This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Luminiferous aether article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Luminiferous aether was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I recently discovered that Lorentz and Eddington had roughly similar ideas as Einstein about the ether. And the list is much longer than those two. Who claims that they were not part of the scientific community?? Harald88 ( talk) 18:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
A series of negative first-order experiments (19th century) are now included. Also the order of some sections, the wording in the introduction etc., have been changed.-- D.H ( talk) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have published 4 papers on the luminiferous aether which can be found in the General Science Journal here:
http://www.wbabin.net/files/4470_lue.pdf http://www.wbabin.net/files/4467_lue1.pdf http://www.wbabin.net/files/4468_lue2.pdf http://www.wbabin.net/files/4469_lue3.pdf
I show that the Michelson Morley experiment makes assumptions that are not valid and a proper understanding of the luminiferous aether and all its properties yields solutions to all of the challenges we currently face with quantum mechanics and general relativity. Using a classical approach, a new model is devised. It also make the likelihood of a Big Bang implausible since the universe is probably not expanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterlue ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought the stars were burning not reproducing, likewise when a star explodes depending on it's size, that's a shitload of anarchy and chaos, if a supernova. galaxy clusters and astroid fields, but does radiation (that i think is really code for dark matter) have an luminescient gravity. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.230.193.101 (
talk) 22:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article not moved. There has been no comments on the discussion for 11 days now, so I think it's safe to assume there's nothing else people wish to add to the discussion. There is clearly no consensus to move the article, so it stays at the current name. fish& karate 13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Luminiferous aether →
Luminiferous ether – Apparently, the spelling with the A is way rarer.
[1]
[2]
[3] ―
A. di M.
plé
dréachtaí 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
"Luminiferous aether" is the spelling used for most of the articles on the topic because it was the commonest spelling at the time most of the articles were written. There are not enough modern articles on the topic to make "luminiferous aether" or "luminiferous ether" a common spelling in modern times. The majority of articles were written pre-1950 which doesn't show up on that graph. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
@Derek Ross (et al.) You write: “"Luminiferous aether" is the spelling used for most of the articles on the topic because it was the commonest spelling at the time most of the articles were written.” That's not true in several ways. First off, not all of the articles use the spelling "aether", but let's focus on this one first. I'm not sure when you're suggesting this article was written (perhaps it was based on Britannica?). "Luminiferous ether" has been the more popular spelling for centuries. (It's not clear when it wasn't, if ever). Nothing has changed recently, and that's clearly reflected in the sources of this article.
You seem to be laboring under the same mistaken belief as Noetica regarding WP:TITLE, which says nothing whatsoever about failing to consider all but the most recent WP:RS, if any: “There are not enough modern articles on the topic to make "luminiferous aether" or "luminiferous ether" a common spelling in modern times. The majority of articles were written pre-1950 which doesn't show up on that graph.” Perhaps you won't mind taking a moment to review the graphs? You seem to have mistaken 1500 for 1950.
There seems to be no need to discuss the original contributors over a minor spelling issue. As you've mentioned WP:COMMONNAME (which also says nothing about considering only the most recent RS, if any), as opposed to WP:TITLE, hopefully you'd like to discuss the questions in WP:CRITERIA at some point? Regarding the comments about a possible precision issue: neither the ethers, nor the “omnipresent, completely passive-medium for the propagation of magnetic waves” ( ethernet) are luminiferous. There are no precision or disambiguation issues because there's been a luminiferous ether redirect to this article since 2003. Those redirects have tripled over the last 12 months:
month | % | redirects | (article total) |
---|---|---|---|
2010-09 | 06% | 678 | 12231 |
2010-10 | 06% | 798 | 13163 |
2010-11 | 06% | 801 | 14566 |
2010-12 | 06% | 786 | 12269 |
2011-01 | 06% | 779 | 14026 |
2011-02 | 07% | 709 | 10397 |
2011-03 | 08% | 803 | 10659 |
2011-04 | 07% | 722 | 9777 |
2011-05 | 09% | 880 | 10090 |
2011-06 | 08% | 686 | 9005 |
2011-07 | 10% | 838 | 8748 |
2011-08 | 14% | 1173 | 8164 |
2011-09 | 18% | 1480 | 8406 |
Thank you for refactoring the discussion. I hope it helps to clarify that a number of respondents did not consider these errors and issues at the time of their WP:VOTE.— Machine Elf 1735 10:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The name 'Aether' was applied to this liquid by August Siegmund Frobenius, F.R.S., in 1730.
