velocity comes expressed as 1/(μ0 ϵ0) (0s are meant to be subscripts). Since both numbers are constants also this velocity of light waves is constant & appears to be irrelevant of the frame of reference.

The luminiferous aether is a hypothesised environment in which light propagates. The aether sets an absolute frame for light. Light is to propagate in this frame at c & in all other frames, it should move at another speed. It was proven not to be so.

The EM solves this problem by being Lorentz invariant & setting the speed of light as constant in all inertial frames of reference.

>>10893683
>axioms don't have a why. at least nothing better than "it just works" or "it's interesting." see? it just werks is pretty powerful. explain axioms? now we're in deep philosophy land. axioms are things assumed to be true. what is truth? [insert some definition here]. "Okay, but whyyyyyyy?". [insert explanation here] "Okay, but whyyyyy?" [wash rinse repeat]

Congrats, you just figured out how science actually works.

>you will get a feel for what they represent. if you want to do better, you need to provide a model that works better.
"I don't know what a field is and believe that not knowing what it is that I'm quantifying is okay" is what I got from that.

>except for schizophrenia that has no equations and works exactly 0% of the time, pic related
>the universe runs on equations
>the universe has an equal

Lol you're dumb.

>>10893817
thanks mr. self-similar hologram, ignore 90% of my post and claim that even though fields are precisely defined with rigorous mathematical definitions, that means they are super mysterious to physicists who make accurate predictions about them every day.

hope you enjoy your self-satisfied delusion that you know "the true buddha jesus metaphysics spirituality transcendence DMT elf sekret knowledge of Genius Saint Ken" that gives you 0% success at literally everything

>>10893839
>ignore 90% of my post and claim that even though fields are precisely defined with rigorous mathematical definitions

IDIOT. Math, QUANTIFIES. It DOES NOT EXPLAIN what something is, it QUANTIFIES it into [insert language/standard of measure]. Standard of measure is based on SOMETHING THAT EXISTS.
Example: Imperial system, standard of measure derived from human body parts.
Does measuring a foot make a foot exist? Answer: No, it quantifies it using a language.

You are basically saying that the universe works on a language that a human imagined up. Get it through your thick skull . Measurements aren't real, it's what's measured that is real.


>that means they are super mysterious to physicists who make accurate predictions about them every day.
Yeah they're so accurate that they have to keep making shot in the dark predictions indicating that they don't even know what they are.

>you enjoy your self-satisfied delusion that you know "the true buddha jesus metaphysics spirituality transcendence DMT elf sekret knowledge of Genius Saint Ken" that gives you 0% success at literally everything

Enjoy not being able to provide a simple explanation that a logical person can comprehend.

>>10893874
>REEEEE PHYSICS IS WRONG BECAUSE MATH IS NOT WORDS THAT MAKE ME FEEL WARM AND FUZZY. ONLY IF YOU MAKE WORDSALAD WARM AND FUZZY STORIES CAN YOU BE RIGHT. IT NEEDS TO BE SIMPLE SO KIDS CAN UNDERSTAND IT TELETUBBY LEVEL, OTHERWISE PHYSICS WRONG!!!!

>>10888730
>Millions of light years ago
Did you deleted system 32 of your brain?

>>10893839
>>10893880
Mutual parody is inherently anti-intellectual.

>>10890999
>fields are not particles and things do not pop in and out of existence like some of the whackjob theories there are about "discrete particles"
read a book

>>10888730
>EM waves were quite likely longitudinal NOT transverse

>when altering the density of something using compressions and rarefaction becomes "traveling" and means you have a "speed".
Yeah but how?
Also all light waves gain a longitudinal component when guided/reflected.

>>10895128
I know the theory which is why I made the ridiculous statement proposed by said whackadoodles. You may as well have posted the book of Mormon and said that was proof of particles.

>see the angel Moroni/God pops in and out of existence whenever they feel like to go do something.

Same difference, just substitute "Angel Moroni" or "God" with "Quantum"/"particles".

>>10888553
you can't measure a different speed of light with light based clocks you fucking mongoloid

>>10896040
Of course you can if light's movement is relative to the ether, fucking moron.

Apparently, there's no such thing as particles, just waves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2OlsMblugo

>>10896090
Waves of what?

There are literal paid shills in these threads, not just larping summerfags, big boys and brainlets.

This discussion has been going on for a fucking century. Now lets take a look at who composes each side of the argument. On one side, you have PBS, google, the united states department of education, the american physics society, all of academic physics, and every other cartel owned and operated by the federal reserve bank. On the other hand we have shitposting neets. I'm just going to take a stab in the dark here and proclaim that whatever narrative is officially endorsed by mass media is automatically wrong by default.