" The space is endowed with physical properties, in this sense therefore there exists an ether( aether) . The space without ether is unthinkable " . - source : Lecture " Ether and theory of relativity" by Albert Einstein at leiden University (1920,publushed in 1922)

@Heaven351

5 ай бұрын

Precisely . Absolutely correct

@jn846

17 күн бұрын

I agree! And I just posted my rebuttal to the M&M experiment. The Aether exists! Otherwise photons would not be able to travel through it as the medium that propagates the wave on which they travel.

After watching, and listening, to this talk more than 4 times back to back, he never explains "how" einstein abolished aether.

@wishusknight3009

4 жыл бұрын

@XY ZW No thanks, I will stick with ranch dressing.

@PaulDormody

3 жыл бұрын

@XY ZW The aether as a mental construct was proved unnecessary by th Michelson-Morley experiment, as light is observed to travel at the same speed regardless of the direction it travels.

@maciejnajlepszy

2 жыл бұрын

@@PaulDormody The alternative explanation is stationary Earth relative to ether. Michelson-Morley and then Dayton Miller never got zero result, which itself abolishes relativity.

@bethbartlett5692

2 жыл бұрын

Correct *The Field is there: Moorley's expierment was rerun in 1986 and the Outcome was Journal Published: Nature; August, 1986; Vol 322; Page 590.* Read the Facts. Aether is part of Quantum Theory Studies and there have been at least 2 more proving the subject. It is a Mainstream Academic "attitude/belief" that it doesn't exist. All that doesn't fit their "19th Century Theory Based Paradigm" is shunned, ignored, and/or receives statements that are opinion based. Authentic Academics follow the "Standards of Science and Research", do not hold Theories as Facts, and are not threatened by new ideas/theories/findings. They also accept "Peer Reviewed, Journal Published" findings as Fact. This must be realized to discern what we give value to. Repeating an Opinion, Theory, Accusations, over and over, does not make them facts. Mainstream Academia seems to behave a great deal like Fox News and it just does not = accuracy. Higher Mind required. Good catch

@bethbartlett5692

2 жыл бұрын

@@PaulDormody Not proven, it is an opinion, a perspective. A most variable difference, although many promote it as if it were a fact. The subject of Aether remains as accepted, if not more so, than rejected. ...and Einstein never took the attitude suggested. Quantum Physics has made several finds that include it in their perspectives.

"Hippolyte Fizeau used a rotating comb and a mirror and measured the speed of light, only being off by 5%." That's seriously impressive.

@BigJayKaner

4 жыл бұрын

He also had a youtube style name 100 years before youtube was invented!! That's double impressive ;)

@elianrocco2357

2 жыл бұрын

Instablaster...

@RagingGeekazoid

2 жыл бұрын

He used a piano to measure the rotational speed of the comb, based on the pitch of the humming sound it made.

@jfo3000

Жыл бұрын

@@RagingGeekazoid wish he would have said how they knew the values in Hz of the notes on the piano at that time. I have a bit of research to do to learn that one. Hope that piano was really in-tune, lol!

@RagingGeekazoid

Жыл бұрын

@@jfo3000 Good question!

I can watch these videos for hours on end.. they never cease to fascinate.. thank you for putting these online!

Just yesterday I learned that Faraday made a prophetic remark about the nature of vibrating electricity being accountable for all we see (light). And today I get to see it in text. I'm so happy to see these lectures. I love the history because I remember distinctly that Maxwell was the first the measure the speed of light. I remember he arranged spinning disks with mirrors around them. These were spaced by 1.5 km or just a crazy distance to aim mirrors so accuratly, by yourself, without a motorbike. He spun the one at home base, if you will, and the pulsing light would locknphase when it completed this circuit and then he did the math and came really close. Today, I see that so many people measured it long before. I'm astounded. I had assumed that the speed of light was suspected to be a constant for a long time but then with Maxwell doing all the math for everyone, there isn't a lot left for Einstein to do, right? e= mc^2. It's like I=mv^2. Einstein got way too much fame for so little. Oh well, he didn't stop there. Great lectures !!! I wish I had paid more attention to my high school calculus book. It had a biography of the mathematicians in the margin. Like Laplace and etc. I'd be so fascinated now but in high school, I just had too much to do as it was. I wish there was a thorough history of mathematics from geometry through calculus and beyond. I mentioned Laplace because Newton gets the credit for calculus but that's not true. Laplace came up with a solution to the very same problems independently and simultaneously. I used Laplace transforms and more in calculus. Laplace's method is very popular for many types of problems because it's easier. Newton's is just different. I think that alone is extraordinary. There should be a show on just that neck and neck between Newton and Laplace. I can't remember much because I wasn't interested in high school. When you get old, you really appreciate how much work these men did to advance something they really didn't know would become so useful in the distant future. There is a LOT of math that had no use at the time, but later became fundamental in describing electricity in capacitors and filter circuits and so many things the mathematicians couldn't dream of. That's fascinating to me. Why'd they work so hard? Like imaginary numbers. The sq rt of -1. It can't exist and yet it's used in electrical engineering constantly. Makes you wonder if ordinary electronics does employ a 5th dimension where the (sq rt -1) is an ordinary thing in that universe. You go there and someone picks up one and says "of course there's a sq rt of -1, here, catch." Anyway it's amazing that match and the external objective reality match up at all. Is there any reason why they have to? No. But we've come a long way with that assumption. That's the history I'd like to see. Plus Laplace getting the proper respect as one of 2 people who invented calculus. In the case of calculus, by the way, there was simply not a way to express something that describes the conditions at an instant of time, if it weren't infinitesimally small in duration. It was math to fix math. That's not so much a math with unknown uses in the future. The uses were what we needed to express. We knew the need for it before we had it. That's different than those that worked on math that had no practical application and wouldn't for centuries, which is mind blowing, in my opinion. These things seem, like Faradays' intuition, to have a prophetic note to it. "I know it's weird but I got to solve it, useful or not. I can't explain it." I can't find the drive to clear the floor I walk on. So... I'm in awe of their dedication to math, back then. And it'd make another interesting show to see the types of "useless" math people are working on today that may drive how we understand something we may not discover for yet another 200 years or more. right?