I'm quite happy to admit that the graphs prove me wrong on the face of it. But since I don't know how accurate the graphs may be, it's difficult for me to know how much faith to place in them. The stepwise nature of the curves at some points does seem to indicate that very few examples of either spelling were found in any year and thus that we are talking about two common spellings of an uncommon word. In any case I still think that ether has a distinctive smell whereas aether doesn't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The spelling æther is still not uncommon in senses 1–3, and occasionally occurs in sense 5. In the chemical sense 6 ether is the only form recognized by good authorities.
Good God, what I've done... I feel so sorry for the admin who'll be adjudicating this. (No, this is not a withdrawal of the move request.) ― A. di M. plé dréachtaí 00:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help to clarify for the closing admin if I respond to Noetica (who actually supports the move). Noetica, if I'm reading you correctly, you don't believe that the WP:TITLE policy provides the definitive guide on “failing to consider all but the most recent WP:RS”. Obviously, I didn't claim I was quoting you, but you do believe that something provides guidance “to that effect”. I'll admit, it was a mistake to assume, in good faith, that you actually believed it was somehow relevant. Hopefully, I won't make any more mistakes like that, but it would help if you try to limit yourself to what's relevant. Thanks.
Anyway, you ask me to note WP:TITLE § WP:TITLECHANGES, which is about controversial name changes. Drama isn't controversy, but here's the full paragraph without the added emphasis:
As I recall, you “always” use the same date filter, (roughly the last “twenty years”, I take it), but you don't think your one-size-fits-all approach is arbitrary in this case, even though it excludes all but 6 of this article's sources, (those 6 all use "ether", btw).
Noetica, you aggressively pushed your ideas about Google when you should have been courteously skeptical. Setting aside the date issue, for the moment, your method truncated the results making the ratio appear closer to 1:1 than it genuinely is. Your insistence on including "luminiferous æther" as equivalent to "luminiferous aether" further skewed your results. Finally, your insistence on an explicit English filter was irrelevant because anyone without an automatic English filter would have received virtually identical results when searching on the English words "luminiferous aether" and "luminiferous ether". I'm sorry to inform you that the one thing you got right in your rude initial post was “RMs need accurate evidence”. The remainder failed to provide that.
Although both spellings are English, it's interesting that you didn't choose the passage from
WP:ENGLISH which actually would seem to lend support to your
WP:RS expiry date… although your “thereabouts” are 5 years less than S-PMA's 25, resulting in a whopping 91 year difference from the non-relative 1900 date that appeared prior to S-PMA's June 22 revision of the guideline:
In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published since 1990, and a selection of other encyclopaedias should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title. | → | In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title. |
Had the question at hand been about foreign languages, foreign letters, diacritics or anything apropos of WP:ENGLISH, I suppose I would have been laboring under a mistaken belief myself. Apart from the counter-factual, I'm to understand that you've taken offense at such a suggestion. It's a shame you can't admit to a mistake, I had actually refrained from pointing out most of them.
As you're aware, relevant policy and guidelines say nothing whatsoever about “failing to consider all but the most recent WP:RS”. We are not establishing English convention (“individuation” ?) for an athlete's name, some obscure foreign place name, etc. What is “patently clear” is that you, and only you, repeatedly bring up "æther", to which your fragment from the OED is explicitly referring, and about which your second vague reference to scripture speaks also. WP:ENGLISH § WP:DIACRITICS is about sqiggles and funny letters like "æ". I'm afraid I missed it, if you had at any time suggested, but later abandoned, spelling it without an e or ae, spelling it with diacritics, or that "aether" is the modern spelling.
