Talk:Aether (classical element)

Michelson-Morley experiment wrong?
The final paragraph of the page appears to state that the Michelson-Morley experiment is erroneous. I've never heard of such a thing, and there are no sources provided. Additionally, it was my understanding that the pair attempted to prove the existence of the aether, not disprove it. --Gigacannon 16:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

History
How do we know that the Greek concept of aether is actually derived from the Hindu akasha? It's possible that they are both derived from Proto-Indo-European culture. --coldacid 21:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

One must question what Plato referred to in Timeus 55c: "when joined together, formed eight solid angles, each composed of three plane right angles; and the shape of the body thus constructed was cubic, having six plane equilateral quadrangular bases. And seeing that there still remained one other compound figure, the fifth, God used it up for the Universe in his decoration thereof. Now in reasoning about all these things, a man might question whether he ought to affirm the existence of an infinite diversity of Universes or a limited number; and if he questioned aright he would conclude that the doctrine of an infinite diversity is that of a man unversed." Aether is not mentioned. W.R.M. Lamb comments that how God used it up the dodecahedron is obscure and that the reference may be to the 12 signs of the Zodiac. The reference to and comments on this page that refer to Timeus 55c have sadly been uncritically propagated on numerous web sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmlkcl (talk • contribs) 19:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible suggestion for improvement: One might discuss in further detail the role of Aether in Aristotle's view of the cosmos. Mostly how it was formed in the shape of spheres with natural circular movement, and one might go into the complications of how even though it is not supposed to change, it still had different density's that made up the moon/planets. -Hine5870 (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Void
Who calls Aether the void? Aristotle uses aether and he is definitely antivoid. Maestlin 05:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The Japanese (whose first four elements correspond to the Greek elements) consider Void to be the fifth element. Thus, it is relevant to discuss here. 74.236.79.85 (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on topic
This article covers the "classical element". The "Luminiferous aether" is covered in Luminiferous aether (surprise!), other aether theories, and an overview is given in Aether theories. --Pjacobi 15:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This article covers the "classical element". The classical thought lead to the aether theories!!!! 134.193.168.249 15:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

lead to vs is. We have different articles. There is no need to repeat stuff here. --Pjacobi

Yes. There is. It's a legacy thing. 134.193.168.249

I'm not convinced, but in its current form it doesn't hurt as much. --Pjacobi 15:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was the Oliver Nicholson quote removed?
There used to be a small quote from Oliver Nicholson in the Fifth Element section. Why was it removed? It was from "Tesla's self-sustaining electrical generator", The historical ether. Proceedings of the Tesla Centenial Symposium, 1984.

It read as follows: Oliver Nicholson points out that, in contrast to the better known luminiferous aether of the 19th century, the older concept of the classical aether had three properties. Among these characteristics, the classical aether had a non-material property, was "less than the vehicle of visible light", and was responsible for "generating metals" along with fostering the development of all bodies.

The original section can still be seen on other sites linked to Wikipedia, such as answers.com

Notice
I have removed text below from the first paragraph because it appeared extraneous. If anyone wants to either incoprorate it into the wording, or discuss it, here it is.

"Does the ether exist? Einstein's theory of special relativity suggests that the question is irrelevant. Certainly no one thinks today that a solid medium pervades space. On the other hand, it is widely believed that there is no real vacuum. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected in 1964 the cosmic background radiation, a leftover of the big bang. This radiation is pervasive and basically the same in all directions. It is possible to measure Earth's movement against this background radiation."

The Ether of Tesla: From Tesla's 1892 lecture on the medium or ether as far as Tesla was considered moved to his electricity. The medium or ether of electrical response was an insulating liquid. In that electrically insulating liquid Tesla got a response to his high voltage and moved electrical charges such that there might appear a body of inertia to the frequency of the electricity. May I use a symbol -oO+ for charge bodies that a one frequency stops oscillating from the AC and remains poised at a positive charged terminal C+ -oO+ effecting a flow. Thus without such a electrical pressure there is no flow. Since charged and perhaps uncharged particles exist the only thing new is the insulating liquid to electricity that can be ascribes to the ether of Tesla. Other scientists finding ether qualities should consider what Tesla found. High voltage flows appear as Auroras and mimic the ion brush and flames that Tesla created in his lectures.Teslafieldmachine (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Aether theories for modern theories as opposed to classical.—Machine Elf 1735  17:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Similar Culture Concepts.
This was on the Quintessence Disambig page, where I don't feel it's quite appropriate. Beats me if it should be added to this article or just left out to dry, since some of these seem a stretch (ichor is the same as aether?!) SnowFire 01:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The concept of a life-energy inherent in all living beings seems to be a fairly universal archetype, and appears in numerous ancient religions and systems of metaphysics (in addition to having been borrowed by George Lucas's science-fiction films).

