Lorentz's Ether Unveiled: The Legacy And Controversies Of Einstein's Rival

[@shodan6401]

This essay must have taken so much research, made even more difficult by the fact that much of these historical intricacies are increasingly being lost to the ravages of time. Your dedication is profound, and I strongly recommend that you create a compilation of this essay as well as others with a significant historical reference that are surely worthy of publication. I'm not aware of another living soul engaged in this type of analysis, and it deserves to be added to the permanent public record.

[@warrennalty6599]

The work of Eintein is uppermost in the minds of the general population whenever physics is mentioned, and videos like this are a worthwhile reminder that Einstein was one amongst many in his own time, before and since that together have given us our understanding of reality so far.

[@Heaven351]

​@@warrennalty6599That's actually a narrative of media that Einstein was ahead of his time , if you really study Maxwell, Fitzgerald, Helmholz , lord kelvin etc . People works on developing the ether vortex theory of atom then you would understand how underrated they were . I am not Taking away the prestige from Einstein but he was not the best .

[@Heaven351]

​@@warrennalty6599if you go and study the paper of ether vortex theory of atom by lord kelvin then you will see that almost 130 years later same theory is invoked with just a different name called superfluid vacuum theory .

[@JavierChiappa]

Exactly, this scientific debates are still relevant to this day but they are not teaching them anymore. assuming as truth what is really some speculation from Einstein

[@Heaven351]

@@JavierChiappa brother are you replying to my comment?

[@nickr7437]

I think Lorentz was on a more realistic path. Einstein's abstractions are focused on the acceptance of "virtual" reference frames that are supposed to be valid... but it lacks any physical explanation. I think by the time that General Relativity came around, we should've acknowledged Lorentz was probably closer to the truth. We now talk about mass warping "space/time", but the universe is a real physical place. How does empty space, which is supposed to be treated as a void, have the ability to retain any characteristics? Furthermore, how can it "expand"? It seems like there has to be *something* occupying the space between us that governs how matter acts. Honestly, it seems like we just changed the word "ether" to "space time"...

[@bladeoflucatiel]

They took ether out of the picture but are fine with things like "dark energy, dark matter" and particles poping out of thin air 😂

[@chrislucastheprotestantview]

I would argue time doesn't even exist just the present. And I can get into deeper points about that topic. So therefore all the space time nonsense just seems completely absurd to me

[@TheNetworkangel]

@@chrislucastheprotestantview I wonder what would happen if time were taken out of equations, just as a thought experiment.

[@bigoptions]

That's right; surprisingly even Einstein knew that his space /time wasn't empty. Maxwell's version of a light wave was correct, and to travel through space needs a medium which is the ether. Figuring that out is pretty good; I was taught that by Theoria Apophasis on KZbin. Things like that light doesn't have a speed because nothing is traveling from the sun to earth. A wave is not a thing, like a shadow.

[@rientsdijkstra4266]

@@bladeoflucatiel The existence of ether is simply dis-proven

[@tf2032]

Lorentz was on the right track, the only thing his theory needed was to also consider matter (in addition to light) as an excitation/wave of the fundamental substratum ("ether"). If one does this move, length contraction and time dilation emerge automatically, two-way speed of light results naturally invariant (in accordance with all the experiments) while the synchronization convention for distant clocks can be chosen so to maintain an absolute simultaneity. One can even add a variable tensorial index of refraction of the ether and local "optical flow" field, functions of the matter-energy distribution and obtain a Lorentz-ether constructive/materialistic version of general relativity. In brief, Lorentz made the first step toward the unification of matter, light, gravity, and the fundamental substance which give rise to all of it.

[@gravitationalvelocity1905]

More details please.

[@johnchase2148]

And the optical flow was of a violet color heat wave like in motion.. Nice to be connected.

[@Heaven351]

There is no difference of experimental results between Special theory of relativity of einstein and lorentz ether theory . There mathematical construction is same. Only lorentz ether was stationary , immobile providing a preffered frame of reference for the speed of light where as Einstein later in a paper called " ether and theory of relativity " in 1920 invoked the notion that there exists an ether , it's just that not to be thought of as a stationary lorentizian ether , also Einstein in his Aetheory proposed ether to be relativistic .

[@shoofly-mx1]

LOL

[@charliejohnston1978]

Zero point energy is a function of the 5th elemental force called the ” Time Force”. It is a “plank length”, “plank energy” and “plank time” elemental source of all emf and gravitational forces, via this mutual M-5 String-let wave double-ended spring coupling. Within the ether the gravitational effects manifest out of this 5th force. The space-time ether membrane consists of the Time Force’s light speed couplings and de-couplings of these plank - length string-let wave double-ended springs. The plank-length M-5 string-let wave springs couple with all other time force string-let wave springs to create the S-T ether membrane effects. And utilizes this elemental force, the space-time ether displays what we see as the gravitational and the much stronger electro-motive forces of God’s nature.

[@Stopinvadingmyhardware]

The truth? We use Lorentz’s formulas for literally everything. Even in modern General Relativity.

[@TD-zr5xm]

Indeed they seem to have made GR work regardless if the underlying concept is fictitious.

[@Stopinvadingmyhardware]

@@TD-zr5xm QFT makes your argument specious

[@bastadimasta]

Same as Newton vs Leibniz, or anything given by Nobel foundation. Unfortunately, the glory of a scientific achievement has been given to the scientist who's favored by the dominant political power.

[@bobinthewest8559]

@@TD-zr5xm … To me, this suggests that “something” is “missing” from GR. Just because “we” have not definitively identified what that “something” is…. Doesn’t mean that it is any less “real”. What was called eather/ether yesterday…. Could be the very same thing that is known today as quantum foam…. Which could be just a (more encompassing) description of “the quantum fields”. “Discovery” of everything that we know…. Often has begun with “a noticing of the effects of something.” As we observe those effects, and devise experiments to understand what is causing them…. What we then “name” those “causes”, depends largely upon how we visualize them. Ether 🤷‍♂️ Quantum Foam, etc… Just “names ascribed to something apparently not yet, fully understood.”

[@JoeDeglman]

The Lorentz Length Contraction derivation is literally the same derivation as Einstein's time dilation derivation, as Einstein plagiarized it from Lorentz, including the math errors and the invalid substitutions. The equations both fail to predict mass of protons accelerated to relativistic speeds. That is where the claim comes from that a proton gives off a neutrino when accelerated to relativistic speeds, but no such neutrino is emitted. The failure has been determined to be caused by trying to apply the invalid equations of the SRT including time dilation and length contraction.

[@hpeterh]

They where not rivals, but friends. Lorentz even recommended Einstein as his successor at the University of Leyden. They discussed their theories in a friendly way and helped each other.

[@dougr.2398]

Then Lorentz may have familiarized Einstein with the Michelson-Morley experiment

[@WarHolt]

Yeah, why Einstein never even spoke of the ether is a mystery.

[@Littleprinceleon]

​@@WarHoltwhere did you get that Einstein wasn't considering the concept of aether? 😊

[@PyrrhoVonHyperborea]

@@WarHolt he never dispensed the idea of the aether. He was inspired by Machian physics -- but ultimately, the idea, that there is something (space) which can be warped through the presence of matter, yet that something being nothing, is an absolutely nonsensical thought, brought in by scharlatans, not Einstein himself... You can't have one without the other: if something gets warped -- then something IS. It's as simple as that. Everything else is sophistry. But modern day academia is full of sophistry!

[@Gabriel-mf7wh]

​@@WarHolthe did and after 1920 he reconciliated his ideas with the ether theory, and actually started believing in the ether. There's a paper called Ether and the Theory of Relativity where he states that the ether must exist

[@BackassWordsWeirdworld]

So important to revisit this until we get it right. These guys got us this far, we owe to them and ourselves to finish what they started, for reasons of importance beyond comprehension until we do. Thanks for sharing this excellent historical summary of where we stand at this point in time. God bless.