@loralou-djflowerdove

4 жыл бұрын

"Was made"?? "Had made".

@Foxdiesolid

4 жыл бұрын

@@loralou-djflowerdove ur dumb lol

@bethbartlett5692

2 жыл бұрын

*The Field is there: Moorley's expierment was rerun in 1986 and the Outcome was Journal Published: Nature; August, 1986; Vol 322; Page 590.* Read the Facts.

@o2807

Жыл бұрын

Pls don't criticize this man.

@likesrush

Жыл бұрын

@@bethbartlett5692 Please elaborate. If you have access to the facts, please pass them along. I, for one, would really appreciate it. Could you please copy that here? I don't have that reference to look at and I can't make it to the library. I only have a long list of health problems. I would LOVE to see this. Maybe just the abstract is enough to make your point or the author's point, I guess. Tell us what Morley's experiment was and what they did to verify it. What does the verification of his experiment mean?

Awesome lecture. I have a pretty solid understanding of the discussed math and theory, but also know how important it is to make this stuff approachable. This lecture has a huge amount of information, while never requiring an advanced understanding of the principles. The stories and history of the experimental procedures that went into providing evidence or proving these theories was fantastic, most of which I had never heard before. Math and physics stories were always my favorite part of school, when I had talented instructors.

I'm listening to this again a year later. Whoa! This talk is fantastic. Thank you!

Did he really abolish the aether? I think he merely re-labled it 'space-time".

@eonasjohn

2 ай бұрын

Good point.

@SHERMA.

9 күн бұрын

na he abolished it on paper they removed the part of the aether from the equations and its actually the reason they persued quantum physics so much in trying to find the answer the answers were in the aether the whole time but heavyside removed the aether from the equation

Important!, maybe it was already highlighted by someone down the comments but on the second 40 of the presentation it is a wrong link of the equator with LONGITUDE, I guess he intended to say meridian instead.

OMG GREAT LECTURE!!! Learned so much!

6:18 - Yep, this is what Quantized space looks like. With it being created by quanta at the sub-Planck scale, which are denser where mass is higher, and which behave like a superfluid, offering practically no resistance at solar system distances, but they have an effect on EM radiation as it travels between stars and galaxies. It also easily explains orbital mechanics without trying to bend space, and why there's no such thing as a graviton.

Thank You Everyone who commented with this grade of commitment. The point is the discussion between people , wich a video cannot perform in these terms. I regret not having watched the video YET ,but it will stay there,while comments can be easily turned off . .

"History abundantly shows that people's views of the universe are bound up with their views of themselves and of their society. The debate in cosmology has implications far beyond the realm of science, for it is a question of how truth is known. How these questions are answered will shape not only the history of science, but the history of humanity." (Eric Lerner, 1992) spaceandmotion

His book Light Speed is super easy to understand. I bought the hard cover. I never buy books except for Feynman. Such a confusing puzzle this defunct business of the aether. A great story about Bradley and David Hughes. Fascinating read and what could be better than to see the author at RI. Mahalo again RI.

@Greg_Chase

11 ай бұрын

One challenge I have received is this: "Mass curves spacetime, manifesting gravity, right?" ME: "Yes." "So spacetime is curved, geodesic paths in General Relativity, etc. - true?" ME: "Yes." "And space is completely empty. Nothing in it. It's a widely-held belief - for example, it is said that *_electromagnetic waves do not need a medium to propagate_* - still correct?" ME: "Those are the commonly accepted beliefs." "How can 'emptiness' be curved?" It's tough to explain that. .

@dimension2788

11 ай бұрын

Right the aether is making a small comeback. J C H Spence mentions in this book that no one really understands what an electric field is. Guess it takes on a value unique to each spot. Pretty weird the great Prof. Spence would say we don't really understand electric fields. I appreciate his candor.

@Greg_Chase

11 ай бұрын

@@dimension2788 We create accelerations of the charged particles in a lamination of aluminum foil/insulator layers; we position eddy current coils adjacent the foils to induce radial eddy currents. With the foil/insulator lamination positioned horizontal on the workbench, and providing 16.28Mhz to the eddy current coils to induce (horizontal) currents, radially in the foil, we position an axial (centered), vertical magnetic field through the foil lamination. The vertical B field and horizontal eddy currents induce coherent accelerations of the charged particles in the foil at the 16.28Mhz rate due to the Lorentz force. That device was our first attempt at investigating the affects of coherent accelerations on the 'background field' Since the Cavendish gravity experiment from the year 1798 showed atoms and collections of atoms (aka matter objects) create gravity, we reasoned a single hydrogen atom produces a gravity field (however small) and with only one proton and one electron, we decided accelerations must play a role in gravity creation. The orbital and spin of the electron, the nuclear spin, etc. Artificial gravity one day will be a discipline, just like 'artificial magnetism' developed into one (magnetic fields created with a coil of wire).

How does one acquire tickets/seats to these lectures?

