Properties of Aether

[Prometheus_taco]

The Dual Earth Theory asserts that Aether or space has a property appended to it which results from logical deduction. I will recreate the argument and show that the deduction, which constitutes the very foundation upon which the DET stands, is flawed. I have done my best to recreate JRowe's argument in good faith, despite the ellipses it contains (such as stating he will define what a law is and then neglecting to give any definition but a single property of a law and an example).

The deduction:

1. We observe a universal tendency of things to move from high concentrations to low.

2. This tendency is a universal law.

3. If there is no reason to conclude that a universal law does not apply to a specific entity, then we should conclude the law applies to that entity.

4. There is no reason to conclude that the universal law that things tend to move from high concentrations to low does not apply to space.

5. Therefore, space has the tendency to move from high concentrations of space to low concentrations of space.

The logic of this argument is valid, but premises 3 and 4 are not true which renders the deduction unsound. When JRowe posits premise 3, he misrepresents the nature of accepted "universal" laws. No laws are truly universal in that they apply to everything in the known universe. Most, if not all the laws, can be misrepresented by use of language. In fact, Premise 1 becomes false if we examine it carefully. People are things, but we see they have grown more concentrated in urban areas in the last few centuries. The law is not wrong, but misapplied if we count people as things. If we encounter something with nothing in common with the type of thing the law applies to, there is no reason to conclude the law does apply. This is similar in nature to why Premise 4 is false. There is a reason, in fact many, to conclude that the tendency of things to move to low concentrations from high concentrations doesn't apply to space. The law only applies to forms of matter. Parts of this law (from pressure, chemical gradients, electrical gradients, etc.) only apply to matter. Space is not matter. Other parts of the law (second law of thermodynamics) only apply to the asymmetry of past and future probabilities of microstates in a system. Space, having no distinguishable components or coherent conceptions of "state" as is relevant to the second law of thermodynamics, is not beholden to the law. These are just some of the reasons to conclude that the universal law of thing tending to move from high concentrations to low concentrations does apply to space.

Because there is at least one premise in the logical deduction that gives Aether its unique properties required by the DET to be logically sound that is false, the DET must be rejected as a reasonable model of the universe.

[JRowe]

1 is relevant to systems without outside intervention: I believed that was obvious from context. it's true of any law. It's not going to be true when there's an often human-based influence.

The problem with your objections to 3 and 4 is that you simply assume it's the case that the handful of differences you mention are relevant. There are a number of differences in any situation: it's easy to find situations that govern all experiments (eg: performed in the gravitational field of the Earth, to use the RE model), should we conclude that beyond that no laws we've examined are relevance?

Regardless, even if it were possible to take your claims as accurate, your final result does not follow. You have not demonstrated that aether is not logically sound: you've demonstrated there's one more assumption involved (at best), which would still render DET on par with RET. You have demonstrated no logical inconsistency.

[Marcus]

Wow, that does not even come close to putting DEF on par with RE. He is right that your basis falls apart unless you can somehow show that "space" has or follows the same laws of matter, which you have not.

[JRowe]

It is not purely a law of matter, as pressure systems and the laws of thermodynamics indicate. This is why I refer to it as a universal law: it refers to all things.

[Skeptic]

I would add that the idea that space can flow is fundamentally flawed.

Consider describing the motion of space quantitatively. As a point in space (the aether) moves from point a to point b, it has just covered a distance, or moved in space.

Would you describe two bits of matter in diffusing aether as getting further apart, or is there still the same amount of space between the two bodies because there is still the same amount of aether?

If the first, you are really just describing the motion of matter, which is well characterized without your concept of aether (space which flows like matter). This would be observable in experimentation in Newtonian mechanics which we all tested in our physics courses and you can test at home.

If it is the second, then this aether can flow around all it wants, but it doesn't affect the matter within it, doesn't collect it up, doesn't disperse it.

[JRowe]

The flow of space is somewhat flawed in terms of terminology, I admit, I can only work with words that exist and as of yet this phenomenon has not been studied enough to have standards terminology. The intent, I hope, is clear so long as you don't think of it flowing through space.

In the situation you describe, I'm not entirely clear what you're saying. If aether grows thinner in the vicinity of the objects, then if the aether the objects occupies also grows thinner from their frame of reference nothing will apear to happen. Everything would be altered uniformly and there would be no consequences. However, from an external point of view from aether of fixed thickness, there would be an observable change; the objects and the distance between them would appear to all grow (the elastic analogy in the overview explains this; the objects occupy the same amount of space, but that same amount is longer).
Alternatively, if you're talking about the aether itself stretching between the two objects, then the answer is similar. The distance between the two objects would appear the same from their frame of reference. From another one however, viewing them from the side say from a point of fixed thickness, it would seem to grow and the objects get further apart. The problem with trying to explain this with Newtonian mechanics is that there is nothing that would cause the movement if you do not take the flow of space into account.

That is the hypothetical situation covered, at least.