[@dalelerette206]

The mechanism of "reflection" is obtained by oscillations of electrons (or atoms) by an in-coming magnetic field, which generate another wave reflected from the surface. So while something may not look like a mirror to your eyes, it may be a mirror at some other frequency. The only materials that will redirect magnetic fields are materials that are ferromagnetic (attracted to magnets), such as iron, steel (which contains iron), cobalt, and nickel.

[@douglasstrother6584]

Indeed! Check out the Trouton-Noble Experiment which measured the torque on a charged capacitor as an indicator of motion through the ether. Max Laue (1912) and J.W. Butler (1968) present thought-provoking analyses of the experiment. I first came across the Trouton-Noble Experiment in "Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd ed.).

[@muntee33]

They got us far indeed. But our theoretical mathematicians have wandered to far from the established path and gotten us comprehensively lost.

[@john-ic5pz]

​@@muntee33preach it Muntee! ❤

[@一个说话大声的中国人]

Einstein's math model of general relativity is continuous and smooth, including first and second derivatives, regardless of all things being discrete and having a finite number of atoms. So, the varieties of atoms that stars are made become the indistinguishable geometrical continuum of uncountable math point, their electromagnetic fields vanish, and gravity was brought back as curvature, i.e., second derivatives. The right physics answers should have their real-world correspondences and be discrete because our nature is discrete and finite. In real-life practices, such as engineering and science, two answers or measurements are the same when they differ by the magnitude of the scale of an atom, say hydrogen, to be safe. So, discrete or quantum is the reality, and continuous is the math computation technique, including first and second derivatives. Moreover, most numbers, including the square root of 2, have no real-world correspondences. Since particles attract and repel each other, imagine a handful of magnets, a particle and a magnet can only be in certain positions.

[@maurpine]

I appreciate the work involved in bringing all these complex concepts together in a cohesive manner. I took a semester in relativity a long time ago and always remember how the teacher derived the Lorentz time transform.

[@jamesclerkmaxwell8020]

Ditching the Aether might well have been the worst self inflicted wounds in the history of Physics. Nowadays, physicists keep invoking the need for an aether, but they will use other names for it "spacetime foam", "quantum fluctuations", etc.

[@babykosh5415]

"Dark Energy" "Dark Matter" anyone?

[@sshreddderr9409]

its insane how all these brilliant scientists afterwards do not get that waves are an emergent property of what defines a fluid, if a perticle can be described as a wave, it has to be a moving impulse in a fluid. to suggest that a wave can exist without it being carried by a fluid breaks causality. If you do an experiment that says otherwise, the interpretation is wrong or the experiment is poorly designed. I think burrying the eather in the modern language was done on purpose to prevent the discovery and implementation of free energy , cause fuel cost is the biggest population control mechanism after fiat money and banking.

[@TheRojo387]

Trouble is that aether isn't matter. It's not made of particles. It's just background energy.

[@joshuam4993]

Exactly

[@Cena-d1h]

Or my favorite name for the modern Aether lol HIGGS FIELD hahahahahahah

[@bxdanny]

It seems quite ironic that Lorentz's explanations for what we now call relativistic effects (or time dilation, length contraction, etc.) were discarded in favor of Einstein's because Lorentz's ideas were not compatible with quantum theory. Yet Einstein's ideas about relativity were then expanded into General Relativity, which isn't compatible with quantum theory either.

[@tgrey_shift..mp334]

Yeah thats weird isnt it…? Makes me think we should review Lorentz’s ideas again. Perhaps the Physicists of the past were so hungry for innovation, they moved too quicky at the opportunity for change?

[@amaliaantonopoulou2644]

SR problem about acceleration, Einstein proposed to solve it with GR, but still he couldn;t solve it, and still remains in SR about non-inertial frames. Read his paper "On the relativity problem"

[@Traderjoe]

It had to be difficult for him to accept GR, but once he saw and understood the elegance of it, he accepted it despite it nullifying his life work. A true scientist.

[@travybear2463]

LoL. GR is so silly and stupid. The belief that objects change size and weight when they move is the ultimate in PSEUDOSCIENCE. Evidence for these changes does not actually exist.

[@MatthewKelley-mq4ce]

In essence, relativity was needed to fester in our experience as a culture, regardless of the problems of the formulation of the theory. Allowing us to expand our conceptual bounds, as it were, in new ways.

[@markcoleman9892]

There was a deep-dive KZbin several years ago that included texts of their original papers and the follow-up experiment by Dayton Miller. The argument was made that the "null result" of Michaelson-Morley, as characterized by opponents to aether theory, was NOT a "no results obtained" but rather the experimental value obtained was only about half of the value they had predicted. The prediction failed, not the experiment - some effect WAS observed.

[@ggtgp]

Would like a follow video on the change of the speed of light in a tube of moving water, which has a roughly 60/40 split between water and the constant the speed of light is supposed to be.

[@pyropulseIXXI]

The crazy part is is that the LIGO experiments of modern day are literally the same experiment, and they clearly detect something (they are a lot more sensitive due to using lasers and being modern). But now people just say "this proofs space is being warped." The entire notion is absurd. The LIGO experiments prove that the ether is real

[@flyfin108]

light is an wave in ether, you measure it with wave in an ether as is matter

[@oisinofthefianna3246]

What about Michelson/Gale? How do we resolve the Michelson/Morley Michelson/Gale results?

[@flyfin108]

@@oisinofthefianna3246 it was allready stated on video, maybe not so obvious, but still: they assumed properties for ether that was not there, it proved that those assumptions were wrong, not that ether does not exists

[@michaelzumpano7318]

You did a brilliant job with this! I almost didn’t watch it because of it’s length, then I almost shut it off at about 8 minutes because it seemed like the narrative was written by a language model (it was clear that the photos were composed by Stable Diffusion or something similar). But boy did you turn it around at about 10 minutes in. This was the most comprehensive treatment of the topic I’ve ever heard, from the standpoint of the people involved (if not the math). If you notice a lot of viewers watching for less than about 10 minutes, this may be the reason. But once you get into the meat of it, it’s so well done! I’m going to check out some of your other videos.

[@theseal126]

This is so important that we discuss both rivaling theories and the experiments and how things led to another. Many gems might be discovered in both theories and all experiment to provide a new discovery

[@jstclaire3]

Fantastic job! The Vedas describe the distinction between grosser and finer structures in the universe and state that the Ether is the finest of all substances and refer to it as the Akasha, The force that acts within the Ether is called Prana.

[@picksalot1]

I'm familiar with the gunas - sattva, rajas, and tamas, and their usefulness in explaining the qualities of various forms of matter. I don't recall "The force that acts within the Ether is called Prana." What is the original source for that statement/conclusion? I'd be very interested in knowing it. Thanks

[@nobigbang825]

The most comprehensive and rare take on the subject. Thanks.

[@TheFXofNewton]

Gareth is truly gifted and talented.

[@MagereHein]

Thank you for this video. Lorentz sits on the top of the mountain of Dutch science, next to Huygens, Van Leeuwenhoek, Van 't Hoff and De Vries. After his retirement his contributions to numerical analysis of tidal flows were crucial for the planning and executions of the Dutch Zuiderzee Works. A set of locks in the Afsluitdijk are named after Lorentz.

[@lanimulrepus]

Outstanding video... The finest description of that period of physics that I've ever heard, read, or seen...

