Prev: How does one do an intergal which contains sqrt(dx) as the intergation element?
Next: Sum of three cubes
From: PD on 13 Jan 2010 10:17
On Jan 12, 7:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 8:26 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:20:10 -0800 (PST), Just Me <jpd...(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > Quoting Einstein,
>
> > >"It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light
> > >is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the
> > >nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a
> > >fluid, but only in a solid."
>
> > >As I am not a physicist, I have no idea what that means.  When I look
> > >at breakers coming ashore at the seaside, I see what I take to be a
> > >transverse wave -- what am I missing? What am I seeing instead?
>
> > The surfaces of bodies of water on earth can support vertical waves.
> > That is because under the influence of gravity, water tends to find
> > its own level, and the surface of the water can oscillate above and
> > below that level.
>
> > Such waves are transverse, but they are only possible at the surface.
> > We don't observe such waves deep under water, and we don't observe
> > horizontal transverse waves either on the surface of water or deep
> > underwater.
>
> > However it is easy to create transverse waves in a jelly by making it
> > wobble, or in a rope.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave
>
> > >But now look again at Einstein's stated reason as to why
> > >theoretically, no motion may be attributed to the ether . . .
>
> > >> > this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the
> > >> >quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
> > >> >which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
> > >> >applied to it.
>
> > There are two sentences here. You have interpreted the first as
> > providing a reason for the second. But my interpretation is that both
> > sentences essentially say the same thing, with no particular reason
> > given.
>
> > So, the two quotes say,
>
> > 1) The ether must be of the nature of a solid body, but,
> > 2) the idea of motion may not be applied to it.
>
> > If both were true we would have a contradiction.
>
> > Since a good reason is given for 1) but not for 2), it would seem more
> > reasonable than not, to reject 2).
>
> > > It is not so much that Einstein has here determined a dynamical
> > > ether as absolutely impossible, but simply impossible of detection
> > >*as motion*--
>
> > That's a reasonable position, but if the motion existed, it would be
> > premature to assume it could never be detected.
>
> > Surfer
>
> Einstein's definition of motion is, "[extended physical objects to
> which the idea of motion cannot be applied] may not be thought of as
> consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately
> tracked through time".

That is not Einstein's definition of motion. Good heavens, you have no
reading comprehension ability whatsoever.

>
> Einstein is not saying the aether consists of particle, or not.

No, what he's saying is that any aether theory that has to consist of
particles (say, to support other properties like elasticity -- which
would REQUIRE particles even if the proposer does not mention them out
loud), and which is claimed to exhibit motion (such as displacement or
entrainment), would be ruled out.

What Einstein is saying is that the only kind of aether theory that is
still left as a possibility is one where there is no entrainment, no
displacement, no elasticity, no pressure.

If you do not understand that this is what Einstein is saying, try
reading the whole article again, because you are not getting it.

> Einstein is also not specifically saying the aether cannot be in
> motion. What Einstein is specifically saying is the aether does not
> consist of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked
> through time.
>
> Einstein also says, "if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable
> than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in
> time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists
> of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a
> medium."
>
> and
>
> "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
>
> The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time as
> determined by its connections with the matter, is the aether's state
> of displacement.

From: mpc755 on 13 Jan 2010 10:31
On Jan 13, 10:17 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 7:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 12, 8:26 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:20:10 -0800 (PST), Just Me <jpd...(a)gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > Quoting Einstein,
>
> > > >"It also seemed to be a necessary consequence of the fact that light
> > > >is capable of polarisation that this medium, the ether, must be of the
> > > >nature of a solid body, because transverse waves are not possible in a
> > > >fluid, but only in a solid."
>
> > > >As I am not a physicist, I have no idea what that means.  When I look
> > > >at breakers coming ashore at the seaside, I see what I take to be a
> > > >transverse wave -- what am I missing? What am I seeing instead?
>
> > > The surfaces of bodies of water on earth can support vertical waves.
> > > That is because under the influence of gravity, water tends to find
> > > its own level, and the surface of the water can oscillate above and
> > > below that level.
>
> > > Such waves are transverse, but they are only possible at the surface.
> > > We don't observe such waves deep under water, and we don't observe
> > > horizontal transverse waves either on the surface of water or deep
> > > underwater.
>
> > > However it is easy to create transverse waves in a jelly by making it
> > > wobble, or in a rope.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_wave
>
> > > >But now look again at Einstein's stated reason as to why
> > > >theoretically, no motion may be attributed to the ether . . .
>
> > > >> > this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the
> > > >> >quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts
> > > >> >which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be
> > > >> >applied to it.
>
> > > There are two sentences here. You have interpreted the first as
> > > providing a reason for the second. But my interpretation is that both
> > > sentences essentially say the same thing, with no particular reason
> > > given.
>
> > > So, the two quotes say,
>
> > > 1) The ether must be of the nature of a solid body, but,
> > > 2) the idea of motion may not be applied to it.
>
> > > If both were true we would have a contradiction.
>
> > > Since a good reason is given for 1) but not for 2), it would seem more
> > > reasonable than not, to reject 2).
>
> > > > It is not so much that Einstein has here determined a dynamical
> > > > ether as absolutely impossible, but simply impossible of detection
> > > >*as motion*--
>
> > > That's a reasonable position, but if the motion existed, it would be
> > > premature to assume it could never be detected.
>
> > > Surfer
>
> > Einstein's definition of motion is, "[extended physical objects to
> > which the idea of motion cannot be applied] may not be thought of as
> > consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately
> > tracked through time".
>
> That is not Einstein's definition of motion. Good heavens, you have no
> reading comprehension ability whatsoever.
>
>
>
> > Einstein is not saying the aether consists of particle, or not.
>
> No, what he's saying is that any aether theory that has to consist of
> particles (say, to support other properties like elasticity -- which
> would REQUIRE particles even if the proposer does not mention them out
> loud), and which is claimed to exhibit motion (such as displacement or
> entrainment), would be ruled out.
>
> What Einstein is saying is that the only kind of aether theory that is
> still left as a possibility is one where there is no entrainment, no
> displacement, no elasticity, no pressure.
>
> If you do not understand that this is what Einstein is saying, try
> reading the whole article again, because you are not getting it.
>

