Talk:Aether (classical element)

Michelson-Morley experiment wrong?

The final paragraph of the page appears to state that the Michelson-Morley experiment is erroneous. I've never heard of such a thing, and there are no sources provided. Additionally, it was my understanding that the pair attempted to prove the existence of the aether, not disprove it. --Gigacannon 16:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

History

How do we know that the Greek concept of aether is actually derived from the Hindu akasha? It's possible that they are both derived from Proto-Indo-European culture. --coldacid 21:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

One must question what Plato referred to in Timeus 55c: "when joined together, formed eight solid angles, each composed of three plane right angles; and the shape of the body thus constructed was cubic, having six plane equilateral quadrangular bases. And seeing that there still remained one other compound figure, the fifth, God used it up for the Universe in his decoration thereof. Now in reasoning about all these things, a man might question whether he ought to affirm the existence of an infinite diversity of Universes or a limited number; and if he questioned aright he would conclude that the doctrine of an infinite diversity is that of a man unversed." Aether is not mentioned. W.R.M. Lamb comments that how God used it up the dodecahedron is obscure and that the reference may be to the 12 signs of the Zodiac. The reference to and comments on this page that refer to Timeus 55c have sadly been uncritically propagated on numerous web sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmlkcl (talk • contribs) 19:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible suggestion for improvement: One might discuss in further detail the role of Aether in Aristotle's view of the cosmos. Mostly how it was formed in the shape of spheres with natural circular movement, and one might go into the complications of how even though it is not supposed to change, it still had different density's that made up the moon/planets. -Hine5870 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Void

Who calls Aether the void? Aristotle uses aether and he is definitely antivoid. Maestlin 05:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Japanese (whose first four elements correspond to the Greek elements) consider Void to be the fifth element. Thus, it is relevant to discuss here. 74.236.79.85 (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on topic

This article covers the "classical element". The "Luminiferous aether" is covered in Luminiferous aether (surprise!), other aether theories, and an overview is given in Aether theories. --Pjacobi 15:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This article covers the "classical element". The classical thought lead to the aether theories!!!! 134.193.168.249 15:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

lead to vs is. We have different articles. There is no need to repeat stuff here. --Pjacobi

Yes. There is. It's a legacy thing. 134.193.168.249

I'm not convinced, but in its current form it doesn't hurt as much. --Pjacobi 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was the Oliver Nicholson quote removed?

There used to be a small quote from Oliver Nicholson in the Fifth Element section. Why was it removed? It was from "Tesla's self-sustaining electrical generator", The historical ether. Proceedings of the Tesla Centenial Symposium, 1984.

It read as follows: Oliver Nicholson points out that, in contrast to the better known luminiferous aether of the 19th century, the older concept of the classical aether had three properties. Among these characteristics, the classical aether had a non-material property, was "less than the vehicle of visible light", and was responsible for "generating metals" along with fostering the development of all bodies.

The original section can still be seen on other sites linked to Wikipedia, such as answers.com

Notice

I have removed text below from the first paragraph because it appeared extraneous. If anyone wants to either incoprorate it into the wording, or discuss it, here it is.

"Does the ether exist? Einstein's theory of special relativity suggests that the question is irrelevant. Certainly no one thinks today that a solid medium pervades space. On the other hand, it is widely believed that there is no real vacuum. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected in 1964 the cosmic background radiation, a leftover of the big bang. This radiation is pervasive and basically the same in all directions. It is possible to measure Earth's movement against this background radiation."

The Ether of Tesla: From Tesla's 1892 lecture on the medium or ether as far as Tesla was considered moved to his electricity. The medium or ether of electrical response was an insulating liquid. In that electrically insulating liquid Tesla got a response to his high voltage and moved electrical charges such that there might appear a body of inertia to the frequency of the electricity. May I use a symbol -oO+ for charge bodies that a one frequency stops oscillating from the AC and remains poised at a positive charged terminal C+ -oO+ effecting a flow. Thus without such a electrical pressure there is no flow. Since charged and perhaps uncharged particles exist the only thing new is the insulating liquid to electricity that can be ascribes to the ether of Tesla. Other scientists finding ether qualities should consider what Tesla found. High voltage flows appear as Auroras and mimic the ion brush and flames that Tesla created in his lectures.Teslafieldmachine (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Aether theories for modern theories as opposed to classical.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Similar Culture Concepts.

This was on the Quintessence Disambig page, where I don't feel it's quite appropriate. Beats me if it should be added to this article or just left out to dry, since some of these seem a stretch (ichor is the same as aether?!) SnowFire 01:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

---

The concept of a life-energy inherent in all living beings seems to be a fairly universal archetype, and appears in numerous ancient religions and systems of metaphysics (in addition to having been borrowed by George Lucas's science-fiction films).

Analogies to numina in other societies include:

• Polynesian mythology : mana
• Australian Aboriginal mythology : maban
• Egyptian mythology : ka
• Greek mythology : ichor
• Inuit mythology : inua, sila
• Leni Lenape mythology : manetuwak
• Norse mythology : seid
• Yoruba mythology : oloddumare

Also related are the philosophical concepts of:

• Chinese Philisophy  : qi (or chi), Tao
• Japanese philosophy : ki
• European alchemy and philosophy : aether, (or ether), quintessence
• Hindu philosophy : prana

Two grammatical quibbles

I'm no philosopher, so maybe this has some special meaning I'm not aware of, but the very first sentence

Aether ... is a concept used in ancient and medieval science as a substance.

seems odd to me. It's a concept used as a substance? Perhaps that should be rephrased.

Later in the first paragraph is

Its force is imagined to be like a lightning.

If this isn't an attributable quote, it's rather an odd thing to say, also. As a native English speaker, "a lightning" just doesn't scan well. --Rob Cranfill 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyberspace section

Firstly it needs a better title. Secondly Ethernet is a formal protocol invented by Xerox Parc, not a metaphysical description of cyberspace. Lastly, the twice used reference in the section deals with categorisation of musical instruments, not the concept of cyberspace as aether. The second use is valid, but the initial three paragraphs need a reference of substance.

The entire section needs a cleanup, but I'm unsure as to what exactly it was trying to convey in the first place. I'll attempt to find a reference focusing on cyberspace as a fifth element and rework it from there, but at the present time I can't contribute much more than this critique. Nazlfrag (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole section seems like OR to me, or at least an opinion held by only a tiny minority. Since the elemental theory of matter was rendered obsolete in the 16th century, applying it to modern technology is anachronistic. I think it should all be chopped. Ashmoo (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Does anyone have a cite for the statement that the ancient Greeks called the 5th element Idea (Greek ίδέα), or ίερόν, (Greek hieron "a divine thing")? Ashmoo (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent Science

Some scientists have recently argued that gravity shows that ~80-90% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy. These things have substance, but are currently undetectable by current means (whereas regular particals can be captured and observed). Reminds me of this void/ether. As an ether, it has substance, but as a void, its substance cannot be measured (so perhaps, for their intents and purposes, it has no substance). I wonder if these ancient cultures observed something of nature and physics that Westerners only were able to observe recently through the aid of computers and space technology (one of the early proponents of this theory constructing it around peculiar behaviors of distant VISIBLE celestial bodies). I think, if I'm remembering this stuff right (or even better, if a professional thought about this before I did), a slight mention of the theory might be good. --VTPPGLVR@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.76.199 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think more analogous modern equivalent would be the quantum nature of the space-time continuum. Relativity already began to treat the continuum as a 'fabric' of sorts, and quantum mechanics has revealed that, even in a vacuum, there is a constant fluctuation of activity going on. I dare say, it may have turned out that Aether was correct, and we have learned a more precise understanding of its nature, but are simply choosing not to use that earlier word for it any longer. But this is my personal impression and does not belong in the article, nor does dark matter or any other such comparisons - unless we can find some worthy scientific references where modern theories are being proposed as a more refined understanding of Aether. My guess is that these will be rare simply because a scientist proposing a paper on Aether may face a stigma since it is considered an outmoded/disproved idea.--Daniel (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarity

Is it fair to conclude that Aether has some qualities that make it similar to "The Force" in Star Wars? 66.25.254.123 (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The Force inhabits living beings, with some people having it a lot more than others. The aether was invented to fill outer space. It is uniformly everywhere. I am not seeing the similarity. Roger (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, vitalism may be a closer concept, but still not exactly the same thing. SpinningSpark 22:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Article edits

I reviewed this article and as an overall it is very well written, but the section on mythological origins could be written so that it is easier to read. Your use of quotes to explain aether helped quiet a bit in the understanding of what the scientists were trying to explain when they introduced aether into their systems. Meganjeanne1 (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganjeanne1 (talk • contribs)