Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Peter Webb on 10 Mar 2010 20:13

According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that can reveal
which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to know which
frame is more at rest WRT the ether.

______________________
Wrong. Only LET has this problem. There is no ether in SR, so the question
of its velocity doesn't even arise.


From: mpc755 on 10 Mar 2010 20:16
On Mar 10, 8:13 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that can reveal
> which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to know which
> frame is more at rest WRT the ether.
>
> ______________________
> Wrong. Only LET has this problem. There is no ether in SR, so the question
> of its velocity doesn't even arise.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

So, Albert Einstein said there is no aether in SR but GR without
aether is unthinkable? I don't think so.

The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects
is gravity. A moving particle has an associated aether wave.
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 19:48

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:93040dcd-34f5-47d6-a183-27829c29223e(a)x12g2000yqx.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 9:36 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 10:11 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 7:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:ae269f15-4a97-4e9b-9529-002823bd2ca6(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > On Mar 10, 6:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> > Because the "multiple aethers" would need to
>> > > >> > have contradictory properties.
>>
>> > > >> They probably would. Why can't multiple aethers have different
>> > > >> properties?
>>
>> > > > Because the properties in cause are CONTRADICTORY , imbecile. You
>> > > > keep
>> > > > missing that.
>>
>> > > The claim was that an aether for gravity would have different
>> > > properties for
>> > > one for EMR. There is no contradiction in that .. they can simply be
>> > > different aethers with different properties.
>>
>> > How can they? Their properties would not only be different but also
>> > CONTRADICTORY.
>>
>> > > If there is no contradictions
>> > > (or not enough for aetherists to assert their way out of it) then the
>> > > same
>> > > aether can be used.
>>
>> > If your grandmother had wheels she would have been a bus. The point is
>> > that there IS contradiction. Fallacious thinking will not take you
>> > very far.
>>
>> > > It doesn't really matter which approach they take, but
>> > > a determined aetherist can get out of the refutations put forward so
>> > > far
>> > > quite easily (as has happened in the past).
>>
>> > You are a prime example.
>>
>> My understanding of the aether of LET is:
>> it must have very great stiffness (i.e. very high modulus) so waves
>> will propagate at the speed of light.
>> It interacts with matter to cause a compression in the direction of
>> motion.
>> And yet, it does not cause any drag on matter moving through it so,
>> for example, the earth can orbit the sun for 4.5 billion years in a
>> nearly stable orbit.
>>
>> Now, if that last property isn't contradictory, I don't know what is.
>>
>> I think the point Inertial is trying to make is that the concept of an
>> aether is already ad-hoc and self contradictory so it doesn't matter
>> what else you pile on to it
>
> No, quite the contrary, Inertial doesn't admit that the concept of
> aether is self-contradictory.

LET isn't contradictory .. though for it to 'work' it has a bizarre set of
properties .. properties that no other substance has. It certainly is
ad-hoc .. that's why it survived as long as it did .. more properties were
added after the fact to make it consistent with experimental results. And
it may not extend well to other forces (eg gravity) .. but LET itself
doesn't cover those forces.

> See his exchanges with Jerry. In the
> process, he keeps contradicting himself.

Liar. I have not said anything self-contradictory.

> It is a waste of time
> discussing with him. Both Jerry and I have given up on this idiot.

Liar. Jerry understands. You don't. You really need to learn about SR and
LET, and how these theory make the same predictions about what is measured
because they use the same math. That is why every test for the SR passes,
LET passes as well. This is very well known facts .. why are you unaware of
it (and worse, claiming it is untrue) ??



From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 19:48

"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c0f2867-095d-4582-8275-a41dcd7ca574(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 12:11 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 9:36 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 10:11 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 10, 7:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > > >news:ae269f15-4a97-4e9b-9529-002823bd2ca6(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > > On Mar 10, 6:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> > Because the "multiple aethers" would need to
>> > > > >> > have contradictory properties.
>>
>> > > > >> They probably would. Why can't multiple aethers have different
>> > > > >> properties?
>>
>> > > > > Because the properties in cause are CONTRADICTORY , imbecile. You
>> > > > > keep
>> > > > > missing that.
>>
>> > > > The claim was that an aether for gravity would have different
>> > > > properties for
>> > > > one for EMR. There is no contradiction in that .. they can simply
>> > > > be
>> > > > different aethers with different properties.
>>
>> > > How can they? Their properties would not only be different but also
>> > > CONTRADICTORY.
>>
>> > > > If there is no contradictions
>> > > > (or not enough for aetherists to assert their way out of it) then
>> > > > the same
>> > > > aether can be used.
>>
>> > > If your grandmother had wheels she would have been a bus. The point
>> > > is
>> > > that there IS contradiction. Fallacious thinking will not take you
>> > > very far.
>>
>> > > > It doesn't really matter which approach they take, but
>> > > > a determined aetherist can get out of the refutations put forward
>> > > > so far
>> > > > quite easily (as has happened in the past).
>>
>> > > You are a prime example.
>>
>> > My understanding of the aether of LET is:
>> > it must have very great stiffness (i.e. very high modulus) so waves
>> > will propagate at the speed of light.
>> > It interacts with matter to cause a compression in the direction of
>> > motion.
>> > And yet, it does not cause any drag on matter moving through it so,
>> > for example, the earth can orbit the sun for 4.5 billion years in a
>> > nearly stable orbit.
>>
>> > Now, if that last property isn't contradictory, I don't know what is.
>>
>> > I think the point Inertial is trying to make is that the concept of an
>> > aether is already ad-hoc and self contradictory so it doesn't matter
>> > what else you pile on to it
>>
>> No, quite the contrary, Inertial doesn't admit that the concept of
>> aether is self-contradictory. See his exchanges with Jerry. In the
>> process, he keeps contradicting himself. It is a waste of time
>> discussing with him. Both Jerry and I have given up on this idiot.
>
> I don't think there's anything to admit.
>
> An aether that is supposed to have certain qualifiers to it -- such as
> solidity, where solidity means that it carries the expectation that it
> behaves like OTHER solids -- can certainly be said to be self-
> contradictory.
>
> This, in fact, is where a lot of aether types have been ruled out.
> Aethers that behave exactly like gases are ruled out. Aethers that
> behave exactly like solids have been ruled out.
>
> But what isn't necessarily ruled out is an aether that is UNLIKE any
> other substance previously known. This is the kind of aether that
> Inertial has been referring to, and in fact is similar to the kind of
> aether that Einstein mentioned is still permissible in relativity.
>
> The problem with the latter is that it is too slippery to pin down,
> and therefore impossible to experimentally test, and therefore
> scientifically useless. It is like invisible and very clever fairies
> that are the cause of momentum conservation but are perfectly adept at
> masking their presence and covering their tracks. There is no way to
> say that such fairies are self-contradictory, but on the other hand,
> there is no way to prove either that they exist or that they don't
> exist.

