Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 10 Jan 2010 08:45 On Jan 9, 9:36 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Now you're making excuses why your violations of Einstein's statements > >> aren't really violations of Einstein's statements. Either Einstein > >> was wrong, or matter cannot be compressed ether. Which is it? You can't > >> have it both ways. > > ... > > >> >> Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would > >> >> be separate particles of ether, > >> >How do you know a singleton cannot be entrained? > > >> Einstein said the concept of motion cannot be applied to "particles" of > >> ether. Was he wrong? > >Incorrect. I will quote Einstein here even though your selective > >reasoning does not allow you to comprehend the complete sentences: > >"[The physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] > >may not be thought of as consisting of particles WHICH ALLOW > >THEMSELVES TO BE SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME." > > And entrained ether, if it existed, could be tracked through time, > with the ether of Venus being SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from > the ether of Earth, which would be SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from > the ether of Mars etc. Therefore, according to Einstein entrained ether > cannot exist. > > >"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > >consist of particles OBSERVABLE THROUGH TIME, but the hypothesis of > >ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of > >relativity." > > And entrained ether would be OBSERVABLE THROUGH TIME. > How? > Of course the emphasis you added was not Einstein's own. Don't forget > that he ended his address with the sentences: "But this ether may not be > thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, > as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of > motion may not be applied through it." > > Now certainly bits of entrained ether would qualify as parts, so entrained > ether cannot exist according to Einstein. So, what will it be: 1) there > simply cannot be any such thing as entrained ether; 2) Einstein was wrong; > or 3) you'll try to twist and weave trying to salvage your pet ether theory > even though physicists have discarded it as unnecessary decades ago.
From: mpc755 on 10 Jan 2010 08:49 On Jan 9, 9:36 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Now you're making excuses why your violations of Einstein's statements > >> aren't really violations of Einstein's statements. Either Einstein > >> was wrong, or matter cannot be compressed ether. Which is it? You can't > >> have it both ways. > > ... > > >> >> Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would > >> >> be separate particles of ether, > >> >How do you know a singleton cannot be entrained? > > >> Einstein said the concept of motion cannot be applied to "particles" of > >> ether. Was he wrong? > >Incorrect. I will quote Einstein here even though your selective > >reasoning does not allow you to comprehend the complete sentences: > >"[The physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] > >may not be thought of as consisting of particles WHICH ALLOW > >THEMSELVES TO BE SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME." > > And entrained ether, if it existed, could be tracked through time, > with the ether of Venus being SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from > the ether of Earth, which would be SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from > the ether of Mars etc. Therefore, according to Einstein entrained ether > cannot exist. > Incorrect. You are mistaking objects like planets which exist in the aether to the actual physical particles which are particle of aether. Einstein is saying the particles of aether cannot be tracked separately through time. Now, in AD, aether is uncompressed matter, so to translate this into AD, the aether does not consist of uncompressed particles of matter which can be separately tracked through time. > >"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > >consist of particles OBSERVABLE THROUGH TIME, but the hypothesis of > >ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of > >relativity." > > And entrained ether would be OBSERVABLE THROUGH TIME. > How? > Of course the emphasis you added was not Einstein's own. Don't forget > that he ended his address with the sentences: "But this ether may not be > thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, > as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of > motion may not be applied through it." > > Now certainly bits of entrained ether would qualify as parts, so entrained > ether cannot exist according to Einstein. So, what will it be: 1) there > simply cannot be any such thing as entrained ether; 2) Einstein was wrong; > or 3) you'll try to twist and weave trying to salvage your pet ether theory > even though physicists have discarded it as unnecessary decades ago.
From: mpc755 on 10 Jan 2010 08:54 On Jan 9, 9:36 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Now you're making excuses why your violations of Einstein's statements > >> aren't really violations of Einstein's statements. Either Einstein > >> was wrong, or matter cannot be compressed ether. Which is it? You can't > >> have it both ways. > > ... > > >> >> Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would > >> >> be separate particles of ether, > >> >How do you know a singleton cannot be entrained? > > >> Einstein said the concept of motion cannot be applied to "particles" of > >> ether. Was he wrong? > >Incorrect. I will quote Einstein here even though your selective > >reasoning does not allow you to comprehend the complete sentences: > >"[The physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] > >may not be thought of as consisting of particles WHICH ALLOW > >THEMSELVES TO BE SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME." > > And entrained ether, if it existed, could be tracked through time, > with the ether of Venus being SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from > the ether of Earth, which would be SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from > the ether of Mars etc. Therefore, according to Einstein entrained ether > cannot exist. > Incorrect. You are mistaking objects like planets, which are composed of matter, and exist in the aether for what Einstein is describing. Einstein is saying the aether does not consist of particles of aether that can be separately tracked through time. Now, in AD, aether is uncompressed matter, so to translate this into AD, the aether does not consist of particles of uncompressed matter which can be separately tracked through time. > >"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > >consist of particles OBSERVABLE THROUGH TIME, but the hypothesis of > >ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of > >relativity." > > And entrained ether would be OBSERVABLE THROUGH TIME. > How? > Of course the emphasis you added was not Einstein's own. Don't forget > that he ended his address with the sentences: "But this ether may not be > thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, > as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of > motion may not be applied through it." > > Now certainly bits of entrained ether would qualify as parts, so entrained > ether cannot exist according to Einstein. So, what will it be: 1) there > simply cannot be any such thing as entrained ether; 2) Einstein was wrong; > or 3) you'll try to twist and weave trying to salvage your pet ether theory > even though physicists have discarded it as unnecessary decades ago.