"[Extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be
applied] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow
themselves to be separately tracked through time"

"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to
consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of
ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of
relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of
motion to the ether."

"But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."

What part of "consisting of particles which allow themselves to be
separately tracked through time" and "particles observable through
time" and "parts which may be tracked through time" are you not able
to understand?

And then we have:

"if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of
the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have
no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles.
But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

And

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

What is you interpretation of the state of the aether as determined by
its connections with the matter?

The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time,
having no ground for the assumption the aether consists of movable
particles capable of being separately tracked through time, determined
by the aether's connections with the matter and the state of the
aether in neighboring places, is the aether's state of displacement.

> > Einstein is also not specifically saying the aether cannot be in
> > motion. What Einstein is specifically saying is the aether does not
> > consist of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked
> > through time.
>
> > Einstein also says, "if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable
> > than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in
> > time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists
> > of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a
> > medium."
>
> > and
>
> > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
>
> > The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time as
> > determined by its connections with the matter, is the aether's state
> > of displacement.
>
>

From: spudnik on 13 Jan 2010 22:00
so, what is it about aether tha *is* ponderable, if
Einstein couldn't find it in a thought "experiment?"

> > > Einstein also says, "if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable
> > > than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in
> > > time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists
> > > of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a
> > > medium."
>
> > > and
>
> > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
>
> > > The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time as
> > > determined by its connections with the matter, is the aether's state
> > > of displacement.

--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 13 Jan 2010 22:10
On Jan 13, 10:00 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> so, what is it about aether tha *is* ponderable, if
> Einstein couldn't find it in a thought "experiment?"
>
> > > > Einstein also says, "if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable
> > > > than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in
> > > > time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists
> > > > of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a
> > > > medium."
>
> > > > and
>
> > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
>
> > > > The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time as
> > > > determined by its connections with the matter, is the aether's state
> > > > of displacement.
>
> --l'OEuvre!http://wlym.com

"But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may
be tracked through time." - Albert Einstein

Einstein is referring to the aether in terms of its ponderability to
be the aether not consisting of parts which can be tracked through
time.

What *is* ponderable about the aether is exactly what you included in
your post:

"the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in
time" (where Einstein is using the analogy of water for the aether)

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"

If we combine the two we get:

The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, at
every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of
the aether in neighboring places, is the aether's state of
displacement.

What *is* ponderable is the aether's state of displacement.
From: spudnik on 13 Jan 2010 22:17
do you posit that "the vacuum" is just aether?... so, if
there is only relative degrees of vacuum,
what is the need for relative dgrees of aether,
to displace the matter that is not in space?

well, what other ponderable properties does it have,
other than this displacement/entrainment?

> If we combine the two we get:
>
> The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, at
> every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of
> the aether in neighboring places, is the aether's state of
> displacement.
>
> What *is* ponderable is the aether's state of displacement.

thus:
but the models have always coroberated (sp.?) "global" warming,
even though there are approximately no datasets that show it (that is
to say, none that I have come across since about '82,
when I first began to pay attention to the rapidity of the change
of the climate). of course,
you don't have to know, which datasets those are;
what ones do you ascribe to?

please note that on the equinox at noon, if
insolation is "one" at the equator, then
it is basically "zero" at both poles;
a model is always correct, at least twice a year!

> That all those models from 10 countries project the world is getting
> warmer proves it's one massive conspiracy.

thus:
so, what is it about aether tha *is* ponderable, if
Einstein couldn't find it in a thought "experiment?"

--l'OEuvre!
http://wlym.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: How does one do an intergal which contains sqrt(dx) as the intergation element?
Next: Sum of three cubes