Talk:Aether theories

Where the existing aether page sets out a particular historical view of aether theory (with some parts that seem to be stirring up some heated disagreement and claims of subjectivity), I put up this page as a more basic, hopefully neutral listing and jumping-off page to different aether theories.

The list is rather short at the moment. I know that there were loads of these things being suggested and shot down over the centuries, so if you can think of any noteworthy theories not listed here, please add them as a one-or two line bulletted entry, if you need more than that to describe it, give it its own page and leave a bulletted link to that page here. I did think of also doing an "aether theories" category, but at the moment there don't seem to be enough relevant wiki pages to justify it. ErkDemon 01:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Makes some real sense

May I suggest you have a look at an interesting concept with respect to a Fixed Frame of Reference in a book entitled "Einstein's Predicament: a new approach to the speed of light" by Clifford Denton, Twoedged Sword Publications 2005.

Leaving a place for discovery - protecting against Salsb and pseudoscience

Re-adding the "Further readings" section after an accidental delete, I've left out the "obsolete theories" category tag because of the recent interest given to a modified verson of an ether theory. Namely, there is some talk that vacuum quantum flux has fluid-like properties, which may be simialr to those of a perfect fluid. I know I should dig up the articles on arXiv.org before saying something like this, but for the moment I want to enter it into the discussion. Shpoffo 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Arxiv is not the proper source for references. Please give references to acceptable sources per WP:ARB/PS, though if you want to link to arxiv for those references, that is acceptable. Arxiv is not, in itself, a reliable source. --Philosophus ^T 06:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I ended up here from Related Changes through the Aetherometry article. I noticed Salsb did a sneaky recat - to psuedoscience (sic). I don't want to start another revert war over that category, but really -- no-one seemed to think that it was appropriate for six months, so if no-one else does it in due time, I'll revert that change. The Pseudoscience category is unfortunately being used as a cudgel by some editors on Wikipedia, Salsb among them.Pgio 08:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hating on wikipedia

I thought this was amazing. Apparently, the Aetherometry article (which currently links here) influenced these people to write a book on the ignorant fascism that is wikipedia. It seems they are constituents of the theory, and felt NPOV violated. These paranoids became so enfuriated by their inability to contaminate the encyclopedia, they actually wrote a book about that seems to present wikipedia as some sort of conspiracy. Regardless, it seems the article was portected over all, and you should all be proud. Shaggorama 10:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

They do not "hate" wikipedians, they just found here the same armored behaviors that lead to what we call "fashism" ... you should read before to depreciate people so stupidely. They are not "paranoid" nor "enfuriated"... looks at your own words and see how they could feel before so much agressive comments. Wikipedia is not described as a "conspiracy" like you would say, but more like a total failure of "civilisation". You talk like a proud soldier or a fantasmed paladin of knowledge, encouraging your pair in the fight... this is a proof of your character illness at some point, and another exemple of what is wikipedia's failure.- A silent observer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innermake (talk • contribs) 13:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fuzzy intro

I removed the following text:

In its original and fundamental form the aether is both the medium of space, and the fundamental building blocks of all material substances. Its properties therefore include all that is observed. In this context there exist no physical process or theory that would be considered as aether-free. In more modern theories this stuff of space are designated as field theories. These dispense with the concept of a medium and assign or designate the properties of the medium as fields which are then considered fundamental.

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. It would be easier to untangle if references were made to particular versions of the theory. For now, I've replaced it with something shorter that mainly lets the various individual sections speak for themselves. Perhaps a better overview will re-grow from scratch, or someone will fix this one. -- Beland 19:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculation is Not Proper in an Encylopedia Article

Articles are no place for introducing or speculating on fanciful topics of over-unity/Free-energy or goverment conspiracies. See Wiki's policies on NPOV, use reliable sources, and avoid unverifiable claims - User:LeSagian

I have been enjoying reading material from places like 16pi2.com for a couple of years now. Theres a number of other places where I read about Tesla's stuff and then thought to come to wiki and read whatever interesting articles it has. I can't find them. So... I typed Aether Physics Model and was surprised to find nothing I but don't see any material here relating either. Is there no articles yet for this type of thing? Maybe I am too early. -jrey

typography

I haven't been able to find out what the Wikipedia policy is on ligatures (Æ, æ) - are they even standard English spelling? Would someone who knows please unify spelling in the article, it's an awful mess. (I'd say it should be without the ligatures, as in the lemma.) And also decide whether aether should be capitalized or not throughout the article.--87.162.24.186 17:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is awful. Non-English letters or characters should not be used, unless within quotations or references. 26 July 2007, Rughede

Gravitational aether

The additional comment I have given about the thermodynamic theory and physics of the aether with reference to a published paper is a matter of fact for the readers of this article to appreciate or refute. Discussions are invited in ordinary form within the scientific community, but not as violations of freedom and principles of contribution to Wikipedia articles, such as elsewhere given:

"The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. No one person, and no (limited) group of people, can unilaterally declare that community consensus has changed, or that it is fixed and determined". Rughede

Aether Wave Theory (AWT)

The recent approach to Luminiferous Aether concept is based on idea of inertial environment composed of scale invariant particles (so called unparticles), which are of infinite high matter and energy density. Such idea comes from Oliver Lodge and his Electric Theory of Matter from 1904. The AWT is currently subject of private research.

The AWT concept is consistent with idea, the Universe is formed by interior of black hole and it's surprisingly effective in explanation of nature of strings, protosimplex and spin foam, considered by string, Heim's and LQG theories, which can be considered as a density fluctuations of Aether. The vacuum foam is considered as a scaled down version of dark matter structure. Because in such environment most of energy spreads in transversal waves, it's consistent with Lorentz invariance approach of relativity theory. Because the foam gets more dense under vibrations, the mass density of foam is proportional to energy density, from this the quantization of energy density follows.

By such way, the AWT appears to be conceptually capable to reconcile most existing physical theories together with unparticle, constructal and process physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.213.42.170 (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Most of the content of this page is already in the article on luminiferous aether, therefore I've shortened the corresponding sections. --D.H (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Aether and general relativity

"Aether and the theory of relativity"[1] was a title used by Einstein in a lecture on general relativity and aether theory. Einstein said that general relativity's gravitational field parameters could be said to have all the usual properties of an aether except one: it was not composed of particulate bodies that could be tracked over time, and so it could not be said to have the property of motion. ^[2] The general attitude to this amongst physicists today seems to be that Einstein's comments don't count because they stretch the idea of aether theory too far: it is argued that a "non-particulate" aether theory is not really an aether theory, or at least, it doesn't correspond to the idea of "historical" aether theory that is currently taught.

Such a view, however, contradicts the continuum concept of space-time and fields and Einstein's statements in "Aether and the Theory of Relativity", May 5th, 1920:[3]]

"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether." and "To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever".