What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Rudolf Drabek on 30 May 2007 12:40 On 30 Mai, 16:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Rudolf Drabek wrote: > > > EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not > > necc. medium. > > But it has 377 Ohm's. > > "The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of > free space, is an expression of the relationship between the > electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic > field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space, > like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and > is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical > constant". Yes, the surface of the unity sphere multiplied with sqrt(c). So what? A moving charge generates a magnetic field. Do you agree on that? Usually the charges are electrons. EM waves in empty space can only propagate if there is something that can be exited to behave as electrons. What I want to say also is, that this medium, totally elastic , the aether is irrelevat for SR. It has not the properties like an absolute coordination system, also not for the transportation of EM energy. More I don't know at the moment. But it is surprisingly strange and new -may be for me only-. I came to that, because I investigated the h_w of antennaes, current distribution E and H field.
From: Rudolf Drabek on 30 May 2007 12:45 On 30 Mai, 18:40, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > On 30 Mai, 16:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote:> Rudolf Drabek wrote: > > > > EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not > > > necc. medium. > > > But it has 377 Ohm's. > > > "The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of > > free space, is an expression of the relationship between the > > electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic > > field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space, > > like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and > > is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical > > constant". > > Yes, the surface of the unity sphere multiplied with sqrt(c). > So what? > > A moving charge generates a magnetic field. Do you agree on that? > Usually the charges are electrons. > > EM waves in empty space can only propagate if there is something that > can be exited to behave as electrons. > What I want to say also is, that this medium, totally elastic , the > aether is irrelevat for SR. It has not the properties like an absolute > coordination system, also not for the transportation of EM energy. > More I don't know at the moment. But it is surprisingly strange and > new -may be for me only-. > I came to that, because I investigated the h_w of antennaes, current > distribution E and H field. Oh, I forgot, dark matter behaves in the same way. Not detectable to date.
From: Sam Wormley on 30 May 2007 13:02 Rudolf Drabek wrote: > On 30 Mai, 16:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >> Rudolf Drabek wrote: >> >>> EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not >>> necc. medium. >>> But it has 377 Ohm's. >> "The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of >> free space, is an expression of the relationship between the >> electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic >> field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space, >> like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and >> is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical >> constant". > Yes, the surface of the unity sphere multiplied with sqrt(c). > So what? > > A moving charge generates a magnetic field. Do you agree on that? > Usually the charges are electrons. > > EM waves in empty space can only propagate if there is something that > can be exited to behave as electrons. Says you--I'm saying that photons *do* propagate through empty space without anything getting excited. Let's do an experiment or make an observation to decide which idea is supported. > What I want to say also is, that this medium, totally elastic , the > aether is irrelevat for SR. It has not the properties like an absolute > coordination system, also not for the transportation of EM energy. > More I don't know at the moment. But it is surprisingly strange and > new -may be for me only-. > I came to that, because I investigated the h_w of antennaes, current > distribution E and H field. >
From: Sam Wormley on 30 May 2007 13:03 Rudolf Drabek wrote: > On 30 Mai, 18:40, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: >> On 30 Mai, 16:13, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote:> Rudolf Drabek wrote: >> >>>> EM waves are propagating thru this nondetectable and acc. to SR not >>>> necc. medium. >>>> But it has 377 Ohm's. >>> "The characteristic impedance of free space, also called the Zo of >>> free space, is an expression of the relationship between the >>> electric-field and magnetic-field intensities in an electromagnetic >>> field (EM field) propagating through a vacuum. The Zo of free space, >>> like characteristic impedance in general, is expressed in ohms, and >>> is theoretically independent of wavelength. It is considered a physical >>> constant". >> Yes, the surface of the unity sphere multiplied with sqrt(c). >> So what? >> >> A moving charge generates a magnetic field. Do you agree on that? >> Usually the charges are electrons. >> >> EM waves in empty space can only propagate if there is something that >> can be exited to behave as electrons. >> What I want to say also is, that this medium, totally elastic , the >> aether is irrelevat for SR. It has not the properties like an absolute >> coordination system, also not for the transportation of EM energy. >> More I don't know at the moment. But it is surprisingly strange and >> new -may be for me only-. >> I came to that, because I investigated the h_w of antennaes, current >> distribution E and H field. > > Oh, I forgot, dark matter behaves in the same way. Not detectable to > date. > Oh dark matter is detectable all right... by its gravitational effects!
