What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Laurent on 31 May 2007 13:58 On May 31, 7:50 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. Because the is not material and has no landmarks, the universe is background free. > > > 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 nonsens
From: Laurent on 31 May 2007 13:59 On May 31, 8:24 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > 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. Right, that's where force lines come from. > > 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 -
From: Sue... on 31 May 2007 14:03 On May 31, 2:54 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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/wi... > > > <<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 Hmmm... I wonder how that escaped the attention of the writer of this page. The word ether never appears. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space Sue... ..- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: FrediFizzx on 31 May 2007 14:07 "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1180615311.511701.64100(a)q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > On May 31, 1:00 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> "GSS" <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:1180596752.519177.244050(a)o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >> > [....] >>>>> 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. 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 > > No, you are mistaken. Sorry, I said it wrong. Free space impedance is time per length in CGS. > Dimensions of no single physical parameter can > be changed *arbitrarily*. For example, if you change the dimension of > speed from [L/T] to [T/L] without changing the dimensions of all other > physical parameters like force, momentum, energy, distance, time etc., > you will be *killing* the physics. Not changing speed to T/L; that was a mistake as noted above. Speed can be changed to a dimensionless number by setting c = 1 though. No physics is "killed" since c is now defined to be fixed. It is not possible for a consistent system of units to "kill" physics. However, some physics is more clear by using a particular system of units. > Kindly note that in cgs system of units the eps_0 parameter has been > 'lumped' up with charge and hence the dimensions of charge, current > and potential do not match in SI and CGS systems. That is the notions > of charge and all other parameters involving charge, do not refer to > the same physical entity in the two systems. Sorry, eps0 is not lumped with charge in CGS. It is equal to 1/4pi. The combo of the whole SI Coulomb constant is what is set equal to 1. k_e = 1/(4pi eps0) = 1 It is a common misconception that eps0 "disappears" in CGS and natural units. It doesn't. Best, Fred Diether Moderator sci.physics.foundations
From: Greg Neill on 31 May 2007 14:09
"Laurent" <cyberdyno(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1180634363.526421.224010(a)m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On May 31, 8:24 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > On May 31, 8:50 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Right, that's where force lines come from. Force lines are a metaphor for the isopotents of the given field. They have no basis in a mechanical aether. If free space has mechanical properties, what is its stiffness (can't have transverse wave propagation without a rigid material)? It must be huge for it to carry waves at the speed of light. What is its Young's modulus? How about shear strength? Density? How can all these disparate mechanical properties required to serve the purpose of a medium for light propagations be reconciled with null experimental results for its detection? |