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 23 Feb 2010 12:37 On Feb 23, 12:07 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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... - moving C-60 molecules are able to create interference patterns in and of themselves. A moving C-60 molecule is able to enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously in a double slit experiment without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. And better still, the ability of a moving C-60 molecule to be detected at a single exit if detectors are placed at the exits the instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit(s) and an interference pattern created by the C-60 molecule in and of itself if the detectors are placed and then removed from the exits the instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit(s). - Wave-functions are physical. - Light propagates through a void. - Photons have a rest mass of zero (Do they still exist when at rest? If so, as what?). - Gravitons. - Instantaneous action at a distance (Have 'they' never heard of conservation of momentum?). - Delayed-choice (Are 'they' unable to understand waves propagate available paths and create interference when those paths are combined?). - Quantum eraser (Are 'they' unable to understand when you combine the paths the waves are propagating nothing is being erased, the waves are creating interference?) - Which-way (Are 'they' unable to understand when there is a single path there is only a single wave, and as such, there is no interference created?) > > How silly can so-called smart people be. Total lack of common sense.. > > Paul Stowe
From: kenseto on 23 Feb 2010 12:40 On Feb 22, 3:11 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. Good for you. > > > > > > > > > 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 -
From: mpc755 on 23 Feb 2010 12:49 On Feb 23, 12:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 12:07 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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... > > - moving C-60 molecules are able to create interference patterns in > and of themselves. A moving C-60 molecule is able to enter, travel > through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously in a double slit > experiment without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a > change in momentum. And better still, the ability of a moving C-60 > molecule to be detected at a single exit if detectors are placed at > the exits the instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit(s) > and an interference pattern created by the C-60 molecule in and of > itself if the detectors are placed and then removed from the exits the > instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit(s). > - Wave-functions are physical. > - Light propagates through a void. > - Photons have a rest mass of zero (Do they still exist when at rest? > If so, as what?). > - Gravitons. > - Instantaneous action at a distance (Have 'they' never heard of > conservation of momentum?). > - Delayed-choice (Are 'they' unable to understand waves propagate > available paths and create interference when those paths are > combined?). > - Quantum eraser (Are 'they' unable to understand when you combine the > paths the waves are propagating nothing is being erased, the waves are > creating interference?) > - Which-way (Are 'they' unable to understand when there is a single > path there is only a single wave, and as such, there is no > interference created?) > - Matter 'converts' to energy (Matter and aether are different states of the same material. Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter. Matter converts to aether. The effect the expansion of matter to aether has on the surrounding matter and aether is energy). > > > > How silly can so-called smart people be. Total lack of common sense... > > > Paul Stowe > >
From: dlzc on 23 Feb 2010 14:10 Dear mpc755: On Feb 23, 9:39 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 11:34 am,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > 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. And such fails to describe the motion / "wave nature" of light. > If you remove the matter from the superfluid > then there is no 'drag' in a frictionless > aether. So you'd have the light move through a completely empty Universe, parallel to our own, entirely unaffected by matter. You don't get to describe gravitational lensing, diffraction, or "index of refraction". > > > 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? But you have said that matter does not propagate. You are now putting the lie to your own words again. > It is easy to dismiss aether when you choose > to believe in absurd nonsense. You've worded that wrong. It is easy to dismiss aether *unless* you choose to believe in absurd nonsense. > A moving C-60 molecule, a particle of > matter, has an associated aether displacement > wave. You are on record as saying matter does not propagate. So again you lie. > > > 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... > > Aether allows our minds to understand the > physics of nature. It hasn't helped you *at all*. David A. Smith
From: mpc755 on 23 Feb 2010 14:27
On Feb 23, 2:10 pm, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear mpc755: > > On Feb 23, 9:39 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 11:34 am,dlzc<dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > And such fails to describe the motion / "wave nature" of light. > Waves are able to propagate through a frictionless superfluid. A particle moving through a frictionless superfluid is able to created a displacement wave in the superfluid. > > If you remove the matter from the superfluid > > then there is no 'drag' in a frictionless > > aether. > > So you'd have the light move through a completely empty Universe, > parallel to our own, entirely unaffected by matter. You don't get to > describe gravitational lensing, diffraction, or "index of refraction". > "the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - Albert Einstein The state of the aether determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether occurs for the connections between matter and a frictionless aether. You are confusing pressure with friction. Matter applies pressure towards the aether when matter displaces the aether. The aether applies pressure towards the matter as it 'displaces back'. > > > > > > 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? > > But you have said that matter does not propagate. You are now putting > the lie to your own words again. > Matter travels through the aether. I was just trying to help you clean up your misuse of words. Matter travels through the aether. Waves propagate through the aether. Light waves propagate at 'c' with respect to the aether. > > It is easy to dismiss aether when you choose > > to believe in absurd nonsense. > > You've worded that wrong. It is easy to dismiss aether *unless* you > choose to believe in absurd nonsense. > > > A moving C-60 molecule, a particle of > > matter, has an associated aether displacement > > wave. > > You are on record as saying matter does not propagate. So again you > lie. > Matter travels through the aether. Waves propagate through the aether. > > > > 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... > > > Aether allows our minds to understand the > > physics of nature. > > It hasn't helped you *at all*. > > David A. Smith I understand the observed behaviors in any double slit, delayed choice, or quantum eraser experiment are due to the C-60 molecule having an associated aether displacement wave. Since you understand how a C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern in and of itself in a double slit experiment, you should have no problem answering the following: A moving C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) in a double slit experiment. Detectors are placed at the exits to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit(s). The C-60 molecule is detected exiting a single slit. Detectors are placed and removed form the exits to the slits the instant prior to the C-60 molecule exiting the slit(s). Repeat and the C-60 molecule creates an interference pattern. In AD, the moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits while the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit. Placing detectors at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave and there is no interference. Removing the detectors prior to the C-60 molecule exits the slits allows the aether displacement wave to exit the available slits and create interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. |