I'm afraid you would have to explain for me your seemingly ridiculous accusation that I was “out of line” with S-PMA as per your “relevant evidence” from the OED; evidence that “by the way”, “supports [my] view that aether and ether are forms of the same word”. Am I to apologize that you agree with me? Actually, you'd have quite a bit of explaining to do:
I'd say your vaguely menacing innuendo was much more unkind than what I said in #RE-4, (that I obliged the demand from #S-PMA-4), “Fibnd me a source in which "aether" means diethyl oxide, or retract that claim”, [ sic] in the hope that S-PMA would quit WP:DISRUPTing the discussion.
I don't know where either of you imagine personal attacks, but S-PMA clearly asked me to retract the claim from #RE-3, (that S-PMA had not elaborated on “how there would be a precision issue and why there's not currently a precision issue” as I requested in #RE-2). S-PMA merely asserted in #S-PMA-2, “I do see a precision issue, for example; the existence of redirects does not obviate the question of what the article itself is best titled” but the existence of the redirect is neither an example of a supposed problem, nor does it explain why switching the names would manifest a problem. S-PMA's bewildering assertions in #S-PMA-3 (that "aether" is more precise and accurate than "ether", though it's somehow irrelevant), once again failed to offer any rational justification, despite the protest to the contrary.
Noetica, you claim to agree with some of what S-PMA said, but you neglect to say what. Frankly, you disagree with S-PMA's main point that “aether is any robust sense "more accurate" for the present article”, so apart from announcing your decision at long last, I find it difficult to fathom your post while assuming good faith. My bad?— Machine Elf 1735 13:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Nearly two years ago ( version history, see also the following changes), I've created a new section on "Einstein's views on the aether". Now I thought it would be useful to create a new article of principally the same content with some expansions.
Therefore, I've removed most of the content in this article due to redundancy and linked to the new article. Now, the reason why I think it's more appropriate to write the details in a new article is based on WP:Undue (that is, Einstein's later viewas are certainly notable per WP:N, but they are not in this article per WP:Undue when compared to other important steps in the historical development of the luminiferous aether). Thus I think, this shortened version is better than the previous one. -- D.H ( talk) 10:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Are there other opinions? -- D.H ( talk) 14:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The first thing to develop from the conflagration are the elements. Of the four elements, the Stoics identify two as active (fire and air) and two as passive (water and earth). The active elements, or at least the principles of hot and cold, combine to form breath or pneuma. Pneuma, in turn, is the ‘sustaining cause’ … of all existing bodies and guides the growth and development of animate bodies. What is a sustaining cause? The Stoics think that the universe is a plenum. Like Aristotle, they reject the existence of empty space or void (except that the universe as a whole is surrounded by it). Thus, one might reasonably ask, ‘What marks any one object off from others surrounding it?’ or, ‘What keeps an object from constantly falling apart as it rubs elbows with other things in the crowd?’ The answer is: pneuma. Pneuma, by its nature, has a simultaneous movement inward and outward which constitutes its inherent ‘tensility.’ (Perhaps this was suggested by the expansion and contraction associated with heat and cold.) Pneuma passes through all (other) bodies; in its outward motion it gives them the qualities that they have, and in its inward motion makes them unified objects (Nemesius, 47J). In this respect, pneuma plays something of the role of substantial form in Aristotle for this too makes the thing of which it is the form both ‘some this,’ i.e. an individual, and ‘what it is’ (Metaph. VII, 17). Because pneuma acts, it must be a body and it appears that the Stoics stressed the fact that its blending with matter is ‘through and through’ (Galen 47H, Alex. Aph. 48C). Perhaps as a result of this, they developed a theory of mixture which allowed for two bodies to be in the same place at the same time. It should be noted, however, that some scholars (e.g. Sorabji, 1988) think that the claim that pneuma is blended through the totality of matter is a conclusion that the Stoics' critics adversely drew about what some of their statements committed them to… [1]
