Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Anitmatter in Thunderbolts??
Next: Why Pendulum as a clock do not shows, what General Theory of Relativity predicts?
From: mpc755 on 8 Dec 2009 00:02 On Dec 7, 10:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 7:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 10:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 7, 4:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > glird wrote: To me, "the aether" (ether) is just a word denoting the > > > > continuous aspect of a space-filling COMPRESSIBLE matter out of which > > > particles (and waves) are fashioned. As such, there is no aether > > > other than matter itself, which is the only conducting medium for > > > light. > > > [({Since light goes everywhere, matter is everywhere; so there is no > > > such thing as an "empty space".})] > > > > mpc replied: Yes, aether and matter are different forms of the same > > > stuff. {1} I just think we have enough to deal with without having to > > > discuss 'empty' space-filling stuff as 'uncompressed matter'. {2} > > > When you make yourself a drink that you want to be cold, do you put > > > 'frozen water' into your glass, or do you put ice into your glass? > > > Yes, they are both labels for the same stuff, but we call it ice for > > > convenience. We call 'uncompressed matter' aether for convenience. > > > {3} > > > > 1. Pardon me for having omitted a bit of my definition. Here is the > > > definition given on page 1 of The Universe: > > > "The spaces within and between particles are always full of > > > compressible matter, the ether. (As used herein, the word 'ether' > > > denotes a continuous material, whether or not there are particles in > > > it.)" > > > 2. Being bodily compressible, there is no such thing as "uncompressed > > > matter" either. Even in a vacuum, which is a space with no particles > > > in it, the density of its material is variable everywhere. However, > > > because of the basic property I call "ontropy" (i.e. matter resists > > > compression increasingly weaker as its density decreases), the speed > > > of em waves approaches a maximum of c in any material. (As experiments > > > have shown, if the material medium is compressed sufficiently, light > > > will move only a few feet per second even in a vacuum chamber.) > > > 3. It might be convenient but it is utterly misleading. It implies > > > that there are two different KINDS of matter, one being compressible > > > and the other incompressible. > > > Indeed, the kinetic atomic theory -- that matter is made of ultimate > > > particles separated by empty spaces -- is based on the latter > > > implication, which became the secret premise on which present science > > > was founded. (Although atoms and subatomic particles do exist, the > > > kinetic atomic theory - that ALL matter is made of them, is false. So > > > is most of theoretical physics.) > > > About 40 pages later The Universe says: > > > "In summary, Maxwell said, > > > There is an aethereal material medium filling space and permeating > > > bodies. ... It has a real density which is modified in some way by the > > > presence of gross matter in it. > > > Unfortunately, after discussing the electrical and magnetic > > > properties of the ether Maxwell said, 'It is true that -- the > > > properties -- are not so much altered -- as to allow us to suppose > > > that the dense medium (gross matter) does anything more than merely > > > modify the motion of the ether.' He was stuck with ether as a > > > generically different kind of matter than atomic matter. He was > > > saddled with the kinetic atomic theory, whether he realized it or not.. > > > {The program runs very deep.}" > > > > SO deep that even though you may not mean it that way, if you say > > > "We call 'uncompressed matter' aether" most people will think you are > > > talking about a kind of matter that is entirely different from the > > > "ponderable" matter we are familiar with via direct sensory > > > experience. > > > > glird > > > Matter and aether are the same material substance. What we consider > > aether is matter in its base state.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > As Einstein said the aether has to be immaterial. > > Mitch Raemsch 112. mpc755 View profile More options Dec 7, 11:59 pm Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics From: mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 20:59:24 -0800 (PST) Local: Mon, Dec 7 2009 11:59 pm Subject: Re: Aether Displacement is the most correct physical unified theory to date Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author On Dec 7, 10:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On Dec 7, 7:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 7, 10:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 7, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 7, 4:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > glird wrote: To me, "the aether" (ether) is just a word denoting the > > > continuous aspect of a space-filling COMPRESSIBLE matter out of which > > > particles (and waves) are fashioned. As such, there is no aether > > > other than matter itself, which is the only conducting medium for > > > light. > > > [({Since light goes everywhere, matter is everywhere; so there is no > > > such thing as an "empty space".})] > > > mpc replied: Yes, aether and matter are different forms of the same > > > stuff. {1} I just think we have enough to deal with without having to > > > discuss 'empty' space-filling stuff as 'uncompressed matter'. {2} > > > When you make yourself a drink that you want to be cold, do you put > > > 'frozen water' into your glass, or do you put ice into your glass? > > > Yes, they are both labels for the same stuff, but we call it ice for > > > convenience. We call 'uncompressed matter' aether for convenience. > > > {3} > > > 1. Pardon me for having omitted a bit of my definition. Here is the > > > definition given on page 1 of The Universe: > > > "The spaces within and between particles are always full of > > > compressible matter, the ether. (As used herein, the word 'ether' > > > denotes a continuous material, whether or not there are particles in > > > it.)" > > > 2. Being bodily compressible, there is no such thing as "uncompressed > > > matter" either. Even in a vacuum, which is a space with no particles > > > in it, the density of its material is variable everywhere. However, > > > because of the basic property I call "ontropy" (i.e. matter resists > > > compression increasingly weaker as its density decreases), the speed > > > of em waves approaches a maximum of c in any material. (As experiments > > > have shown, if the material medium is compressed sufficiently, light > > > will move only a few feet per second even in a vacuum chamber.) > > > 3. It might be convenient but it is utterly misleading. It implies > > > that there are two different KINDS of matter, one being compressible > > > and the other incompressible. > > > Indeed, the kinetic atomic theory -- that matter is made of ultimate > > > particles separated by empty spaces -- is based on the latter > > > implication, which became the secret premise on which present science > > > was founded. (Although atoms and subatomic particles do exist, the > > > kinetic atomic theory - that ALL matter is made of them, is false. So > > > is most of theoretical physics.) > > > About 40 pages later The Universe says: > > > "In summary, Maxwell said, > > > There is an aethereal material medium filling space and permeating > > > bodies. ... It has a real density which is modified in some way by the > > > presence of gross matter in it. > > > Unfortunately, after discussing the electrical and magnetic > > > properties of the ether Maxwell said, 'It is true that -- the > > > properties -- are not so much altered -- as to allow us to suppose > > > that the dense medium (gross matter) does anything more than merely > > > modify the motion of the ether.' He was stuck with ether as a > > > generically different kind of matter than atomic matter. He was > > > saddled with the kinetic atomic theory, whether he realized it or not.. > > > {The program runs very deep.}" > > > SO deep that even though you may not mean it that way, if you say > > > "We call 'uncompressed matter' aether" most people will think you are > > > talking about a kind of matter that is entirely different from the > > > "ponderable" matter we are familiar with via direct sensory > > > experience. > > > glird > > Matter and aether are the same material substance. What we consider > > aether is matter in its base state.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > As Einstein said the aether has to be immaterial. > Mitch Raemsch 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" If Einstein is correct, and the state of the aether and the state of the neighboring aether is determined by its connections with matter, how is it not displaced by a moving body? How is it Einstein is not referring the the aether's state of displacement?
From: mpc755 on 8 Dec 2009 00:05 On Dec 7, 10:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 7:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 10:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 7, 4:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > glird wrote: To me, "the aether" (ether) is just a word denoting the > > > > continuous aspect of a space-filling COMPRESSIBLE matter out of which > > > particles (and waves) are fashioned. As such, there is no aether > > > other than matter itself, which is the only conducting medium for > > > light. > > > [({Since light goes everywhere, matter is everywhere; so there is no > > > such thing as an "empty space".})] > > > > mpc replied: Yes, aether and matter are different forms of the same > > > stuff. {1} I just think we have enough to deal with without having to > > > discuss 'empty' space-filling stuff as 'uncompressed matter'. {2} > > > When you make yourself a drink that you want to be cold, do you put > > > 'frozen water' into your glass, or do you put ice into your glass? > > > Yes, they are both labels for the same stuff, but we call it ice for > > > convenience. We call 'uncompressed matter' aether for convenience. > > > {3} > > > > 1. Pardon me for having omitted a bit of my definition. Here is the > > > definition given on page 1 of The Universe: > > > "The spaces within and between particles are always full of > > > compressible matter, the ether. (As used herein, the word 'ether' > > > denotes a continuous material, whether or not there are particles in > > > it.)" > > > 2. Being bodily compressible, there is no such thing as "uncompressed > > > matter" either. Even in a vacuum, which is a space with no particles > > > in it, the density of its material is variable everywhere. However, > > > because of the basic property I call "ontropy" (i.e. matter resists > > > compression increasingly weaker as its density decreases), the speed > > > of em waves approaches a maximum of c in any material. (As experiments > > > have shown, if the material medium is compressed sufficiently, light > > > will move only a few feet per second even in a vacuum chamber.) > > > 3. It might be convenient but it is utterly misleading. It implies > > > that there are two different KINDS of matter, one being compressible > > > and the other incompressible. > > > Indeed, the kinetic atomic theory -- that matter is made of ultimate > > > particles separated by empty spaces -- is based on the latter > > > implication, which became the secret premise on which present science > > > was founded. (Although atoms and subatomic particles do exist, the > > > kinetic atomic theory - that ALL matter is made of them, is false. So > > > is most of theoretical physics.) > > > About 40 pages later The Universe says: > > > "In summary, Maxwell said, > > > There is an aethereal material medium filling space and permeating > > > bodies. ... It has a real density which is modified in some way by the > > > presence of gross matter in it. > > > Unfortunately, after discussing the electrical and magnetic > > > properties of the ether Maxwell said, 'It is true that -- the > > > properties -- are not so much altered -- as to allow us to suppose > > > that the dense medium (gross matter) does anything more than merely > > > modify the motion of the ether.' He was stuck with ether as a > > > generically different kind of matter than atomic matter. He was > > > saddled with the kinetic atomic theory, whether he realized it or not.. > > > {The program runs very deep.}" > > > > SO deep that even though you may not mean it that way, if you say > > > "We call 'uncompressed matter' aether" most people will think you are > > > talking about a kind of matter that is entirely different from the > > > "ponderable" matter we are familiar with via direct sensory > > > experience. > > > > glird > > > Matter and aether are the same material substance. What we consider > > aether is matter in its base state.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > As Einstein said the aether has to be immaterial. > > Mitch Raemsch 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" If Einstein is correct, and the state of the aether and the state of the neighboring aether is determined by its connections with matter, how is it not displaced by a moving body? How is it Einstein is not referring the the aether's state of displacement?
From: Huang on 8 Dec 2009 00:16 > "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of > relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that > the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > If Einstein is correct, and the state of the aether and the state of > the neighboring aether is determined by its connections with matter, > how is it not displaced by a moving body? How is it Einstein is not > referring the the aether's state of displacement?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Aether is retarded. Dimension is a medium of wave propagation. Dimension is the only thing which really exists, and all of the energy we see is nothing more than waveforms which propagate in this medium.
From: mpc755 on 8 Dec 2009 01:00 On Dec 8, 12:16 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of > > relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that > > the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > > If Einstein is correct, and the state of the aether and the state of > > the neighboring aether is determined by its connections with matter, > > how is it not displaced by a moving body? How is it Einstein is not > > referring the the aether's state of displacement?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Aether is retarded. > > Dimension is a medium of wave propagation. Dimension is the only thing > which really exists, and all of the energy we see is nothing more than > waveforms which propagate in this medium. Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."
From: BURT on 8 Dec 2009 03:26
On Dec 7, 9:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 7, 10:52 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 7, 7:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 7, 10:17 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 5:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 7, 4:50 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > glird wrote: To me, "the aether" (ether) is just a word denoting the > > > > > continuous aspect of a space-filling COMPRESSIBLE matter out of which > > > > particles (and waves) are fashioned. As such, there is no aether > > > > other than matter itself, which is the only conducting medium for > > > > light. > > > > [({Since light goes everywhere, matter is everywhere; so there is no > > > > such thing as an "empty space".})] > > > > > mpc replied: Yes, aether and matter are different forms of the same > > > > stuff. {1} I just think we have enough to deal with without having to > > > > discuss 'empty' space-filling stuff as 'uncompressed matter'. {2} > > > > When you make yourself a drink that you want to be cold, do you put > > > > 'frozen water' into your glass, or do you put ice into your glass? > > > > Yes, they are both labels for the same stuff, but we call it ice for > > > > convenience. We call 'uncompressed matter' aether for convenience. > > > > {3} > > > > > 1. Pardon me for having omitted a bit of my definition. Here is the > > > > definition given on page 1 of The Universe: > > > > "The spaces within and between particles are always full of > > > > compressible matter, the ether. (As used herein, the word 'ether' > > > > denotes a continuous material, whether or not there are particles in > > > > it.)" > > > > 2. Being bodily compressible, there is no such thing as "uncompressed > > > > matter" either. Even in a vacuum, which is a space with no particles > > > > in it, the density of its material is variable everywhere. However, > > > > because of the basic property I call "ontropy" (i.e. matter resists > > > > compression increasingly weaker as its density decreases), the speed > > > > of em waves approaches a maximum of c in any material. (As experiments > > > > have shown, if the material medium is compressed sufficiently, light > > > > will move only a few feet per second even in a vacuum chamber.) > > > > 3. It might be convenient but it is utterly misleading. It implies > > > > that there are two different KINDS of matter, one being compressible > > > > and the other incompressible. > > > > Indeed, the kinetic atomic theory -- that matter is made of ultimate > > > > particles separated by empty spaces -- is based on the latter > > > > implication, which became the secret premise on which present science > > > > was founded. (Although atoms and subatomic particles do exist, the > > > > kinetic atomic theory - that ALL matter is made of them, is false. So > > > > is most of theoretical physics.) > > > > About 40 pages later The Universe says: > > > > "In summary, Maxwell said, > > > > There is an aethereal material medium filling space and permeating > > > > bodies. ... It has a real density which is modified in some way by the > > > > presence of gross matter in it. > > > > Unfortunately, after discussing the electrical and magnetic > > > > properties of the ether Maxwell said, 'It is true that -- the > > > > properties -- are not so much altered -- as to allow us to suppose > > > > that the dense medium (gross matter) does anything more than merely > > > > modify the motion of the ether.' He was stuck with ether as a > > > > generically different kind of matter than atomic matter. He was > > > > saddled with the kinetic atomic theory, whether he realized it or not. > > > > {The program runs very deep.}" > > > > > SO deep that even though you may not mean it that way, if you say > > > > "We call 'uncompressed matter' aether" most people will think you are > > > > talking about a kind of matter that is entirely different from the > > > > "ponderable" matter we are familiar with via direct sensory > > > > experience. > > > > > glird > > > > Matter and aether are the same material substance. What we consider > > > aether is matter in its base state.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > As Einstein said the aether has to be immaterial. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einsteinhttp://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of > relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that > the state of the former is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" > > If Einstein is correct, and the state of the aether and the state of > the neighboring aether is determined by its connections with matter, > how is it not displaced by a moving body? How is it Einstein is not > referring the the aether's state of displacement?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You find the dark flow of immaterial over and through matter and light. |