That's what they tell us. Light can travel through a vacuum with nothing in it. And maybe so but what is the evidence?
So I looked up the best vacuum on planet Earth. It contains 2.5 million molecules of air per cubic cm. This is said to replicate conditions between stars. So how then can we say we've ever tested light waves going through "nothing". We haven't.
To test the validity of my suspicions I've asked the science guys on reddit if they have an answer for this. The first few responses have already been hostile and that usually indicates this is one of those issues they simply don't have a good answer for. I was very polite in my question btw, so no I didn't provoke anybody, this is all on them.
We'll see how it goes. I'm open to a good explanation of why this is a valid test, but this light has 2 million molecules to interact with ever cubic cm it propagates, so you didn't rule out matter.
I might be wrong, but i thought they pulled vacuum (of course, perfect vacuum is unattainable in any case) on the original michelson morley observation. In any case, the aether is absolutely depended upon for both the observation as well as its interpretation at the time (and today, if you ask me).
It would certainly affect its speed (i.e. would slow it down), but as long as the air was uniform (in all legs of the interferometer) it shouldn't affect the observation (and didn't!)
Michelson did this later in the gale pearson "experiment". I say experiment in quotation, because in truth - both were merely observations with complex apparatus, as well as accompanying expectation and interpretation. Neither are experiments.
However, it is critical to understand (as they did at the time) that the observation itself - although observationally consistent with the expectation assuming a rotating earth - cannot distinguish between the motion of the earth and/or the motion of the aether itself. Either or both in combination are completely valid interpretations of the observation. There are other observations which further suggest that it is in fact the aether which is is rotating, and not the earth itself.
Correct. This is what the original "mmx" (wether performed under partial vacuum or not) established. The preferred rationalization of this observation at the time (in order to be consistent with prevailing cosmology/mythology) was "frame dragging", where they could continue to believe the world was in constant motion at preposterous / astronomical speeds and the aether merely appeared stationary because it was being dragged with the earth as it moved. Very desperate stuff if you ask me. The simplest explanation tends to be the correct one...
It is a valid question. Firstly, we know (and much more importantly - can demonstrate) that matter slows down light propagation, and vice versa. The more we remove the matter, the faster the wave travels. This is in contrast to waves within matter (often called sound) which stop propagating when the matter becomes too diffuse. There are also plenty of types of matter which prevent light propagation altogether (
Here's the twist though. Aether is itself matter. It's described by some experimentalists as an ultra-fine fluid. So sound is a wave comprised of and exists within matter, and light is as well but in a different type of matter. Perhaps one day we will see all these pressure waves as one entity/continuum.
You are not alone, and they are well worth pondering!
Regarding MMX in vacuum from what I've read there are only people claiming that later other scientists performed it in vacuum.
I would like the simplicity of Earth not rotating, the only issue is (and it is a large issue) is that the model for a stationary geocentric universe already fell apart. I'm still trying to learn more details on that, but they talk about epicycles which needed to be invented that became more and more absurd to explain some orbital inconsistencies with the model. You change the geocentric model to heliocentric and those go away which is some compelling evidence. But I'm not against experiments to further confirm or deny that idea.
I did see a physicist mention this recently and I didn't know sound waves actually travel faster in denser matter. However, there is a difference in wave type as sound is a longitudinal wave. I believe a transverse wave would more faster through a medium of lower density.
But it is hard to conceive of a decent model for it in diffuse matter (non aether material). If we say light is some perturbation of this diffuse superposition of electron clouds, for example, an objection might be "why doesn't the em wave fully absorb or even knock out that electron as they are known to do on contact with electrons?".
But there IS evidence that, at least in abundance, matter is able to carry a wave forward. There are experiments where this happens. This indicates that perhaps air can act as a medium, or can carry some aether medium along with it.