7:30 "Maxwell got the *correct* equations..." no he didn't; that's a folklore myth that's bandied about in the Physics community, but it is totally wrong. His equations differed *substantially* from what we now call Maxwell's equations -- and one of the biggest differences is that they had a fixed frame for light propagation (called the "stationary frame"); and that *only* in this frame would the constitutive relations 𝗗 = κ 𝗘, 𝗕 = μ 𝗛 be isotropic. (So "stationary frame" is more properly denoted "frame of isotropy"). In addition, he also stated incorrect relations (and transformation laws) for 𝗕 because he failed to distinguish it from 𝗛, always writing it as μ𝗛 ... until he started calling it its own name 𝗕 by the time he wrote the Treatise. But even then he *still* got the transformation properties of 𝗕 wrong (it's a pseudo-vector & 2-form, while 𝗛 is a vector & 1-form) and consequently wrote down the wrong constitutive law for 𝗕, which Thomson had to correct. The equations, when made consistent with Relativity, are the Maxwell-Minkowski equations, which could be written as (1) {𝗕 = ∇×𝗔, 𝗘 = -∇φ - ∂𝗔/∂t}, {∇·𝗕 = 0, ∇×𝗘 + ∂𝗕/∂t = 0} for the magnetic potential 𝗔, electric potential φ, electric force 𝗘 and magnetic induction 𝗕, (2) {∇·𝗗 = ρ, ∇×𝗛 + ∂𝗗/∂t = 𝗝}, {∂ρ/∂t + ∇·𝗝 = 0} for the electric induction 𝗗, magnetic force 𝗛, current density 𝗝 and charge density ρ, (3) The constitutive relations {𝗗 + α 𝗚×𝗛 = κ (𝗘 + 𝗚×𝗕), 𝗕 - α 𝗚×𝗘 = μ (𝗛 - 𝗚×𝗗)}, with permeability μ, dielectric coefficient κ and a velocity 𝗚 that references the frame of isotropy. The equations Maxwell wrote correspond to the case α = 0, while for Relativity, one needs α > 0. In addition, he failed to include the - 𝗚×𝗗 term because he was still confusing 𝗕 and 𝗛 -- its inclusion was a correction made later by Thomson (and verified experimentally c. 1900 by a husband and wife team). The "stationary frame" referred to in late 1800's papers and in the opening part of Einstein's paper is 𝗚 = 0. Einstein's objection (stated therein) is that there would continue to be a 𝗚-dependence for (3) even in a vacuum, when there ought not to be; and that there should be nothing to single out any specific speed 𝗚 in a vacuum, so that the stationary case 𝗚 = 0 should hold for the vacuum in all inertial frames of reference. In contrast, the Maxwell-Minkowski equations (which are the ones required by Relativity) - have α > 0 and single out a unique speed c ≡ √(1/α) - which is the invariant speed postulated by Relativity. And it just so happens that in the case where κμ = α (i.e. the vacuum), equations (3) for *all* cases of 𝗚 become *almost* *equivalent* to the equations for the "stationary case"; i.e. the isotropic relations 𝗗 = κ 𝗘, 𝗕 = μ 𝗛. And that's where the comment he made in his 1905 paper that 𝗚 becomes "superfluous" comes from. Note the " *almost* " by the way. The equations are *not* equivalent to the isotropic relations if the medium is rarefied to a vacuum κμ > α → κμ = α and κμG² → 1 in such a way that (κμ-α)/(1-κμG²) approaches a finite non-zero limit; i.e. if the frame of isotropy is at light speed. The irony of this, of course, is that it corresponds to the very case alluded to in the very question (and the answer to it) that sparked Einstein's foray into relativity "what it is like to travel alongside a light beam?" A residual dependence on G² remains in the limit in that case. As a result, there continues to be a lingering vestige of an "aether frame" *even* in Relativity. An experiment to verify this, given the high speed of the medium required, would probably be something involving plasma physics.

@grantperkins368

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for taking the time to write that ... and the years it took to know it! :-)

@PeterPete

4 жыл бұрын

can i ask seeings you seem pretty clued up on the subject , what exactly is the aether?

@spacebusters3933

4 жыл бұрын

@@PeterPete Haha....your reply somehow spoke to me, had to check you guys out. Subbed!

@robertdouville74

4 жыл бұрын

Hers is the difference between you the real expert and a clown hired by a University to make a show full of prejudice according to modern sauce

@1969nitsuga

4 жыл бұрын

Relativistic physics are a bag of crickets. No real empirical value. Full of assumptions and open parameters. Most of the evidence for relativity is a matter of electric retardation, aether flux and light propagation rate. Even gravity is only a mix of buoyancy and incoherent magnetic fields. That's why relativity is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Entanglement flushes relativity down the toilet of scienticism...

Yesterday, I was taking a stroll in a local library. Found a fascinating book The Odyssey by Homer in modern English. I previously had the Illiad, but in the old English, the king's english as one would speak. However, now as I watch this presentation, I am reminded that knowledge is massive and we cannot preserve it all if knowledge is stored in diverse forms. Surely, if put on paper and on some digital storage it must be preserved, but that is not what I mean. It is only truly preserved if commanded to memory. If only to keep the human element of experimentation for permanent recollection, that would give us the future generation a sense of continuity. The world we live in is a form of causality. Knowledge is a propagation of thought. The idea that we relinquish some of our previous knowledge from earlier innocent existence is foreboding. I will bookmark this video. It holds a sentimental value.

@RagingGeekazoid

2 жыл бұрын

*_committed_* to memory

@bethbartlett5692

2 жыл бұрын

*The Field is there: Moorley's expierment was rerun in 1986 and the Outcome was Journal Published: Nature; August, 1986; Vol 322; Page 590.* Read the Facts.

@manifold1476

Жыл бұрын

@@RagingGeekazoid concur

41:09 That's one of the sweetest things i've ever heard.

i was very happy when i saw that the tilted angle calculated by bradley (12.46) .... that is velocity of earth / c .. because just 2 days ago one of my frnd gave me the same problem.. and i calculated the angle also.. ovio by STR ...

Aether...Einstein also stated it is totally necessary...he did this after relativity.

very Entertaining, I recommend watching this.

Good historical overview about the nature of light, it’s speed determination and independence of frames of reference. Though I do think the Einstein portion was rushed. The title in the thumbnail isn’t quite correct as he did not really explore the quantum nature of light

@grantperkins368

4 жыл бұрын

Last century the measured speed of light varied every time the experiment was done.

@PhysicsHigh

4 жыл бұрын

@@grantperkins368 Not quite - it got more and more precise as it was done in the 19th century. (Did a video on it if you are interested) And 20th century more precise still. Michelson's results in 1931 was 0.006% off the value today. And then Essen in 1950's and Everson in '72 more precise still.

RI just keeps publishing great lectures. Yet another hour wel spend.

Zero point energy requires aether😎

@SynKronos

4 жыл бұрын

Elaborate?

@soupisfornoobs4081

3 жыл бұрын

@@SynKronos Do they need to, it's just a Dunning Krueger with stating it like that and using a sunglasses emoji.

@maciejnajlepszy

2 жыл бұрын

Robert Sungenis

If nothing is nothing, then nothing does not exist. Therefore there is always something in empty space, but it has no name yet if it is not called aether .

@wishusknight3009

4 жыл бұрын

Sounds like a puzzle in an Alpen cereal commercial.

In 1849 the hz value for the note "A" was not equal to 440hz. It was actually A= 432hz. If you tune your instruments to A=432 you tend to get better harmonics and depth because the instruments were designed with that frequency in mind. A=440 was not made the standard until sometime around WWII. Can not remember the exact date.

