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: BURT on 22 Feb 2010 23:57 On Feb 22, 5:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are two energies. One is a mass point. The other is spread out energy in a light wave. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 23 Feb 2010 00:02 On Feb 22, 8:57 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 5:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > There are two energies. One is a mass point. The other is spread out > energy in a light wave. > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is a two aether rate concept when two time rates happen together. Mitch Raemsch
From: YKhan on 23 Feb 2010 02:31 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: > > 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+Sch... > > so many rational, open-minded scientist recognize the fingerprint of > a medium when they see it. > > You seem like a reasonable individual. That's easy for me to be, because this isn't my profession. I'm just an interested layman. I haven't been indoctrinated in the "proper thought paths that must be taken" to make this my profession. So I'm willing to be told when I'm wrong, as long as someone explains why I'm wrong. I will then decide if your explanations are reasonable. What I've observed over the years is that scientists aren't so much the rationale robots that they like to make themselves out to be. They are often petty, political, and competitive. Basically, human. They are also quite often, not big picture people, but detail-driven. This is a big problem, as those super brain-cells of theirs are focused in the wrong direction. In an universe full of Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Planck time & length, Einstein Rings, Bose-Einstein Condensates, etc. You have a lot of little pictures, with lots of details, and detail-oriented people love to study each of this stuff individually. But nobody puts together a Big Picture of it. Yousuf Khan
From: GogoJF on 23 Feb 2010 03:59 On Feb 22, 4:15 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" 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 I think of the aether as a pressure- like the pressure that fish feel when they are in a 45 gallon tank. We are all fish living in a certain medium. That's why its' difficult to measure- if not impossible. There is a well established principle that says that nothing can travel faster than c, like a fish that can only travel so fast in water. This well defined limit c, must also define the meaning of the aether- at least locally.
From: mpc755 on 23 Feb 2010 04:52
On Feb 23, 3:59 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 4:15 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" 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 > > I think of the aether as a pressure- like the pressure that fish feel > when they are in a 45 gallon tank. We are all fish living in a > certain medium. That's why its' difficult to measure- if not > impossible. > There is a well established principle that says that nothing can > travel faster than c, like a fish that can only travel so fast in > water. This well defined limit c, must also define the meaning of the > aether- at least locally. Exactly. It is analogous to hydrostatic pressure. And the question is, what causes the pressure to exist? And again, the analogy is water. The fish displaces the water. The water exerts a pressure back towards the fish. There are differences, obviously. A couple of the main ones is since the aether exists throughout the matter, the pressure is exerted equally (when not discussing acceleration) throughout the body. In terms of the fish analogy, think of each nuclei of the fish to be surrounded by water. Each and every nuclei, which is the matter which is the fish, displaces the water and the water exerts a pressure back towards and throughout the fish. Another major difference is friction. A superfluid must be cold in order to be frictionless because of the matter which is the superfluid. Remove the matter and the aether is frictionless at any and all temperatures (even though I do not think we can ascribe the property of heat to the aether). If the fish swims fast enough it will create a displacement wave in the water, similar to a boat's bow wave. This is analogous to the aether displacement wave a moving C-60 molecule creates in the aether. The aether displacement wave propagates through the available slits in a double slit experiment and the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. The aether displacement wave creates interference when exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Placing detectors at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference. If there is ever an abundance of evidence of something propagating faster than 'c', like a gravity wave, then that is evidence a photon is a self-contained particle which travels at 'c'. Until something is determined to propagate faster than 'c' then this lack of evidence is evidence a photon is a wave which propagates through the aether and collapses when detected into a quantum of aether. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. You might be interested in the 'AD' (Aether Displacement) topic at sci.physics.relativity. |