What is the disagreement to aether?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: 4-vector dot A = invariant => A is a 4-vector?
Next: Capacitance theory of gravity - interesting theory
From: mpc755 on 22 Feb 2010 10:11 On Feb 22, 9:30 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 4:56 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:12 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 3:20 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 16, 9:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Aether (the only one that survives experiment) has no observables, no > > > > way to disprove it. > > > > > David A. Smith > > > > I saw a Frank Wilcek lecture recently which was quite good. > > > > He talked at length about the physics going on in vacuum. > > > > He proposes that we don't talk about "the aether" but instead use "the > > > grid". > > > > What do you think? > > > Grid doesn't cut it. > > Hey the grid is material of sort. In my theory it is called the E- > Matrix. It is a perfect description of the modern aether. If it's the prefect description of the modern aether then call it aether. > It gives > rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT and a new theory of > gravity called DTG.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf > > Ken Seto > > > The aether is physical and it is a matter of the > > properties we choose to apply to it. > > > In AD, the aether is a physical material with mass. Aether is > > displaced by matter. Matter and aether are different states of the > > same material. Aether is matter in its uncompressed state.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Paul Stowe on 22 Feb 2010 10:45 On Feb 21, 8:10 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > BURT wrote: > > Should not time flow?. Should not there be order to energy phenomenon? > > > Einstein brought the concept back. > > > Mitch Raemsch - There is a two timeaether > > I think the classic concept of theaether, as a solid medium is likely > dead. But it's quite obvious to me that the concept of anaetherthat is > fluidic is on the ascension. "However, no one would dare call itaether anymore, due to negative cultural connotations in the physics community." How typically political (of modernist) and disrespectful to both science in general and those like Helmholtz, Kelvin, Poincare, Maxwell, Lorentz, ... etc. You are right however, a short perusal of Google Scholar for the twenty first century (since 2001) yields 6110 articles, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=aether&num=100&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=2001&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en so many rational, open-minded scientist recognize the fingerprint of a medium when they see it. You seem like a reasonable individual. Regards, Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 22 Feb 2010 10:46 On Feb 22, 1:12 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 3:20 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 16, 9:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >Aether(the only one that survives experiment) has no observables, no > > way to disprove it. > > > David A. Smith > > I saw a Frank Wilcek lecture recently which was quite good. > > He talked at length about the physics going on in vacuum. > > He proposes that we don't talk about "theaether" but instead use "the > grid". > > What do you think? A rose by any other name... Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 22 Feb 2010 10:50 On Feb 22, 7:46 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 1:12 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:20 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 16, 9:42 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >Aether(the only one that survives experiment) has no observables, no > > > way to disprove it. > > > > David A. Smith > > > I saw a Frank Wilcek lecture recently which was quite good. > > > He talked at length about the physics going on in vacuum. > > > He proposes that we don't talk about "theaether" but instead use "the > > grid". > > > What do you think? > > A rose by any other name... > > Paul Stowe Ah yes, this also reminds me of the fable, "The Emperor's New Clothes"... ;)
From: mpc755 on 22 Feb 2010 14:06
On Feb 22, 10:45 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 8:10 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb...(a)spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote: > > > BURT wrote: > > > Should not time flow?. Should not there be order to energy phenomenon? > > > > Einstein brought the concept back. > > > > Mitch Raemsch - There is a two timeaether > > > I think the classic concept of theaether, as a solid medium is likely > > dead. But it's quite obvious to me that the concept of anaetherthat is > > fluidic is on the ascension. > > "However, no one would dare call itaether anymore, due to negative > cultural connotations in the physics community." > > How typically political (of modernist) and disrespectful to both > science in general and those like Helmholtz, Kelvin, Poincare, > Maxwell, Lorentz, Einstein, > ... etc. You are right however, a short perusal of > Google Scholar for the twenty first century (since 2001) yields 6110 > articles, > > http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=aether&num=100&btnG=Search+Sch... > > so many rational, open-minded scientist recognize the fingerprint of > a medium when they see it. > > You seem like a reasonable individual. > > Regards, > > Paul Stowe |