/sci/ - Science & Math

The photon is a stupid concept and if you believe it you're retarded. The representation of a photon in OP's pic related is literally an old representation of a wave. The highs of the sine wave correspond to increases in pressure of a wave travelling through a medium and the lows correspond to drops in pressure. That they use it to represent the photon confuses me to no end.

"General relativity generalizes special relativity and refines Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time or four-dimensional spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present."

The Aether is only denied in the sense that it's name was changed and it was abstracted

>>14808122
Not as smart as he was he was retarded, but for being smart Einstein had some boneheaded lines of thinking, understandable, I can relate, but sheesh:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
(Albert Einstein, Leiden Lecture, 1920)"

That last portion, why did he conclude with that (probably because Michelson Morley "we can't detect gravity field with our detector, geuss gravity doesn't exist")

The idea of motion may not apply to it....

Then how can the curvature of it change?

>>14808122
>The Aether is only denied in the sense that it's name was changed and it was abstracted
While that's kind of true, your quote is off the mark. The thing that plays the role of "the aether", which definitely does not exist, is actually the electric field, which definitely DOES exist and fills all of space. The electric field is a quantum field, and excited states of that field are called photons.

>>14808120
There are longitudinal waves and then there are transverse waves.

There's no evidence the aether exists.

>>14808143
What are the unexcited states called, virtual photon?

How many virtual photons on average exist per cubic cm?

>>14808165
>There's no evidence the aether exists.
The existence of Light and Gravity is pretty good evidence.

Aether is only a word, pointing to Nature.

Light and Gravity exist through out space, and are enacted by interacting with space. A word was made to point to that, that word was Aether.

They changed the name to Field.

A rose of any other name would smell just as sweet

They probably call Orange and Apple something different in Germany

>>14808193
The unexcited state of the electric field is just a vacuum. There's nothing there.

Virtual photons don't really exist. They're a mathematical trick for doing calculations in quantum electrodynamics. They appear in Feynman diagrams but they're just math.

>>14808165
Light waves travel through which medium?

>>14808120
EM radiation is a point source of energy that oscillates at a certain frequency relative to it's energy level and probably some other factors

>>14808165
The Aether explains the doppler effect, different frequencies of light, results of the double slit experiment, speed of light, diffraction, refraction, reflection. If the photon exists than what is its frequency? What is oscillating? Dont give me this popscience nonsense of a ball with a sinewave behind it. Why does the angle of incidence equal the angle of reflection when light hits a smooth surface. Should the photon not be absorbed than reemitted in a random direction? Why exactly that angle? It can be explained by particles of the aether hitting the surface of the mirror pushing them slightly than they push back at the opposite angle and the wave continues.

>>14808214
The electric field

>>14808232
The aether, yes.

>>14808155
>There are longitudinal waves and then there are transverse waves
The classic wave representation is not necessarily a model of lights existence, but more of a graph plotting of lights detection.

You can plot many things on bar graphs, and eave graphs, but the thing you are plotting is not itself a bar graph or waves.

Is the temperature over the course of 5 years a wave? It can be plotted as one. Is a heat wave a transverse or longitudinal wave?

While those may be incorrect of me to use as points, as that may actually be able to be considered some physical wave some how...

The idea of light leaving the sun and having a body like a line that goes up and down and up and down and up and down and up and down, I don't think this occurs.

There ares few ways light could occur.

Apparently all light is the result of an electric charge being accelerated in some manner.

I geuss we get immediately to aether and light may be an up down up down wave after all.

If a sphere is stationary in a medium, and then caused to move; it must be caused to move by something.

Whatever direction the sphere is moved, accelerated in, the medium that is touching all sides of the spheres body, moves in some proportion.

Does all directions of the medium move, north south east west front back, when the sphere is accelerated?

Do all those directions of the medium propagate away a up down wave? Or a reverberating compression wobble?

>>14808232

>>14808246
Nope, different things. Aether does not exist; the electric field does. The mathematics of the electric field have, as far as we can tell, been fully solved through quantum electrodynamics.

