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: funkenstein on 23 Feb 2010 09:15 On Feb 23, 9:59 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 4:15 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > Dearfunkenstein: > > > 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. Indeed, in the lectures Wilcek made the same analogy. "It is hard for a fish to see the ocean, because he is always in it. Only when you take him out of the ocean can he see the ocean. " Something like that.. (paraphrased) Cheers -
From: dlzc on 23 Feb 2010 11:34 Dear GogoJF: On Feb 23, 1:59 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 4:15 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > 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. > > 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. Then it has no discernable properties. And unlike the tank analogy, reveals no "drag" as we move through it. So clearly this model provides you nothing good, except "feelings" like you understand things that *no Man* understands. > 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. Except that we can send objects faster than the speed of sound in water, and we can alter water to make its speed of sound anything we like. And quantum effects occur without respecting either space or time, so clearly defining yet another moderator to achieve c merely compounds the problem. > This well defined limit c, must also define > the meaning of the aether- at least locally. No, "aether" clearly only defines limits you place on your imagination. Yoda was a smarter character than I ever imagined... David A. Smith
From: mpc755 on 23 Feb 2010 11:39 On Feb 23, 11:34 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear GogoJF: > > On Feb 23, 1:59 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:15 pm,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > > 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. > > Then it has no discernable properties. And unlike the tank analogy, > reveals no "drag" as we move through it. So clearly this model > provides you nothing good, except "feelings" like you understand > things that *no Man* understands. > There is no 'drag' in a frictionless superfluid. If you remove the matter from the superfluid then there is no 'drag' in a frictionless aether. > > 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. > > Except that we can send objects faster than the speed of sound in > water, and we can alter water to make its speed of sound anything we > like. And quantum effects occur without respecting either space or > time, so clearly defining yet another moderator to achieve c merely > compounds the problem. > 'Quantum effects' like a C-60 molecule being able to create an interference pattern in and of itself? It is easy to dismiss aether when you choose to believe in absurd nonsense. A moving C-60 molecule, a particle of matter, has an associated aether displacement wave. > > This well defined limit c, must also define > > the meaning of the aether- at least locally. > > No, "aether" clearly only defines limits you place on your > imagination. Yoda was a smarter character than I ever imagined... > > David A. Smith Aether allows our minds to understand the physics of nature.
From: Paul Stowe on 23 Feb 2010 11:57 On Feb 23, 6:15 am, funkenstein <luke.s...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 9:59 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 4:15 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > Dearfunkenstein: > > > > 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. > > Indeed, in the lectures Wilcek made the same analogy. "It is hard > for a fish to see the ocean, because he is always in it. Only when > you take him out of the ocean can he see the ocean. " Something like > that.. (paraphrased) > > Cheers - I believe Dirac was one of if not the first to propose this idea. BTW, Dirac was also an aetherist. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea
From: Paul Stowe on 23 Feb 2010 12:07
On Feb 22, 11:31 pm, YKhan <yjk...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Yeah, like, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant and the Elephant is the aether... In time, if we have it, the stupidity of denying the obvious will pass. You cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Let's see, to 'prop up' the current ideas we need, - virtual entities - Dark Matter that cannot be detected in any lab - Dark Energy that, again cannot be detected but is need to reconcile two disparent observations - Dark Flow, ditto... How silly can so-called smart people be. Total lack of common sense.. Paul Stowe |