What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jimmer on 31 May 2007 06:27 On May 31, 2:07 pm, Y <yanar...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Theoretically yes. Actually no. Time started by some people throwing > some silly rocks about the place. It is used to tell the part of day > we are in. To suggest that it is the 4th dimension is as insane as > suggesting that every atom of your being came from no-where. Hey, it is insane but true, every atom of our being came from no-where. Before the singularity in the Big Bang, there was no such thing as "place". There was no space because space or more accurately spacetime is a child of the Big Bang. It inflated like balloon. So for all intent and purposes, every atom of our being came from no-where. In planck time after the Big Bang. Remember that atoms didn't even exist. All is simply energy (remember the pair creation and annihilations in high energy photon experiment). Only when it cools down that we can say matter form slowly. J. > > Theoretically I am 27 years old. This is in birth years. This is > approx 27 years from the day that my senses came into being with the > material world. In actuality, every part of me is as old as the 'big > bang' and whatever came before that. Unless, Tesla did make a real > transported man as depicted in the film the prestige, and I was > created by a machine which used the aether to make a copy of > something. Nonsense right ? The distance to the big bang is currently > measured in earth rotations around the sun. This seems inaccurate to > me. 4.6 billion years = number of days etc. > > In actuality there is movement. We can see it so it exists. There is > also speed and we can see that too. If you remove time from physics > you resolve every paradox. But time is a useful model to explain many > things in every aspect of reality, like speed etc. So there is actual > physics and theoretical physics. > > Try not to lose sight of the actualities because they will keep us in > check. It would also solve allot of arguments and people could work > together on problems. If we observe the earth as a body that rotates > around the sun, then physics should resolve itself always according to > what is observed rather than being jammed up in old frameworks. There > is always a new framework available. I am optimistic in this respect. > How do we proceed ? > > I want to see more virtual models of the solar system working in 3 > dimensional software. You can use all the values you know, mass, force > acceleration etc. All of it. You may not require a model for time to > produce this. As far as I am aware certain modeling languages > do not require time as a value. They will be relative in some way to > the pc clock, so an autonomy process will be required for the > software. After-all, it is not an animation that you want to produce. > You want to test real theories. The frictionless ability of 3d > modeling software is a great start. > > My suggestion is to start from a very basic theory like my own. i.e. > > Space is the host to place as place is the host to space. > > As a start; place moving in space will need to be frictionless. > Whoever does this and makes these models available/purchasable by the > public will by a physics HERO in my opinion. If you do, try and keep > the model open, that way you can exchange models rather than having > arguments about sprinkled words etc. > > Place moving in place will be with friction depending on the > densities. Use the density of water, use the density of air. I mean, > this should have been done as early as the 90's. > > -y > > > > > When I said no time travel I was thinking about time machines, but > > theoretically we could, that's what the Twins Paradox is all about, > > but we just wouldn't be able to get back.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Greg Neill on 31 May 2007 07:06 "Rudolf Drabek" <newsrudy(a)aon.at> wrote in message news:1180603656.779549.10620(a)u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations. If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant speed of light for all observers. > 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. You're confusing the properties of space with those of an aether.
From: Sue... on 31 May 2007 07:24 On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote in message > > news:1180603656.779549.10620(a)u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations. > If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant > speed of light for all observers. EM requires a medium. If we want to enhance the path between a pair of computers we don't evacuated the space. We fill it with glass or copper. See this light hugging the conductor and avoiding open space. http://www.astrosurf.com/luxorion/Radio/vertical-58.gif There is no place in this unverse to prove you statement anyway. << Although the interstellar regions are more devoid of matter than any vacuum artificially created on earth, there is matter in space. These regions have very low densities and consist mainly of gas (99%) and dust. In total, approximately 15% of the visible matter in the Milky Way is composed of interstellar gas and dust. [...] This gas is extremely dilute, with an average density of about 1 atom per cubic centimeter. (For comparison, the air we breathe has a density of approximately 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules per cubic centimeter.) http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html Sue... > > > 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. > > You're confusing the properties of space with those of an > aether.
From: Greg Neill on 31 May 2007 07:50 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1180610651.131227.187260(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > "Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote in message > > > > news:1180603656.779549.10620(a)u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations. > > If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant > > speed of light for all observers. > > EM requires a medium. No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley. > If we want to enhance the path between a pair of computers > we don't evacuated the space. We fill it with glass or copper. Now you're confusing waveguides with space. [snip further nonsense]
From: Sue... on 31 May 2007 08:24
On May 31, 8:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:1180610651.131227.187260(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On May 31, 8:06 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > "Rudolf Drabek" <newsr...(a)aon.at> wrote in message > > > >news:1180603656.779549.10620(a)u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On 25 Mai, 16:03, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 8:38 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > No, EM waves require no medium. See Maxwell's Equations. > > > If they did, Relativity would not work re the constant > > > speed of light for all observers. > > > EM requires a medium. > > No. Stop confusing the newbies. If space contained such a > medium then it would have mechanical properties and provide a > preferred rest frame. The whole gammut of tests for such a > medium came up nil, up to and including Michelson-Morley. Free-space *does* have mechanical properties. What pushes a positive charge pulls a negative charge. That isn't confusing. It is an important distinction from acoustic waves. MMX was null so is irrelevant. "Newbie" grasp this just fine if you don't confuse them with Newton's 'corpuscles'. If you do, they end up deranged like Androcles and Henri. > > > If we want to enhance the path between a pair of computers > > we don't evacuated the space. We fill it with glass or copper. > > Now you're confusing waveguides with space. What kind of space do you mean? Is it 377 ohms? If so we ~confuse~ (impedance match? ) them all the time. Sue... > > [snip further nonsense] - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |