What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Spirit of Truth on 3 Jun 2007 04:19 "maxwell" <spsi(a)shaw.ca> wrote in message news:1180798371.614532.119540(a)x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On May 25, 4:54 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On May 25, 7:31 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On May 25, 5:58 am, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > [...] >> >> > Philosophy is not physics. >> >> DUH!!! > > Physics without philosophy is just math. And making physics conform to math is nonsense = lack of simultaneity. from: Spirit of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)! >
From: Florian on 3 Jun 2007 06:34 Rudolf Drabek <newsrudy(a)aon.at> wrote: > 1. MMX gave a null result. To state from that "there is no Aether" is > wrong > You can only say: "It has not the property to carry EM waves like > light we thought" Each time I've seen the set up of a MMX, both arms of the interferometer were horizontal. Is there any MM experiment peformed with one vertical arm and one horizontal arm? -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0)
From: Laurent on 3 Jun 2007 09:19 On Jun 2, 8:43 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 1, 11:10 pm, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 1, 10:24 pm, Laurent <cyberd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > My comment. Before the Big Bang. We can't say there was > > > > empty space. > > > > Imagine yourself in this emty space before the Big Bang, would be able > > > to tell its size? No. Size is not a property of empty space, neither > > > is motion. Empty space has no beginning and no end, it is eternal and > > > immutable. It is also all pervading or omnipresent. But the most > > > interesting property of empty space is its oneness, its wholeness. As > > > Einstein said, it is not composed of parts that follow a timeline. The > > > aether is one and it's everywhere, that's why is doesn't need to move. > > > Ok. Tomorrow night. I'll re-read Ludwik "Einstein and the Ether" in > > one > > sitting so we can get this over with. I still don't get how you can > > state > > that the aether has no size nor beginning nor end (an abstraction > > without form nor mathematic concept) yet it can explain > > the space-time interval in the minkowski framework explaning why > > rod contracts, time dilates, mass increases when perceived in other > > inertial frames. This is where the battleline will be drawn and > > decided > > and your psyche penetrated. > > > J. > > > In the Big Bang, space was created in the Bang > > > > > as space expands. > > > > Yes, but that space you are talking about is not empty, it is packed > > > full with photons. > > > > Space seems to be part of the physical world > > > > > J.- Hide quoted text - > > "State of the Guv = Ether" > > Laur, I finally re-read the Ludwik book "Einstein > and the Ether" which you asked me to and I finally > understood your situation and everything. The > following is the last 2 pages of Ludwik book for > setting the mood of my arguments. I'll continue > commenting after it > > "It might be claimed that a return to Einstein's > concept of a "new ether" would create a certain > confusion in terminology, because in the minds of > physicists (and not just physicists) the > expression "ether" is closely linked with the > notions and concepts of nineteenth century > physics. Hence, it would not be advisable to use > it from the didactic point of view, because for > many it would mean a reversion, in one way or > another, to the concepts of the past. But this is > certainly not true, because a good teacher would > be able to differentiate these concepts and teach > all the different models of the ether using > different names and adjectives, e.g., Einstein's > ether, Lorentz's ether, Weyl's ether, Eddington's > ether, Dirac's ether . and "new ether," > "relativistic ether," stationary ether, nineteenth > century physics ether, and so on-each in its > proper context. Consequently, everything would be > clear for students, and there is no reason why the > expression "ether" should not be used from the > didactic point of view. On t he contrary; for > precisely this reason it is preferable to use a > traditional word, because it fully expresses the > particular kind of materiality of the space-time > continuum. When we use only the expression > "space-time continuum," its materiality is not > indicated in any way. We therefore need a special > word to express it. The traditional word "ether" > is ideally suited to this purpose. > > The expressions "new ether" and "relativistic > ether" are particularly useful from the physical > point of view because they, indicate immediately > that in the Theory of Relativity, space-time is of > a material nature. It is well to recall the > reasons why, Einstein attributed material > properties to the space-time continuum: > > 1. The space-time continuum participates, in a > real and active way, in physical becoming. Eg. the > gravitational potentials described mathematically > by the <g,,,. components of the metrical tensor > determine the inertio-gravitational behaviour of > test particles. > > 2. Space-time is a field, and there is no > qualitative difference between field and matter. > Field is characterised by a certain distribution > of energy, and therefore, materiality. > > Note that, after 1916 and until his death, > Einstein was never against the in his expression > "new ether." He used this term frequently 'n his > scientific correspondence with scientists, and in > his scientific interpretative Papers until 1938. > After 1938 he did not write any new interpretative > papers on the ether, but he authorised re-releases > of his Leiden lecture on the the ether and other > papers about the relativistic ether. In one of > them, as we know, he introduced some amendments. > He instructed the Publisher to omit the part that > was no longer in accordance with his opinions. but > he did not remove the idea of the new ether. In > the revised version of the paper, the expression > "new ether' acquir ed an even more general > meaning. > > It is fitting to close this essay with two quotes > from Einstein that show in which meaning the word > "ether" can be used in his relativity theory, and > why we cannot do without the ether in theoretical > physics. > > "We may still use the word ether but