— Dirk Baltzly, "Stoicism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stoic physical ideas were revived during the late Renaissance as an alternative to the dominant Aristotelian natural philosophy. Stoicism offered a unified physics of the heavens and the earth and a substance of the heavens that consisted of air and or fire rather than a special fifth element. The planets were intelligent creatures capable of moving themselves, and astrology could be understood as a physical interaction between the heavens and the earth. The influence of Stoicism in physics was limited by the revival of Epicureanism in the early seventeenth century, although the Stoic ideas continued to be important in alchemy and early chemistry… [2]
— Wilbur Applebaum, Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution: From Copernicus to Newton
Hmm..since most users want the summary here, while the new article was criticized by two editors (albeit on different grounds), I've removed the content of the new article and redirected it to the old section of this article. I've also removed the split template. -- D.H ( talk) 13:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The reasons why physicist came to believe in the Aether hypothesis are not fully and properly described. Furthermore it is also not pointed out that modern non-Aether physics cannot satisfactorily explain some of the observations that Aether physics does explain. In addition the usual objections to the Aether hypothesis are not examined for their validity. Also it is not acceptable to judge the Aether hypothesis by the teachings of Modern physics which has for 100 years rejected the hypothesis; and this is the attitude of the article. In summation the current article gives a biased and misleading view of the hypothesis. I give some examples:- The speed of light is 299,792,458m/s. In the Aether hypothesis this velocity is the propagation velocity of the Aether substance in a manner analogous to the propagation velocity of material substances. Modern physics has no explanation. In attempts to detect the Aether velocity of a body (eg. Michelson-Morley) the article does not take into account the effects of a physics derived from the hypothesis. It is obvious that the laws of nature must be somewhat different when based upon Space being an Aether than if it is not. In particular length contraction and time dilation as functions of Aether velocity have been suggested as a consequence of the Aether hypothesis albeit in an ad hoc fashion. I await comments before expanding further. RFNo ( talk) 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Why does Plenum redirect here? This article doesn't contain the word Plenum once. (Redirected from Plenum (physics)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 ( talk) 20:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I also followed the redirect only to find that plenum isn't mentioned at all. Warrickball ( talk) 10:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The word "cherished" in "[Lorentz's] cherished concept of the aether" doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. I removed the word cherished, but someone put it back. This should be a completely non-controversial edit. Jrheller1 ( talk) 04:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Luminiferous aether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Luminiferous aether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
With this, and later again this edit, user Trevayne08 ( talk · contribs) removed the spelling "ether". Clearly the literature disagrees:
Scholar | Books | Web | |
---|---|---|---|
"luminiferous aether" | 1,630 | 6,010 | 42,400 |
"luminiferous ether" | 4,770 | 31,300 | 37,600 |
I have restored the spelling and added the sources ( [17]). - DVdm ( talk) 06:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not know if I'm editing this page in the right way, but I feel you guys should read this historical review, specially parts I and II. It shines a lot of light in this subject, specially in the 'null results' mentions about some of the experiments described in this page. This is a suggestion only. I'm sure acquiring more information won't hurt anyone here and seeing the world from different views only makes us, humans, stronger.
https://smile.amazon.com/Dynamic-Ether-Cosmic-Space-Correcting/dp/0997405716/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=demeo+ether&qid=1578440531&sr=8-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enhering ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Quoted from the article... "The aether hypothesis was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects."
I must point out that neutrinos, discovered I believe some time after Einstein's death and after the Aether Theory was discarded, are under certain circumstances, an invisible material (subatomic particles) with no interaction with physical objects.
