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!)

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.

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"...

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is profound, and I strongly recommend that you create a compilation of this essay as well as others with a significant historical reference that are surely worthy of publication.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.

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.

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

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.

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.

There was a deep-dive KZfaq 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.

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.

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.

Why does everyone mention the Michelson-Morley experiment and its null value but not mention Dayton Miller's experiments which were far superior and did not return a null value?

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.

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

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.

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

Great work on a subject that has bothered me for a long time. The Michelson Morely experiment needs to be re-visited and re-measured with modern equipment, and brainstorming needs to be done as to what could be wrong with it. So many concepts in physics, like fields, action across a distance, gravity, and QM all seem to need a medium to make sense.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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

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.

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

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!

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

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

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

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.

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

Excellent and brilliant graphics.

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.

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.

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

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...

Great program. Congratulations

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

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!!

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).

Great video!

Excellent work!!

Awesome video :D

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!!???😊

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

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.

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

Love the Lorenz loopy loops - beautiful!

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.

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 🙂

Just brilliant. I have subscribed. Thanks!

Well done!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Liked and subscribed!

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.

EXCELLENT - THANK YOU!

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

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

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.

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!

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?

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.

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

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

Exhilarating deposition … really brilliant.!!

Fantastic work

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

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

Great research

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

Excellent ! Thanks !

Very brilliant to see a historical backdrop analysis, something no one bothers to do.👍 As for the ether inability to be detected, I would put it this way: a fish would not understand water unless it can contrast it with something else; almost impossible, perhaps.

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

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.

Very interesting documentary. Subbed and liked. An interesting point of Einstein's STR is the connection between energy and frequency. In his 1905 paper he discussed the aberration of light in the second part. There he pointed out the relationship between energy and frequency. No word or comment was made with reference to his "phote-electric effect" paper published a few months or weeks earlier. In other words, Plancks E = nhv postulate pops out from special relativity.

Thanks!

Very Good. thank you

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

Excellent work. 🌎🌍🌏⚡️☯️

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.

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.

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.

Awesome 👍👍👍

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

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.).

Steven B. Bryant video 'Relativity Fails to Explain a Key Experiment.' Lorentz tried to solve the "failure" of the MMX using Length contraction. Einstein tried to use time dilation. However, since Einstein plagiarized the derivation for his time dilation from the Lorentz' derivation for length contraction, they both contain the same math errors and invalid substitutions. Both derivations are invalid when two or more reference frames move or accelerate WRT each other. Bryant points out that when you use the Superposition of Waves Principle instead of Relativity-based equation, the MMX returns a value of about 30 km/sec instead of the 5 to 8 reported by MMX and Miller. Presumably then, the MMX detected an anisotropy of energy (due to the solar wind?) rather than the motion of the Aether. But when one assumes that light is not by particle but by energy wave in an Aether, then the MMX requires the Superposition of waves to calculate the speed of the moving fringes. This is due to the fact that there are opposing wave fronts in the arms of the interferometer (forward and reflective waves) that cause the moving fringes. Einstein's ballistic theory of light was actually debunked before Einstein misinterpreted the Lorentz and Maxwell explanations for Relativity in his Special Theory. arxiv 0912.3818 Neither the invariant postulate nor the length contraction postulate have any experimental evidence to support them. "Surprisingly, none of the five new optical effects assumed or predicted by special relativity have ever been observed to occur in nature or demonstrated in the laboratory"

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

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 😳

Great stuff. In short: A major shift from 1) figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (presuming that it is established angels may indeed dance on the head of a pin - which they may, btw, there is no law against it; in principle, the theory is possible, but constructively, our present ability to demonstrate material examples is impossible - given the character of 'angels' = 'living' but not 'material' as we currently understand these things) to 2) How small would such a thing as an angel have to be, materially, if it were to dance on the head of a pin (and thus be capable of being observed, if only in via negativa = through its perceived absences .. as, say, with the Chesire Cat, minus its grin, moving on the branch of a tree e.g. observed, by postulate, by not observing it, in the concrete). For this undefined yet definable - whatever it is - is the common quirk (or one of them) in both the ethereal (a gaseous medium) and the relational (specific, general, mechanical or spontaneous) aspects of what we (are able, so far) to observe materially or consider rationally round and about us (like life, breath, spirit, idea or .. umm .. dancing angels, aka in principle, logic, metaphysics, experience and incongruously factual fancy, like flying men or pigs, et al). Science is wonderful .. I like it. ;o)

Awesome 😎👍

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?

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

Nice video and presentation. The notion that - Aether is a solid and either it move with earth or blow pass earth - can promise us we could never discover Aether. Why can’t we think of that Aether is an incompressible fluid that attaches and move with matter in the near field and a mean velocity in the far field? Such notion addresses 1. M&M’s result and 2. aberration effect. Aether’s intermediate velocity is defined by the nearest planets and lag behind the body it attaches by a factor of 1/r. In deep space Aether speed is regarded an averaged to all matter and distances in the universe, also can be taken as an absolute rest frame.

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!

appreciate your videos and sober perspective as always. 2 questions: as much ado is made of the "predictive" success of general an special relativity. could you please direct me to a laymens explamination for such, or better yet make one if you hadnt? doesnt lorentz look like tommy chong? best regards fellow space traveler

Could the following descriptive view of the universe, or something similar, account for what you describe in this video? I think probably quantum fields could play an intermediate role between the underlying elastic solid and the quantized viscoelastic liquid. Also given the 'solid' state of the underlying energy there would be no heat and thus superfluid and superconducting properties would exist changing the way that this 'aether' would interact with the other aspects of the universe. So on to my descriptive interpretation. What if the universe’s zero point energy were an elastic solid with a viscoelastic liquid suspended in it due to ripping energy apart from the underlying solid and coalescing into quanta from a plank scale event (a big bang) - similar to an elastic solid/viscous liquid colloidal suspension with gravity being the relationship between the analog energy of the elastic solid and the quantized viscoelastic liquid? That could make space-time the elastic solid, could account for the randomness of black hole evaporation, account for effects attributed to dark matter, account for wave-particle duality, account for the expansion of the universe, and could account for the redshift(?) as well as potentially be the source of another big bang as quanta become unstable and then critical due to energy dissipation. Could then gravity be just a matter of conservation of energy? I can’t see why this descriptive view couldn’t accommodate the standard model as applied to the viscoelastic liquid and general relativity applying to the relationship between the elastic solid and the viscoelastic liquid. These questions have been nagging me for a number of years. Please let me know if this description could be at least partially correct or not?

28:31 I think it went astray with the fixation of rods and clocks rather than control volumes and thermodynamic first principles.