Analogies to numina in other societies include:
 * Polynesian mythology : mana
 * Australian Aboriginal mythology : maban
 * Egyptian mythology : ka
 * Greek mythology : ichor
 * Inuit mythology : inua, sila
 * Leni Lenape mythology : manetuwak
 * Norse mythology : seid
 * Yoruba mythology : oloddumare

Also related are the philosophical concepts of:


 * Chinese Philisophy  : qi (or chi), Tao
 * Japanese philosophy : ki
 * European alchemy and philosophy : aether, (or ether), quintessence
 * Hindu philosophy : prana

Two grammatical quibbles
I'm no philosopher, so maybe this has some special meaning I'm not aware of, but the very first sentence Aether ... is a concept used in ancient and medieval science as a substance. seems odd to me. It's a concept used as a substance? Perhaps that should be rephrased.

Later in the first paragraph is Its force is imagined to be like a lightning.

If this isn't an attributable quote, it's rather an odd thing to say, also. As a native English speaker, "a lightning" just doesn't scan well. --Rob Cranfill 19:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyberspace section
Firstly it needs a better title. Secondly Ethernet is a formal protocol invented by Xerox Parc, not a metaphysical description of cyberspace. Lastly, the twice used reference in the section deals with categorisation of musical instruments, not the concept of cyberspace as aether. The second use is valid, but the initial three paragraphs need a reference of substance.

The entire section needs a cleanup, but I'm unsure as to what exactly it was trying to convey in the first place. I'll attempt to find a reference focusing on cyberspace as a fifth element and rework it from there, but at the present time I can't contribute much more than this critique. Nazlfrag (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole section seems like OR to me, or at least an opinion held by only a tiny minority. Since the elemental theory of matter was rendered obsolete in the 16th century, applying it to modern technology is anachronistic. I think it should all be chopped. Ashmoo (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro
Does anyone have a cite for the statement that the ancient Greeks called the 5th element Idea (Greek ίδέα), or ίερόν, (Greek hieron "a divine thing")? Ashmoo (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent Science
Some scientists have recently argued that gravity shows that ~80-90% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy. These things have substance, but are currently undetectable by current means (whereas regular particals can be captured and observed). Reminds me of this void/ether. As an ether, it has substance, but as a void, its substance cannot be measured (so perhaps, for their intents and purposes, it has no substance). I wonder if these ancient cultures observed something of nature and physics that Westerners only were able to observe recently through the aid of computers and space technology (one of the early proponents of this theory constructing it around peculiar behaviors of distant VISIBLE celestial bodies). I think, if I'm remembering this stuff right (or even better, if a professional thought about this before I did), a slight mention of the theory might be good. --VTPPGLVR@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.225.76.199 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would think more analogous modern equivalent would be the quantum nature of the space-time continuum. Relativity already began to treat the continuum as a 'fabric' of sorts, and quantum mechanics has revealed that, even in a vacuum, there is a constant fluctuation of activity going on. I dare say, it may have turned out that Aether was correct, and we have learned a more precise understanding of its nature, but are simply choosing not to use that earlier word for it any longer. But this is my personal impression and does not belong in the article, nor does dark matter or any other such comparisons - unless we can find some worthy scientific references where modern theories are being proposed as a more refined understanding of Aether. My guess is that these will be rare simply because a scientist proposing a paper on Aether may face a stigma since it is considered an outmoded/disproved idea.--Daniel (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Similarity
Is it fair to conclude that Aether has some qualities that make it similar to "The Force" in Star Wars? 66.25.254.123 (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Force inhabits living beings, with some people having it a lot more than others. The aether was invented to fill outer space. It is uniformly everywhere. I am not seeing the similarity. Roger (talk) 02:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, vitalism may be a closer concept, but still not exactly the same thing.  Spinning Spark  22:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Article edits
I reviewed this article and as an overall it is very well written, but the section on mythological origins could be written so that it is easier to read. Your use of quotes to explain aether helped quiet a bit in the understanding of what the scientists were trying to explain when they introduced aether into their systems. Meganjeanne1 (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meganjeanne1 (talk • contribs)

Why is this article tagged "need copy edits"? In general the style and copy are adequate. konetidy (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Grammar and small revisions
In the "Fifth Element" section, does "Aether was neither hot or cold, or wet or dry." require nor rather than or? Also, you might add brief descriptions (maybe one sentence each) of the kinds of motion to provide clarity.

In the "Aether and light" section, " less well-known Johann Bernoulli recognized in 1736 with the pirze of the French Academy" could be changed to less well-known Johann Bernoulli who was recognized in 1736 with the prize of the French Academy.

In the "Aether and gravitation" section, I wonder if you could add a picture of Newton's aether model. That could be pretty cool. Interesting, I've never seen the word without used in this way "His theory also explains that aether was dense within objects and rare without of them". Bill Nye OU (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Grammar and References
In the "Aether and gravitation" section, I noticed a sentence that goes "his theory also explains that aether was dense within objects and rare without of them." The latter part of the sentence gets confusing. What does "rare without of them" mean. That could use a little tweaking. Secondly, the end of "Aether and gravitation" gives a reference to a letter from Newton to Boyle in 1679. Where did you find this? Could it be referenced too? Just some thoughts. LetsBeAwesome (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review
Really good additions to the Aether and gravitation section. You added a lot of valuable information and detail. Not only did you do a good job of conveying his theory, but you were also able to identify which works the ideas were presented. Also, you did a very good job of adding significant detail to the Quintessence section. The information was good and it was very well written.

Jmsaint (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Symbol/Glyph for Aether/Quintessence
This symbol does not appear to be any glyph used in alchemy or other sources for this concept. It does show up several times as a glyph of a current rock band. The source indicated is no longer is available and was a tattoo/body art website. This glyph should be removed. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅—Machine Elf 1735  21:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Interwikis
Why are the interwikis being deleted from this article. If Wikidata cannot cope with the situation that is an argument for deleting Wikidata, not for deleting stuff from articles that Wikidata can't cope with. The French article for instance discusses the classical element at length and has no separate article explicitly on that alone. Why is that a bad target? The Spanish article even more so, it devotes around half its space to the classical element. It is not possible that everything between Wikipedias can be a bijection as Wikidata would like. If for no other reason, English Wikipedia is so much bigger. SpinningSpark 16:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

History of Africa source
The reason this source (currently ref#8) had a "verification needed" tag, I would guess, is that gbooks preview is not showing any relevant text. It will only show snippets for the cited pages and I couldn't get anything relevant with any search term I could think of. I've now found the exact quote elsewhere and added it to the ref. Now I've found it, it is actually a bit thin for what it is supposed to be citing. SpinningSpark 12:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi I removed the tag because of what I found in the other reference, currently #7, but good that #8 worked too! Icebob99 (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Punctuation at end of a quote
User:Infotechnology, regarding this edit, the relevant style we adopt for this is explained at MOS:TQ. This applies to all articles, regardless of which version of English the article is written in. SpinningSpark 21:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Michelson-Morley
There has been a recent attempt to remove the claim that the Michelson-Morley experiment failed to find evidence for the aether. That does not make any claim about how M and M interpreted their own results. The fact is that modern scientists interpret the experiment as showing that there is no aether. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 21:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The History of Science in the United States, "After Albert Einstein declared, in developing his theory of special relativity in 1905, the ether to be a superfluous idea, the Morley-Miller experiments were gradually taken to be definitive. But none of the three principal scientists involved in thse tests evere accepted them as such."
 * The Classical Theory of Fields: Electromagnetism, "But they detected no motion of the earth in the aether. This is interpreted as the statement that there is no aether."


