What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Greg Neill on 4 Jun 2007 17:56 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1hz7eyl.aykoy0xkgixwN%firstname(a)lastname.net... > Rudolf Drabek <newsrudy(a)aon.at> wrote: > > > Between Aequator and pole you have 90� already. It makes no > > difference. > > Also on other places you may have 90� inbetween. Never a difference > > was found. > > But in this case, you'll never figure out if there is an ether wind > perpendicular to the surface of the earth... Even if there were a flow perpendicular to the Earth's surface, the Earth moves through space. Unless all of the aether in the universe were fixed to the motions of the Earth, there would be aberration effects.
From: Florian on 5 Jun 2007 05:40 Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message > > But in this case, you'll never figure out if there is an ether wind > > perpendicular to the surface of the earth... > > Even if there were a flow perpendicular to the Earth's surface, > the Earth moves through space. Unless all of the aether in > the universe were fixed to the motions of the Earth, there > would be aberration effects. You would never see a relative movement of the earth through ether if the ether is a fluid/gas systematically attracted by a mass. -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0)
From: Greg Neill on 5 Jun 2007 08:21 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1hz8frg.wf3pnuvq0t01N%firstname(a)lastname.net... > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message > > > > But in this case, you'll never figure out if there is an ether wind > > > perpendicular to the surface of the earth... > > > > Even if there were a flow perpendicular to the Earth's surface, > > the Earth moves through space. Unless all of the aether in > > the universe were fixed to the motions of the Earth, there > > would be aberration effects. > > You would never see a relative movement of the earth through ether if > the ether is a fluid/gas systematically attracted by a mass. I don't see how that's possible. What do you mean by "systematically attracted"? There's some process or mechanism that governs the attraction that conspires to hide aberrations? If it's a flow due to attraction, wouldn't the flow rate be greater heading into the 'wind' then away from it?
From: Autymn D. C. on 5 Jun 2007 09:47 On May 30, 12:57 pm, RP <no_mail_no_s...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Then we only disagree about mu_o and epsilon. I assumed that you knew > that these constants have no physical significance. They do not > account for the speed of em wave propagation. Maxwell's physical > model was wrong. The best that we can do with these constants, of They do so; they're proportional to epsilòn and mu in other materials. > which at least one of them is completely redundant, is to show that When the vv of cinematics is a derivation out of as, is one of the as redundant? > specifically, instead it's the speed that charges must move wrt each > other in order to generate a lorentz force equal to the Coulomb force. > The speed of light just happens to be the same, but this isn't > coincidence, c is just the limiting speed for for electron > interactions, an interaction that we model as light. Learn how usun semicòlòns.
From: Autymn D. C. on 5 Jun 2007 09:52
On May 31, 7:04 am, Jimmer <jimmerli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Einstein's aether was just a passing fancy. Remember Einstein > was wrong about quantum mechanics (he believed in a > deterministic theory) til the very day he closed his eyes. Since > Einstein was wrong on QM and right on Relativity. He is human > after all. This means Laurent has right to protest being human > he is too. He was not. Open sustemic dependense is not shut sustemic nonexistense. |