What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Rudolf Drabek on 31 May 2007 05:27 On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > There is no source or Platonia. All existing information exists > > within the system that contains and uses it, nothing coming from an > > external source. > > > -- > > Laurent- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What you suggested is more practical of course. The source I'm > talking > about is Bohm Implicate Order. But it's ok if you don't take that as > possibility. > > Let's go of the Aether. Aether was postulated to explore a possible > privilege frame of reference. But Special Relativity has proven > everything esp. motion is relative. So the Aether is already > destroyed. > Aether and Special Relativity are opposite. Since Special Relativity > wins, the Aether loses. So there is no Aether. > You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as a FOR. EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate. I assume a lot of people are thinking in math only and forget the phys. priciples as a condition sine qua non. The Aether has at minimum the characteristic 377 Ohm or Z_o if you like.
From: Sue... on 31 May 2007 05:46 On May 31, 6:27 am, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There is no source or Platonia. All existing information exists > > > within the system that contains and uses it, nothing coming from an > > > external source. > > > > -- > > > Laurent- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > What you suggested is more practical of course. The source I'm > > talking > > about is Bohm Implicate Order. But it's ok if you don't take that as > > possibility. > > > Let's go of the Aether. Aether was postulated to explore a possible > > privilege frame of reference. But Special Relativity has proven > > everything esp. motion is relative. So the Aether is already > > destroyed. > > Aether and Special Relativity are opposite. Since Special Relativity > > wins, the Aether loses. So there is no Aether. > > You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as > a FOR. > EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate. > I assume a lot of people are thinking in math only and forget the > phys. priciples as a > condition sine qua non. > The Aether has at minimum the characteristic 377 Ohm or Z_o if you > like. General Relativity uses the term "Inertial ether" Electromagnism uses the term "free-space" Congratulations on your mastery of the semantic operator which goes where no imaginary operator has gone before in confusing and amusing the masses. Sue...
From: Rudolf Drabek on 31 May 2007 05:55 On 31 Mai, 11:46, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On May 31, 6:27 am, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > > > > > On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > There is no source or Platonia. All existing information exists > > > > within the system that contains and uses it, nothing coming from an > > > > external source. > > > > > -- > > > > Laurent- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > What you suggested is more practical of course. The source I'm > > > talking > > > about is Bohm Implicate Order. But it's ok if you don't take that as > > > possibility. > > > > Let's go of the Aether. Aether was postulated to explore a possible > > > privilege frame of reference. But Special Relativity has proven > > > everything esp. motion is relative. So the Aether is already > > > destroyed. > > > Aether and Special Relativity are opposite. Since Special Relativity > > > wins, the Aether loses. So there is no Aether. > > > You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as > > a FOR. > > EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate. > > I assume a lot of people are thinking in math only and forget the > > phys. priciples as a > > condition sine qua non. > > The Aether has at minimum the characteristic 377 Ohm or Z_o if you > > like. > > General Relativity uses the term "Inertial ether" > Electromagnism uses the term "free-space" > > Congratulations on your mastery of the semantic operator > which goes where no imaginary operator has gone before > in confusing and amusing the masses. > > Sue... ?