[@daemonnice]

I truly appreciate that you post all your references and the work put into this video. Well done. Einstein himself admitted to taking the motion of the ether out of Lorentz's theory and would refer to the "ether of the general theory of relativity". Though the scientific community would in the end reject such a phrase. Alfred North Whitehead in his book Science in the Modern World postulated an ether of events. He criticized the foundational notions of mechanics for its isolationism. Isolation was also an aspect of Einstein's GTR, that the ponderable bodies in space were isolated from each other. For Whitehead, he suggested there is no isolated points in space or isolated instances in time, that everything was interconnected. He proposed an ether of events. This would be part of his concept of organism, aka, panspermia. For myself I question the materialists' attempts to explain everything through matter, especially the abstract mathematical concept of energy. A part of the reasoning of the therians was that light needed a medium to propagate through and it was believed that space was a vacuum lacking such a medium, yet still light propagated through it. While we have the equations to describe what an electric or magnetic field does, we do not have a complete understanding of the mechanisms involved. And this is also true of the mechanism of the effect of gravitation and how do two masses communicate to one another, as Einstein's GTR was not meant to be a mechanism, and, the spacetime ether is not detectable therefore untestable, therefore questionable science. Everybody refers to electromagnetism as a single unit, for where there is an electric current there is a magnetic field. In other words where there is an electric fluid there is a magnetic structure surrounding it. While they act as one, I see them as two different things. Similarly one may think of a river or a lake as body of water, but there would be no body of water without the ground surrounding it holding it in its place and shaping its motion. Electrons are susceptible to the effects of magnetic fields and will change their direction when exposed to a magnetic field. and flow along magnetic field lines. Light, electrons and magnetism are not matter and thus cannot be explained or understood via materialism. They are events and as such provide their own immaterial ether. We have discovered in the last few decades that space is populated with magnetic fields and these maxwellian magnetic fields are the medium of light propagation and are not isolated phenomena. In a final statement, I shall seemingly digress and state that: only life can beget life.

[@seriousmunk7164]

fabulous work as always. so poignant how great geniuses could run up against walls in their understanding, but also run into walls of what's trending in the culture of science, and be swept away before their ideas could be fully explored... science is so fragile, really. we think it's unstoppable, but these histories show us that it could just pop like a bubble in a moment where one path gets taken and another discarded...

[@dariuslegacy3406]

It's not common to find a channel that focuses on alternative approaches to physics in such a balanced manner. Instead of taking the contrarian position of "all physicists are wrong" or "alternate ideas are cooky" you seem to unbiasedly present thought provoking ideas by scientists who can't simply be ignored... Subbed

[@alexbuilds706]

Excellent work Gareth! Love seeing these longer form vids again!!

[@DandoPorsaco-ho1zs]

Ether: something of uknown nature that fills the region of the universe (ridiculous, of course) Higgs field: something with Higgs bosons that fill every region of the universe (great stuff!)

[@charliejohnston1978]

No, the Higgs field is still a theoretical debated particle and has not been proven at CERN. But an approximation of a proposed mass was roughly calculated that appeared to resemble the Higgs mass.

[@newstein3636]

This video has helped me to better understand the difference between Lorentz version of relativity and Einstein's special relativity and why Lorentz own was abandoned but Einstein's own was accepted. The ether concept stands true, but the mistake Lorentz made is believing it is electromagnetic when it is really magnetodielectric( faster than light) medium.

[@sshreddderr9409]

The eathers rate of inductance certainly is C. there might be ways to achieve a higher speed, but not by inducing a wave with regular field oscillation. I think the issue is that the ether is superfluid, meaning it has no resistance, so many analogous phenommena of other fluids that are downstream to friction can not be observed in the ether. Studying superfluids would provide a good framework for what to look for. Many analogous interactions can still be seen in regular fluids though, like the polarity of clockwise and counter clockwise spin being analogous to magnetic poles, or the toroidal golden ratio field shape in any kind of implosion field.

[@charliejohnston1978]

@@sshreddderr9409 The plank-length 5th elemental force called the Time Force couples and decouples to matter and to light waves and sets the upper limit of the speed of reaction (light speed) in the ether and within atoms also.

[@thomastoadally]

Thank you very much, Garreth. A wonderful explanation of the trial and times for Lorentz's stigma in his life. A tragedy for him in his life. For us in the new paradigm, the correct backing to further the real truth. Thank you as always, Wonderful Job!!

[@XXfea]

Oh oh.

[@realcygnus]

That was an interesting vid but, who is "us" exactly & what paradigm ?

[@thomastoadally]

@@realcygnus the new Paradigm of the electric universe. Well I am a follower of this and I think many others who subscribe to Garreth and the thunderbolts project!

[@realcygnus]

@@thomastoadally Oh, Right.

[@michaelclarage144]

These history-of-physics segments are so very useful. 99.9% of lay folk, and MOST scientists are ignorant of the very history of Science.

[@piotrprs572]

Great job with this video. It's very time consuming to gather data and then presents them in 'proper' form and order.

[@DrDeuteron]

Hmmmm. I saw great history, but not much data

[@troymeister100]

Brilliant work. The existence of a medium seems intuitive and if Lorenz's ideas can be fully unpacked, may assist in explaining quantum effects such as the double slit in much the same way as Bohmian mechanics (de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory).

[@Heaven351]

​​​​@paulwolf3302if you really dig enough you will notice that modern quantum field theory ( QFT ) is a development within the aether theory . Paul Dirac also stated that ether model encapsulated perfectly the idea of quantum vacuum and pairs of matter and antimatter popping in and out of existence . In a way you can sat that a Quantum field a relativistic aether , it pertains best properties of aether without having drawbacks lorentzian immobile ether .

[@peterjrmoore3941]

plus i read there were anomalies present in the m-morley experiment. the late president of the american phys soc kept building more sensitive interferometers and cld calculate earth's movement thru the æther from local measurements - and the results of his many repeated observations established a predictable shift in the readings according to the seasons, as one would expect. Dayton Miller

[@Heaven351]

@@peterjrmoore3941 are you talking to me? I mean is this reply to my comment?

[@gokulrajv]

@@Heaven351 we are so back bros

[@Heaven351]

@@gokulrajv what do you mean by " we are so back bros"? Can you elaborate your question?

[@tonibat59]

Amazing account of the history and siginificance of the theories underlying foundations of physics. An interesting point comes to mind: What about Eintein's famous Leiden conference (I think in 1921), on which he boldly stated that 'in a sense, there must be an ether'. The statement and the lecture came to happen in Holland, Lorentz's homeland. Not a coincidence, I assume. Thanks for the great, eye-opener video. Cool observation on constructive vs principled theories.

[@johnrutzen1861]

I think this is brilliant. It's not dumbed down but does not bamboozle with the maths. I wonder if the modern ideas of dark matter and energy are just another way of describing the aether.

[@DrDeuteron]

I’d say no, but dark energy isn’t energy, it’s shows up in the equation as a mass and a negative pressure (densities) such that it’s the same in all moving frames.

[@Heaven351]

​@@DrDeuteronI'd say yes, a new theory has came which is called superfluid vacuum theory. The ideas are exactly similar that of ideal fluids having zero compressibility, zero viscosity and particles acting like liquid Helium at absolute zero which in vortex motion creates the dark matter . This superfluid model will explain aether as a dark matter and dark energy and will also explain Bose Einstein Condensate ( BEC) . You will be amazed that this superfluid model is exactly similar with atomic vortex theory of ether for ideal fluids which theorized by lord kelvin , helmholtz and Fitzgerald over 130 yeas ago . Scientists nowadays just naming same old things ti making it look different

[@Heaven351]

Yes it dark matter and dark energy is the consequence of ether model .

[@TheFatGandalf]

I think the only thing missing from your outstanding overview was a statement that the pursuit of relativity and quantum led to some modest advance in the field of physics up until about 50 years ago. The reexamination of these theories, more tied to the physical realm than pure mathematics may permit us to go back to a period of rapid advancement similar to what took place when Lorentz and Einstein (and others) were publishing papers.

[@cykkm]

“led to some modest advance in the field of physics up until about 50 years ago.” - Heard of LIGO? Of the discovery of accelerated Universe expansion? Or pulsar timing paper published two days before your comment? And the one that mapped our Galaxy in neutrino "light" came out a week after. When you read a book about advancements between 1895 and 1915, the 20 years seem like the blink of an eye. Lass 20 years brought no fewer discoveries. It's just a perception: historical events are described in books, non-events aren't. It always seem faster when you read about past events.

[@michaelpieters1844]

@@cykkm I am not trusting anything about that LIGO experiment given the fact if they didn't confirm the theory, they would get no money anymore. So there is clear incentive to confirm at all costs. Also the early 'tests' of relativity in 1920 are not so grand if you read the book of Charles Lane Poor as other theories with more common sense could explain those results as well.

[@splat752]

Thank you for not playing distracting background music in your video. I found it much easier to listen to.

[@cscotatkins2592]

The real irony is a prediction that quantum and relativity will undergo a Lorentz Transformation. The Constructive Method will prevail once the right pieces and mathematics are discovered. Lorentz will finally be validated for his life’s work. Brilliant video and research.

[@red57dryad]

Just keeping up with your commentary and excellent presentation of historical and experimental data was, for my mind, like cranking up an old diesel motor that has sat around for the last decade. Can you imagine the cloud of foul choking smoke that came out of the exhaust pipes??? CAN YOU!!???😊

[@bobinthewest8559]

Like the smell of burning brain cells 🤭 Not that I would have any idea about that 😏🤣

[@CodeShudder]

Thank you. Finally some new perspective on the topic. I started to hate these relativity video clones explaining SR with Lorentz transformations while avoiding ether like a plague. The difference is nuanced and some things are far more easier to explain with "physical space" than "All perspectives are the same, but... lets look at diagrams (where they're clearly not)". For example - Twin paradox in a nutshell: If your twin was stationary in your frame of reference, then moved somewhere and got back it means that distance (in physical space) he has travled was greater (or equal) than yours irrespective of your motion -> he moved faster -> he came back younger due to time dilation. That's it.

[@DrDeuteron]

Are you explaining or complaining! ?I can’t tell. One point of relativity is that moving through physical space means nothing since there is no aether.

[@CodeShudder]

​@@DrDeuteron “Physical space and the ether are different terms for the same thing; fields are physical states of space.” - A. Einstein "Mein Weltbild" (1934) I'm aware that there's a lot of woo-science around aether, but in the context of this video I'm talking about Lorentz attempts to explain it (incomplete as a theory, but not entirely dismissed) and its connection to Special Relativity. Besides, I know you can't derive time dilation and length contraction without physical space, so I'm not easily intimidated by "trust me bro" arguments.

[@billmitchell2642]

You were instrumental in giving me certitude regarding a former civilization on Mars.I would add: "And it feels great, although it comes with some sadness about lost lives, families.You are a valuable asset.thank you again.

[@Dani68ABminus]

Very interesting and well done presentation...thank you so much!

[@tomladdus9264]

Seems that we can easily prove an ether exists through simple logic. Waves are what something does, not what something is. Like water when you wave your arms in it, it does not make waves, it perturbs the medium which Is the water molecules are moved by the energy of the mechanical source. Similarly, radio waves or light waves must have a medium because without it, there would be no medium for them to propagate in. This explains why light perturbations occur at different speeds through different mediums and why light perturbation speed then returns back to the original velocity once it exits the more dense medium (like water or glass). Einstein's, and others of that age, made a huge mistake dismissing the idea of the ether.

[@pyropulseIXXI]

Yes; in modern theory, there is no ether, but light still needs a medium to exist within, and this medium is the electromagnetic field. In general relativity, the equations are *field equations,* yet they attach the coordinates to the field itself, thus causing 'space to bend' rather than the field to simply change over space. Space doesn't really bend or warp, because such a concept of space is stupid. Space exists a priori, via basic reasoning. To change this because ignorant physicists attached their coordinates to the field manifold itself is both extremely stupid and asinine. Besides, even in GR, the 'geometry' exists in a flat space, because, mathematically, all curved spaces are fundamentally described relative to a flat space. That is, there is no framework that exists to describe a flat space via curved spaces, but all curved spaces are imbedded in a higher dimensional flat space. Just because an intrinsic curvature exists does not mean that the extrinsic curvature does not; in fact, every intrinsic curvature can be shown to exist in a higher dimensional flat space, and the extrinsic curvature can then be seen. Modern day practitioners ignore this and say "since all we measure is the intrinsic, then that is all that exists; space bends, but it doesn't bend into anything." This makes absolutely no sense, from both a mathematical level and a basic reasoning level. You can also do this with Newtonian gravity ,where you attach the coordinates to the Newtonian gravitational field. Instead of the field changing over space, we get space bending, which means it has to bend into a higher dimensional framework, mathematically. Just like physicists use theory that is 'shown' to be true in one instance, then greatly extend it beyond what can be observed (for instance, the Many-Worlds interpretation of QM), we must accept that 'space' is bending into a higher dimensional reality if we are to accept that 'space' is bending at all. However, instead of being this ridiculous as suggesting 'space bends,' one can just take _a priori_ that space does not bend and that the *field equations* exist within space, and these changing field equations represent just that; a changing field throughout space.... and NOT a changing 'space' through space (which makes no sense); thus, space does not bend. Put simply; space has never been shown to 'bend' or 'warp,' because this is impossible. the empirically observed evidence that 'confirms' GR does not mean 'space bends,' and it is certainly true that space was never observed to have bent. A light ray taking a 'curved' path does not prove this is true, as light can curve due to a magnetic field. But, just like GR, if you take the ballistic path of a tennis ball and attach coordinates to this path, then one could say that the path of a tennis ball is straight, whilst it is space itself that is bending around it. This is the exact form of reasoning that is done in _general relativity._

[@tomladdus9264]

@@pyropulseIXXI I am not sure I follow all that, but I certainly believe that space and time warping as proposed by GR does not fit any sane perspective of the world. It is too complex and nature is simple not Daliesque just so it can fit some equations. Space is not something that can be operated upon. Also, I completely agree that too often scientists extend beyond what can be observed.

[@substantivalism6787]

@@pyropulseIXXI *"However, instead of being this ridiculous as suggesting 'space bends,' one can just take a priori that space does not bend and that the field equations exist within space, and these changing field equations represent just that; a changing field throughout space.... and NOT a changing 'space' through space (which makes no sense); thus, space does not bend."* That depends on what it means for space to 'not change'. Since the advent of poincaré's geometrical conventionalism and the creation of other axiomatic cores for geometry (non-Euclidean ones) it's not some Kantian a priori that it is a 'mind-independent Euclidean world' in the sense that I think you mean it 'doesn't change'. I can just use a different axiomatic system and boom I changed it because it was never a mind-independent thing to begin with. The point from geometrical conventionalists is that it makes sense to say space 'curves' or that it changes at all only with regards to your conventional abstract choices. . . if an object follows that path over there is that because something 'forced' it to or is it because it was 'un-forced'. . . following a geodesic. . . a free fall path. . . the privileged paths that mark out the 'actual' geometry of the world? Well, the thing is that it is always possible to change the geometrical axioms and the field equations in such a manner that this is never epistemological accessible. Ergo, the concept of an 'unchanging real geometry' of the world is epistemologically inaccessible. . . but so are the 'real non-geometrical dynamics' of it as well. Why is that? It's because to know whether something is in an 'unnatural' state you need to first define what it means to be 'natural'. If being 'natural' is epistemologically inaccessible in principal and chalked up to a mere conventional choice in actual scientific practice then so are the 'unnatural' states. In Classic GR things follow natural paths which are also curved because what are seen as natural paths are defined as more than 'constant straight line trajectories'. In the teleparallel version of GR its flipped and we get back those straight line trajectories as the 'privileged' ones. Want to guess what the experimental difference is? Your right. . . IT'S NOTHING! The choice between what we consider 'natural' paths and 'unnatural' is somewhat of a conventional choice that most of the Mainstream doesn't gravitate towards and the non-Mainstream is too dogmatic themselves to think of their precious theories as being built upon 'mere' conventions.

[@paulcunnane4]

How'd you find that?

[@Heaven351]

Einstein never said ether does not exist . In a paper calked " Ether and and Theory of relativity " in 1920 Einstein said : " space is endowed with physical qualities hence there exists an ether . " in that paper he also said how we must not ascribe a particular state of motion ( preferred frame of reference ) to this ether , according to him ether was relativistic . That paper is available online , just Google it , amazing read

[@Univac-tb5vi]

I would have mentioned J.J.Thompson’s electron interpretation. It explains that they are merely the end points of the di-electric lines of force. Basically terminals. The other end would be a proton. When you break a line of force it’s rubber bands at the speed of light. The lines of force are polarized ether pustules existing at planks scale, or as Tesla liked to refer to as a prehydrogen, smaller than hydrogen, particle. Eric Dollard’s History and Theory of Electricity expands on classical physics and is worth the watch even if just to critique it with your knowledge. Great video, love your work so far.

[@asfnobambu]

The result of M&M experiment was not null ! It was 45Km/s. Müller remade the experiment in altitude and reached an even higher velocity...

[@emmaselmeci966]

Thanks, man, this video helped me get the best mark on my essay on the history of aether theories. Like given, many thanks

[@rogerscottcathey]

Hilgenberg posited the ether motion was predominantly aligned along the vertical axis from and towards the Earth core. All horizontal directions being as equivalent as pressure is at varying depths in water. AA Michelson did eventual use a vertical armed interferometer set up in vacuum, at Ryerson lab I believe, and estimated the ether stream must extend thousands of miles. A result he seem shocked by and incredulous. The dynamic ether of Krafft and Hilgenberg's research on hydrodynamics and sources and sinks in a moving medium accounted in their mutual work for what atoms were and how gravity operates. The volume of ether flowing in and out the atom or the earth or sun remains constant while the velocity inwardly and outwardly contained the differential components. The universal pattern will always have that vortex dynamic of one side as a source the other a sink. There can be no monopole source nor sink. Hence no black hole. Indeed, the atoms themselves were vortices of ether in ether.

[@TD-zr5xm]

All so called blackholes are connected to a whitehole. The torus. Yet blackhole is just another term for other words we already use but one at a specific scale in the Electromagnetic Fractal Universe. I.e scaler electromagnetism

[@rogerscottcathey]

@@TD-zr5xm : Well "white hole" is the same concept of a monopolar type entity whose only equivalent in experimental work might be a "forced vortex", meaning basically a depression in a whirlpool with no outlet except the sides of whatever is containing it. Like a whirling bucket filled with water. However, there is always going to be conservation of volume, with ingress and egress passing one another as can be observed in tornadoes, where the ground prevents action. Then the vortex takes a complex escape. Where in space can we have an equivalent? There are neither black holes or white holes in unbounded space. Side effects of major streams could induce minor forced vortices, but they'll be transient and unsustainable. Internal resistance will dissipate their energy to become entrained to an actual vortice or spent into drifting whisps into free space.

[@MrVibrating]

Interested in your interpretation of these objects: /watch?v=bUiPDskn-rc&t=291s and especially: /watch?v=5uPouoZhYFA&t=2288s - note this latter example exhibits wavelength-shifting either side of the Schwarzchild radius, consistent with spin-Doppler or frame-dragging about a vertical axis. My interpretation is that the visitors have resolved the strong nuclear force with SR and GR, it too reducing to a stronger, shorter-range spacetime curvature; that they're essentially able to blow bubbles of gluon field via amplifying waveguides per Bob Lazar and latterly Riccardo Storti, this in turn explaining why surrounding air molecules aren't falling in (ie. Coulomb repulsion prevents them approaching the highly-confined / conformal gravity well): the ubiquitous glow of UAP a continuous-spectrum dissipation between internal vs ambient values of false vacuum potential across the interface between curved and flat spacetimes, ie. compression blue-shifting the enclosed region of virtual photonsphere, expansion red-shifting it, and the second law of thermodynamics then doing its thing between source and sink values of EM zero-point (ie. accounting for both stimulated emission _and absorption_ of EM radiation by vacuum).. similar to Unruh radiation but caused by spacetime deformation (thus adding or subtracting relativistic momentum to or from virtual photons) rather than observer acceleration. Time-dilation of the EM constant alpha - this reducing to a time-constant rate of exchange of ambient quantum momentum or h-bar - seems another implicit angle.. One way or another, they're spitting out ER bridges like confetti, yet the tech base is scaleable down to insect-sized automata: /watch?v=AE6vLJ2cxgs

[@thecaribbeanbookworm5066]

This was such a thoroughly well presented and researched video! As someone else mentioned, I have not encountered channel which dive into physics history (both on the personal and scientific side) with as much depth as you are doing. This even made me curious to read a biography book on Lorentz which I have seen a while ago. Thank you so much for this! I will share the content as this is a masterful work!

[@DrVickyHarris]

I like the way you mispronounce so many words you have created an accent of your very own. Love it! A man who reads a lot … your own pronunciation is the result of loads of reading.

[@susanacuratolo1200]

EXCELLENT - THANK YOU!

[@Krackonis]

Well done Gareth :) It's Neil ;) Well done!

[@SeethePattern]

Hi Neil hope you are well :)

[@barrydysert2974]

Gareth, You have my love and undying gratitude for making science real again !:-) ⚡🙏💜⚡

[@LuciFeric137]

The Higgs field and associated particle act very much like a classic ether.

[@Nalhek]

Not really. The Higgs field is a hypothetical continuum of mass relations between particles. The Aether was always considered to be a medium by which electromagnetism is able to propagate.

[@itzakehrenberg3449]

@@Nalhek I see, so it is just a mathematical construction of "mass relations" between particles & is therefore just an idea, not a physical reality. Thanks.

[@Nalhek]

​@@itzakehrenberg3449exactly

[@bubblegumgun3292]

Yes, the atheist needed to get rid of the eather can't let those theologians be right about physics kinda mentally, but you can't do physics without the aether so they just renamed it via description. Simply ask a field of what. Space time , Higgs field, dark matter all atheist cover up names to relabel aether.

[@Nalhek]

​​​@@bubblegumgun3292 and yet they were fully prepared to accept a theory of cosmogenesis put forward by a catholic priest?

[@martinlennon4673]

Excellent and brilliant graphics.

[@AwakenedOne-qu]

Space-time must be carried by something. Gravitational waves must be carried by something, light waves must be carried by something. We just haven't found it yet. I'm just a chemist. Is the Higgs field part of it or is it the only field in spacetime? Sometimes I feel like a monkey throwing stones in a pond. The Bell inequality tells us that nothing is real. Good presentation!

[@DeathValleyDazed]

Adding upvote in hope of See The Pattern reaching 100K subscribers!

[@keansalzer8364]

You have hit a homerun with your theory of How to create a modern channel that brings viewer and improves their life. The early summary is the key.

[@NetsanetSorri]

Very interesting! I have been looking for such comprehensive content on ether. I keep wondering speculatively that ether wouldn't be announced dead so quickly if it were defined as a building block of spacetime with rarefaction-able(R), polarizable (P), and spin-able (S) properties. Michelson-Morley disproved the straw-ether, as in the straw-man argument. 'R' potentially explains gravity in demystifying what is dubbed as 'warping of space' is merely an emergent ether gradient change caused by massive objects in their vicinity. Newton alluded to this 400 years ago. However, he also portrayed massive objects erroneously as perpetual ether-pumping machines to the farthest end of the world. If he defined ether back then as a fading halo of massive objects, his first law (inertia) might have been defined as the law of ethertia 🙂 What would the law of ethertia state? 'Every object will remain in a uniform aethereal density unless compelled to change its iso-aethereal locality by the action of an external force.' Plummeting rocks or revolving satellites are attempting to stay in this 'apparent uniformity'. 'P' and 'S' together accommodate electromagnetism. You just heard from my two brain cells defending the untimely/unfairly slain ether 🙂

[@bigoptions]

Theoria Apophasis on KZbin, I believe has the best theory of the ether, but his explanation is very technical. You would need to learn your way to understanding. He has most of his work available for free under most of his videos. Newton said that, concerning magnetic attraction, he refused to believe that a sane man would believe that it could exist without a medium in between. I questioned a quantum believer about the virtual photons, and he admitted that they were not real; they just help in the equations. It's quantum guessing!