only to > express the physical properties of space. The word > ether has changed its meaning many times in the > development of science. At the moment, it no > longer stands for a medium built up of particles. > lts story, by no means finished, is continued by > the relativity theory." See, there is no materiality to the aether, the aether is before space- time. Space-time is grainy, it is packed full of photons, and because of these photons there is relativity and reciprocity. Read this: The Classical Vacuum [From Scientific American, August 1985, pp 70-78.] It is not empty. Even when all matter and heat radiation have been removed from a region of space, the vacuum of classical physics remains filled with a distinctive pattern of electromagnetic fields by Timothy H. Boyer > > [...] we will not be able to do without the ether > in theoretical physics, i.e., a continuum which is > equipped with physical Properties; for the general > theory, whose basic points of view physicists > surely will always maintain, excludes direct > distant action. But every contiguous action theory > presumes continuous fields, and therefore also the > existence of an "ether." > > ----------------------------------------- > > My comments. > > Ok. The above mentioned that a good teacher can > distinguish between the different terms of the > aether. For you have been here in this newsgroup > for a decade and the most brightests among them > can't seem to differentiate so your decision to > use the word Aether may not be productive. > > I agree that the word Aether would denote some > materiality to space and time rather than the term > space-time continuum which sounds disembodied. Btw > let it be noted that your Aether is not exactly > the same as Einstein "Guv = Ether" thing because > you wanted your Aether to almost encompass the > theory of everything where it creates matter, > space time as well as rule the spacetime interval > relationship, etc. Einstein relativistic aether > only rules the inertial and gravitational status > of spacetime. Now if the genius like Uncle Al > can't differentiate between Maxwellian Aether and > Relativistic Aether. What hope would there be for > lesser men to accomplish the comprehension. > Therefore you are alone in this. No physicists can > help you. And the most logical thing for you is to > to become a physicist yourself and be master of > mathematics. Try to get the mathematical footing > of your Aether dynamics. Invariance, symmetries > and gauge theory for example certainly rule your > Aether. When you add new terms for example to > balance and fulfill the local phase invariance of > the relativistic version of schroedinger equation. > The photons naturally came out. So the Aether > obviously involves some complex relationship and > math between the matter, field and energy. It's > harder than it is because we are not dealing with > 3D relationship. The aether being omniflexible can > operate in many dimensions. For example. In the > spin of particles. It takes 2 complete revolutions > for one cycle. So there is multidimensional thing > going on. > > Thanks for letting me re-read the book as I > finally understood where to draw the line. It also > reminds me to study General Relativity in depth > because the secret to solve it may lie there. > > I think its ok to completely drop the thing Aether > and instead use "Total Field" which Einstein used > in the last decades of his life. > > Hopefully the Total Field or Aether is true, > because if it is not. We may be living literally > instead in some kind of multidimensional Cosmic > Matrix that is programmed. So it's either the > Aether or Matrix. Apply Occam's razor. Although it > is possible the Matrix uses the Aether in the > execution of its program. Or maybe reality is > more weirder than that. Whatever, try to make > your Aether falsifiable. Even the Many World > Interpretation can be falsified when using > certain intelligent quantum computer algorithm. > > Goodluck dude. Remember with math your aether > becomes physics. Without math, it is just > philosophy. > > I grasped your situation. No further questions. > > J.
From: Spirit of Truth on 3 Jun 2007 18:53 "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message news:slrnf637b6.3qi.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... > On 2007-06-01, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: >> >> "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! > > Please provide an example of what you mean I, moving away from you, see you moving away from me. >(newtonian mechanics > will be fine). Oh, wait... You probably did not realize that a > galilean frame is still a frame and newtonian mechanics hinges > on the galilean definition of a frame. > >> 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! > > Naturally, since it wasn't worth your effort to calculate something > which would contradict your opinion of the result. > >> this is relevant under this subject as with an aether theory one >> can somewhat do away with the reciprocity! > > So, are you suggesting that physicists abandon a theory which > makes perfect physical sense and serves as the basis for theories > which agree with all known experimental data in favor of theory > based on a principle which precludes the comparison of two > measurements of the same phenomena and a mysterious substance that > still can't account for any of the phenomena for which it was > hypothesized and whose only prtoperty seems to be an uncanny > ability to influence any physical process so as to evade detection? > Gee, sign me up... Neither, actually, Bilge, since the Lorentz transformation results in mathematical lack of simultaneity which does NOT match the universe we are studying. from: Spirit Of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!.
From: Greg Neill on 3 Jun 2007 19:48
"Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message news:FCH8i.14257$C96.6883(a)newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > Neither, actually, Bilge, since the Lorentz transformation results > in mathematical lack of simultaneity which does NOT match the > universe we are studying. Actually, it does. Every experiment done to date has confirmed that the Lorentz transform is a true representation of the physics of the universe. If you say otherwise, please provide a cite to a peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates it. |