From: Laurent on 30 May 2007 14:56
On May 30, 12:18 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 9:44 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 11:28 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 29, 8:51 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 6:51 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Laurent wrote: > > > > > > On May 28, 9:34 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Laurent keeps emphasizing that his Aether is Empty Space > > > > > > > which is the source of everything. He mentions in the 2 > > > > > > > paragraphs (my comment follows after it): > > > > > > > > "First of all, before we continue, we must distinguish empty > > > > > > > space from material space. I see empty space as the seat to > > > > > > > all fields, synonymous to Einstein's aether, and I see it as primary. > > > > > > > Material space, or what I call the cosmic microwave background > > > > > > > radiation (CMBR), is a product. Since in my view these are > > > > > > > synonymous, from now on I will talk about aether and empty > > > > > > > space as one and the same thing. > > > > > > > > Supposedly, from the MMX results we should conclude that > > > > > > > the aether is immaterial and unobservable. Now, if empty > > > > > > > space were here before matter and could exist independently > > > > > > > from the Universe, isn't the classical vacuum immaterial and > > > > > > > unobservable too?" > > > > > > > > My comment. Before the Big Bang. We can't say there was > > > > > > > empty space. In the Big Bang, space was created in the Bang > > > > > > > as space expands. Space seems to be part of the physical world > > > > > > > or whatever is it that banged. Isn't it that there are vacuum > > > > > > > fluctuations in every planck bit of space. Space is part of > > > > > > > the physical world. Now when we say physical world, we > > > > > > > tend to think it is just a concrete world of nut & bolt. But maybe > > > > > > > let's just look at it as some kind of reality where mathematics > > > > > > > laws can shapeshift into physicality. Therefore there is no > > > > > > > need for an Aether because the physical world is not a > > > > > > > concrete world we think it is but mathematics objectified. > > > > > > > Anyway. I think it is all just semantics. He (& some) wants to use > > > > > > > the word Aether but one can describe everything he said > > > > > > > by just assuming that the physical world is it. In Gauge > > > > > > > Theory, etc. where higher mathematics produce all those > > > > > > > experimental data such as electroweak force, etc. We > > > > > > > know that physical reality is unique and mathematics > > > > > > > objectified. Therefore fragmenting reality into physical > > > > > > > and aether or physical and fredi vacuum in a concrete > > > > > > > connections won't produce all the predictions offered > > > > > > > by the math. In other words, you can't model math as > > > > > > > interactions between aether and physical, etc. or vacuum > > > > > > > dynamics. The physical world is simply a unique place > > > > > > > or a mathematical living machine. > > > > > > > > J. > > > > > > > I am a physicalist, and the aether is the physicalists God. > > > > > > Here is what you are doing. You want to continue where > > > > > Einstein "Gravitational Ether" left off. We know Einstein > > > > > Gravitational Ether is not the same as the Maxwellian > > > > > Aether and so not related to Special Relativity. But you > > > > > want to relate to SR by claiming Aether is what defines > > > > > the frames and the relationship. But what defines the > > > > > relationship can be explained by geometry. So indirectly > > > > > what you are doing is claiming the Aether is the reason > > > > > why geometry exists and why in this world circle are > > > > > round and lines are straight and women bodie are > > > > > curved. In a way, you may as well call it God. In fact, > > > > > the Aether is your God. > > > > > > About physicialism. Well. The incredible success of > > > > > Quantum Field Theory in predicting experiment outcomes > > > > > down to many signficiant digits can't be matched by any > > > > > newtonian physical model such as dual space or anything. > > > > > This is why it appears the physical world is a living > > > > > mathematical entity. > > > > > > It's not bad to keep talking about the Aether and explaining > > > > > it is the reason circle is round. But try to cook up more details > > > > > such as how we can shield gravity if you don't subscribe to > > > > > General Relativity and attribute gravity as dynamics of > > > > > aether-physical substance. There must be a way to shield > > > > > it. Figure it