@itellyouforfree7238

4 жыл бұрын

@Bob Trenwithbut some tunable instruments (winds) work better if you tune them as they were mean to be tuned when they have been designed

@itellyouforfree7238

4 жыл бұрын

@Bob Trenwith He literally said "If you tune your instruments to A=432 you tend to get better harmonics and depth because the instruments were designed with that frequency in mind". I would say "If you tune SOME instruments to A=432 you tend to get better harmonics and depth because the instruments were designed with that frequency in mind". The concept is still the same (and correct). It doesn't apply to all instruments, but it is certainly true for some.

@itellyouforfree7238

4 жыл бұрын

@Bob Trenwith Wtf are you talking about? What healing power?! Are you on drugs? We just said that some instruments work better if you tune them in a specific way. Period. Maybe you don't understand common language

@manifold1476

Жыл бұрын

@@itellyouforfree7238 bleedin' heck, over

At min 46:22 Point 5 is correct: Aether is dragged by the Earth since the Earth carries its own gravitational field with it in space and the gravitational field is in the aether. Point 4 must be reconsidered: Aether is fixed to Bradley's remote star and you can have Bradley's effect of telecope titling even with aether being carried by the Earth in its own gravitational field. Point 3 Michelson's experiment proves that the aether is carried along by the Earth together with its own gravitational field. Conclusion: Michelson's experiment will yield a positive result with an interferometer moving at great speeds in regions of space away from gravitational fields.

Thank you science

Thanks again for another beautiful video.

“Newton’s bucket “ remains an effective thought experiment to justify looking for an aether of some sort. Imagine observing a bucket in space with absolutely nothing except the bucket itself. You observe that water in the bucket is being drawn toward the walls uniformly. The force pushing the water remains a mystery until you realize you must be spinning in sync with the bucket. Centrifugal force causing the effect. Yet with rotation being a relative motion, how could you possibly ever know you were spinning since you can’t see anything around you? Because nothing else remains, we can conclude that something else must still exist. The rotation is relative to space itself.

@atari7001

3 жыл бұрын

Dirk Knight if the bucket is relative to itself, then rotation is not possible. This is akin to saying that you can have a battery with two positive poles. Something must be moving in a circular motion and something else must not. Measurement can only occur between the two extremes. The difference between the two is circular motion. If rotation is too complex, then linear motion could be easier to analyze. In the hypothetical empty universe, there is no way to discern whether an object is in linear motion whatsoever. Additionally, how could you even define “here” versus “there” without a reference? It’s impossible...

@atari7001

3 жыл бұрын

Dirk Knight if you were floating in outer space with nothing to push against, how could you possibly do this? What you say is impossible...

I did enjoy this video!

He then reaccepted it 15 years later cuz it made more realistic sense, at the theory of relativity was introduced in 1905. "In 1920 Einstein accepting the ether theory Albert Einstein said: “Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether." I mean, Einstein and Tesla were smart enough to realize there is a difference between space and a substance. Space is just distance/absence, such a thing has no properties as it's not a form of existence, it's a fancy word for nothing ! Also, if we see the behavior of a substance in all cosmic space, then it's not space it's a substance.

Thank you for another wonderful lecture!

I love hearing about theories being confronted and re-adjusted. A perfect representation of the tenacity of the human experience.

@bokchoiman

4 жыл бұрын

@Darth Quantum I do think there is a purpose to religion. It wouldn't exist otherwise. For example, some turn to religion/spirituality during a dark time in their lives as a crutch. I see no problem with this, because human beings are complicated creatures.

@wishusknight3009

4 жыл бұрын

@@bokchoiman The problem is with discarding the crutch when it isn't needed. And then using that crutch to bash reality over the noggin.

@BillGreenAZ

3 жыл бұрын

I do too. Science can be very political and those with political power, namely funds for research grants, can dictate which theory is to be presented and which theory is to be discounted all on the whim of the person doling out the money. In Einstein's case it was a matter of celebrity. Part of Einstein being a celebrity was to quash any competing theories.

@bethbartlett5692

2 жыл бұрын

No adjustment made, never address the title subject.

Beware of the use of metaphors, for they are but illusions of human design. Whatever 'it' is requires no words from us to be as it is.

@jeffreyhogueison8560

4 жыл бұрын

uhh what?

@marc-andrebrunet5386

4 жыл бұрын

@@jeffreyhogueison8560 I agree with you🍻😎 cheers

@gzpo

4 жыл бұрын

@@jeffreyhogueison8560 💖😎

@lifebydesign9435

3 жыл бұрын

Help me understand! I want to understand

@MaximMotor

2 жыл бұрын

@@gzpo and

49:50, How things have changed in just a hundred years

Wonderful. Thanks you for joining the dots! I'm smiling imagining the distance we have come from Michelson's Interferometer in 1881 to LIGO today.

48:10 Okay, let's assume that all motion is relative. Relative to any frame of reference, light is measured to be approx. 300,000 km/s. Now since it is said that all motion is relative, that means that relative to the photons of light, all objects, in all possible frames of reference, are travelling at the speed of light. Hmmmm??? On top of that, we can be in motion through space, but we also are in motion across the dimension of time. So George says to Frank, my spaceship is at rest, and it is your spaceship that is in motion. The Frank says, no no no. It is my spaceship that is at rest and it is your spaceship that is in motion. But what about George and Frank and motion across the dimension of time ? George says, it is my clock that is at rest and thus is not ticking, and it is your clock that is ticking. But then Frank says, no no no. It is my clock that is at rest and thus is not ticking, and it is your clock that is ticking. Hmmmm??? But of course this is not what would occur.

You can talk about him writing about how it must exist before he passed

This will age well

He never abolished the ether it ended up with different name.

So Maxwell derived c from an equation that assumes a longitudinal wave through a medium. And this supports relativity?

. Thank you for the internet information and diagrams. 23:56 so i forget if time is made out of concrete or rubber. .

When u look stars at night we r looking back in time

Every lecture on this platform gives me goosebumps ❤️❤️

@anonismust

4 жыл бұрын

Should check your a/c settings

@skepticjoe09

4 жыл бұрын

@@anonismust Very funny.