[@xlerb_again_to_music7908]

Excellent work, very informative! Some would say though that space = aether with the primary evidence being volume ie you can physically wave your hand rather then living in a Universe of 0 dimensions. Also, if this is so, the MM et al experiments have the fundamental flaw of not knowing space (aether) falls into the Earth perpetually, dragging stuff towards the core. That is, one axis of the interferometer should be vertical... otherwise you miss the main signal. But todays understanding of the mechanics of gravity were unavailable in the late 1800s; further this is not a motion of the Earth through some sort of stuff. Here is my contribution: Consider a wireframe cube; the mundane 3 dimensions. We know space expands (the Universe gets bigger). Allow the mechanism to be the literal expansion of units of space... otherwise you run into conservation of energy issues (expansion cannot create extra space, as that would make extra energy). So. Label the wireframe cube as at t0. Let a moment (a single tick) pass and the cube expands, label this as at time t1. Trace the movement of the vertices. You have just drawn a tesseract; a 4D cube. This would be happening at what is now called the foam level of space-time (heh). Consequences: 3D+1D is Space+Time. Time is the expansion of space; a persistent movement into the future. But at our macro scale, we don't see those delta ticks - thus they effectively differentiate spacetime into just space with a hidden clock. S and T are intimately linked. As a consequence, you get mathematics describing our mundane, large scale 3-frame (Newtonian, SR) and then maths which live in the tiny quantum foam doman and are potentially in 4-frame, 1D higher, due to the apparent differentiation we experience. Think Kaluza-Klein (c. 1922) who added 1D to SR and got Maxwell's eqns. Or non-sensical results such as the pressure of space (PV=RT suggests expansion over time makes P drop); perhaps crossing from 3D to 4D view and unwittingly differentiating a falling value. You can use these ideas to derive g and G. Your starter: Consider an infinite number of pieces of pressurised foam (so expand); each has rotation (angular momentum) and a kinetic linear vector. Describe a Big Bang event and what happens from then, with all the known stages (easy). NB allow no friction between pieces of foam, although there is interstitial pressure (foam pressing on foam), which slows expansion (this means the "speed of time" is localised). Make some particles (bound collections of space held together by angular momentum and pressure), get the electric field, magnetic field (handed spin) then make an atom. Look what now happens between the charge carriers (space) from electron to proton etc! There is a trick to this... look to how and when persistent particles form. You may need to consider an analogue of Hawking radiation - then OMG its EMG! Found this 23rd May 2006; you can see an inflow of space, a geometric distortion (shrinking) and a slowing of speed-of-expansion aka time towards the atom nucleus. Bingo! This model has legs. There is nothing to say events at foam level are forbidden; change can happen without ticks. Which means at small scale cause / effect is no longer obvious. However, the speed of photons/virtual photon propagation is controlled by tick rate; thus at our macro scale physical effects are controlled by net local tick rate AKA time; turning up or down tick rate modifies all macro-scale physics in that frame. Slowing down and speeding up of time looks possible. I've named the latter: time distention (the evil twin of time dilation); that this, time distension is the acceleration of speed of time. Some other nice observations: time travel (always difficult at our scale) is impossible; all matter is foam in various states / conditions; particles are more like ripples on a 4D surface rather than "solids". And there is interesting stuff at whole-Universe scale... still thinking on JW telescope results. However this model does form voids hence filaments, but that's another story. All good fun!

[@autarko]

Fantastic stuff! Can you point me to some resources with a study guide to this theory?

[@xlerb_again_to_music7908]

@@autarko Hi; all my own work based on the idea "all is unified" + Occam's Razor (but not too much). Wrote hundreds of pages on this - which were all ritually ignored :( at the time. All vanished now. My Dr. is in another topic area; simulation related and not into the maths used by these guys, so rather hobbled. This is a simulable (? that a word ?) Universe which anyone can explore. Much of existing physics just translates across; you just need be aware there is a quantum level of 3+1D and all spatial; an intermediate zone (start-end not as yet clear; somewhere around electron / atom size) then our larger "mundane frame" with 3D apparent and 1D hidden in the ticking of the clock... with an apparent differential joining the two extreme domains, as each tick of expansion is a delta. Tip: I found talking to people about an aether gets frowns and glares. So I renamed the essential part or particle of space as a "mote", meaning a pressurised piece of foam, wanting to expand. This stuff is (in the "Greek sense") atom of reality; all is seemingly built of it. Forcefields are just geometric distortions There is so much to explore here! Have a go yourself; it won't come out in 1st version. Check you work; look for both inconsistencies and absurdities; look at different scales. I expect problems and issues to be found as well as novel successes. That's great; it means exploration and thought being applied plus - more research needed :)

[@Waynesification]

Maybe a video on how Vacuum Energy plays in with these ideas, and a video on Orgon energy?

[@ivornelsson2238]

Hi Gareth, Thanks for this well elaborated video content. ---------- I´m STIIL holding onto the Lorentz perception. Space is filled with especially hydrogen and helium atoms which IMO consists the Ether media in where all kinds of electromagnetic radiated frequences ionizes this media. ---------- I would even take the CMBR as an Ether background.

[@bobinthewest8559]

I’d be more apt to equate “ether”, to today’s “quantum foam”/“quantum fields”. I say: We don’t “have to” call it ether (if we don’t like that name)… But there must be something, underlying everything. There must be something “fundamental”. Personally… I believe that the “fundamental element” of the universe, is consciousness.

[@ivornelsson2238]

@@bobinthewest8559 Thanks for the replying. ----------- I could go completely mythical on the consciousness media part and get the correct answer as well: Our ancestors had/have a mythical concept, called the "Cosmic Ocean" or/and the "Primordial Sea" in which everything is floating in the Universe - a media from which all lifes are made and to which all lifes returns.

[@bigoptions]

@@bobinthewest8559 Maybe? but not our consciousness. Have you seen the expanded view of the universe compared to a human brain?! It was funny; Vogt said that they look so alike because it was the same program that made them!

[@marcosgibin4057]

Great program. Congratulations

[@johnlord8337]

Also the Aether is not a universal costant of density. Near our current galactic arm of density - it is far less with sub-particulate fabrics at this location, while closer and closer to the galactic core, the space fabric is more dense and thicker. Same for those of the Standard Model having Up/Down, Charm/Strange, Top/Bottom quarks - with our region having the greatest majority of Ups/Downs, while minimalist of Tops/Bottoms. At the galactic core of the galactic arm the majority is Tops/Bottoms, with minimalist Ups/Downs. At the middle region, both extremes are held in check while the Charms and Strange quark fabrics are the majority of existence of the Aether.

[@picksalot1]

Best video I've seen by far on the Ether, it's Western history, and the theories about. When Space is curved by large mass, what exactly is being curved? In a 3 dimensional physical space, the space or something within the would have to change. In a non-physical/conceptual space, like that which exists in a computer simulation or in a person's imagination, all that needs to change are the conceptual parameters associated with that space to cause the curvature.

[@gilleslalancette7933]

thanks for this nice review. You are thorough and precise in your review of this period ... as always. thanks

[@campion7038]

This was a riveting history. I appreciate the work that went into it. I am confidant that Einstein's theories will be superseded.

[@nolan2070]

Yes but how long that takes is a measure of his genius (same with Newton).

[@ACuriousChild]

@@nolan2070 ... you seem to believe that AE sat in a "vacuum study" for 30 years coming up with what he was coming up out of this vacuum ... which is why anyone would even consider it is his genius that came up with it ... utter foolishness

[@nolan2070]

@@ACuriousChild I am simply saying that if general relativity is not superseded by another theory 200 years from now (for example), that should be some indication of the genius of the person who created it, especially given that it was not felt to be obviously correct at its inception.

[@ACuriousChild]

@@nolan2070 But you overlook the "obvious" hidden in plain sight, and thereby tying your linear sequential reasoning to time itself, INEVITABLY discarding all other possibilities of causality... let's call it the mental prison cell phenomenon... the finger pointing to the moon is NOT the moon...

[@williamwalker39]

The Ether has not been disproven and Relativity is just an optical illusion. Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is based on 2 premises 1) Galilean Relativity: the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference 2) the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference. I claim that the 2nd premise is already included in the 1st premise. This is because the speed of light c is a law of physics, and according to the 1st premise it must be the same in all inertial frames of reference. Another way of stating the 1st postulate, is that there is no experiment that can be done to determine the speed of an inertial moving body. So the 2nd postulate must be included in the 1st postulate, otherwise one could do an experiment based on the speed of light to determine the velocity of a moving inertial observer (like the Michelson Morley experiment). The 1st postulate predicts the Michelson Morley experimental outcome, and it can not measure the effects of the Ether! So if the 2 premises of Special Relativity are just the premise of Galilean Relativity, then according to logic, it is impossible to get different transformations (Lorentz transformations) than one gets for Galilean Relativity (Galilean transformations). Consequently Galilean Relativity must be the correct theory of Relativity. So if the effects of Relativity are observed in experiments, then the effects of Relativity must be an optical illusion. Here is another simple logical argument showing Relativity has built in logical fallacy, and a theory with a logical fallacy in the theory is by definition wrong no matter how many people believe in it, or how many experiments support it.According to Relativity, observers on a moving train and on a stationary train platform will disagree on the size of the ""Train"" and the passage of time on the ""Train"". This is a complete logical contradiction if the size and the passage of time of the train are real. If the size of the train is real, then the ""Train"" can not be both contracted and not contracted. The same goes for the observed passage of time on the ""Train"". If these effects are observed, then the only possible conclusion is that it is an optical illusion. Things that are real must appear to be same from all frames of reference. If not, then by definition it is an illusion. Again the argument is very simple and it is the argument Einstein used to derive Relativity, and no acceleration is used in the argument. A train with length (L) traveling at constant velocity (v) relative a stationary observer on a station platform. According to Relativity, the stationary observer will see the train contracted (L/r, where r is the Relativistic gamma), whereas an observer on the train will see it not contracted (L). So the train is both contracted (L/r) and not contracted (L) depending on the observer. This is a complete contradiction (L not equal L/r) and can not be true if length is real. The same argument applies to passage of time on the Train, where both observers will disagree on the passage of time. If time is real, it can not be both dilated and not dilated (T not equal rT). If space and time are observed to be both large and small simultaneously for one inertial reference frame, such as the ""Train"", then it must be an optical illusion.

[@philoso377]

Nice video. Another peculiarity in the story. Contradiction between Lorentz and Winston’s. A) Lorentz proofed that Aether exists. B) Einstein declare that Aether doesn’t exist, next c is universal constant, hence time dilation and hence length contraction etc. The next Lorentz paper suddenly use Einstein’s theory, length contraction, to complement for Einstein. Looks like the dispute between w/wo Aether has been resolved and Lorentz gave in.

[@ktownjunkie]

fyi, ethernet (computer network protocol) was named for the ether reminded of the ether recently when i saw a headline about "quantum foam"

[@robertclark1734]

Thanks. That was one of the best lectures on the Lorentz ether I’ve ever seen. A couple of questions. Einstein relativity has both length contraction and time dilation. The result is these cancel so you can’t see any change in the speed of light. A problem with a Lorentz physical model is it seems like a great coincidence that you have a physical phenomenon to make both of these happen just so. For Einstein, it was a property of nature that light-speed was an invariant and the result was the two transformations. Perhaps if we are to suppose a physical mechanism a la Lorentz, we could hypothesize the methods we use to measure time are effected by length contraction in the same way as length contraction works. In other words, there are not two separate transformations that conveniently cancel out, but *there is only one*, length contraction, and the mechanical methods we use to measure time are effected just like length measurements are effected. So if there were some other means of measuring time that was NOT effected by longitudinal length contraction, perhaps that would give us a distinguishing method of measuring a relative speed of light? Do you think that’s possible? In my readings I seem to recall there were some peculiarities of the Sagnac effect that suggests this might be what is happening. A second question, I remember reading a problem with deriving the inertial mass of the electron from the EM field is that it would require superluminal speeds, which relativity forbids. Now, with exploration of “warp drive” we might be more open to superluminal speeds, so if that is allowed could we get an inertial mass of the electron from the EM field?

[@CGMaat]

Love the Lorenz loopy loops - beautiful!

[@LQhristian]

Excellent work!!

[@TheFXofNewton]

You have a wonderful mind and your words are full of wisdom and resonant like poetry.

[@SamMackrill]

You new illustration look great. However Lorenz seems to have acquired an extra leg at 3:25

[@SeethePattern]

Yeah sorry. I didn’t spend any time correcting them. Mainly due to the length of the video and the amount of time it would have taken to correct them versus getting the video out. But I’m getting better and quicker at it.

[@skeltek7487]

Measuring things and deducing assumptions to make the formulas work is usually considered a performance conducted to 'make theory fit the measurements'. A theory starting with assumptions and then deducing later measurement predictions is considered superior and 'more probable' in physics. So Einstein took the deduced assumptions from the first and then made a theory of them, which was then perceived as having derived a theory from some ideals.

[@pentagrammaton6793]

It is always amusing to hear about long dead, highly intelligent scientists arguing over the existence of something I can see.

[@orglancs]

Yes, if you know how, there are many ways of seeing the aether. Many experimental observations made by Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957) and James DeMeo, (recently RIP, alas), can be fairly easily repeated. See Reich's Ether, God and Devil and DeMeo's The Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space.

[@plenum88]

Great video!

[@davez4285]

One thing I have no clear understanding: c in constant under any reference frames. In other words, c is always c under any frames. But the Lorentz coefficient r=sqrt(1-v2/c^2) is deduced from Lorentz coordinates and Cartesian coordinates. It literally comes from the product of (c-v)x(c+v). If c is c under any frames, then clearly (c+v) cannot be used. C+v means there is a speed from one observer that c is not c, it is greater than c, which is c+v. I believe in the coordinates transformation calculation, it is not regarded as c is constant under any references. But in relativity, c is fixed by introducing clock ticking variant to compensate such a deviation. So if v is at c, r=0. We have to say t is stopped. It really is (c-v)=0 from one observer, while (c+v)=2c from another observer. But in relativity we regard both as c by saying the clock stops. It seems to me there is inconsistency.

[@coffeetop1131]

Foreshadowing of the Higgs field. Wonderful documentary, thank you!

[@zerochance8581]

Well done!

[@hughevans4652]

Powerful, eloquent and compelling presentation. Thank you! Ether is No.5b

[@theseal126]

Awesome video :D

[@sailaway8244]

Fascinating,,yesterday the algo sent me Statham / Snipes movie the plot partly centered around the character "Lorenz" and Chaos theory (subtle effects/ether) now I get this 🤨 coincidence?🤔..........or am I pattern thinking 😳

[@IAM0973D3]

Great research

[@typha]

do you happen to still have a source on that particularly pretty bit of stock footage at 35:26 ?

[@5ty717]

Exhilarating deposition … really brilliant.!!

[@dangaines405]

Liked and subscribed!

[@raycar1165]

Excellent work. 🌎🌍🌏⚡️☯️

[@douglasstrother6584]

Check out the Trouton-Noble Experiment which measured the torque on a charged capacitor as an indicator of motion through the ether. Max Laue (1912) and J.W. Butler (1968) present thought-provoking analyses of the experiment. I first came across the Trouton-Noble Experiment in "Electromagnetic Fields and Waves" by Lorrain & Corson (2nd ed.).

[@douglasstrother6584]

16:58

[@thedouglasw.lippchannel5546]

I've tried to take what little knowledge I have and take the next leap in the reality of science - or rather, the science of reality. I have equated mass to the aether -to space, and in the course of that effort, I have redefined Matter and redefined Space in terms of one another. Along the way I have attempted to solve the Double Slit, Quantum Gravity, Dark matter, Dark Energy, and more. I have stuck with Einstein's view that Quantum mechanics is unfinished and have vindicated Halton Arp's view of intrinsic Red Shift's (Anomalies). CIG Theory needs to be either formally dismissed as quackery (I will not be insulted - rather intrigued where I went wrong), or, have it's place in science. This video is amazing and I thank you for it.

[@oscarman58]

Thanks!

[@SeethePattern]

Thank you 🙏

[@darrellee8194]

22:55 is the equation shown at this time, correct? Should all the spatial components be negative or there be some parenthesis used?

[@autarko]

Poincare is pronounced 'Pwan carr-ay'.

[@erebology]

Great work!

[@darrellee8194]

Just brilliant. I have subscribed. Thanks!

