What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sue... on 31 May 2007 10:49 On May 31, 10:55 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:1180618405.527050.212010(a)p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > Learn some physics: > > Propagation in a dielectric medium > >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space > >http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html > > You're conflating fields and properties of space with aether. > > Learn some physics yourself: > > Into the early 20th century the need for Aether vanished. > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#aether That is a dead link. Quite possibly the result of a direct challenge to John Baez in this forum about its content. He disclaimed the abuse of imaginary operators and pointed out that he was not the original author. By adhering to the correct formalism: << Note: if you know about complex numbers you will notice that the space part enters as if it were imaginary R2 = (ct)2 + (ix)2 + (iy)2 + (iz)2 = (ct)2 + (ir)2 where i^2 = -1 as usual. This turns out to be the essence of the fabric (or metric) of spacetime geometry - that space enters in with the imaginary factor i relative to time. >> http://www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/speedoflight.html ....twins in free-space can always split their birthday candles in half and the mythical aging goes the way of the belhop paradox. << Einstein addressed the twin paradox in special relativity in a relatively unknown, unusual and rarely cited paper written in 1918, in the form of a dialogue between a critic and a relativist. Contrary to most textbook versions of the resolution, Einstein admitted that the special relativistic time dilation was symmetric for the twins, and he had to invoke, asymmetrically, the general relativistic gravitational time dilation during the brief periods of acceleration to justify the asymmetrical aging. Notably, Einstein did not use any argument related to simultaneity or Doppler shift in his analysis. I discuss Einstein's resolution and several conceptual issues that arise. It is concluded that Einstein's resolution using gravitational time dilation suffers from logical and physical flaws, and gives incorrect answers in a general setting. The counter examples imply the need to reconsider many issues related to the comparison of transported clocks. The failure of the accepted views and resolutions is traced to the fact that the special relativity principle formulated originally for physics in empty space is not valid in the matter-filled universe. C. S. Unnikrishnan Gravitation Group, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400 005, India >> http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/dec252005/2009.pdf > > http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Free+Energy%2C+Gravity+and+the+Aeth... Einstein made no secret his inertial space was a pseudo-space. If you want "free-energy" from free-space, just put its hydrogen in a fusion reactor. Sue... > > Relevant References > Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002) > Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003) > Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979) > Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970) > Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001) > Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)
From: FrediFizzx on 31 May 2007 13:46 "John Christiansen" <superkaempe(a)mail1.stofanet.dk> wrote in message news:465e9ede$0$4159$ba624c82(a)nntp02.dk.telia.net... > > "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... >>> (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. Whoops! Yep, time divided by length as anyone can plainly see by 4pi/c. I must have been standing on my head. ;-) Best, Fred Diether Moderator sci.physics.foundations
From: Laurent on 31 May 2007 13:50 On May 30, 6:40 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 10:44 pm, 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 - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Isn't it that invariant spacetime properties is what limit the speed > of light and the reason it is our ruler is because the photon has > zero mass. If you suddenly lose the mass in your body and > become lightspeed. You'd become light. > > About the Aether. I think you are like the religious folks. Jehovah, > Allah is their God. Aether is your God. To destroy aether is to > destroy your God which you can't allow so there is nothing we > can do for Laurent the Aether disciple. > > J. Stop making up stuff and read the second part of my original post.
From: Laurent on 31 May 2007 13:52 On May 31, 5:46 am, "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" Both synonyms of the word aether. > > 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: Laurent on 31 May 2007 13:54
On May 31, 6:21 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > 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_impedancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_spacehttp://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 - Free-space and aether are synonymous. |