It occurs to me that the idea of a textured universal substrate covers all those postulated Aetheric properties nicely. Nature abhors a vacuum, and all that. That energy substrate/potential aids some propagation of phenomena and hinders that of others.

@aidanlevy2841

4 жыл бұрын

The problem is that aether postulated to be a solid material and was given a compressive strength and density based on the materials science of the day, and that is fundamentally not what spacetime is.

@maciejnajlepszy

2 жыл бұрын

I suggest reading Robert Sungenis to find out the answer for yourself.

BRAVO!

I had no idea Bobby Robson was such an expert on the history of physics.

The Shoulders of Giants. I am in awe of the intellects of these people. I do not have a grasp of mathematics so even though I am fascinated I can never fully understand. Still, it is wonderful stuff. Well done human brains.

15:22 "James Young" should be "Thomas Young"

@CometComment

3 жыл бұрын

Just one of many errors in this talk :(

The Royal Institute is the pinnacle of free online education.

@KC_G4S

4 жыл бұрын

Greg Jacques Lucifer's Jizz Gargler Sesame Street is online? Shows how old I am

@KC_G4S

4 жыл бұрын

Killumination please leave bot

@RogerBarraud

4 жыл бұрын

It's certainly up there, in very good company. #Mathologer #NumberPhile #PeriodicVideos #ComputerPhile #VSauce #Veritasium #MIT_OCW #Stanford ...

@wishusknight3009

4 жыл бұрын

@@rap1df1r3 Says the flat earth worshiper.

Watched all of it

At min 46:34 Analogy with beltway at the airport in flawed because we are discussing waves. Sound produced by a traveller on a beltway will travel with the speed of sound in air no matter how fast the beltway or the traveller move. In the same way, the light from the headlights of a car will travel at the speed of light no matter how fast the car moves towards or away from you and no matter how fast you move towards or away from the car - what changes is the frequency of the wave you detect.

@funnycatvideos5490

19 күн бұрын

Right Doppler shift the frequency Changes relatively, but the speed Of the propagation is controlled by the medium .

@AETHERscience

18 күн бұрын

@@funnycatvideos5490 Making such an enormous confusion at this level (The Royal Institution) is embarassing. The law of addition of velocities applies to bodies in motion and it was never meant to apply to waves. The speed of waves is the same in all frames since the waves move through the same medium no matter what frame you are in. And you cannot change the speed of the wave just by moving the emitter or the receiver. As you correctly say, the medium controls the speed of the wave. The Doppler effect is a proof that this reasoning is correct.

@funnycatvideos5490

18 күн бұрын

@@AETHERscience it's a coaxial circuit , but relative to the viewer the frequency changes just like soundwaves.

Actually, Einstein did NOT abolish the aether--he himself returned to it after eleven years of rejecting it.

17:20 what happened we were talking about an equation and ;;;;;;;;;;;;((,??????

I sometimes feel that censorship and all this garbage on the internet is burying the true knowledge

We quantise to measure. If I pinch finger and thumb in running stream do I catch a stream particle? 🙃

@schmetterling4477

Жыл бұрын

There are no particles. Quanta are energy values.

If Space and the Aether are in some way the same thing, then the1919 Eddington eclipse expedition performed for Einstein proved that a large enough mass curves Space. And if a "total void" is in some way is meant to mean "nothing," then curving a void/Space is not possible. It has been shown many times, and in many ways that Space is not a nothing or void. The reason it takes light about 8 minutes to reach the Earth is that it has to traverse a distance. If that distance is not an attribute of Space, then why is the time needed to traverse it different when the Earth is at different distances to the Sun? If anything, Einstein proved that Space can have a shape, and dimensionality/location is a property of Space.

@grantperkins368

4 жыл бұрын

Light doesn't have a fixed speed... It slows down and accelerates when passing through water and back into air, which tends to indicate that it's not a particle, but rather, a field perturbation traversing , or being conducted through, the Aether

@RogerBarraud

4 жыл бұрын

Dunning, Kruger...

@Markoul11

4 жыл бұрын

All what Einstein did is to replace the term "Aether" with the term "fabric of spacetime" both meaning "not nothing" and can be treated as a medium. The only difference is that although Aether can be bend and stretched also with Electromagnetism besides gravity, the Einstein's fabric of spacetime can be bend and stretched only by large gravitational masses. So no, he did not abolished the Aether but just renamed it to vacuum space and changed its properties.

@nophead

4 жыл бұрын

@@Markoul11 Since mass and energy are equivalent I think all energy fields warp spacetime, e.g. electromagnetic.

@picksalot1

4 жыл бұрын

@@RogerBarraud It's surprising how many went into the Sciences.

Mrs Richards: "I paid for a room with a view !" Basil: (pointing to the lovely view) "That is Torquay, Madam ." Mrs Richards: "It's not good enough!" Basil: "May I ask what you were expecting to see out of a Torquay hotel bedroom window? Sydney Opera House, perhaps? the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically past?..." Mrs Richards: "Don't be silly! I expect to be able to see the sea !" Basil: "You can see the sea, it's over there between the land and the sky." Mrs Richards: "I'm not satisfied. But I shall stay. But I expect a reduction." Basil: "Why?! Because Krakatoa's not erupting at the moment ?"

Nice video and presentation. For a wave to be transmitted and received, we need a wave medium which is not the only thing that matters but most importantly a condition that medium to adhere with the surface of the emitter and or the receiver. Air molecules must adhere to the loudspeaker surface in order to sustain “push and pull” action in the process of sound wave transmission. We also know that wind (around the loudspeaker) and speaker sound coexists. The first boundary layer of air (fluid) on wing are attached to wing surface (near field) by electric force, while the ambient air (far field) is free flow around it, in order to support lift. That brings us to the property of Aether. Michelson and Morley were educated that - Aether wind blows through (and not around) all matter at a speed differ from earth in orbit. Subsequently Michelson went ahead and designed his interferometer n thinking of that. We all know the result by now. There were no appreciable velocity difference in all directions. Why? Not because of - light need no medium - light exists in absence of Aether But because of - light need a medium, Aether - light emitter/receivers must adhere with Aether for light. - interferometer only work in presence of Aether. Caveat? - Aether drag in the near field is responsible for no fringe activities. - Aether drag diminishing by 1/r at the nearest object. - by near and far field effect that Aether and star aberration coexist. - Aether speed in deep space diminishes to a total average of all planets, galaxies by specific 1/r, which may be taken as a rest frame. TSR is unnecessary. It only add convolutions and obstructions in our understanding of this universe.

