Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #518991

Re: What of this ether?

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:59:18 PM UTC-7, gilber34 wrote:
> "What of this ether?" I queried.
> 
> "It is a necessity in science, but intangible, undemonstrated, unknown, 
> and wholly theoretical. It is accepted as an existing fluid by 
> scientists, because human theory can not conceive of a substance capable 
> of, or explain how a substance can be capable of affecting a separate 
> body unless there is an intermediate medium to convey force impressions. 
> Hence to material substances Aristotle added (or at least made 
> conspicuous) a speculative ether that, he assumed, pervades all space, 
> and all material bodies as well, in order to account for the passage of 
> heat and light to and from the sun, stars, and planets."
> 
> "Explain further," I requested.
> 
> "To conceive of such an entity we must imagine a material that is more 
> evanescent than any known gas, even in its most diffused condition. It 
> must combine the solidity of the most perfect conductor of heat 
> (exceeding any known body in this respect to an infinite degree), with 
> the transparency of an absolute vacuum. It must neither create friction 
> by contact with any substance, nor possess attraction for matter; must
> neither possess weight (and yet carry the force that produces weight), 
> nor respond to the influence of any chemical agent, or exhibit itself to 
> any optical instrument. It must be invisible, and yet carry the force 
> that produces the sensation of sight. It must be of such a nature that 
> it can not, according to our philosophy, affect the corpuscles of 
> earthly substances while permeating them without contact or friction, 
> and yet, as a scientific incongruity, it must act so readily on physical 
> bodies as to convey to the material eye the sensation of sight, and from 
> the sun to creatures on distant planets it must carry the heat force, 
> thus giving rise to the sensation of warmth. Through this medium, yet 
> without sensible contact with it, worlds must move, and planetary 
> systems revolve, cutting and piercing it in every direction, without 
> loss of momentum. And yet, as I have said, this ether must be in such 
> close contact as to convey to them the essence that warms the universe, 
> lights the universe, and must supply the attractive bonds that hold the 
> stellar worlds in position. A nothing in itself, so far as man's senses 
> indicate, the ether of space must be denser than iridium, more mobile 
> than any known liquid, and stronger than the finest steel."
> 
> "I can not conceive of such an entity," I replied.
> 
> "No; neither can any man, for the theory is irrational, and can not be 
> supported by comparison with laws known to man, but the conception is 
> nevertheless a primary necessity in scientific study. Can man, by any 
> rational theory, combine a vacuum and a substance, and create a result 
> that is neither material nor vacuity, neither something nor nothing, and 
> yet an intensified all; being more attenuated than the most perfect of 
> known vacuums, and a conductor better than the densest metal? This we do 
> when we attempt to describe the scientists' all-pervading ether of 
> space, and to account for its influence on matter. This hypothetical 
> ether is, for want of a better theory of causes, as supreme in 
> philosophy to-day as the alkahest of the talented old alchemist Van 
> Helmont was in former times, a universal spirit that exists in 
> conception; and yet does not exist in perception, and of which modern 
> science knows as little as its speculative promulgator, Aristotle, did. 
> We who pride ourselves on our exact science, smile at some of 
> Aristotle's statements in other directions, for science has disproved 
> them, and yet necessity forces us to accept this illogical ether 
> speculation, which is, perhaps, the most unreasonable of all theories. 
> Did not this Greek philosopher also gravely assert that the lion has but 
> one vertebra in his neck; that the breath of man enters the heart; that 
> the back of the head is empty, and that man has but eight ribs?"


Without Aether, what would the gods breath?

Double-A

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

What of this ether? gilber34 <invalid@invalid.com> - 2015-09-04 17:58 -0500
  Re: What of this ether? dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 16:20 -0700
  Re: What of this ether? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-04 16:45 -0700
    Re: What of this ether? dobri karagorgov <dobrikarate.gov@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 16:57 -0700
      Re: What of this ether? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-06 15:03 -0700
    Re: What of this ether? "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 11:18 -0700
      Re: What of this ether? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-09-06 12:11 -0700
      Re: What of this ether? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-09-06 15:04 -0700
        Re: What of this ether? HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-07 05:03 -0400
  aether is the spacve between the atoms of the vacuum (relative, not pascalian noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 17:03 -0700
  What of this ether? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 18:05 -0700
    Re: What of this ether? HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 06:48 -0400

csiph-web