[@mybirds2525]

I was at Wilson Dam (US-TVA Florence Al) and asked the operator, who was showing me the place, a question. What is the difference in temperature between Water entering the dam upstream and the temperature leaving the Dam downstream. He very promptly said 3F warmer down stream. For those not understanding my question there should be no change as this is a very high volume water flow and any resistance etc should have negligible if any effect on temperature. This was a question about the fundamental property of mass and Gravity. Remember all gravity is mass effect! I smiled after my answer was obtained and thanked him for the answer betraying that I had gotten a major issue settled. I then asked him if he knew what I was asking about. He looked at me and said "Gravity". The man was a well qualified electrical engineer and clearly as operator of the dam had seen exactly what I was wanting to know and knew the answer. There can be no possible answer outside of the fact that Gravity is an Electromagnetic Cross Product of the EM Field net field charge density. It means Gravity is NOT a force and this locks up the physics into 1 force and as such forms the basis for this Lorenz discussion. This Ether is nothing but the net EM field pressure. It makes determinable the variations of this EM field pressure in the universe. It also eliminates the "unobservable" issue and discloses the Ether observability. For someone not understanding: It is absolutely verified by this temperature differential that the EM Field pressure is different between the top and bottom of the dam. It is this EM Field pressure differential that allows us to drive a turbine in the river and produce electricity and at the same time to see the net end effects on the water as identical to the variation of a combustion turbine mass and energy effects on the gases and exhaust of the turbine.

[@funnycatvideos5490]

So when you compress a gas or liquid it gets hot. This is how diesel engines operate. It also explains phase change which goes against thermodynamics. We see the phenomenon everywhere but just dismiss it as a fluke instead of a known parameter that without It life would not exist. Pretty much sums up all of new Dogma science these days. I think they try to explain it by friction which Instead is the result of EM field pressure. If you ever seen an AC condenser being PurgeD the bottle they use To capture the Freon is Submerged in a 5 gallon bucket of water because it releases so much heat As it is being re-compressed and reclaimed even causing the bucket of water to Eventually boil. Wow So many real-world physical examples. And of course as you release the Stored compressed gases the container gets very cold. The gas itself is not the medium obviously. EM Field pressure is the medium. Because as you said the flow and any resistance should have Negligible effect on the temperature. Makes so much more logical sense.

[@aethercosmology]

Fantastic work

[@putinimpotent2044]

Why do you keep showing General Relativistic curvature (I.e. ‘rubber’ sheet) when referring to Special Relativity?

[@3zdayz]

Michaelson Morley experiment only measures wavelengths. And is a two-way wavelength check. The number of wavelengths on a two-way trip in any direction is always exactly the same. But the speed of the wave has nothing to do with a number of waves. Over 1,000 ft in a specific direction that's aligned with the constellation of Virgo One direction will be plus one nanosecond and the other one will be -1 nanosecond. If you go to 10,000 ft or 2 mi then you get plus or minus 10 nanoseconds or really a total delta of 20 nanoseconds. It's only very recently that we can get to nanosecond measurements. And yet no one has done a good experiment for the difference in the one-way speed of light. If you use clocks and try and clock it as measuring the speed of light then you get relativistic effects that cancel out being able to measure it... But you can measure the difference. I'm working on an experiment to do just that... But it's not interferometry based because again wavelength and wave speed don't really have anything to do with each other. The Lorentz Transform was actually made for tracking Doppler shift changes which is wavelength... And it does work exactly as expected for wavelength differences. But you can do entirely different math that is based on a true one-way speed of light rather than a magical mystical speed of light that depends on the light direction and the direction of the frame it's in. I really don't know why anyone would believe in a variable speed of light like that unless they hope we live in a simulation. I personally don't think we live in a simulation but whatever.

[@pyropulseIXXI]

The LIGO experiment is literally the same experiment, yet it detects something. Also, the space of light is the ether vibrating; you don't need a simulation for this to be variable (the magnetic field and electric field densities could change the speed of light). What you said is just as nonsensical as saying a variable speed of sound is proof we lie in a simulation. You are repeating pure drivel and, furthermore, are assuming that your assumptions are valid whilst assumptions that aren't as ridiculous as yours as 'nonsensical.' My physics PhD is in theoretical, not experimental,, but you come across as the standard "I just repeat what was programmed into me" type. And you come down hard on anyone that doesn't interact with you within the current paradigm. And when someone even suggest a different paradigm, you act as if they are so stupid, when it is you being ignorant for not realizing these explanations are just as valid, if not more so, within their paradigm. You need to ask yourself why we are even in a given paradigm; it isn't because it is more right, or correct.

[@bigoptions]

I copied this from a post above. I think he's a little close to what I believe, but I don't waste time considering the tests and theories of people that have just the basic model of the atom so very wrong. When I make my videos, thousands of them will have to start doing calculations on my theory, and I have no doubt that they will slap the word quantum in front of what they figure out. In a better world, when they know the truth, the use of the word quantum would be treated the same way as the word ether is now! Here is the post; his statement about Lorentz and him knowing that he needed to consider waves in the ether gave him credibility. .... @tf2032 1 year ago Lorentz was on the right track, the only thing his theory needed was to also consider matter (in addition to light) as an excitation/wave of the fundamental substratum ("ether"). If one does this move, length contraction and time dilation emerge automatically, two-way speed of light results naturally invariant (in accordance with all the experiments) while the synchronization convention for distant clocks can be chosen so to maintain an absolute simultaneity. One can even add a variable tensorial index of refraction of the ether and local "optical flow" field, functions of the matter-energy distribution and obtain a Lorentz-ether constructive/materialistic version of general relativity. In brief, Lorentz made the first step toward the unification of matter, light, gravity, and the fundamental substance which give rise to all of it.

[@michaelogrady232]

Bring back the aether. Revisit Michaelson/Morley. Then revisit Ernst Mach. Then consider the implications of WMAP.

[@CharlesOffdensen]

13:07 Poincaré was not the first that came up with a similar equation. Umov had in 1873 Е = kmc2, where k is 1/2, and can go away. There might be others, that I am not aware of.

[@dougr.2398]

If Lorenz was aware of the M-M experiment (Albert Michelson and X. Morley) from about 1892 -3 and Lorenz was “in synchronicity” (had multiple fruitful discussions with A. Einstein) then it is likely that Einstein was aware of the M-M experiment, as has often been wondered about

[@cykkm]

Einstein was absolutely aware of it. Referencing null experimental results, which attempted, in this particular case, the luminiferous aether, like the Michelson-Morley or Trouton-Noble and other experiments, is just the needles opening of another can of worms when you publish an aether-free theory.

[@helifynoe9930]

Acceptance of the current interpretation of Special Relativity(SR) is so strong that pretty well everyone would stick to this interpretation, even if it led to a sudden end of the existence of mankind altogether. In my opinion, this obsession, is total madness. Anyhow, if you observe motion from a 4D Space-Time point of view, instead of performing a mere 3D analysis of motion, you will soon fully independently understand special relativity, all thanks to you now being fully aware that motion is not merely relative, but that it is clearly absolute motion that is taking place. And so with this new understanding of motion, one can proceed to construct a simple geometric representation of this "Absolute" motion that is taking place within the "Absolute" 4D Space-Time environment, and use this basic geometry to proceed to derive the SR mathematical equations, and complete this task in mere minutes due to its absolute simplicity.

[@SealedKiller]

Dismissal of the aether because it is unobservable is quite ironic because we accept space-time that we also can't observe, only its effects.

[@sealinski]

I’m ready to bring the aether back

[@RonanRox-wk2vl]

It's already there. By default.

[@KZgun4hire]

Another import observation is a wave is not a horizontal movement of particles in a medium. It is a vertical movement which creates the allusion of horizontal movement. A wave in a still body when compared to a wave in a flowing body a water would behave the same. It is not possible to tell from observing the wave effect whether the water was still or moving (in any particular direction). This is what allows multiple waves to co-exist together. A stone dropped in flowing water still makes a perfectly round circle not some elliptical shape based on the motion of the water/medium. Am I wrong here?

[@bigoptions]

If it is wave and not a particle which is what I believe, nothing is traveling from here to the sun, for example. In that case light has no speed; it has a rate of propagation because it is only the movement of the medium that travels. In that case the medium would be the aether.