Huh? If you cool the transducer to zero and the hiss goes away does that not mean the CMB is an illusion? By the way wonderful lecture!

Absolutely mesmerising presentation.

Excellent lecture, in fact the best I have seen in years. Brilliantly delivered and absolutely fascinating.

@craigdonegan223

4 жыл бұрын

I agree. Possibly the best physics lecturer I have seen on youtube.

@hassannabil9792

4 жыл бұрын

I agree absolutely that this is a great lecture. I like that he mentioned the little unknown fact that Heaviside is the one who organized Maxwell equation in the nice compact form that we all know.

Would the aether not equate to dark matter or dark energy?

@RagingGeekazoid

3 жыл бұрын

Dark energy would naturally be interpreted as a property of the ether. Dark matter may be just a form of matter or something completely different.

How does spooky action at a distance work if there is no connecting Aehter?

@robinpinnock2678

4 жыл бұрын

We need more Suspicious 0bservers.

@johnnywrither128

4 жыл бұрын

@Najawin right... It's not the understandable aether, it's the impossible to understand quantum field that's generating that effect! Or maybe it's both? How is there no relation between those concepts? Through which medium does the information travel?

@johnnywrither128

4 жыл бұрын

@Najawin so they are entangled by and through nothing, and yet entangled? Or are we calling it quantum field instead of aether? Also, a theorem is basically an axiom, meaning it could be wrong if our current understanding is.

@johnnywrither128

4 жыл бұрын

@Najawin The way it was explained to me is that you change something in a particle here, and the other particle, very far away, instantly changes too. That's what entanglement means to me. Your equations go over my head cos I haven't studied physics or math, but as wise men say, if you can't explain something in simple terms, you don't really understand it. Anyway, 'quantum' still seems like it could be another word for 'aether', but ok, there's still a medium of which space is made of.

What a great presenter.

Royal Institution lectures/talks are amazing, and i'm simply fascinated by the amount and quality of wisdom and intelligence i get presented in a digestible way

Wow…what a journey…

What if quantised spacetime consituted that aether and all particles were just different patterns of flows of quantised spacetime so that forces and particles are just translations and transformations of quanta of space ?

Nice work on summary in video. Comment on summary in Page 46:00 1. Aether speed is an averaged value defined by 1/r speed wrt all matter in the universe (which it isn’t) may be regarded as a rest frame. 2. Galician transform accounts for mechanical but wave speed. 3. Aether adheres to all mater moves in equal speed in the near field and lag in the far field by a factor of 1/r apart from the nearest object. Michelson mistaken that Aether is solid and not fluid. 4. Bradley mistaken that Aether is solid and not fluid. Actually Aether fluid adhere to the atmosphere (near field effect) and not in space (far field effect) these effect does not contradicts aberration effect. 5. Fresnel is the only one I am aware who is brilliant out think the rest. 6. We need open minded researcher on Newtonian physics, remember that wave is energy but matter. Why should energy propagation be governed or relate to by Galilean speed of matter? Fixing? There is nothing we need to fix besides the quality of our education and the hidden agenda lies underneath. Once that is fixed the subject conflicts will be resolved on its own.

Just to mention here that Lorentz’s Aether Theory that is as powerful as the special relativity in terms of the predictions it makes has completely been ignored on this lecture not sure why. Also the only thing we know is constant is the two way speed of light! We always forget this important detail which seems to change everything

@schmetterling4477

5 ай бұрын

I can measure the one way speed of light just fine. If you don't know how, then you simply didn't learn enough physics. ;-)

FYI: Aether-drag has been detected, so.......... -Michelson/Morely failed to consider the Lorentz contraction of the instrument -Lorentz used the same calculations as 'Relativity' including the gamma factor... -Einstein hated his professor Herr Hertz, who later kept him from getting a job/ assistantship at a University -Thus The M/M xpmt reveals that the speed of light appears (remember, it's all 'relative' now) the same for all - a 'postulate' of Poincare's Relativity, (later plagiarized)

@schmetterling4477

2 жыл бұрын

Next up: the Earth is flat. ;-)

Many awesome comments, more and more people are becoming aware. I just wanted to add one thing. Please go and read the actual Michaelson and Morley paper. It is description of apparatus. Then a bunch of numbers and arithmetics. adding subtracting and mulyiplying the numbers. The measurements he got at the end for two different directions are actually very different. Then suddenly, without any discussion or explanation there is only one sentence added to the end of the paper saying that " therefore we didn't observe any difference". What am I missing here?

@soupisfornoobs4081

3 жыл бұрын

Well, you're missing something, clearly. Dunning Krueger. What's your theory here, in simple terms and with some backing. I'm interested to know because absolutely noone cites anything reliable, or has theories that simply wouldn't work, in just denying science and claiming that complete silencing of science is even possible

@mjfk872

Ай бұрын

@@soupisfornoobs4081 Read the book "What is light? wave theory of light and origins of ether in science". there is my theory.

The aether pushes the planets around the sun. Same old mistakes as Michelson and Morley of thinking that the aether is a non-moving static medium. lol. Head wind indeed! lol.

Great ... I wish someday I will be like him ... great videos ... and its amazing

In Truth General Relativistic Physics is an alternative reconceptualisation of Aether, or Superconduction related communication. Depending on POV, Einsteinian Relativity or Bergson time duration timing in Maldecena AdS/CFT Holographic Principle Imagery projection-drawing.

I thought Michelson and Morley disproved the aether, not Einstein. Enjoyable lecture.

Einstein would probably have been shocked to learn that he himself was a patent attorney.

8:40 about using shadows of a stick to measure the earth's size: the standard version of this story says the two locations were about 500 miles apart, not 2000.

@philtanics1082

4 жыл бұрын

Its all fabricated nonsense, thats why.

@wishusknight3009

4 жыл бұрын

@@philtanics1082 Only to a flat earther.