 * Historical and academic accuracy: User:SpinningSpark, the use of the term "presence" cannot be found in either ref. 3 or ref. 4. Please make note of ref 3. pgs. 117, 417, 418, 423, ref. 4 title and throughout. These works make specific and numerous reference to "motion," "relative motion" and "velocity" in addition the :device referenced is a device particularly used to detect changes in relative motion.
 * Introduction of this term to this article seems to interject the modern scientific view which detracts from historic accuracy.
 * Lacking a reference to this term in the work mentioned, addition of the term "presence" shall be viewed as inaccurate and misleading from a historical perspective. Since there is no reference to "presence" in these works, I will remove the superfluous, un-referenced term.
 * Infotechnology (talk) 02:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've (again) restored the original wording. Since two editors have now objected to your proposed change, you need to establish a consensus for this change here on the talk page, see WP:consensus. Paul August &#9742; 12:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If your case is solely that the sources do not use the word "presence" then this is getting a little silly. Are you really claiming that the statement "this is interpreted as the statement that there is no aether" does not support the claim "evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found"?  That the sources also talk extensively about motion is not really relevant to this point.
 * If you want to make the point that Michelson and Morley did not draw that conclusion and continued to try and make the theory work with the idea of aether dragging etc, then the article can be expanded with that information. But we still need to say that the modern mainstream interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is that it disproved the aether.  This needs to go in the body of the article, not the lead.  The lead should just be a summary of what is in the body of the article.  It can also be treated more fully there rather than a one sentence misleading comment.  It also has to be said that there are many modern attempts to reintroduce some sort of aether to solve various problems in theory.  This paper, for instance, proposes that the idea of dark matter could be replaced with an aether field. See this also. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 13:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

User:SpinningSpark, et al., Thank you for initiating moderation on the talk page. When interjecting a term that does not appear in the referenced text inaccuracies are caused resulting in historical, chronological and academic inconsistencies. Furthermore, and quite simply, articles needn't interject text without proper reference, regardless of "consensus." For lack of reference to this term, it shall be removed until such time that a proper and relevant reference to the term can be procured and added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infotechnology (talk • contribs) 14:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC) The component in question, "presence" was not addressed in the reference cited [4], which can be gathered by the following, "This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of the phenomenon of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest." Interjection of "popular consensus" or "modern views" detracts form the historical relevance of this experiment and does so baselessly without proper citation. Article has been reverted until references can be provided which substantiate alteration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infotechnology (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you not read the cites I provided above? I am not making a baseless claim. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 14:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've tried to address Infotechnology's concerns with this edit, which makes use of the second source provided above by SpinningSpark. Is this satisfactory? Paul August &#9742; 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's getting there, but it is not the motion of the light that was (not) detected by the experiment, it was the motion of the Earth through the aether that was not detected. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now. I've decided to simply restore the original wording, while keeping the added explanatory clause and new cite. Don't really see how anybody can object to "but evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found in the Michelson–Morley experiment" Paul August &#9742; 18:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think what Infotechnology would say is that Michelson and Morley themselves would object to it. Their paper made no such claim and they continued to try and make the aether theory work after this result.  Your construction of " but evidence for such motion was not found in the Michelson–Morley experiment, and this result has been interpreted as meaning that no such luminiferous aether exists" was actually an improvement in that respect.  The only problem it had was that the motion you appeared to be referring to was the motion of light rather than the motion of the Earth through the aether. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 16:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Michelson and Morley thought their experiment did find evidence for the presence of such a medium? Paul August &#9742; 17:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't, but that didn't stop them (and a lot of others) from trying to maintain the aether theory. They just didn't have anything better to go with until Einstein's theory came along.  There was a lot of explanations in terms of "aether drag", ie that the aether was being dragged round by the Earth, or some other kind of local aether movement that explained why they failed to detect the Earth's motion relative to the aether.  Einstein's theory is, of course, the accepted theoretical basis of physics now, and the Michaelson-Morley experiment is widely seen, now, as demonstrating the non-existence of the aether. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 19:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, so by all accounts it was a negative result, ie "evidence for the presence of such a medium was not found", which is all our article currently says. That Michelson and Morley, and others, didn't think the experiment was conclusive is different matter. Paul August &#9742; 19:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wu Hsing
This "aether" corresponds with the metallic nature of Wu Xing among the "five natures" as the article clearly relates a tie to this "philosophical" concept with force which ties the metallic nature among two of the eight points of the bagua. Just as "air" corresponds with the either "wooden nature" among the five or one of the two earthy natures among the eight points of the bagua tying the color blue and planet Oranos rather than the color green and planet Jupiter or planet Pluto.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.134.160 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Quicksilver
I don't think there is enough in here about the use of "aether" to refer to mercury in alchemical practices. I would edit it in myself, but I am not good enough at writing objectively and academically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.49.166.206 (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Preview Pop-Up Card on Aether Symbol is Surgical Photo not Found in Linked Page
the pop-up card for the aether symbol (🜀) contains a photograph of a surgery on an indecipherable body part. the image does not appear at all in the article for aether (classical element) at all. whether it was on the page and removed at some point is beyond me, but i don't think it's very user-friendly to have a stomach turning picture of surgery pop up when hovering over a link to a page that has nothing to do with surgery. Thecloudking (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Ether is Rooted in Metaphysics and Not Proto-Science
I would suggest that this article be broken into two parts: 1. The Traditional Theory of Ether and 2. The Concept of Ether in Science. A good source for the science article would be the classic work of E.A. Burtt, listed below. There are many books and articles on the theory of ether in science. It should be noted that ideas about ether changed over time as science has developed and the term is no longer used due to its older associations.