Thibeinn ( talk) 19:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
A modern, expensive and sophisticated experiment along many more, that clearly prove Michelson - Morley were wrong... There are many experiments after 1990’s with better equipment that tell the story differently... completely the opposite way ... please expand this article to its full view and equally present the experiments and their results that prove ether existence. Thank you... Panos Kordatzis ( talk) 21:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aether theory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11#Aether theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Spinning Spark 21:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Luminiferous aether article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Luminiferous aether was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I recently discovered that Lorentz and Eddington had roughly similar ideas as Einstein about the ether. And the list is much longer than those two. Who claims that they were not part of the scientific community?? Harald88 ( talk) 18:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
A series of negative first-order experiments (19th century) are now included. Also the order of some sections, the wording in the introduction etc., have been changed.-- D.H ( talk) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have published 4 papers on the luminiferous aether which can be found in the General Science Journal here:
http://www.wbabin.net/files/4470_lue.pdf http://www.wbabin.net/files/4467_lue1.pdf http://www.wbabin.net/files/4468_lue2.pdf http://www.wbabin.net/files/4469_lue3.pdf
I show that the Michelson Morley experiment makes assumptions that are not valid and a proper understanding of the luminiferous aether and all its properties yields solutions to all of the challenges we currently face with quantum mechanics and general relativity. Using a classical approach, a new model is devised. It also make the likelihood of a Big Bang implausible since the universe is probably not expanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterlue ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought the stars were burning not reproducing, likewise when a star explodes depending on it's size, that's a shitload of anarchy and chaos, if a supernova. galaxy clusters and astroid fields, but does radiation (that i think is really code for dark matter) have an luminescient gravity. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.230.193.101 (
talk) 22:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article not moved. There has been no comments on the discussion for 11 days now, so I think it's safe to assume there's nothing else people wish to add to the discussion. There is clearly no consensus to move the article, so it stays at the current name. fish& karate 13:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Luminiferous aether →
Luminiferous ether – Apparently, the spelling with the A is way rarer.
[1]
[2]
[3] ―
A. di M.
plé
dréachtaí 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
"Luminiferous aether" is the spelling used for most of the articles on the topic because it was the commonest spelling at the time most of the articles were written. There are not enough modern articles on the topic to make "luminiferous aether" or "luminiferous ether" a common spelling in modern times. The majority of articles were written pre-1950 which doesn't show up on that graph. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
@Derek Ross (et al.) You write: “"Luminiferous aether" is the spelling used for most of the articles on the topic because it was the commonest spelling at the time most of the articles were written.” That's not true in several ways. First off, not all of the articles use the spelling "aether", but let's focus on this one first. I'm not sure when you're suggesting this article was written (perhaps it was based on Britannica?). "Luminiferous ether" has been the more popular spelling for centuries. (It's not clear when it wasn't, if ever). Nothing has changed recently, and that's clearly reflected in the sources of this article.
You seem to be laboring under the same mistaken belief as Noetica regarding WP:TITLE, which says nothing whatsoever about failing to consider all but the most recent WP:RS, if any: “There are not enough modern articles on the topic to make "luminiferous aether" or "luminiferous ether" a common spelling in modern times. The majority of articles were written pre-1950 which doesn't show up on that graph.” Perhaps you won't mind taking a moment to review the graphs? You seem to have mistaken 1500 for 1950.
There seems to be no need to discuss the original contributors over a minor spelling issue. As you've mentioned WP:COMMONNAME (which also says nothing about considering only the most recent RS, if any), as opposed to WP:TITLE, hopefully you'd like to discuss the questions in WP:CRITERIA at some point? Regarding the comments about a possible precision issue: neither the ethers, nor the “omnipresent, completely passive-medium for the propagation of magnetic waves” ( ethernet) are luminiferous. There are no precision or disambiguation issues because there's been a luminiferous ether redirect to this article since 2003. Those redirects have tripled over the last 12 months:
month | % | redirects | (article total) |
---|---|---|---|
2010-09 | 06% | 678 | 12231 |
2010-10 | 06% | 798 | 13163 |
2010-11 | 06% | 801 | 14566 |
2010-12 | 06% | 786 | 12269 |
2011-01 | 06% | 779 | 14026 |
2011-02 | 07% | 709 | 10397 |
2011-03 | 08% | 803 | 10659 |
2011-04 | 07% | 722 | 9777 |
2011-05 | 09% | 880 | 10090 |
2011-06 | 08% | 686 | 9005 |
2011-07 | 10% | 838 | 8748 |
2011-08 | 14% | 1173 | 8164 |
2011-09 | 18% | 1480 | 8406 |
Thank you for refactoring the discussion. I hope it helps to clarify that a number of respondents did not consider these errors and issues at the time of their WP:VOTE.— Machine Elf 1735 10:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The name 'Aether' was applied to this liquid by August Siegmund Frobenius, F.R.S., in 1730.