>>14808143
>is actually the electric field, which definitely DOES exist and fills all of space
>>14808210
>The unexcited state of the electric field is just a vacuum. There's nothing there

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QED_vacuum
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCD_vacuum

There are many more where that came from.

>>14808203
take meds
>>14808214
what gave you the idea it needs a medium?
>>14808220
none of that is evidence. it's just a more complicated explanation for observations that are already explained by simpler theories. until it can make a confirmed prediction that nothing else can it remains one of a thousand other unproven ideas.

>>14808272
I'm not seeing your point.

>>14808272
>only "proof" is theoretical calculations
>no actual evidence is provided

>>14808282
>what gave you the idea it needs a medium?
Which wave travels through no medium? Show me experimental proof.

>>14808294
What makes you think light is a classical wave?

Guys check this out, I don't know why there's not more easily findable science videos actually trying to film, record, show, actual light, slower motion, more zoomed in, traveling through and interacting with different objects, simulations further extrapolating and expressing what is going on: 1:45

https://youtu.be/EtsXgODHMWk

>>14808286
The Electrical Field Deffinitly Exists and does so Throughout All Space

Most of the electrical field is absolutely nothing

The Electrical Field doesnt get to claim Nothing as it's own.
So it doesn't exist throughout all space as the first statement suggests.
Or it does, and is not, nothing throughout all space.

And, the second quoted statement suggests the word Vacuum is interchangeable with the word Nothing, but the concensus in the last 50 or so years and contemporary of standard accepted official up to date high council approved doctrine physics is that is not the case.

Abstract notions do not exist in space.

Try to find me science writing (post 1950 or something) that suggests the word Vacuum, is equivelent to the word Nothing

>>14808298
Because it behaves like one in observable experiments. The burden is on you to prove that this behavior is fake or illusory.

>>14808282
>what gave you the idea it needs a medium?
The Sun shoots out wiggles (like wiggling snakes) from its body to earth, and in all directions?

And distant Galaxies, all send wiggling lines from their bodies, that wiggle for billions, billions, billions of years?

Where is the light before it is sent out of the sun? How did stars capture all the light wiggles?

>>14808321
It's introductory quantum field theory. The vacuum state of a quantum field is the state in which no quanta are present and the field has a value of zero.

>>14808286
"vacuum is a state with no matter particles (hence the name), and no photons. As described above, this state is impossible to achieve experimentally. (Even if every matter particle could somehow be removed from a volume, it would be impossible to eliminate all the blackbody photons.) Nonetheless, it provides a good model for realizable vacuum, and agrees with a number of experimental observations as described next.

QED vacuum has interesting and complex properties. In QED vacuum, the electric and magnetic fields have zero average values, but their variances are not zero.[33] As a result, QED vacuum contains vacuum fluctuations (virtual particles that hop into and out of existence), and a finite energy called vacuum energy. Vacuum fluctuations are an essential and ubiquitous part of quantum field theory. Some experimentally verified effects of vacuum fluctuations include spontaneous emission and the Lamb shift.[17] Coulomb's law and the electric potential in vacuum near an electric charge are modified.[34]"

I personally think """"vacuum fluctuations"""" is just a result of not being able to make perfect vacuums, like particles and radiation still come from the vacuums walls and stuff, little vibrations simply as a result of the entire experiment and lab equipment being molecules attatched to the molecules that is the moving Earth.

We made a perfect Vacuum! And we still detected a photon! That means the perfect absolute vacuum of space, randomly spontaneously generates particles!

>>14808322
> Because it behaves like one in observable experiments
The Photoelectric effect, Lasers and the Twin-Slit experiment would say otherwise.

>>14808359
>The Photoelectric effect,
Waves can be quantized; wave length and frequency are quantizing and every wave the has ever hit you be it water or sound has only done so of an exact energy.

Photoelectric effect is that certain energy of photons are required to bump an electron up energy state?