@-kitn-kittilsvogel1958

4 жыл бұрын

...and they did the test at the exact same time...but separate...in two different cities, only 666miles apart...Alexandria and Aswan, Egypt some 2260 years ago...all while the globes equator was spinning at 1,038MPH while hurdling through a perfect vacuum of space around our Sun at 66,600MPH...

@wishusknight3009

4 жыл бұрын

@@-kitn-kittilsvogel1958 So? Not my problem you don't understand scale, and need to rail on a strawman. That still isn't proof of a flat earth. And it wasn't 666 miles. Stop with the numerology ffs.

@jmmahony

4 жыл бұрын

@@-kitn-kittilsvogel1958 They were not measured at the exact same time, since the two cities are not on the same line of longitude (despite some claims by later Greek writers), so "high noon" would not happen at the same time. For convenience, the measurement would be done at high noon on the summer solstice, when the sun is (nearly) overhead at Alexandria, since it's (nearly) on the tropic of Cancer. The other measurement would be done at (local) high noon on the same day of the year (but technically it doesn't have to be the same year). Aswan was called Syene back then. But it's about 500 miles from Alexandria, not 666 (where did you get that number?). But the important distance would be the north/south distance between them, which would be somewhat less. And it turns out the whole story about the measurements at Alexandria and Syene was a simplification, written by a later writer, of the actual method of Eratosthenes, which has been lost. And space is not a perfect vacuum.

This is one of the best places to find what you always wanted to know. Love it.

Great talk, a bit of marketing though. And dissappointed about not hearing Tesla's name in all of these great scientist, especially when the title contains aether.

@carrynoweight

4 жыл бұрын

Especially when his theory of electricity in aether is being substantiated by the recent solar probe.

@wishusknight3009

4 жыл бұрын

@@carrynoweight I have looked at this very thing (if it is the same thing you are talking about). And using relativity one can generate the same mathematical equations without the need for referring to an aether at all.

@maciejnajlepszy

2 жыл бұрын

@@wishusknight3009 Interesting, how you then explain Faraday paradox or Sagnac or Aspden effect?

@wishusknight3009

2 жыл бұрын

@@maciejnajlepszy Nothing to explain. None of those thought experiments would give substance to appeal to the aether as a solution.

@maciejnajlepszy

2 жыл бұрын

@@wishusknight3009 Thought experiments? All of those are real phenomenons, unexplained by Relativity. How is it possible that magnetic field does not roatate with magnet? Magnetic field is stationary, but relative to what, if there isn't any absolute reference point? And Sagnac? "Rotation is absolute in special relativity", that's your wikipedia answer? So Special Relativity is defeated here. Or maybe something from GR, "acceleration mass is indistinguishable from gravitational mass"? Not knowing nature of gravity this is an empty statement. Light near stars can bend due to multiple reasons, not to mention that original 1919 photo is bogus, out of several divergent only one was picked, the one that "confirmed Relativity" (I'm sure you know that). Dayton Miller results? Compelling life-time work to prove ether wind? Michelson-Gale experiment that measures Earth rotation at first attempt with 1% accuracy, opposite to no translational motion of Earth ever found? Barnett effect? Relative to what is body rotating that causes spontanenous magnetisation? Aspden effect? It is totally beyond the laws of physics, yet no one relativist is even trying to explain it, because it needs ether to work. Casimir effect? DePalma spinning ball drop - bodies falling slower in vacuum than non-rotating ones? Binary Star precession? Want to know more, or is it enough "thought experiments" to explain us basing on the theory of Relativity?

The ether has been disproved by the Michelson-Morley experiment. However, absolute motion does exist. Nature is so elusive.

@sciencelies2262

3 жыл бұрын

LOL what are you some kind of parrot? The Ether was never disproved by michelson-morley experiment. You better go back and look at the findings. Better yet find someone else who has and have them explain it to you.

@maciejnajlepszy

2 жыл бұрын

Absolute motion was detected by Sagnac, and rotation of the Earth was detected by Michelson-Gale. COmbining those with Michelson-Morley we get stationary Earth wih ether rotating around it with stars and sun once a day.

It is amazing how most of what we know about the universe was basically figured out a hundred years ago or more

Precipitating field

Redefined perhaps...

Ike: 😢

So they replaced the medium aether within which thought could be contained and flow, with a medium called a field within which an energy/force could be contained and flow. Both of which fundamentally controlled by a process called harmonic resonance or wave function if you prefer Uhu. Tell us more about smoke, mirrors and relabeling everything, to describe the same thing, while pretending to be different. I guess its difficult to claim narcissistic adulation, by claiming a new concept is disguised as the original concept in all but name. They would be better of studying the relationship between the acoustic morphic fields of water and atomic structure. Failing that, they might find the octaves of the speed of light and its relationship to refraction/reflection useful. Even more useful might be the octave relationship between the speed of sound, speed of light and thermal control of it.

@johnnywrither128

4 жыл бұрын

most of it went over my head but awesome comment

@garroulmoise1309

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnnywrither128 same here ! I didn't understand an iota of it ! I read it anyway , because ' It' sounds nice . Now , I ended up with what I would call "INTELLECTUAL VIRTIGO ". You know , I am going back to reading the Bible ! ( It is safer , and simple ) In the beginning , G.D created the Heav.n& Earth ! No explanation needed and I rest in peace .

@lastofthebest5102

2 жыл бұрын

A deliberate complication of a simple idea so as to keep the plebs from figuring out anything of value. By doing so it keeps the rich wealthy and poor in destitute.

@maciejnajlepszy

2 жыл бұрын

I suggest reading Robert Sungenis to clarify the subject and rediscover the ether.

@plasmaphysics1017

2 жыл бұрын

@@maciejnajlepszy The aether is ruled out to parts in billions. It isn't there, and isn't needed.

The problem with the theories of aether is that the researchers assumed the properties of atomic matter for the characteristics of aether. If you use the properties of, for example, the neutrino flux as aether, there is no headwind, nor any of the other characteristics that are disproven. In the absence of a neutrino or some other particle flux, electromagnetic waves probably do not propagate. This explains how the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light. Thereafter, the neutrino flux (or the axion flux or another flux ) allowed the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves slow in more dense media, slowest in dense metals, where electromagnetic radiation continues to propagate, though with greatt attenuation.

@schmetterling4477

Жыл бұрын

We got rid of the ether in 1905. Technically we got rid of it when Galileo wrote his "Two New Sciences", but people didn't have the ether delusion, yet, so there was nothing to get rid of in the first place at that time. :-)

In order to have energy transfere, you need a medium to bring about the transfere from one place/thing to another, right?

Don't overlook the speed and constancy of thought...

@trexpaddock

4 жыл бұрын

Speed: Slow. Constancy: None.

@DavidHHermanson

3 жыл бұрын

My observation is that thought rarely enters the equation in these comments: anti-evolutionists, Tesla worshippers, conspiracy theorists, flat earthers, and wannabe physicists "proving" the existence of "aether" by way of juvenile thought experiments. Where such thoughtlessness abounds, the fabric of human aspiration is reduced to aggression and greed.

@soupisfornoobs4081

3 жыл бұрын

@@DavidHHermanson I do not believe in the existence of the aether as some (understatement) comments state it exists, but I can't help but be skeptical here with the lack of proof on both sides when pitted against each other; "I'm right because X and X", "no I'm right because Y and Y", "obviously not, you're uneducated, Z proved it here and here", "this isn't proof, it was disproven by R and Q a century earlier" and so on and so forth, no conclusions are made with uncontested proof and, since your stance is so bold, you'd probably have something

What of Ernst Mach? He was a pivotal figure between Newton and Einstein.

We're using time as a principal

I do not understand why Looking at starts are even galaxies is like looking back in time , all the effects from them are present. Only if we travelled from lets say from 1 galaxy to another in an instant we could say that there presents are different .Would be pretty cool looking back like that tho , seeing yourself do actions that you did in past. That raises a question how can your past self have quantum effects on you in present . An atom absorbing same photon that it emitted , that is spooky action at a distance Guess its how you define things

@wishusknight3009

4 жыл бұрын

Think of it as massive game lag.

We can vacuum out all mater in a jar but Aether. There will be no electric or magnetic fields if not because of Aether, consequently absent of light and cellphones. Aether has no mechanical but electrical properties. That e0 permittivity and u0 permeability are attributes of Aether, those are real and measurable.

Just because light has the same speed in all directions doesn't prove there are no ether. Empty space is filled with all kinds of quantum fields and speed of light isn't impeded by any of these, that doesn't prove the quantum fields doesn't exist. Wigner's '"unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics' is matched by Penrose's 'mathematics is based of faith', makes a deeper METAPHYSICAL impression.

conceptually, isn't the Higgs field an aether?

@matthew7071

4 жыл бұрын

@Najawin "quantum fields" loool a field is NOT A PARTICLE a field can only exist in an aether. A fields and particles can logically never be reconciled. Tesla was right Einstein was wrong.

@matthew7071

4 жыл бұрын

@Najawin A field is a set of values in space? Well that's an interesting way of saying you don't know what a field is.. There cannot be a field without a medium.

@matthew7071

4 жыл бұрын

@Najawin "I know exactly what a field is"- umm something tells me you don't, fields are mysterious to anyone seriously seeking the truth. You are not defining a field, you are describing attributes of a field in specific locations. Anything could be described as "a discreet lattice of points", this is not a definition nor does it explain what a field is, it merely describes certain features of said field.

@matthew7071

4 жыл бұрын

@Najawin yes that's the problem, you are trying to define something with its "rigorously defined" mathematical attributes and characteristics. But failing to realize this falls short of understanding what it actually is, or coming to any real definition that does not rely on attributes.

@matthew7071

4 жыл бұрын

@Najawin To a certain extent. However the point still remains, you haven't explained to me what a field is. Calling it a collection of mathematical attributes is a copout.

I have a simple way to show we move faster than the speed of light. Go outside at night look up at the stars look at one star and then look at the one next to it. How many miles do you think is in between each star? Your eyesight just move faster than the speed of light by doing that.

@thstroyur

4 жыл бұрын

Look up "lighthouse paradox"

Could we get an answer from "john spence" - since he likes Hertz - what is his thought of the fact that Nikola Tesla came to visit him personally to explain that EM waves are not transversal but longitudinal? And how they both agreed radio is not usefull for radio-comunication?

@ferrumignis

4 жыл бұрын

Just another example of how badly wrong Tesla managed to get things. Radio is apparently "not useful for communications" and yet it is now ubiquitous. We use it to communicate with space probes millions of miles away, for broadcast entertainment and news, for personal communication, for global positioning, for radar and numerous other applications. Tesla should have stuck to the one thing he was competent in; AC power distribution.

@manipulativer

4 жыл бұрын

@@ferrumignis No, he said that radio is useless as his system transmitted energy and not a mere signal. his-story is written by money holders edit: in space radio is ok as there are no loses

@manipulativer

4 жыл бұрын

@@ferrumignis And i must add: Truth is objective, logic is subjective. EGO is subjective, gut feeling is objective. Brain and thought is digital, emotions are analogue. Everything can be made logical, but the truth is only 1. For example, we can not live without Nature - but we would thrive without christianity. We are washed up for hundreds of generations with many resets and indocrination in schools make sure we never see the truth. To read akaša you must meditate... to believe in money you must work, to have true technology is impossible as knowledge is power and "they" dont like us having power. They want workers not thinkers.

Title is a bit misleading watched whole video and havent seen 1 believable fact of why Einstein ''abolished'' the Aether. Why speak so much about Light. Gravity, magnetism and energy space and time are also affected by concept the Aether.

@Diogenes_ofSinope

4 жыл бұрын

Fortunately science doesn't care about your ignorance

@utcsjakie

4 жыл бұрын

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

@Diogenes_ofSinope

4 жыл бұрын

@@utcsjakie so what if he did? You just made me read a way to long appeal to authority. Einstein could have believed in santa claus for all I care; but it wouldn't have changed the fact of matter.

@utcsjakie

4 жыл бұрын

​@@Diogenes_ofSinope so what if he did? Maybe the title of the vid claims that Einstein Abolished the aether, while the facts tell he didnt? + i didnt force you to read my answers. you did that yourself.

@roam7579

4 жыл бұрын

@@Diogenes_ofSinope Science is just a hidden religion!!!

Venice has free health for all in the 13th century.