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 15:36 On Feb 22, 3:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 12:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 2:58 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 22, 10:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > I called my aether the E-Matrix. You can call your aether whatever you > > > want. > > > I call the aether, 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Sometimes more than one word gives the bigger meaning. The grid of the > infinitely small is also accurate and important. > > Mitch Raemsch Call the aether, aether, and then decide what properties you want to assign to it, or what you are describing is not the aether. If you are describing quantum foam then you are describing quantum foam. If you are describing 'empty' space as a grid and you label the empty space some sort of 'grid' then you are describing 'empty' space as a grid. If you want to discuss the aether in terms of a grid then that is something else entirely. If you are describing the aether then call it aether.
From: dlzc on 22 Feb 2010 17:15 Dear funkenstein: On Feb 22, 2:12 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. > > 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? Might as well call it "The Matrix" for all the sense it makes. It does not allow us to discern "absolute motion", the "physics of the vacuum" is the same now as it was billions of years ago, so it behaves *exactly* like spacetime. Why not accept then that it arises from the source of these properties, namely the matter and energy in this Universe? Wasting breath / thought on an 18th century crutch is just that, a waste. If you want to know what *I* think. David A. Smith
From: mpc755 on 22 Feb 2010 17:20 On Feb 22, 5:15 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear funkenstein: > > On Feb 22, 2:12 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. > > > 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? > > Might as well call it "The Matrix" for all the sense it makes. It > does not allow us to discern "absolute motion", the "physics of the > vacuum" The aether is not a 'vacuum' as you seem to conceptualize it. The 'vacuum' has mass. > is the same now as it was billions of years ago, so it behaves > *exactly* like spacetime. > Time is a concept. Time does not changed based on momentum or gravity. The aether pressure changes based on momentum and gravity. > Why not accept then that it arises from the source of these > properties, namely the matter and energy in this Universe? Wasting > breath / thought on an 18th century crutch is just that, a waste. > > If you want to know what *I* think. > > David A. Smith
From: BURT on 22 Feb 2010 18:59 On Feb 22, 12:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 3:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 12:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 22, 2:58 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > I called my aether the E-Matrix. You can call your aether whatever you > > > > want. > > > > I call the aether, 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Sometimes more than one word gives the bigger meaning. The grid of the > > infinitely small is also accurate and important. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Call the aether, aether, and then decide what properties you want to > assign to it, or what you are describing is not the aether. If you are > describing quantum foam then you are describing quantum foam. If you > are describing 'empty' space as a grid and you label the empty space > some sort of 'grid' then you are describing 'empty' space as a grid. > If you want to discuss the aether in terms of a grid then that is > something else entirely. If you are describing the aether then call it > aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Call energy energy and there is no transition either. Aether flows differently than energy flow. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 22 Feb 2010 20:56
On Feb 22, 6:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 12:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 3:20 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 22, 12:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 2:58 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 22, 10:11 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I called my aether the E-Matrix. You can call your aether whatever you > > > > > want. > > > > > I call the aether, 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Sometimes more than one word gives the bigger meaning. The grid of the > > > infinitely small is also accurate and important. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > Call the aether, aether, and then decide what properties you want to > > assign to it, or what you are describing is not the aether. If you are > > describing quantum foam then you are describing quantum foam. If you > > are describing 'empty' space as a grid and you label the empty space > > some sort of 'grid' then you are describing 'empty' space as a grid. > > If you want to discuss the aether in terms of a grid then that is > > something else entirely. If you are describing the aether then call it > > aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Call energy energy and there is no transition either. Aether flows > differently than energy flow. > > Mitch Raemsch Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the neighboring aether and matter. In terms of E=mc^2, AD defines what occurs physically in nature in order for there to be energy. |