>>14808351
>I personally think """"vacuum fluctuations"""" is just a result of not being able to make perfect vacuums, like particles and radiation still come from the vacuums walls and stuff, little vibrations simply as a result of the entire experiment and lab equipment being molecules attatched to the molecules that is the moving Earth.
At the same time I think the outer space ""Vacuum"" is an amount of ""Aether/Fields"", so a random particle excitation or fluctuation would just be the sloshing seas of Aether, it is just very interesting how whatever is involved with making a vacuum, so quiets the fields/aether in the vacuum.

Does the measurement problem come into play, when you make your perfect lab vacuum; and then you say; I am detecting absolutely nothing, therefore there is absolutely nothing in this box.

And/or, could the lab vacuum making process, hold out the fields, aether to some degree (if the aether is possibly some fine grain subtle substance that can be kept out of a chamber like water or air can), or if any aether/fields are left in the vacuum, could the removal of all atoms and electrons, not disturb the field, so no detection of field and no detection of particles quite well.

Does black body radiation imply, even very sturdy stable locked in hardly moving, budging; atoms, of vacuum wall material, occasionally just burp out an EM wave?

>>14808408
> Photoelectric effect is that certain energy of photons are required to bump an electron up energy state?
If you don't even know what it is then you shouldn't be trying to explain light waves. It's not just the energy but the intensity, neither of which can be explained classically.

Oh shit

I just realized

That last example of a line of uniform atoms in a material;

an EM wave does specifically come from inside a single paritcular atom (hiding captured under an electron shell)?

Like the atom, the electron shell, is like a clam shell, the molecule of material is a row of clam shells;

And one of them spits out a pearl?
Or bubble (as is done from things under water)

>>14808435
>If you don't even know what it is then you shouldn't be trying to explain light waves. It's not just the energy but the intensity, neither of which can be explained classically
Hey I've learned a million things, that one 12 or so years ago, forgive me

>>14808435
Can a beam of electrons be zoomed in close up filmed by the most frame per second camera possible? To see what An electron looks like?

I know the mesurment problem doesn't let you hit them with light to reflect light off them to record that light as video;

But maybe it's possible to put so many light waves and soooo many electrons in a room surrounded by all types of detectors and zoomed in microscope cameras

Because I want to understand the nature of the body of this electron thing that leaps off the atom when it is hit with a certain energy (intensity? Meaning, frequency of an energy?) of light

And it only comes off the atom when its energy is like for rough example; 2, 5, 7, 10

But if it is hit with light energy 3 or 6 or 9 it stays in the electron?

Or seperate note, it can be pulsed with energy 5, and not knock an electron, but a classical wave of energy 5 would knock the electron because s classical wave implies more prolonged disturbance? Crest trough* 50,

Are light waves ever or often crest trough once? Or twice?

>>14808498
Electrons are smaller than photons, so no. You can't resolve electrons with light.

"Ah, but let's just make smaller photons," you say. Then the photons go KABLAMMO into the electrons and scatter them to hell and gone rather than reflecting off them.

>>14808461
>an EM wave does specifically come from inside a single paritcular atom (hiding captured under an electron shell)?
Are all EM waves made by: other EM waves coliding into electrons which make EM waves?

Are EM waves made by atoms crashing into others, for example two people with swords; does the contact of the two separate pieces of metal, result in how many EM waves from the outer most, and inner(?) of each layer of atoms?

Where were the EM waves that will propagate away after the contact, seconds, and milliseconds, and nanoseconds prior to contact?

And during the slow motion first instances of contact, where is every EM wave that will propagate away, coming from?

>>14808130
>Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
>(Albert Einstein, Leiden Lecture, 1920)"

Anyone have an idea?

That last portion, why did he conclude with that (probably because Michelson Morley "we can't detect gravity field with our detector, geuss gravity doesn't exist")
The idea of motion may not apply to it....
Then how can the curvature of it change?

>>14808535
have you taken differential geometry yet?

>>14808203
>Light and Gravity
QED and GR don't require an "aether" to work

DOWN WITH THE TECHNOCRACY
THE ASCENSION WAR HAVE ONLY BEGUN
THE LUMINIFEROUS AETHER WILL PREVAIL
EAT SHIT GOLEMFUCKERS

>>14808511
How much smaller is an electron than the smaller possible EM waves/radiation/photons?