I'm quite happy to admit that the graphs prove me wrong on the face of it. But since I don't know how accurate the graphs may be, it's difficult for me to know how much faith to place in them. The stepwise nature of the curves at some points does seem to indicate that very few examples of either spelling were found in any year and thus that we are talking about two common spellings of an uncommon word. In any case I still think that ether has a distinctive smell whereas aether doesn't. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The spelling æther is still not uncommon in senses 1–3, and occasionally occurs in sense 5. In the chemical sense 6 ether is the only form recognized by good authorities.
Good God, what I've done... I feel so sorry for the admin who'll be adjudicating this. (No, this is not a withdrawal of the move request.) ― A. di M. plé dréachtaí 00:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help to clarify for the closing admin if I respond to Noetica (who actually supports the move). Noetica, if I'm reading you correctly, you don't believe that the WP:TITLE policy provides the definitive guide on “failing to consider all but the most recent WP:RS”. Obviously, I didn't claim I was quoting you, but you do believe that something provides guidance “to that effect”. I'll admit, it was a mistake to assume, in good faith, that you actually believed it was somehow relevant. Hopefully, I won't make any more mistakes like that, but it would help if you try to limit yourself to what's relevant. Thanks.
Anyway, you ask me to note WP:TITLE § WP:TITLECHANGES, which is about controversial name changes. Drama isn't controversy, but here's the full paragraph without the added emphasis:
As I recall, you “always” use the same date filter, (roughly the last “twenty years”, I take it), but you don't think your one-size-fits-all approach is arbitrary in this case, even though it excludes all but 6 of this article's sources, (those 6 all use "ether", btw).
Noetica, you aggressively pushed your ideas about Google when you should have been courteously skeptical. Setting aside the date issue, for the moment, your method truncated the results making the ratio appear closer to 1:1 than it genuinely is. Your insistence on including "luminiferous æther" as equivalent to "luminiferous aether" further skewed your results. Finally, your insistence on an explicit English filter was irrelevant because anyone without an automatic English filter would have received virtually identical results when searching on the English words "luminiferous aether" and "luminiferous ether". I'm sorry to inform you that the one thing you got right in your rude initial post was “RMs need accurate evidence”. The remainder failed to provide that.
Although both spellings are English, it's interesting that you didn't choose the passage from
WP:ENGLISH which actually would seem to lend support to your
WP:RS expiry date… although your “thereabouts” are 5 years less than S-PMA's 25, resulting in a whopping 91 year difference from the non-relative 1900 date that appeared prior to S-PMA's June 22 revision of the guideline:
In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published since 1990, and a selection of other encyclopaedias should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title. | → | In general, the sources in the article, a Google book search of books published in the last quarter-century or thereabouts, and a selection of other encyclopaedias, should all be examples of reliable sources; if all three of them use a term, then that is fairly conclusive. If one of those three diverges from agreement then more investigation will be needed. If there is no consensus in the sources, either form will normally be acceptable as a title. |
Had the question at hand been about foreign languages, foreign letters, diacritics or anything apropos of WP:ENGLISH, I suppose I would have been laboring under a mistaken belief myself. Apart from the counter-factual, I'm to understand that you've taken offense at such a suggestion. It's a shame you can't admit to a mistake, I had actually refrained from pointing out most of them.
As you're aware, relevant policy and guidelines say nothing whatsoever about “failing to consider all but the most recent WP:RS”. We are not establishing English convention (“individuation” ?) for an athlete's name, some obscure foreign place name, etc. What is “patently clear” is that you, and only you, repeatedly bring up "æther", to which your fragment from the OED is explicitly referring, and about which your second vague reference to scripture speaks also. WP:ENGLISH § WP:DIACRITICS is about sqiggles and funny letters like "æ". I'm afraid I missed it, if you had at any time suggested, but later abandoned, spelling it without an e or ae, spelling it with diacritics, or that "aether" is the modern spelling.
I'm afraid you would have to explain for me your seemingly ridiculous accusation that I was “out of line” with S-PMA as per your “relevant evidence” from the OED; evidence that “by the way”, “supports [my] view that aether and ether are forms of the same word”. Am I to apologize that you agree with me? Actually, you'd have quite a bit of explaining to do:
I'd say your vaguely menacing innuendo was much more unkind than what I said in #RE-4, (that I obliged the demand from #S-PMA-4), “Fibnd me a source in which "aether" means diethyl oxide, or retract that claim”, [ sic] in the hope that S-PMA would quit WP:DISRUPTing the discussion.
I don't know where either of you imagine personal attacks, but S-PMA clearly asked me to retract the claim from #RE-3, (that S-PMA had not elaborated on “how there would be a precision issue and why there's not currently a precision issue” as I requested in #RE-2). S-PMA merely asserted in #S-PMA-2, “I do see a precision issue, for example; the existence of redirects does not obviate the question of what the article itself is best titled” but the existence of the redirect is neither an example of a supposed problem, nor does it explain why switching the names would manifest a problem. S-PMA's bewildering assertions in #S-PMA-3 (that "aether" is more precise and accurate than "ether", though it's somehow irrelevant), once again failed to offer any rational justification, despite the protest to the contrary.
Noetica, you claim to agree with some of what S-PMA said, but you neglect to say what. Frankly, you disagree with S-PMA's main point that “aether is any robust sense "more accurate" for the present article”, so apart from announcing your decision at long last, I find it difficult to fathom your post while assuming good faith. My bad?— Machine Elf 1735 13:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Nearly two years ago ( version history, see also the following changes), I've created a new section on "Einstein's views on the aether". Now I thought it would be useful to create a new article of principally the same content with some expansions.
Therefore, I've removed most of the content in this article due to redundancy and linked to the new article. Now, the reason why I think it's more appropriate to write the details in a new article is based on WP:Undue (that is, Einstein's later viewas are certainly notable per WP:N, but they are not in this article per WP:Undue when compared to other important steps in the historical development of the luminiferous aether). Thus I think, this shortened version is better than the previous one. -- D.H ( talk) 10:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Are there other opinions? -- D.H ( talk) 14:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
The first thing to develop from the conflagration are the elements. Of the four elements, the Stoics identify two as active (fire and air) and two as passive (water and earth). The active elements, or at least the principles of hot and cold, combine to form breath or pneuma. Pneuma, in turn, is the ‘sustaining cause’ … of all existing bodies and guides the growth and development of animate bodies. What is a sustaining cause? The Stoics think that the universe is a plenum. Like Aristotle, they reject the existence of empty space or void (except that the universe as a whole is surrounded by it). Thus, one might reasonably ask, ‘What marks any one object off from others surrounding it?’ or, ‘What keeps an object from constantly falling apart as it rubs elbows with other things in the crowd?’ The answer is: pneuma. Pneuma, by its nature, has a simultaneous movement inward and outward which constitutes its inherent ‘tensility.’ (Perhaps this was suggested by the expansion and contraction associated with heat and cold.) Pneuma passes through all (other) bodies; in its outward motion it gives them the qualities that they have, and in its inward motion makes them unified objects (Nemesius, 47J). In this respect, pneuma plays something of the role of substantial form in Aristotle for this too makes the thing of which it is the form both ‘some this,’ i.e. an individual, and ‘what it is’ (Metaph. VII, 17). Because pneuma acts, it must be a body and it appears that the Stoics stressed the fact that its blending with matter is ‘through and through’ (Galen 47H, Alex. Aph. 48C). Perhaps as a result of this, they developed a theory of mixture which allowed for two bodies to be in the same place at the same time. It should be noted, however, that some scholars (e.g. Sorabji, 1988) think that the claim that pneuma is blended through the totality of matter is a conclusion that the Stoics' critics adversely drew about what some of their statements committed them to… [1]
— Dirk Baltzly, "Stoicism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stoic physical ideas were revived during the late Renaissance as an alternative to the dominant Aristotelian natural philosophy. Stoicism offered a unified physics of the heavens and the earth and a substance of the heavens that consisted of air and or fire rather than a special fifth element. The planets were intelligent creatures capable of moving themselves, and astrology could be understood as a physical interaction between the heavens and the earth. The influence of Stoicism in physics was limited by the revival of Epicureanism in the early seventeenth century, although the Stoic ideas continued to be important in alchemy and early chemistry… [2]