From: mpc755 on 10 Jan 2010 08:56 On Jan 9, 9:36 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> Now you're making excuses why your violations of Einstein's statements > >> aren't really violations of Einstein's statements. Either Einstein > >> was wrong, or matter cannot be compressed ether. Which is it? You can't > >> have it both ways. > > ... > > >> >> Separate "particles" rule out entrainment. Any such entrained ether would > >> >> be separate particles of ether, > >> >How do you know a singleton cannot be entrained? > > >> Einstein said the concept of motion cannot be applied to "particles" of > >> ether. Was he wrong? > >Incorrect. I will quote Einstein here even though your selective > >reasoning does not allow you to comprehend the complete sentences: > >"[The physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] > >may not be thought of as consisting of particles WHICH ALLOW > >THEMSELVES TO BE SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME." > > And entrained ether, if it existed, could be tracked through time, > with the ether of Venus being SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from > the ether of Earth, which would be SEPARATELY TRACKED THROUGH TIME from > the ether of Mars etc. Therefore, according to Einstein entrained ether > cannot exist. > Incorrect. You are mistaking objects like planets, which are composed of matter and exist in the aether, for what Einstein is describing. Einstein is saying the aether does not consist of particles of aether that can be separately tracked through time. Now, in AD, aether is uncompressed matter, so to translate this into AD, the aether does not consist of particles of uncompressed matter which can be separately tracked through time. > >"The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > >consist of particles OBSERVABLE THROUGH TIME, but the hypothesis of > >ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of > >relativity." > > And entrained ether would be OBSERVABLE THROUGH TIME. > How? > Of course the emphasis you added was not Einstein's own. Don't forget > that he ended his address with the sentences: "But this ether may not be > thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, > as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of > motion may not be applied through it." > > Now certainly bits of entrained ether would qualify as parts, so entrained > ether cannot exist according to Einstein. So, what will it be: 1) there > simply cannot be any such thing as entrained ether; 2) Einstein was wrong; > or 3) you'll try to twist and weave trying to salvage your pet ether theory > even though physicists have discarded it as unnecessary decades ago.
From: PD on 11 Jan 2010 09:41
On Jan 8, 6:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 8, 7:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >> >The C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). The instant before it exits the > > >> >slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits. > > > >> This almost certainly violates the HUP, if you do it on a scale small > > >> enough so that C-60 molecules diffract from a grating. > > > >The photon is on a deterministic path, but it is uncertain to us. > > > According to the HUP, we can never know the position to within > > hbar/2*delta_P, where delta_P is the uncertainty in the momentum. > > That's what I said. > > > >> >Your refusal to answer my question is evidence I am more correct. > > > >> So I take it from this that your refusal to discuss the alleged evidence > > >> of ether entrainment is evidence I am more correct, that there is none. > > > >> Therefore, aether simply does not exist, or if it does, it has no effects > > >> whatsoever on matter or energy. > > >If the aether does not push back then there is no aether. > > >'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' > > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > >"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > > >unthinkable" > > > Read the rest of that paragraph (heck, the whole paper). Esp. the last > > sentence: "The idea of motion may not be applied to it (ether). > > Einstein's idea of motion requires particles which can be tracked > through time. Yes, that's right. Any material medium that is elastic is made of particles. Any material medium that exerts pressure is made of particles. Your medium is therefore made of particles, because you say it is elastic and exerts pressure. You also say it is displaced and entrained. Therefore it is moved, because that's what those words mean. Therefore the particles in your aether move, which means they can be tracked in time. > > "Generalising we must say this:- There may be supposed to be extended > physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied. They > [the physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] > may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow > themselves to be separately tracked through time." > > "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to > consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of > ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of > relativity." > > "If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the > particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, > in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the > space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no > ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. > But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." > > Aether Displacement: The shape of the space occupied by the aether as > it varies in time, as determined by its connections with the matter. |