How close does electron microscope images of atoms get to showing an electron?

EM wave is made by an accelerated electron, the wave is bigger in which direction? How do you depict this EM wave coming out of the Electrons hiding place?

Does it propagate like a moving up and down line forward, or move like an ocean wave,

Think of seeing a laser beam, you see this line of color, but all the surrounding air between the laser, is being made full of light generated from that, is the light from the laser that enters your eye secondary light, scattering off air? And is different from the beam you detect, this is obviously true, because pointing the beam in your eye is intense. So light can be beamed straight narrow, not nessecerily rippling like pond ripples

>>14808560
>have you taken differential geometry yet?
Is differential geometry the physical existing substance that exists throughout space that forces bodies to attract at distances by being a intermediary mediating medium between them?

>>14808582
> the smaller possible EM waves/radiation/photons?
There's no lower limit on the size of a photon. But as wavelength goes down energy goes up. See above, re: KABLAMMO.

> electron microscope images of atoms

Electron microscopes can't resolve atoms.

> the wave is bigger in which direction?

Depends on the polarization of the light.

> Does it propagate like a moving up and down line forward, or move like an ocean wave

It propagates like a photon.

>>14808587
Differential geometry answers the question "how can the curvature change?"

There is no physical existing substance that exists throughout space. Gravity is caused by the GEOMETRY OF SPACETIME ITSELF.

The way you retards cope with your inability to learn physics is funny, but also pathetic. Does yammering about muh jews help? I guess it does, since you always end up doing it. Anyway, anybody can see why there isn't, shouldn't, and can't be an aether. By anybody, I mean anybody with the dedication to study special relativity and electromagnetism, and preferably QED and GR. And by study, I don't mean read Einstein quotes and misinterpret them because you have no idea what any of the words actually mean. I mean study it to the point where you can do the exercises in the textbook.

>>14808591
>>14808595
brb, Iook forward to reading and responding, this is some good conversation I think I have written some good stuff. If every question I ask Is seriously and sincererly responded to (not all are perfect, but many or most of them lead and aim toward discussion progressing, vision, understanding, realization, improvement, advancement, always chipping away at deep and shallow and inbewteen mysteries and ignorances.

The main reason in interested in these topics is the mystery, the beauty and magic I can't fathom and understand. To know and picture reality most closely as it actually is, like many people invest their love and passion in viewing many other things.

I have many, though some or one leading candidate replica of the Universe in my head. That is zoomed in and out on, the galaxies, whats possibly beyond them, atoms, quarks, light, gravity, what they actually look like, and what they do, to in between those scales at the more human level.

>>14808601
I'm a complete layman and have no dog in the fight (I barely understand what aether is supposed to be), but your lack of curiosity, apparent inability to elaborate, and certainty that being able to write formulas on paper gives you insight into the nature of reality is just embarrassing. You realize you look like a religious zealot when you talk like that right?

Here's the truth from a layman who knows and cares little about the subject:

you aren't certain and pretending you are makes you look stupid. you're a retard on the internet who knows how to do homework. even if you're ultimately right, you don't know that because your approach shows that you're a brainlet. shut the fuck up unless you plan on mounting a substantial response. appealing to credentials and institutions is dead. sorry if that hurts your career prospects. everything we know and trust must be re-evaluated post-clotshot

>>14808246
The "aether" as it was classically imagined would serve as a universal reference point for velocity, which is why aether drag was the cope used to explain away the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The electric field doesn't share this property.

>>14808619
I disagree with everything you're saying. Understanding electromagnetism and special relativity to the point where you can do basic calculations is necessary to see why there should not be an aether. It's not easy, but it's also not that hard. If you can't be bothered, or you just can't... well then your opinion on the aether is worthless. You're just another buttmad retard who spent his life sharting on the internet and is furiously jealous of people who understand even undergraduate physics. Your opinion on everything is completely irrelevant.

