What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jimmer on 31 May 2007 22:14 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.
From: Jimmer on 31 May 2007 22:26 On Jun 1, 10:14 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 didn't post the above today or yesterday. Goggle just release it what I've posted several days ago. Maybe when goggle says a message is not sent because of error. It sent it days later. So pls. just ignore this. Sorry. J.
From: Jimmer on 31 May 2007 23:56 At the end of the book Quantum Gravity". Lee Smolin wrote: "So, in the end, the most improbable and hence the most puzzling aspect of space is its very existence. The simple fact that we live in an apparently smooth and regular three-dimensional world represents one of the greatest challenges to the developing quantum theory of gravity. If you look around at the world seeking mystery, you may reflect that one of the biggest mysteries is that we live in a world in which it is possible to look around, and see as far as we like. The great triump of the quantum theory of gravity may be that it will explain to us why this is so. If it does not, then the mystic who said that God is all around us will turn out to have been right. But if we find a scientific explanation of the existence of space, and so take the wind out of the sails of such a theistic mystic, there will still remain the mystic who preaches that God is nothing but the power of the universe as a whole to organize itself. In either case the greatest gift the quantum theory of gravity could give the world would be a renewed appreciation of the miracles that world exists at all, together with a renewed faith that at least some small aspect of this mystery may be comprehended." -------------- Is the Aether the answer why we have spacetime at all?? My point is. If you want to invoke Aether to explain the spacetime interval in SR and the metric source in GR. You may as well use it to explain why we have the spacetime the way we do. But then I think you only invoke the Aether if you believe in the physical world or a physicalist. But what science is telling us is there may not be a physical world or it's just not what you think it is. So if there is no physical world then there is no aether. If neither is true. Then what is reality? Seriously? Are we simulations of some advanced civilization perhaps a game by two opposing teams. The hunt is on. The answer will bedazzle humanity forever. J.
From: Spirit of Truth on 1 Jun 2007 02:04 "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:465f0fee$0$15975$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > "Laurent" <cyberdyno(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1180634509.457250.262660(a)q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> On May 31, 9:17 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > >> > >> > > MMX was null so is irrelevant. >> >> All the MMX proved was that they didn't understand the nature of the >> aether. > > Oh, pray, do enlighten us. Hundreds of top minds of > the age seem to have missed what you deem obvious. > You can start by listing the mechanical properties of > the aether as needed to match the observed data such > as the speed of light, orbit decay rates, null MMX > results, relativistic velocity addition for light, > etc., etc. > >> >> You want to measure aether drag? Measure the momentum of a moving >> object. > > You mean like 4+ billion years of Earth orbiting the Sun > without significant change in its momentum through a > medium stiffer than steel (required for speed of propagation > of light). woh! Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to the physical univese without using words like "frames" please! Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations, reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations AND reciprocal time dilations, and cannot get where the difference comes in no matter what answer to the problem I constantly review! this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one can somewhat do away with the reciprocity! from: Spirit Of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!.
From: Spirit of Truth on 1 Jun 2007 02:11
"Laurent" <cyberdyno(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1180634293.835874.237370(a)u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > 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. No, there is Higgs now! from: Spirit Of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)! |