This is a popular (and popularized) misunderstanding. There is nothing preventing you, or anyone, from using a geocentric model or creating a new one from scratch. Models are meaningless. They are merely tools used for limited purpose. They are always wrong, and the reality to study is out here! (not in some model - a crude and extremely limited approximation of that actual reality built from an even more limited dataset)
Having a model that works (limitedly!) doesn't have any bearing on what actually is, and vice versa. Even if what you were saying were true (which it isn't), a geocentric model "falling apart" wouldn't and couldn't establish that the universe isn't geocentric. I recommend the documentary "the principle" on the subject (bearing in mind that it is catholic propaganda).
All of that aside, the world can/could be stationary without the universe being geocentric! Right?
Not really. The models are arbitrary. This is precisely what happened when we went from geocentric to heliocentric. We arbitrarily decided heliocentric was better because the math looked nicer - and this was the argument made to the pope at the time to make that switch. Check out "the principle". The world and the universe are whatever they are - they care nothing about our models (which are always wrong historically, by the by).
Arguably those exist, and the "mmx" (not an experiment, just an observation) is one of the quintessential ones. Not necessarily for geocentrism - but certainly for a largely stationary world.
Perhaps because aether is not electrons?
In fact, there can be no wave without matter! There are no waves possible without media (aka matter).
What did you have in mind? Generally - i don't need you to cite me a paper.
Aether is all pervasive. There is no part of existence devoid of it, however it is non uniform (otherwise waves within it would not be possible, for one).
Sagnac and linear Sagnac effect. It's a popular talking point among certain "kooks", but it is an established phenomenon.
That's not quite it though. As I said, the model was able to explain what the previous model struggled with. In order for me to consider geocentrism I'd need to see compelling reasoning of why the failings of that previous model need not apply under some new version of it.
But you're right, MMX could (*under the right circumstances) point to a stationary Earth. But more experiments could be done to see if this is valid, and would need to be before I'd even consider it. If I can explain MMX with Sagnac then I have no need to jump the shark and turn cosmology completely on its head.
I'm glad you mentioned that book is Catholic propaganda, in which case I'd need to read a different book.
If those effects weren't real, then the mmx would be meaningless as a measurement of motion.
That is incorrect, but it is a popularly taught/assumed misconception. Heliocentrism was not chosen over geocentricism for that reason, and the available models at the time of the choice had equal descriptive/predictive accuracy.
The point is that the models are always wrong. They are merely tools for limited use, doomed to expiration.
Wether you want to consider that the world may be stationary, or further that it may be the center of the observable universe as well - is completely up to you.
Consider this : when the geocentric model was prevailing - did that make the universe geocentric?
The failings or strengths of models are irrelevant to reality, and to what actually is. Science is empericism; it is about measurement - not models.
The mmx measured that the earth wasn't moving through space the way our cosmology/mythology said it was. God knows there are plenty of ways to rationalize that measurement in order to, paradoxically, reconcile it with "astronomical" motion as well - but it is important to recognize that this is primarily a philosophical decision, and further - one fueled by bias, not science.
The idea that the world was stationary was so philosophically abhorrent to the scientists/educated of the time that they arbitrarily discarded that as a possibility. Many of them admitted to that in their own words. Einstein would go on to believe that there was no optical apparatus that could ever be built to detect the motion that he just knew in his bones had to be there. From a few steps back, it is obviously bias and desperate delusion - whether or not the world is truly perpetually traveling at astronomical speed or not.
Explanations abound. It's the core of mythology, and largely - its purpose. I can "explain" the lightning as zeus throwing bolts.
Besides, you can't explain the mmx with sagnac. They are basically the same thing (except the sagnac apparatus was rotating). Interferometery works to detect motion, that we have well established. Mmx measured that our motion through "space" was negligable. Wether you want to believe that is a mistake and aether was dragged or any other contrived rationalization is again up to you.
It's a documentary, not a book. It also has lots of great historical information in it, and some of the most celebrated modern astrophysicists and cosmologists speaking in their own words on the subject.
However i (highly) recommend it with that caveat to make clear that the documentary is particularly biased. That doesn't mean it isn't well worth a watch or two!