Matter has no measurable attraction for ether

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram Bhaktas, ( I love it! )

 

The Puranas make definite mention of ether in their descriptions of

the process of creation. Science has definite beliefs on the matter

of ether, and they don't bode well for the puranic version. This is

good reasonto learn to defend the puranic version a little.

 

There were a set of experiments called the Michelson-Morely

experiments . Supposedly, they proved that ether doesn't exist.

Below, Mr. Cater explains the how(s) and why(s) of the experiment.

Pay attention to this comment:

 

" This means matter has no measurable attraction or affinity for this

hypothetical ether. " In other words, Mr, Cater is saying that just

because the experiments didn't detect any ether, this does not prove

that ether does not exist. Even a ray of light was not subtle enough

but, again, this does not mean that ether does not exist.

Unfortunately, though, this is how the experiments are typically

interpreted.

 

Mr. Cater, from Chapter Two of The Ultimate Reality:

Before the advent of Einstein and the theory of relativity, the trans­

verse wave theory of light was universally accepted. Waves cannot

exist without a medium to transmit them, or in other words, a medium

which vibrates in some manner. Therefore, physicists postulated the

existence of a subtle medium which permeates all space. They called

it the ether. It follows that if light is a result of transverse

waves transmitted through an ether, then, since the earth travels

through this ether in its path about the sun, an ether drift should

be detected. It's a situation analogous to sound waves being

transmitted through a stationary atmosphere and an ob­server moving

through or relative to this atmosphere. His motion relative to the

atmosphere would result in a wind, or atmosphere drift, according to

his observations. Similarly, the Earth's motion through the ether

should produce an ether wind. Experiments were devised to detect this

ether wind, or drift, and its velocity. They are known as the

Michelson-­Morely experiments. A light ray was split in two parts,

each traveled different but identical length paths, and then they

recombined. The apparatus was mounted on a platform that could be

rotated in any direction. It was correctly reasoned that if light

were transmitted in the as­sumed manner, then at the point the rays

were recombined, interference fringes should be observed. Negative

results were always obtained, to the consternation and amazement of

the physicists.

 

Some explained away such results by assuming the earth carried some

of the ether along with it. If. such were the case, it would

certainly account for the negative results of the experiments. It was

accepted by some of the famous physicists ot the day but was rejected

by the majority, ­though no sound arguments against it were proposed.

Evidently, they failed to realise that the idea was contradictory.

They were all aware of the fact that a body can travel through free

space at a constant velocity and encounter no resistance. This means

matter has no measurable attraction or affinity for this hypothetical

ether. Light couldn't be transmitted through this medium in the

manner assumed, without interactions taking place within the ether.

It follows that no part of the ether can be dis­placed from the rest

of it without encountering resistance. Therefore, the Earth could not

carry ether along with it, and not experience the same kind of

resistance. This would deaccelerate the Earth, and bring it to a

stop. Likewise, no material body could travel through free space

without requiring a steady application of force to counteract this

resistance. Consequently, the orbiting of planets and other bodies

would be an impossibility. Evidently, none of the scientists involved

recognized this serious flaw in the above idea. One might have

expected more from such a collection of dlstinguished intellects. It

is not surprising in view of subsequent mental lapses concerning the

interpretation of the experiment.

 

The Michelson-Morely experiments actually proved that the assumption

that light is propagated as transverse waves through an all-

pervading medium is not valid. He could, therefore, have concluded

the transverse wave concept is not necessary to account for the

difraction and interference effects of light. The physicists [ of the

day ] were unable to reject the transverse wave concept. Therefore,

the only way out or the dilemma created by the results of the

Michelson-Morely experiments was the absurd conclusion that the

observed velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the

source or that of the observer. In other words, that the velocity of

light is a universal constant. This idea, of course, violates the

principle of relative velocities encountered in all our experiences.

This is clearly a case of doublethink.

 

Posted by Dharma/Dean