>>14808595
>Differential geometry answers the question "how can the curvature change?"
>There is no physical existing substance that exists throughout space. Gravity is caused by the GEOMETRY OF SPACETIME ITSELF.
The word SPACETIME is an abstraction of something;
What in the Universe does the word point to?
The word APPLE can be used to point to an APPLE, CAR a CAR, DOG a DOG.

Where and what are you pointing to with the word SPACETIME.

to tell you what I think space time is and the word points to, is that the 3d space of the universe, is full of a non atomic substance (possibly, depending what voyager can detect) that when mass moves in it, it disturbs in some way, and while telescope viewing celestial bodies, light reflects off them and moved through space; and it's a first step abstract physical depiction of the shape the universal medium takes on in the present of from our observstions the movements of mass.

>>14808641
Nobody knows what it points to, and that doesn't in any way excuse your non-understanding of general relativity.

>>14808634
What particle is the electric field made out of?

>>14808035
Read this.

>>14808641
>The word SPACETIME is an abstraction of something
No it's not. It's just what it says: space and time, considered as a whole manifold.

What is space? It's that thing which separates events which occur at the same time.

What is time? It's that thing which separates events which occur at the same place.

> the 3d space of the universe, is full of a non atomic substance

We know it isn't, tho.

>>14808636
you don't know what you claimed to know and even if you did, you're too much of a lazy brainlet to make an actual case for it. also nice walkback
at first I was like
>isn't, shouldn't, and can't be an aether
but then I was like
>should not be an aether

Also, I never gave my opinion on the aether, if you knew how to parse arguments instead of repeating things you learned from smarter people, you wouldn't have completely fabricated that claim. Your argument sucked independent of your correctness on this topic. You're not helping your case by continuing the error.

I guess I'm asking you to learn how to properly shitfling instead of appealing to MUH CALCULATIONS MUH CONSENSUS like some faggot redditor. you should be ashamed.

>>14808643
Space time is like a sailor drawing a map.

There are telescopes looking at every direction away from Earth.

That's space, you draw your map, you start at one direction; A, B, C, D... Longitude and latitude
You see how planets and orbiters and satelites and stars and galaxies move and emit light;

You mark down on your map each Time you get a signal from the objects;

And knowing the speed of light; and comparing the nature of the signal, the intensity and quality of the light coming off it and reaching the detector; and the speed of these objects, tracking their motions in relation in the map;

How to tell how far different ships are on a sea you are submerged in that is 3d, that is billions of light years long, your vision.

It's insane a a actually how far the telescopes can see, how powerful and energetic the sun is, yet this implies it is only a little of the light that gently touches the detector or your eye;

Imagine standing in front of the sun, you would think getting hit by 1 single light wave would hurt; but at least one often makes it to your eye.

So many light waves would hurt, but some, soft ones are ok.

I geuss even now we dont directly with our naked eye look into the Sun.

But distant stars are as bright or brighter; so this is the idea of a light cone?

>>14808035
>Redpill me on The Aether
Its a word that's way to olde English medieval fantasy to be used in modern cutting edge science. Call it Field.
Just dont ask about bosons and virtual bosons and all their qualities

>>14808665
>make an actual case for it
I can't. You don't know physics so there's no case for me to make. That's my point. Why would I bother making a case? The case is simply "read a textbook if you want to know more"
>should, can't, whatever
Oh no, I used a slightly different word. You win!
>your argument sucked
What is my argument again? Let me remind you: if you don't know shit about physics, you can't really evaluate physical arguments about the aether. Do you disagree? Say you were a plumber. Would you want to discuss why the toilet's fucked with someone who doesn't know shit about pipes? Of course not... it's just pointless. Yes, even if the pipes were designed by a Jew.
>muh consensus
I'm not talking about consensus. I'm talking about reading a textbook
>unforced r*ddit mention
Unsurprising

>>14808035
Jews aren't suppressing it
It's just that the people advocating it don't even understand Newtonian mechanics and are going around trying to disprove relativity

>>14808334
Someone answer this:
The Sun shoots out wiggles (like wiggling snakes) from its body to earth, and in all directions?

And distant Galaxies, all send wiggling lines from their bodies, that wiggle for billions, billions, billions of years?

Where is the light before it is sent out of the sun? How did stars capture all the light wiggles?

>>14808694
>ur so wrong that ur wrong and u dont even kno how wrong u r so im not gonna tell u how ur wrong cuz ur so wrong

>>should, can't, whatever
>Oh no, I used a slightly different word. You win!
Your first post implied it was completely impossible and that anyone asking the question is an imbecile. Your second (after I slapped you straight with clear thinking) retreated to a mere "should not", which is quite different. Glossing over things like this when pretending to be some Science Whisperer makes you look like a pretentious blowhard faggot. I'm sorry I have to be the one to inform you how this works. Try learning the lesson and the embarrassment will wear off.

>gets mad when his consensus-defined thinking patterns betray his Redditfag status
Sorry, no upboats for you.

>>14808428
>At the same time I think the outer space ""Vacuum"" is an amount of ""Aether/Fields"", so a random particle excitation or fluctuation would just be the sloshing seas of Aether, it is just very interesting how whatever is involved with making a vacuum, so quiets the fields/aether in the vacuum.
>Does the measurement problem come into play, when you make your perfect lab vacuum; and then you say; I am detecting absolutely nothing, therefore there is absolutely nothing in this box.
>And/or, could the lab vacuum making process, hold out the fields, aether to some degree (if the aether is possibly some fine grain subtle substance that can be kept out of a chamber like water or air can), or if any aether/fields are left in the vacuum, could the removal of all atoms and electrons, not disturb the field, so no detection of field and no detection of particles quite well.
>Does black body radiation imply, even very sturdy stable locked in hardly moving, budging; atoms, of vacuum wall material, occasionally just burp out an EM wave?
Someone respond to this

>>14808711
Let me correct "should not" to the original whatever it was, then
>ur so wrong that ur wrong and u dont even kno how wrong u r so im not gonna tell u how ur wrong cuz ur so wrong
Quoting yourself now?
>leddit leddit leddit
Aren't you the prince of proper and correct argumentation? Is screeching about leddit what you meant by that?

>>14808710
>Where is the light before it is sent out of the sun?
Light is made of quanta called photons. A photon is a little kink in the electric field, kinda like a ripple in a pond except confined to a very small volume. The sun makes photons through nuclear reactions. Electrically charged subatomic particles interact and kick off photons. Those photons make their way out of the sun, into space, and into the sky where they make plants grow n shit.

>>14808435
Respond
>>14808498

>>14808498
>>14808726
How can anyone response to this schizo rambling? What is there to say?

>>14808517
>Are all EM waves made by: other EM waves coliding into electrons which make EM waves?
>Are EM waves made by atoms crashing into others, for example two people with swords; does the contact of the two separate pieces of metal, result in how many EM waves from the outer most, and inner(?) of each layer of atoms?
>Where were the EM waves that will propagate away after the contact, seconds, and milliseconds, and nanoseconds prior to contact?
>And during the slow motion first instances of contact, where is every EM wave that will propagate away, coming from?
Someone respond

>>14808560
>have you taken differential geometry yet?
How can the curvature of spacetime change in the presence of mass; but space time does not move cannot move and has no movement and no movement can be done to it?

>>14808618
>I have many, though some or one leading candidate replica of the Universe in my head. That is zoomed in and out on, the galaxies, whats possibly beyond them, atoms, quarks, light, gravity, what they actually look like, and what they do, to in between those scales at the more human level.
What human on earth has the most accurate, in depth, in breadth, depeiction, understanding, replica if the Universe in their Brain?

>>14808722
>Aren't you the prince of proper and correct argumentation? Is screeching about leddit what you meant by that?
Yes. I even explained to you how you outed yourself (you still haven't denied being a redditfag) by trying extremely hard to ignore the parts of my post that BTFO your empty shitflinging

This might shock you, but there are ways to deduce truth about reality other than doing complicated math homework (the gist of your original claim). If you just recognize that you wanted a pat on the back for being le smart science man and that your R*ddit-conditioned mannerisms betrayed your motivation and perspective, you can be forgiven. But you still have to go back to R*ddit. I know you do great there.

>>14808749
>This might shock you, but there are ways to deduce truth about reality other than doing complicated math homework (the gist of your original claim)
Wrong. My claim is that you can't evaluate the physical arguments about the non-existence of aether without doing your math homework. Because it's all based on math. If you want to find your "truth" in a different way, then you're welcome, but you can't understand why physicists think there's no aether without understanding the math (and experiments). That's the point of the thread, after all.
>R*ddit
You just can't stop, can you? Also
>leddit spacing
lol

>>14808634
The M-M experiment shows that the Earth is stationary and non-rotating.

>>14808753
>Wrong. My claim is that you can't evaluate the physical arguments about the non-existence of aether without doing your math homework.
And my claim is that you can't argue with someone outside of your paradigm by demanding that they operate within your paradigm according to opaque calculations that only the anointed know. I find that appeals to expertise and complex terminology are often brainlets who only know how to parrot what they've learned, they don't actual reason things out themselves. The argument "feels" wrong to you, and you feel that the experts in the field could show it based on things you've seen, but so far you haven't done anything other than shitfling. You seem mentally unsophisticated for someone who knows all the secrets of reality.

If you have a compelling mathematical evidence that aether can't exist, make your case. Say what realities it's incompatible with. Create a hypothetical where things don't behave as we would expect them to if there were some type of aether present all around us. Explain how "aether" is an illusion and time is the only thing connecting all of physical reality. Any argument at all would suffice. I don't think you can, and I think it frustrates you to be put in this position.

>leddit spacing
Newfag meme. Longer posts have always used spacing due to imageboard limitations in formatting, insecure newfags made the redditposting concept up a decade ago, it's a forced meme.

Redditfag.

>>14808792
They're not opaque. Anyone can learn electromagnetism and special relativity, if they can learn calculus. There are dozens of textbooks, youtube videos, etc. Otherwise, you can't really evaluate the arguments about the aether, or at least those of physics. It's meaningless.
>reason things out themselves
Exactly what I'm suggesting
>reddit reddit reddit
I will bow to your wisdom here. You seem to be a reddit expert.

>>14808794
It's insane to me that you can't see the error in your reasoning even though you LARP as a smart person.

"Go learn THE SCIENCE™" isn't an argument you fucking retard. Hence, 100% of your posts are empty shitflinging. If you merely embraced this with a middle finger instead of acting as if you're making a point, this wouldn't have even continued.

An equivalent argument to the one you made would be:
>I have a doctorate in physics. You are wrong and don't understand the subject. The parts you're wrong about? Well, I have a doctorate in physics.

Are you a woman or do you pretend to be one?

>>14808807
I'm sorry anon, but you will never be a physicist

>>14808823
darn. that's okay though I'm already a wizard. parsing things in a way that makes sense is fun isn't it?

I love using my brain to come to conclusions instead of outsourcing the process to institutions. It upsets people for some reason though hmm

>>14808826
I hate to break it to you, but getting memed by pol isn't coming to your own conclusions

>>14808833

>>14808833
Is /pol/ in the room with you right now?

>>14808879
Yes. Or rather, in the thread.

>>14808035
There's at least two types of aether theory. A fluidic medium in which light travels as waves. The other type of aether theory posits very small particles which are always zipping around and through matter. Ether particles are responsible for inertia because they resist movement of large bodies. They're also responsible for momentum because movement induces the ordered flow of ether particles through a body which results in a soliton like field comprised of the ether particles.

>>14808035
People on this board loose their shit at dark matter but aether is completely fine as a concept?
It’s a wild speculation but it could be that you’re just contrarian

>>14809546
dark matter is "scientific" aether

>>14809575
Hardly.

>>14808641
Just read this http://library.lol/main/35F57105C7AAB0ECFDC03AFD460338BB

>>14808249
meds

>>14809546
>but aether is completely fine as a concept?
Obviously not, it's just a discussion between schizos from /pol/ and /x/.
The same who loose their shit at dark matter.

>>14808647
only if you pay me $20 per page

>>14808836
>>14808879