While the citations in the article are accurate, the traditional theory of ether requires a lot more context if it is to be meaningful to the average reader. Its roots are in metaphysics and not science and its meaning had already been lost by the 16th century. Science used metaphysics as a basis for development but took a quantitative view quite foreign to the older religious and metaphysical forms of thought. Most academics view early philosophy as a kind of proto-science in which individual thinkers (Empedocles, or Plato, for example) tried to figure out the nature of the physical world. This mistakes the genre entirely.

"Aristotle’s doctrine that “Man and the Sun generate man”'(Physics II.2), that of JUB III.10.4 and that of the Majjhima 'Nikaya, may be said to combine the scientific and metaphysical theories of the origin of life: and this very well illustrates the fact that the scientific and metaphysical points of view are by no means contradictory, but rather complementary. The weakness of the scientific position is not that the empirical facts are devoid of interest or utility, but that these facts are thought of as a refutation of the intellectual doctrine.[1]"

The term “Sun” refers to the metaphysical sun (Apollo) and not the physical one (Helios). This distinction is found everywhere in religious writings.

The Greek physicoi were not “physicists” but “naturalists” in the sense that they were interested in what gives things their natures (natura naturans), not in things as they have a given nature (natura naturata). The focus was on the creative powers of the Deity and not on the composition of the physical world. In philosophical terms, the approach is realistic (speculative or idealistic) rather than nominative. The physical world was seen as a reflection (speculum = mirror) of the Eternal. We see “through a glass darkly”. Mother Nature is separate from the natural world that we are part of. Philosophy corresponds to theology rather than to natural history.

A second point of confusion is that since these ideas were shared by a good number of cultures and religions (Greek, Vedic, Christian, Jewish) they can hardly be thought of as the expressions of a personal philosophy of the type we think of when we hear the term philosophy. They represent an inherited wisdom that has been passed down from time beyond memory. Early philosophic or religious texts put these ancient ideas into written form and elaborated and modified them in the process by making them explicit. They were once expressed as images and stories.

Another reason for this misunderstanding is that the terminology of metaphysics is symbolic rather than literal and traditional authors often use different metaphors to express the same ideas. A few examples:

The fire of Heracleitus is “everlasting” and “in measures being kindled and in measures going out” (fr. 20). This is the creative fire of the Deity and not the fire of men which is destructive in that it consumes its fuel. The Divine Fire is equated with light or with the mind (nous), the divine portion of man.

"The conception of a transcendent and universal Fire, of which our fires are only pale reflections, survives in the words “empyrean” and “ether”; the latter word derives from aiqw, to “kindle” (Skr. indh)"…[2]

Neither Greek nor Indian writings employ any words that correspond to our word “matter” as it is used in science. The Greek word hyle (Sk. vana) which translates literally as “wood” is used metaphorically to denote the primary matter out of which the material world is made. The Creator is conceived as a carpenter or other craftsman, an idea familiar to Christians. According to Aristotle, Plato equated hyle (primary matter, void, space, chaos) with that which can participate in form.

In Sanskrit, the term used for matter is closer to the word “properties” (Gr. exis, L. habitus), the nature, disposition, or state or manner of the being of something or someone. This implies a conditional existence and not a fundamental property of the physical world as science conceives of matter and energy.