— Wilbur Applebaum, Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution: From Copernicus to Newton
Hmm..since most users want the summary here, while the new article was criticized by two editors (albeit on different grounds), I've removed the content of the new article and redirected it to the old section of this article. I've also removed the split template. -- D.H ( talk) 13:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The reasons why physicist came to believe in the Aether hypothesis are not fully and properly described. Furthermore it is also not pointed out that modern non-Aether physics cannot satisfactorily explain some of the observations that Aether physics does explain. In addition the usual objections to the Aether hypothesis are not examined for their validity. Also it is not acceptable to judge the Aether hypothesis by the teachings of Modern physics which has for 100 years rejected the hypothesis; and this is the attitude of the article. In summation the current article gives a biased and misleading view of the hypothesis. I give some examples:- The speed of light is 299,792,458m/s. In the Aether hypothesis this velocity is the propagation velocity of the Aether substance in a manner analogous to the propagation velocity of material substances. Modern physics has no explanation. In attempts to detect the Aether velocity of a body (eg. Michelson-Morley) the article does not take into account the effects of a physics derived from the hypothesis. It is obvious that the laws of nature must be somewhat different when based upon Space being an Aether than if it is not. In particular length contraction and time dilation as functions of Aether velocity have been suggested as a consequence of the Aether hypothesis albeit in an ad hoc fashion. I await comments before expanding further. RFNo ( talk) 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Why does Plenum redirect here? This article doesn't contain the word Plenum once. (Redirected from Plenum (physics)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 ( talk) 20:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I also followed the redirect only to find that plenum isn't mentioned at all. Warrickball ( talk) 10:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The word "cherished" in "[Lorentz's] cherished concept of the aether" doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. I removed the word cherished, but someone put it back. This should be a completely non-controversial edit. Jrheller1 ( talk) 04:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Luminiferous aether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Luminiferous aether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
With this, and later again this edit, user Trevayne08 ( talk · contribs) removed the spelling "ether". Clearly the literature disagrees:
Scholar | Books | Web | |
---|---|---|---|
"luminiferous aether" | 1,630 | 6,010 | 42,400 |
"luminiferous ether" | 4,770 | 31,300 | 37,600 |
I have restored the spelling and added the sources ( [17]). - DVdm ( talk) 06:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I do not know if I'm editing this page in the right way, but I feel you guys should read this historical review, specially parts I and II. It shines a lot of light in this subject, specially in the 'null results' mentions about some of the experiments described in this page. This is a suggestion only. I'm sure acquiring more information won't hurt anyone here and seeing the world from different views only makes us, humans, stronger.
https://smile.amazon.com/Dynamic-Ether-Cosmic-Space-Correcting/dp/0997405716/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=demeo+ether&qid=1578440531&sr=8-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enhering ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Quoted from the article... "The aether hypothesis was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects."
I must point out that neutrinos, discovered I believe some time after Einstein's death and after the Aether Theory was discarded, are under certain circumstances, an invisible material (subatomic particles) with no interaction with physical objects.
Thibeinn ( talk) 19:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
A modern, expensive and sophisticated experiment along many more, that clearly prove Michelson - Morley were wrong... There are many experiments after 1990’s with better equipment that tell the story differently... completely the opposite way ... please expand this article to its full view and equally present the experiments and their results that prove ether existence. Thank you... Panos Kordatzis ( talk) 21:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aether theory and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 11#Aether theory until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Spinning Spark 21:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)