out. > > > > > > About the double slit one photon or electron at a time > > > > > experiment. Is your model the same as RP? Hope > > > > > you can explain this in an article in your web. BTW... > > > > > you said every object has its matter wave. So each > > > > > electron, quark has its matter wave. You describe > > > > > it as though the particles always exist. But in pair > > > > > creation and annihilation. They are cooked up from > > > > > the vacuum. Maybe you subscribe to the dual space > > > > > version which is newtonian in fashion but this won't > > > > > have the same predicting power as the analog QFT. > > > > > Dual space, RP and your your pilot wave-particle duality > > > > > explanations are digital and can't produce the complexities > > > > > of the world. This is the reason I don't subscribe to > > > > > nuts and bolts stuff anymore in the wave-particle > > > > > subject and its consequences such as electroweak, QFT, > > > > > etc. thing.. > > > > > > J. > > > > > Here, this is why the speed of light is frame independent. > > > > > "c = 1/sqr(Uo*Ep)... where Uo is the permeability and Ep is the > > > > permittivity for free space" --- Michael Wales > > > > Great, Michael Wales just explained how c=c. Now where's the > > > explanation of why permeability and permittivity are invariant? > > > > Not that it matters, because the two terms are completely > > > interchangable within any equation by simply using the appropriate > > > conversion constant. In otherwords this is no explanation of c, > > > period. By another name it's called numerology. These terms aren't > > > exactly stress and strain. The standard explanation is woefully > > > incorrect. > > > Still, that is why the speed of light is frame independent. The speed > > of light is determined at the aether level, like it or not.- Hide quoted text - > > It's geometric. The standard derivation of light speed using the > arbitrary constants e and mu_o is just numerology, plain and simple. > > c, along with an arbitrary choice of units results in them, rather > than they causing c. Still, it points out to the existing relationship between the aether and the propagation speed of fields. > > The medium is just the matter in the universe, all of its parts > forming a geometric whole. There isn't matter + something else, there > is just matter. OTOH, that doesn't imply that there is nothing in > between, in fact it requires that the something in between is that > same matter. Fermions and their em fields are one and the same. Since > an em wave is the propagation of the change in field strength of a > collection of charges (or of a single charged particle), then that > field is itself the medium of propagation, that is, it is actually in > motion, being rigidly attached to the origin of the charge, what we > call the fermion. The delay, or rather the measured delay, is what SR > predicts. The wave is thus a disturbance in spacetime itself, and from > at least one geometrical perspective the wave doesn't even exist, but > rather the particles interact directly through time with each other. > > There are many interpretations, but there is no physical evidence of > the medium being something other than what is already directly > observable, i.e. em fields. > > What's sad is that even though Einstein devoted an entire chapter to > the subject to show that space and field are mathematically > indistinguishable and thus one and the same, and yet there are those > who insist that there is nothing in between. I think the experiment > that I provided a link to recently, in which photons from two > different sources were split, and then recombined with components from > the other source, shows that we can find out what is happening in > between without directly measuring the radiation during its > propagation. It is there, and it does exist, and it does propagate in > wave form. Something must be waving, and thus something must be there > to wave. Of course it isn't a material classical aether, it's just > spacetime itself, but definitely not nothing. Einstein's fatal mistake was that he was never able to differentiate between spacetime and empty space, he thought they were both the same. Otherwise, I think he would have been able to fuse GR to quantum mechanics. Einstein's aether - which is the aether I mostly talk about - isn't bound by time , but by topolgical properties, a set of ratios determined at the aether scale; frame independent constants. A very small number of fixed laws by which all matter and space must abide. Physical (real) but non-material quantities (topological). Time independent continuity and connectedness. We can also call it topological space, inertial space, or even momentum space. |