What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Florian on 15 Jun 2007 17:57 Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > Do you think that it could be c? Gravity propagates at c, so why not? -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0)
From: Greg Neill on 15 Jun 2007 23:57 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1hzrx4d.1cnegaxvw3pdsN%firstname(a)lastname.net... > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > Do you think that it could be c? > > Gravity propagates at c, so why not? Why do you say that gravity propagates at c? The speed of propagation of a wave in a medium depends upon properties like density and stiffness of the medium, not upon the velocity of the medium. Wouldn't the net effect of two masses on each other be zero since both are swallowing the aether as fast as any influence could propagate through it? Besides, how could the velocity of c be maintained for the speed of aether entering every mass in the universe without rapidly (at the speed of light, which is how we view things) being depleated from all of space like so many drains draining a pond?
From: Florian on 16 Jun 2007 05:55 Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message > news:1hzrx4d.1cnegaxvw3pdsN%firstname(a)lastname.net... > > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > Do you think that it could be c? > > > > Gravity propagates at c, so why not? > > Why do you say that gravity propagates at c? It was calculated that it does. Quite controversial, though: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_speed_030107.html > The speed of propagation of a wave in a medium > depends upon properties like density and > stiffness of the medium, not upon the velocity > of the medium. Do you suggest that gravity is wave-like? That's interesting. > Wouldn't the net effect of two > masses on each other be zero since both are > swallowing the aether as fast as any influence > could propagate through it? There would be the speed of the flow and the density of the flow. The difference of density would make a non null influence? May be the wave-like concept is more interesting. > Besides, how could the velocity of c be maintained > for the speed of aether entering every mass in the > universe without rapidly (at the speed of light, > which is how we view things) being depleated from > all of space like so many drains draining a pond? Actually, that was the point. The universe would be depleted of ether as it is condensed into matter. Therefore, the speed of light would decrease with time => redshift. -- Florian "Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles" Voltaire vs Leibniz (1-0)
From: Greg Neill on 16 Jun 2007 08:40 "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message news:1hzsnns.nhb0m01pocr44N%firstname(a)lastname.net... > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > "Florian" <firstname(a)lastname.net> wrote in message > > news:1hzrx4d.1cnegaxvw3pdsN%firstname(a)lastname.net... > > > Greg Neill <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > Do you think that it could be c? > > > > > > Gravity propagates at c, so why not? > > > > Why do you say that gravity propagates at c? > > It was calculated that it does. Quite controversial, though: > http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/gravity_speed_030107.html No, no; why do you say it travels at c in *your* aether theory? The authors of the article above use the standard, aetherless concept of General Relativity. > > > The speed of propagation of a wave in a medium > > depends upon properties like density and > > stiffness of the medium, not upon the velocity > > of the medium. > > Do you suggest that gravity is wave-like? > That's interesting. Well, what's your aether for then, if not to propagate waves? Note the current efforts to detect gravitational waves. > > > Wouldn't the net effect of two > > masses on each other be zero since both are > > swallowing the aether as fast as any influence > > could propagate through it? > > There would be the speed of the flow and the density of the flow. The > difference of density would make a non null influence? > May be the wave-like concept is more interesting. > > > Besides, how could the velocity of c be maintained > > for the speed of aether entering every mass in the > > universe without rapidly (at the speed of light, > > which is how we view things) being depleated from > > all of space like so many drains draining a pond? > > Actually, that was the point. The universe would be depleted of ether as > it is condensed into matter. Therefore, the speed of light would > decrease with time => redshift. Wave propagation is essentially independent of pressure and density in a given medium. It does depend upon temperature though.
From: John C. Polasek on 16 Jun 2007 14:40
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 11:08:15 -0700, "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >"snip >> you probably you did not refer to, >> >> http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/htm_art/eps_mu.html > >I am sorry but your misconceptions have nothing to do with whether or >not space is filled with a relativistic medium in the presence of >matter-energy. I can assure you that eps0 and mu0 do not disappear in >other systems of units if that is what you are worried about. > >Best, > >Fred Diether >Moderator sci.physics.foundations Fred, the link doesn't seem to work. I have tried to point out to you that eps0 in cgs does not disappear, but it is indisputable that you can't see it any more. eps0 is swallowed by the coulomb charge which is now renamed an electrostatic unit, and whose true units are Volt Meters. Changing Q/eps0 to a new kind of q without eps0 goes like this: Q/eps0 = coul/(coul/(volt*meter)) >> qesu volt*meters The pure entity we recognize as an electron, the charge unit that comes in coulombs, that everyone knows and loves, has been defiled and is no longer a recognizable charge. Now to get the force on an electron, you take a unit esu charge thing, multiply it by Coulombs constant (to abort eps0 out of it) so its a coulomb again and the product is, I don't know what, but it's force again. A physicist should be able to point to something as fundamental as charge and know just about all there is to know, but the esu is a mongrel that needs a Coulombs constant fix in order to get the results you want. But the greatest danger in using an ersatz set of units as cgs, is that you can get in real trouble trying to form new ideas. There's no back reference, just faith. (Did you know esu's were volt*meters?). John Polasek |