Exactly


From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 20:05

"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0a5a82c3-4795-47a2-93d3-7ecdb0b3012d(a)g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 10, 10:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 12:11 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 9:36 am, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 10, 10:11 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Mar 10, 7:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> > > > >news:ae269f15-4a97-4e9b-9529-002823bd2ca6(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > > > On Mar 10, 6:54 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> > Because the "multiple aethers" would need to
>> > > > > >> > have contradictory properties.
>>
>> > > > > >> They probably would. Why can't multiple aethers have
>> > > > > >> different
>> > > > > >> properties?
>>
>> > > > > > Because the properties in cause are CONTRADICTORY , imbecile.
>> > > > > > You keep
>> > > > > > missing that.
>>
>> > > > > The claim was that an aether for gravity would have different
>> > > > > properties for
>> > > > > one for EMR. There is no contradiction in that .. they can
>> > > > > simply be
>> > > > > different aethers with different properties.
>>
>> > > > How can they? Their properties would not only be different but also
>> > > > CONTRADICTORY.
>>
>> > > > > If there is no contradictions
>> > > > > (or not enough for aetherists to assert their way out of it) then
>> > > > > the same
>> > > > > aether can be used.
>>
>> > > > If your grandmother had wheels she would have been a bus. The point
>> > > > is
>> > > > that there IS contradiction. Fallacious thinking will not take you
>> > > > very far.
>>
>> > > > > It doesn't really matter which approach they take, but
>> > > > > a determined aetherist can get out of the refutations put forward
>> > > > > so far
>> > > > > quite easily (as has happened in the past).
>>
>> > > > You are a prime example.
>>
>> > > My understanding of the aether of LET is:
>> > > it must have very great stiffness (i.e. very high modulus) so waves
>> > > will propagate at the speed of light.
>> > > It interacts with matter to cause a compression in the direction of
>> > > motion.
>> > > And yet, it does not cause any drag on matter moving through it so,
>> > > for example, the earth can orbit the sun for 4.5 billion years in a
>> > > nearly stable orbit.
>>
>> > > Now, if that last property isn't contradictory, I don't know what is.
>>
>> > > I think the point Inertial is trying to make is that the concept of
>> > > an
>> > > aether is already ad-hoc and self contradictory so it doesn't matter
>> > > what else you pile on to it
>>
>> > No, quite the contrary, Inertial doesn't admit that the concept of
>> > aether is self-contradictory. See his exchanges with Jerry. In the
>> > process, he keeps contradicting himself. It is a waste of time
>> > discussing with him. Both Jerry and I have given up on this idiot.
>>
>> I don't think there's anything to admit.
>>
>> An aether that is supposed to have certain qualifiers to it -- such as
>> solidity, where solidity means that it carries the expectation that it
>> behaves like OTHER solids -- can certainly be said to be self-
>> contradictory.
>>
>> This, in fact, is where a lot of aether types have been ruled out.
>> Aethers that behave exactly like gases are ruled out. Aethers that
>> behave exactly like solids have been ruled out.
>>
>> But what isn't necessarily ruled out is an aether that is UNLIKE any
>> other substance previously known. This is the kind of aether that
>> Inertial has been referring to, and in fact is similar to the kind of
>> aether that Einstein mentioned is still permissible in relativity.
>>
>> The problem with the latter is that it is too slippery to pin down,
>> and therefore impossible to experimentally test, and therefore
>> scientifically useless. It is like invisible and very clever fairies
>> that are the cause of momentum conservation but are perfectly adept at
>> masking their presence and covering their tracks. There is no way to
>> say that such fairies are self-contradictory, but on the other hand,
>> there is no way to prove either that they exist or that they don't
>> exist.
>>
>> PD- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

Watch Dono backpedal to save face (very common)

> The multiple 'aethers" with contradictory properties is only part of
> the discussion.

There he goes ... now watch Dono lie to save face (very common)

> The other part is Inertial's self-contradictory
> statements about speed of light being isotropic only in the "aether"
> frame while anisotropic in all other frames.

In LET the 'real' speed of light is anisotropic, because in LET frames of
reference are 'really' related by galillean transforms and not lorentz, and
it is 'really' simply euclidean geometry and not minkowski.

HOWEVER (as I have pointed out every time) LET says that movement through
the aether compresses all matter, and slows all processes (which introduces
RoS) and so what we MEASURE (observe and experience), with the rulers and
clocks that are affected by these distortions, is an isotropic speed of
light, and measurements between frames that are related by Lorentz
transforms and which are modeled by a minkowski geometry.

In LET there is that hidden 'reality' behind what we measure, that we cannot
detect, that behaves differently. LET just adds that extra level of
complexity that doesn't give us anything useful as far as doing physics on
measurements is concerned.

> You need to follow the
> complete thread. Anyway, I am done with him, he's a complete waste of
> time.

I continually point out your actual errors. You lie in response and say I
claim things I do not.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights