Relativity Error
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Symmetry of BP's economic blowout & scarcity of their product?
Next: De Walls shows, all forces come from charge
From: mpc755 on 30 Jun 2010 00:28 On Jun 30, 12:06 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Yes but how can aether being displaced cause freefall? > > > > What is space? Space has no mass. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > The material is maether. > > Maether has mass. > > Aether and matter have mass. > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. > > The 'displacing back' is pressure exerted by displaced aether. > > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. > > Do you know that you never have the ability to respond to me? > > Mitch Raemsch I just did. You said space has no mass. I am explaining to you that space does have mass. You asked how displaced aether causes free fall. I am explaining to you that aether is displaced by matter. Aether is not at rest and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the displaced aether towards the matter. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether. Displaced aether causes free fall because displaced aether is gravity.
From: BURT on 30 Jun 2010 01:24 On Jun 29, 9:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 12:06 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but how can aether being displaced cause freefall? > > > > > What is space? Space has no mass. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Aether and matter are different states of the same material. > > > The material is maether. > > > Maether has mass. > > > Aether and matter have mass. > > > Aether is displaced by matter. > > > The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. > > > The 'displacing back' is pressure exerted by displaced aether. > > > Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter. > > > Do you know that you never have the ability to respond to me? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > I just did. You said space has no mass. I am explaining to you that > space does have mass. > > You asked how displaced aether causes free fall. I am explaining to > you that aether is displaced by matter. Aether is not at rest and > 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the > displaced aether towards the matter. Gravity is pressure exerted by > displaced aether. > > Displaced aether causes free fall because displaced aether is gravity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - So what happens to the mass in space when something moves through it? Would it not gather the mass in space to itself in a snowball effect? Mitch Raemsch
From: harald on 30 Jun 2010 04:46 On Jun 30, 4:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 29, 8:27 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: [..] > > > there was a Lorentz ether in GR even thought Einstein said, "the ether > > > of the general theory of relativity AS OPPOSED TO the ether of Lorentz > > > consists in this..." > > > Obviously you don't have a clue what he was talking about; but worse, > > neither do you really want to know, nor do you want to > > read any other sentences. > > > > So, even though Einstein said, "According to the general theory of > > > relativity space without ether is unthinkable" you are suggesting > > > Einstein said there was no ether in SR? > > > For a last time (yes I know, to deaf ears), Einstein indicated that > > the ether of SR corresponds to the Lorentz ether. But you don't have a > > clue what the difference is between your ether and that of Lorentz. > > Einstein said, "the ether of the general theory of relativity as > opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this..." > > What part of 'as opposed to' are you unable to understand? Einstein is > saying the ether of General Relativity is not the ether of Lorentz. > > You are stating Einstein said the ether of SR is the ether of Lorentz. > > Do you really believe Einstein chose to believe in two > ethers, one for SR and one for GR? Of course not, those are just models - but I wonder if you know what that means. Have you never heard of the Bohr and Schrodinger atoms? Do you really believe that scientists "choose" to believe in different types of atoms, one type of atom for Bohr followers and one type for Schrodinger followers? [..] Harald
From: mpc755 on 30 Jun 2010 06:26 On Jun 30, 4:46 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 30, 4:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jun 29, 8:27 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > [..] > > > > > > > there was a Lorentz ether in GR even thought Einstein said, "the ether > > > > of the general theory of relativity AS OPPOSED TO the ether of Lorentz > > > > consists in this..." > > > > Obviously you don't have a clue what he was talking about; but worse, > > > neither do you really want to know, nor do you want to > > > read any other sentences. > > > > > So, even though Einstein said, "According to the general theory of > > > > relativity space without ether is unthinkable" you are suggesting > > > > Einstein said there was no ether in SR? > > > > For a last time (yes I know, to deaf ears), Einstein indicated that > > > the ether of SR corresponds to the Lorentz ether. But you don't have a > > > clue what the difference is between your ether and that of Lorentz. > > > Einstein said, "the ether of the general theory of relativity as > > opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this..." > > > What part of 'as opposed to' are you unable to understand? Einstein is > > saying the ether of General Relativity is not the ether of Lorentz. > > > You are stating Einstein said the ether of SR is the ether of Lorentz. > > > Do you really believe Einstein chose to believe in two > > ethers, one for SR and one for GR? > > Of course not, those are just models - but I wonder if you know what > that means. Have you never heard of the Bohr and Schrodinger atoms? Do > you really believe that scientists "choose" to believe in different > types of atoms, one type of atom for Bohr followers and one type for > Schrodinger followers? > > [..] > > Harald Do you really believe Einstein chose to believe in two models of ether? One for GR and one for SR? You are suggesting the ether of SR is the Lorentz ether. Einstein clearly states the ether of GR is not the Lorentz ether. Einstein was clear on what the ether is. Einstein was simply unable to determine the cause which conditions its state. The cause which conditions the aether's state is its displacement by matter. Einstein's first paper is all about the ether: http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
From: harald on 30 Jun 2010 06:53
On Jun 30, 12:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 4:46 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 30, 4:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Jun 29, 8:27 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > [..] > > > > > > there was a Lorentz ether in GR even thought Einstein said, "the ether > > > > > of the general theory of relativity AS OPPOSED TO the ether of Lorentz > > > > > consists in this..." > > > > > Obviously you don't have a clue what he was talking about; but worse, > > > > neither do you really want to know, nor do you want to > > > > read any other sentences. > > > > > > So, even though Einstein said, "According to the general theory of > > > > > relativity space without ether is unthinkable" you are suggesting > > > > > Einstein said there was no ether in SR? > > > > > For a last time (yes I know, to deaf ears), Einstein indicated that > > > > the ether of SR corresponds to the Lorentz ether. But you don't have a > > > > clue what the difference is between your ether and that of Lorentz. > > > > Einstein said, "the ether of the general theory of relativity as > > > opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this..." > > > > What part of 'as opposed to' are you unable to understand? Einstein is > > > saying the ether of General Relativity is not the ether of Lorentz. > > > > You are stating Einstein said the ether of SR is the ether of Lorentz.. > > > > Do you really believe Einstein chose to believe in two > > > ethers, one for SR and one for GR? > > > Of course not, those are just models - but I wonder if you know what > > that means. Have you never heard of the Bohr and Schrodinger atoms? Do > > you really believe that scientists "choose" to believe in different > > types of atoms, one type of atom for Bohr followers and one type for > > Schrodinger followers? > > > [..] > > > Harald > > Do you really believe Einstein chose to believe in two > models of ether? One for GR and one for SR? I replied here above: "Of course not", and I indicated the meaning of models to you. Against such blindness nothing helps. Harald [..] |