From: John Christiansen on 31 May 2007 06:09 "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse news:5c7dltF2vgmdmU1(a)mid.individual.net... > "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1180596752.519177.244050(a)o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> On May 30, 8:10 pm, Bilge <dubi...(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote: >>> On 2007-05-29, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On May 29, 5:15 am, Bilge <dubi...(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote: >>>>> On 2007-05-28, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> [...] >>> >>>>>> Here it appears that you are trying to find the fundamental basis >>>>>> for the existence of the physical properties (eps_0, mu_0, Z_0 and c) >>> >>>>> Do you really think that the ratios of human defined SI constants >>>>> (not to mention redundant ratios of those constants) has any basis in >>>>> physics? >>> >>>> Are you familiar with the system of dimensions and units in Physics? >>>> Can you distinguish between 'physical dimensions' and the 'unit >>>> systems'? >>> >>> Yeah - my point is that you can't make that distinction and you >> >> Isn't it too vague? You may not be convinced with my arguments, but >> the question was "Can you distinguish between 'physical dimensions' >> and the 'unit systems'?" Please be specific, either say that such a >> distinction doesn't exist or say that you are not clear about it. >> >>> prove me right with your silly, superficial argument below. >>> >> ... >> OK I delete my arguments and let us consider yours instead. >> >> To help you express your point of view clearly, let me frame a few >> relevant questions which you may answer as briefly as you please. >> Further, let me assure you that I do not regard you as an idiot or >> crackpot unless you prove otherwise by your *conduct* (and not by >> differences in viewpoints). >> >> 1. Dimensions & Units >> ------------------ >> (a) Do you think the dimensions and units of *speed* are both >> arbitrary and you can change them as you please? Or do you think that >> only units of speed are arbitrary but its dimensions are linked with >> those of a large number of physical parameters (like force, momentum, >> energy, distance, time etc.) and hence cannot be tampered with >> arbitrarily. >> >> (b) The intrinsic *impedance* Z_0 of space continuum is measured to >> be 377 ohms. Do you consider that either the magnitude or units or >> dimensions of Z_0 are arbitrary and can be changed as you please? >> >> (c) If by any chance you agree that the dimensions of speed 'c' and >> impedance 'Z_0' cannot be changed arbitrarily, then do you agree that >> the dimensions of eps_0 and mu_0 can also not be changed arbitrarily? > > Sure, they all can be changed arbitrarily. Why not? In CGS units, the > impedance of space is 4pi/c. Which is length divided by time. Wrong, it is time divided by length (inverse speed) since c is the denominator and has dimension length divided by time and the numerator is a dimensionless constant. John Christiansen In natural units, the impedance of space is 4pi. Eps0 becomes 1/4pi. All > magnitudes of velocities become equal to or less than 1 and dimensionless. > > Best, > > Fred Diether > Moderator sci.physics.foundations
From: Sue... on 31 May 2007 06:21
On May 31, 6:55 am, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > On 31 Mai, 11:46, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 6:27 am, Rudolf Drabek <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote: > > > > On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > There is no source or Platonia. All existing information exists > > > > > within the system that contains and uses it, nothing coming from an > > > > > external source. > > > > > > -- > > > > > Laurent- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > What you suggested is more practical of course. The source I'm > > > > talking > > > > about is Bohm Implicate Order. But it's ok if you don't take that as > > > > possibility. > > > > > Let's go of the Aether. Aether was postulated to explore a possible > > > > privilege frame of reference. But Special Relativity has proven > > > > everything esp. motion is relative. So the Aether is already > > > > destroyed. > > > > Aether and Special Relativity are opposite. Since Special Relativity > > > > wins, the Aether loses. So there is no Aether. > > > > You are completely wrong. Aether has only lost the position to hold as > > > a FOR. > > > EM waves need a medium, otherwise they can't propagate. > > > I assume a lot of people are thinking in math only and forget the > > > phys. priciples as a > > > condition sine qua non. > > > The Aether has at minimum the characteristic 377 Ohm or Z_o if you > > > like. > > > General Relativity uses the term "Inertial ether" > > Electromagnism uses the term "free-space" > > > Congratulations on your mastery of the semantic operator > > which goes where no imaginary operator has gone before > > in confusing and amusing the masses. > > > Sue... > > << ? >> << The key difficulty with the aether hypothesis arose from the juxtaposition of the two well-established theories of Newtonian dynamics and Maxwell's electromagnetism. Under a Galilean transformation the equations of Newtonian dynamics are invariant, whereas those of electromagnetism are not. Basically this means that while physics should remain the same in non-accelerated experiments, light would not follow the same rules because it is travelling in the universal "aether frame". Some effect caused by this difference should be detectable. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html So... unless you can demonstrate how 377 ohms helps you express a problem in classical mechanics (many have tried), it is not nice to allude to Newton's inertial ether or equate it to free-space. We can simply say light propagates in free-space without need for what was hypothesized as luminerous ether. It is also helpful to seek better terms when we encounter words like phlogiston and caloric. ;-) Sue... - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |