Gravity waves.

[Empirical]

We started this discussion on the other forum, but I have a feeling you have left it again.

JRoweSkeptic said:

Empirical said:

The Theory of Relativity defines space to have a fabric. This is what aether relies upon. As Einstein once did, we choose the word 'aether' to define space. This is a mere definition: when referencing aether in outer space, for example, the terminology is much clearer.
Aether is also a term recognized in FET.

So there is no misunderstanding, we here define what space itself is. It is the measure of distance: to get from A to B, we move through space. If there is more space between A and B, there is more distance: if there is less, there is less distance.

So as RJow said, more aether more distance, less aether less distance. The experiment that detected GW is designed to detect changes in distance, and since DE says that the aether is always moving, the detector should be constantly picking up changes in the light beams.

The aether is moving, the concentration remains approximately the same at any point on the Earth's surface. there is variation, but only on the large scale: more at the poles, etc.

Only approximately the same, so there should be some local variation, something like it constantly changing by something like the width of an atom over 1 km. Am I right?

[JRowe]

I've been muted, I can't post there.
There would be an incredibly small variation, but typically any measurements taken involve error bars: the smaller the variation, the harder it would be to distinguish from natural error. The variation in space would be dwarfed by the variation in air density, for example.

[Empirical]

I did a bit of research into how the LIGO experiment is done. m.phys.org/news/2016-02-ligo.html
The beams are kept in a vacuum to stop changes in air pressure effecting the time for the light to go to the detector.
Then again they say that they have to account for the earths curvature, so they have to be lying.

[JRowe]

They'd certainly need to take into account what they think is curvature, it's the same principle as the sinking ship illusion.
I'm not sure what your point is. They detected variation in distance, as DET would predict, on the occasions the variation increased.
As for the rest of the time, that only means the variation was below the error threshold: as expected. Air density was only one example, there are inevitably sources of error in any scientific experiment. For example, trying to hold a light source perfectly still: even if they reduced the temperature to absolute zero (to remove the movement induced by heat) even the most minor of seismic activity would have an effect. The ground is never perfectly stationary.

[Empirical]

It just that the LIGO is very sensitive, it can detect a change in distance that is larger than one part in 10^21, I'm surprised that the aether causes distortions below that value.

[JRowe]

We wouldn't expect large variations near the Earth's surface though, this is precisely what the model predicts.

[Empirical]

I wouldn't call 1 part in 10^21 large. That's one zeptometer per meter.

[JRowe]

'Large' is a relative term. An ant can be large, but compare it to a small car...
The DE model predicts that the concentration of space would be constant near the Earth's surface. The constant isn't necessarily the same at every point, but there's nothing that would particularly alter it on a day-to-day basis.

Do you have an actual objection? Otherwise it sounds as though you're just complaining that the DE model is accurate.

[Empirical]

My objection is that if the aether acts like a frictionless fluid, there should be a constant variation in the distance between two points, it would be very small, but a detector that can detect a change of a 10th of atom over a mile should be able to pick it up.
If there is an aether, the LIGO should be picking it up as a constant flux. It isn't picking it up, so that's good enough evidence that tne aether doesn't exist for me.

[JRowe]

Because the aether acts like a frictionless fluid, disparities in the flow would long since have evened out. Do you have any justification for the claim that any possible variation must be above that error threshold?

[Empirical]

The reason I think it would be above that threshold is that it's a pretty low threshold. I get that that isn't proper scientific thinking but since I know of no formulas that tell you how much the aether will vary, intuition is all that I have to go off.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the reason the aether keeps going in a cycle is because when the aether flows from a high area to a low one, that low area now becomes a high one, so it gets pushed out, returning the area back to low.
If that is right doesn't that mean that the low area briefly becomes higher?

[JRowe]

There is a higher concentration in the center of the low, at the core of all the slows.
Regardless, the flow is a cycle. It keeps going: there's no point where it stops for the concentration to increase.