Finally, the traditional four elements (earth, air, fire and water) should not be confused with our modern scientific idea of the elements as they are listed in the periodic table. Since the ancients had no concept of matter as we understand it, they did not believe that the physical world could be reduced to earth, air, fire and water as basic constituents.

"These elements are not the chemical constituents of things, but are the qualitative determinants of ‘matter’ as such, so that, instead of speaking of earth, water, air, and fire, one can also speak of matter’s solid, liquid, aerial, or igneous mode of existence. The analytic evidence, that water contains two parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen, tells us absolutely nothing about the essence of the element water. …Furthermore, the scientific approach strictly limits the reality in question to one given plane, whereas the immediate and symbolical intuition of the element awakens an echo which resounds through all levels of consciousness, from the corporeal to the spiritual."[3]

These tendencies of the “elements” are referred to as gunas in Indian thought.

Here are some sources that will provide context: Burckhardt, Titus. Alchemy. Fons Vitae Press, Louisville, Kentucky (2006).

Burtt, Edwin A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. Dover Press, Mineola, N.Y. (2003).

Cook, Arthur Bernard. ''Zeus. A Study in Ancient Religion''. 3 volumes. Biblo and Tannen, New York (1964).

Coomaraswamy, Ananda K. ‘The Concept of “Ether” in Greek and Indian Cosmology,’ in Guardians of the Sun-Door, Fons Vitae Press, Louisville, Kentucky (2004).

Dorig, José. “Aither,” Antique Kunst 33, pp. 28-30. Available on JSTOR.

Goodenough, Erwin R. An Introduction to Philo Judeus. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut (1940). Goodenough

Erwin R. ''By Light, Light. The Mystic Gospel of Hellenistic Judaism''. Yale University Press (1935).

Guénon, René. ‘The Indian Theory of the Five Elements,” in Studies in Hinduism, Navrang, New Delhi (1985).

Mihai, Adrian. “Soul’s Aitherial Abode According to the Poteidaia Epitaph and the Presocratic Philosophers.” In Numen 57 (2010), pp. 553-582.

Schaya, Leo. The Universal Meaning of the Kabbalah. Sophia Perennis, Hillsdale, N.Y. (2005)

Siegeltuch, Mark. “A Brief History of Ether. A Fundamental Metaphysical Concept in Greek, Indian, Jewish and Christian Cosmology.” Available on Academia.edu.

[1]Coomaraswamy, Selected Papers, vol. 1, p. 306. JUB = Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana. [2]A. K. Coomaraswamy, ibid, p. 160. [3]Titus Burckhardt, Alchemy, p. 42. Tuck (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello. Very interesting essay. But, what is your purpose in "publishing" it here? Thank you, warshy <sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc;">(¥¥) 20:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To direct the readers to a more accurate description of aither. The present article is a confused melange although I'm sure the author(s) were well intentioned. Perhaps the traditional material should be removed and only the scientific use of the term explained although this would also involve a good deal of work as you can see from the comments about Michelson/Morley. I could probably help on the transition period from metaphysics to science. I do not have the time at present to rewrite the traditional material and it would be quite a lengthy article if all the necessary background were to be provided. My summary (the last item in the reading list) is too long for this forum. If you want to take a look at it you might have some suggestions as to how it could be incorporated here. 108.21.0.86 (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

THE ETHER. THE SOUL OF BEING.
THE ETHER IS A COLLECTIVE AND UNIFIED SOUL OF ALL THAT EXISTS. WE ARE ALL ONE ENTITY! WE ALL ARE ONE ENTITY... SHULAMITE UGBE (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

M'M experiment conclusion is wrong
The conclusion is bias 6uldv883 (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My statement maybe wrong. The MM experiment concluded the doesn't exist because they found no movement. Thats fine if your only wanting one result from one variable. They were looking for movement and you can only find movement when your comparing other variables because speed is relative.
 * There is no way they will conclude that the ether exists. To conclude that the ether exists, but there was no movement. That means the earth doesn't move since the ether must move if it does exist. To deny the existence of the ether is only making way for the heliocentric model. Since Einstein said if it wasn't for this stupid MM theory, noone would have excepted his theory.
 * The Classical Theory of Fields: Electromagnetism [2], "But they detected no motion of the earth in the aether. This is interpreted as the statement that there is no aether." 6uldv883 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)